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