CCP 07212025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

36 To further address questions about potentially using this ROW as a city park, Attachment 7 37 is a memo from the City Attorney which describes her recommendations. 38 39 Meeting minutes from the June 16 meeting are included as Attachment 4. Additional 40 comments received since that meeting are included as Attachment 5. 41 42 The vacation resolution was publicly noticed in the newspaper on July 2, 2025 and July 9, 43 2025, and a mailing to the affected residents postmarked July 9, 2025, per State Statute 44 requirements. Affidavits of Publication and Mailing are available in the office of the City 45 Engineer. Since this is a new petitioned vacation instead of the City-led vacation process 46 held previously, a new official public hearing is required. 47 48 If the right-of-way is vacated, the area will revert to the underlying property owners which, 49 in this case, are the residents directly to the east, while utility easements would be retained 50 over the vacated area. The owners will benefit from having more control over the former 51 right-of-way areas. This also helps with confusion and disagreements over how the right-of- 52 way area should be maintained with regard to vegetation control and debris management. 53 54 Since this is a new petitioned vacation, a simple majority or three-fifths vote is required to 55 approve vacation of this right-of-way. No vacation will be official until such time as the City 56 Manager executes and records a Notice of Completion. 57 58 Policy Objectives 59 This action is intended to “right-size” the City’s property rights and property management 60 responsibilities for Roseville’s current and future needs. 61 62 Equity Impact Summary 63 Although the ROW is currently not dedicated as a pathway segment, if the corridor is not 64 improved as a pathway, current non-motorized users will be more negatively impacted due 65 to the longer distances required to be travelled. If the ROW is improved, it will meet ADA 66 requirements and it will be more accessible to all users. 67 68 Budget Implications 69 Aside from costs related to filing the vacations with Ramsey County, publishing the public 70 notices, and the mailings to notify the residents, there are no direct costs to the City of 71 Roseville to vacate right-of-way corridors. 72 73 If the council decides to install a pathway in the ROW, there will be future pathway costs. 74 75 Staff Recommendations 76 Staff recommends that the City Council approve one of the following actions: 77 1. Motion to approve resolution vacating Aldine Street Right-of-Way. 78 a. Only a utility easement would be retained. No pathway could be installed. 79 2. Motion to approve retaining right-of-way and designate a public pathway and to 80 update the Pathway Master Plan. 81 a. This would retain the right-of-way for a future pathway and would be added to 82 the Pathway Master Plan. It does not give authorization to construct the Page 2 of 3 Qbhf!83!pg!429