Status quo remains for Aldine St. Right-of-Way after a divided city council vote
The Roseville city council voted on Monday not to vacate the Aldine St. right-of-way. But that might not be the end of the saga.
Whether or not to return this strip of land to the property owners adjacent to the right-of-way (ROW) has revealed division in that neighborhood and city council.
“It’s been sad to see our tight knit community become divided. After all, we’re talking about a path that’s been connecting people and neighbors for decades,” Anne Lottie, resident on Mid Oaks Lane, said at the June 16 city council meeting.
The resolution before the city council was to vacate the city’s right-of-way and return the land to the adjacent property owners. The Request for Council Action also indicated that the council could vote to designate it as an official city pathway, or do nothing—which would essentially maintain the status quo.
Since the last time this was discussed at a city council meeting on April 21, city staff have further investigated the right-of-way area. Previously, it was understood that the city’s right-of-way included a 30-foot easterly portion, dedicated through the Mid Oaks plat in 1938, and a 20-foot westerly portion that appeared to have been established through condemnation proceedings in 1951. However, there was no clear, formal record of this condemnation so the previous resolution presented to city council recommended vacating this out of an “abundance of caution.”
Since then, city staff and adjacent property owners have coordinated with the Ramsey County Recorder’s Office to investigate the status of that land. They determined that no right-of-way or easement was ever recorded for that 20-foot westerly portion. Therefore, it is considered private property and no vacation is required.
Because of this, the only vacation considered on June 16 was the 30-foot easterly portion as dedicated in the Plat of Mid Oaks.
At the April 21 city council meeting, staff were directed to gather more information about the feasibility of turning the informal trail, which has been used by neighboring residents for over fifty-years, into an official city pathway. The pathway would be 590 feet long, providing a shorter connection between the neighborhood and Roselawn Ave to the south. Without this path, the walk is approximately 1900 feet further via Fairview Ave or 2700 feet further via Snelling Ave, according to Public Works Director Jesse Freihammer.
In order to put in an official pathway—such as a concrete sidewalk or a bituminous trail—several mature trees would be impacted. The cost would range from $84,000 to $177,000, plus additional costs for crosswalk treatments if needed at the connected intersections. City staff did not look at the feasibility of maintaining a more natural, unpaved trail instead.
In advance of the city council meeting, a petition circulated and was submitted to the city council expressing support of keeping the trail open to the public. This petition was signed by 98 residents, representing 62 Roseville properties in the surrounding area. Another petition was submitted in support of vacating the right-of-way and returning the land to the adjacent property owners on Mid Oaks Lane to the east of the ROW. This petition was signed by eleven residents, representing eight properties on Mid Oaks, Roselawn, and Ryan.
Public Comment
At the June 16 city council meeting, a majority of the chairs in the council chambers were filled with residents coming to observe or comment on the issue.
Council member Julie Strahan exhorted those in attendance to maintain civility in light of the political rancor that’s divided the Minnesota state legislature, referencing the assassinations over the weekend. Twenty people participated in public comment, all speaking calmly and respectfully.
The property owners who would like the right-of-way to be vacated, expressed concern about how an official city trail would require the removal and potential damage of the mature oak trees in that passageway. A concrete or bituminous paved trail is the standard for official city pathways, for greatest accessibility and ADA compliance.
“I too agree that if it’s going to be done it’s gotta be done right. If you’re going to argue for equity it has to be ADA accessible,” said Rachel Brown, whose property on Roselawn Ave is where the trail ends. Since the footpath disappears where it adjoins her property, people end up walking or biking in her driveway, which Brown said is "intrusive."
Tim Brown, whose property on Mid Oaks abuts the ROW, said he’s witnessed bikers “zooming through this trail. It’s a concern for pedestrians in my view.” He wants the right-of-way vacated so he can help maintain the area better, remove invasive species, and improve the vegetation.
Most homeowners in Roseville have a city right-of-way on their property, usually toward the street which the city reserves the right to put in a sidewalk or maintain city utilities. Residents are responsible for maintaining the land there, even if it is technically the city’s right-of-way.
Several residents came forward to express their desire to keep the informal pathway, saying they've used it for decades. Several people said they use it to walk their dogs or their young children use it to visit friends and walk to Brimhall Elementary and Evergreen Park. Residents urged the city council to consider a third option: keeping the right-of-way, but not putting in a paved or concrete trail.
“You can be creative. I believe the constituents who voted for you deserve that,” said Kyle Fitzwater*, a resident who said he and his husband have lived on Mid Oaks Lane for 21 years. They’ve enjoyed using the informal trail to connect the neighborhood, walking their dogs, and visiting friends, without needing to “traverse the unpleasant roads” on Snelling or Fairview. “The greater community good is what I ask you to consider here,” he said.
Andrew Rayman*, from Mid Oaks, said he grew up in the neighborhood and has been using the trail since he was a kid in 1994. Now he has his own children—his oldest will be going to Brimhall Elementary in the fall.
"I would really like to be able to continue to use it with my kids," Rayman said.
City Council Decisions
City council members were divided on how to proceed. Ultimately, two votes were taken last night.
First, Wayne Groff moved to not vacate the right-of-way, because it would be a permanent decision.
“Once we make a right-of-way vacation there is no going back. Once it’s done, that property is gone and the city is never getting it back,” he said.
Strahan seconded the motion, encouraging the neighborhood to see this as an opportunity to get to know their neighbors better. “Take it as an opportunity to improve what we have. The greater world is already scary enough.”
Mayor Dan Roe didn’t want to support this motion, saying the status quo could not be maintained given the discovery of the 20-feet of private property that the current trail runs partially through. “There may be some other solutions out there that none of us know about,” Roe said.
The motion failed, with Bauer, Schroeder, and Roe voting against.
Schroeder then made a motion to support the resolution to vacate the right-of-way and Matt Bauer seconded.
Schroeder said that since the path goes through part of the area that was found to already be private property, it would be too difficult to re-route the path into the actual city right-of-way to the west.
“I really do not want to see a path developed there because I really do not want to see anything done to those trees. The mature trees are so important. People talk about this magical thing. I would not be in support of making it an official path because of that,” Schroeder said
Bauer supported vacating the ROW and letting the neighborhood decide what to do with the path.
“I have all the confidence in the world that the neighborhood can solve what to do with this,” Bauer said.
Groff disagreed with Bauer’s rationale, saying “I don’t think it’s giving it back to the neighborhood. It’s giving it back to the adjacent property owners.”
Strahan concurred, saying, “Once it is given back to the adjacent property owners, there is no longer an opportunity for a path to exist in this space.”
Roe said he wasn't ready to support the vacation, and suggested that the adjacent property owners could bring the vacation of the right-of-way back for consideration through a petition. Since the city was pursuing the vacation, the resolution to vacate would need to pass with 4 out of 5 votes. If residents bring the matter forward themselves, it would only need three votes to pass.
The motion failed, with Groff, Strahan, and Roe voting against.
So for now, the informal footpath will remain, connecting a neighborhood that’s more divided than ever.
*Note: The Roseville Reader was not able to verify the spelling of names indicated with an asterisk since they were not written on the sign-in sheet at the meeting.
Watch the June 16 City Council Meeting
For more articles on the Aldine Street Right-of-Way
Naomi Krueger
Naomi Krueger
Thanks for reading! If you found this information valuable, consider chipping in a few bucks as a one-time donation to show your support for in-depth coverage of news that matters to Roseville residents.
