Laserfiche WebLink
* r . <br />* <br />W <br />. • . • V-:^ rj,'» -“* ' '. 'v,“ - • <br />•; ':\ : '^' /' * / ■ r <br />r - • . . <br />Zoning Pil«; 11367 <br />April 11, 1989 <br />Page 2 of 2 <br />Staff has worked with the City Cngir4eer to ensure there will be no <br />negative impact on the adjacent property nor to the subject property. Cook <br />has confirmed that the pond installation will have no negative isipact upon <br />the drainage to the west and would only have a positive impact on the <br />drainage in the area providing greater retention within the bowl area. <br />Early in the review the neighboring property owner to the west noted <br />concern that he would receive additional drainage, but Cook confirmed that <br />there would only be greater retention on the Harris property. <br />Staff has learned that one property owner is concerned because of ♦•he <br />geeSe and ducks maintained on their property and that the pond on the <br />Harris property will become an attractive nuisance. This is a matter that <br />can best be resolved by neighbors. The City cannot deny an applicant's <br />request based on concerns of this nature. The applicant has clearly <br />satisfied the standards of Section 10.03, Subdivision 19 and seeks no <br />variances to the standards. <br />If Planning Commission consin^.rs approval, staff would recommend that <br />a condition of the approval be that the banks of the pond be installed at <br />3:1 slopes and that vegetation be restored upon completion of the final <br />land alteration. <br />.1^