Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutDIXON CREEK & TIMBERLINE SUBSTATIONS - SPAR - SPA120005 - CORRESPONDENCE - (17)Scott R.owLeu Platte River Power Authority System Maintenance Manager 970-229-5376 rowleysna,yrpa.org Good morning Scott, Thanks for sending on the revised plans. Unfortunately, the proposed plantings still do not meet the standard. Here is the standard: (3) Minimum Species Diversity. To prevent uniform insect or disease susceptibility and eventual uniform senescence on a development site or in the adjacent area or the district, species diversity is required and extensive monocultures are prohibited. The following minimum requirements shall apply to any development plan. Number of trees on site Maximum percentage of any one species 10-19 50% 20-39 33% 40-59 25% 60 or more 15% So, as you can see, the maximum percentage of any one species with the number of trees you are proposing is 33% (you are proposing 35 trees, the Rocky Mountain Junipers are trees, not shrubs), or 11 trees of any one species. As the Rocky Mountain Junipers, including the varieties, are truly one species, you have proposed 20 of these species and 12 of the Pinon Pine. This will still need to be addressed; the comments from the City Forester, e.g., to incorporate Austrian Pine and Southwestern White Pine into the site, could help you meet these percentages. The proposed Rocky Mountain Juniper to fill in the gaps on the east side of the wall look great; I would suggest using the larger trees at the very northeast and southeast corners for better screening effect. So, more changes needed. In addition, the counts on the different species on the plant schedule do not align with the callouts on the landscape plan. This will need to be addressed as well. Also, as I will be out of the office after Wednesday, please include Sherry on all future correspondence/revisions. Thanks, Lindsay P.S. I've sent on the revised landscape plans to the Board, so they have the most recent plans as well. From: Rowley, Scott [mailto:RowleyS@prpa.org] Sent: Monday, January 07, 2013 4:43 PM To: Lindsay Ex Cc: Curtis, Mark Subject: Site Plans Lindsay, Attached are revised site plans for the Dixon Creek Substation Wall Project. Several changes have been made on the most recent round of comments. Technical Services comments have not been addressed in this set. Thanks, 3 My 2 cents on this would be that since it's a SPAR, they don't have to. meet the diversity standards — but I'll defer to you two on this. Sherry From: Lindsay Ex Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:41 AM To: Tim Buchanan; Sherry Albertson -Clark Subject: FW: Site Plans Tim and Sherry, Since they do not technically need to meet the minimum diversity standards, should we just let this go? Tim, is Scott's email an accurate reflection of your feedback to him? I'll attach the most recent landscape plan to this email for reference. Thanks, Lindsay From: Rowley, Scott [mailto:RowleySCaprrpa.orol Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:34 AM To: Lindsay Ex Cc: Curtis, Mark; Sherry Albertson -Clark Subject: RE: Site Plans Lindsay, We will work with Logan Simpson to correct the diversity issue. I don't believe it's something that we can fix today however. I'm a little disappointed the three 3 varieties of juniper which were recommended by the city for use, now really work against us because they are counted as one. These varieties were also considered and recommended by Tim Buchanan for water usage (low) and disease tolerance qualities. Logan -Simpson has experience with the Natural Areas staff and these varieties are favored by them as well. I've stayed away from the Austrian Pine and larger trees (15' when mature) as they do not meet our vegetation management requirements due to the incoming and outgoing transmission lines which we've addressed in the notes. Mark Curtis, who will be giving our presentation on the 171h are planning on attending the P&Z work session on Friday. Is there anything special we should be prepared for or are we just observers during the proceeding? Thanks, Scott RowLet Platte River Power Authority System Maintenance Manager 970-229-5376 rowleys@pipa.org From: Lindsay Ex [mailto:lexCafcgov.coml Sent: Tuesday, January 08, 2013 4:55 PM To: Rowley, Scott Cc: Curtis, Mark; Sherry Albertson -Clark Subject: RE: Site Plans 2 Sherry Albertson -Clark From: Tim Buchanan Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 2:01 PM To: Sherry Albertson -Clark; Lindsay Ex Cc: Ralph Zentz Subject: RE: Site Plans Hi Lindsay and Sherry, At his point some new specific information has been provided by Scott that larger trees do not meet PRPA vegetation management requirements when planted in the adjacent zone. The note was previously on the plan but its specific interruption for tree height in the adjacent area was not fully explained. I discern that this statement applies to all locations being planted except a couple of areas well away from the lines along the east side of the substation. As I understand it PRPA's management requirements preclude taller trees under the lines or in adjacent areas that could fall into the lines. For screening purposes this is unfortunate, but I understand that these are requirements are for safety and prevention of tree caused outages. You may want to confirm with Scott that this is correct. Rocky Mountain Juniper (Juniper scopulorum) and its cultivars are small trees. I think I did recommend two cultivars of Rocky Mountain Juniper and they are 'Cologreen' and 'Moonglow'. At this point I would recommend the following changes for consideration: 1. List Rocky Mountain Juniper, Cologreen Juniper and Moonglow juniper as trees 6 feet height at planting and use accordingly. I am ok with this approach to provide species diversity as they are using different cultivars that provide genetic variation. Moonglow is listed incorrectly as Moonbeam, so that common name needs to be edited. 2. Pinon Pine and Ponderosa Pine can work, but may require more insect management. It is my opinion that there would be less Mountain Pine Beetle risk if they changed the three proposed Ponderosa Pine on the east side of the substation in the irrigated lawn to Austrian Pine. 3. 1 had suggested a couple of more open areas is the existing planting areas along Overland trail that are not planted but could be screened by planting additional juniper. I'm not sure if there are any issues with doing this? 4. It's important that the tree protection notes found in 3.2.1 G are placed on the Timberline substation plans as there is an important tree protection component to this site. Please let me know if you have any questions. Tim From: Sherry Albertson -Clark Sent: Wednesday, January 09, 2013 11:43 AM To: Lindsay Ex; Tim Buchanan Subject: RE: Site Plans