CCP 06162025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

35 points are 7. The current plan has pathway scores that go from 5-25 so this is on the lower 36 end. 37 38 Public written comments received at or prior to the April 21 meeting are included in 39 Attachment 4 and public comments made at the April 21 meeting are included in the 40 minutes (Attachment 3). Additional comments received after the council meeting are 41 included in Attachment 5. There is both support to vacate the ROW and support to keep the 42 ROW and use this ROW for a pathway. 43 44 The vacation resolution was publicly noticed in the newspaper on March 11, 2025 and 45 March 18, 2025, and a mailing to the affected residents postmarked March 25, 2025, per 46 State Statute requirements. Affidavits of Publication and Mailing are available in the office 47 of the City Engineer. The official public hearing was opened then closed by Council. Staff 48 anticipates the Council would open up public comment on this item per normal policy. Staff 49 re-notified residents with a postcard notice of the new meeting date for discussion of this 50 items. 51 52 If the right-of-way is vacated, the area will revert to the underlying property owners which, 53 in this case, are the residents directly to the east, while utility easements would be retained 54 over the vacated area. The owners will benefit from having more control over the former 55 right-of-way areas. This also helps with confusion and disagreements over how the right-of- 56 way area should be maintained with regard to vegetation control and debris management. 57 58 Since this is a City-initiated vacation, a four-fifths vote is required to approve vacation of 59 this right-of-way. No vacation will be official until such time as the City Manager executes 60 and records a Notice of Completion. 61 62 Policy Objectives 63 This action is intended to “right-size” the City’s property rights and property management 64 responsibilities for Roseville’s current and future needs. 65 66 Equity Impact Summary 67 Although the ROW is currently not dedicated as a pathway segment, if the corridor is not 68 improved as a pathway, current non-motorized users will be more negatively impacted due 69 to the longer distances required to be travelled. If the ROW is improved, it will meet ADA 70 requirements and it will be more accessible to all users. 71 72 Budget Implications 73 Aside from costs related to filing the vacations with Ramsey County, publishing the public 74 notices, and the mailings to notify the residents, there are no direct costs to the City of 75 Roseville to vacate right-of-way corridors. 76 77 If council decides to install a pathway in the ROW, there will be future pathway costs. 78 79 Staff Recommendations 80 Staff recommends that the City Council approve one of the following actions: 81 82 1. Motion to approve resolution vacating Aldine Street Right-of-Way. Page 2 of 3 Qbhf!8!pg!464