CC_Minutes_2016_0718 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 18, 2016 Page 9 Mr. Koland reiterated his points previously stated, opining that a fact used for de- nial had not been made public nor shared; and as pointed out by Mayor Roe, these requests were usually handled at the administrative level. Therefore, Mr. Koland opined that there was no established precedent for such action, or no rules out- lined by the city. If the city wished to create or make rules, Mr. Koland further opined that it should do so before a subdivision application came forward, as it was not appropriate to create ordinances on one individual submission. While the City Council may recognize there is a drainage issue, Mr. Koland noted there had been no action to prohibit other building within variations of these two requested submissions, and especially with a home currently under construction in the area, he found these denials confusion. John King, 1861 Gluek Lane (applicant and owner) Referring to the public hearing notice map, as displayed, Mr. King addressed run- off to their lot from surrounding lots, with theirs being the lowest lot. Mr. King questioned how and why they should be held accountable for surrounding runoff but unable to deal with the runoff from their parcel into the established drain due to topography and changes made by those surrounding parcels over the years. Mr. King noted the whole mitigation point involves 250 houses above their parcel and those surrounding neighbors whose parcels drain into their yard and flooded their yard with each rainfall. Therefore, Mr. King questioned how any additional impervious surface on their parcel (e.g. driveway) could be deemed excessive, opining such a statement was a complete double standard and misstatement of any reality. Mr. King questioned how his one lot could possibly mitigate drainage for an entire area; and as a Scientist familiar with flow analysis, had come to the con- clusion that there would be zero impact. Therefore, Mr. King opined the reason stated for denial of the requested subdivision was false and nonsensical. Motion to Reconsider Etten moved reconsideration of the previous motion of July 11, 2016. Mayor Roe declared the motion failed due to lack of a second. McGehee moved, Laliberte seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 11338_ (At- tachment A) entitled, "A Resolution Memorializing the DENIAL of a Request for Approval of a Minor Subdivision at 1926 Gluek Lane into Two Parcels (PF16- 016);" as amended: changing resolution language from "marginal" to "addi- tiona� " While appreciating the work put forth by the applicant, Councilmember Laliberte reiterated her concerns with this particular area. Also without a full Council at tonight's meeting, Councilmember Laliberte further noted her inability to recon- sider any of that information presented last week during public testimony.