I think you misunderstand my point. It is not about planning on paper .... or NOT paper. In spite of the fact that you are using a computer program to draw (in the pictures you submitted above) the exact same thing could be done on paper (though it would be much more time consuming!) And I'm not talking about not-getting-input from others. I'm encouraging it and giving you an idea of how it could more easily be done.
All I'm talking about is when you show the 6 same plants on the plan, don't draw each one individually. When they are next to each other, draw them as a collected group .... the same way you'd see them in real life. And by "draw" I mean make their circles overlap and become one outline, if you are using a computer drawing program, as above.
First below, is the scheme you've shown in your second picture. I am not altering the planting scheme/arrangement whatsoever. But I am linking the like plants that you have grouped together, which makes it instantly more understandable where plantings are contiguous. It also makes it easier to see and understand what plant patterns you are creating. (You have to overlook that my "painting" is not gorgeously smooth!) Here, instead of trying to interpret that there are x-number of individual plants at the lower right corner, I see one group that is colored red. That's the footprint pattern that one would see in the garden ... not three separate things.
In fact, what might be causing you trouble in creating a plan, is that you are, kind of, trying to reverse engineer it. You're starting with the actual plants themselves and trying to end up with pattern shapes on the ground which would show up as three-dimensional volumes in the yard. Instead, you should be starting with the pattern shapes on the ground, ignoring what plants might be used. After the 2-D pattern is created, you would explore how you wanted it to read in volume. (How tall is that shape and what form does it take ... a cone, dome, cube, mat, etc.) There would be some back and forth between the ground pattern shape, and its volume and form. Maybe where there was a cone at the foreground, you decided it should be moved further back and a mat shape would be better at the foreground ... or similar such changes.
AFTER, you have got the ground pattern fairly well established on paper, and the form and volume established (possibly in your mind only .... or on separate little sketches), then you would begin to explore what exact plants might best makes those shapes, volumes and forms. In that process, there might be 5 different options that could do one of the jobs. At that point you'd be comparing foliage colors & textures, plant habits, bloom "flavors", etc. in order to fine tune your selection to what you believe will be the perfect, or near perfect plant for that particular spot. I guaranty that if you were to do the planning in the correct order, you'd end up with a different result, and likely it would be one that had a far better chance of standing the test of time. To plan in the reverse order usually achieves a result in which the gardener is moving a lot of plants around over a period of time, trying to fix their mistakes.
Q
heronswood globe katsura
Q