The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutDRB110437design Review Board ACTION FORM Tool 0<A%JJH11 E 'VELC)PMF- H T Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Roa d r Vall Colorado 81557 tell: 970.4 9.2139 fax: 970.479.2452 web; www.vailgov.com Project Name: BENEDUCCI TRUST TREE REMOVAL DRB Number: DRB110437 Project Description: Participants: REMOVE DANGEROUS, DECAYING TREES. OWNER PAMELA UIHLEIN BENEDUCCI 199 09/13/2011 IN CARE OF NAME L SIVANICH MK WI TWPT PO BOX 3194 MILWAUKEE WI 53201 -3194 APPLICANT GARY COX 09/13/2011 Phone: 970 - 331 -4725 434 BEAVER DAM ROAD VAIL CO 81657 Project Address: 425 FOREST RD VAIL Location: Legal Description: Lot: 4 &6 Block: 2 Subdivision: VAIL VILLAGE FILING 3 Parcel Number: 2101 - 071 - 1301 -7 Comments: BOARD /STAFF ACTION Motion By: Action: STAFFAPP Second By: Vote: Date of Approval: 09/14/2011 Conditions: Cond: 8 (PLAN): No changes to these plans may be made without the written consent of Town of Vail staff and /or the appropriate review committee(s). Cond: 0 (PLAN): DRB approval does not constitute a permit for building. Please consult with Town of Vail Building personnel prior to construction activities. Cond: 201 (PLAN): DRB approval shall not become valid for 20 days following the date of approval, pursuant to the Vail Town Code, Chapter 12 -3 -3: APPEALS. Cond:202 (PLAN): Approval of this project shall lapse and become void one (1) year following the date of final approval, unless a building permit is issued and construction is commenced and is diligently pursued toward completion. Planner: Bill Gibson DRB Fee Paid: $20.00 p :Sep. 13. 2011 H: 58 AM T WN O F VAIN � US Bank � [ECGOWC� � SEP 13 2011 IU TOWN OF VAIL No, 7248 P. 1 Department of Community Development 75 South Frontage Road Vail, CO 81 657 Tel: 970 -479 -2128 wwwmailgov -com Development Review Coordinator Application for Design Review Tree Removal General Information: This application is to request tree removal in the Town of Vail. As part of this application, the prop- erty owner may be required to replace frees that are removed. If required to replace, applicants must replant trees by November 1st of the following year from the date of approvat. Please be prepared to provide a tree replacement plan. Please see tips for tree planting and species selection on next page. Deslgn review approval expires one year from dale Of approval- Fee: $20 for live tree (s) $0 for dead tree (s) � < Single Family Duplex Multi - Family Commercial Description of the Request: Tree Species (removal): sp.� Number of trees: Tree Species (removal): -5; 1 Number of trees: Comments: Tree Species (replacement): 1 1E Number of trees: Physical Address: Parcel Number: /La/ -0 /3 =ca 11 (Contact Eagle Co. Assessor at 970- 328 -8640 For parcel no.) Property owner - Np 1F- 4-i S1 Mailing Address: `X `1 '7 �i -5 Gc: N � /L( PVE i 071C wf +q r- t LL�_z T � c-' Phone: I —414 — - 7 594-1 'Owner's Signature: u - s. E3 a+c- N. A tl rn, Primary Contact/ Mailing /Address: Phone: - Z E -Mail: Fe --94 P-- I94Z5Agel L< Fax- �Z7�?- For Office Use Only: Cash CC: Visa / MC Last 4 CC # Exp. Date: Auth # Check #r` Fee Paid: -*a0,o0 _ Received From: S(4 y co g Meeting Date: DRB N o.' Planner. ;1 1_ Project No: ___ Zoning: Land Use: Locatfon of the Proposal: Lot y to Block: Subdivision: \ J A t L PPrecist n Tree Works, Inc. May 25, 2011 P.O. Box 606 •'Vail, Colorado 81658 • (970) 926 - 3594 Gary Cox, Property Manager 434 Beaver Dam Vail, CO 81657 Re: Rockwell/Beneducci hazard tree inspection At your request, on 5- 13 -11, I completed an inspection for hazard trees at 434 Beaver Dam Rd. and 425 Rockledge Rd. This report will document my findings. Scope of work 1. Visually inspect all trees within the property for obvious signs of structural weakness. 2. Perform sounding tests to all large (greater than 12" Dbh native spruces. 3. Using results of suspect spruces during sounding, further investigate select spruces by performing trunk core sampling with an increment borer Limiting Conditions Consultants cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure. Trees are living organisms that fail in ways we do not fully understand. Trees can be managed, but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk. The only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. Recent history of tree failures In April '11, a very large spruce located adjacent to the upper side of the upper driveway blew down. My post - failure inspection revealed significant lower trunk and root decay. Given the close proximity of the driveway and house, is highly likely that initial exposure to fungal decay occurred subsequent to root damage from initial driveway and/or home construction. Over recent decades, fungal advancement resulted in advancement of decay (deterioration) supporting wood structure. r ' Sounding - The procedure of determining extent of internal decay by striking the trunk/root or large branch with a very dense instrument such as a mallet. An estimate of decay extent can then be determined from resonance of the tone. 2 Dbh — Trunk diameter at a breast height of 4.5' above ground. 3 Increment borer - A forestry instrument used to take core samples from trees in order to determine age, history of annual tree vigor, extent of cross sectional trunk decay, and' other problem detection. ,�pl \ONq� fo S \ C A �4�BORIC\1��J�W precision Tree Works, Inc. Aspens Located in the SE corner of the property, I observed five aspen stems that are structurally unstable. The following list depicts the defects observed. 1. Small single aspen stem: This tree exhibits numerous external fungal conks indicating interior wood decay from the fungus Phellinus tremulae. 2. Medium -sized single aspen stem: This tree exhibits an extensive east - facing open seam which spans from the ground to a height of approximately 15 feet. An extensive ram's horn - shaped curl of woundwood is an indicator of extensive internal decay. Sounding confirmed extensive internal trunk decay. 3. Clump containing three aspen stems: All external signs suggest each of these stems have vigorous and sound - fibered trunks. However, all three stems exhibit codominant attachments at (or below) the root collar region and contain included - bark. The aesthetics of this clump architecture is generally highly prized by landscape architects, but this inherent defect severely limits the stability of these trunks. All five stems have been marked with orange "Killer Tree" flagging. There are no known treatments for these conditions. I recommend removal of all five flagged aspen stems. Spruces I visually inspected and performed sounding on the lower trunks of all large (greater than 12" Dbh) native spruces. Amongst all the spruces on this property, I selected three spruces that warrant specific attention in this report. I have labeled these trees "Spruce A, B, & C. Spruce A: My visual inspection revealed an 18" Dbh east - central spruce with a severe lean, to the extent that it is lodged into an adjacent spruce. The results of sounding also suggested trunk decay. This spruce was flagged with orange "Killer Tree" for recommended removal. 4 Conk - The visible fruiting body of a wood - destroying fungus. 5 Woundwood - Woody tissue that eventually forms at the perimeter of a significant bark injury. 6 Root collar - The point at which the trunk flares to become a root. Included -bark (embedded bark) - Bark that is pushed inside a developing crotch, creating a weak point of attachment. Included bark is prevalent in the crotches of codominant stems. Page 2 of 4 Precision Tree _vV orks, Xnc. Spruce B: The results of sounding suggested that ( "Spruce B ") warranted further testing with an increment borer. I core sampled "Spruce B ", a 22" Dbh east - central spruce on three sides, at a 2 -ft ht from grade. West: 7" of sound wood. South: 7.5' of sound wood. North: 4.5" of sound wood. The remaining trunk center was significantly decayed. These three core sample depths of sound wood were applied to a formula based upon research by Dr. Claus Mattheck (The Body Language of Trees, A handbook for failure analysis, 1994). This formula was developed to estimate strength loss in a decayed tree trunk and to assess the risk of failure. This formula compares the thickness of the solid remaining outer ring of wood with the full cross sectional radius of the trunk. As a general rule, a ratio less than 32% is considered at risk of failure. Strength Loss = (Remaining radial thickness of sound wood) (Cross sectional radius of whole trunk) In this case, the ratio of the weakest sample quadrant (north side) is (4.5 _ 11) or 41%. This ratio falls well above the minimum threshold of trunk strength. The formula does not take into account aggravating conditions such as lean and closed stress cracks. Stress cracks were not observed, but I estimate the eastward lean to be approximately 15 %. Primary wind exposure is to the north, where there are no directly adjacent large trees. The prevailing NW winds are partially blocked by a very large adjacent spruce located directly west of the subject tree. Given a partial blockage of NW winds by an adjacent large spruce, and a relatively small percentage of lean, I do not consider this lean to have a significant impact upon strength loss. Therefore, my interpretation of the data suggests the small extent of trunk decay is not sufficient to justify removal of `.`Spruce B ". Spruce C: I labeled the final core - sampled spruce "Spruce C ". This is a very large 35" Dbh spruce located immediately west of the junction of Beaver Dam Rd and the lower driveway. The mature diameter, extraordinary trunk girth, and sounding results suggested some trunk decay. However, the single west side (windward) sample, taken at a 2 -ft above grade, revealed a 15" core of solid wood. A cursory count of annual growth rings suggests an age of approximately 202 years old. The only visible defect observed in "Spruce C" is the crotch located at approximately a 50 -ft height where a single stem transitions to two codominant stems. Although this trunk transition is a point of structural weakness, I estimated this defect has held both codominant stems together for over 100 years. Page 3 of 4 precision �r "works, I\ If this crotch should split in the future, the failure would be catastrophic, without advance warning. Possible targets for a falling 60 -ft upper stem would be people or vehicles within an estimated radial strike zone of 80 feet from the base of the trunk. The only available safety option is the installation of a cabling and bracing system between adjacent upright codominant stems. However, I have decades of experience installing and observing subsequent failures of systems which have been installed between adjacent upright codominant stems of tall conifers. Observed failures include steel hardware breakage, trunk breakage at the point of hardware attachment, and inevitable breakage of the crotch itself. Due to my observations of many cabling system failures (installed by myself and others), this is an option that I no longer endorse for our local tall coniferous species. Removal of one codominant stem is also not a viable option, since the resultant wound would lead to incipient trunk decay. Managing large mature trees within an urban setting involves recognizing defects and being aware of the level of risk associated with that defect. I do not believe the simple presence of a crotch at the junction of codominant stems is sufficient to justify removal of "Spruce C ", even though there is a risk associated with this defect. Relative to previously mentioned structural defects exhibited by other trees on this property, I believe the prospect of a mid -trunk failure by "Spruce C" to be less of a risk. However, it is ultimately the property owner who must decide what level of risk they are willing to accept. Summary 1. I recommend the removal of 5 aspen stems located in the SE corner of the property. 2. I recommend the removal of an 18" Dbh leaning spruce located on the east - central edge of the property. 3. I recommend that I be retained to conduct visual inspections and sounding of all large spruce trunks every 2 to 3 years at this property. If any suspected problems are identified at that time, further investigation (such as core sampling) may be required. Thank you for the opportunity to provide this hazard tree report. If you or the owners have any questions, feel free to contact me. Sincerely, [Submitted by email] Mark Stelle, Registered Consulting Arborist Attachment: Stelle Bio Page 4 of 4