Loading...
8 a & b, Tree Preservation Plans for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and Trotters Ridge C ITYOF ---- i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 ' MEMORANDUM TO: Don Ashworth, City Manager FROM: Paul Krauss, AICP, Director of Planning DATE: November 15, 1993 SUBJECT: Tree Preservation Plans for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition and Trotters Ridge At the last Council meeting, you were approached by Bob Smithburg, a Chanhassen resident who was actively involved during the approval of the 9th Addition plat. Mr. Smithburg probably would have preferred that no development be approved on this site, but since it was to be approved, his primary focus was on tree preservation. He remains actively concerned with this issue and frequently contacts myself and other staff members, as well as members of the City Council, relative to tree preservation. I have attempted to keep him posted on ongoing ' discussions concerning the 9th Addition to the best of my ability but time is exceedingly short and I have a large variety of responsibilities to the point where Mr. Smithburg may not be satisfied with the frequency of my responses. As I have indicated to him on several occasions, as well as to at least one member of the City Council, city staff has been actively involved in overseeing tree preservation issues on the 9th Addition as evidenced by the attached material. In an attached letter, staff has presented a description of our findings on the 9th Addition and proposed solutions. We are asking for the City Council's guidance as to whether this is ' acceptable or not. A related matter has surfaced on the Trotters Ridge subdivision on Galpin Boulevard. Attached ' you will find a proposed woodland management plan developed by the applicant that would serve to further refine the approved preservation plans. ' With these two subdivisions, staff has been presented with a major dilemma. Through the advocacy of the Tree Board, and well intentioned efforts of several members of the Planning Department, these two subdivisions were subjected to extraordinarily intensive levels of tree ' preservation. We have always prided ourselves on the fact that Chanhassen is on the cutting edge of environmental protection, and in recent years we have always maintained a high level )f attention towards tree preservation. However, these two subdivisions went considerably 1 Don Ashworth November 15, 1993 1 Page 2 further than we had ever gone before. Both have significant stands of mature trees and goals ' were set to save the majority of them. In both cases, the design of the subdivision was modified, lot lines were relocated, utility lines were relocated and modified streets narrowed, and a large number of other measures were employed to make sure that the underlying subdivision causes ' as little impact as possible. Tree conservation areas were established wherever possible. However, these two projects went considerably further than we have ever gone before. Through the approval process, staff had attempted to select trees for preservation throughout the entire project and outside the normally compact and easily identified conservation areas. Based upon the advice of our forestry intern, and tree board construction activity was supposed to be banished from an area extending out 150% of the tree crown from the trunk. These were individual trees ' designated for preservation on a massive scale based upon the surveys undertaken before the projects were approved. 1 While these efforts were well intentioned, hindsight may say that they were somewhat misguided and over zealous. They have created administrative nightmares not only for city staff but also for the developers who I believe are attempting to make good faith efforts to accommodate the city's goals. Once equipment arrived at the site, we found it was virtually impossible to even walk on the site with 150% of the tree crown standard, much less undertake construction activity. ' We have also found that its unusually difficult to locate homes on many of the lots. In fact, some are unbuildable because of the 150% requirement. The level of time and effort that must be committed by city staff to ensure compliance is immense and does not end with the initial construction phase. We find we are negotiating with individual buyers whether not this tree or that tree can be cut while in fact the development contract says that none of them can be cut. In short, with 20/20 hindsight, we believe that this approach was not an ideal one and have asked 1 the Tree Board to reconsider. At this time, based upon these findings by staff in a meeting that was with developers, the Tree Board is in fact doing just that. We hope to have a tree preservation ordinance available for adoption by February that will incorporate or flexibility for ' the developer in exchange for enhanced tree preservation as well as incorporating standards that . are more attainable and require a lower degree of ongoing enforcement. One of the major philosophical problems I have with the approach that was taken on these two subdivisions is that 1 it completely ignores economic reality. While I wholeheartedly support modifying developments to the greatest extent possible to protect large stands of trees, I do not think the city belongs in an argument between the builders and home buyers as to which individual tree should be cut 1 around the home itself. These future residents of our community are paying a premium for forested lots. To the extent possible, we should allow common sense and the market to provide adequate guidance rather than having "big brother" in the form of a city staff member going out ' to the site and dictating which tree can be cut. They are paying a premium for these treed lots and common sense would dictate that they are going to do whatever they can to preserve their 1 investment. I think that with a little bit of common sense, we can develop a tree preservation approach that avoids the massive staff commitment as well as the significant levels of hostility 1 1 1 Don Ashworth. 1 November 15, 1993 Page 3 1 that result from home buyers being told where they have to put their house and what sort of design their house must be to fit on a lot. As indicated above, in an attached letter staff has outlined a proposed strategy for dealing with Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. Additionally, we have a proposal from the Trotters Ridge developer in the form of the Woodland Management Plan that was required with the approval of that plat. This is attached for your review. Staff fords it to be acceptable as long as it is clear that the trees that were designated for preservation with this plat remain preserved under the Woodland Management Plan. We note that the developer has actually saved more trees than what was required on the initial plan by working around trees that are closer to the right -of -way. To support these efforts, with these additional trees were not covered under the original approval and if they need to be removed for some reason or if they do not survive due to construction damage that occurred around it, then we do not believe the developer should be penalized. 1 Attachments a. Woodland Management 1 b. Letter to Ron Isaac, Joe Miller Homes dated November 16, 1993 c. Letter to Dale Runkle, Joe Miller Homes dated November 16, 1993 d. Letter from Dale Runkle to Paul Krauss dated November 9, 1993 e. Memo from Jeff Schultz to Paul Krauss regarding tree preservation issues on Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. 1 1 1 1 1 • 1 TROTTERS RIDGE, CHANHASSEN MINNESOTA WOODLAND MANAGEMENT PLAN 1 November 9, 1993 Purpose Trotters Ridge Limited Partners (TRLP) and the City of Chanhassen (city) ' seeks to preserve as many of the major trees existing on the site and to add a variety of tree species where appropriate. By preserving a significant portion of the mature oaks, basswoods, ash and iron wood trees ' the single family neighborhood will be of a higher quality and the environment will be improved. 1 Method TRLP will work to preserve "savable" trees during initial site construction. ' The developer will do this by using these methods: A) Prior to site design a tree inventory of 12" or larger trees is completed. The trees are surveyed, located and identified with a numbered tag. B) A forester will inspect and evaluate the existing trees. The ' purpose is to make recommendations upon trees condition, construction tolerance, and expectation for survival during and after construction. ' C) A site plan is developed taking into account the forester's recommendations, the requirements of the city for engineering, and ' planning and construction requirements. D) Before site construction the forester, city inspectors, contractors and developer will layout construction limits and mark the location 1 for barrier fencing for construction protection. E) The forester may recommend locations where vibratory plowing ' may be used for "clean cutting" of the root zone adjacent to streets and major excavations. F) The construction sequence to be used will be: 1 1) Clear street R.O.W. and the areas where vib plow is to be used. 2) Run vib plow on all areas where root zones are to be cut. 1 3) Install barrier fencing on the vib plow line and other areas defined by city and developer. 1 1 1 4) Commence site mass grading within grading limits. Install 1 utilities and streets. 5) After site improvements are installed, walk site to inspect preserved trees and determine if all saved trees do indeed warrant further preservation or removal before home construction. G) TRLP will contract with a forester to work with individual lot owners /builders to help site their home and site improvements so as to maximize the woodland character of the lot. Trees will be evaluated with the survival likelihood after construction as a major factor. These items will be reviewed for each lot: 1 1) Trees health /pruning etc.... 2) Root zone protection during construction 3) Root cutting before excavation 4) House placement 5) Utility line location 1 6) Soil stockpiles /disposal 7) Dumpster /waste location 8) Fencing of non - disturbed areas 9) Parking & building material storage H) During home construction the developer and forester will visit the sites to monitor the success of the preservation program. Written consultation forms will be filed out for each lot. .' I) After construction is completed the forester will be available to • answer questions for the home resident as to the sites tree preservation efforts and what they can do to maintain the health of their trees. Summary Trotters Ridge Lmt. Partners will make every reasonable effort to protect the existing significant trees on the site and to educate the contractors and residents on our tree preservation program. By successfully protecting the sites trees Trotters Ridge homeowners will enjoy the desirable woodland environment. Owner: Forestry Consultant: 1 Trotters Ridge Lmt. Partners c/o Rainbow Treecare, Jeff Rick Tandem Properties, Dick Putnam 4601 Excelsior Blvd. Suite 300 2765 Casco Point Road St. Louis Park, MN 55416 Wayzata, MN 55391 922 -3810 471 -0573 1 1 1 CITYOF CHANHASSEN 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 • November 15 1993 1 ' Mr. Ron Isaac Joe Miller Homes • 3459 Washington Drive, #204 1 Eagan, MN 55122 Dear Ron: 1 This letter is intended to serve as the outline for an understanding on revised tree preservation measures for Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition. Based on a recent inventory it was clear that approximately 17 tees designated for preservation on the city approved subdivision plans have been removed. We have discussed the matter at ' length, and made several site visits. We have been unable to verify the Status, or health of these trees after the fact. However, the city forestry intern recalls seeing several dead trees in the area. Furthermore, it appears unlikely that live trees were willfully destroyed. A professional tree 1 service was used, and live trees remain standing in and around the area where the trees were removed. We are therefore concluding that the trees that were removed were likely dead or damaged, and the removal was done in good faith. With the large number of trees that were 1 surveyed, it is quite possible that some existing damage was not noted or that summer storms could have caused damage after the survey. The error was in the developer's failure to notify the city prior to removal, and you have assured the city that this will not happen again. Based upon these findings, no further action vis -a -vis replacement or fines are to be levied. ' Additionally, tree protection fencing has been removed in several areas, and equipment has been driving over the root zones. This has the potential for causing long term damage. You acknowledge your firm's liability in this regard and need to take remedial action. City staff has maps illustrating the reflected areas. Normal procedures in these cases is to withhold costs or letter -of- credit for a period of two growing seasons to the health of the trees. At the end of the period, replacement is provided as required. 1 As an alternative, your forestry consultant has suggested a pro -active approach. He proposed undertaking deep root high pressure fertilization on 3 foot centers in the root zones of the 1 1 1 November 15, 1993 1 Page 2 impacted trees. The aeration of the soil from this procedure offers the possibility of reversing 1 the damage. Staff is proposing that we accept the fertilization approach. The work would be undertaken in the spring of 1994. Within the next 30 days we expect you to furnish us a copy of a contract where you undertake the work. The contract should specify cost, outline procedure and map out of the acres to be treated. The city will withhold sufficient financial guarantees to insure compliance. You will have the obligation of notifying city staff when the work is to be done, so that it can be inspected. 111 The City Council has asked for an update on tree loss in the 9th Addition, and one other subdivision. The item will be reviewed at their November 22, 1993, meeting. Final approval 1 of the proposal outlined in this letter is contingent upon approval by the City Council. Sincerely, Paul Krauss, AICP • Planning Director 1 pc: Park Commission City Council 111 Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Dale Runkle, Argus Development 1 1 1 1 1 1 CITYOF i 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 November 15, 1993 1 1 Mr. Dale Runkle Joe Miller Homes /Argus Development Suite 204 1 3459 Washington Drive Eagan, MN 55122 1 Dear Dale: ' I am aware of the fact that you tried to contact me several times, but frankly I had many other more pressing matters to deal with. I am also somewhat confused as to the apparent lack of communication between yourself and Ron Isaac. You should be aware of the fact that I met with Ron twice in the last two weeks in an attempt to gain an understanding of protected trees that were removed and /or damaged by Argus Development and your subcontractor. I am copying you on a letter that I have sent to Ron that outlines our proposed understanding. You should be 1 further aware that the City Council has been approached by an area resident who was concerned about the tree cutting on the 9th Addition. Consequently, the City Council has asked that I bring this matter back before them for consideration at their meeting of November 22. I am asking 1 that your company have someone in attendance. Relative to your letter of November 9, you appear to continue to be angling for permission to 1 cut additional trees which had previously been designated for preservation on plans approved by the city. You seem to be implying that you could willfully cut trees that were supposed to be preserved in the expectation of their replacement on a caliper inch basis. This is certainly not 1 the intent of the project approval. The tree replacement on a caliper inch basis is to cover trees which were inadvertently or mistakenly damaged or removed through the construction process. It is not an open invitation to flagrantly disregard the tree preservation plan that was presented 1 by your firm and adopted by the city. The fact is Dale, you are going to have to make sure that people put the right home on the right lot and it is further going to be a fact of life that not every home will fit on every lot. I view these discussions with potential lot purchasers as a matter of 1 1 1 Mr. Dale Runkle 1 November 15, 1993 Page 2 I your responsibility. I am instructing my staff that if they receive calls from lot purchasers regarding cutting of additional trees on the property, they are to refer the matter back to you. Sincerely, a - e_ _ _ _/, , - - - - - - — - I Paul Krauss, CP I Planning Director PK:v 1 pc: City Council Planning Commission I Ron Isaac, Argus Development - 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 SN ‘ .»► RECEIVED r NOV 10=1993 t \ - CITY OF CHANHASSEh ' 3459 Washington Drive, Suite 204 Eagan, MN 55122 454 -4663 Mr Paul Kraus November 9, 1993 Planning Director City of Chanhassen ' 610 Coulter Drive PO Box 147 Chanhassen, MN 55317 ' RE Lake Susan 9th - 111 Dear Paul ' For the past week I have been trying to contact you regarding the interpretation of the Development Agreement. I am questioning the interpretation of the section which allows certain trees to be removed by Lot and Block. There are other sections which refer to trees which are lost during construction If a tree is damaged or removed which is not on the permitted list, it is the responsibility of Joe Miller Homes /Argus Development to replace that tree on a caliper inch basis ' If this is not your interpretation or if there are additional penalties or requirements, please let me know If your response is more than what I have listed above, please provide the documentation for the basis of your additional requirements ' 1 look forward to hearing from you Sincerely, Dale Runkle 1 Joe Miller Homes /Argus Development CIr.A vis.ap1,12ner,ninkletkrati, (ke 1 CITYOF I FV CHANHASSEN 1 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 1 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer Il FROM: Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern DATE: October 7, 1993 1 SUBJ: Tree Removals at Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition I Today I visited Lake Susan Hills 9th Addition to check on the status of the preserved trees. I Unfortunately, I was unable to find several trees that were supposed to be preserved. Following is a list of those trees: • Tag # Size Species 1 326 10" twin Box elder 331 14" Box elder 377 8" Elm 376 14" Box elder 378 8" Oak I 407 32" Oak 436 8" Elm 438 10" Elm I 439 10" Elm 441 6" Elm 433 38" Oak - (may have been dead) 1 434 48" Oak - (may have been dead) 426 50" Oak - (may have been dead) 427 8" Box elder 1 574 10" Basswood 577 30" Oak 1 862 8" Oak In addition, two large oaks numbered 421 and 443 have had heavy equipment driven over I their root systems repeatedly, within a couple feet of the trunks, even though they were fenced. Also, the tree fencing was completely removed from Lots 10 through 15, Block 3 (Drake Court) and fresh tracks indicate that heavy earth moving equipment has repeatedly I driven over the root systems of many trcas on these lots, probably causing extensive damage to the trees. 1 1 C ITYOF 1 CHANHASSEN I -, 690 COULTER DRIVE • P.O. BOX 147 • CHANHASSEN, MINNESOTA 55317 (612) 937 -1900 • FAX (612) 937 -5739 1 MEMORANDUM 1 TO: Paul Krauss, Planning Director Dave Hempel, Assistant City Engineer 1 FROM: Jeff Schultz, Forestry Intern I DATE: October 12, 1993 SUBJ: Damage to Existing Trees at Lake Susan Hills West 9th Addition 1 On Oct. 11, I completed a survey of trees in the areas that have had heavy equipment driven I over the boundaries of the protective fencing. Any tree that had heavy equipment tracks within ten feet of the trunk is included in the following list. These trees are likely to show various degrees of crown dieback within the next 1 to 5 years. Many other trees may have I suffered damage in a similar fashion, but it is difficult to say for certain due to the large amounts of leaf and wood chip litter on the forest floor. 1 This list does not include the trees that were cut in excess of the development agreement Tag # Size Species I 602 18" Oak 576 24" Oak 509 28" Oak 1 508 22" Oak 507 24" Oak 501 40" Oak I 99 8" Oak 98 10" Oak 95 8" Oak I 93 10" Oak 88 12" Oak I 87 8" 10" Oak 80 Oak 70 18" Oak I 69 8" Elm 1 1 Mr. Paul Krauss 1 Mr. Dave Hempel October 12, 1993 1 Page 2 71 22" Oak 600 24" Oak 593 16" Oak 594 16" Oak III 595 16" Ash 596 30" Oak 597 18" Oak I 626 28" Oak 598 18" Basswood 650 24" Ash Il 651 40" Oak 625 20" Ash 615 24" Ash 616 24" Oak 606 20" Oak 573 36" Oak 420 50" Oak 421 no data Oak (large) I 443 38" Oak These trees are located on lots 4 and 6 - 14, Block 3. 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 •• 34"B° I I ss, /4-, 7/., 6, F . . CO , .:, + . . .... ,, . %, IV ; ■ \ • ,. . 1 : . ' / ' ''.• ..„ N , • / . . I e t \ g 2. . .... . . , ,....., \ : .,.. , ............. ,, ..„ .-- 1 .. .......... .,... „. iv , go. ... . iez. ...., •. . • 0 ' . ?Ai ....., ......„ ,„ ...... ,.. .„. I 2' RO • . i .....\,.. ' s $ ..„ 36: :-.: 4 , • 8 BO . I 0 . ..... . i a 0, 2-ea 5 f 1 1 . . . -.- le 9 .'"*.•,. 1 5 i 65 ri sf os ,, 16,31z S.r. II lei.5 SF mer ...,. ....... .. ... . : ........,..... .... ..... ....... .. ...., . ...,..."-- .5"eo 1 I , ... ••• %.• ..,.... ••• .., ...,,. „ . . . ... ... ,.,. ., • % -.... ."". m-.......11.?..14 200 ' „ ..,. •••••• -''' • ellialliii - 7: -... • 11 18 00 4. ..... .„..,..., .1' r,' .,,, .,. , . -Fiersc, .7•' •• • • • ,,•• . . . ..... ... I ao I 3.6.6 6 f It'T • , ..v. ..,S 4 27" 90. ''''':.1.1 .. .......... --.111111111111111111111 . . — .... 17, 4.o$, S j / l e •4•1 / 1, 4SCr'"S`: ‘31t i ore" •,..... . ..01 , .,.. , 1* . • ' (II , :. ,.. . , .. • . • .• • . • ' . . . , . .....,, 1 1 0 + .1(- •• , •••' 490 " • l er'. ' ..., 't, •.' -.„., 8 -sew— .,. , • • . . 7 , 1 ... 7 1 7 ID . . .... . . . . . . • . . .............• . .., .,..... ..... - „P . -...... ‘ 7 / / es NS‘ ..,„,. ,v• , 6 , --..• ..„ . • ..: s• \ i •i • ,•< 1 • ./•. • 102- / • , / 481 . ...-/ . .- .• . 15 I \ ... . . ..., • 1 I --- N 89°53' 31" W — 1 v ..---- — I, 28 8 00 — ..- .... 1 • \ - - ) ... ..... _ .... - ...„ 1 i . 1 1 1 1 , - 1 4 mi • driveway. Although local ordinances - i - differ, driveways and utility lines - don't always have to be straight, and Wit'' - 1 homes don't always have to be in the _ ,: A' center of the lot (Figure 4 ). If the PRZ r . - - ' of a tree falls inside the construction ' - aid • - - zone, you should seriously consider • ...• " � changing the original design, adding ) \,� ' r 1 ...4 protection measures, or removing the - tree before construction begins. ° ° i ` ti ,� i / I. 1 1 =� - ;7 A S a :'? - ,� mar. -t0 '''''' yy ' �� • • . :- , .f 'Y. }- .4„,,id., ., 4 . 1 ti + . t bra s.; 2 _- r 7 4,% %1%. . , 1 .7 - ( a , s _. `�� v- -r • T Figure 3. Careful planning may avoid the L_-' .'�iy to - s 7'.- R w -, _ _ - ,, : - r creation of hazardous tree situations such •` - " , ` ` ; ` - ' � as damaged trees located too close to the ''; hteg4orget •- - - y` house or dangerous overhanging limbs. . = .4 a - r - - ' Y Y� F - II , - 4 ,fitimio..-.; ; ._ .; = .41., itk. --..., o . . 3 1 ,-- -emu 4,-...;,...'t f ' 7 , h - - ` -� • - .. ..iip)' • . ° ,• Il i •r, - - te RIP I _ _ ,._:_, ' fZc 1 _ / - _ 1 '-,T, . E.� �'^s_ ma - -' - _ II X0.'1 'i - _ v -..'"'.1 1 = K " s- 0 .,. Figure 4. You may be able to save II some trees by siting the new - r ` ," --- ' -,14 � ,_s - away way fran the center �, E � of the lot. - -yam a �` _ - -