CC_Minutes_2016_0711 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, July 11, 2016 Page 35 Roe further stated that he didn't feel building a home on this site, with any new property or development requirements in place, would constitute a major negative impact to the existing drainage problem; and therefore he didn't find this proposal created an issue in that regard. Based on the comments made by Senior Planner Lloyd indicating the lot would be suitable on which to build a home, Councilmember McGehee opined that the di- mensional width of the lot did not conform to city standards; and she was aware of the City Council having turned down previous and similar applications else- where in the city for that same reason. In addition to her prior comments, and the comments made subsequent to her motion, Councilmember McGehee opined how people valued their neighborhoods served as a real benefit to the community, as indicated on the recently community survey, and as commented on by the public tonight. Councilmember McGehee suggested that it seemed when people needed more money one solution was their attempt to divide their lots according to some standard of the city's grid system, and then change the character of a neighbor- hood for everyone else. Councilmember McGehee stated she personally didn't think that was a valid reason to split lots, and based on calls she had received from other citizens, felt her position was upheld by others. Councilmember McGehee noted there had been some reference by property owners of an under- standing when people built their homes or purchased property in this area, there would be no splitting of lots; but noted this apparently hadn't been documented. Councilmember McGehee further opined that Roseville's plan for uniform infill lots that seemed to be underway was short-sighted and wrong. Councilmember McGehee noted the massive water problems already existing that the city didn't have finances nor sufficient easements or access to solve. Councilmember Willmus stated he would not speak to a property owner's motiva- tion to subdivide their parcels, noting they had the ability to do so to a point. However, Councilmember Willmus opined that point was that any subdivision not be injurious or harmful to other adjacent properties. Based on staff's comments about that drainage, Councilmember Willmus stated he could not say added im- pervious surface would not harm those adjacent property owners, and therefore he would side with the findings as proposed, and support the motion for denial. Mayor Roe stated he maybe could be persuaded to support denial based on drain- age, but not the finding on whether the parcel meets the city's buildable lot re- quirements ; or parameters for neighborhood character, since there were not standards for such character addressed in subdivision or zoning code. As previ- ously stated, therefore, Mayor Roe advised he could not support denial based on the stated findings. Roll Call Ayes: McGehee, Willmus and Laliberte. Nays: Etten and Roe.