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
1) Marginal: Factually, what is the quantum of the marginal runoff? The submission does not <br />propose any specific square footage of impervious surface. How was it factually determined <br />that there is runoff? At time 3:55 of the meeting, Council Member Willmus states <br />(paraphrasing, since minutes are not yet published.) `I can't state that added impervious <br />coverage in the area would not potential harm the existing property owner'. No impervious <br />surface was proposed in this submission, so I ask for clarity on how impervious coverage was <br />determined on this denial, as a basis of fact. <br />2) Intended: My submission met all requirements set forth by the city. In this submission I did <br />not provide any specifics of development, so how did the Council define the development? <br />3) Might be: According to our definition of fact above, a fact should be true. This statement <br />may be true, and it may not be true. This is not factual. <br />4) Injurious to other homes: No facts were brought forward in the denial defining how or to <br />what extent the injuries that would be sustained by the neighborhood for this submission. <br />Some community comment was brought forward by the neighbors, but no facts were <br />presented or are known about damages to homes only land. <br />5) Surrounding: What is definition of this area? <br />6) This assessment on drainage is not appropriate and should not be considered on this <br />submission, because it is not and has not previously been a condition for minor subdivision <br />The entire sentence is a non-factual and could just as easily be written as: <br />An unknown amount of potential runoff from the undefined residential development that <br />may be intended for the subdivided parcel might or might not be safe or injurious to other <br />homes in the surrounding neighborhood. <br />In fact, while the City of Roseville has not done any calculations to substantiate or refute this <br />issue, I will offer you something to consider. <br />Theoretically, IF we were to split the lot, and put in a 25'x50' driveway and a home with a roof <br />area of 2000 ft^2 AND assume a worst case scenario that all added development is <br />impermeable with no other rainwater retention devices on our property (which we do have <br />installed at our current house) the following items are factual. See appendix A for calculations. <br />• Marginal runoff is 8,472 gallons <br />• The marginal runoff increases the 120-acre drainage by 0.062% <br />• The marginal runoff increases the storm system overstress from 28.247% to 28.326% <br />0.062% is a challenging number for me to understand, so for demonstration purposes, I used the <br />monthly salary of a City of Roseville Council member, $585 per month, lets apply this <br />percentage: <br />$585.00 * 0.062% _ $0.36 <br />If we apply this idea of injurious at a threshold of 0.062%, that leads me to conclude that a <br />monthly payment to you of $584.64 rather than $585.00 would be injurious to your finances. In <br />_ _ _ __ .. __ __ _ <br />1926 Gluek Lane Minor Subdivision request PF16-014 response to facts of denial <br />4�Page <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.