Laserfiche WebLink
'Frees to be removed within the proposed bts range in size from S°to 26°with most in the 12"to 20" <br /> range.Most of the trees to be r�emoved are sugar mapfe.Signficant discussions between the seller and <br /> the buyer occurred regarding the preservation af the wooded area.A balar�ce needecf to be struck <br /> between terrain,the wooded area,screening of propased homes from the surrounding aree and street <br /> and driv+eway access.The design represents the best oompromise between the restrictions imposed by <br /> the terrain and the requirements of the ssller.Covenants of the subdivision guide what tuture <br /> homeowners will be permitted to da on their lots. <br /> Pat2�qraph 4. h. in the Conservation Design Plan,page 4,inadvertently used incorrect dassification and <br /> descriptive information.The corr�ect staferr�e�#should read"The mapl�basswood forest is in good <br /> oondition(B)based on the M-34X mod�ers.The forest has a generally undisturbed community <br /> structure w�h little to no buckthom present"Examination of a 1937 aerial phoko aFthe area shows the <br /> maple-basswood forest as being present with same openings in the canopy.Acoording to the <br /> Minnesota Departmen#of Na�ural Resouroe.s Field Guide to Native Plant Communities o�f Minnesota, <br /> Eastem Broadleaf Forest Pr�ovince(2005),the forest is classfied as MHs39c Sugar Maple Forest(Big <br /> Woods). Based on the aerial photo,this forest is a mucture of "Mature' (trees in excess af 75 ysars of <br /> age),the"Transi�on"stage of growth with trees rarging in a�ge beMreen 35-75 years of age and <br /> °Young"forest from 0—35 years of age.The�utlot F Roadway and Cul de Sac passes through all <br /> stages.The dm�eways to Lots 6,8,and 9 are in the Young stage.Lot 7 is generally in the Young to <br /> Transition stages.Lat 8 is in the Transition to Mature stages and Lot 9�in the Young to Trans�tion <br /> stages.Lot 5 has no hBe impects. Mapping of the differerrt stands as the comment suggests would be <br /> difficuft as the eritire forest is a mixture vf age c*asses suggesting that some timber harve�tir�g has <br /> occurred in the past resuRing in the maed age/diameter classes. <br /> e. Protedion of W�lands — Seeding of wetland buffers would require eradication of the e�dsting <br /> plar�t communities. Most o�f the wetlands are m the outbt prairie ar�s with the exception of the <br /> drainage swale and Part of Wetland 1, Wetlands 6, 7, arx! a Pond. Wetland 7 is in the Maple — <br /> Basswood For+est and littfe to no vege�tation is cumently preserrt nor would any sunrive under the farest <br /> canopy. Maple tr�ees exude an allelopa�thic chemical which inhibits the growt� of a forest floor cover. <br /> The upper part of the SUvale is in Lot 11 and half of Wet(and 6 is on the near side of Lots 10 and 11,The <br /> remainder of Wetland 6 will be in an outlot managed by a yet to be determined management entify. <br /> Wetland 1 in Lot 3 is already surnounded by established plant cover and the Pond in Lat 5 is also <br /> surnounded by established cover. Buffers will be put in place protecting the perimeter of all wetlands. <br /> f. Impacts to Ecological Communibes —Wetlands will be protected by buffers and no wetfand <br /> filling will occur.The maple-basswood forest has been designated for developme�t at fhe request of the <br /> setters rather than the created prairie.All possible measures to minim¢e impact to the forest hav�been <br /> taicen with the knowledge and approval of the sellers. <br /> g. Ecobgical Connections—There will be no accsss to the parce! permi�ed for pedestrian use. <br /> Widlife connections to adjoin properties will remain as they are with tlie sxception of the small building <br /> footprint for the developed Ids. Lat sizes are typicalty in the 3 acr+e size category and the combined <br /> building footprint; driveway and sewer system wdl oocupy a�out 8 pero�rrt{�000 sf) of each lot. The <br /> perimeter of the par�el will be protected by a 9d'designatsted undisturi�ed buffer to allow wildl�fe to <br /> travel from the su►roundir�C area into and through this parcel. <br /> h. Vews—George—any thoughts on this one <br /> i. Landmarks — Item 4.k. in the Conservation Design Plan states that there ar�e no significant <br /> landmarks. <br /> 1.2 Vegetation Management Plan—Discussed above <br /> 1.3 Preiiminary Grading Plan—Gronberg <br /> 1.4 Septic Report—Olson <br /> •Page 2 <br />