My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0718
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0718
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
7/29/2016 3:26:11 PM
Creation date
7/26/2016 10:10:05 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
7/18/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
37
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
If the Council has a different definition, I would appreciate you sharing. Assuming we have an agreeable <br />definition of fact, I would like to address each item of fact. <br />1) The existing storm water runoff and drainage issues in the area are extreme. <br />Response 1A. Irrelevant and nonspecific statement. <br />Response 1B. If you will recall, there was a second Gluek Lane minor subdivision request heard <br />and denied on July 11, 2016. The proposers of the subdivision shared their denial letter issued <br />by the city. I was surprised to only see only one item on the "facts" — the same finding of fact as <br />my third item. Since fact #1 on my denial was not on the other subdivision request, the Council <br />must have determined that "the area" they defined in my factual denial only relates to my <br />adjacent neighbors. This surprises me, since no facts or information was presented on current <br />drainage issues on my lot or to lots adjacent to my lot. <br />I request the following definitions of the terms used: issues and extreme? <br />I will finish addressing this issue in response to item #3 below. <br />2) The proposal does not meet minimum requirements of the city code for lot width. <br />I have to admit; I am quite perplexed by this statement of fact. Line 58 to 59 of the PF-16-014 <br />submission address the minimum width of an interior lot and states the following. <br />"City Code 1004.08 (LDR-1 Dimensional Standards): Table 1004-3 specifies that interior lots must <br />be at least 85 feet wide, 110 feet deep and comprise at least 11,000 square feet in area." <br />The proposal submitted indicates a lot width of 100' at the front. 100' is greater than 85'. <br />I spent months working with Roseville's planning team in developing the proposal to submit a <br />code compliant submission. We reviewed and modified our submission, in collaboration with <br />the city planners. We even verified the submission per the recently adopted section 1103.- <br />6A&B that was approved unanimously by the Council on May 23. <br />Item A.1. establishes the following requirement: <br />A. The minimum lot dimensions in subdivisions designed for single family detached dwelling <br />developments shall be: 1, Eighty five (85J feed wide at the established building setback line and <br />on outside street curvatures. <br />City Code 1103.06.B requires: <br />(from line 80 of the submission) "the rear lot line to be at least 30' in length." <br />On the submission, the width of the lot is in excess of 85' at 30' back from the front line (the <br />building setback line) and 30' at the rear property line. In excess of 85' is greater than 85'. It is <br />100% guaranteed that it is at least 85'. It is a fact that this submission is compliant with regards <br />to lot width. <br />__ _ _ _ _ _ <br />__ <br />1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial <br />2�Page <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.