My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Roseville
>
City Council
>
City Council Meeting Minutes
>
201x
>
2016
>
CC_Minutes_2016_0912
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
10/6/2016 10:34:29 AM
Creation date
10/6/2016 9:31:57 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Roseville City Council
Document Type
Council Minutes
Meeting Date
9/12/2016
Meeting Type
Regular
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
57
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Regular City Council Meeting <br />Monday, September 12, 2016 <br />Page 18 <br /> <br />are about 7,000 square feet of impermeable surface added with no storm water re- <br />tention. <br /> <br />With regard to the approximate positive tax implications from the lot split, Mr. <br />Koland stated the totals for 1903 and 1907 Gluek Lane are $12,512 compared to <br />his lot at 1926 Gluek Lane at $8,702, meaning the difference in potential revenue <br />from taxes is $3,810, the additional revenue to the City of Roseville is $1,782, and <br />the additional revenue to ISD 623 is over $1,000. Mr. Koland stated the potential <br />additional tax revenue to ISD 623 would be equivalent to 20% of the cost to sup- <br />port one student for the entire year. He offered, if the Council wished, to bring a <br />City of Roseville Foundation Member to the meeting to support and say how <br />much $1,000 means to them. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland displayed the letter that lot owner wrote indicating they opposed this <br />lot split, which he finds ironic as eight years ago they were in this same chair sit- <br />ting in front of the Council and no one objected to their lot split. Now eight years <br />later, that resident chose to come out and object to his based upon the findings, <br />one of which is that it doesn’t fit into the neighborhood. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland stated he is not sure when the lot split of 1895 and 1885 Gluek Lane <br />took place, but it did. It was platted in the late 1960s and early 1970s. His house <br />was built in 1969 and is one of the original lots that remains. Mr. Koland stated <br />the Council may remember lot number 1885 from other correspondence received <br />about opposing this lot split. He finds this interesting also where we have a mem- <br />ber of the community that has benefitted from a lot split and now wishes to con- <br />strain another member to enjoy those same benefits. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland displayed the letter referenced by Mayor Roe requesting no property <br />th <br />subdivision should be permitted, yet noting the original submission on June 28 <br />indicates they are not opposed to this minor subdivision or the future site devel- <br />opment. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland commented on 1920 to 1910 Gluek Lane, stating he is unsure when it <br />was split but the 1985 aerial photos from the Ramsey County mapping site identi- <br />fies only one house. He stated he got information from a long time and distin- <br />guished member of the neighborhood about this lot having gone through a lot <br />split, which he does believe is trustworthy information. Mr. Koland stated again <br />one of the people who voiced against his lot split last time also enjoys the benefits <br />of having a lot split, which is something they enjoyed when they purchased that <br />facility though they were not part of it when it was split. <br /> <br />Mr. Koland displayed the petition the Council had received, noting it was signed <br />and circulated to stop any further property subdivision on Gluek Lane. He stated <br />the Council has heard and seen in his submissions and application has it meets all <br />of the City’s requirements. This is a legal right that he has to do with his property <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.