Roseville council approves three right‑of‑way vacations, tables one after pathway concerns

The Roseville City Council on April 21 approved resolutions to vacate three city right‑of‑way segments and associated easements — identified in staff materials as areas K, U and a fourth corridor north of Skillman — and tabled a fourth proposed vacation (area V) after neighbors and council members raised concerns about an informal wooded pathway and unclear utility‑easement language.

The vacations affect four previously dedicated or acquired corridors the city said it never constructed as roads and no longer needs for public street purposes, Public Works Director Fryhammer told the council. The city will retain utility easements in the corridors under the staff recommendation presented at the meeting.

The issue mattered to neighbors because one of the corridors (area V) has long been used as a shaded, informal pedestrian route between Mid Oaks and Ridgewood neighborhoods. Multiple residents told the council the route is a neighborhood amenity; adjacent property owners said the corridor has functioned as their yard for decades and asked the city to return the land to them.

Fryhammer said the four vacations began in a multi‑phase process that started in 2020–2022 and are labeled in staff materials as K, U, V and W. He described each briefly: area K is a narrow strip south of County Road C between two commercial parcels; area U is excess right‑of‑way along Aldine Place in the Ridgewood plat where a sidewalk already provides pedestrian access; area V is a 50‑foot corridor along Aldine near the Mid Oaks plat that includes a long, wooded informal path; and area W is a portion of Wheeler Street in the Woodside plat with excess width compared with nearby blocks.

Fryhammer said utility easements would be maintained. "So we are proposing to maintain easements on all of them," he told the council. He added that where the city retains a utility access easement, property owners generally are not permitted to build structures directly over those utilities, though the city sometimes allows encroachments by agreement.

Residents, testifying during the public hearing on area V, gave differing views. Stephanie Keane Aschenbrenner said she used the shaded route "a few times a week" and called it "enchanting" and "magical." Linda Strawn said the path provides a quieter way to reach adjacent farm fields and helps her recover a dog that slips away. "It's another way to get to the fields that's not along the busy streets," she told the council. Cindy Gallagher, who said she has used the path for 35 years, asked the council to "make a solution so that that freedom to pass through there safely continues."

Other neighbors said the corridor is effectively private yard: Rachel Brown, who lives at 1705 Roselawn Avenue West and identified herself as one of the eight underlying property owners along the corridor, asked the city to return the land so the owners can manage invasive plants and care for oak trees. Brown said the corridor is "our property 24/7" and that the owners are unified in asking the council to vacate it.

Some neighborhood residents urged the council to keep the pedestrian connection. Kevin Watson, who lives on Aldine Street, said his family uses the path to walk to schools and fields and asked the council to "keep the trail in some form or fashion." Tim Brown, who lives on Mid Oaks, said he supports vacating the strip so neighbors can coordinate maintenance and protect mature oaks, and said he was wary of formalizing a paved trail that would require removing trees and could create a safety issue where the corridor meets Roselawn.

Council members pressed staff on technical details. Fryhammer said the corridor at the center of the debate is 50 feet wide: the east 30 feet was dedicated with the Mid Oaks plat and the west 20 feet was acquired by condemnation. He said the city will maintain utility easements across the corridor and clarified that utilities often run through both sides of the corridor. On encroachments he told the council that, when allowed by encroachment agreement, "they're kind of there at risk" — if the city or a utility must access the corridor the property owner may be required to remove or replace the encroachment, and the city or utility typically will not restore private improvements.

Council action and outcome

- Area K (Attachment 1): Adopted resolution vacating the K corridor (County Road C area). Motion by Councilmember Schroeder; second by Councilmember Grama. Outcome: approved (motion passed unanimously). - Area U (Attachment 2): Adopted resolution vacating excess right‑of‑way on Aldine Place (Ridgewood plat). Motion by Councilmember Strachan; second by Councilmember Bauer. Outcome: approved (motion passed unanimously). - Area V (Resolution 3): Public hearing held; after multiple resident statements the council voted to table action on V to allow staff to clarify language about maintaining utility easements and to study whether to preserve or recognize the informal pathway (possible Pathway Master Plan review). Motion to table by Councilmember Strachan; second by Councilmember Graff. Outcome: tabled (motion passed unanimously). - Area W / Resolution 4 (north of Skillman): Adopted resolution vacating the outer portions of the corridor adjacent to the sidewalk (the item identified as Resolution 4 in the packet). Motion by Councilmember Graff; second by Councilmember Bauer. Outcome: approved (motion passed unanimously).

Staff and next steps

Council directed staff to revisit the draft resolution language for area V to make the city’s intent on maintaining utility easements explicit and to return with options for whether and how the corridor should be retained in the Pathway Master Plan. Staff also offered to review which trees in the corridor may be dead or hazardous and said it could evaluate tree issues before any final vacation becomes effective; staff noted that any trees within portions of the corridor returned to private owners would become the responsibility of those owners after vacation.

Why it matters

Vacating a right‑of‑way transfers control of the land to the underlying property owners while often preserving utility access for the city. For neighbors and walkers the decisions affect whether an informal, wooded pedestrian connection will remain available, how mature trees and invasive species are managed, and who will be responsible for maintenance. The tabled vote on the Mid Oaks corridor (area V) leaves those outcomes unsettled while staff researches the legal language and pathway options.

Provenance: See transcript sections introducing Item 7a (public hearing on multiple vacations) and the final approved resolution for the corridor north of Skillman.