Loading...
1001 FT HARRISON AVE SCITY OF CLEARWATER - PLANNING TREE REMOVAL 99�ATEP���� NAME OF OWNER fL :l- / Ic SITE ADDRESS f UE J -,r-0 /2T 11 - Q 1Cl PHONE ef 3• kV, f, 4 Q 7 7 OWNER'S ADDRESS /,f-/5- A� 6CIV C,R-/L9- ,6t2- LOCATION OF TREES) ON LOT S'� PLA - L SPECIES AND NUMBER OF TREE(S) C-0- P1A--,jS 1001 S FT HARRISON AVE BCP2008 -09085 NEW 2 STORY COMM BLDG HARBOR OAKS MEDICAL CENTER Zoning: C atlas# 295B TO APPLICANT: A non - refundable fee of 515.00'for u ' to five;t�ees "t © ' be removed, plus $3.00 for ever-, 'tree ab'o0 5�'to be. I 2., removed is required. Construction -See "A" below ❑ Hazardous 0 Declining ❑ Dead ❑ Other (Specify) Fee Rec'd. $ W, � A) CONSTRUCTION Date 1. For new construction, additions or other modificati6n§.6f a property which invelvo he removal of a protected tree(s), a site plan is required. This site plan must have a minimumascale -of l'F= 20'Jor s ngleAfamdy lots, or 1 " =50' for all others. The site plan must include; e n -, • k ��,, M ' a. Major Changes of Grade f. Proposed Number of Parking Spaces j. All Protected Trees Including: b. Structure Locations g, Proposed Underground Utilities (i.) Diameter of 4.5' above grade (DBH) c, Driveways and Walks h. Zoning Setbacks (ii.) Surveyed Location d. Parking Arrangement i. All easements and Rights -of -Way . (iii.) Species e. Required Number of Parking Spaces (iv.) Diseased or Insect Infested Trees k. Tree Barricade Detail & Locations 2. Protective barriers are required around all trees remaining on site during construction. These barricades must remain intact during construction. The barriers must meet City Specifications. B) REPLACEMENTS 1. Tree replacement minimum standards: 10' overall height, 2.5" caliper, Florida Grade #1, See inspectors note below to determine the number of replacement trees required. Replacements required within 30 days. I hereby certify that as property owner or as representative of the property owner, I have verified that the tree(s) sought to be removed is wholly on property owned by the above - identified property owner, and should it be determined that the tree(s) are located wholly or partially on property owned by some other person, then, I agree to hold the City of Clearwater harmless in any claim made for wrongful removal of such tree(s). I hereby certify that this application together with any plans submitted is a true representation of all facts concerning the proposed removal of the tree(s). Any deviation from the permit issued shall r e ull and void and be considered a violation of the Community Development Code. A�Dg C a_T Signaturb of owner or applicant Printed Name Address Agency Representing OCL # ppfL� 7Z 47G( -5 233 City State Zip Phone /Cell Fax DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE - Not Valid Until Signed By City Manager or his Designated Agent lumpntnr'_S ('nmmP.ntc��d4c�1,(?'�^�2_ v " A c /ICJ . �'"l LL_;� -7i- 1, V v� V D m I Applicable Code Section: ` iw Based on the Inspector's comments and information submitted, the above removal application is: ❑ Approved as Submitted kAApproved- Modified as Noted Above ❑ Denied Signed: Date: -Z I to Community evelopme Coordinator or Designee /Inspector Valid for six months from the date of issuance. 1362.0001 -GC White- Planninn P, navalnnmant Sarvinae Vclln - Annlir­nnt 0— )sA Tree znventol•y 1001 South Fort flarrison Avenne Prepared by: Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist March 30, 2005 T.S.A. Certified Arborist #SO -0305 The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry and. includes findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in the field of Arboricu.ltilre, zhave no interest personally or financially in this properly and this report is factual and unbiased, This report is the property ofFuluicco Divello and will not be given to other entities unless so directed. Site Ovel -view and Canopy Analysis The subject property includes a former commercial building and a single family residential house. Historically, the property has been cleared of all native vegetation and even the larger native trees are second growth. The tree canopy is composed primarily of the native live oak (Quereus virginiana) and laurel oak (Quercus laur folia) trees. Palm species including the native saba.l palm (Sahal palmetto) are also present. In addition, the site contains an admixture of exotic trees that were planted by the previous occupants or invasive species such as the camphor tree (Cinnamomum eamphora) that grew from seed. The mid -story vegetation is comprised of planted ornamental shnibs and various grasses make up the groundcover vegetation, The overall condition of the trees is below average as the site trees reflect neglect and improper maintenance. However, a small percentage of the trees warrant preservation and they have been identified in the inventory. In addition, several trees are border line for preservation and will be upgraded if remedial maintenance is performed. Tree Inventory Data. A tree inventory is a written record of a tree's condition at -the time of inspection. It is a valuable tool to prioritize tree maintenance and remove trees with problems that could lead to failure and cause personal injury or property damage. The tree inventory lists four codes and also has a comment section. The following is an explanation of the inventory data: Tree# - location -. Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that con-esponds with a number on the site .plan that identifies the location of the tree in the Geld.. ,Size -- Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If a. fork exists in the trunk at that point: the diameter is measured at the narrowest area below the fork. Palm species are measured by feet of clear trunk. Clear trunk (shown as C,T,) is measured from the grade to the base of the bud NOTE ; If the crown spread is required to be shown on a. plan use the following formula: The crown spread is equal to V radius for each inch of trunk diameter. It is better to use this formula than the actual location of the branch spread as a tree will develop roots in the opposite direction of a lean or one - sided crown. The crown spread for palms is 6' radius :From the trunk. Species — Each tree is listed by its common and botanical name the first time It is listed in the inventory. For simplicity the tree is listed by its common name thereafter. Condition )?sating — The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural strength atld systemlic liealth. E lements of struefore include: 1) the presence of cavities, decayed wood, split, cracked, rubbing branches etc., 2) branch arrangements and attachments, i,e,, well spaced. vs. several branches emanating.from the same area on the trunk, cod.om.inant stems vs. 'single leader trunk, presence of branch collars vs, included bark. Elements of systemic health relate to the tree's overall energy system measured by net photosynthesis (food made) vs. respiration (food used), A tree with good systemic health will have a vascular system that moves water, nutrients and photosynthate around the tree as needed, Indicators of a healthy systemic system used in the overall,'condition rating inchxde: 1) live crown ratio (the amount of live crown a. tree has relative to its mass), 2) crown density (density of the foliage), 3) tip growth (shoot elongation is a sign that the tree -is making and storing energy. The overall condition rating also takes into consideration the species, appearance and any ! unique features. The rating scale is 0 -6 with 0 being a dead tree and 6 a specimen. I.ncremeiits of 0;5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system are as follows: 0- A plead tree 1- A tree that is dying, severely declining, hazardous, harboring a communicable disease or a tree designated by the State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council as a category #l. ecological Pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus ter.ehinthtfohns), A tree with a rating of 1 should be removed as it is beyond treatment and is a threat to cause personal injury or property damage. 2 — A tree exhibiting serious structural defects such as codominant stems with included;,, bark at or near the base, large cavities, large areas of decayed wood, crown diebacky�;' cracked /split scaffold branches etc. In addition., a tree with health issues such as 16�y energy, low live crown ratio,,serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficien'air's or soil PH problems. ,A tree with a raising of #2 should be removed unless the problplM(s) can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a. considal;able amount of maintenance to qualify for an upgrade of the condition rating. 3- A tree with average structure and systemic health and with. problems that Gaza be corrected with moderate maintenance, A tree with a codo7ninant stem not in the basal ,area. that will be subordinated or cabled and braced or a codominant stem that will soon have included bark can be included as a 113. A tree with a rating of #3 has average appearance, crown density and live crown ratio and should be preserved if possible. 4- A tree with a rating of 4 has good. stricture and systemic health with minor problems that can be easily corrected with minor maintenance. The tree should have an attractive appearance and be essentially free of any debilitating disease or insect problem. The tree should also have above average crown density and live crown ratio. Mature frees exhibiting scars, old wounds, small. cavities or other problems that are not debilitating can be included in this group particularly if they possess unique form or other aesthetic amenities relating to their age. A tree with a rating of 4 is valuable to the property and should be preserved. 5 — A tree with very high live crown ratio and exceptional structure and systemic health and virtually free of insect or disease problems or nutritional deficiencies. A tree in this category should have a balanced crown with exceptional aesthetic amenities. A tree in this category should be of a species that possesses characteristics inherent to longevity and withstanding construction impacts. A tree with a #5 rating lends coiusiderable value to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #S rating is worthy of significant site plan modification to ensure its preservation. 6 — A specimen tree. A specimen tree is a tree that possesses a combination of superior qualities in regards to systemic health, structural strength, crown density, live crown ratio, form (balanced crown), overall aesthetic appeal, size, species, age and uniqueness. A great effort should be made to preserve a specimen tree including shifting structures that would adversely impact the tree. In addition., a specimen tree should have an undisturbed area equal to its dripline (equal to the branch spread) to grow in. Only an experienced and competent International Society. of Arboriculture (I.S.A.) Certified Arborist should be allowed work on a specimen tree. Comments: The comment section serves to note observations relative to the tree but not covered in the inventory data or expands on information in the inventory data. It may include maintenance recommendations to improve the tree's overall condition rating. It may also have recommend ation`s on whether to remove or preserve a tree. NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3 -5 pears. However, events such as drouglit, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance aired severe storms can downgrade the rating value of a tree. Conversely, remedial maintenance can upgrade the value. If you suspect that a tree has been adversely affected have the tree inspected by a qualified International Society of Arboriculture JSA) Certified Arborist. * * * * ** At the time of this inventory several trees were in a. toi:al Or semi- deciduous state. It is difficult to assess the live crown ratio and overall systemic health of a tree when the foliage is not present, however, most of the oalcs are now producing catkins (flowers) consequently the density of flowers and /or leaf bads were used to calculate systemic issues. Ti-ee Inventory Tree # Size species Rating 10" laurel oak (Quereus laur folia) 2,5 Comments: This tree was not identified on the tree survey but has been added. The tree is growing in a planter and is located 3' from the rear wall of the commercial building fronting South Fort Harrison Avenue. The root collar and tTurAc are free of decay or cavities, The tree has three codominant stems located approximately 9' above grade'that have severely included. barb and that support most of the tree's canopy. The tree has average live crown ratio and below average form. The codominant stems could be mitigated by subordinatepr ling but this. procedure would be costly and take at least: three years before structure was restored: Recommend removal of tiv.s tree, 2 715 deciduous 2.5 *Dote: The crown of this tree was totally bare at the time of the inventory and the branches are growing over the roof so an identification of species based on morphological elements was not possible. The species will be provided as soon as foliage appears. . Comments: This tree was not identified on the tree survey. The tree is growing in the same raised planter as tree # 1. It is located 5' south of tree ##1 and 3' from the rear .building wall. The trunk is situated against the edge of the planter. This tree has a tight v- shaped crown that is composed of two scaffold branches. The tree has average form and structure and good live crown ratio. Recommend removal. 8" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 2.0 Comments: This tree is not identified on the survey, The tree is growing 5' from the rear of the commercial building. The crown of this tree is composed of three scaffold branches that are codominant with included bark present in the crotches. The overall form and structure is poor, The tree has above average live crown ratio and is systemically healthy. Recommend removal, 4 8" laurel oak 2.5 Comments: This tree is situated F from a shed located in,the rear ofthe commercial building. This tree has below average form with average structure and Live crown ratio. It has .6 surface roots which is unusual for a small tree (surface roots grow on top of the grade and can be attributed to site conditions or genetic characteristics). As this tree grows the surface roots will increase in.size and cause problems to structures and create a trip hazard. Recommend removal. 22" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree is not shown on the site plan anal, is actually growing in the right of way of S. Fort Harrison Avenue where it grows through an awning attached to the old produce stand. This tree is severally declining. It has basal wounds, trtink cankers, internal decay and a dysfunctional systemic system. It is in imminent danger of falling and should be removed immediately. Contact the City of Clearwater's Urban Forestry Division (562 -4,950) as they are responsible for right of way trees. . NOTE: There is a palm growing in. the right of way and. also some on the property that were not inventoried because they had less than 10' of clear trunk and are not considered protected trees by City of Clearwater code. All palms having clear trunks greater than 10' will be, inventoried. 34" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has massive internal decay indicated by the presence, of heart rot sporophores colonized all over the trunk. The root collar and large root flares are suffering from. decay as a result of previous physical wounds. There is a large area of decay in the form of decaying stubs 6' above grade. This tree has no upper crown structure as the only foliage is resulting from vigorous suckers growing from the decaying scaffold branches. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed. 7 30" live oak 15 Continents: This tree was in full flower (catkins) at the time of inspection and appears to have above average live crown ratio based on the amount of catkins, The trunk: and root collar are healthy and free of any debilitating problems. This tree has two major scaffold branches that form the crown, They are codominant but have a wide u- shaped crotch with connective tissue present. There is an 8" dead stub that needs to be removed if the tree .is preserved. The tree has good form with interesting serpentine branches. The crown is somewhat irregular in appearance but still has above average aesthetic qualities. This tree will benefit from pruning to remove stubs and small deadwood in the crown. If preserved and maintained properly this tree will evolve into a very good tree. Recommend preservation. 34" live oak 3,0 Comments: This tree has a 4" diameter girdling root that wraps arom.id approximately 30% of the tree's root collar, This root will Iiij.tlre tht trM bilt has not caused damage yet ,and could easily be removed. The tank is sound. The crown is composed ol'two sca:lTold branches that are codominant, The crotch has a tight u- shape that has connective tissue at this time but could become included in the future. The upper crown has above average overall structure. Part of the crown grows to the west over the rear parking lot of the commercial building and has some damage in the form of torn branches and branch wounds likely caused from large trucks that drove beneath this tree. This portion of the crown will need to be raised if the tree is preserved, The crown of this tree is barely average in appearance, The form is irregular and there are gaps in the c (lnopy and it has very little crown to the east. However., the tree is systemically healthy and could evolve into a good tree if preserved and maintained properly, The main crotch should be cabled and braced as it is codominant with a tight crotch that will become included. As live oaks are long -lived trees that adapt well to construction, this tree could be preserved if it falls into a. green area. However, it does not warrant site design modifications for preservation. 9 29" laurel oak 1.5 Comments: The trun]c has a 12" x 12" area of decay on the lower east side close to the base. The decay is not causing structural problem.s at this time but will progress and cause problems to the root collar area in the future, This tree has an 12" and an 18" diameter codominant trunk that forms the base structure for the crown. The codominant is severally incltded and there is a large bulge on the west side of the inclusion uidicating internal cracks/wounding. The upper crown has poor stricture with small cavities, decay sporophores, suckers and large dead wood. The crown has low live crown ratio. This tree is not salvageable and needs to be removed. 10 9" Schefflera (Brassaia actinophylla) 1.0 Comments: This tree was not shown on the site plan. It is growing 2' from th.e chimney located on the west side of the old house. The tree is not recommended for preservation as the schefflera is very cold sensitive and produces a large surface root system. 11 .16" laurel oalc 1.0 Comment: This tree was attached by connective. tissue at the root collar to a. 24" diameter laurel oak that is now a 6' dead. stump infected with Hypoxylon canker. The decay from the stuump will affect this tree's root collar area as the decay progresses into the basal area. There is also a. queen palm that is growing against the trunk of the laurel oak. The tree has an old flush cut wound on. the northwest side of the trunlc that is causing internal decay. The tree has virtually no upper crown and stnacture is non - existent. This tree needs to be removed. 12 1,0' C, T, queen palm (Syagrus roinanzoffiana) 2,0 Comments: This palm has below average crown and appearance for queen palm. The base is growing against tree #11 and. this condition will prevent the palm from being able to be transplanted. Recommend removal. 13 15" live Oak 3.0 Comments: This tree is growing against the concrete wall of the front porch of the old house. In addition, it has an avocado tree growing against its tt urik. The root flare is healthy but is somewhat asymmetrical where the avocado tree interferes with its growth. The trunks is sound and forks 8' above grade into three scaffold branches that form the upper crown. The tree has good upper crown structure with average overall form. The live crown ratio is above average. The appearance is only average but will improve if maintained properly and given room to grow. It is a borderline tree in regards to desirability for preservation and should only be, preserved if it falls into a green space, 14 6" avocado (Persea Americana) 1.0 Comments: This tree has poor form and structure and is an undesirable species due to its cold sensitivity, Recommend removal. 15 20" laurel o*ak 0.5 Comments: The tmnlc of tree # 16 grows at an angle into the basal area of this tree. If they continue to grow in this manner they will wound each other and cause structural problems at the critical root collar area. This tree has a very poor upper crown structure. One leader is dead with sporophores growing along the branches. The other two branches have been- previously topped and are dying. Recommend removal of this hazardous tree. 16 12" live oak 1.0 Comment: This tree grows at angle out from the base of tree #15. The tree has poor structure as it has virtually no crown. One branch grows on top of tree #13 causing damage to a lateral branch. This tree will be damaged when tree # 15 is removed. Recommend removal. 17 30" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing east of the old house and abuts the east side of the driveway. The root collar and lower trunk are sound. At 4.5' above there is a galvanized steel cable embedded into the trunk all the way around the trunk and again about a third of the way around and six inches higher on the trunk. The cable is totally embedded except for one area where the cable tip protrudes from the trunk. The girdling has caused the trunk to grow callus tissue around the wound resulting in a pronounced bulging of the think tissues. I estimate that the girdling occurred approximately 20 years ago, Just above the girdled area the tree forks into two 15" diameter codomi.nant steins that have an 8" bark inclusion. The upper crown has good structure and appearance, however, there is approximately 25% dieback probably due l:o l�le g,ildiiil� aCl:ivit�r that destroyed part o:l' the tree's vascular system. The tree has apparently restored most of its vascular system as evidenced by its gro'Ad. A major concern for this txee however relates to the Iocat:ion of the decay resulting from. the girdling, It is located just beneath the bark inclusion and the chance of coalescing decay creating a structural hazard is probable. This tree has an overall attractive appearance but giying,the potential for structural failure it is recommended for removal, The only alternative is to place rods in the crotch and cables in the upper crown to secure this tree. However, the procedure is expensive and impractical for a tree with the above described damage, 19 23 ", 29" Live oak 3.5 Comments: This tree was not shown on the site plan. This tree has a galvanized one quarter inch steel cable going horizontally through the 29" diameter trunk but it is not girdling the tree and is not causing a structural problem. This tree splits into two trunks 3' above grade. The trunks form a u- shaped crotch with connective tissue present and do not appear to have a structural weakness. The 23" diameter trunk grows to the north and develops an average crown in form and above average in regards to live crown ratio and structure. This side of the tree i.s sounewhat restricted due to competition from an adjacent tree to the west. The 29" trunk forks 6,5' above grade and develops a crown above and to the east, west and south, The overall crown of this trunk has above average form with good live crown ratio. The fork has a slight inclusion that should be cabled and braced to ensure stability. The trey needs pruning to remove small deadwood and stubs. This is a good overall tree but should be cabled and braced in the southern mink fork and have a rod installed between the two trunks for extra protection. If this work is performed the tree would be upgraded to a 4.0. Recommend. preservation. 1.9 25" 1 Laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has a wound on the south side of the trunk that starts 6" above grade and goes 3' high up the trunk causing internal decay, The tree forms a codominant 8' above grade, The trunk on the west side is completely dead with sporophores growing along the trunk. The trunk on the east side is dead at, the top and only has sucker growth. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed, 20 12' C.T. queen pallh 2.5 Comments: This palm is not shown on the plan. The palm has a below average crown and has been affected by competition from adjacent trees. Transplanting on site is not recommended for this palm as it would be more cost effective to plant a new palm. Recommend removal, 21 T laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has a. good trunk that forks 5' above grade and forms a narrow vase shaped crown. The fork produces a codoiiaiiiant situation that will become included in the illtlrre. The live crown ratio is good but this tree has very poor form due to overhead branches and is not recommended for preservation, 22 P, 3" 32% 2" 2" s chefflera 1.5 Comments: This tree is not shown on the survey but is a protected tree by definition. of size for a cluster tree in the City of Clearwater code. The cluster has average aesthetic appeal but is not recommended for preservation as it is an undesirable species. 23 10' C. T. sabal palm (Sahal palmetto) 5.0 Comment: This is an exceptional palm that would be a specimen ff it was taller. This palm has a near perfect tnink and crown. The boots (frond stubs) remain from top to, bottom but they serve to protect the trunk and can be pruned off to have a clean trunk. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site„ 24 40' laurel oak 1.0 Comments: This tree is growing F from the sidewalk along Magnolia Drive. The sidewalk has been jogged to save this tree. The tree is also growing just east of a power pole into an area labeled vacated easement on the site plan. This tree has four codominant trunks that form the crown, The east codominant trunks are severely included. The north and west side trunk attaclunents are not included but have weak attachments. The root collar on the north side of the trunk has had two flare roots severed and decay is present in the affected basal area. There is also a large trunk canker (sunken tissue) on the north side, A large scaffold branch growing to the southwest that is dead is cracked and ready to fail. The tree has cavities on the scaffold branches on the east side that are affecting the n. tree's stability. The upper crow structure is very poor as the crown has large deadwood, old stubs and major dieba.ck. This tree is hazardous and needs to be removed as soon as Possible. 25 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5 Comments: This palm is growing 15' due south of tree #29 and is also located in the vacated easement, This palm is healthy and has a good crown. The condition has been downgraded slightly because the crown has been impacted by branches from tree #24 that have affected the symmetry of the crown. This palm will evolve into an attractive palm. Recommend preservation or transplanting on site, Note: There is a small five stem cluster Senegal date palm (Phoenix reelinata) located just east of tree #25 that is not large enough to be protected by City code so it is not inventoried. However, it has value and can be preserved in place or moved on site. 26 5" Citrus Comments: This tree is 90% dead. Recommend removal. 0.5 27 9" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing beneath the crown of adjacent t:cees and has very poor Overall f01-R Tho crown is 1 oq]y One-Sided ATM6119 coward the northeast and the live crown ratio is average. The structure downgrades the overall condition rating as the r�nain fork is a eodominant stem with included bark. The inclusion will worsen over time and could lead to structural failure in the main crotch. If this tree had a balanced crown the codominant situation could be corrected through subordinate pruning, however, it is not practical for this tree, Recommend removal. 28 5" laurel oalc 1.,5 Continents: This tree was not shown on the survey but is inventoried as it is. a•protected tree according to City Code, This tree is growing 1' from the base of tree #29, This tree has virtually no crown as it is suppressed by tree, #29, The canopy is small and grows to the east. The tree has poor structure,and essentially no aesthetic value. Recommend removal. 29 14" laurel oak 3.0 Comments: The trunk and root fare are structurally sound but this tree has a girdling root on th.e south side that has caused very minor damage to the root flare. The girdling root can be removed, This tree has good overall structure and above average live crown ratio. This tree is a healthy and structurally sound tree with the only downgrading factor being the form.. The tree has very little crown to the south dae to competition from tree #30, a large live oak tree. This tree could be preserved or removed to reduce the competition to the more desirable live oak tree ( #30). 30 33" live oak 4.0 Comments: The trunk of this tree is sound and forks into two large codo.minant stems 6' above grade. The crotch of the fork is slightly pinched on one side and will become included . in the future. The crown spreads to the north and east but is somewhat restricted due to competition on the north and south. The crown is slightly thinning on the west side but overall has very good live crown ratio. This tree is a good tree overall and the crown wi11 develop symmetry if the adjacent trees are removed. Potentially this could be the best tree on the site. In the future the main crotch should be cabled and braced if the bark becomes included. This tree is worthy of moderate site plan modifications for preservation. If this tree is preserved the site design should allow an undisturbed rooting area equal to three fourths the tree's dripline. Paved surfaces can count towards undisturbed rootillg area if the paved surface is built on grade and aerated. 31 25" live oak 2.5 Comments: This tree has a sound trua�.k and root flare aid the upper crown structure is average. The south side has a few sucker branches that grow upward forming a. mass of foliage. These branches should be removed as they will not form a canopy and are not attached with a branch collar. There is an B" diameter lateral branch that grows to tho northeast that has a badly decayed area and this branch should be removed. There is a 6" diarn.eter branch that has suffered storm datna.ge and. needs {o be removed. In addition, the tree has a large dead stub and minor deadwood that needs removal. The overall form is poor as the crown is mostly one- sided. and lacks aesthetic appeal. The tree is systemically healthy with above average structure and could be preserved if it falls into a green area. 32 47" laurel oak ' 0.5 Comments: This tree is very old. with large trunk flutes and cankers (sunken tissue areas). The trunk has sporophores present indicating internal decay and there are many old stub cuts on the trunk. The tree has two very large codomuiant trunks about 25" in diameter that have a.pockot cavity in the crotch. The upper canopy has seven scaffold branches that form the crown and each one is broken at the top with major dieback and deadwood present. The only growth. is from suckers. This tree has poor structure, form. and live crown ratio and is a hazard. Recommend removal. 33 >10 C.T. Senegal date palm (Phoenix reclinata) 4.5 Comments: This palm is not shown on the site plan but is a protected palm as it has stems with over 10' of clear trunk. This palm actually has 5 stems with over 10' of clear trunk. In addition, it has several other stems of various sizes. The palm cluster has not been pruned for a very long time and presents a wholly appearance. However; the palm cluster is healthy. and.once.pruned would be extremely valuable. This pal-in cluster should be premed and preserved in place or moved on site, A second alternative would be to contact a palrn broker about buying this chaster. 34 22" laurel oak 2.0 Comments: This tree has minor basal decay on the southeastern side that should not debilitate the tree's structural integrity. The major downgrading factor of this tree is two severely included codominant scaffold branches forking 5' above grade. The bark is deeply included and the condition will predispose the crotch to fail. The scaffold branches support a vase shaped crown with below average live crown ratio, structure and form. The crown is restricted and grows to the north and south. The upper crown is in decline indicated by ti.p dieback. Recommend removal. 35 32" live oak 2.0 Comments: This tree is growing 6' from a retaining wall for a retention pond located just south of the south property line. The tree suffered root loss when the grade was cut for the retention pond as reflected by branch dieback in the upper crown. The tnmk and root flare are sound. The trnrnk forks into an equal codominant stern 5' above grade and the crotch is u- shaped with connective tissue present, The west codorninant has a 4" diameter cavity from a previous stub out that is causing minor decay. The form and associated aesthetic appeal is low and the crown has a heavy vine infestation. The live crown ratio is above average on the south side but low elsewhere in the canopy, This tree is not recommended for preservation. However, if it falls into a green space buffer it could be preserved but will require remedial maintenance -to improve the structure. In addition, it should be inspected every two years fox the presence of inGNded bark and the n00d for cabling and bracing, 36 4" camphor (Onnamomum capiphora) 0.5 Comments: This tree is not shown on the site plan but is protected per City code. This tree is actually a cluster of sucker stems (one was 4" diameter at 4.5' above grade) growing from an old stump. The tree has no structure or form. Recommend removal. 37 10 C.T. I Senegal date palm 3.0 Comments: This palm Cluster was not shown on the plan but has two stems with over 10' of clear trunk and several others stems of various sizes. This cluster has not been pruned in a very long time and if cleaned up could be preserved in place or transplanted on site. 38 10" citrus (cala.mondin) 2.0 Comments: This.citrus has a basal decay caused by a fungus that is progressively deadly. The fungus destroys vascular tissue which is reflected by diebacic in this tree's crown. Recommend removal. 39 g" citrus (grapefruit) 1.5 Comments: This tree has major diebacic in the crown and is declining. Recommend removal, 40 12" citrus (calamondin) 2.0 Comments: This citrus is in poor condition and is not recommended for preservation. 41 10 C.T. Senegal date palm 4.0 Comments: This palm has four trunks that have at least 10' of clear trunk. This cluster has not been pruned in a long time but would be, valuable if cleaned up. This palm cluster is located 3' from the west wall of the house and may not be able to be successfully transplanted. As this palm cluster is valuable, preservation is recommended in place. However, if the palm does not fall into a green area, a palm moving company could be contacted to determine if transplanting is feasible. Recommend preservation. ,12 24" live oak 3.0 Comments: The root flare and b-un.1c are sound. The lower and upper crown has good structure. The live crown ratio is above average, lilt form is below average as the crown is irregular and branching is minimal with foliage ofteri tufted at the ends. The tree is systemically healthy and has good structure and Will improve Wj�l l-t✓ll C&I Druning. Preservation is not recommended unless the tree falls into a green area. 43 21" laurel oalc 0.5 Comments:- This -tree- as a -verb large cavity offthe southeast side of the trunk that is causing major structural problems. The tree has very poor upper crown structure with codominant stems with included bark in the crown, The live crown ratio' is below average and the form is very poor. This tree is a hazard tree and should be removed. 44 38" laurel oak 0.5 Comments: This tree has an open cavity on the south side 6" above grade that reveals a hollow trunk. This tree is very hazardous and needs to be removed as soon as possible. 45 15" camphor 2.0 Comments: This tree has a straight trunk but very poor upper crown form and structure. The crown resembles a stalls of celery. The live crown ratio is average. The camphor tree is identified as a category one ecological pest: plant by the State of Florida Pest Plant Council. Recommend removal. 46 18" live oak 2.0 Conrmbnts: This tree has a. good trunk that divides into three scaffold branches that support a crown with very poor form. The majority of the tree's crown grows to the southwest. The tree offers very little aesthetic appeal, The live crown ratio and upper crown structure is average. The downgrading factor of this tree is its appearance. Recommend removal. 47 24" camphor F 0.5 Comments: This tree is covered top to bottom with vines. The tree, has essentially no crown structure or form. The tree consists of a trunk with only a few lateral branches that have foliage tufted at the ends. The live crown ratio, structure and form are eKtremely poor. Recommend removal. AM I& —SOD 5 5,_ STORM SEWER LRqM SCHEDULE STORM SEWER STRUCrURE TABLE A/ 89"48'453y F 6' HIGH C.L.F. — TOP EL. 35.4 6' HIGH C. L. F — r5_9 NEW 2' BERM ----­� 35-9 F IL P/ TOP EL. 35 4 35, O�± M E)_\ ( — 12.45' —12.45' VARIES \ 0!Q PROPOSED ce D.H. EL. J4.9 GROUND \�EX. FOLD SIDE @ GROUND EL. =34.0 UJ > ce • z w TO Z w 0 LL UNOERDRAIN SYSTEM— cu < co z (SEE DETAILS) U) o -- WE z •W co _BO T EL 31,25 < m W U_ ,30 MIL. 50 L. F: OF 6 MEMBRANE U. D. @ INV. EL. = 30.4 CLEAN SAND SECTIONA-A N. T S. LINER ELEVATION 28.50 rA 0 ow cp P4 X '42 IIJ6 it co 140 z P4 will t*. z • z wis 0 V Z z Z 0 4 ci NJ & 0 Q Z mf L6 uj 0 0 3� AA gt • ILU 0 M win IN NEW ASPHALT"I I " �� - , 1, � ­ I- I ­,_1­___,,,l,,_ CHL. INJ. --N _'S I I I 3 OFF-SITE PAVEMENT 36.7 36.5 5.5 06. 0 (M, E) POINT 6" WATER LINE END WA EXISTING LL� lssu'e D + EXISTING 29.15 36.2 35.5,�z NEW 6 DIP ate* 03/25/08 NEW 6" PVC SAN POLYWR4PP D SILT FENCE ---­\ SEWER @ 17. MIN. NEW 1 SP pr mw 2 "G E M & BFk�2 6 "G, V 334.60' N 8,9051 '211 0 COVER) EXISTING 18" RCP ReVisions: 35, ?l No. Date Description ORA STOP NEW Al 06/05/08 PER DRC NEW C.O. P1 NEW 2" PVC ■ CITY INDEX 305 DOM. WATER (J6" MIN. COVER) .SECTION C-C 36.7 36.7 --- R.L, N. T S. + 36.", 36 .2 ■ + 'o 11/10/08 CITY OF CLVVR. 35.9 36. '00. NOTE., ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE 11/11/08 CLVV. STRMWTR A DIREC TED TO WRD POND A REA. 1 pi A p Ll 00 E lvicr ucl NEW 90 L.F. OF- TREE PRESERVATION TABLE 00 18" RCP a 0 L6 A 7F?F PROTECTION/ PRESERVATION NOTES AND DETAILS ARE ON SHEET Ll.2 DOWN J1 SF) DOM WATER rq NEW 6" PVC SAN. (J6" MIN. COVER) um rq 6'SETNDARY STORY-I '/Z k 37.27 W T_O SEWER @ 17. MIN. 00 EX. LATERAL 1R, 7 36.3 ■ r5_9 35-9 'o 11/10/08 CITY OF CLVVR. 35.9 36. '00. NOTE., ROOF RUNOFF SHALL BE 11/11/08 CLVV. STRMWTR A DIREC TED TO WRD POND A REA. 1 pi A p Ll 00 E lvicr ucl NEW 90 L.F. OF- TREE PRESERVATION TABLE 00 18" RCP a 0 L6 A 7F?F PROTECTION/ PRESERVATION NOTES AND DETAILS ARE ON SHEET Ll.2 DOWN J1 SF) DOM WATER rq NEW 6" PVC SAN. (J6" MIN. COVER) um rq 6'SETNDARY STORY-I '/Z k 37.27 W T_O SEWER @ 17. MIN. 00 EX. LATERAL 1R, 7 36.3 ■ COPIES OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH THE SIGNING ENGINEER'S SEAL 0!Q ce • < X UJ > ce • z w TO Z w 0 LL 0 cu < co z U) o -- WE z •W co C ) < m W U_ COPIES OF THESE PLANS ARE NOT VALID UNLESS EMBOSSED WITH THE SIGNING ENGINEER'S SEAL 'V., PER i. G3 G Elf ci A'�PHALT PARK11IG CrA, fE e,NLE T CRATE EL- IN',, EL 62 M— RN mi 25 HC 1 2 LM I i m 4 GOI PA NI o. C, a 0 m ul .8 5 t 10 LE KA T21,11VI'Ll, 5N OG f 1>1 < CL Ca iE Cl- rx a7 I-NE DRY RETENTION POND a rs W �zue Sate: 03/ 0;. ..evisions: 40. Date Description 06/05/08 IPEPDF-N'%-- LDSC TABLE ■ yr TREE AERATION (WANE 3000) CONCRETE ROOT PRUNE tr pI dpi Cc 8°' C. Est m cc y MAGNOLIA DRIVE SICIRM "RAM EL 7U (22' %SPHALT RiMl EL 1 S N EL 32,2' E N\11 El, 3213 wj QJ I 10- PALM RACK 'tl z7Pii,Lf PRRKaNG ;WE-r GRAJE EL = i7 11 1W, EL 62 N 89"48 '4 55 E 46.05' - 7-- I M W < Q_ CL S 89051 ' 42.94 �22' ASPHALF� PAHT (9'£p7 2'CURB - — - — -- - OH'I,' OH 0 0794�� Immlim Al 06/05/08 PER DRC A rl EL 2 4 / / iNv, EL H, N. EL i E i wj� E _ 1 iNV :', 3 EL S X" flNq3 b N A I FR-F FING 6" UNE tr pI dpi Cc 8°' C. Est m cc y MAGNOLIA DRIVE SICIRM "RAM EL 7U (22' %SPHALT RiMl EL 1 S N EL 32,2' E N\11 El, 3213 wj QJ I 10- PALM RACK 'tl z7Pii,Lf PRRKaNG ;WE-r GRAJE EL = i7 11 1W, EL 62 N 89"48 '4 55 E 46.05' - 7-- I M W < Q_ CL S 89051 ' 42.94 �22' ASPHALF� PAHT (9'£p7 2'CURB - — - — -- - OH'I,' OH 0 0794�� Immlim Al 06/05/08 PER DRC A rl A / / A A W3 slicum NOTE* SILT FENCE SHALL NOT BE TRENCHED IN WHERE ADJACENT TO TREES DESIGNATED TO REMAIN, THE SILT FENCE MUST BE SECURED THROUGH PLACEMENT OF FILL OVER THE LOWER LIP OF FHE LOWER LiP OF THE BARRICADE, I NOTE. SILT FENCES AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND BE MAINTAINED THROUGH THE PROJECT, PRINCIPAL POST OPTIONAL POSITION, CANTED PAST ST 20' TOWARD FLOW PS ITION 41 z Ci X-11 L A", i c E, S E INV LL _52 1,5 �AANHOL,� L'Vl Yi LX -t v ul i_j I yl _Lj n -1 v ird _r) Rl'A Ft, 3b24 PJNT MARKING 7, 1 , �N, 'e, i N iNv' FL 31 J, f?2 ASPHALT) uammEmmacm F, flNV U .Y 6 HjRt' i MANHOLE (22' "—END 0� P�PE V, E L '-E INV El- K1,55 A NO' FGUND -Eam-7—sm. Rad '6is z sfl CURB NLET X S ,7 EP: RiM D 2'CUPB XiSTH,u- �3" *-I N HN V EL = 3�, 12 - -------- PVC wATFP 4-ATER R c 4: ,35 9 Zll F-�] 12- PALM iE�- PALM x on (-,PATF F! = 37 7 Qj X34 c4 3 11 6' MAX­---� 15 3' 18" MIN. 1111 dill 20* NOTE. SILT FENCES AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION AND BE MAINTAINED THROUGH THE PROJECT, PRINCIPAL POST OPTIONAL POSITION, CANTED PAST ST 20' TOWARD FLOW PS ITION 41 z Ci X-11 L A", i c E, S E INV LL _52 1,5 �AANHOL,� L'Vl Yi LX -t v ul i_j I yl _Lj n -1 v ird _r) Rl'A Ft, 3b24 PJNT MARKING 7, 1 , �N, 'e, i N iNv' FL 31 J, f?2 ASPHALT) uammEmmacm F, flNV U .Y 6 HjRt' i MANHOLE (22' "—END 0� P�PE V, E L '-E INV El- K1,55 A NO' FGUND -Eam-7—sm. Rad '6is z sfl CURB NLET X S ,7 EP: RiM D 2'CUPB XiSTH,u- �3" *-I N HN V EL = 3�, 12 - -------- PVC wATFP 4-ATER R c 4: ,35 9 Zll F-�] 12- PALM iE�- PALM x on (-,PATF F! = 37 7 Qj X34 c4 3 11 Lu Ln rl.-. rn A z rn < ct 0 0 _V) ce. c e- 0 3: cef ce 0 u- Affm AM, 40 NO, fl -7- Olke, AMIALT EA 0 fit' m m 19 VAW LOT if wnr Uill 11 lip US < cN 7- (8 0 LL. Q > -S 0 Q N 76-1 0 g 0b 0 N isj LO to bi < cN 7- (8 0 LL. Q > -S Q N 76-1 g 0b 0 N