When Sandy Adams moved to a patio home in Lowry, she got bigger closets, improved energy efficiency, lots of natural light and a great floor plan. She mourned leaving the gorgeous mature trees behind in her old neighborhood in Park Hill, but the spindly saplings planted outside her front door gave her hope for a lovely green canopy in the future.
Ten years, she thought. By then, she’d have some shade, some color, some shelter from the relentless wind across the former Air Force base.
Eight years later, the saplings have grown and grown. In fact, they’ve grown so much they’re banging on the roof, scraping the windows and threatening the foundation. It’s so bad, the Denver election commissioner and dozens of her neighbors now face the prospect of starting over. The trees have to go.
“It makes me sick,” Adams said. “It’s just crazy.”
It’s also expensive.
About a third of the 145 homes in the Village I and II neighborhoods in the southwest corner of Lowry are affected by the problem caused when the developer planted inappropriate trees in the yards. About 80 trees are being removed this spring, and new trees are to be planted, all at the homeowners’ expense.
“It was a painful decision,” said Chad Asarch, president of the Village II homeowners association. “People were really upset. They’re beautiful trees, but we can’t keep them there.”
Asarch said the Lowry Redevelopment Authority required all builders to submit landscaping plans before anything was planted. “We actually have a copy of the approved landscaping plans, and our arborist said if they’d planted the trees on it, we would have been fine.”
Instead, Norway maples, Bradford pears and two types of linden trees were planted, most within 5 feet of the houses. “At maturity, these trees will have crowns with a 30-foot radius,” he said.
Asarch said as the trees grew, homeowners began having problems with limbs banging against their houses and branches growing up against the walls. They required extensive pruning every year, and the neighbors began comparing notes on the cost and the problems they were experiencing.
Finally, the neighborhood association solicited opinions from three arborists about how to manage the trees. All of them gave the same advice.
Cut ’em down.
“To keep them would have required us to spend tens of thousands of dollars every year on pruning, which would make them uglier every year and ultimately kill all the trees. Then we’d have to start over anyway,” he said. “It’s untenable.”
Keeping them also would allow the roots to grow under the front porches, causing them to buckle, and they would invade any small cracks in the foundations, potentially undermining the houses. “There are no good options,” Asarch said. “Taking them down is the least of the bad ones.”
The neighborhood associations are seeking compensation from Village Homes, the developer. Matt Osborn, senior vice president of home building for the company, said negotiations are underway with the homeowners.
It’s not uncommon to change landscaping plans after they have been approved, he said. “This kind of thing happens on a regular basis.”
Species that are identified on a plan might not be available at planting time, so other species often are substituted.
“We’re in talks with the homeowners about where to go from here,” Osborn said.
Denver city arborist Pete Zoschg said it is one of the biggest problems he faces in trying to improve the city’s canopy. “It’s common for contractors to plant trees in a manner that arborists would think is inappropriate. It happens all the time.”
For her part, Adams is inviting people with big yards – and strong backs – to dig up the trees for transplanting. “I would love to find a home for these beautiful trees,” she said.
(For information, contact her at sandyadamscpa@comcast.net.)
Diane Carman’s column appears Sunday, Tuesday and Thursday. She can be reached at 303-954-1489 or dcarman@denverpost.com.
