Laserfiche WebLink
<br /> Comments of Richard Gonzalez <br />. (2"d set) <br /> Regarding Planning Case 06-028 <br /> (3433 Lake Johanna Blvd) <br /> October 30, 2006 <br /> Dear members of the Planning Commission: <br /> I am providing the following supplemental comments regarding the proposed site plan f()r <br /> 1433 Lake Johanna Boulevard, which is again on your agenda for consideration at the <br /> November I, 2006 meeting. <br /> I am the owner of3441 Lake Johanna Blvd, the propeI1y immediately north of the subject <br /> property. I submitted comments for your review prior to the October 4, 2006 meeting, <br /> and also attended that meeting. At the October 4 meeting, additional infixmation <br /> (beyond that previously posted OIl the City's website) was available regarding the <br /> proposed site landscape plan. Since the October 4 meeting was not a public hearing, I <br /> was unable to comment on, dispute, or clarify any of the statements made by the <br /> Applicant or City staff <br />. I am submitting this second set of comments to address the representations made at the <br /> October 4 meeting, and to bring to your attention several new issues or details which only <br /> bccarne apparent from the materials available at the October 4 meeting. <br /> Landscape Plan <br /> C crt.! fi c_a t i.o n <br /> The Landscape Plan submitted by Applicant has no identification as to who prepared the <br /> plan, their qualitications, or their affiliation. In Minnesota, the profession of I,andscape <br /> Architect is a licensed one, (Minnesota Statutes Chapter 326) and although some <br /> exemptions exist for singlc- and tVo/O-family dwellings, it would be appropriate f()r the <br /> planning commission to require that the planting plan be identified as to the entity <br /> responsible for its creation. <br /> A~curacy <br /> The drawing of the landscape planting plan shows the outlines of the subject property, <br /> but not in accord with the survey document that \vas suhmitted as part of the Applicatiori. <br /> This is an important discrepancy, as it leads to an incorrect visualization of the spatial <br /> relationships hetween the proposed plantings and the surrounding properties_ <br /> The subject property is roughly trapezoidal in shape, with the registered land survey <br />. indicating that the south and east property lines meet at an angle of approximately 64 <br />