If the squares are 105', then those flowers are about 30-35' across... a decent size even by tree standards (fully grown apple-tree size). What I am seeing are not trees, but flowers, which typically have a much lower width-to-height ratio than an apple tree. If they are intended to be trees, you have a lot of work yet to do.

105' still remains an odd and impractical grid increment. I guarantee the vast majority will just round it to a sensible 100' and treat it as such, because that's easier to work with and won't change the scaling that much. Just as most won't bother converting yards to meters or vice versa if using a gridded map in one in a system that uses the other. It'd just be easier if you did it yourself. Some customers may find it off-putting. If you like the size of things as they are, why not just adjust the grid to the scale with a nice round 100' grid? (And I do hope you're offering a gridless variant for virtual tabletop use, which is probably the majority of your market.)

I like that your large map exists in distinctive regions. That should help give a real sense of progress as players move from one area to another and make it easier to find things quickly. If something's in the ruined city, I know i only need to scan the dark area of the map. And while there are a few ambiguities, I think reads very clearly for this style of map. Unlike some that I just get lost in (in a bad way), this seems entirely practical to use in play. It would be sad if a little thing like a strange grid choice made it go overlooked.