RE Landscape Plan (3)IPM.Note
RE: Landscape Plan
RE:
Nisha Box
Landscape Plan
Nisha Box
'Mike McKinnon'
Landscape Plan
00000002SERVER1/o=CITYOFYELM/ou=first administrative group/cn=Recipients/cn=nisharMicrosoft Exchange Server
00000002SERVER1/o=CITYOFYELM/ou=first administrative group/cn=Recipients/cn=nisharMicrosoft Exchange Server
Mike, we discussed the issue about the 3 foot pathway between the
buildings and decided that it is not necessary in this particular case.
So the only thing that I have left to look at is the Refuse area and its
associated landscaping which is required per the Land Use Approval.
Thanks!
________________________________
From: Mike McKinnon [mailto:miked@gotodq.com]
Sent: Thursday, June 26, 2008 11:09 AM
To: Nisha Box
Subject: Landscape Plan
A follow-up to our discussion on Wednesday 6/25/'08:
We will be installing the screened planting to the dumpster area
enclosure early next week after the hot weather. As I mentioned, the
property owner to the east has an irrigation system in place but they do
not turn it on. The survival of the easterly plants would be
questionable without regular watering. (Please remember that we
completly rebuilt the neighbor's garbage area and brought it up to
current standards even though it was not on our property. All this was
done at our expense as they contributed nothing.)
In looking at the site plan for our landscape, it does show a narrow
sidewalk between buildings A and B. I believe it only scales at three
feet. At one time in January of '07 we had an eye doctor interested in
building A but he wanted access to a back door at the northeast corner
of the building. The architect drew in a sidewalk to show him that
there could be access.
Unfortunately, in preparing the landscape design for this site, I copied
the incorrect version of the site plan. The one showing the narrow
sidewalk and not the more current site plans of both the civil engineer
and the architect; both of which do not show the three-foot wide
sidewalk. It was my mistake as I did not realize that it showed the
sidewalk.
The current status of the landscape is that we fully landscaped this
area with and irrigation box, drip irrigation and ground cover plants
and bark. I believe the sidewalk would need to be five-feet wide in
order to meet public standards and the ADA requirements. The additional
width and running this sidewalk the full depth of the property would
create drainage issues because of the greater impermeable surface.
Additionally, we would need to move one of the main irrigation boxes as
well as the drip irrigation and vegetation. Not to mention the cost of
the sidewalk itself.
There are sidewalks at both ends of buildings and we installed a
sidewalk all the way from Plaza Drive to the private road to the east of
our property line. Additionally, although we do not own the property
behind us, we got permission from the owners, and mowed down all the
scotch broom, put up rock barriers, and cleaned up the garbage from the
semi-trucks and vagrant who had been abusing the property. We hope that
you agree this has cleaned up an unsightly mess as well as it will
eliminate the mud (winter) and dust (summer) that accumulated on Plaza
Drive.
I hope that you reconsider the sidewalk in you final review. Thank you
for your consideration. Mike McKinnon 352-2004
<007b01c8d7b7$a6c192b0$0a0a10ac@mdm>
<007b01c8d7b7$a6c192b0$0a0a10ac@mdm>
Nisha Box
11.0
Microsoft Exchange Server
00000002SERVER1/o=CITYOFYELM/ou=first administrative group/cn=Recipients/cn=nishar
'Mike McKinnon'
SMTP
miked@gotodq.com
Mike McKinnon