Roseville council hears neighborhood split over Aldine right-of-way; no vacation approved

Roseville — The City Council debated for more than two hours on Monday whether to vacate a 30-foot portion of Aldine Street right-of-way in southwest Roseville, ultimately declining to adopt a resolution that would have transferred the corridor to adjacent owners and leaving the status quo in place.

Council members and staff reopened the discussion after Public Works Director Pat Fryhhammer told the council that Ramsey County had confirmed the city does not own the west 20 feet of the corridor; the city’s interest is limited to the east 30 feet. Fryhhammer said staff also prepared a “mini feasibility report” that estimated construction of an improved pathway in the 30-foot corridor would likely affect a significant number of mature trees and cost “between $84,000 and about $177,000,” with additional costs possible for enhanced crossings or drainage treatments.

Why it matters: the corridor has served for decades as an informal footpath used by families walking to Brimhall Elementary and to nearby parks. Residents urged the council to preserve an informal, natural trail; adjacent property owners and others said vacation would allow them to clear invasive plants and better manage their yards. The council’s decision to take no action leaves multiple practical questions unsettled: who may legally use the informal path, what city maintenance (if any) will continue, and whether utilities that cross the corridor will be protected by easements.

Key facts and supporting details

- City ownership: Ramsey County confirmed the city owns only the east 30 feet of the Aldine right-of-way; the west 20 feet is privately owned. Fryhhammer told the council, “we do only have 30 feet of right away.”

- Pathway feasibility: staff estimated an improved pathway spanning about 590 feet would provide a quarter‑mile connection but would likely impact mature trees and would score low (about a 7) on the city’s Pathway Master Plan preference scale. Fryhhammer said that without the connection, walking between adjacent streets is roughly three to five times longer.

- Cost and tradeoffs: staff’s quick feasibility memo placed a likely construction range between roughly $84,000 and $177,000 for a simple path in the 30-foot corridor; a more elaborate crossing or drainage work would raise costs. Tim Brown, an adjacent homeowner, pointed to a high estimate in staff materials and said building a fully ADA‑compliant city path could push costs much higher.

- Public comment: more than a dozen residents spoke. Anne Lotte, a Mid Oaks Lane resident, told the council, “The Aldine Path offers a closer, safer route than Fairview or Snelling,” and advocated for keeping a low‑impact natural footpath. Several adjacent homeowners, including Tim Brown, urged full vacation and said long‑term maintenance of the informal trail should be their responsibility. Multiple speakers reported collecting signatures in support of preserving the trail as a natural route.

Council action and outcome

- Two formal motions were considered: a motion to deny the right‑of‑way vacation (status‑quo) and a motion to adopt the resolution vacating the east 30 feet while retaining utility easements. Both motions failed on council votes at the June 16 meeting. The council concluded the item without adopting the vacation resolution, leaving the property and use as-is pending further work.

What the decision does — and does not — do

- The council’s failure to approve the vacation means the city did not transfer property to adjacent owners and did not direct immediate construction of a city pathway. It does not create new city maintenance obligations; Fryhhammer said the corridor is presently unimproved and the city does not perform routine maintenance there.

- The council did not resolve whether the city should pursue a formal pathway designation, pursue a future negotiated settlement with adjacent owners, or take other interim steps such as creating a limited easement or permitting an informal trail. Staff told the council they will continue to work through questions about utilities (sanitary and storm lines currently cross the corridor) and possible easement language.

Voices at the hearing

- Pat Fryhhammer, Public Works Director — city role/staff presenter - Anne Lotte, Resident — spoke in favor of preserving an informal woodland path: “Our children regularly use the Aldine Footpath to walk to school… the ability for our children to move independently through the area neighborhoods is something we deeply value.” - Tim Brown, 93 Mid Oaks Lane — adjacent property owner seeking vacation; raised concerns about ADA compliance and safety if the city were to build a formal path. - Multiple residents and neighbors (Eleni Skivas, Joe Donahue, Mary Bland, Andrew Raymond, Olivia Galt, Kyle Fitzwater and others) who outlined a mix of supportive and opposing perspectives in public comment.

Next steps and outstanding questions

- Staff will work with the city attorney and the utility owners to document and, if necessary, secure easements to protect sanitary and storm infrastructure that cross the corridor. - Council members asked staff to bring back clarity on maintenance responsibility for unimproved right-of-way corridors citywide and to provide options for whether to pursue a future pathway designation, a property‑owner exit strategy (vacation), or a negotiated neighborhood solution that preserves an informal trail.

Ending

The council’s action on June 16 left the Aldine corridor in place as an unimproved right-of-way while residents and staff continue to debate competing community values: preserving a low‑impact neighborhood trail, protecting mature trees, and resolving long‑standing property‑line uncertainty and utility needs. Council members directed staff to develop additional clarifying information before bringing the issue back for future consideration.