Laserfiche WebLink
iosmer� osrts j Case Moe 2497 <br />Page 3 <br />plan is only for the smallest berm* we assume the nee` of plants <br />will he increased proportionally for the longer berms* the existing <br />vegetation around the pond is being left as is, and no additional <br />landscaping is proposed north of the sewer easement* <br />The plan for the rest of the project. is minimal and could he <br />improved <br />1) No planting is shown on the west side of the site <br />adjacent to the cemetery. The previous Heritage proposal had <br />a line of red cedars to screen this edge a A. row, of some type <br />of taller evergreens would be appropriates <br />2) The planting beds next to each structure are shown 1811 <br />wide. These should he at least 41 wide to. support shrubs* <br />3) The sidewalk leading into each unit is shown 31 wide* We <br />recommend 51 minimum. <br />4) The plantings around each building and entry are',-sparse. <br />The quantities should he increased by at least 50%, as well <br />as adding ornamentals such as crab or amur maple, and <br />evergreens (none are shown) * -The mock orange- should he <br />spaced V o . c . maximum* <br />5) The sizes for all- plant materials should conform to <br />RoseviIle's minimum standards: �1f2" caliper overstory <br />trees, V height for evergreens g 5- gallon pot for shrubs. <br />Znginefiring Considerations <br />An additional l 4 o 5 l of ri g ht- of�vay dedication is -needed for <br />Larpenteur Avenue. The- applicant has indicated he can revise the <br />plan and still provide the setbacks noted in the zoning analysis <br />above. A sidewalk needs to he constructed along Larpenteur Avenue. <br />We have had discussions with the developer about utility services <br />for the pro" ect -since the attached drawings were submitted* We <br />have gored out utility connections. and easements in an arrangement <br />somewhat different than what is shown on the drawings for storm <br />drainage, sewer g and eater service (described Belo ) * The <br />F <br />applicant will resent these revised plans at the meeting. <br />pp p <br />storm - Drainage* The neighbors across Sweeney Pond were very <br />concerned about storm drainage into the pond -irl the previous <br />proposal. That project was considerably more dense and had such <br />more hard surface than the GDertZ prof ect . Although the City has <br />no adopted standards that would require retention or treatment of <br />stormwater before discharcjing into Sweeney Pondip we can impose <br />additional reasonable standards on a PUD to give benefit to the <br />City in exchange for flexibility on other standard <br />s within the p. , <br />