07-08-1991 Council Packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

m I i 'Zoning File #1604 November 15» 1990 Page 3 9.The City Engineer stated he woiild not recommend tliat the City approve a pond excavation wr',h 2:1 side slopes. While this slope would leave a greater proportion of the pond at full 12* depthf from a safety standpoint, it would be nearly impossible for a child or adult to walk up the bank and out of the pond should they fall in. Most of the City's lakeshore is at a 6:1 or flatter slope near the shoreline, v Staff would agree with the Watershed District requirement that the slopes be no steeper thin 4:1. tf 10.In addition to providing the information requested by the Watershed District, applicant should be required to have his surveyor locate the 15" clay tile outlet at the lake and verify the invert elevation. Because this only pond outlet is underneath a neighboring property owner's residence (probably without benefit of a drainage easement), the engineering data will be critical in determining whether construction of this pond and the general clean-up of this area will have an adverse effect in increasing flows through the neighbor's property. / A w 11.Applicant has constructed a number of concrete/brick pillars along the perimeter of the property, with the intent that bushes would be planted between them to act as a fence-like barrier. Note from the staff letter of 9/27/90 th« these pillars were constructed without a permit, and staff intended to advise applicant regarding interpretation of the Code regarding thxs issue. Planning Commission is requested as part of the current application, to review the Code Sections regarding fences and interpret whether or not these pillars meet the fence requirements. Staff Re ndation Staff would recommend tabling the request pending submittal to the City all of the information requested by the Watershed District, and additionally, information regarding the elevation and nature of the clay tile outlet at the shoreline of Crystal Bay. Absent any Zoning Code directive that such pond construction is strictly prohibited under any circumstances, if all hyrologic/engineering concerns are satisified, then the only other question in the granting of this condi-.ional use permit is rather subjective: will construction of this pond and the proposed grading work at it's perimeter be compatible with the policies expressed in Section 10.55, Subdivision 1 i.e. will such vork have an adverse effect on the natural environment qualities of this wetland area?