2015-03-24_PWETC_AgendaPacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

537 7. Right-of-Way (ROW) Width Discussion 538 As previously requested by the PWEC, Mr. Culver presented information on 539 right-of-way easements and possible vacations of some for home expansions that 540 may be applicable for zero setback requirements (e.g. HDR's). 541 542 Member Seigler, who had originated this request, provided examples of some 543 corner lots without room for even a two-car garage under current setback 544 requirements; or some lots too small for sufficient green space or unable to 545 qualify for any expansion based on impervious surface requirements. As a 546 GreenStep City, Member Seigler questioned if the City was being consistent in 547 that designation while still requiring significant setbacks across-the-board; while 548 not allowing those wanting to expand to increase the value of their homes based 549 on those setback requirements. 550 551 Mr. Culver noted that given the age of the community d much of its housing 552 stock, there were numerous unique circumstances. Mr. Culver opined that part of 553 the problem with easements was that since Roseville was developed without the 554 majority of the lots properly platted, with many lot splits over and again, creating 555 irregular properties over those years, it created many of the problems, since right- 556 of-way and/or utility easements were not always provided. Mr. Culver noted that 557 under current regulations, many of those lot splits would not be allowed today that 558 would serve to avoid the very issues Mr. Seigler was identifying. Mr. Culver 559 noted that this included the land use code that a property could not have more 560 than 30% impervious surface. 561 562 As suggested by Member Seigler, Mr. Culver spoke in support of a case study for 563 his neighbor's property, not only as an example, but to perhaps find solutions or 564 options for develo ment versus the inability to develop in certain cases. 565 566fand Culver displayed a map shows ts-of--ways from one area of Roseville 567 actual variances of that width as an example of the variables. 568 569 In addition, Mr. Schwartz advis9d that in some corridors the variable may not be 570 as large as indicated on this map, as the map didn't always show actual platted 571 rights-of-way widths in some instances. As an example, Mr. Schwartz noted that 572 Roselawn Avenue, originally a Ramsey County Road, had an initial standard of 573 66', then another 10' was added to each side; with some county roadways actually 574 at 86', and others allowing for 49.5' on each side of the center (e.g. Lexington 575 Avenue and Rice Street) after replatting. 576 577 At the request of Member Felice, Mr. Culver clarified the difference in rights -of - 578 way and easements. Mr. Culver explained that a right-of-way was typically 579 platted and publically owned, either dedicated or purchased, with private property 580 extending up to that right-of-way. Mr. Culver advised that an easement 581 essentially provided the same rights, but it was a portion of encumbered private 582 property. Mr. Culver noted that generally setback rules generally are measured off Page 13 of 19