505 BELCHER RD SSO.s 13eVtVwY Q s .
Jffdoa &_ Oga59
E& 0 Co, Ltd (210 . -t b
34 W. ORANGE STREET
P. 0. BOX 1879
TARPON SPRINGS, FLORIDA 34688 -1879
TEL: (727) 938 -0160 • FAX: (727) 938 -0727
September 7, 2007
City Of Clearwater
100 S. Myrtle Ave.
P.O. Box 4748
Clearwater, FL 33758 -4748
Attn: Mr. Rick Albee
Land Resources Specialist
Re: Gulf To Bay Plaza Re- Development
Dear Mr. Albee,
This letter is to confirm that Ellis & Co., LLLP, owner of Gulf To Bay Plaza understands
that there exists a fifty -five inch (55 ") tree deficit on the above referenced project. This
project consists of one Publix anchored retail center and two out parcels. It is our
understanding that upon completion of development of the out parcels any remaining tree
deficit will be paid by Ellis & Co., LLLP, at that time.
Thank you for your cooperation in this matter.
/,a�/ G fo
Peter Ristorcelli
CFO
Ellis & Co., LLLP dba Ellis & Co., LTD
. t
ORIGINAL
RECEIVED
e
AUG 112006
'Free Reservation Plan J04 1 4 NINGDEPARTMENT
�� ulf --- to Bay Plaza CLOWAVUER
General site notew
All pruning and other arboricultural practices conducted on this site shall be
perforriied by or under the supervision of an International Society of
ArboricultUre (1SA) Certified Axborist and in accordance with applicable;
American National Standards Institute (ANST) criteria for tree care operations as
defined in ANSI A -•300.
fp Tree barricades shall be c..o.nstructed around protected trees being preserved prior
to the cormnencentent of construction or site clearing activities. Ba.rrica.d.es shall
be constructed using 2x4 luniber for upright frosts installed 5' on center to a
minimum depth of 12'', with a height of at least 3' extending above grade. The
upright posts shall be connected-with plastic orange Mesh equal to the height of
the 2x4 uprights and fastened securely to the upright posts. The barricades shall
remain irn place throughout the construction process and should. be inspected for
e10111pliance by City off Clearwater inspectors once installation is completed. The
locatiou of tree barricades will be delineated on the tree preservation plan.
A
Time uowWs that will be impaled by cotl3lrtrretlon or that are located over
proposed vehicular use areas will be raised to a miniarr.m7 height of 1.4' above
grade to facilitate construction eduiprnerrt. and fi.rf:ure vehicular traffic, .l "mining
;brill be completed prior to heavy eclr_rilaMMA e.nwring thA site and will be
delineated on the tree preservation plant.
boot pruning Nvill be performed by a Vermeer or )oscocil root pnin,ing machine
to a depth or 12" "nee barricades will be inwl.led in the roof: Imune _Lines
iintrnrediate1y after the root ptuning is complete. Ile root pwne trench shall be
backlilled tv.hb the same soil removed during tlne root: pri.nninag op€nrtion and all
delmis sl_rall be ranoved irony the sire. It will 1_re ±iece; nary to c nnstrll with the
Projec t. Superintendent. to det:ernaine the ei {ml locat.iori of the. root pri_tnc, lime, The
ai ea to be root limned will be delineated on the tree preservations plan.
'tij.A.P].T?. aeration units shall be installed per the manufacturer's sppcilic-ation ins.
th arcas designated on the tree preservation plan.
,;il)rvitic, tr ce preservation tr e-a- Wars. .
Me 01 -- The grade will be raised approxin ate°ly :1.5' within the portion of die c.ritic:al .
root zone (C ZZ = l' radius for ?,ach l" oftnink diameter ntcasurc:.d. 11..`x' 'above grade)
located in the proposed parkinrg'lot. In the CRZ area the existing. subbase Nvill remain
intact to preserve existing roots and new sub -base and asphalt will be adc e(l on top-
W.11.N..1'',. aeration units will be installed to a depth of 24" per ttt�; n�zrn +lf�rc.tAarc;rs spacing
to provide for the exchange of gases to the tree's root system. The fill will be retained by
Cxtcrx]ed curbs or landscape timbers as delineated on the plan. The tree will be t,arricaded
per the specifications in tine general site notes.
Trees 112 - 8 will not be. affected by proposed grade chantgles ai d their roots will not be
impacted. "17le trees will be barricaded and pruned per the speci,f.ica.t.ion in the general site
notes.
Trees 119 — will be iIn1) fated by the cotzstruction of a �,vate.r line, and will be root
prutred_ to a depth of 12" Nvinere delineated on the plan. `fire treys ;�i11 be lr�r.r�ic�arlecl and
pruned per the specification in the general site notes.
Ti'ee 11:12 — wilt be affected. by a grade cut and vA.Till be root pruned. to a depth of l'l„
wpare r.leliriC"rt(ld orr. the plan. The root pruning, crown pruning and bar rica)ding will be
perfortned per the specifications in. the general site notes.
I_
Tree Mitigation — Gulf —to — Bay Plaza
The following is an addendum to the tree inventory for Gulf — to —Bay Plaza.. Per City of
Clearwater policy, all protected trees and palms with an overall condition rating of 3.0 or
greater are required to be preserved or mitigated. Mitigation can be accomplished through
planting replacement trees on site that meet the requirements of the City's landscape code
or paying funds into the City's Tree Bank at $48.00 per diameter inch when replanting is
not possible. Mitigation can be a combination of replacement trees and paying into the
tree bank. In addition, the City may reduce mitigation if specific tree preservation
measures are implemented on site. The City's representative will determine the
mitigation once the final site plan is completed and the quantity of trees to be removed
and preserved is determined.
There are three classifications used to determine tree mitigation at this site:
1) Mitigation for protected trees is based on trunk diameter measurement. Trunk diameter
is determined by measuring the trunk at 4.5' above grade. If the tree forks at that point
the measurement is taken at the narrowest area of the trunk below the fork. If the tree has
basal codominant trunks, each trunk is measured at 4.5' above grade and added together.
2) Crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) trees are multi - stemmed accent trees and are
counted as 4" in diameter each. (Their actual diameter is approximately 12 ").
3) The palms are not measured by trunk diameter but by feet of clear trunk. Each palm
with an overall condition rating of 3.0 or greater is equal to 1" diameter.
'free removal data for Gulf -to -Bay Plaza
Total number of protected trees and palms on site: 135
Total number of protected shade trees on site: 103
Total number of shade trees rated 3.0 or greater: 48
Total diameter inches of shade trees rated 3.0 or greater: 582
Total number of crape myrtle trees on site: 19
Total number of crape myrtle trees rated 3.0 or greater: 19
Total diameter inches of crape myrtle trees rated 3.0 or greater: 76
Total number of protected palms on site: 13
Total number of palms rated 3.0 or greater: 10 (converted to 10 diameter inches)
Total number of diameter inches of shade trees, crape myrtle trees and palms on site with
an overall condition rating of 3.0 or greater: 668
Final mitigation will be determined by the number of trees and palms preserved in the
new development and the quantity and size of trees proposed for planting on the final
landscape plan.
s
1
Tree Inventory
Gulf — to — Bay Plaza
Clearwater, Florida
Prepared by Alan Mayberry
For: RMC Development LLC
November 22, 2005
The following report is submitted by Alan Mayberry, Consulting Arborist, and includes
findings that I believe are accurate based on my education, experience and knowledge in
the field of Arboriculture. I have no interest personally or financially in this property and
my report is factual and unbiased. This report is the property of RMC Development LLC
and will not be given to other entities unless so directed.
Site Overview and Tree Canopy Analysis
The subject site is commercial property located in Clearwater. The site consists of trees
planted to meet landscape requirements that are growing in landscape islands within
parking lots or in landscape buffers adjacent to parking lots. The tree canopy is
comprised primarily of two native shade tree species: the live oak (Quercus virginiana)
and the winged elm (Ulmus alata). In addition, the site supports a quantity of the exotic
crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) tree, and a few additional tree and palm species. The
trees and palms in general are suffering from poor overall maintenance, insufficient
irrigation and compacted soil conditions. The winged elms in particular have been
adversely affected from improper pruning practices such as topping and rounding over,
which have caused serious structural problems in these trees. Consequently, the majority
of the elms have been downgraded and recommended for removal. A large percentage of
the live oak trees also have structural issues and are recommended for removal. The
opportunity for tree preservation at this site is limited to a relatively small percentage of
trees that are structurally sound and systemically healthy. The inventory identifies several
trees that have minor structural problems but are otherwise healthy and could be
preserved per the remedial measures defined in the comments section for the individual
trees. Trees in this category should not be preserved if the remedial work will not be
performed. As trees and people will closely interface on this site it is paramount that the
site trees have good structure. A second problem facing the site trees is their locations
relative to space issues such as growing in or around small landscape areas, adjacent
structures, overhead utility wires, billboards etc. Tree preservation options are limited at
this site and the best strategy may be to plant new trees with good structure and species
characteristics and ensure that they have sufficient space and are maintained properly.
Following this .overview is an explanation of the terms and codes used in the tree
inventory and then the actual inventory, which will rate the individual trees. Please pay
attention to the site notes within the inventory as they contain specific information 'to
assist the development team with the site design in regards to tree preservation.
4
NOTE: This inventory will include an addendum that will breakdown the number of
trees (converted to diameter inches) that have a condition rating of 3.0 or above
(considered worthy of preservation and requiring mitigation) and the number of trees that
have a condition rating of 2.5 or less and do not require mitigation. This information can
be used in designing a landscape plan that meets the City's tree replacement
requirements.
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 data used in
the inventory:
Tree# - location - Each tree is assigned a number for reference in the inventory that
corresponds with a number on the site plan that identifies the location of the tree in the
field.
Size — Tree size is a measure of the tree's trunk diameter measured at 4.5' above grade. If
there is a fork in the trunk at that point the diameter is measured at the narrowest area
below the fork. Palm species are measured in feet of clear trunk (C.T.).
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 Rating — The condition rating is an assessment of the tree's overall structural
strength and systemic health. Elements of structure 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, codominant 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
include: 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.
Increments of 0.5 are used to increase accuracy. Examples of the tree rating system areas
follows:
0- A dead 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 #1
ecological pest i.e., Brazilian pepper tree (Schinus terebinthifolius). 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 dieback,
cracked/split scaffold branches etc. In addition, a tree with health issues such as low
energy, low live crown ratio, serious disease or insect problems, nutritional deficiencies
or soil pH problems. A tree with a rating of #2 should be removed unless the problem(s)
can be treated. A tree with a #2 condition rating will typically require a considerable_
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 can be
corrected with moderate maintenance. A tree with a codominant 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 #3. 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 structure 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 trees
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 considerable value
to the site and should be incorporated into the site design. A tree with a #5 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 recommendations on whether to remove or preserve a tree.
NOTE: A tree inventory is typically valid for 3 -5 years. However, events such as
drought, lightning, mechanical root damage, freeze, improper maintenance and
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 (ISA) Certified Arborist.
Note: Whenever possible it is advised to adhere to inventory recommendations when
selecting trees to be preserved. For example, trees rated 4.0 and higher should be
preserved if at all possible, while trees rated 2.0 and lower should be removed unless
otherwise noted in the inventory. Trees rated 2.5 are generally recommended for removal
unless remedial work is performed to upgrade them. Trees rated 3.0 and 3.5 are average
trees that have good potential and warrant serious consideration for preservation but not
to the extent that site plan modifications are necessary.
This tree inventory was conducted on November 15 & 16, 2005. The weather was
clear with good visibility. The leaves were beginning to fall on some of the winged
elm trees consequently their systemic health was judged by inspection of the stems.
The remainder of the species had not started leaf senescence.
Per City of Clearwater requirements the tree inventory will provide specific
information in the comments section as justification for each tree with an overall
condition rating of 2.5 or below. In addition, trees rated 3.0 and higher may also
have specific comments to assist the development team in their decision making
process.
Tree Inventory
Tree # Size Species Rating
1 13" live oak (Quercus virginiana) 3.0
2 T6" live oak 3.0
3 i16" live oak 2.0
Comments: This tree has very poor structure due to severe rounding over of the crown to
maintain a view to the existing billboard located east of the tree. The live crown ratio and
crown density are very good however, the structure is beyond repair. Recommend
removal.
NOTE: The crowns of trees #1 -3 have been rounded over to maintain a view to the
billboard located east of these trees. Rounding the crown of a tree requires annual
pruning to remove new growth so that the tree is maintained at a designated height. This
technique is an improper pruning technique and should not be performed on shade tree
species. It is in fact prohibited by City of Clearwater code. In time it will ruin the
structure of the tree and cause structural defects that may lead to failure. Tree 43 has been
rounded so severe that the structure is beyond repair and it is recommended for removal.
Trees # U2 are otherwise healthy with good live crown ratio and crown density. The
structure has been affected by the rounding over but with proper pruning the structure
could be restored. If the billboard is to remain these trees should be removed. If the
billboard will be removed as part of the new development the trees should be preserved
provided the new site layout will accommodate the trees.
4 10" live oak 2.5
Comments: The trunk of this tree forms a codominant stem 5' above grade where it forks
to form the scaffold branches that support the crown. The crotch is slightly included and
this condition will worsen annually. The crown has average form and live crown ratio.
This tree could be preserved if cabling and bracing is performed on the crotch or if
subordinate pruning is performed until a central leader is established, otherwise
recommend removal.
5 13 live oak 2.5
Comments: The trunk of this tree forms a codominant stem with severely included bark.
The crotch is bulging indicating internal fracture. The form and live crown ratio is very
good but this tree can only be preserved if the crotch is cabled and braced, otherwise it
should be removed.
6 6" winged elm (Ulmus alata) 2.5
Comments: This tree forms a codominant stem with included bark 7' above grade. The
crown has the vase shape that is typical for the elm species. The live crown ratio is above
average. The tree is downgraded due to poor overall structure. The majority of the site
trees suffer from poor structure due to lack of proper pruning. Consequently, this tree is
recommended for removal.
7 7" winged elm. 2.5
Comments: This tree forms a. codominant stem 7' above grade. The upper crown
structure is below average due to improper pruning. The live crown ratio is above
average. Recommend removal.
8 .7" winged elm 3.0
Comments: this tree has average structure and would improve with subordinate pruning.
9 5" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree forms three codominant stems 6' above grade that have included
bark. The form and live crown ratio are above average but the tree is down graded and
recommended for removal due to poor structure.
10 13" live oak 3.5
Comments: This tree has good overall structure and very good live crown ratio. There is a
girdling root that is embedded at the base but the tree has solved this problem. The
overall form is good and the tree provides aesthetic benefits to the site. Recommend
preservation.
11 .8" live oak 3.0
12 17" live oak 2.5
Comments: This tree is systemically healthy and has a beautiful crown but has been
downgraded due to structural problems. The tree forms codominant stems 4.5' above
grade that are severally included and display the bulging at the crotch that indicates
internal fracture. In addition, on the south side at the base beginning 6" above grade the
tree has a wound that is 6" wide and 15" high. The tree is closing the wound but it will
experience decay and strength loss. The tree has two rubbing branches in the upper crown
and needs corrective pruning. Recommend removal.
13 9" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has an asymmetrical flattened trunk base on the east side indicating
previous root loss. This tree is primarily downgraded due to the presence of two grafted
scaffold branches and rubbing branches in the crown. The overall structure is below
average. The live crown ratio and form are good. Recommend removal due to structural
issues.
14 9" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree was missed during the tree survey but has been located on the
inventory sheet. This tree has below average structure resulting from years of improper
pruning. The tree develops two codominant stems with included bark in the crotch 6'
above grade. The upper crown structure is below average. The tree has surface roots
growing towards the west that have been wounded to the extent that they will suffer
significant decay. Recommend removal.
NOTE: Trees #15, 16, 17, 18 & 24 are growing in a landscape buffer along Belcher
Road where a rack of nine utility wires are located above the sidewalk. The wires start at
20' above grade and extend upwards and interfere with the growth of the branches on the
west side of the canopies. The trees have been pruned in the past and will need to be
pruned in the future to prevent interference with the wires. As these trees are located in a
buffer and provide needed tree canopy along Belcher Road their preservation may be
desirable in the new site design. They could be periodically pruned to accommodate the
wires and while this pruning will develop a more one sided crown it will not affect the
overall structural stability of the trees. However, if these trees will be removed as part of
the new site design then accent trees that will not interfere with the overhead wires
should be planted in the required perimeter buffer.
15 15"
live oak
3.5
Comments: This tree is very healthy with a good form. However, a large rack of nine
utility wires are located 12' to the west of this tree and extend to the south parallel with
Belcher Road. The tree will have to be pruned in the future to accommodate the wires
and consequently it will have a one sided crown. However, this will not affect its
structure and it is worthy of preservation.
16 12"
live oak
3.0
Comments: This tree is a good tree that will also have to be pruned to accommodate the
utility wires to the west but is recommended for preservation.
17
T9
live oak
3.0
18
13"
live oak
3.0
NOTE: The tree survey does not show the crape myrtle trees growing at this site. Crape
myrtle trees are accent trees and are protected by City of Clearwater code if the collective
diameter of the multiple stems exceeds 4" in diameter at 4.5' above grade. The size of the
crape myrtle trees will be listed as 4" as approved by City staff.
19 4" crape myrtle (Lagerstroemia indica) 4.0
20 4" crape myrtle 4.0
21 4" crape myrtle 4.0
22 4" crape myrtle 3.5
23 4" crape myrtle 4.0
24 18" live oak 4.0
Comments: This tree is located 10' from the utility wires, 12' from a concrete pole .
supporting the traffic lights and 2' from a pedestrian sidewalk adjacent to the center's
entry drive. However, this tree has very good structure, high live crown ratio and has a
beautiful appearance. The tree could be preserved but will require considerable pruning
and creative design to incorporate it into the new site design.
25 5" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has poor form and has a codominant stem 9' above grade. It has
suffered from improper pruning. Recommend removal.
26 7" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has poor structure in the form of several codominant stem
formations in the lower and mid crown. Recommend removal.
27
4"
crape myrtle
4.0
28
4"
crape myrtle
4.0
29
4"
crape myrtle
3.5
30
4"
crape myrtle
4.0
31
4"
crape myrtle
3.0
32
14"
live oak
3.5
Comments: This tree has good structure, form and live crown ratio. The tree is located in
a. 21' wide landscape buffer adjacent to the south property line and as such may be able to
be incorporated into the new site design. The tree is 5' from an existing side walk and
may need periodic root pruning to avoid uplifting the walk way. In addition, proper
pruning will enhance this tree's development. Recommend preservation.
33 18" live oak 3.5
Comments: This tree has an attractive spreading crown and high live crown ratio. The
structure is good but one of the scaffold branches on the east side is developing included
bark in the crotch and may need cabling and bracing in the future. However, it is a good
overall tree and warrants preservation.
34 7" live oak 2.5
Comments: This tree has been downgraded because two of the main scaffold branches
that form the crown are developing included bark. The condition cannot be remedied by
subordinate pruning and as the tree has mediocre form it is not recommended for cabling
and bracing. This tree could be preserved but will need considerable maintenance in the
future. Recommend removal unless there is a commitment to the maintenance.
35 17" live oak 13.5
Comments: This tree has a beautiful spreading form and very good live crown ratio. The
tree has a large scaffold branch that goes toward the east that is developing included bark
in the crotch and will likely need cabling and bracing in the future. However, this is a
good overall tree and warrants the future maintenance. Recommend preservation.
NOTE: Trees #36 — 39 were missed on the tree survey but have been located in the tree
inventory. They are growing in a 3' landscape buffer located adjacent to the south
property line and 2' from a curb that line a driveway next to the south side of the Publix
building. The trees are also growing close to a fence that separates the adjacent multi-
family residential property. The roots have a generous rooting area on the property to the
south but are too close to the curb and are beginning to cause damage to the curb and
pavement. They are for the most part good trees and could be preserved if the landscape
buffer is widened in the new design.
36 17" live oak 3.0
Comments: This tree has suffered two large wounds on lateral branches that overhang the
driveway. The branches will need to be removed to accommodate vehicular traffic.
NOTE: There is a very large live oak tree (50' height) located 6' south of the curb and 3'
off the property line. The crown of this tree overhangs the entire driveway and almost
touches the Publix building. The tree has a codominant trunk in the basal area that is
severely included. This condition is hidden by the fence but failure is common in basal
codominant trunks on older mature trees. This tree is a serious threat to cause property
damage or personal injury if failure occurs. It is recommended that the adjacent property
owner be contacted and this tree be stabilized through cable and bracing procedures. In
addition, it should noted that as this tree's root system extends well into the subject
property the tree's root system will have to protected per City of Clearwater code
requirements if new development occurs in this area.
37 10" live oak 2.5
Comments: This tree is growing against a railroad tie that replaces the curb and has
caused minor damage to the pavement. This tree is downgraded due to a large wound
located 10' above grade on a large scaffold branch going over the drive. The branch will
continue to grow and be wounded by large trucks utilizing this area. If the branch is
removed it will disfigure the tree. The tree can solve the present wound if the wounding
ceases. Therefore, the only way this tree should be preserved is if the landscape buffer is
enlarged so vehicular traffic will no longer affect the tree, otherwise recommend removal.
38 18" live oak 2.5
Comments: This tree is also located near the railroad tie and has uplifted the pavement.
The tree is downgraded due to poor structure. The tree forms three scaffold branches 7'
above grade that are severely included. The crotches display the swellings that indicate
internal fracture. The tree also has a wound on the trunk but the tree appears to have
successfully compartmentalized the wound. The tree has a spreading trunk that lends high
aesthetic value to the property and it is very healthy. However, this tree will need cabling
and bracing to ensure structural stability, otherwise this tree should be removed.
39 19" live oak 2.5
Comments: This tree has also caused minor damage to the pavement. This tree has been
downgraded because it forms a severely included codominant trunk 4.5' above grade.
The crotch displays the swellings indicating internal fracture. The tree has good form,
systemic health and good upper crown structure but will need cabling and bracing if it is
to be preserved.
NOTE: Trees #40 -50 are located in a 10' landscape buffer along the east property line
that separates the subject property from an adjacent mobile home park. Some of the trees
have overhead utility wires running directly through their canopies (the lowest wire is
about 15' above grade). They will be addressed individually in the inventory. However,
collectively, if the overhead wires will remain in the new development it would be best to
replace these trees with accent species. In addition, G.T.E. has recently flagged this area
as having an underground cable present. It appears that some disturbance occurred
around the base of tree #41. If there was open trenching near these trees it will severally
affect their future health and structural stability. This determination should be-made and
the trees re- evaluated if the impact did occur.
40' 17" live oak 4.0
Comments: This tree has very good structure, form and systemic health. Recommend
preservation.
41 17" live oak 2.5
Comments: This tree forms four codominant scaffold branches 7' above grade with two
of the branches being severally included. The tree has a trunk canker below the branches
but the tree has solved it. The form is very attractive and the tree is systemically healthy.
This is a very good tree with the exception of the structural problems. This tree warrants
cabling and bracing to ensure structural stability, otherwise it should be removed.
42 15" live oak 3.5
43 15" live oak 3.0
Comments: This tree has a slightly included codominant stem in the main crotch and may
need cabling and bracing in the future. It also has a rubbing branch in the upper crown
that needs removal. Recommend preservation.
44 11" live oak 2.5
Comments: The overhead power wires run directly through the crown of this tree and it
has been pruned to accommodate them. In addition, two large lateral branches have been
removed on the west side to accommodate trucks that use this area. The tree is essentially
one -sided to the east. Recommend removal of this tree unless the power wires will be
removed as part of the new development.
45 10" live oak 2.5
Comments: The form and structure of this tree are average. It has been downgraded
because the utility wires are running directly through the crown. If the wires will be
relocated this tree could be pruned into a good tree and would warrant preservation.
46 14" laurel oak (Quercus laurifolia) 2.0
Comments: This tree has very poor structure in the trunk and lower canopy. It has been
pruned hard because of the utility wires and has long branch stubs, sucker growth and
dieback in the canopy. Recommend removal.
47 14" live oak 2.5
Comments: This tree forms two codominant trunks with severally included bark 4' above
grade. The crotch is exhibiting swellings that indicate internal fracture. The crown has
been over - pruned due to the wires. The form and live crown ratio are average.
Recommend removal.
48 14" live oak 2.0
Comments: This tree has very poor structure as it forms a codominant trunk with
severally included bark 4.5' above grade. The upper crown also exhibits codominant
stems. The crown has been pruned hard due to the overhead wires. Recommend removal.
49 14" live oak 3.0
Comments: This tree has good structure and live crown ratio but is suffering from the
presence of the wires which are located low.in the crotch of this tree. This tree should be
removed unless the wires are being relocated.
50 12" live oak 3.0 .
Comments: This tree has average structure and good live crown ratio but will also have to
be removed unless the wires are relocated.
51
12'
C.T.
Chinese fan palm (Livistona chinensis)
3.0
52
20'
C.T.
sabal palm (Sabal palmetto)
4.0
NOTE: The tree survey shows another palm at this location however, it is not included in
this inventory as it has less than 10' of clear trunk and is not protected by City code.
53 5" winged elm 3.0
54 8" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has a severally included codominant trunk 3.5' above grade. The
crotch has been included for several years and shows signs of internal fracture.
Recommend removal.
55 5"
winged elm
2.5
Comments: This tree has very good live crown ratio and form. However, the tree has
poor structure as it has several codominant stems in the lower and mid crown. This tree's
overall condition rating would be upgraded to a 3.0 if structural pruning was performed.
56 6" winged elm 3.0
57 9" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has a tight v- shaped codominant trunk 4.5' above grade. The tree
produces two more codominant scaffold branches in the mid crown. The tree also has
surface roots that have been scarred by lawnmowers. The form and live crown ratio are
very good but the tree has been downgraded due to poor form. Recommend removal.
winged elm
2.5
Comments: This trunk of this tree has a severally included fork 3' above grade. The two
codominant trunks fork to form additional codominant stems. Recommend removal due
to poor structure.
NOTE: Trees #59 -61 are live oak trees and are located in a 6' wide landscape . buffer
adjacent to Gulf — to —Bay Boulevard. The trees are situated 3' from the sidewalk of Gulf
to — Bay and are growing beneath a utility wire that is approximately 13' above grade.
The live oak tree reaches massive proportions and will ultimately damage the sidewalk,
curb and street with its root system. These trees should be removed and replaced with
accent tree species unless the new development will have a buffer of at least 20' in width
that will accommodate a large shade tree species. In addition, the single utility wire
would need to be relocated.
59
10"
live oak
3.0
60
13"
live oak
2.5
Comments: This tree is downgraded due to a codominant trunk with included bark 4'
above grade. The crotch is displaying the swelling that indicates internal fracture at the
inclusion. The utility wire is rubbing a branch in the crown and the canopy will need to
be pruned hard to accommodate the wire. This young tree has also started to crack the
sidewalk. The crown is attractive and the tree is systemically healthy however, it is
recommended for removal.
61
11"
live oak
3.0
62
11"
winged elm
3.5
Comments: This tree was missed in the tree survey but has been added. It is a healthy tree
with good structure. Recommend preservation.
63 9"
live oak
3.0
Comments: This tree develops three codominant scaffold branches 5' above grade
however, the tree has a central leader and the codominant situation could be easily
corrected through subordinate pruning. The live crown ratio, systemic health and form
are good. Recommend preservation if the subordinate pruning will be performed.
64 5"
winged elm
2.5
Comments: This tree has below average form, structure and live crown ratio.
Recommend removal.
65 5"
winged elm
2.0
Comments: This tree forms a codominant trunk 3' above grade that is beginning to
become included in the crotch. The form and live crown ratio are below average.
Recommend removal.
winged elm
2.5
Comments: This tree has poor structure and form as it has been pruned too hard.
Recommend removal.
67 7" winged elm 2.0
Comments: This tree has a codominant trunk 5' above grade and produces additional
codominant stems in the upper crown. The tree has been improperly pruned and has poor
structure. Recommend removal.
68 7" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree forms a codominant trunk 3' above grade. There is a large wound in
the basal area starting 6" above grade and extending up the trunk for 8 ". The wound will
result in basal decay. The upper crown is producing codominant branches. Recommend
removal.
69
6"
winged elm
3.0
70
12"
winged elm
2.5
Comments: This tree forms a codominant trunk with a severally included crotch 5' above
grade. The crotch is displaying signs of internal fracture. The upper crown is also
producing codominant stems. Recommend removal.
71 4" winged elm 2.0
Comments: This tree has poor structure, form and live crown ratio. Recommend removal.
72 7" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has a codominant stem 8' above grade that is just beginning to
become included. The form and live crown ratio are good. The overall condition of this
tree will improve if the tree is cabled and braced however; it would be more cost effective
to replace it with a new central leader tree. Recommend removal.
73 7" winged elm 3.0
74 6" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has codominant stems in the lower and middle crown and has two
rubbing branches. Recommend removal due to poor structure.
75
6"
winged elm
3.0 '
76
20' C.T.
sabal palm
4.5
Comments: A beautiful and healthy palm, recommend preservation or relocation.
77 18' C.T. sabal palm 4.5
Comments: See comments for tree #76.
78 25' C.T. I sabal palm 2.5
Comments: This palm produces a pronounced inverted trunk restriction approximately
18' above grade. This could be an area for future failure, recommend removal.
79 18' C.T. sabal palm
3.0
80' 4" crape myrtle
3.0
81 4" crape myrtle
3.0
82 4" crape myrtle
4.0
83 20' C.T. sabal palm
4.0
84 20' C.T. sabal palm
2.5
Comments: This palm has an inverted trunk restriction 18' above grade that could lead to
future Failure. Recommend removal.
85 4" crape myrtle
3.5
86 4" crape myrtle
4.0
87 4" crape myrtle
4.0
88 22' C.T. sabal palm
3.0
89 4" crape myrtle
3.5
90 7" winged elm
2.0
Comments: This tree is partially uplifted as the root collar is mounded
up and the tree has
a pronounced lean to the south. The tree also has poor structure as
it produces a
codominant trunk 4' above grade. The form and live crown ratio are below average.
Recommend removal.
91 4" winged elm
2.0
Comments: This tree has a codominant trunk 4' above grade, a girdling root at the base,
low live crown ratio and poor overall form. Recommend removal.
92 6" winged elm
3.0
93 8" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree forms a codominant trunk 4.5' above grade and a second
codominant trunk 5.0' above grade. Both attachments have included bark present in the
crotch. The tree forms additional codominant branches in the mid crown area. The form
and live crown ratio are average. Recommend removal.
94 7" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has minor damage to the root collar from lawnmowers. It also has
an embedded girdling root. The structure is poor due to several tight crotches and
codominant stems. Recommend removal.
95 6' winged elm 2.0
Comments: This tree is leaning and is partially uprooted. It has a basal wound on the
northwest side that extends 3' up the trunk. The form and structure are below average.
Recommend removal.
96 8" winged elm 3.5
97 6" winged elm 3.0
98 7" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has large surface roots that have wounds that will result in decay.
The trunk is asymmetrical on the east side indicating root loss. The tree has two scaffold
branches that have included bark in the crotch. Recommend removal.
99 6" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree forms a codominant trunk 4.5' above grade that is just becoming
included in the crotch. The form and structure are below average, recommend removal.
100 7' winged ehn 2.0
Comments: This tree has been previously topped and the structure severally damaged.
Recommend removal.
101 8" winged elm 3.0
102 9" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree was previously topped and has formed epicormic branches which
are weakly attached. The form and live crown ratio are good but the tree is downgraded
due to poor overall structure. This tree could be preserved if crown restoration pruning is
performed otherwise recommend removal.
103 7" winged elm 3.0
104 4" crape myrtle 4.0
105 4' crape myrtle 4.0
106 6' winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree forks into a codominant trunk 8' above grade with a crotch that is
becoming included. The upper crown has two rubbing branches, below average form and
has been over - pruned. Recommend removal.
107 5" winged elm 3.0
108 7" winged elm 3.0
109 5" winged elm 3.0
110 6" winged elm 2.0
Comments: This tree has a severally included codominant trunk 3' above grade. The
crown is anemic and the overall form is poor. Recommend removal.
111 5" winged elm 3.0
112 5" winged elm 3.0
113 7" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has a severally included codominant trunk at 3' above grade.. The
crotch is displaying the swellings indicating internal fracture. The crown and live crown
ratio are average, but the structure is poor. Recommend removal.
114 8" winged elm 3.0
115 10" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree has very poor form as it develops a severally included codominant
trunk 3' above grade. It is already showing signs of internal fracture. The upper crown
also has several codominant stems. Recommend removal.
116 6" winged elm 3.0
117 7" winged elm 2.0
Comments: This tree forms a codominant trunk 18" above grade and indicates internal
fracture. The upper crown structure is below average. Recommend removal.
118 9" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree develops four scaffold branches emanating from the same area on
the. trunk. Two of the codominant branches are included and there is a wire embedded in
one of the crotches. The tree has been topped previously and the overall structure is very
poor. Recommend removal.
119 7" winged elm 2.0
Comments: This tree forms a severally included codominant trunk 3' above grade. 5.5'
above grade the tree develops three more codominant stems. This tree has suffered from
poor pruning in the form of flush cuts and stub cuts. The form and live crown ratio are
below average. Recommend removal.
120 9" winged elm 2.5
Comments: This tree develops a severally included codominant trunk 4.5' above grade.
The crotch is displaying the swellings on each end that indicate internal fracture. The tree
is leaning and is slightly mounded at the root collar. The eastern trunk forks into two
codominant branches that have included bark. The crown has good form and high live
crown ratio but the tree is recommended for removal due to poor structure.
121 7" winged elm 3.0
NOTE: Trees # 122 -134 are part of an annexed property and as such reflect different
maintenance patterns. The pruning performed on these trees exhibit a higher standard of
professional treecare.
122 12' C.T. queen palm (Syagrus romanzoffiana) 3.0
Comments: This palm is systemically healthy but may not warrant preservation due to
scarring on the trunk.
123' 20' C.T. queen palm 2.0
Comments: This palm develops a trunk restriction 14' above grade. In addition, the bark
has sloughed off from most of the trunk in the first 7' of the trunk and has diminished any
aesthetic value. Recommend removal.
124 10' C.T. sabal palm 3.5
125 26" live oak 4.0
Comments: This tree has very good structure in the trunk and throughout the crown and
has very good systemic health as indicated by vigorous shoot growth at the branch tips.
The live crown ratio is only average due to extensive pruning to accommodate this tree to
vehicular traffic and the former mobile homes. The pruning reflects proper cuts and
professional maintenance. This tree is very worthy of preservation. Allow as much
undisturbed rooting area as possible, preferably equal to the tree's dripline (outermost
branch spread).
126 36" live oak 4.5
Comments: This tree has exceptional structure and systemic health. The trunk forms two
large scaffold branches 7' above grade but the crotch is u- shaped with connective tissue
present. A large branch was removed 8' above grade but it was a correct collar cut and
the tree will compartmentalize the wound. The live crown ratio is high and the tree is
showing vigorous growth at the tips, mostly likely due to the extensive rooting area
available. The form is good and this tree lends high aesthetic value to the property. This
tree should be preserved if at all possible. If preserved, allow as much undisturbed
rooting area as possible, preferably equal to the tree's dripline.
127 35' C.T. Washington palm (Washingtonia robusta) 4.5
Comments: Recommend preservation in place or relocation on site.
128 23" live oak 3.0
Comments: This tree is located on or within a foot of the east property line. The tree has a
large wire running through the center of the crown and it appears to be lying on a lateral
branch. The branch that it is laying on grows to the southeast and onto the roof and wall
of an adjacent building. This entire large branch could be removed and it would solve the
wire problem and the interference with the building. A second solution would be to
relocate the wire or place a wrap on the wire to protect both the wire and the branch. This
tree is border line as to whether it should be preserved. The crown is irregular due to the
pruning to accommodate the wire. The structure is below average but the live crown ratio
is very good. However, as it is growing on the property line it likely will end up in a
landscape buffer. This tree could be incorporated into the site design; however it will
need maintenance to solve the wire issue.
NOTE: The tree survey shows a palm south of tree #128, but it has less than 10' of clear
trunk and is not protected by city code.
129 32" live oak 3.0
Comment: This tree forks into three trunks 4' above grade. Both crotches are included
and displaying early signs of internal fracture as there is slight swelling on the outside of
the crotch. This is the type of codominant attachment that can lead to failure in live oak
trees. The live crown ratio and the upper crown structure are good. The form is beautiful
as the tree has a wide - spreading picturesque crown. This tree is young and healthy and
could evolve into a signature landscape centerpiece if maintained properly. If preserved
this tree should be cabled and braced to ensure structural stability. It is warranted given
the aesthetic amenities that this tree will impart to the site.
130 24" Brazilian pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius) 0.0
Comments: This tree is a noxious exotic species that is on the category one list of the
State of Florida's Exotic Pest Plant Council list. It is against the law in the City of
Clearwater to plant this tree and state law requires its removal in new developments.
Removal is mandatory.
Note: The site plan shows a palm tree existing to the west of tree #130 but it has less than
10' of clear trunk and is not protected by city code.
131 11" laurel oak 3.0
Comments: This tree is an exceptional tree except for a codominant leader 10' above
grade. This codominant could easily be corrected through subordinate pruning.
Recommend preservation.
132 5" golden rain (Koelreuteria paniculata) 2.0
Comments: This tree has a sparse crown and the scaffold branch on the north side is
dead. Recommend removal.
133 38" laurel oak 3.0
Comments: This tree appears to be a hybrid laurel /water oak. It is a mature tree with an"
attractive form as it displays a large rounded symmetrical canopy. The live crown ratio
and overall structure are slightly above average. The tree has several large scaffold
branches emanating from the same general area of the trunk but they do not appear to be
in jeopardy of failing. The tree has an open cavity on the west side of the trunk 6' above
grade that is 1' high by 10" wide. It is not causing serious structural problems. On the
north side at the base there is a cavity that extends into the tree about 2'. This type of
cavity is a concern. The decay is not serious now, but it is progressive and will undermine
the tree's stability in the future. The tree also has some trunk cankers but they are not
serious. The systemic health is average. The tip growth is minimal and the canopy
slightly thinning which in indicative of the onset of old age. This tree is ready to begin
the mortality spiral common to water or laurel oak trees of this age. They typically reach
an age of about 65 years in urban areas. In its current condition it is worthy of
preservation. However,. this tree as noted is entering an irreversible health decline stage
of its life which will be accelerated by any impact from the proposed development. ,And
as its root system covers such a vast area, impacts are inevitable. Consequently, this tree
is not recommended for preservation. The site would be better served to preserve the
higher rated live oak trees which can live up to 300 years and are more able to withstand
construction impacts.
134 31" . live oak . 2.5
Comments: This tree is downgraded due to very poor structure. The trunk has a
codominant beginning at 1' above grade that is included for 3'. The crotch is displaying
the swelling around the crotch that indicates internal fracture. This type of basal
codominant is prone to fail when the tree becomes large however; it could be stabilized
with cabling and bracing procedures. The upper crown structure, form and live crown
ratio is very good. If secured by cabling and bracing this tree could evolve into a
beautiful tree, otherwise removal is recommended due to poor structure.
135 19" live oak 3.0
Comments: This tree has a utility pole 7' west of the trunk and a rack of wires are
running north and south and east through the crown of this tree. The crown has been
pruned considerably due to the presence of the wires and will have to be pruned in the
future if the wires stay. The structure and systemic health are good. The form has
suffered due to the pruning and the crown is somewhat irregular. If the wires will be
relocated as part of the new development then this tree could be preserved and it will
evolve into a good tree with proper pruning. If the wires will stay removal is
recommended.
TREES TO BE REMOVED
�st)
Dui ��
L\
Oaks
OTHER TREES
CREPE MYRTLE,WINGED ELM
DIAMETER
QTY
TOTAL INCHES
QTY
TOTAL INCHES
36
2
72
0
0
24"
1
24
0
0
1511-1811
6
105
0
0
9t'-14"
13
150
1
12
411-811
12
76
37
196
TOTAL OAK:
427"
TOTAL OTHER: 208"
PALMS 12
�st)
Dui ��
L\
Ste'`
0
CITY OF CLEARWATER - PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
TREE REMOVAL PERMIT
NAME OF OWNER e L_ i C 5;, L 70
SITE ADDRESS 5 >` C G uc s yo !jA TO gA P141
PHONE 727 - °13 $ • o 1&0 AO*$'o =
OWNER'S ADDRESS O 0• Ao K / 0 79 ?gaiary 5P/�+.vc� 5. Y� 346.0
LOCATION OF TREE(S) ON LOT 5 E< 5
SPECIES AND NUMBER OF TREE(S) �ff E Df�wiv�5�
TO APPLICANT: A non - refundable fee of $15.00 for up to five trees to
be removed, plus $3.00 for every tree above 5 to be
removed is required.
REASON FOR REMOVAL:
)(Construction
*See "A" below
❑ Hazardous
❑ Declining
• Dead
• Other (Specify)
Fee Rec'd. $
A) CONSTRUCTION
Date
1. For new construction, additions or other modifications of a property which involve the removal of a protected tree(s),
a site plan is required. This site plan must have a minimum scale of 1 " =20' for single family lots, or 1 " =50' for all others. The
site plan must include:
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.
Z
O
0
6-
i
B) REPLACEMENTS y
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.
Cn
I hereby certify that as property owner or as representative of the property owner, I have verified that the tree(s) sought y
to be removed is wholly on property owned by the above - identified property owner, and should it be determined that 10
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-tthe r it issued shall render it null and void and be considered a violation of the Community Development Code.
1 �R�,riN GaNST 1'�v�. �oUF�2 �i'�a 9�►Z.�D fo ,�
Si nature of owner or applicant Printed Name
. c2. _A9 X /(0 3 6 1�4yyi lw!5l z ew3 r -7-we.
Address Agency Representing OCL # `v
7,42-020N 5 ,F/21,(145 . F'4 3.4,,145 City State Zip
mss«- 727•Q63.4)31 27.93$• 3zoS
7
Phone /Cell Fax
Based on the Inspector's comments and information submitted, the above removal application is:
❑ Approved as Submitted Approved- Modified as Noted Above ❑ Denied
Signed: °-'"` ���'` °- - Date:
Community Development coordinator or Designee /Inspector Valid for six1months from the date of issuance.
1362.0001 -GC White - Planning & Development Services Yellow - Applicant Rev. 2-03
T0 ifs MIN IIV7.AC`7 f OR 7llf: —_ —� I . , r µ � „ ,.. � `��r ... }, � �:�7 .i �
C1 4, 9 � �*, ,:;
'')N 01' CONSNUCTION
4„ aF1'L�6
,
I a 1471
{ I I I k I 1 1 CROSS
it
{ 4
7 _ _ �
T
". �.,... ,,.,;r ),;, "R._..w ..,.,.. _. ..... ......... ....._. .,.,.».. ...._... ..,,,,.:, ....., '� _ I... �., 1. ., (.... L._ L,. I__I......w � . ,„L.!'L"`. "`dvw::
1 1 i C� A i I �.,.
1 It` I I I .. I ,n .,`1 I,Y.�•.1� I I I 1! L wry I` w I
<.. pd��' ; , �Y: o L,.L_ �_(�_ €_.L�.L_._.l_1._f_.C.. �.C�,_ L.�
! (-f.: p I I i I I I 11 i I :; ,. dr „ :._ t E� 4 i
y I f I! I , ;J ,{ i,. ' {`� �`� ! I I ICS .._µ �._ �, �_ L L_ (:..� L_iwu1. I -:t._ I I . L'. �.. I-_ I. I
BOX °�
1 I I 1 •.
. �
RETAIL. S
1 152
1
!�R3M w,„�.�.J
` NVJ% ,. -68,99 s' F? E� I E � E I
i i I- I I i �
i.. 11, Cl > , F','
� I_:: I -- t I _ t.,
�� . • .. �. -- : c:. � I I .`1.` .. I __� _,m' . -. ��m : � wY _ _ �__ ._. __ _..1 _ I ,w I ._ 1 ..1 M .1.�._ Y
6. w�6
1( zd I I I I 1
_P J r�
� .
1 1 I I i I C I I I I
���� �., I I I I I E i I� t' I E I L I 1 I I I I, I I I 1 I I ! ( "" ���> "� 1� 1
r , ' R TAIL. � 1�` C � � tin F!
1. IN.EC�
L
L 1 3 E7
1X0:35 S,F t. I :.
;�, . �.�
�-
i. C�i s
FtE. Ti AI IL I STORE 1 I I1. I C I I 1401 I I
i _ I _._ __._ I 1 ._ _T } 1 .
I
I r I
1 T/p
I I I C I I P I t I.•, ,.I ,..�., ,. I j _4. t .
LL( I..- L_
'CCI
r�
d
b I
Fl..�..�
t. c c L
a
r ti r►\ FIGS
CIL
I. -
__
J": .,,,,; ..;� _ ._ dy ..._.. .....v:` ..,. .." :: ._ .°*a,, ._, ::'__w ..,._�., '+.o ._m, .., M.....:` ....i�...`." ^ .' ,: \ °°" ,._... ..,.a L I
�l \ Cf1 L_I I:_ (. (..,1._L._. _,_._1_ I .I <(_.i., i _
V� Li � �..I..(._�
` v } J{ I._. E_ L 1 I:- 1, L 1 L ... k_ „ I_,
4 _
_,,= _ I_.,L..I._.Im_I , !__L. L.. L__L: L L. 1_J L._ L_iL.
Ec;_T1�., _� , , I._.(._.I L I I..„.• Vlm a._..�
_.. , I
[:.. L Lr L:. C... f__. C... L.. C 1, i._ 1.�.. t.w: t._'
r 1 . L- ._ L.. L . I.. 1::_. I_ LP L._ L._ L_ L._ L_ L... I_:: L_ I L.- L -'
! " x'41 I
��`° , �� � �;' i (._. L � �... t. m. d .: � _ L . t _ I . I _. (.. I L _ I 1— I L L_
>' r �'�;� / ✓ ",. 1 }r Y_L_L:::L__� 1, ._I_1- 1. L�.I....(._L._! L_I�:!_t_I._I.,.
r [ J r° �, _, _.I ... 1. C.L_t'w(,.f_.:f.._� 1_._,
1 �; �„ �,.�? /' /' ;" ,r, x' ' /' I" ,�' ° L�'' / r'' / ✓�` f`` �' .,'' r•` �—� ,. _, � � .1�_ I� � L. L._ (_. L:. I_ L . l... ! _ i _ 1... i., L. (.:; ! . I .. I,._ G. _
(. I _ (:. I I_ . I , I I_ . L.. , 1, l.; ,.. f ... l „
��. d' ~ ., 1 _ L?h�_� 1_�
__
{ , _ .._._ h ' . I. L_ I :' I.. I I L_. I ( L: I_ L:.. L_ I L_ I _ !. E L.1.
, � ��
I.- . 1 I ,;� 1, • 6 o ," : I
l llz I
�' �'• � �: ,, I , i I 11 L: ( L_ [n C l C_ C l I._.I. I_..I : ! i f._1...
RIM
E ,--7 aNVE . 6 '`
�w
M�
_�"dA1 CM A.S -1 N h
1
E ' � '° „,' < � �, ✓' ,. ,, ,% /30/ 1 r
i 1 N
IE 67 �c_ W IC,/ r ✓° ..
..n . � . _ .
I ; I
L� L L 11 I ,
L_
i r� -- � ,�' ,� � ✓ ,� r ,� � a �v -_ -1,n � . h 1. i _L L I;....1_ L__�.._1. (__t L_ t ,� 1_. �_.
L_ L. , i._ L . �._ L;,. I i n (_ . L_ G. I_. (_ L, LAL, t
i
f «,
', 16
vi
j
I....._ I . T � .: � , I. t_..: I....
I_.. ! _.. _ C.m_ l.,,1.;�. I.,. {_- L... (... I_ Lw t. C , �. L I ., I._ I_._
— ._� if
�, � � , c
�. [._ L.m
( � RAMP 1-01 . l_ l L_( E L 1 I_ I E ( I I t_ I---
it
r[
Do, .`T1C RAMP
a
I.: <, 1 "0, . �, <p
11, 1XI111111"",
{
k
{ , r' "t,W, n k'.. d `Yw✓ '�..! ,d" �`':.ras Y' /'
5 Ez,
k ( � ,. i,t 1. � � �uxs ilk \✓'` :`x.,#' Y ',; oy.��,�, "�� ,.rz c ,i�;,µ,., ,.� .�, , � r_,,e,,r�.�,y`�;�^a� "�'-^,, :, Vin, r.. n�y�,, -;
4 ! j , i �:,,. )�. .,. .. ,, ,;. , ,. ,��mn�s a� ....,_ `; . �.4•• `'°"^•...,a..�r m � as k � a �r , ' }.
.., I�) I�'k ...:I i ,Ir;�...}�; I ,.., ,,... !t ..'�'i r-. r,;. '� {St :� ¢.. i. ,., PY„7' P 1C.D fN L✓e,� Pa »�? 0.✓
TO REMAIN INTACT FOR TIdT.,
D41RATION T CONSTRUCTION
o
f'dI�r
I ; I�� /�- OA �, N / DIE ,Arl ��./ TI ON /t/�� i,�. � i�� Il -1C C0/�iT /SAC} TC��',° �
f }V
1, INSIDL -CT L:h /, 7FNC" 7�lJlml?llll � FOR �J6:', I`C 5 /C�1L' h 17 r7OL.l /(N,
013 FAIN t;)EPV1 CAL l 77Ci/W PE6r'rU "! 1 S REQUIRE O,
J FRFCT SlL T SCREL:: -N AS` SHOWN,
'I, FLAG as PROTECT ALL f'ROID RTY CC7RNE ,S, CONTRACTOR MUST RESET CORNELA'S A7- HIS`jHER OWN
FXPEN E,
1• 5, C;OORDINA FE- V'Vrw)RK +'fit ChI NEIGHBORS 7HA T ARE AF FL-:_G 7ED BY Cl I/S PFD ODJEC T
�Mi OF' �Y WILL REQUIRE A SE�A/A7E �F /'111i (F� VCiiEICAII>N 7C THE A�FNC1' C, ANY WORK IN 7FIF RIG
AAD A1NTENENC1 CSI' TRAFFICS,
" WS_WE 0 f?. /EEMUS I BE �COPE'R Y CAPPED ✓ T' 77fMINA RON POINT AS REQUIRE'f7A ? C?CVL E 9?/ ,
E1, CONTACT ALL. UTIVRES C >0A4PAN1[_S PRIOR 70 DE'N101_1TION,
� 9. L7URlNCS
UR� TV
0EA4711RONIC ON` TRUCTION, A(.7,JA ENT /''ROPER77E SHALL NOT CIE AFFECTED ADVIERSL.?; SUCH AS
DRAINAC f. I: RC SIONN ' UTILITIES DDS ("ONNfm C'T TIt'AFEI 'Nt I SF ! (UNr jC C1S7:
10, PROVIDLm CY' FIICSH CHAIN LINK f= E'NCF' EO R' C,' NSTm./C; TION AND CA 7E l'OR rRUCK ROUTING . TO 6
11, CONIPAt;TOR TO kIE�ET AND EXCEED All. .SAf TY REGLIL,ATIONS AS .SET f7UR77-1 HY EEf)EI ?AL_1S7ATc` & LOCAL
GOVCRNGtEN7
12, REMOVE VE ALI. WATER AliF rEfeS & BF -IDS AND RETURN TO THE CITY Y FOR CRF_DI
R0,I/P.O.C.
NORTHWEST CORNER
OF THE SM.
,SECTION
ar
j
j
CURB & GUTTER
xxmmm,wo
'u n �.
w.ax'ww.nuwwn mi m
'
1
ww ewwwxp wmmemwrwwrvum «mm
wiiw.wia
�awawww wwwma
AST EST CENTERLINE OF SECTION xww
wrvunwmw
xwan
a +xwwn»gvp�,. pgyq �bgmww ppnw gig g�ggg, gyp���ryw �ryg auw ®�nwpgwn gig yyy R.y+vma .wwwn wwwwm nme
wwaw.
S 9a�*&Y1ARpw�,b#'OFw�gpgd+°g�p
qa,. vmgp „p, @p. q® �rywd. gp eg Ag aRp gaps ¢A
S d" *"Yd�®®.,O�agg�a.. 0p�p�6'mmnxwmm..�gq,W99N ) 0,00'( Mp
'�
vud�gy"41' d�g'R«�rma. a'+p4avC)
®.
wmmwun eww mu by "43'0 A #E( 653'(D awmwmmwzwumm m
p
11
w�'a',ro ro w.wmwwmmwmmn
Y
wa
um maw a w,�.n mmsmwwmwwow xwwmaamwwwao- wwnw mv+uwwwwwwarvu w wnwmwx mexwxmnu'awn rvua
�
gy * C T
p �
) em m� mammwew.w m we
S 4wq A
1 q
M
w
m wg'6�$8 ("� +:g$BiCp
M Mmp eN 9 �1Rm+M
ij� 11
i . All plant materials shall be Florida # I or better and Installed to highest nursery standards. Plants shall be
healthy, free of pest and disease.
2. All plants shall be container grown except as noted on plan.
3. All palms and trees shall have straight trunks with no twists, knotting or other defective characteristics.
4. Mulch shall be 100% Pine Bark, installed to a minimum thickness of 2 ".
5. Sod shall be 95% weed free 5t. Augustine "Floratam ", Installed with tight joints.
G. All dimensions shall be field checked by the Landscape Contractor prior to construction with any
discrepancies reported to the Landscape Architect.
7. All materials shall be as specified on the plans. If materials, labor or Installation techniques do not adhere
to the specifications, they will be rejected by the Landscape Architect with specified materials and Installation
carried out by the Landscape Contractor at no additional cost.
8. No substitutions of materials or changes to the drawings or specifications shall be made.
9. All required permits are to be provided by the Installing contractor unless specifically stated otherwise in
the specifications.
10. Contractor identificatiol signs shall not be allowed on the project.
i I . Contractor shall be responsible for all items as shown or described on this plan and specifications.
12. All proposed landscape and sod areas containing turf or weeds shall be treated with "Round -up" per
manufacturer's specifications.
13. Landscape Contractor Jhall provide all necessary site preparation required to ready the site for planting as
specified.
14. The landscape Contractor shall warranty and guarantee all materials and labor for a period of 90 days for
shrubs and groundcover, palms and trees. Warranty and guarantee period shall begin upon date of completion.
15. All repairs and/or replacements shall be made by the Landscape Contractor within 10 working days upon
notification of any deficiencies by the owner or their representative.
i G. All questions regarding the Landscape Plans and Specifications shall be directed to the Landscape
Architect at (727) 787 -2840.
i Ll ZAT t ON
5hrub5 and Trees
All trees and shrubs shall be `ertilized with "Agriform" 20 -15 -5 planting tablets at time of planting and prior to
Installation of plant pit backfill. Tablets shall be placed uniformly around the root ball at a depth that is between
the middle and bottom of the root ball.
Application Rate:
i
I Gallon Container: i - 2 1 gram tablet
3 Gallon Container: 2 - 21 gram tablets'
5 Gallon Container: 3 - 21 gram tablets
7 Gallon Container: 4 - 21 gram tablets _
Trees: 3 tablets per each 1/2" caliper of trunk
Groundcover Areas
All groundcover areas shall receive fertilization with "Clzmocote" time release fertilizer per manufacturer's
specifications.
® ®
CSI 15chedule
a^q WWW
Set tree plumb,
Y
Quant,
with top of R
Botanical Name
Common Name
rootball t 1/2" o
TREES:
14
Code
INS
above finish
it
Nellie 5teven5 Holly 8' ht. x 4' 5pr., 2.5" cal.
09
grade
Lagerstroemia Indies
Crape Myrtle W
Rubber hose
9
P5Y
# 12 gauge ware
Medjool Palm V,72
14' c.t.
2" Mulch
QV
12" length red
3" Tree wel
12-14' ht. x 4 -5' 5pr., 3" cal.
plastic flag
Finish grade -1
5abal palmetto
tape
2x4 t stake
Existing natsve
Boat ball
:... =..._ „
soil
Native soil
back-fill
TREE PLANTING DETAIL
Plant
CSI 15chedule
a^q WWW
Tol .
Y
Quant,
Y
Botanical Name
Common Name
Specification N
TREES:
14
Code
INS
flex nellie Stevens
it
Nellie 5teven5 Holly 8' ht. x 4' 5pr., 2.5" cal.
09
L i
Lagerstroemia Indies
Crape Myrtle W
8' ht. x 8' S r. 5" cal., 5 stems
p ,
9
P5Y
Phoenix dactylifera
Medjool Palm V,72
14' c.t.
25
QV
Quercu5 vircJiniana
Live Oak
12-14' ht. x 4 -5' 5pr., 3" cal.
34
5P
5abal palmetto
Cabbage Palm
C.t. a5 noted on plan
22
TD
Taxodium di5tichum
Bald Cypre55 ') e
1 2 -14' ht. x 4 -5' 5pr., 3" cal.
42
UA
UImu5 Parvifolia
Winged Elm '
1 2' ht. x 5' 5pr., min. 3" cal., straight trunks
3
WR
Wa5hingtonia robu5ta
Washingtonia Palm c.t. a5 noted on plan
SHRUBS:
Minimum 3 gal. container, 24" ht. at
installation, max. " oVI
. or IC55
I G
CA
Crinum a5latICUm
Crinum Lily
0 gal., 30" ht. x 3G" 5pr.
1 g7
HIB
171i1215CU5 5pp.
Hlbl5CU5
3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
461
LOR
Loropetalum 5pp.
Loropetalum
3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
445
MUL
Muhlenbergia capillar15
Pink Muhly Gra5n5
3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
92
NOP
Nerium oleander petite
Dwarf Oleander-
3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
3G8
PA
PIUmbago 5pp.
%lumbago
3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
183
POM
Podocarpus macrophyllu5
Podocarpu5
3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
585
55
5partlna bakers
Cordgra55
3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
7
5R
5trelitzia reginaea
Bird of Paradise
10 gal., 30 ht. x 30 5pr.
70G
V5
Viburnum 5u5pen5um
Walter's Viburnum
3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
3G
ZEU
Zamia furfuracea
Cardboard Palm
15 gal., 30 ht. x 30 5pr.
GROUNDCOVER:
Plants other than turf gra55,
which reach a mature ht. of 24" or 1e55.
70
JC
Juniperu5 conferta
Shore Juniper
3 gal., 12" ht. x 18" 5pr.
524
JP
Juniperu5 par5onii
Par5on'5 Juniper
3 gal., 12" ht. x 18" 5pr.
80
LAC
Lantana 5pp.
Purple Lantana
I gal., 12" ht. x 12" 5pr.
1 099
LAM
Lantana 5pp.
Golden Lantana
I gal., 12" ht. x 12" 5pr.
109
TJ
Trache105permum ja5minoide5 Confederate Jasmine 3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
495
TNV
Trachelo5permum ja5minoide5 nana Var. Dwarf Conf. Jasmine I gal., 12" ht. x 12" 5pr.
204
TJN
Trachelospermum ja5minoide5 nana Dwarf Confederate Ja5min I gal., 12" ht. x 12" 5pr.
521
TJv
Trachel05permum ja5minoide5 Var. Confederate Jasmine 3 gal., 24" ht. x 24" 5pr.
ative
Drought
a^q WWW
Tol .
Y
Y
Y
Y
N
Y
Y
Y'
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y.
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
Y Y
N Y
Y Y
1
a
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
Y
a^q WWW
y�
6
�e
coo 141, ��
gG
zoz�,
„ ®�Q
Z��N
•a� ATE
o
�
i
•'
..
x.;
cod
..
>Cal
.•�"
z
1,
LLJ
Cd
0
f
0
ai'
Cd
cd
..
LLI
..
i
'j
<'4
�.
.,
W.
i