03-12-18-R - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Tree removal list is incomplete Unacceptable as that may be, half a dozen trees designated 'save' are only a couple feet from the construction entrances and/or building site pads. Construction traffic and soil compaction will (slowly) kill more trees than are currently in the list for removal. A landscape architect reported on this and she informed me construction traffic needs to stay outside the drip line, especially oaks (oaks are very susceptible to soil compaction issues) to avoid this fate. This is confirmed by DNR fact sheets on tree protection. A builder further indicated some of these trees will need to be removed for overhang/construction access. Additionally, I have 3-4 significant trees trees on my property that will assuredly be killed by the creation of the northern basin[3]. As such, the number of trees labeled for removal on this plan, while already tragically egregious, is lower than reality. The following trees should be counted as additional removed caliper inches: 931 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 844 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 843 (oak, mere feet from construction entrance and permanent driveway) 873 (adjacent to basin) 874 (adjacent to basin) 875 (adjacent to basin) The caliper inches of the above trees amounts an additional 91 inches that should be counted as being removed. Given these trees are so very likely to die, and the homeowner will be moving before any additional penalty could be assessed (soil compaction issues can take longer than 2 years to manifest) the number of total caliper inches calculated for removal should increase. This would result in increasing the replacement deficiency. The "2 year checkup" is inadequate assurance for soil-compaction damage as the MN DNR information on construction damage states it can take years to for soil compaction damage to appear. [17] The current owner will be long gone, surety back in hand, before any damage may show. I should note that tree 925 (28" oak), 926 (26" oak) and 871 (18" box elder) will also likely die, with plenty of work being done inside their dripline...however, the encroachment into the dripline is less than 25% (the the recommendation from the MN DNR is zero) and thus per-emptively saying they will die might be unfair. The zoning code prohibits the "routing or parking of heavy equipment, including cars, trust, and bulldozers" through the drip line of a tree. (1325.055 Subd 7, B, 3) Further, even the submitted plans say: "All Trees not listed for removal shall be protected. Do not operate equipment within the drip line, root zones, or within tree protection fence areas".[9] The zoning code further prohibits water retention ponding to be within the dripline of trees marked as saved (1325.005 Subd 6, C) during construction... yet this plan includes permanent ponding within the dripline of adjacent properties trees marked as 'saved'. Mitigation plan is unacceptable The proposed mitigation of this outrageous destruction of natural habitat and city character is woefully inadequate. These are large, mature, healthy trees that define the city character (we are Arden Hills, after all) and add value to the whole area - mostly oaks with a few elm and cottonwoods. Of the ~30 healthy trunks (some trees were marked with multiple trunks) this plan has removing, the average size is 5 and a half feet around (65 inches) at chest height. [3] Some of these trees have been here since before MN was state. The mitigation plan involves replacing them with 30 trees, mostly evergreens, averaging 3.5 caliper inches. Even if they pay to have the trees put elsewhere or simply use some of their profits on their money grab to pay the minimal fee - you can't just replace an oak tree that's nearly 10 FEET around. These large, mature trees are essential to the character of this area of Arden Hills. "The tree preservation plan shall be reviewed by the city to assess the best possible layout to preserve significant trees and to enhance the efforts to minimize damage to significant trees." (1325.055 Sub 2, C) -- is the city really saying this is the best plan they can come up with, or did they just accept what the developer sent them? It also states "Replacement trees shall be of a species similar to the trees which are lost or removed" (1325.005 Sub 6 A, 2) and "Trees planted in accordance with mitigation requirements shall not be comprised of more than 25 percent of the same species or size" (1325.005 Sub 6 A, 3, a) - they are removing a ton of oak, elm, box elder, and cottonwood... yet about 75% of the replacement trees are evergreens (which may make good screens for too- close houses, are not in match with the character of the area), all the replacement evergreens are the same size, and about 33% (of the total) are the same species. This speaks even further to the disregard for the character and preservation of trees/nature/wildlife by the developer. For visualization purposes, the below image is taken from the north of the property looking southwest and shows the trees (green arrows) marked for saving. The dots are trees on my property and red indicates they'll likely be killed in the creation of the northern stormwater filtration basin. Everything not marked is being removed. Page 9 of 12Reasons to Deny 3685 New Brighton Road Subdivision 3/9/2018http://joefederer.com/subdivision/Reasons.html