My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 10:34:29 AM
Creation date
10/6/2016 9:31:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
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
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, September 12, 2016 <br />Page 17 <br /> <br />cated he supports their statement that the City should take action on the situation; <br />however, he deviates with their opinion with the proposed action of limiting his <br />rights as a lawful process guaranteed by the City of Roseville. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland indicated City staff has recommended and approved, as noted, that <br />the application has met and exceeded the requirements in accordance with the <br />City Code. He respectfully requested the City Council approve this lawfully <br />compliant proposal for a minor subdivision. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland read an excerpt from his application as contained in the meeting <br />packet stating, “I listened and I understood your denial and the facts supporting <br />the denial of my previous application. I will trust you find the current submittal <br />meets all Code requirements and satisfies all facts purported by the denial. Please <br />find attached two diagrams, one of which you have already seen, with relevant in- <br />formation as follows: <br /> <br />1.Lot dimensions of the revised subdivision. I have highlighted the Code re- <br />quirements that were stated by the Council and are in the Code. <br /> <br />2.The lot drainage retention plan. City Code sections 101726 allows for the use <br />of a constructed facility to address storm water runoff. The Council has made <br />it clear through the previous denial that the additional run off might be injuri- <br />ous to neighbors. This subdivision proposal retains all additional run off and <br />eliminates any potential injuries to our neighbors. This action also eliminates <br />any contribution or compact to the extreme drainage issues in this area.” <br /> <br />In response to a question raised by Councilmember McGehee, Mr. Koland noted, <br />as was stated by Mr. Lloyd, this plan is conceptual as required by the City Code. <br />That is the standard for submission and the storm water basin can be moved well <br />outside of the 2% or 450 square feet on 23,000 square feet of the flood plain. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland stated the next item he submitted is a diagram from the letter detailing <br />the proposed locations, which the Council has already seen. With regard to histo- <br />th <br />ry, Mr. Koland noted he had stated during the July 18 meeting a bit about lot <br />subdivisions in Gluek Lane. He displayed Item 3, a presentation on lot splits <br />starting with 1933 Gluek Lane, the most recent lot split on Gluek Lane, noting it <br />was created from 1937 Gluek Lane and when approved there were no drainage <br />considerations. Mr. Koland stated there has been some controversy in the neigh- <br />borhood about what this house looks like and while he does not necessarily think <br />it is the best fit for the neighborhood, once again, he is not in an association and <br />there are no covenants outlining or requiring any sort of oversight of that. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland stated 1903 Gluek Lane submitted a petition statement about not sup- <br />porting the lot split of 1926 Gluek Lane but eight or nine years ago, they subdi- <br />vided from 1907 Gluek Lane, which was 1.4 acres, smaller than what he currently <br />has at 1.6 acres, and occupied the house themselves at 1903 Gluek Lane. Mr. Ko- <br />land opined this is nearly an identical lot split. According to the tax records, there <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.