CC_Minutes_2011_0808 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday,August 08, 2011 Page 13 Mr. Newcome addressed safety comments brought forward by those wanting to keep County Road C-2 closed; noting that people needed to understand that any- one living on a collector road had to deal with those safety issues on a daily basis. Mr. Newcome referenced comments made tonight regarding the need to re-grade a section of the roadway versus comments made by SRF Engineer Vaughan at a previous meeting and mitigation options available. Mr. Newcome noted the many comments he'd heard, as well as his own surprise before moving into the neigh- borhood, as to why County Road C-2 was not connected. With respect to Mr. He's comments related to voting on various petitions being circulated, Mr. Newcome advised that the "Share C-2"petition had 156 signatures at the present time; in addition to some written comments submitted previously and/or yet-to-be submitted to the City Council. Mr. Newcome reviewed the loca- tions of interested signatories to the petition and their strong interest in seeing County Road C-2 opened, with over 60% of those signing not on Lydia Avenue or Josephine Road. Mr. Newcome referenced Figure 12 from the traffic study, and specific question from his group to the SRF consultant on base traffic counts for County Road C-2 and those projected in 2030; seeking an explanation in the apparent 37% reduc- tion from current to 2030 for keeping it closed or connecting it. Mr. Newcome noted that surrounding roads didn't have a corresponding drop projected for 2030; and opined that his group did not feel they had received a reasonable or sufficient answer yet. Mr. Newcome provided comparisons for other area roads and east/west connections and projected impacts for connecting or not connecting County Road C-2. Mr. Newcome further referenced a question put forth by Councilmember Willmus at a previous meeting and discussions over the last few months between the City Engineer, City Council and Consulting Engineer from SRF; and state aid dollars being received for County Road C-2. Mr. Newcome opined that Ramsey County at one point, according to a recent map he'd obtained showing it as a collector road, apparently felt it necessary to have another east/west corridor; even though not done but Roseville continuing to receive dollars to support such a collector road. Mr. Newcome referenced and displayed information on state aid roads taken from statutory definitions from MnDOT Rules, subpart 2 or 3; municipal state aid streets posted October 15, 2007; and statutory authority references: MS 161.082, 161.083, 162.02, 162.09, 162,.155; L 1983 c17 Mr. Newcome sought rationale in not receiving this funding for all these years; and opined that County Road C-2 should be open and should have been opened years ago. Mr. Newcome respectfully summarized the petition of his group that,