CCP 09152025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 3 80 As part of the tree inventory, staff identified several considerations regarding tree preservation at 81 the site: 82 Key concern: large oak trees, with current conditions mixed and in some cases unknown. 83 Risks: potential damage from soil compaction, grading, and heavy traffic. 84 A traditional trail design would likely result in significant tree loss. 85 A non-traditional approach could reduce overall impacts. 86 Possible next step: engage an arborist and engineer to determine the potential best trail 87 route and ways to mitigate tree loss. 88 89 The Commission reviewed the Parks and Recreation System Master Plan guidance for pedestrian 90 community connections, focusing on Goals 4.1, 4.4, 4.5, and 4.6. Staff noted that the Master Plan 91 identified this right-of-way segment as a potential “constellation link,” a conceptual connector 92 intended to support system-wide recreation access. However, this segment was not identified as a 93 priority route in the City’s Pathway Master Plan, which serves as the guide for future pathway 94 projects. 95 96 Staff reviewed metrics related to park access impacts for the right-of-way: 97 The ROW is located within Constellation K. 98 Closest Park: Evergreen Park (Community Park). 99 o Distance via ROW: 0.51 miles. 100 o Distance via streets: 0.69 miles. 101 The Mid Oaks neighborhood falls outside the Trust for Public Land (TPL) 10-minute 102 walk-to-a-park radius goal. Currently, 94% of Roseville residents fall within the TPL 10- 103 minute walk-to-a-park standard. 104 o Evergreen Park (via Fairview): 0.86 miles. 105 o Falcon Heights Community Park: 0.86 miles. 106 o Evergreen Park (via ROW): 0.68 miles. 107 The Commission reviewed existing pedestrian connections near the ROW 108 Staff reviewed potential cost considerations for the right-of-way: 109 Hardscape path: $84,000–$177,000. 110 Non-concrete path: $20,000–$60,000 (including design and site work). 111 Volunteers and staff could assist with clearing invasive species and creating informal 112 paths. 113 Engineering work would still be required to address slopes and accessibility. 114 115 The Commission revisited several questions that had been discussed at the previous meeting: 116 Other neighborhood connections were created during the platting process. 117 The Parks and Recreation Commission (PRC) can make a recommendation without the 118 ROW becoming a park. 119 The PRC may provide advice on community engagement and implementation. 120 Flooding risk is considered minimal with appropriate mitigation. 3 Qbhf!29!pg!354