CC_Minutes_2016_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2016 Page 17 cated he supports their statement that the City should take action on the situation; however, he deviates with their opinion with the proposed action of limiting his rights as a lawful process guaranteed by the City of Roseville. Mr. Koland indicated City staff has recommended and approved, as noted, that the application has met and exceeded the requirements in accordance with the City Code. He respectfully requested the City Council approve this lawfully compliant proposal for a minor subdivision. Mr. Koland read an excerpt from his application as contained in the meeting packet stating, “I listened and I understood your denial and the facts supporting the denial of my previous application. I will trust you find the current submittal meets all Code requirements and satisfies all facts purported by the denial. Please find attached two diagrams, one of which you have already seen, with relevant in- formation as follows: 1.Lot dimensions of the revised subdivision. I have highlighted the Code re- quirements that were stated by the Council and are in the Code. 2.The lot drainage retention plan. City Code sections 101726 allows for the use of a constructed facility to address storm water runoff. The Council has made it clear through the previous denial that the additional run off might be injuri- ous to neighbors. This subdivision proposal retains all additional run off and eliminates any potential injuries to our neighbors. This action also eliminates any contribution or compact to the extreme drainage issues in this area.” In response to a question raised by Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Koland noted, as was stated by Mr. Lloyd, this plan is conceptual as required by the City Code. That is the standard for submission and the storm water basin can be moved well outside of the 2% or 450 square feet on 23,000 square feet of the flood plain. Mr. Koland stated the next item he submitted is a diagram from the letter detailing the proposed locations, which the Council has already seen. With regard to histo- th ry, Mr. Koland noted he had stated during the July 18 meeting a bit about lot subdivisions in Gluek Lane. He displayed Item 3, a presentation on lot splits starting with 1933 Gluek Lane, the most recent lot split on Gluek Lane, noting it was created from 1937 Gluek Lane and when approved there were no drainage considerations. Mr. Koland stated there has been some controversy in the neigh- borhood about what this house looks like and while he does not necessarily think it is the best fit for the neighborhood, once again, he is not in an association and there are no covenants outlining or requiring any sort of oversight of that. Mr. Koland stated 1903 Gluek Lane submitted a petition statement about not sup- porting the lot split of 1926 Gluek Lane but eight or nine years ago, they subdi- vided from 1907 Gluek Lane, which was 1.4 acres, smaller than what he currently has at 1.6 acres, and occupied the house themselves at 1903 Gluek Lane. Mr. Ko- land opined this is nearly an identical lot split. According to the tax records, there