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
In the video of the council meeting, time 3:38, Council Member Willmus asks for clarification on <br />lot width 30' back from the 30' lot setback line. 60' back from the street in not a location where <br />a requirement has been defined by the City of Roseville Code. The code, as recently adopted <br />unanimously by this very Council less than two months ago requires 85' width at the set back <br />line, nothing further. <br />Before finalizing this denial, I ask that the Council please clarify how this submission does not <br />meet width requirements? <br />3) The marginal runoff from the residential development intended for the subdivided parcel <br />might be injurious to other homes in the surrounding neighborhood. <br />Response 3A. (from the City of Roseville's website) In the spring of 2013 the city updated its <br />stormwater management standards to meet the requirements of the surface water <br />management plan. Following is a summary of the standards: <br />• All new development and redevelopment on projects which encompass one-half acre or <br />more of disturbed area or 5,000 square feet or more of new or reconstructed imperious <br />surface will be evaluated based on the new stormwater requirements. <br />More conditions exist, but are not relevant to this application. <br />The proposed lot split does not exceed one-half acre; therefore, it could not possibly disturb <br />one-half acre or more. There are no policies or ordinances that support denial of this lot split on <br />this condition. This statement of fact does not follow the city's policies. <br />Response 36: Given the definition of "the area" by Council in item fact #1, I can prove, <br />undeniably, that the runoff from my lot would not be injurious to the neighboring homes. There <br />are two adjacent neighbors to "the area". Based upon the use of my trust Stanley� Pocket <br />Sighting level, my neighbor's homes are between 4' to 6' and 8' to 10' higher than the average <br />elevation of the proposed lot to be split. If my entire subdivided was covered with impermeable <br />surfaces to 30% (Roseville City Code standard) , then design standard of 4.18" of rainfall can <br />then be determined the impact to the two neighbor lots and my current lot. <br />4.18x0.3x0.5acres/3.5acres=l/6" <br />Potentially raising the water level 1/6" on our two neighbor's lots (and my other subdivided lot) <br />is substantially less than the height difference of 48" to 120". No damage to their homes. The <br />Council's statement is not Factual. <br />Response 3C: Understanding that you may not have intended to define "the area" as you did <br />and that is why you used "neighborhood", I decided to look at the whole 120-acre water shed. <br />My findings are as follows: <br />I request the following definitions of the terms used: <br />_ _. ____ __ _ _ _ _ _ <br />1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial <br />3�Page <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.