Laserfiche WebLink
Zoning File #1367 <br />April 11, 1189 <br />Page 2 olf T. <br />Staff has worked with the City Engineer to ensure there will be no <br />negative impact on the sdiarent property nor to the subject property. Cook <br />has confirmed that the pond installation will have no negative impact 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 the <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 mattf : 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 considers 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 land alteration.