Laserfiche WebLink
Member Seigler expressed concern that the City of Roseville could eventually end <br /> up being a community of lower value homes or lower income housing, similar to <br /> some neighboring communities, with those seeking higher valued homes moving <br /> to other communities to find it. Member Seigler opined that there were some <br /> areas with stable lots that could be addressed to meet those needs. <br /> Chair Stenlund noted that the Cities of Eagan and Edina had ripped out little <br /> homes and built McMansions that were now creating problems from their size and <br /> creating problems with solar shade. <br /> Member Seigler stated that he personally had no problem with the market value of <br /> homes surrounding him increasing. <br /> Chair Stenlund just noted that there were other issues to consider, as well as other <br /> options. <br /> Member Seigler opined that Roseville may be coming artificially undesirable due <br /> to the large setbacks, reducing house values and any improvements that may <br /> occur. Member Seigler advised that if some improvements were allowed it would <br /> serve to improve the community's overall value. <br /> Member Cihacek questioned if a parcel's size when offered for sale provides its <br /> platted lot size or included the right-of-way. <br /> Mr. Culver responded that advised that the lot size was bound by the square, not <br /> the right-of-way; and for example, a 2/3 acre lot which was not that uncommon as <br /> a standard lot size in Roseville while some were smaller. Mr. Culver noted that in <br /> many instances, the right-of-way width was established prior to the home actually <br /> being built, and the City hadn't taken any additional right-of-way since the home <br /> was constructed. From his professional stance, Mr. Culver advised that he'd have <br /> difficulty saying where the pavement was in relationship to the lot lines; but also <br /> maintained the need to retain right-of-way, especially on corner lots. <br /> Member Cihacek questioned the differences among adjacent lots. <br /> Mr. Culver advised that some may have been platted properties, and the adjacent <br /> properties may not have ever been platted, but continued as Metes and Bounds <br /> parcels, many which were still evident in Roseville. If those properties sought a <br /> lot split in the future, Mr. Culver advised that they would then be forced, under <br /> current regulations, to include a dedicated right-of-way. <br /> Member Cihacek opined that the rules seemed arbitrary for adjacent homes, and <br /> there didn't seem to be a method in place other than historically. Member <br /> Cihacek questioned if there was a remedy for those property owners under current <br /> development trends so they could make their case with the City and be heard for <br /> the merits of their particular situation. <br /> Page 16 of 19 <br />