Laserfiche WebLink
and not something the residents could use whenever they wanted or needed. He <br />indicated to provide some facts from the City side, this has been a use that has been <br />going on for decades however, it is a roadway right-of-way and is not a road. It is <br />not a built road; it is a private access currently on a public right-of-way. It does not <br />meet City standards. If anybody were to build an access to their property that they <br />were going to use on a regular basis where it results in rutting, as this clearly does, <br />and needs some sort of maintenance, then that has to be paved. That is clearly in <br />the City's Zoning Standards and Requirements. The City has made property <br />owners pave portions of rear access to their properties because they were using it <br />too often. That gets into erosion and general maintenance and environmental <br />concerns as well. <br />Mr. Culver explained he was not even aware that this use was going on. Certainly, <br />members of his staff knew, and he did not know who put that dead end sign up or <br />when it went up. The City, as a whole, knew that this access was being used in that <br />way for a long time. He did not know it was being used like that until there was <br />talk about the pathway. If the City is going to allow that continued use then really <br />the access needs to be upgraded to meet City standards. He indicated all of the <br />neighbors get along fine right now but there is also some concern because there is <br />no actual legal access through the adjacent properties forthese people to gain access <br />to their own properties. There really needs to be some sort of defined legal cross <br />easement in order for that to continue in perpetuity because any one property owner <br />can say they do not want anyone crossing their property to get to another's property. <br />Mr. Culver explained the City actually vacated a portion of the right-of-way that <br />was shown on that map a few years ago on the northern end because there were <br />some issues with shed placement and property lines, etc. That did not necessarily <br />impact the roadway being talked about, but it does impact some of the neighbor's <br />ability to access their own property through that area. The City staff still thinks it <br />is abeneficial access forthe general public, particularly on the west side of Tamarac <br />Park because of that wetland those residents cannot get to the park unless they drive <br />around the neighborhood. <br />Chair Wozniak thought the Commission needed to start discussion on <br />recommended changes. He thought the Commission should start discussion on the <br />C2 bridge connection. He asked for Commission comments or potential pathway <br />preference. <br />Member Ficek asked what exactly the path is connecting because on the west side <br />are car dealerships and on the east side are some companies. He wondered what <br />the draw would be for that pathway connection. <br />Mr. Culver thought the original intent was to connect the neighborhood on the west <br />side of Roseville ultimately to the rest of Roseville across 35W. He noted this <br />connection has been in the City Pathway plan for a long time. <br />Page 4 of 5 <br />