Laserfiche WebLink
674 Member Seigler expressed concern that the City of Roseville could eventually end <br />675 up being a community of lower value homes or lower income housing, similar to <br />676 some neighboring communities, with those seeking higher valued homes moving <br />677 to other communities to find it. Member Seigler opined that there were some <br />678 areas with stable lots that could be addressed to meet those needs. <br />679 <br />680 Chair Stenlund noted that the Cities of Eagan and Edina had ripped out little <br />681 homes and built McMansions that were not creating problems from their size and <br />682 creating problems with solar shade. <br />683 IAL <br />684 Member Seigler stated that he personally had no problem with the market value of <br />685 homes surrounding him increasing. <br />686 <br />687 Chair Stenlund just noted that there were other issues to consider, as well as other <br />688 options. <br />689 <br />690 Member Seigler opined that Roseville may be coming artificially undesirable due <br />691 to the large setbacks, reducing house values and any improvements that may <br />692 occur. Member Seigler advised that if some improvements were allowed it would <br />693 serve to improve the community's overall value. <br />694 N <br />695 Member Cihacek questioned if a parcel's size when offered for sale provides its <br />696 platted lot size or included the right-of-way. <br />697 <br />698 Mr. Culver responded that advised that the lot size was bound by the square, not <br />699 the right-of-way; and for example, a 2-3 acre lot which was not that uncommon as <br />700 a standard lot size in Roseville while some were smaller. Mr. Culver noted that in <br />701 many instances, the right-of-way width was established prior to the home actually <br />702 being built, and the City hadn't taken any additional right-of-way since the home <br />703 as const d. From his professional stance Mr. Culver advised that he'd have <br />704 fficulty saying where the p&vement was in relationship to the lot lines; but also <br />705 maintained the need to retain right-of-way, especially on corner lots. <br />706 <br />707 Member Cihacek questioned the differences among adjacent lots. <br />708 <br />709 Mr. Culveised that some may have been platted properties, and the adjacent <br />710 properties ma not have ever been platted, but continued as Metes and Bounds <br />711 parcels, many which were still evident in Roseville. If those properties sought a <br />712 lot split in the future, Mr. Culver advised that they would then be forced, under <br />713 current regulations, to include a dedicated right-of-way. <br />714 <br />715 Member Cihacek opined that the rules seemed arbitrary for adjacent homes, and <br />716 there didn't seem to be a method in place other than historically. Member <br />717 Cihacek questioned if there was a remedy for those property owners under current <br />718 development trends so they could make their case with the City and be heard for <br />719 the merits of their particular situation. <br />Page 16 of 19 <br />