CC_Minutes_2016_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

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