Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCity of Tamarac Resolution R-2020-041 Temporary Resolution No. 13429 May 13, 2020 Page 1 • CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA RESOLUTION NO. R-2020 - / A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA, PROVIDING FOR THE ADOPTION OF THE GO-FORWARD ROADWAY LANDSCAPE MASTER PLAN, APRIL 2020, PREPARED BY MILLER LEGG, ATTACHED HERETO AS EXHIBIT "A"; PROVIDING FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE DESIGN GUIDELINES AND TYPICAL CONCEPTUAL LANDSCAPE CORRIDORS FOR THE ROADWAYS WITHIN THE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE APPLICATION OF THE IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY AND COST ESTIMATES WITHIN THE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR THE ACCEPTANCE OF THE RECOMMENDATIONS WITHIN THE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. • WHEREAS, the revitalization of the landscaping within the public corridors throughout the City will promote Goal#4 of the City of Tamarac Strategic Plan, "Tamarac is Vibrant", by preserving the natural and personal environments; and WHEREAS, the City Commission approved Resolution No. R-96-199 on September 11 , 1996, which adopted the City of Tamarac Master Landscape Study prepared by CCL Consultants; and WHEREAS, the City of Tamarac Master Landscape Study established a long-term, city-wide program to enhance the public corridors within the municipal boundaries of the City; and Temporary Resolution No. 13429 May 13, 2020 Page 2 WHEREAS, the City desires an update to the original City of Tamarac Master • Landscape Study prepared in 1996 by CCL Consultants; and WHEREAS, the goal of the update is to provide a "go-forward" Master Plan for the major roadway corridors affecting the improvements performed since the City of Tamarac Master Landscape Study; and WHEREAS, the update also accounts for the city-wide Tree Inventory and Assessment conducted in 2012, the Major Arterial Corridor Study adopted in 2013, and the Commercial Arterial Redevelopment Study adopted in 2014; and WHEREAS, the Director of Community Development recommends approval of the • Go-Forward Roadway Landscape Master Plan, April 2020, prepared by Miller Legg including all recommendations; and WHEREAS, the City Commission of the City of Tamarac, Florida deems it to be in the best interests of the citizens and residents of the City of Tamarac to promote the continued beautification of the public corridors within the City's municipal boundaries pursuant to Policy 6.1 of the City of Tamarac Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the City of Tamarac hereby adopts the Go-Forward Roadway Landscape Master Plan,April 2020, prepared by Miller Legg including all recommendations as attached hereto as Exhibit "A"; and Temporary Resolution No. 13429 May 13, 2020 Page 3 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COMMISSION OF THE CITY OF TAMARAC, FLORIDA: SECTION 1 : The foregoing "WHEREAS" clauses are hereby ratified and confirmed as being true and correct and are hereby made a specific part of this Resolution. All exhibits attached hereto are incorporated herein and made a specific part of this Resolution. SECTION 2: The City Commission hereby adopts the Go-Forward Roadway Landscape Master Plan, April 2020, prepared by Miller Legg including all recommendations. A copy of the Go-Forward Roadway Landscape Master Plan, April 2020, prepared by Miller Legg is attached hereto as Exhibit "A". SECTION 3: All Resolutions or parts of Resolutions in conflict herewith are hereby repealed to the extent of such conflict. SECTION 4: If any clause, section, other part or application of this Resolution is held by any court of competent jurisdiction to be unconstitutional or invalid, in part or in application, it shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions or applications of this Resolution. • SECTION 5: This Resolution shall become effective immediately upon its adoption. Temporary Resolution No. 13429 May 13, 2020 Page 4 • PASSED, ADOPTED AND APPROVED this day of May, , 2020. `7 MICHELLE J. G M, , MAYOR ATTEST: r.� JENNIFER JOHNSON, CMC CITY CLERK RECORD OF COMMISSION VOTE: MAYOR GOMEZ _ DIST 1: V/M BOLTON DIST 2: COMM. GELIN DIST 3: COMM. FISHMAN DIST 4: COMM. PLACKO I HEREBY CERTIFY THAT I HAVE APPROVED THIS RESOLUTION AS TO FORM: C"14J2©Zo : SAMUEL S. GOREN CITY ATTORNEY • • AW //7 • TAAi_ ..\1,p\ • • _1 CITY OF TAMARAC MASTER LANDSCAPE STUDY FINAL REPORT July 1996 • Consulting Engineers 77-4101*. Surveyors Planners Prepared by: CCL CONSULTANTS, INC. 2200 Park Central Boulevard North Suite 100 Pompano Beach, Florida 33064 (954)974-2200 • FAX: (954) 973-2686 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND 1 * City Wide Map 2 PROJECT APPROACH/KEY DESIGN ISSUE 4 BEAUTIFICATION CORRIDORS 5 c Corridors/Gateways/Intersections 7 R.O.W. Control/Permitting Jurisdiction 11 DESIGN GUIDELINES 14 c Proposed Tree List 16 * Typical Median & Swale Treatment 19 * Typical Entrance/Gateway Features --- c Typical Intersection Treatments --- IMPLEMENTATION 22 41110 * Cost Estimates/Schedule 23 RECOMMENDATIONS 29 * Public Land Opportunities 32 • City of Tamarac Master Landscape Plan Summary Report - July 1996 INTRODUCTION/BACKGROUND In the past year CCL Consultants, Inc. has been working to prepare a Master Landscape Plan for the City of Tamarac; more specifically to establish a long-term, citywide program to enhance the public corridors within the municipal boundaries. Through a series of design exercises with the City Staff, Urban Forestry Advisory Committee, the Planning Commission and ultimately the City Commission in Workshop on January 17, 1996, we have prepared a set of design guidelines that seek to improve all the City's corridors. Concurrently we have developed an implementation and funding strategy that will optimize joint development potential within the growing areas of the City, as well as creating a revenue source for "renovation" projects in the older, developed corridors. Additionally at the onset of the project we reviewed the City's Street Tree Inventory prepared by FRM in August of 1993. Most of their recommendations were considered in the formulation of this Master Plan, with many being reinforced as "standards" within the design guidelines. The overall parameters or framework within which we worked included: • Traffic and pedestrian safety • Improved aesthetics and image for the City • Integration with existing and proposed infrastructure improvements • Complement zoning and land use objectives • Creation of an Urban Haven • Mix and match versatility to allow choice in design solutions • "Pilot" program or project to "get the ball rolling" • Ways and means of implementation available The interface of these overall concerns within the framework of a Citywide Master Landscape Plan, through neighborhood and specific location design refinement appears to have the most potential for a result that not only is easily implementable, but is cost effective and durable in its ability to stand the test of time. The Plan enhances the concept that pedestrians as well as vehicles will each have a defined 'space' within each corridor. The resulting themes should express the best of the City by enhancing its image and character. Frequently urban vehicular corridors can be menacing, foreboding or simply dangerous. The proposed design solutions should reflect an inviting or friendly character and be comfortable for all the users to operate within. 4/1 / 4_ I " • CITY WIDE MAP • 2 Oa" trammylim-ralli up , di* 7 "9...bliattir.0.1. , lir mcorte&74wiktimr-,Illig - radii .rfiriphrz. 4,4;Ittionri, ix-iyil 1 P i .zrldi iri!:lj rp.,,,i;•%i:O.,,,...,,,b.::,,41,H. "I.,:. ,s, !I i r71111111Q • mosal ,,lemi.:;:l ,g . 4„...., ..,. ._....-1,s : . a- tti, • . ti,__111‘,.' - , zi ,,- - .... • ...,,, h , .. .e — ' ." Al I t 4.: 11111114 1111,,qp 6117711 1- ' '. 11 4 0 - i 7 , ffiezuililkle •11E.Atat '---litw, -- ‘Ta.i.krri: 4,, r! ,4......... 4 ..4".4,74: „,7,,,t.,T . At 1111• 11:7L4r, I ; ! ,, i . Att,147"-'-w• tigli ii H.' 17‘111."`'''''..--':11-- ii_6(.41P.it . Mi.1'0 •-. iiipe - I i -4.- !I; ii!..„ eile..,;; ir 41:--74•'",4 ,vAi 'k,.\:. - It..11 gEtli: [ etoi 4.44,„ iffirr_41 -7-14 r116, LAL !, ...-'.4„ ..,.,. :,. tv._,.. :.,41 , rrp ki..,3. , .----.. ...„:.:, --t.,,::..•••• , ! i Pill ,. I, _ , a-:"..A liall-- j111"• i'' '' 7 F.'' Z J 0 ' :1 II ...1 4 -i• " •. " 4 -'1-41A. .11,. ' 110 j .4. ._... •MIMI'0 411, •-.. ' 1 / gil i V 14 ii411:Ta P.Ignafig7. my-- iw.-- up my A ' vl sr.91 ri t- Ftrivi;'"1 La 14.:If* ' friri41' 1.1 h167"ik Ain l'I. - : gni-femme It , 4 irltrmilf01•0111 /Pi 3 1, o vailarr ., II, .11 I 61411 orrii Ali ' ' TiitolLik :- Emirs sari c, ›.• i PM. co 'kin° 1 f AN, IS,1):::l uma mum _ , n .,.,,.. ........... .. . d TA: , 0 . ----) le 0 P P 74% Zfiji PliriMirtijrli i /2.„,-4.,, ., tr__ - A---- ,.% . 1.;:e2iir‘SiVir... 'liki 1124WIlli gi: MAIilisiI1r- LfiliffiA1111001Plif -4 nkeZLE 1-. .., ...„ .... .),,_:.....i...,. .,.. ! . - rft,_ -,ITANIFIlirlr 511 i - lairt;f4. 4.," 11) 1,:i , . 11111 1 iiiiNii?"W4 '-'1, ‘-- ' ,. pi,... . ,.....2.14..'_...,..41. ., ::1 : ii ! R; lc, . ref j ,Iv. .- i jp PI view; ..... i • `' -- • CT.PM 7, r .-. I ... riAWIC (2911til .6 - CRY Of TAMARAC . --:1 MASTER LANDSCAPE STUDY 004. p C r.C L CONSULTANTS INC A 1 1-P, MASTER 1.011 6 SITE PLAN ,7/I V1S Pd11.4•1 KAM MINIM WEST.4,,...., IENS DAV POCR.T.,1 'rl ie. s&,—' 9/ PROJECT APPROACH/KEY DESIGN ISSUES • 40 The following key design issues were overriding assumptions that formed the basis of what the design solutions sought to address. Each of these issues when appropriately addressed will contribute to the success of the City's beautification efforts. As the future life of this Master Plan will depend on its ability to adapt to a variety of different implementation situations, all of which cannot possibly be identified at this time, theses general issues should always serve as a reference in meeting those challenges, and in fact illustrating when and how the Master Plan should be updated. b Citywide Beautification Theme * Gateway Identification c Long Term Viability • Species Diversity * Enchanted Property Values b Project Phasing • Budgetary Limitations c) Planned and Efficient Maintenance Seasonal Variety • Safe Sight Visibility • Site Lines b Drainage Enhancement • Utilities Coordination c) Property Control • Easements c Water Conservation • Xeriscape * Lighting Enhancement * Traffic Control • Hazardous Conditions Reduction c "Off the Shelf" Components for Cost Savings b Uniform Specifications and Bid Documents b Fair Implementation Strategy • „) Successful Funding Alternative * "Nursery" Concept Development for Future Phases 4 4. 96,- " 91 IIII BEAUTIFICATION CORRIDORS Based on the study's goals and objectives as expressed by the staff during the initial • programming phase of our work, it was evident that the first step would be in establishing the corridors within which the City's beautification efforts would focus. In fact, a basis for this"prioritization" had already been set under the 1993 Street Tree Inventory. The focus of that inventory, and the logical selection of the primary and secondary corridors within the municipal limits, remains the Arterial Roadways as they traverse the City. While casual observers may point out that this omits separate pedestrian corridors from the study, reality shows us that in today's urban environment, pedestrian corridors exist almost exclusively within roadway rights-of-way. Therefore, one significant area the design guidelines will need to address is to create a "space" for each of these uses in the same corridor. The corridors as established in the following list, can also be grouped into primary and secondary categories based on the "volume" of traffic they handle, and hence their impact on the City's aesthetics. The secondary corridors in fact usually have no opportunity for medians due to the narrow widths of R.O.W. Planting efforts will then be naturally focused in the outside swale and pedestrian areas of the R.O.W. A majority of the primary corridors are under the control of FDOT or Broward County. The medians that exist within these corridors will have to respect the permitable landscape standards upheld by each. However, significant improvements can be accomplished in each, (some of which has already been completed in the last±10 years)with an overall goal of softening the impacts 111) the higher volumes on those roadways have on adjacent pedestrian and residential environments. Refer to the Florida Highway Landscape Guide published by FDOT in April 1995 for their permitting guidelines. Additionally, the city will be required to enter into Maintenance Agreement(s) for project areas in FDOT R.O.W. After completion they (FDOT) may continue to contribute to the cost of maintenance, not exceeding those associated with routine mowing and natural area upkeep, depending on the agreement negotiated. Broward County requires a similar agreement to be executed, and their design standards virtually mirror those established by FDOT, since that would be their most "defensible" position in legal matters surrounding roadway improvements. In any case, standard setbacks for roadside landscaping can generally be considered when the following minimum standards are met: Trees - 4' from the face of non-mountable curb or outside roadside recovery zone when no curb exists. Consider sight lines in placement; clear trunk to 6' if inside. IIP Shrubs - No setback; however, must be maximum 30" height if in sight lines. 5 ,e_ '6, TF 7 0 This index of corridors (that follows) may be modified in the future should development in the western fringes of the City warrant new additions. However, it is unlikely any new "primary" corridors will be established, since the City's arterial roadway system has already been defined throughout, even where development has just begun to proceed. • • III . . 4.._-9 -- (5' 7 Oak • CORRIDORS / GATEWAYS / INTERSECTIONS IP 1110 /e - - / F Y City of Tamarac aster Landscape Study CCL Project No.3531 • List of R.O.W.Corridors-(18) WIDTH JURISDICTION. TYPE N Southgate Boulevard-Sawgrass to 6500 Block(NW) 106' Cnty/City Primary 1 NW 81st Street-Nob Hill to McNab 80' City Secondary 1 NW 77th Street-Nob Hill to Pine Island 80' City Secondary i NW 75th Street-Pine Island to 81st 80' City - Secondary i McNab Road-Proposed Hiatus to 6500 Block(NW) 110'/200' Cnty/City Primary 1 Lagos De Campo Blvd.-Pine Island to McNab 80' City Secondary i Commercial Blvd. -Sawgrass to Prospect Road 120' FDOT/Cnty/Cty Primary S Prospect Road-Commercial to NW 17th Way 100' County Secondary E Rock Island Road-Bailey Road to NW 44th Street 110' County Secondary I NW 64th Avenue-Bailey Road to NW 44th Street 106' City Secondary I Brookwood Blvd.-McNab to Commercial 90' City Secondary 1 University Drive-Southgate to Commercial 200' FOOT Primary i NW 84th Terrace-Lagos to Commercial 80' City Secondary i Pine Island Road -Southgate to Commercial 106' County Primary i NW 94th Avenue/Westwood Blvd.-McNab to Commercial 80' City Secondary i Nob Hill Road-Southgate to Commercial 106' County Primary i Proposed Hiatus Road-McNab to Commercial 80' City Secondary W NW 108th Terrace-McNab to Nob Hill 80' City Secondary Key Intersections-(7) ElicNab Road and Nob Hill Road cNab Road and Pine Island Road • McNab Road and University Drive Commercial Boulevard and NW 64th Avenue Commercial Boulevard and Rock Island Road Commercial Boulevard and 441 (SR 7) Commercial Boulevard and Prospect Road Gateway Locations-(13) Nob Hill Road @ Southgate and Commercial (2) Pine Island Road @ Southgate and Commercial (2) University Drive @ Southgate and Commercial (2) Southgate @ East Boundary(6500 Block) NcNab Road @ East Boundary(6500-7000 Blocks) Commercial @ Sawgrass and Turnpike(both directions) (3) Rock Island Road @ Bailey Road and NW 44th Street(2) • 8 • , c.=:7- 5" -/ F 7 411111 n 0 rn C-42 CANAL L-36 C) I I _._.__.-. __ _._,-.. SAWORASSIEX EXPRESSWAY `_ PR - D IWIMII MAT. ROAD. Y 1......mi N Ill N. N.) W lc.NW sa AVE _ . a a N = i0 g p, C z a I Cn E is co a, UMIYERSf7Y DR I —......._.... irmIM It `1 IP BROOKWOOD-- I. BLVD V CO 03 Brrruurrrrr■nrarrurlr numIrrnIrrrUBI11•IBr■ •UBruMI MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 ha N-. rap oomo9 r A O..J(A u C mv.`rn Is,a +++++a z A 4( N n mV VapNy x'. IVN—rr< mmaomrny m • ,n,rt NI rh rrt In 000vo assan zzzzz CRy OF TAMARAC seas A N MASTER LANDSCAPE STUDY ��— C C L.CONSULTANTS INC g o��w.Y op.. %wkaas nrrna A 4 R.Q.W. MAP 26BBAI ha_ ni Rau met amir.R...•m R.-,n+,..Rea ti rw• .r...p DATE 1a/7]/11} PIMENTO MEAD. gUSEKI vE.PAW WI REV,! V,DAN pE10•111.1 e • • .--.' - /9 ? j MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 1 OF 2 0 ! I. . 11 .. .► I i iimoim -- 6lTH AVE TO O O ROCK ISLAND ROAD 4- x • L`,, n _ ��1� Ni •.e.. u Ni \ ii. I_ .. - _III'. . W (ST.RO. 7) ',. L.I I S 8 A r g A g c Ul I Ln I I • On . V v > D7 m Opo-..009 n 000mo� r— rt r J-J 71 co V v O.N R. t tt++r1 Z OO? VONN 0 N N r m r Ft 40 O:O7mm01s rn,R:smm mmmmmVl 0000o z azzzz zzzzz an of rAMARAc o Q C MASTER LANDSCAPE STUDY WHIM SW G C.L CONSULTANTS INC Q me nun Dome aw.atiee R..wue p •• R.O:W. MAP ax Ida! .arnw�s w `r`�, M16 tUM�nwn.si p .or rur tAM. cv.ux ®.ro„ r. /9 ? i R. O. W. CONTROL 411 11 -) 7F I I I 111. C-42 CANAL L,36 _-- i I SAWORASSIE%PRESSWAY bOe TER NM ROAD • N I I y N - • ri .fi w I NW 94 AVE 11 1 I r 1 � W E. of.ISLINO A I 1 I 1 I 64 TER U o N yy n a! .14 � I A cr. I UNIVERSITY DR • k41 . W RRooRWOOD RLVD V w I � rprrruunnrwurrru I Imo unrrrurnonur MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 r r7 ri a CT 0 •,T o a z - ai 0 0 oazo o 0 O 111111 CITY OF TAMARAC e1„ar p E : MASTER LANDSCAPE STUDY C C L.CONSULTANTS INC A PEM01r°°W mane 111.111611010 11.0111111 JURISDICTION MAP gmazuma . p _ s..m a..w an. 1XE q •POMO.11.11.1131166•0.1 wa I9/27H6 nerMPu eAeP eRNcu VOW wr rt cw tv wi � i7 r ' 2 _? •ah MATCH LINE SEE SHEET 1 OF 2 imursatuurrnrlltrrsoiausrmnninsuulrrll ellurrr r '- 6471.1 AVE I `° 1 OD t i A 1 i I r O 4 O H i ,1 ROCK ISLAND ROAD 1 - - I -. c :I., I j f yr. i i 1 Vt. - g i � I _ N i i I, N i , a 1 1 - i . 1 . . .1_. _."III I w • 1 (ST. RD.7) w II ; -.g rn c o _ Vs o is • 3 __ . N U iiti i 1 jI I'1 f-1 _ I 1 Of i 'I d1 1 . 1 1 r'i ( i V V 1 1 m 1 0 0o e Z v a i CDCI v °o co Z 0 K2. O G O O D v CITY Of TAMARAC etie- T E MASTER LANDSCAPE STUDY C C.l CONSULTANTS INC r JURISDICTION MAP —Ma G s I.MOM err•OR •p.r....113..1.Wwf+w 4 V.R 10/47/L} ......e moo. 34.0 .Q.1wr.ftll .ry,13413 019303.1103 _.. it"- 56 - / F? DESIGN GUIDELINES • 410In the process of establishing overall design guidelines for the City's Master Landscape Pan five basic objectives must be addressed: O Location and "space" available for the planned improvements. Ie° © The purpose or goal of the improvements. © The desired thematic style of the finished project(s). ® The materials to be utilized within the design(s). ® Realistic funding available to complete and maintain the improvements. The first of these will obviously be dictated from the corridor limits established in the previous section by FDOT, County and City Engineering criteria. Additionally FRM's street tree inventory set some basic spatial guidelines for tree plantings as follows: • For Large Trees - Allow 400 s.f. of space for each, plant at approximately 75' on-center, in spaces greater than 10' in width. • For Medium Trees - Allow 125 s.f. of space for each, plant at approximately 50' on-center, in spaces greater than 5' in width. • • For Small Trees & Palms - Allow 25 s.f. of space for each, plant at approximately 25' on-center, in spaces greater than 3' in width. Other limiting factors that should be considered include: • Overhead wire conflicts • 6' - 10' clearance away from underground utility lines where possible • Avoid tree conflicts Tree conflicts in fact can arise due to poor choices in species selection, poor choice of tree space or location, and insufficient or improper maintenance practices. FRM's 1993 Tree Inventory identified some 3,291 trees total in the R.O.W. corridors with 224 (7%) being recommended for removal or relocation for these reasons. Their report differed in corridor selection from this Master Landscape Plan only in the case of Rock Island Road, which was excluded. Follow-up inventories can be completed for that corridor on an as-needed basis in the future and added to the data base at that time. The second basic objective(purpose and goals) has been clearly defined as described in the introduction of this report, with City leadership keenly aware of the value the ultimate Master Landscape Plan, once implemented, will provide and the realistic budget available i to meet this objective. 14 _9 g • The remaining objectives, desired thematic style and materials to be utilized in fact are closely related. We have prepared several design alternatives for a typical portion(s) of the of the Pine Island Road corridor, between Commercial Boulevard and McNab Road. The Landscape themes present two basic options, a formal regimented layout of palm and canopy tree groupings, with flowering arrPnts at the terminus of islands and intersections. The alternate uses a more mixed palette of canopy trees and palms with flowering accents grouped strategically throughout. It appears that the second scheme was more easily adaptable to the varying conditions in the City, with the numerous existing trees too valuable to remove or relocate. All future designs should follow that general scenario. The materials selection list that follows establishes a basic planting palette for use in the future designs. While these should not be considered the only species allowable, the majority of any design should utilize a selection of these species to provide a unifying theme throughout the City. II 15 • PROPOSED TREE LIST • 16 ��- 7215 to, CCL Project No. 3531 111, City of Tamarac Master Landscape Plan Recommended Landscape Species List Large Trees Live Oak Quercus virginiana Native/50' Laurel Oak Quercus laurefolia Native/40' West Indian Mahogany Swietenia mahogani Native/45' Jacaranda Jacaranda mimosaefolia Exotic/45' Wild Tamarind Lysiloma baharnensis Native/50' Gumbo Limbo Bursera simaruba Native/S0' Weeping Podocarpus Podocarpus gracilior Exotic/35' Pitch Apple Clusia rosea Native/35' Slash Pine Pinus elliottii 'densa' Native/85' Southern Red Cedar Juniperous silicicola Native/35' 411111 Palms Cabbage Palm (Booted) Sabal palmetto Native/50' Washington Palm Washington robusta Exotic/60' Date Palm Phoenix spp. Exotic/70' Florida Royal Palm Roystonea elata Native/80' Latan Palm Latania spp. Exotic/30' Small Trees Satin Leaf Chrysophyllum oliviforme Native/30' Tabebuia Tabebuia spp. Exotic/15' - 35' Wax Myrtle Myrica cerifera Native/20' Dahoon Holly Ilex cassine Native/25' Queen's Crape Myrtle Lagerstroemia speciosa Exotic/30' Geiger Tree Cordia sebestena Native/20' Rapanea Myrsine guianensis Native/15' Spanish Stopper Eugenia foetida Native/15' • 17 /e: sFs — / 9, _ Shrubs/Groundcovers • • Carissa (dwarf) Carissa macrocarpa Exoticl3' Cocoplum (red-tip) Chrysobalanus icaco Native/7' Beach Inkberry Scaevola frutescens Native/5' Indian Hawthorne Raphiolepsis indica Exoticl4' Dwarf Oleander Nerium oleander 'petite pink' Exotic/5' Dwarf Juniper Juniperous chinensis 'parsonii' Exotic/2' Trailing Lantana Lantana montevidensis Native/2' Privet Ligustrum spp. Exoticl5' Dwarf Schefflera Schefflera arboricola Exotic/6' Viburnum Viburnum suspensum Exotic/6' Beach Sunflower Helianthus debilis Native/2' ban\3531spec.ics • III 18 - 957 TYPICAL MEDIAN & SWALE TREATMENTS 110 19 ,e- 9 g',.., /23? 1\--1-hi l';' . • \L'%,6eig ,,,,• ,,i,. 3 - ''ZIIIKI .i.,'.- 0 I . '":7 9c_ .'•• 0 4 41 i5-... • .''Ifi' t Al I .• .i^, i.�,:°} Af t o I by/pinion; ; ly i + ;�.�,.� •It ., .40 ft,"4:4°4' — pi -,..11106. �" %�, "'.' It i t i. %b. �� ,,,���`�.�. ,f f mii ''r'tel Jr:-• mil mos pp lki!%';',..... ffa —._mow . ........ tip` •` •`•7 I' /i/r /� `��. I /, ,1, 4 fill 4gclilit ... -- ,"10,/,._ Z mos rill,!!idadv ��l /j('' ! ii .,4. + ,cam 3 0 MkisrA ..7-41r4, ,,-,,.. .-..::.471. i 0 • • •.p ,1,. R �'jill,I'�fll�:: L b•,•..i,:.,•. • fir/ �•.'� .• i�I:0 _�^-- ••..•f�. d ~ q ' a ., A, Mica.. �.6, ' .,;.` }� °����gx:�� g 014.'...;:344 .:::::;3,..;:.i.:.:44...:' 1:•:;:...likos.f:1.4.7.:34.: • 1 -rrrrr� 6. ,/``�,/r -. • ',Aggro.., ....Al. fwwnc l.gg.. • rtw.. ,....0 a..,t. • , :u.+.,M .•I mom,. TYPICAL SECTION M • CCL CONSULTANTS, INC. 20 ii--- ------- ---1 1-- ;.1',S41(/'/)/At:.:14231 1 41.—'*- ,51,P§4-v,,L,1 -04/ftweii..._.4.: /7- J 11 y, / T,` , IJ/i h`4.tire,e v r-7Wi111A�//%',/ �J/, 4Y'.:. / i 5,a / � �� iffiS ;. - _ r) �yF7;.If,; 7!/,v 0 ( 1 ,,,., .....,v,!,17,,,s..,-- • i-v-w -_-...- ,0 I !,', ]ySSS,�,,,;((i - / �j 1).ice • i'j�� jii,„ \ .�:-. ,,, 1,„,, ,,!�// '/� 4 G(u i//fi 4tili�¢A •.:• Illi�!�i►r���►,.`.••�:/• r;i3J�lyu'%/y Il! !/ \,1\y /j, EYfwOwEEw.coot,OI /r/ / rqt r fl/n' �� � 4 fUEEw• www.• , �, �/ �Jf/rn �. /'/. t CE O t'vEPI"O w. _ �, . „' EE O•E+ Of no --#), 11,; r 0 ' if,;(14 v\Alikiir44., f N" iliiif p / " r/ tt 1 f fu 'V% 14 0;,iff. i _, ice.IS 1 I 0 d// ii 1'i`'" €fi Ate,,..„. :!•r ', . t`f .:. ' �i�/IIi,1,g,f�f ) " ' 'irii\,)4, -.%'"" , iegy5,40,_ ( n Q r ei 11 � - i- r cowcwE,E fioE.v,�w f 141nmi puM, ` I Co' ,1wr slur•rnnrm�/inns/nnnnn./ Y///7/ruU•1 l n'l1:a4'1..% `� ' dii r u/r/r/l,/,Ilifol,/d///aaW h+l /mr r„�1��i �' Lf; , I o�°.. / •01/4[aln�/I�in�/rN�, / I,ip„�:=• Amer-A aNln/`r/ai/r;; 6��\rt�l►jam: j �n .,r/ //_- �.. --� ,s- •,metro,nnun/1 •n, ui/;rat! /i-0•fi0 4; go,m/;r:6,' la az. `,-.v' ,!/ �a 11.`. I� i/jl r„.....,..„:I $I,r, /l I>///1 �dir{i}��" .i:... i •itio �,•• ! r;10 I rrN1►1� . • o w . Tt, , >r,1y.r C1 c. •' ,'' Y 1)A'• w ,/ .f�r' lAFf,,�• E •• ��••,,, •,•.',.,: • \\ a 4 /% tr V4 • •fu,w II 1 f,OEwr.[ 1 T ll0 fTwM f�OE r•l1 I wO,ow,♦ l TYPICAL SECTION CCL CONSULTANTS, INC. 21 ,e- 96— / 57 ) IMPLEMENTATION • illTo establish an implementation strategy for the Master Landscape Plan we first had to estimate the ultimate potential cost for the entire project, and then explore the funding possibilities available to the City to finance the project over the next 5 - 10 years. While the proposed ordinances modifying Chapters 10 and 11 of the City's code seek to provide this mechanism, it is important to examine the cost basis for the funding level sought. The following cost estimates were prepared to "generally" evaluate the conceptual costs associated with implementing the selected design themes on a Citywide basis. To do this we first used as an example the sample "Pine Island Road' corridor from McNab Road to Commercial, a ±1 mile section. This was selected because we had the best existing roadway information for this area (as-builts) and the Street Tree Inventory was accurate and depicted all the existing trees in this area. Included were gateway features with intersection treatment, median improvements and R.O.W./pedestrian zone improvements, each broken out separately. Average installed unit costs were assigned to each based on current market values. The results showed that Citywide the Master Plan could cost 6 to 7 million dollars to implement. This estimate, however, must continue to be viewed as "conceptual" with no deduction for all the City's existing improvements factored in. As the first few projects are implemented, a refined "per linear foot" cost can then be recalculated and utilized to revaluate the budget for the Citywide Master Plan. • • • O • 22 4e- S COST ESTIMATES / SCHEDULE 11111 23 ,e- - i9 ? CITY OF TAMARAC CCL PROJECT NO. 3531 IP CEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE - CITY GATEWAY FEATURES (SIGN WALL TYPES) ROPOSED ITEM QTY. AVERAGE TOTAL COST COST PER UNIT SHADE TREES 8 $65.00 $520.00 ORNAMENTAL TREES 8 $75.00 $600.00 PALM TREES(SPECIME 8 $1,500.00 $12,000.00 SHRUBS 120 $4.00 $480.00 GROUNDCOVER 400 $1.50 $600.00 SUBTOTAL $14,200.00 LABOR FACTOR 1.5 FACTOR $21,300.00 ENTRY WALL FEATURE 70 L.F. $75.00 PER L.F. $5,250.00 SOD 4 5,600 S.F. $.15 PER SQ. FT. $840.00 IRRIGATION 5,600 S.F. $.28 PER SQ. FT. $1,568.00 SPECIAL PAVING 7,600 S.F. $3.5 PER SQ. FT. $26,600.00 TOTAL $55,558.00 CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE- PINE ISLAND ROAD/McNAB TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR MEDIANS PROPOSED ITEM QTY. AVERAGE TOTAL COST 1 COST PER UNIT SMALL SHADE TREES 39 $85.00 $3,315.00 ORNAMENTAL TREES 37 $75.00 $2,775.00 ilk , ALM TREES 36 $70.00 $2,520.00 • OUND COVER 15,248 SQ. FT. $1.15 PER SQ. FT. $17,535.00_ SUBTOTAL $26,145.00 OR FACTOR 1.5 FACTOR $39,218.00 SOD 22,872 SQ.FT. $.15 PER SQ.FT. $3,430.00 IRRIGATION 38,120 SQ.FT. $.30 PER SQ.FT. $11,436.00 PAVERS 15,200 SQ.FT. 12,000 SQ.FT.©$2.5 PER SQ.FT. $30,000.00 3,200 SQ.FT.@$3.5 PER SQ. FT. $11,200.00 *TOTAL $95,284.00 "computes to an average cost of$18.33/L.F. CONCEPTUAL COST ESTIMATE - PINE ISLAND ROAD/McNAB TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR R.O.W. PROPOSED ITEM QTY. AVERAGE TOTAL COST COST PER UNIT SHADE TREES 268 $65.00 $17,420.00 ORNAMENTAL TREES 90 $75.00 $6,750.00 PALM TREES 286 $70.00 $20,020.00 SUBTOTAL $44,190.00 LABOR FACTOR 1.5 FACTOR $66,285.00 SOD 219,800 SQ.FT. $.15 PER SQ. FT. $32,970.00 IRRIGATION 219,800 SQ.FT. $.30 PER SQ. FT. $65,940.00 *TOTAL $165,195.00 ' putes to an average cost of$31.77/L.F. C:\123R4W\WORK\35310ECC.WK4 PRINTED 01/12/96 24 516 r I i OIO O o O o O o o o O c g O o o O O 0 0 0 0 O O O O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 ` ��`` 6 O (0 7 c) 'P 0 O O < C CA N to 'C1 O z -c (ri r N O 07 O OD C n CO 10) .- (D 0 .- (.0 C Q N 1- In 0 N to M 0) 7 I- CO 0I CO e- 0) CO N. M j o • . cc c. co 0 co O cr.) NJ N N 0)I c1 (L) M C) (O C V ( en.CV0) (N I- N min O O) co N r .- 6909 NMir 69M zkli r 69 69 69 69 69I V►69 to 69169 1 O a 0000000• v► .A I i i 1 i�� a ± I f 181 Oopo $ 0000 I of m O o 0 0 0 0 0 O O �O(pp N (0 N N 0 0 D M M ccV N N Cr)O a) () 69 V!69 69 69 69 , 49 43 0 0 0 CD O C) 0 Z 0 O O O O O O 0 3 o(p OD o (D d Q ch O) N CO OOD N 7 UI CC 69 69 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Z N cD cA (V m IA N 0 O dwnn0 n - < COmopMN (CDYrn rn 69I69 69 69 69 69 M 99 a000ggoo � i + I I g v; ZQaioC C00 5NrNi � rn (eirnV7C 0 O � z (V' v V" 0 � 0CD CO 0 5 44 69 (A M M w 69 Cn C6 0000000000. 00000000 a) Z0000000000. O 0 O (D C) N d' �Q O O coN 6 6 O m N K) N O V' O) m ^ -4' y N (n 0) a) M co M N 0) C) CO F- v. C0 .- (O t, O V CO Cr) V r r o (O co 0) M N O a .De c`� R.g_ N_ u`{ gff.8 ((C) • (N 4) 8 'of v `D (i o (n u. pN N N r 49 V/69 69 69 6 69 r ,69 CO f4 N V,V>N NV)r 69 CC 49 69 • U.I O I}y ( Op o8 oW0 88 000008 CD CO No en ea NOB O coo en CnNOO O N1 4) MN nM i A MNnO d CV49�V4949 EEgdAAAPNi4 49o(N (N C.) 69 64 cs . C Z 0 a " LA.: (7JJ _i �J ...1 ,J LL: 4: U: (i (LULL JCLti C CL z 0 0 0 a 0 0 J J _i _i J J J 0 J J cWc J H W O O O O O O O O O O CpO p8 Oo O O O C d 5 -1N (n YO co co 000 0 (Au7 OD V* 0 (ii ci) a) Q) Q a] co-co-C) N N 4j(n M N (A (, CO-'- < CO- > M CD - N ill Q Q O • .t+ {A a 0 O E_ `A UU) I- • I N C Z N ,_. 0 R J , V a) 0 O a) E co2 0 N 44C•, C N. E >- `' 0 co i a -a cu 0 I- 0a w a o o F- 0E ILO n N > . > 0 0 O a, 'n WI en I- O J LLI Q d U (a Lo U 0• O ° > � j > 0 o � D 0) eeaa ceZ (.) m m00E m � Wm <3" < Lij ro V v, I- -) ¢ul � � Z � ° waowWw � a � a av� 3 O a F °Q0 � = w � M ? Ozu~su~iC1) W '- U O 000O ZZ CCCC Otz- w0ao � 1- ( Ocl U0 0 CO 0Z ED ¢1 _ICO > z Cl. 1- m nN Z U 1 25 /62... 5) , / ? 7 • CITY OF TAMARAC CCL PROJECT NO. 3531 To evaluate how the City may implement a portion of the conceptual design, CCL prepared a specific design for Pine Island corridor between McNab Road and Commercial Boulevard. Using the costs generated in the Conceptual Estimate on the previous page, but including the labor in each item,we can now prepare a refined estimate for this Phase I Pine Island Road"sample project"based on the specific design completed for this section. It is important to note that this design takes into account existing trees which will be"reused"by being integrated into the new layout. It also limits the use of shrubs, groundcovers, and other irrigated areas to manageable size tracts,with ornamental pavers and/or native drought tolerant groundcovers applied to the remaining non-irrigated areas. In summary, please note that the computed cost for this project on a linear foot basis(L.F.)totals$59.65 including curbing. This results in a significant reduction from the$71.39 cost per L.F. computed in the Conceptual Estimate for the primary corridors. Using this 16.5%reduction, and factoring in those projected savings for the entire citywide project,the resulting total cost could theoretically be reduced to$6,948,350.00. REFINED COST ESTIMATE-PINE ISLAND ROAD- PHASE I McNAB TO COMMERCIAL CORRIDOR OD AND R.O.W.(6,150 L F.) • AVERAGE PROPOSED ITEM QTY. COST PER UNIT TOTAL COST SMALL SHADE TREES 58 $125.00 $7,250.00 ORNAMENTAL TREES 44 $110.00 $4,840.00 PALM TREES 340 $175.00 $59,500.00 GROUND COVER/SHRUBS 15,248 SQ. FT. $1.65 PER SQ. FT. $25,160.00 LARGE SHADE TREES 262 $175.00 $45,850.00 CURBING(MEDIANS) 11,030 L.F. $10.00 PER LF. $110,300.00 SOD 242,672 SQ. FT. _ $.18 PER SQ. FT. $43,681.00 IRRIGATION 125,200 SQ. FT. $.30 PER SQ. FT. $37,560.00 PAVERS 9,300 SQ. FT. $3.50 PER SQ. FT. $32,550.00 *TOTAL $366,691.00 *computes to an average cost of$59.65/L.F. 1111 C:\123R4W\WORK\35310EP1.WK4 PRINTED 01/12/96 26 ,e:- P6 - I " " a • 0 N 0 III W I- 00000000000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 EE 0 Z O O O o o o Q O o 0 0 0 Q Q 0 Q 0 0 0 6ui000caui000 co oocvuivocmi � a J Co N (D ti 0) r f� O CD r- r• CO f"- V' Q) r N a CDln EC) Nru) h (--. h NrEf) I� f� CO COCD "Et (DCO 1- u) C7 N .- ce r N - Q 1 . ►- r '- co- r 1- N E CD O co r ) 1 . 1-. N N 0) 0) O r- a) (o O O r 0 N r-- N u) Co Co r- (D r- •-- (A V) r r r N r 69 f� Q r; E9 EA 69 -E9 ER 69 EA 69 69 69 (A co ,v FA EAZ.;E EA (A 6 WCi C C 3 u) u) I) u) u) It) - ' - 'Cr - Nr. Nrv ' - NT •� IV I- (D CO, (D CD co (D r r r r .- r r r- r N- W 0 Ci CD 05 05 Ci 05 (V N N N N N N N N N C ]% W0 � Lto V) N,NNNNNNNINEN C — C) _ L1. u_ E9 EA EA- E9 69 69 E9.E9 EA 69 69 E9 (A EA 69 EA 3 F- a` .0 ID 0 g ow cu L O L � v UJ CC) 0 m H O Q O O O 0 O Q O O o 0 0 0 o co •W � C ' N o cQvuaivcoaoo o uo) ouo) ( Euo) aoo V' (0o CU O L mm 1- � aocvc) ( C'1 uiuiri �iui � aoriNrri O U " C w To. C9ti t C O Q w J C co U J V 0) L X O Z• O J J J O o d 3 "-' g � �in I- � o � ; o �, lb .Q E .0 is re fx o ° oo C 2a Cl)it ja NZ O N .4 r. CAO 3 �C O W W Gi .>.t 0- �E U a.. 1— asm N .0 ` O > Q• E p 03 r .Q O N F- m >- 0 N C C 03 A CL O O O E O r G w V 3 V Cl) . O • z •OJ W C _ M co C] O Q 5 II 1 so Cif = Lij QTrI N U Oa m� Z W m� LIO pHpj Q yO C tA ' LI CD 4- 0 — mp0 � ma ~ t1J t+ O C Y QHZ COa gw °DQ0 pi ° zo 0QUHI < HHI- d cQ OUO oo Va ' a p (tujcKwww � < pvF_ oO E- CCr^ c c3 W O o c 0 J ( WocncCC � to o n• 0 OCW o = wcr) txY = 0 � W + U LL v� nnn2 0 cc Os-J I DZmW > --- iv) O ~ ~ I ' + v was0000zz O � aoi� d +' co 00 Cm � OrI— u aoZl .- wr` r- Z Q cti a d CC • rl N () 27 igig-/ 'Proposed Master Landscape Plan p Cost Estimates • • (Revised Per Resurfacing Program) LENGTH COST PER ROADWAYS (L.F.) LINEAR FOOT TOTAL SOUTHGATE BLVD. 18,200 $ 34.75 $ 632,450 McNAB ROAD 18,500 $ 34.75 $ 642,875 COMMERCIAL BLVD. 18,400 $ 34.75 $ 639,400 NOB HILL ROAD 13,600 $ 34.75 $ 472,600 PINE ISLAND ROAD 13,800 $ 34.75 $ 479,500 UNIVERSITY DRIVE 12,600 $ 34.75 $ 437,850 SUBTOTAL $3,304,675 BROOKWOOD BLVD. 5,500 $ 22.14 $ 121,770 LAGOS DE CAMPO BLVD. 5,000 $ 22.14 $ 110,700 NW 84TH TERRACE 3,500 $ 22.14 $ 77,490 NW 57TH STREET 11,494 $ 22.14 $ 254,496 1111 NW 94TH AVE./WESTWOOD BLVD. W. 5,500 $ 22.14 $ 121,770 • PROPOSED HIATUS ROAD 5,500 $ 22.14 $ 121,770 NW 81 ST STREET 13,400 $ 22.14 $ 93,210 NW 70TH STREET 3,697 $ 22.14 $ 81,867 NW 77TH STREET 4,600 $ 22.14 $ 35,904 NW 70TH AVENUE / 5,723 $22.14 $ 126,720 NW 82ND STREET 2,600 $ 22.14 $ ** NW 108TH TERRACE 8,800 $ 22.14 $ ** WESTWOOD BLVD. 2,600 $ 22.14 $ ** SUBTOTAL $1,145,697 ENTRANCEWAY SIGNS (13) $ 722,254 GRAND TOTAL $5,172,626 ** Roadway not being funded but is placed on the Master Landscape Plan due to Pulte Home Corp. providing landscaping within the medians and along p[ortions of the right-of-way. 4111 28 ,e- '‘-/ 9 0 FINAL RECOMMENDATIONS • a 29 le. 96- / 9 ? RECOMMENDATIONS • A balanced revenue generation strategy that seeks 25% of the funding by future development activity, and 75% by a combination of grants, City issued bonds and redevelopment activity. • Establish pre-approved landscape concepts for work within the FDOT and County controlled streetscape corridors. These repetitive type submittal should simplify the permitting processes. • Develop R.O.W. maps for each corridor that are to be kept on AUTOCAD master files for easy reference. Identify clear sight zones, roadside recovery areas, and minimum setbacks in the base file before preparing any design plans for construction. • Encourage private partnership in completing the streetscape improvements by providing impact fee credits for those properties completing portions of the streetscape in conjunction with their development. • Seek use of "free nurser' space for tree cultivation along the corridors where both private and public open space or recreational uses are adjacent. The irrigated and fertigated edges of golf courses are ideal for this use. • • Consider tree space allocations when granting variances to minimum parking requirements. • • Encourage enhanced property frontage requirements in relation to site plan approvals. • Consider signage bonus in conjunction with improved frontage treatment or partial streetscape completion. • Consider appointment/selection of City Urban Forester or Landscape Architect to oversee implementation of Master Plan, supervised by Director of Community Development. This employee or consultant would also have responsibilities related to the review of submitted streetscape plans and final site plans which include frontage improvements. S 30 imr ie- 9 - / ,'? 111/Ak STREETSCAPE IMPROVEMENT FUND REVENUE • based on TAMARAC FUTURE LAND USE ACTIVITY (Developer Pays 25% of Entire Program) Comprehensive Plan Projected Land Use Type Fee Per Unit Capacity Remaining Revenue Residential 200.00/du 3,767 du $ 753,000.00 Commercial/Office/Retail 400.00/ac 217.5 ac $ 87,000.00 Industrial 450.00/ac 350.7 ac $ 157,000.00 Community Facility 100.00/ac 3.0 ac $ 300.00 Utilities 100.00/ac 3.4 ac $ 340.00 Private Recreation 100.00/ac 56.9 ac $ 5, 690,00 Subtotal: $1,004,545,000 0 plus 10% redevelopment activity & interest 100 454.50 TOTAL: $1,104,999.50 a 31 9C- / 4 ? CITY PARKS AND / OR OTHER PUBLIC LAND • AREAS AVAILABLE FOR IMPROVEMENT • 32 /f-- 96 _/ ? ? • The following maps were developed and based on the recommendation to seek use of "free nursery" space within the City and to utilize each where possible for cultivation of 41) future Street Trees. They identify public owned parcels within the City, public and private recreational areas which in this case are golf courses, and the water bodies that traverse or are contained within the City. The first priority would be to seek planting easements where these parcels abut the previously identified Streetscape Corridors. If these areas are already irrigated (and sometimes fertigated as is the case with the golf courses) multi-row plantings of trees could be established as close as 15' on-center, with planned relocations of every other tree before mature spreads are attained. These trees would then be utilized in other areas of the Master Streetscape with those remaining forming the basis of a completed sectional streetscape. When additional nursery areas are necessary, utilization of other public lands "off the corridors" would be the next logical choice for cultivation. For example, irrigated perimeter areas behind the City's municipal complex or public services complex might allow additional tree plantings (for cultivation) without interference to existing operations. The residential perimeters of the sports complex might also be available for cultivation use, which would result in the desirable effect of additional screening or buffering for the adjoining properties. Whatever the areas selected, utilization of sites with existing irrigation systems would be favorable, thereby limiting establishment costs to the City. If significant irrigation installation costs are anticipated, or the selected sites does not benefit from natural drainage water supply, the real costs might actually outweigh the costs of commercially grown new trees. a 33 • r� ie.. 9C--/ 9/ al III/ cu C-42 CANAL L-36 m 0 0 *t n = SAWIRtASSIEIIPRES3WAT i 108 TER µ PROPOSED i ~ ;IMAMS ROAD , •' 6 I11 y ' ''* -0.....,,,,: i MILL Qo I MIAN'1 r ,..., N 1 1 -;t N P`• A `WppD Loi n V • 94 AVEt '�. a 1 i (A A p I 'E IMMINNI Ma 1` 1 . ir-',.; , r -—1 , Cn 8 = \ rs El 1 • - ''. T A NAI m lRw• _ r. m • ill -'-`-.....„ i mr, ( 51 cr, IA _. --4- -�--�_--v�'r•r mod_ �--111 Ir-- UNNER6ITY OR { V •. V — .. em_vo a 1:., 1 1 lc Tj i -i; , co Rtlluluuue..auuu. uu1YIR/Rluuunniuuun MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 2 OF 2 II El 1— Pl f 0 13 Z m r_ s A 0 1 N p C7 I m "' a z m a IA CITY OF TAMARACe .CON C C.LSULTANTS INCtNC A a m.S MASTER LANDSCAPECAPESTUDY ....Yter„ �� SUME� ti�.cr Q of PUBUC LAND MAP °'°1m1 ii e . AY aYYi1Lw.�wr..� �wrr rt....w sm. **Mae[Z �. �..F 141.22ae row.wc=.c1 na.11m CT MY r.a Ix o.x - euarhar FIT ,e'.R 4,-/ Yne. _ • S MATCHLINE SEE SHEET 1 OF 2 nui III■s......ssu eOOOOOsssssssi.s.ssss umMssls...sssss..spsssssssr r+ 54TH AVE i i -1 2., r..-.7...-r-:..t_,.-' -: • ::1-7:i.. . r 1,11 i I O • ._.P f',..„ Illft. .-111 ROCK ISLAND RO.•0 Vi ' I i 1; N f v ,•`�. `i M N g . (ST.R0.7) n -. c CA Arg A o . o a r U I LT, t II L-_ en GO • ' ;. 1 I _ ^J .0 a ii ® r m z i o c p r cc m "i C D m n 10 Co c p rr'i• yr y xi r•I 2- N a • i. CITY OF TAMAR4C .t.. rY C C.L-CONSULTANTS INC A. 1.0 I MASTER LANDSCAPE STUDY , erw *MowsSULTA ^k'r.' e,. PUBLIC LAND MAP gym—"" ......«. as owls•••...a«•....�-A wR r0/27Ls.+ ..•.•...a r 64.1110 Mgr MIA MU. M.n i nr50••70. • i •