2021_08-24_PWETCpacket - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

166 167 Mr. Matt Anderson, Anderson Law Group, indicated he was representing several 168 residents along South McCarrons Boulevard. He explained he was going to keep 169 his comments to the legal aspect of this item and would allow the residents to also 170 speak on this as well. He thought the Commission should know the implications. 171 This is a street. It has been referred to as a right-of-way corridor, but this is a street 172 and the map shows it as a street, Ramsey County map shows it as a street and the 173 proposal has it as a street. This matters because it defines the authority of Roseville 174 and what the City can do with it. Every other pathway being proposed is along the 175 side of the street. This is turning a street into a pathway, no longer for vehicle, 176 pedestrian only. A City in Minnesota cannot do that. He indicated he wanted to 177 address a couple of things that would happen if the Commission votes to approve 178 this amendment. He was not sure that this can be a private ally either. This is a 179 street, so what happens next, there might need to be negotiations, more 180 conversations but was not sure if that was something of concern today. There was 181 the discussion of the Wagner return which has been vacated, he noted that Wagner 182 return is unaffected with this proposal, same thing for the pathway that is being 183 proposed, it would run parallel to the road and then down. Wagner return vacated 184 area is unaffected by the path that is currently driven and also unaffected by the 185 path that is being proposed. If afence were to be put up it would not affect anything 186 the City would have to do, it would be a private neighbor dispute from there. The 187 other thing he wanted to highlight is utilities run up the path and people have to use 188 that path to get to the different properties, including emergency vehicles. The 189 discussion today, started with ahistoric draught in Minnesota and the City is talking 190 about paving through a wetland, and one of the healthiest wetlands in the Capital 191 Region Watershed District. There is wildlife, vegetation, and plants there. This is 192 not the type of area or the time to be cutting through a wetland with an asphalt path. 193 He thought the Watershed District needed to be consulted on this before anything 194 is done. F 195 196 Mr. Shawn Emery, 302 S. McCarrons Boulevard, explained he uses the roadway 197 behind his backyard afew times a year and his neighbors to the east, Dave and Lisa 198 Boom use it often because their house in front has many steps leading up to it and 199 there is no way to get up to their house other than to come up the steps or from the 200 back of the house. He explained the situation that the homeowners have with using 201 the back roadway and some obstacles that are there. He indicated if the point is to 202 get people to go to Tamarack Park, the street in the back of the homes is walkable. 203 He reviewed a way through the area to get to the park. He did not think this made 204 sense, as a pathway, going over a driveway. If looking for creative solutions, a 205 perfect solution would be a boardwalk from the west end of Wagner that could skirt 206 up to Tamarack Park. 207 208 Chair Wozniak asked for clarification on what this pathway would look like on 209 Western and the cul-de-sac. He wondered if the road would be narrowed with a 210 pathway on one side of the street. 211 Page 5 of 10