My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Search
09/11/2001 P&Z Packet
LinoLakes
>
Advisory Boards & Commissions
>
Planning & Zoning Board
>
Packets
>
2001
>
09/11/2001 P&Z Packet
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/1/2014 1:51:04 PM
Creation date
7/1/2014 10:27:28 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
P&Z
P&Z Document Type
P&Z Packet
Meeting Date
09/11/2001
P&Z Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
103
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Mr. Jeff Smyser August 7, 2001 Page 2 <br />City Planner <br />City of Lino Lakes <br />• Condition 13c: The original planting plan was submitted along with our master plan in <br />September 1997. The berm was only going to be five feet high along the north edge of our <br />property with plants, shrubs, and trees to act as a visual screen. As the approval process <br />moved along after the initial Planning & Zoning meeting, we had two meetings with the <br />neighbors. During these meetings, the purpose of the berm changed. We subsequently <br />agreed to increase the height of the berm to eight feet and move it in from the north property <br />line by 150' to create a buffer area between the property line and our proposed storage area. <br />We feel that the recommendation for two rows of trees was initially intended as a visual and <br />sound screen based on the lower, five -foot high, berm design. As discussions with the <br />neighbors progressed, it was determined that the trees would not do the job as either. We <br />compromised by adding the 3' to the height of the berm and by changing its location. The <br />increased height is a more substantial visual and sound screen than the rows of trees could <br />have been. We cannot see any significant value in planting these rows of trees along the <br />berm. <br />• Condition 13e: The irrigation system was added as a condition for our permit because the <br />neighbors were concerned that the plantings on the berm would be neglected. In the <br />beginning, this condition made sense, but after meeting with Greg Buell from Buell <br />Landscaping, who specializes in landscaping berms, he recommended substituting the <br />originally proposed plantings with more drought resistant plants. He said that with the right <br />plants in place, we would not need an irrigation system for the berm. The drought resistant <br />plants are shown on the new planting plan that we are submitting to you at this time. Based <br />on Greg Buell's recommendations, we planted these hardier plants last fall. They are almost <br />one year old and have survived through a harsh winter, a very hot summer, and as of August <br />1, 2001 are doing very well. We have a water tank truck, which we use to help reduce the <br />dust in our storage yard, and we are in the process of fitting it with a pump so we can water <br />the plantings when necessary. <br />I am respectfully submitting an application to have these last remaining conditions of approval <br />removed from our conditional use permit. <br />Sincerely, <br />Randall r Molin <br />Vice President / Facilities Manager <br />MOLIN CONCRETE PRODUCTS CO <br />415 Lilac St. <br />Lino Lakes, MN 55014 <br />Enclosures: Letter from OSHA pertaining to Condition 11 c <br />New planting plan <br />Photographs taken August 1, 2001 of planting on the berm <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.