Laserfiche WebLink
629 If homeowners are expected to maintain rights-of-way, Member Cihacek <br />630 questioned if it wouldn't be mutually beneficial to promote such uses. <br />631 <br />632 Mr. Culver noted that could be possible, but required an additional step, to apply <br />633 for an easement encroachment, but would require a case-by-case review and be <br />634 two separate processes and evaluated per case. <br />635 <br />636 Member Cihacek questioned if there was any historic variable driven by historic <br />637 uses. <br />638 <br />639 Mr. Culver responded that it would be very difficult to standardize that <br />640 information on a city-wide basis, due to the numerous variables for rights-of-way <br />641 and positions of roadways, location of water and sewer mains, and location of <br />642 private utilities. Mr. Culver opined that it would be an enormous administrative <br />643 task to accomplish that, as well as working through Ramsey County to legally <br />644 change those rights-of-way and identify where it could happen. <br />645 <br />646 Member Cihacek questioned if the City could voluntarily cede part of its <br />647 easement or right-of-way back to a homeowner to create that consistency. <br />648 <br />649 Mr. Culver advised that there was such a mec anism in place, used sometimes, <br />650 called a vacation process, and included filing fees for applications, holding a <br />651 public hearing, investigating utilities and other issues that could be impacted and <br />652 on a case-by-case basis. Mr. Culver advised that it was easier for the City to <br />653 support a setback varie if that became a driving factor. <br />654 <br />655 Mr. Schwartz ncurre noting that it would also be cost prohibitive to do so. <br />656 <br />657 Chair Stenlund noted public rig is-of-way could not generally be used for <br />658 personal gain (e.g. to meet a water quality issue). <br />659 <br />660 Member Seigler used the property at 1829 Roselawn Ave. on the displayed map <br />661 and variables along just that one block in setbacks, available property for <br />662 expansion; public rights-of-way; and other issues. Member Seigler opined that he <br />663 saw some setback requirements as excessive when there appeared to be no <br />664 consistency from one parcel to another, even on one block. When a lot was small, <br />665 Member Seigler opined that it became even more excessive when the City's <br />666 easement or right-of-way was taking 20% to 25% of that lot. Member Seigler <br />667 noted that the city, county and/or state had 65 years since the City's inception to <br />668 do something on that reserved property, and had not done so to-date. Now, with <br />669 changes to housing stock expectations and in order to have a home resalable in <br />670 today's market that was viable (e.g. master suite and minimum two-car garage), if <br />671 there was room for an expansion on the lot to accomplish a marketable home, the <br />672 City should find a way to accommodate that growth to get higher value homes. <br />673 <br />Page 15 of 19 <br />