CCP 09152025 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment 3 165 Commissioner Penny asked about existing encroachments and how they would be addressed. 166 Staff explained that, under City policy, homeowners are responsible for removing encroachments 167 at their own expense. 168 169 The Commission also discussed potential concerns related to the site’s trees, particularly the oak 170 and box elder species. 171 172 J. Reinart, 1667 Ridgewood 173 J. Reinart, 1667 Ridgewood, spoke in strong support of saving the path. He noted that he does 174 not have a preference for the type of trail surface but emphasized the importance of maintaining 175 the connection. He shared that his own use of nearby walking paths has decreased and expressed 176 concern that removing this path would be a disservice to the broader Roseville community. 177 Noting that the path connects the neighborhood to key city amenities, including parks, trails, and 178 the local school. He reaffirmed that retaining the pathway is in the best interest of the City and 179 that the trees along the ROW can be protected while preserving access. 180 181 A. Lottie, 90 Mid Oaks Ln. 182 A. Lottie, 90 Mid Oaks Lane, shared her support for retaining the path. She explained that she 183 previously lived on the ROW, moved away, and later returned to the neighborhood nearby 184 because her family missed Roseville and the community. She emphasized that this is not about 185 creating a new path but about improving an existing one that already serves as a quiet, shared 186 space connecting neighbors. 187 188 Ms. Lottie noted that the path provided her children with a safe, more direct route to Brimhall 189 School, which they could take independently because they knew the neighbors along the ROW. 190 While other routes exist, they are farther and less safe, as they require crossing Roselawn 191 Avenue or walking along the Snelling Avenue frontage road, which is both busy and in poor 192 condition. 193 194 She expressed appreciation for the City’s efforts to study the land carefully and to prioritize tree 195 protection. Her hope is that some form of the longstanding neighborhood path can be retained, as 196 it is important not only to current residents but also to future neighbors. With the school year 197 beginning, she reiterated how much her family misses the path, as her children especially prefer 198 walking to school, rather than riding the bus, even during the winter months. 199 200 S. Quinn,89 Mid Oak 201 S. Quinn, 89 Mid Oaks Lane, spoke in opposition to converting the ROW into a park. She stated 202 that her home abuts the property and that she did not purchase her home with the expectation of 203 living next to a park, noting that she likely would not have purchased it had that been the case. 204 205 Ms. Quinn expressed disappointment that the Commission packet did not address how 206 converting the ROW to a public park would impact surrounding neighbors. She emphasized that 207 21 residents (soon to be 24) live in adjacent homes, and their loss of privacy was not highlighted. 208 209 She further raised concerns about long-term tree damage, noting that the driplines of many 210 mature trees extend beyond the proposed 30-foot path. She stated that no treatment could fully 5 Qbhf!31!pg!354