Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAPEX HAVEN APARTMENTS - PDP190017 - SUBMITTAL DOCUMENTS - ROUND 2 - TREE MANAGEMENT PLANAlternative Cornplian,_ APEX -HAVEN APARTMENTS SECTION 3.2.1 - LANDSCAPING AND TREE PROTECTION STANDARDS 3.2.1(13)(1)(c) Land use code: "full tree stocking" shall be required in all landscape areas within fifty (50) feet of any building or structure as further described below. Landscape areas shall be provided in adequate numbers, locations and dimensions to allow full tree stocking to occur along all high use or high visibility sides of any building or structure. Such landscape areas shall extend at least seven (7) feet from any building or structure wall and contain at least fifty-five (55) square feet of nonpaved ground area, except that any planting cutouts in walkways shall contain at least sixteen (16) square feet. Planting cutouts, planters or other landscape areas for tree planting shall be provided within any walkway that is twelve (12) feet or greater in width adjoining a vehicle use area that is not covered with an overhead fixture or canopy that would prevent growth and maturity. Full tree stocking shall mean formal or informal groupings of trees planted according to the following spacing dimensions: Tree Type Minimum/Maximum Spacing Canopy shade trees 30'-40' spacing Coniferous evergreens 20'-40' spacing Ornamental trees 20'-40' spacing Exact locations and spacings may be adjusted at the option of the applicant to support patterns of use, views and circulation as long as the minimum tree planting requirement is met. Canopy shade trees shall constitute at least fifty (50) percent of all tree plantings. Trees required in subparagraphs (a) or (b) above may be used to contribute to this standard. Justification for Alternative Compliance: The proposed landscape plan* shows enhanced landscape planting with additional ornamental and columnar evergreen trees along the building faces. The site is constrained for a number of reasons: • Two existing landmark and landmark eligible buildings located centrally on the site. • Existing detention pond at the South-west corner of building 2 • Existing emergency access easement and drive Due to these constraint a limited amount of area is left for developing the high density multi -family building in order to meet the requirements of the HMN code and purpose. This impacts the area where canopy trees can be planted where they will grow in a healthy manner and not create conflicts with the existing buildings and new multi -family building. The proposed landscape plan accomplishes the purpose of this requirement equally well or better in the following ways: • The proposed landscape and site was reconfigured in order to protect and maintain as many of the large existing evergreen trees at the south (front) of the property as possible. • The proposed landscape plan provides 21 upsized mitigation trees when only 14 are required. • Building 1, 2 & 3: • Perimeter of buildings = 995 If / 30' average tree spacing 33 trees required • A total of 41 trees (+8) have been provided within 50' of the buildings. Of these: • Deciduous Trees = 10 (24%) • Ornamental Trees - 21 (51 %) • Evergreen Trees = 10 (24%) The proposed landscape plan creates an enhanced site landscape condition with additional trees as well as a more established looking canopy with the larger tree height and caliper trees. The percentage of canopy trees could be increased by eliminating additional ornamental and evergreen trees, but this is counter productive in creating a dense tree stocking in the landscape plan. For all the reasons cited above, the Applicant requests an alternative compliance of the standard in LUC Section 3.2.4(D)(1 c) to allow for less than fifty (50) percent of the trees to be canopy shade trees. The Applicant proposes that the alternative compliance is not detrimental to the public good, and promotes the purposes of the standard equal to or better than a plan that could comply with the landscape requirement. * This is for the 50' within the proposed NEW Building 1 and Buildings 2 and 3. This doesn't take into account the existing trees that are already on site for Apex Building. ruSSell MUNITED CIVIL ml S Design Group Apex -Haven Apartments Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter March 2020 Russell + Mills Studios Shelley LaMastra State intent of submitting an Existing Tree Removal Feasibility Letter. Include brief description of existing trees on -site and the number of trees that are proposed to be impacted. Tree #1, Cottonwood, 29" (four stems 4-6"), Fair - Due to the limited area for multi -family building to be located within the site due to existing residential homes that will be maintained for historic preservation and detention it must be located on the rear portion of this lot. This tree conflicts with the area for the building to, be located. Tree #2, Cottonwood, 30" (10 suckers 2-6"), Poor + Due to the limited area for multi -family building to be located within the site due to existing residential homes that will be maintained for historic preservation and detention it must be located on the rear portion of this lot. Emergency and trash access will need to utilize the existing EAE at Apex to exit the site as Historic preservation did not want to accommodate a hammer head on the site for a turn around area. Tree #3, Boxelder, Multi -stem 2-5", Fair In order to provide recreational amenities for the Multi -family residents this area has been identified as a space for a dog pocket park. The tree is located within the area for the fencing and that park in order to maximize this space for residents. Tree #9, Spruce, 30", Fair - The West Central Area Plan calls for a 10' wide multi -modal sidewalk along the north side of Prospect Ave. The required pork chop entrance to site has been located to best avoid both the tree stand and the historic home on the east side of the site. In order to maintain the maximum number of tree within this tree stand the sidewalk connection as been modified from what is currently at Apex and on the east side of this entrance. Tree #10, Plum, 4", Dead This tree is dead. Tree #11, Siberian Elm, 38", Fair - Due to the limited area for multi -family building to be located within the site due to existing residential homes that will be maintained for historic preservation and detention it must be located on the rear portion of this lot. This tree conflicts with the area for the building to be located. Tree #12, Norway Maple, Multi -stem 4-7", Fair - Due to the limited area for multi -family building to be located within the site due to existing residential homes that will be maintained for historic preservation and detention it must be located on the rear portion of this lot. This tree conflicts with the area for the building to be located. Tree #13, Siberian Elm, 24", Dead This tree is dead. Tree #14, Siberian Elm, S", Fair - Due to the limited area for multi -family building to be located within the site due to existing residential homes that will be maintained for historic preservation and detention it must be located on the rear portion of this lot. This tree grows to a size that will problematic being this close to the proposed building in the future. Tree #15, Blue Spruce, S", Fair - Due to the limited area for multi -family building to be located within the site due to existing residential homes that will be maintained for historic preservation and detention it must be located on the rear portion of this lot. This tree grows to a size that will problematic being this close to the proposed building in the future. Tree #17, Siberian Elm, (5) stem 4-5", Poor This tree is in poor condition and is also located within the existing fence line. The fence will be reconstructed with this proposal.