CC_Minutes_2016_0912 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, September 12, 2016 Page 18 are about 7,000 square feet of impermeable surface added with no storm water re- tention. With regard to the approximate positive tax implications from the lot split, Mr. Koland stated the totals for 1903 and 1907 Gluek Lane are $12,512 compared to his lot at 1926 Gluek Lane at $8,702, meaning the difference in potential revenue from taxes is $3,810, the additional revenue to the City of Roseville is $1,782, and the additional revenue to ISD 623 is over $1,000. Mr. Koland stated the potential additional tax revenue to ISD 623 would be equivalent to 20% of the cost to sup- port one student for the entire year. He offered, if the Council wished, to bring a City of Roseville Foundation Member to the meeting to support and say how much $1,000 means to them. Mr. Koland displayed the letter that lot owner wrote indicating they opposed this lot split, which he finds ironic as eight years ago they were in this same chair sit- ting in front of the Council and no one objected to their lot split. Now eight years later, that resident chose to come out and object to his based upon the findings, one of which is that it doesn’t fit into the neighborhood. Mr. Koland stated he is not sure when the lot split of 1895 and 1885 Gluek Lane took place, but it did. It was platted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His house was built in 1969 and is one of the original lots that remains. Mr. Koland stated the Council may remember lot number 1885 from other correspondence received about opposing this lot split. He finds this interesting also where we have a mem- ber of the community that has benefitted from a lot split and now wishes to con- strain another member to enjoy those same benefits. Mr. Koland displayed the letter referenced by Mayor Roe requesting no property th subdivision should be permitted, yet noting the original submission on June 28 indicates they are not opposed to this minor subdivision or the future site devel- opment. Mr. Koland commented on 1920 to 1910 Gluek Lane, stating he is unsure when it was split but the 1985 aerial photos from the Ramsey County mapping site identi- fies only one house. He stated he got information from a long time and distin- guished member of the neighborhood about this lot having gone through a lot split, which he does believe is trustworthy information. Mr. Koland stated again one of the people who voiced against his lot split last time also enjoys the benefits of having a lot split, which is something they enjoyed when they purchased that facility though they were not part of it when it was split. Mr. Koland displayed the petition the Council had received, noting it was signed and circulated to stop any further property subdivision on Gluek Lane. He stated the Council has heard and seen in his submissions and application has it meets all of the City’s requirements. This is a legal right that he has to do with his property