My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2012_0827
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2012
>
CC_Minutes_2012_0827
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
9/12/2012 8:48:05 AM
Creation date
9/11/2012 10:44:43 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
8/27/2012
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
42
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br /> Monday,August 27,2012 <br /> Page 34 <br /> tempting to mitigate at least a portion of the drainage issues through conditions <br /> on this subdivision request and the required snow removal plan, as discussed at <br /> the previous City Council meeting. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Pust, Mr. Lloyd advised that the applicant's <br /> rationale for a subdivision was to not own the residence or rent it out; and only <br /> keep the property they wanted to simplify the process. <br /> At the request of Councilmember Pust regarding a condition that could protect <br /> neighbors by requiring their approval or some way to complain if snow melted <br /> into their yard, Ms. Bloom advised that action to approve the subdivision did <br /> not create the snow issue or become an issue due to the request. Ms. Bloom ad- <br /> vised that existing practices are to push the snow into the back yard and block <br /> the drain;thus staff's rationale for the City easement and the condition requiring <br /> that the applicant keep that low spot from being blocked. If the City Council <br /> chooses not to move forward with approval of the subdivision, Ms. Bloom <br /> opined that she doubted the applicant would change their current process for <br /> snow removal or storage; and since the City currently had no regulation in <br /> place, staff had attempted to address drainage concerns to some extent through <br /> placing conditions on the o protecting <br /> Councilmember Pust clarified that staff was advising that by conditioning and <br /> approving this subdivision request, the City Council was helping to solve a <br /> problem since they couldn't force the property owner currently to do anything; <br /> and the only resolution the City held was through granting a conditional subdi- <br /> vision. <br /> Ms. Bloom responded affirmatively, stating that essentially staff was in the pro- <br /> cess of developing a more comprehensive solution, and with this City easement, <br /> it could address a portion of the drainage issues;however, without that easement <br /> in place, the company could pile snow and block drainage in the north/south <br /> drainage area, currently the status quo and continuing that process. <br /> Councilmember McGehee opined that she saw no reason to consider or grant <br /> the subdivision at all; since it seemed like the easiest thing for the parcel owner <br /> to do by leaving it as is with an easement on the back for them to blow their <br /> snow. Councilmember McGehee opined that she was not comfortable creating <br /> a land-locked LDR parcel, and particularly didn't like being held hostage by the <br /> easement not going far enough and the business owner deliberately choosing to <br /> block all drainage damaging other adjacent lots. Councilmember McGehee fur- <br /> ther opined that the existing commercial lot went well beyond any reasonable <br /> amount of impervious coverage given its slope; and the 1959 regulations regard- <br /> ing fencing and screening between businesses and residential homes were not <br /> being conformed with in any way. If a plan was anticipated next spring to make <br /> the entire area work, Councilmember McGehee opined that it made sense; how- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.