2011_0808_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Attachment F 21 7' pursuant to Roseville City Code, Title 11 (Subdivisions); based on the comments and 218 findings of Sections 4-�6 and the conditions of Section 7 of the Request for Council Action 219 (RCA) dated March 21, 2011. 220 Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion; while recognizing that additional study 221 may be needed for County Road C-2. Councilmember Pust suggested that additional study of 222 the situation would be beneficial and once and for all put to rest the various opinions and settle 22'3 those disputes for the entire community and affected neighborhoods. Councilmember Pust noted 224 the need for the entire community to talk it through, addressing changes to the community and 225 how to resolve the situation. Councilmember Pust expressed appreciation for the respectful 226 discussion of the neighbors and their differing views; and suggested further review and study of 22 7' this topic at community meetings, and not linked to tonight's action. 228 Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion; opining that the decision was not 229 contingent upon whether or not to open County Road C-2. However, Councilmember Willmus 2'3o advised that he would support a detailed look and traffic study for the area as outlined by 2'31 Councilmember Pust; opining that it may be time to revisit this issue and make an informed Z'32 decision. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion. Councilmember McGehee advised Z'34, that she was not supportive of reviewing every little traffic issue as an individual situation, but 2'35 opined that it was important to keep as much pass-through traffic out of residential 2'36 neighborhoods as possible. Councilmember McGehee opined that it appeared that there was no 2 3 1 ............ 7' overall plan to address the impact of traffic trying to get through the community. 2'38 Councilmember McGehee opined that it was important to recognize that Roseville was a 2'39 regional service community for regional shopping, senior housing and its other amenities; and 240 when the freeways get jammed up, people look for alternatives,, and Roseville's well-maintained 24 1 public streets served their purpose. Councilmember McGehee questioned whether we had any 242 obligation to provide through access on every neighborhood street. 24'3 Johnson moved, Pust seconded, extending the meeting to 10:35 p.m. 244 Roll Call 245 Ayes: Pust; Willmus, Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. 246 Nays: None. 24 7' Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion; and commended the residents on both 248 sides of the issue of County Road C-2 coming to the City Council in such a respectful manner. 249 Councilmember Johnson noted that the developer had come out shining and commended their 250 company on their proposal and their reputation. Councilmember Johnson recognized the 251 positions of both Josephine Road residents and County Road C-2 residents; and while not having 252 a firm opinion on whether that needed further study based on current information available; he 25'3 spoke in support of the Pulte project and its moving forward, based on results of the traffic study 254 supporting ongoing safety levels. 255 Mayor Roe spoke in support the motion; expressing his enthusiasm for the developer and their 256 excellent work in meeting reouirements of the Citv's new zoning code and tree preservation 25 7' ordinance. 258 Mayor Roe noted the need, in reviewing whether County Road C-2 should be extended through 259 from Victoria past Snelling as a corridor, to ensure that the solution was not creating another Page 6 of 7