2011_1017_packet - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Roseville, MN - Official Website Page 10 of 31 Ms. Erickson noted her long -time questioning why County Road C -2 was not open as an optional route rather than curving around other roadways; and opined that County Road C as a county road did not just exist for a single neighborhood. Ms. Erickson further opined that, as the City considered further development in the community, and in this area particularly, this became a much broader issue than just the neighborhood, but for residents throughout the county. Ms. Erickson opined that she didn't see much reason to keep County Road C -2 closed; however, if there was going to be more traffic on the road, consideration of safety provisions for walking and parking should be given. Ms. Erickson encouraged the City Council to open County Road C -2 for the benefit of the region and those using roads beyond those two (2) neighborhoods. R. J. Newcome, "Share C -2" group representative Mr. Newcome advised that his group had attempted to say as upbeat as possible; and from his perspective their group had done so. Mr. Newcome addressed safety comments brought forward by those wanting to keep County Road C -2 closed; noting that people needed to understand that anyone 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 neighborhood, 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 locations 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% reduction 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 a l l 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 http:// www. cityofroseville .com /Archive.aspx ?AMID= &Type= &ADID= 1148 &PREVIE... 10/12/2011