HomeMy WebLinkAbout2005-09-27 CorrespondenceKaren Howard
From:
John Yapp
Sent:
Friday, September 23, 2005 10:30 AM
To:
Karen Howard
Subject:
FW: street trees
Can't remember if you had this already or not — for subdivision chapter.
John Yapp, Assistant Transportation Planner
From: Terry Robinson
Sent: Wednesday, July 07, 2004 9:04 AM
To: John Yapp
Subject: RE: street trees
John,
Thanks for asking, You recall correctly. Nine feet would be utopia, eight feet would be ok, seven feet is not worth
the trouble of increasing from 6.
Let me explain all this. For the sake of brevity let's call the area " the parking", and when I say large or small tree I am
talking about middle age to maturity, 30 years plus. Not at planting time, heck they are all small at planting. In some of
the older sections of town, Church St. to Bloomington, 1st Ave to 7th Ave, we have some parking areas that are 9' plus
wide. In those areas when we loose or must remove trees we are able to replant Oaks, larger Maples, Hackberry, etc.
some great over story species. We know we will achieve a better survival rate and we are making some really beautiful,
pleasant streets for the future.
In other areas, and new subdivisions where the parking is less than 9 feet, it immediately eliminates the oaks, and other
species that produce a large root buttress ( the transition zone where the roots enter the ground) that don't fit in a small
parking at middle age and older. This size parking pushes the tree closer to the street, causing them to be low over the
street early in their life, meaning more pruning, more trunk problems, less root zone on the street side making them more
prone to wind damage, the list goes on.
At seven feet wide, the hope of ever achieving a tree covered street like Church from DuBuque to Dodge is completely
lost. We are so limited to certain species that our choices are almost gone. At that size we are looking at Crabapples,
Pears, Columnar species, not the large trees we would all like. Finally while we can plant in 6 foot and smaller parking
areas, and some of my colleagues do, we are creating built in obsolescence and eventually a greater cost to the tax
payers. If you have any more questions please let me know.
-----Original Message -----
From: John Yapp
Sent: Tuesday, July 06, 2004 3:12 PM
To: Terry Robinson
Subject: street trees
Good Afternoon Terry,
I have been given the task of recommending updated standards for streets and right-of-ways in new subdivisions.
One of the components of this is the desire to require enough width in the area between the sidewalk and the curb for
street, or right-of-way trees. I recall 9 feet being a standard as a minimum desired width for street trees to allow them
to be planted between the sidewalk and the curb - is this still a good number to use?
Thanks.
John Yapp
0
77
X
I�
Vq,Woss
EXISTING
House
Ga
20
31'
PROP05ED
28' 50'
6r
-------------
4'
GO' 2Grr!
, 4� Eas"r'�+a�si} �'w!e^a i'i�. i°}Ra it`°r`}o- raa c a gree i . j St r ie''ia'a`°"'v}r i } n r}}j, t } ar s rf a t�'•a n .; n , a» ` s m
v}E3y L�f+iT a �Ji°°ssyeri}4"rtRV a�'�"�rr°c.�e"r'+; ,st 4' "h°+i ztti P{i�rtr �e ,i}@7`e $±ra snr��d'r`�tetiE "a '' Fsa a Rif t t t na z
r!!{'�,SyRiLf j}fid iRryi 144E AJL*A 4 V� 14Ae 1raP '� Yf Efp3 V. ¢ t,f) YIli6 llEi Vlr >tt M
Pr}n�tRe/PjF<Y'{,lr9r<rfYa1�{ �1��t"r�1}R 3t�•t�f}f}/}t>dflfv}.w,rp4 fdl}4M�li'S�}1h}d lldlrEb��/�6ff i9'S �A.i E�!}I d.hff}94 4 E� FL
-�
o
5'