3120 WOODROFFE AVENUE. Tree Conservation Report

Transcription

1

2 3120 WOODROFFE AVENUE Tree Conservation Report

3 OM Assets Corporation 3120 Woodroffe Ave. Ottawa, Ontario K2J 4G3 TREE CONSERVATION REPORT Prepared By: NOVATECH Suite 200, 240 Michael Cowpland Drive Ottawa, Ontario K2M 1P6 January 2016 Novatech File: Ref: R

4 January 21, 2016 City of Ottawa Planning & Growth Management Department 110 Laurier Avenue West, 4 th Floor Ottawa, Ontario K1P 1J1 Attention: Ms. Kathy Rygus, Planner II Dear Ms. Rygus Reference: Tree Conservation Plan Our File No.: Novatech has prepared the following Tree Conservation Report and enclosed plans for our clients, OM Assets Corporation (OM Assets), in support of their Site Plan Control application for their property located at. Yours truly, NOVATECH Michael Trouten Forestry/Landscape Technician cc: Loan Luong Neera Aggerwal M:\2015\115040\CAD\Landscape\3-Documents\TCR\ TCR.docx TCR Suite 200, 240 Michael Cowpland Drive, Ottawa ON K2M 1P6 Tel: Fax:

5 Table of Contents 1.0 INTRODUCTION METHODOLOGY GENERAL CONDITIONS VEGETATION SURFACE WATER STEEP SLOPES GREENSPACE MASTER PLAN WILDLIFE TREE CONSERVATION REPORT PLAN SINGLE TREE INVENTORY ASSESSMENT TREE GROUPINGS ASSESSMENT RECOMMENDATIONS... 7 Tables Table 1 Single Tree Inventory... 3 Table 2 - Tree Groupings... 5 Figures Figure 1 - Site Extents... 1 Appendix A: Tree Protection Fence Drawings: Tree Conservation Plan (Existing Conditions) Tree Conservation Plan (Proposed Conditions) i

6 1.0 INTRODUCTION The applicants are proposing a commercial building with accompanying parking. The site is located west of Woodroffe Avenue and one lot north of Deerfox Drive. Refer to Figure 1 Site Extents. Figure 1- Site Extents The following Tree Conservation Report has been prepared to examine the impact of the proposed development on the existing natural features on the proposed site and surrounding lots. The report provides: an inventory and assessment of the existing vegetation; description of the impact of the proposed development on the existing natural features; identification of trees to be retained; and recommendations to promote tree conservation. Novatech Page 1

7 The report was prepared based on field work conducted in July METHODOLOGY An inventory and analysis of the existing site and natural features was conducted followed by an on-site assessment of each tree by Michael Trouten (Landscape Technician, Forestry Technician). The location of existing trees were noted and an identification of the tree species, size, health and condition was then conducted. Trees were assessed according to their location and function in the overall landscape according to the site plan prepared by Novatech. An analysis of the impact of the proposed development on the health of the trees was then made based on a consideration of the location of the proposed development as noted in the plans provided. The assessment of the impact of the proposed development on the health of the existing trees was based on the following criteria: The location of the tree with relation to the proposed parking lot. The impact of proposed grade changes on the health of the tree. The degree of disruption to the root system by the proposed development. Recommendations were then derived outlining how the conservation of the trees could be maximized during design and construction. 3.0 GENERAL CONDITIONS 3.1 Vegetation The site was previously a single-detached residential property. The previous owners seemed to take an interest in urban agriculture as evidenced by a considerable vegetable plot (long abandoned) and several fruit trees (mostly in state of decline). The rear yard is mostly populated with native tree groupings. Groupings consisted of an even mixture of Tilia americana (Basswood), Ostrya virginiana (Ironwood), Betula papyrifera (Paper Birch), and Ulmus americana (White Elm). There was also an Acer saccharum of significant size that is unfortunately suffering from significant internal rot. There is a patch of juvenile trees and mature shrubs which have colonized and come to dominate the front yard. They consist of unkempt garden species and a few undesirable volunteers. 3.2 Surface Water No surface water features are located on site. 3.3 Steep Slopes No steep slopes exist on the site. Novatech Page 2

8 3.4 Greenspace Master Plan No part of the site is located in a designated green space. 3.5 Wildlife Evidence of a small mammal was noted at the base of the single mature Sugar Maple in Grouping C. The Sugar Maple has significant internal rot which has been excavated as evidenced by pulpy shavings at the base of the tree near a cavity opening. 4.0 TREE CONSERVATION REPORT PLAN Plans enclosed include Tree Conservation Plan Existing Conditions ( TCR1) and Tree Conservation Plan Proposed Conditions ( TCR2). Numbers are provided for each tree on the plans; these numbers refer to Table 1 which follows in this report. 5.0 SINGLE TREE INVENTORY Table 1 Single Tree Inventory No. Botanical Name Common Name Acer platanoides 'Columnare' Acer platanoides 'Columnare' Acer platanoides 'Columnare' Columnar Norway Maple Columnar Norway Maple Columnar Norway Maple DBH (m) CRZ (m) 4 Malus sp. Crabapple P 5 Salix alba 'Tristis' Golden Weeping Willow 6 Prunus sp. Fruiting Plum F 7 Acer saccharum Sugar Maple P 8 Ostrya virginiana Ironwood P Condition Remarks Recomm G Off-site Protect G Off-site Protect G Off-site / Multi-stem (0.26, 0.19) Protect Severe dieback / Sprouts originating from base of tree G Multi-stem (1.02, 0.59) Split and crossing branches / Dieback Significant evidence of rot / Major limbs broken / Cavity at base of tree Evidence of rot at soil level / Flare at base of tree Remove Conflict/ Remove Remove Remove Protect 9 Malus sp. Crabapple P Split trunk / Sap run / Dieback / Significant lean Remove 10 Pinus strobus White Pine G Off-site / Evidence of weevil damage / Large limb broken Protect 11 Picea pungens var. Colorado Blue Good opportunity for transplant G glauca Spruce if needed Protect 12 Picea pungens var. Colorado Blue Good opportunity for transplant G glauca Spruce if needed Remove 13 Picea pungens var. Colorado Blue Conflict/ G Christmas lights strangling tree glauca Spruce Remove 14 Juniperus sp. Juniper G Overgrown Remove 15 Juniperus sp. Juniper G Overgrown Remove Novatech Page 3

9 5.1 Assessment The site was assessed and 15 individual trees were identified that could potentially be impacted by the proposed development, see TCR2 plan ( TCR2) and Table 1 Single Tree Inventory. Trees were found to be in good, fair, and poor condition based on the health of the tree, overall branching structure, trunk condition and presence of disease or other ailment. Tree # 1-3 are neighbouring trees that form a privacy hedge of sorts. Recommend to protect where possible from proposed parking grading. Tree # 4 is a Crabapple in serious decline. Recommend removal. Tree # 5 is a Golden Weeping Willow. It is in direct conflict with the proposed parking lot. Recommend removal. Tree # 6 is a fruiting plum tree. It is poorly structured and exhibiting signs of disease. It is in conflict with the proposed parking lot. Tree # 7 is a single mature Sugar Maple in Group C. The tree displays ample evidence of internal rot, it is in severe decline. Recommend removal. Tree # 8 is a single mature Ironwood in Group C. It is in relatively good health. Recommend protection. Tree # 9 is a Crabapple in serious decline. Trunk is split between two large branches, there is sap run in multiple locations, and the tree is in advanced stages of dieback. Tree # 10 is a neighbouring mature White Pine. Ensure that tree protection recommendations are followed within its CRZ. Tree # 11 is a juvenile Colorado blue spruce. Recommend protection. Tree # 12 is a juvenile Colorado blue spruce in conflict with proposed on-site underground water storage structures. Recommend removal. Tree # 13 is a mature Colorado blue spruce. It is in conflict with proposed pathways and is planted too close to the existing building and therefore will be severely affected by development within its CRZ. Recommend removal. Trees #14-15 are overgrown Juniper shrub trees. No ornamental value due to lack of yearly maintenance. Recommend removal. Novatech Page 4

10 6.0 TREE GROUPINGS Table 2 - Tree Groupings Key Botanical Name Common Name Compos. % DBH Min-Max DBH Avg Recommendations Group A TA Tilia americana American Basswood 90% Protect OV Ostrya virginiana Ironwood 10% Protect Group B TA Tilia americana American Basswood 30% Partial removal (See plan) BP Betula papyrifera White Birch / Paper Birch 50% Partial removal (See plan) FA Fraxinus americana White Ash 10% Partial removal (See plan) AS Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 10% Partial removal (See plan) Group C OV Ostrya virginiana Ironwood 60% Partial removal (See plan) AS Acer saccharum Sugar Maple 30% Partial removal (See plan) FA Fraxinus americana White Ash 0% Partial removal (See plan) Group D TO Thuja occidentalis Eastern White Cedar 70% - - FA Fraxinus americana White Ash 10% - - Refer to site plan proposal V Viburnum sp. Viburnum for 3130 Woodroffe Avenue RP Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust 10% - - prepared by others. RF Rhamnus frangula Glossy Buckthorn 10% - - Group E RP Robinia pseudoacacia Black Locust Remove MA Morus alba White Mulberry Remove PN Pinus nigra Austrian Pine Remove FA Fraxinus americana White Ash Remove RF Rhamnus frangula Glossy Buckthorn Remove PG Picea pungens var. glauca Colorado Blue Spruce Remove RG Rosa glauca Red-Leaved Rose Remove TOS Thuja occidentalis 'Smaragd' Emerald Green Cedar Remove 6.1 Assessment Five tree groups were identified that could potentially be impacted by the proposed development, see TCR2 plan ( TCR2) and Table 2. Each group was delineated, after which individual tree species were determined, measured for caliper size, and estimated for percent composition. Novatech Page 5

11 The impact of the proposed development on the existing trees on the site interior was analyzed, and the results are shown in our TCR2 plan ( TCR2) and Table 2 - Tree Groupings. From the analysis, the following conclusions can be made: Group A borders the western property line and is unaffected by the proposed development on the property. Recommend protection. Group B falls slightly within the proposed parking lot and will therefore be impacted by it and subsequent grading considerations. Recommend partial protection as delineated on the TCR2 plan ( TCR2). Group C falls slightly within the proposed parking lot and will therefore be impacted by it and subsequent grading considerations. Recommend partial protection as delineated on the TCR2 plan ( TCR2). Group D is entirely within a neighbouring yard. Neighbouring development may impact it separately. Refer to site plan proposal for 3130 Woodroffe Avenue prepared by others. Group E consists of a patch of juvenile trees which have colonized and come to dominate what had been a garden bed. The original garden bed consisted of shadeintolerant species which have been subjected to considerable amounts of shade. Their form and overall health have steadily declined. Novatech Page 6

12 7.0 RECOMMENDATIONS To ensure that trees recommended for preservation are fully protected, stringent tree preservation techniques should be implemented during construction. In particular, the following mitigating measures designed to protect trees during construction should be implemented: Under the guidance of a landscape architect, erect a fence at the critical root zone (CRZ) of trees where the CRZ is established as being 10 centimetres from the trunk of a tree for every centimetre of trunk diameter at breast height. The CRZ is calculated as DBH x 10cm. Refer to the Tree Protection Fence detail (Appendix A). See plan for fence location. When trees to be removed overlap with the CRZ of trees to be preserved: cut roots at the edge of the CRZ and grind down stumps after tree removals, do not pull out stumps. Ensure there is not root pulling or disturbance of the ground within the CRZ. If roots must be cut, roots 20mm or larger should be cut at right angles with clean, sharp horticultural tools without tearing, crushing, or pulling. Refer to City of Ottawa Specification S.P. F-8011 Tree Protection, Excavation of Root Zone. Hand work only where required within the CRZ; absolutely no machinery permitted. Do not place any material or equipment within the CRZ of any tree. Do not attach any signs, notices or posters to any tree. Do not disturb, raise or lower the existing grade within the CRZ without approval. Only tunnel or bore when digging within the CRZ of a tree. Do not damage the root system, trunk, or branches or any tree. Ensure that exhaust fumes from all equipment are directed away from any tree canopy. NOVATECH Prepared by: Reviewed by: Michael J. Trouten Forestry/Landscape Technician Ryan G. James Senior Landscape Architect Novatech Page 7

13 Appendix A

14

15

16