Agenda - Planning Commission - 09/02/2004

Home

TLM - Site Plan August'ow_.,, 2004 pa~je -~ than 25¢/o of the trees planted be' deciduous and no less than '25% coniferous. Furthermore, City Code requires that no more than 25% of tl~e trees planted consist of ornamental trees. In addition to the tree requirements, Ciq~ Code also states that one (1) shrub per every tl~irty (50) lineal feet of site perimeter or 300 square feet o[buiiding coverage, whichever is greater, be planted. 5'ire The perimeter of the sire is a m/n/mum twelve (i2) trees should be installed along i41st Ave and Azurite Street to satisfy the public road iTrontage planting requirement. The current landscaping plan shows thief'-one (3 l) trees and twenty-Nvo (122) s~ubs. The current plan does satisfy, the punic road frontage planting requirements. While the shrub requirement is not being met (plan is short 6 sic.tbs), there are more trees included than required by code and thus, Staff feels this landscaping plan is acceptable. · There are, however, some discrepancies between the landscaping layout and the species palette. First, the species palette indicates that thirteen (13) spreading yews will be installed, yet the layout depicts t-,,venty-two (22). The species palene also indicates that twelve (,..!2) sugar maples will be installed, but the layout shows thirteen (13). Also, the size of the Japanese Tree Lilac is listed as two (2) gallons, the minimum size requirement Gr ornamental trees is 1.5 inches. Finailv, the spruce tree just south of the entrance off Azurite Street may be located within rite vision clearance nfiang!e (as defined in Section 9. l i .01 Subdivision 7). ff so, that tree will either aced to be relocated or eliminated from the plan. If it is outside the vision clearance triangle, Staff would still srefer that [t be switched with one of the deciduous trees on site. As the tree matures, its orancmng/:b~ could ,' uostruct the view of drivers exirina the site. A revised landscaping p~an should be submitted that addresses the discrepancies above. Staff based the review on the landscaping layout, as opposed to the species palette, at least in tenThS of the number of plants being installed. Finally, there are a couple o~' points of concern regarding r~e general location of street trees. FirsL no trees can be planted within they-five (35) ~ket of the back of curb of any intersecting street. This ts something that will require auenrion in the field when the trees are installed. Additionally, no tree shai1 be plmued within fifteen (15) feet of a hydrant, if a conflict does exist, the spacing of the trees may need to be adjusted or a treefs) may need to be eliminated fi'om the planting schedule. [f the latter [s necessary, the City must be in,brined o~' the changes prior to ~v work heine ~onducred. Ground Cover: All ~_mimpro,/ed areas must be sodded.. :amy alternative to sod will require City Council's approval.. Additionally, all landscaped areas are required to ha,/e :m undergound irrigation system. 48