CC_Minutes_2016_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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