HomeMy WebLinkAbout5. Appendix Drr9-11111
EXHIBIT
Tree Survey Report Update
Hotel Jerome
July 5, 2016
PROVIDED BY:
Jason Jones
Board Certified Master Arborist #RM -0734B
Aspen Tree Service Inc.
Carbondale, CO 81623
(970) 963-3070
mtnjones@gmail.com
Aspen Tree Services was asked by DesignWorkShop to evaluate and comment on proposed tree
removals noted on a site plan located at The Hotel Jerome for City of Aspen mitigation purposes. This
updates a Tree Survey Report completed in August 2016 for Rowland and Broughton. There is a
significant renovation proposed for the site, and there are numerous trees on and around the property.
Some of the trees will require removal and others can be retained. I have visually observed the trees
from the ground and provided an inventory and evaluation of all of the trees that are proposed for
removal as well as a few additional observations.
There are SO significant trees on the property. 56 of these trees are designated to be removed to allow
for the proposed construction activity, 22 are of mitigatable size. Utilizing the City of Aspen's formula
pertaining to tree mitigation values, a total of $104,995.52 in maximum mitigation value has been
calculated for those 22 trees (See Attachment 1). Due to factors relating to tree condition, aesthetics,
placement and contribution to the site, it is my opinion that this value could be reduced significantly
upon review from the City Forestry Department. It is likely that an amount less than this value could be
provided in new landscaping that would offer a similar contribution to the site and could be considered
as reasonable mitigation. If any difference between the amount in value of new landscaping and the
determined mitigation value exists, this amount would be due in cash payment prior to the issuance of
tree removal permit.
There are numerous other trees located on the lot that offer an excellent screen and contribution to the
property owner and the community. These trees will require adequate protection and the design and
layout of the redevelopment appears to have taken these assets into consideration.
reviewed the site and performed a visual inspection on each tree located within the proposed areas of
disturbance within the site. I measured each tree at approximately 45 feet above ground level where
feasible to obtain an accurate Diameter Breast Weight (DBH). Trees were rounded down to the closest
whole number and multi- stemmed trees were measured as individual stems at 4.5 feet above ground.
I have accounted for all trees that are proposed for removal referenced by tree number the "Tree
Mitigation Background 06-76-2016" prepared and provide by DesignWorkShop.
Individual trees were entered into a tree inventory worksheet with an accurate DBH, condition rating
and an estimated mitigation value where appropriate based on the formula provided in the City of
Aspen's Title 13 ordinance pertaining to health and quality environment section 13.20.020 (See
Attachment 1). This ordinance states that deciduous trees to be removed over 6 inches DBH and conifer
trees over 4 inches will require a permit from the forestry department and may require mitigation based
on the formula: Basic Value = $41.00 x 3.14 x (D/2)2 Where: D = the diameter of the tree in inches.
Condition values were assigned as a result of visual indicators such. as the presence of dead limbs, signs
or symptoms of disease/insects, or structural defects. Details of the condition scale are as follows:
1) A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure
and form typical of the species.
2) Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that
could be corrected.
3) Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf
color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated by regular care.
A) Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant
pathogen activity or structural defects that cannot be abated.
5) Tree is in severe decline, highly hazardous or is dead.
My investigation is based solely upon the information noted on my visits to the site in June of 2016. 1
have not performed any laboratory examinations, studied soil composition or employed any other
diagnostic techniques beyond visual examination of the trees and the site. I have developed general
conclusions of tree health and provided recommendations based upon these observations. This
document is strictly a tree survey report and a separate tree protection plan could be provided once the
trees to be retained and removed are finalized.
The property, The Hotel Jerome and Aspen Times buildings are commercial high use located in the
center of downtown Aspen. The most significant building renovations will occur to the Aspen Times
Building, which borders the courtyard and pool areas of the Hotel Jerome. There are numerous trees in
and around both of these areas and while design of the new improvements has considered retaining
many of these trees, some will require removal.
t
m_
The landscape in general is in good condition overall. The property has been irrigated and the trees
have generally grown well. The trees affected are primarily made up of aspen (Populus tremuloidies),
and spruce (Picea pungens) with one small crabapple tree that is less than 6 inches DBH also being
affected. Overall the density of trees is very high and many trees are planted in very close proximity to
the buildings. The most significant trees that will require removal are 5 large spruce growing against the
Aspen Times Building. These are the largest and oldest trees on the property and have taken up a large
footprint on site as they have matured in this location.
4: `),�', ....
Each tree was evaluated visually and entered into the attached tree inventory worksheet. This
worksheet contains the tree species, condition, recommended action, and maximum mitigation value
based on the City of Aspen tree removal ordinance formula. There are (7) additional small tree under
mitigation size that were not on the plans. These trees as well as 3 additional trees that were not
numbered on the site plan were assigned a "Tree #" (31.1, 31.2 ... etc) based on a numbered tree in close
proximity and their locations were mapped (See Attachment 1 & Attachment 2 Map).
Trees 1-19.5 —These are street trees located within the City right-of-way in sidewalk, grated tree pits.
Trees 9&10 have since been removed and the site at #10 has been filled with concrete.
Tree 20.5 —This is a Norway maple growing out of a stairwell planter.
It has poor form and has begun and will quickly to out -grow the
growing space.
Trees 24-31—This group of trees are closely boarding the
Aspen Daily News building and include one (1) Blue spruce
and seven (7) aspen. So much so, the trees have been
limbed to provide adequate clearance. The group of aspen
trees (#25-31) are located in a fenced utility services area.
All of these trees have surpassed the available growing
space.
rd
Trees 31.1-31.4 These are four crabapple placed
directly against the fence that surrounds the utility
area. As a result, they have completely
asymmetrical crowns.
Trees 32, 33,35,:36,37- This group of trees are the
most significant on the site but due to their placement
in the interior of the property, do not provide
significant community benefit. These trees have grown
together tightly for many years and have thus
functioned much like one tree as a whole. While it
may have been possible to retain 2 or three of the
exterior trees, this would not be advisable as the close
proximity has resulted in a significant canopy
deformation of each individual tree overtime. If only
interior border trees were removed these trees would
be aesthetically and structurally compromised and
would not be long-term assets to the site. It is for this
reason, all 5 of these stems are recommended for
removal for completion of this proposed project.
Tree #32- This tree is the largest tree on the site. At
some time in the past this tree was either damaged
by natural events or the top was removed. This has
rendered this tree as weak as the new growth that
has occurred is very weakly attached and will
ultimately fail. Removal of this tree should be
considered regardless of the construction activity and
a very low or minimal mitigation value would likely be
assigned.
Tree 33- This exterior tree is in the best condition of any of the grouping and has the largest and densest
crown. The interior branching is however very thin and this tree has been raised significantly to allow
access below these trees. This tree would be structurally unsound and would likely fail from windthrow
if left as a stand-alone tree.
5
Trees 35-36- These trees have grown very close together and are
emanating from virtually the same point. As these trees grow,
they will push each other apart as the trunks have developed an
"inclusion" of stem tissue at the base. Tree 35 is currently
leaning over the courtyard area and eventually will separate as a
result of this condition. These trees would likely have reduced
mitigation values due to these factors.
Tree 37- This tree is very close to the existing Aspen Times
Building and evidence of damage to the wall and building are
notable upon inspection, Cutting into the existing fence has
made space but this tree has basically maximized its growth
potential in this location. This tree could not be accommodated
into the new building plan and would likely require removal in the
near future regardless of this activity. It is likely that this tree
would have a reduced mitigation value as a result of this
condition.
Trees 37.1, 37.2, 37.3—These are healthy
Tartarian maple trees that are of
transplantable quality.
N
Trees 38-53 - These trees consist of two groups of crabapple and aspen. These trees are very close
together and some very small stems within the group were not accounted for on the survey. These
trees will be required to be removed due to the renovation of the pool area and would not tolerate
impacts of grade change. Each tree has been measured and stems over 6 inches DBH would likely
require maximum mitigation value assignments as overall vigor and condition is strong.
Potential Impacts of Proposed Construction
Once plans are finalized, a tree protection plan should be created and implemented in order to ensure
trees to be protected are done so successfully.
Attachment 1 Condition Scale
Hotel Jerome/Aspen Times 1 -Excellent
Inventory - Trees to he removed 2 -Good
June, 2016 3 -Fair
4 -Poor
5 -Dead
1
x s
Norway Maple
2
4
Street Tree
NA
2
Norway Maple
2.5
3
Street Tree
NA
3
Norway Maple
2.5
3
Street Tree
NA
6Freman
Maple
3
3
Street Tree
NA
7E
Freman Maple
3
3
Street Tree
NA
8 .
Freman Maple
3
3
Street Tree
NA
9
Tree gone
-
-
Grate tree pit
NA
10
Tree gone
-
-
Tree pit concreted
NA
11
Norway Maple
2
3
Street Tree
NA
12
Norway Maple
3
4
Street Tree
NA
13
Norway Maple
3
Dead
Street Tree
NA
14
Norway Maple
2.5
3
Street Tree
NA
15
Norway Maple
5
4
Street Tree
NA
16
Norway Maple
12.4
4
Street Tree
$
4,948.77
17
Norway Maple
3
2
Street Tree
NA
18
Crabapple
8.4
3
Street Tree
$
2,270.97
19
Crabapple
2.5
2
Street Tree,
Transplantable
NA
19.5
Crabapple
13
2
Street Tree, Not
Transplantable
$
5,439.27
20
Burning Bush
6 foot
2
NA
20.5
Norway Maple
6
4
Remove, very poor
placement
$
1,158.66
24
Spruce
12
4
Poor form &
placement
$
4,634.64
25
Aspen
6.5
3
$
1.,359.82
26
Aspen
6.9
3
$
1,532.33
27
Aspen
5.5
3
NA
28
Aspen
9.7
3
$
3,028.29
29
Aspen
8.2
3
$
2,164.12
30
Aspen
8.1
3
$
2,111.66
31
Aspen
10.8
3
$
3,754.06
Maximum mitigation values based on City of Aspen formula.
Attachment 1
Hotel Jerome/Aspen Times
Inventory - Trees to be removed
June, 2016
Condition Scale
1 -Excellent
2 -Good
3 -Fair
4 -Poor
5 -Dead
Maximum mitigation values based on City of Aspen formula.
.=•
Add, Asyemtrical
31.1
Crabapple
3
4
crown, against
fence
NA
Add, Asyerntrical
31.2
Crabapple
3
4
crown, against
fence
NA
Add, Asyemtrical
31.3
Crabapple
3
4
crown, against
fence
NA
Add, Asyemtrical
31.4
Crabapple
3
4
crown, against
fence
NA
32
Spruce
23
4
Broken top, very poor
$ 17,025.87
Limbed up, low
33
Spruce
16
3
stem.crown ratio
$ 8,239.36
35
Spruce
17
3
codominant stem
$ 9,301.47
36
Spruce
15
3
codominant stem
$ 7,241,63
Against building,
37
Spruce
22
3
foundation damage
apparent
$ 15,577.54
37.1
Tatarian Maple
2
2
Add, transplantable
NA
37.2
Tatarian Maple
2
2
Add, transplantable
NA
37.3
Tatarian Maple
2
2
Add, transplantable
NA
Multi -stemmed,
38
Crabapple
4,4
2
below 6 inches at 4.5
feet above ground
NA
39
Aspen
5
2
NA
40
Aspen
7
2
$ 1,577.07
41
Aspen
7.4
2
$ 1,762.45
42
Aspen
3
2
NA
43
Aspen
3.5
2
NA
Maximum mitigation values based on City of Aspen formula.
Attachment 1
Condition Scale
Hotel Jerome/Aspen Times
1 -Excellent
Inventory - Trees to be removed
2 -Good
June, 2016
3 -Fair
7.1
4 -Poor
5 -Dead
m^ n
.t
P
AWOM
44
Aspen
7.1
3
$ 1,622.45
45
Aspen
7.1
2
$ 1,622.45
46
Aspen
7.1
3
$ 1,622.45
47
Aspen.
6.5
3
$ 1,359.82
48
Aspen
5.1
4
NA
Asyemtrical crown,
49
Crabapple
9.5
3
not transplantable
$ 2,904.70
50
Aspen
6
2
$ 1,158.66
51
Aspen
7
2
$ 1,577.07
52
Aspen
4
2
NA
53
Aspen
5
2
NA
53.1
Crabapple
3
3
Add
NA
Total maximum
'
mitigaSion value
$104,995.52
Maximum mitigation values based on City of Aspen formula.
!4
I
LO
C\l
(Y)
N
cv) r—
(Y)
(1) a)
coho-co
CL)
(1) (1)
CY)
(a)
I
LO
For
Hotel Jerome and Aspen Times Building
HPC
Aspen, Colorado
For:
Rowland + Broughton
234 East Hopkins Avenue
Aspen., CO 81611
LIA
High Country Engineering, Inc.
1517 Blake Avenue
Suite 100
Glenwood Springs, CO 81601
Project No. 2151078.00
July 22, 2016
For and on behalf of
High Country Engineering Inc.
1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
A. Introduction......................................................................... 3
B. Project Location...................................................................... 3
C. Project Scope........................................................................ 3
D. Site Utilities.......................................................................... 3
E. Storm Drainage...................................................................... 5
F. Hazard Review...................................................................... 5
G. Transportation...................................................................... 5
H. References ......................................... .......................... 6
2
A. Introduction
The purpose of this report is to support a Development Permit Application for proposed
improvement to the Hotel Jerome and the Aspen Times, located at 310 and 330 East Main
Street respectively. This report contains a summary of the engineering findings for the HPC
submittal.
B. Project Location
The Hotel Jerome is situated within Lots A, B, C, D, E, F, G, H, I, M, N,O, P ,Q ,R and S,
and a portion of the alley of Block 79, the Aspen Times building is situated within portions
of Lots L, M and N of Block 79, in the City and Township of Aspen Colorado. The site is
generally bounded by Main Street on the south, Mill Street on the east, Bleeker Street on the
north, and Monarch Street on the west. The site lies within Section 7, Township 10 South,
Range 84 West, of the Sixth Principal Meridian. The application includes a vacation map to
vacate a portion of the alley off of Monarch Street, as we l as a planned development plat
which joins the vacated property, the Jerome property and the Aspen Times Property.
C. Project Scope
Elements of the proposed project include:
Reprogram of the historic Aspen Times building to create commercial space.
The North addition to the Aspen Times building which is to be new construction for
commercial space on the 15` floor, lodging and lodge suites on the 2'd and third floors and
lodge space and commercial space in the basement.
• Courtyard modifications including pool/spa relocation
• The Loading and unloading area in front of the Jerome has been modified to allow an area
closer to the building adding a much safer separation to Main Street.
• Curbing and Landscaping improvements along Main Street and Mill Street.
Rear access modification on Bleeker Street.
Handicap Ramp on Monarch street into Alley.
• Relocation and Moving of Site Utilities within the Alley.
D. Site Utilities
The Hotel Jerome and the Aspen Times Building are currently served by local utility
providers. BG Building Works, Inc. has examined capacities of each of the existing utility
lines serving the buildings, in their report dated June 30, 2016.
1. Domestic Water
The site is currently served by the City of Aspen Water Department. Existing
water mains are present within Main Street, Mill Street, and Bleeker Street and
Monarch Street. Fire Hydrants are present at the intersection of Main Street and
Monarch Street; the intersection of Main Street and Mill Street; and the
intersection of Bleeker Street and Monarch Street.
A new combined domestic and fire protection water service is proposed to be
installed within Main Street, in order to serve the Aspen Times Building
2. Sanitary Sewer
The site is currently served by the Aspen Consolidated Sanitation District.
Existing sanitary sewer mains are currently present within the alley of Block 79.
A new sanitary sewer ejection pump is proposed to be installed within the Aspen
Times Building, in order to lift sewage up to the existing sanitary sewer main
within the alley.
3. Electricity
The site is currently served by the City of Aspen Utility Department. There is an
existing 480Y/277 volt, 3-phase utility transformer and two 2081120 volt, 3-phase
utility transformer in the alley behind the Aspen Times Building and in the
courtyard. All three transformers will be re -located and upsized to two new
transformers in the alley to accommodate expansion of the hotel courtyard and
the Aspen Times. New transformer vaults and new utility transformers will be
installed within the alley first, and then the existing transformers will be removed
in order to minimize the period that electrical services will be without utility
power. The Aspen Times Building will require a new 800 amp, 208Y/120 volt, 3-
phase, electrical service. The new electrical service equipment will be located in
the alley, on north side of Aspen Tinges building. We are transfering the existing
loads from the transformer in the courtyard to the two proposed transformers in
the alley.
4. Natural Gas
The site is currently served by SourceGas via existing gas mains within the alley
of Block 79 and the Hotel courtyard. The existing gas main within the court yard
is proposed to be relocated in the vacated alley, in order to accommodate the
proposed improvements. The relocated gas meters are proposed to be installed
within the vacated alley, in order to serve the Aspen Times Building and the Hotel
Jerome. Service sizes will not change.
5. Telephone
The site is currently served by Century Link Telecommunication, via
underground cables and surface pedestals within the alley of Block 79. These
lines will need to be relocated to adjust for grading and utility work proposed
within the alley.
E. Storm Drainage
See Drainage report for Information regarding Drainage
F. Hazard Review
No known snow slide, rock slide, mud slide or avalanche hazards have currently been
identified at the site.
G. Transportation
The site currently provides adequate transportation infrastructure for the traveling public
and hotel guests. Adequate parking facilities, pedestrian walkways, and shipping /
receiving infrastructure are present at the site.
1. Vehicular Parking Infrastructure
The Hotel Jerome accommodates guest parking within the basement level parking
garage beneath the hotel. The hotel provides valet parking services to its guests.
The loading and drop-off area in front of the hotel is proposed to be modified to
more safely allow vehicles to pull out of Main Street and park in front of the
Jerome for loading unloading and valet parking.
2. Pedestrian Walkways
Public sidewalks are situated around the perimeter of the site, within the rights -of -
ways of Main Street, Mill Street, Bleeker Street, and Monarch Street. The City of
Aspen has added the requirement of completing improvements along Mill Street
that are part of the Cities' road improvement plan. The City has provided plans
designed by JR Engineering that are to be referenced for these improvements.
The Hotel has prepared a landscaping plan to be incorporated into these
improvements that will match the other sidewalk and landscaping improvements
in front of the Hotel. JR Engineering's plans are reference for the curb
improvements along Mill Street.
3. Shipping / Receiving Infrastructure
Freight handling activities, including deliveries and refuse pick-ups are currently
located at the hotel's loading and receiving area, which is situated at the north
side of the site, adjacent to Bleeker Street, The Aspen Times deliveries and refuse
pick-ups were originally located in the alley, to the North of the Aspen Times
Building, but are shown to be centrally located at the hotel's loading area.
H. References
Hotel Jerome Addition — Schematic Design Report BG Building Works, Inc.
June 30, 201.6
Hotel Jerome Addition — Conceptual MEP Planning, Beaudin Ganze Consulting
Engineers, Inc. July 28, 2014
Engineering Design Standards, City of Aspen, December 2013