Agenda - Council - 09/13/2004 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

TLM- ,Site Plan August 27. 2004 Page 2 of 4 than 25% of the trees planted be deciduous and no less than 25% coni~ierous. Furthermore, City Code requires that no more than 25% of the trees planted consist o.f ornamental trees. In addition to the tree requirements, City Code also states that one (1) shrub per every thirty (30) [ineat feet of site perimeter or 300 square feet of building coverage, whichever is greater, be planted. Si~e Londscc~ping The perimeter of the site is 834 feet and there are fifteen (1 ~) proposed parking stalls, which equates to a minimum of eighteen (18) trees and twenty-eight (28) shrubs needing to be installed. A minimum of twelve (12) trees should be installed along 141s~ Ave and Azurite Street to satis~ the public road frontage planting requirement. The current landscaping plan shows thirty-one (31) trees and twenty-two (22) shrubs. The current pl~ does satisfy the public road frontage planting requirements. While the shrub requirement is'not being met (plan is short 6 shrubs), 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 (I3) spreading yews will be installed, yet the layout depicts twenty-two (22). The species palette also indicates that twelve (12) sugar maples will be installed, bm the layout shows thirteen (13). Also, the size of the Japanese Tree Lilac is listed as two (2) gallons,, the minimum size requirement tbr ornamental trees is 1.5 inches. Finally, the spruce tree just south of the entrance off Azurite Street may be located within the vision clearance triangle (as defined in Section 9.11.0! Subdivision 7). If so, that tree will either need to be relocated or eliminated ii'om the plan. If it is outside the vision clearance triangle, Staff would still prefer that it be switched with one of the deciduous trees on site. As the tree matures, its low branching form could obstruct the view of drivers exiting the site. General Summar,v A revised landscaping plan 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 terms of the m. tmber of plants being installed. Finally, there are a couple of points of concern regarding the general location of street trees. First, no trees can be planted within thirty~five (35) feet of the back of curb of any intersecting street. This is something that will require attention in the field when the trees are installed. Additionally, no tree shall be planted within fifteen (15) ~'eet of a hydrant. If a conflict does exist, the spacing of the trees may need to be adjusted or a tree(s) may need to be eliminated from the planting schedule. If the latter is necessary, the City must be in[brined of the changes prior to any work being conducted. Ground Cover: All unimproved areas must be sodded. Any alternative to sod will require. CiD' Council's approval. Additi~maily, ail landscaped areas are required to have an underground in'igadon system. -298-