| 1 |
|
9/14/2023 |
Jamie Donaldson |
Info Requested |
Hi David,
Yes, I was making sure to have all the information for corrections before getting back to you. There are several issues that still need addressing with the landscape revision. They are as follows:
1. The plans do not seem to accurately reflect the retaining walls built on the property, particularly along the east property line. It is not clear that there is enough room (minimum 4 feet) to plant any trees between the property lines and retaining walls as built, especially the proposed Little Gem Magnolias in the reduced setback area. Please indicate there is adequate room to plant trees, or revise the plans.
a. Please note, Condition 11 also allows for four large shrubs if there is not adequate planting space in the reduced setback area.
2. As indicated by my previous emails, landscape plans should include all items listed in SRC 807.020; the following are missing from the revision:
a. Plant materials identified by common and botanical names;
b. Fence or wall materials, when screening is required under the UDC;
c. An irrigation plan identifying the materials, size, and location of all components of the irrigation system.
i. A new irrigation plan is required as the landscape has changed since its original approval. The irrigation plan should indicate how the landscape will be maintained and ensure that all plantings covered with river rock will survive.
3. The Flowering Pear tree is not typically considered a shade tree. In addition, Table 807-2 in SRC 807.015 requires the size at planting to be 1.5 to 2 in caliper to qualify for 10 PU; the plans submitted indicated it would be 5 gallon. Please provide more information that the specific botanical type of flowering pear tree could be counted as a shade tree, rather than an ornamental tree. If using the flowering pear tree as an ornamental tree, please revise the plant unit count and indicate conformance with the minimum overall plant units required on site, and the minimum tree plant units required on site.
4. The plans are missing grass/bark/rock at the two places at the driveway entrance to Crawford Street; dirt is not acceptable.
5. The landscape plan is for landscape only. A separate revision, with construction details for the stairs, is required for the as-built site work addressing the changes in the pedestrian connection(s) on site, and the proposed stairs providing the required connection to Salem Heights.
Please let me know if you have any questions. |