CC_Minutes_2016_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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