CC_Minutes_2010_1018 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Regular City Council Meeting Monday, October 18, 2010 Page 7 Ms. Mix expounded on her written comments, and opined that the location of the property had been incorrectly stated in the file as being "off Long Lake Road," when it was actually south of County Road C -2 and east of Old Highway 8. Ms. Mix further opined that she and area residents were unaware of the Comprehen- sive Plan guidance for this property as High Density development, and had been under the impression that it was zoned for Single Family Residential. Karen Hagen, 2485 County Road C -2 West Ms. Hagen reviewed the history of her ownership of her home and current zoning structure; and asked that before the City Council determined whether it should be zoned High Density as proposed, they seriously review traffic in that area, not on- ly specific to Roseville, but other communities feeding into that area. Ms. Hagen advised that her son had been hit by a vehicle, and reviewed the schools in that area and other schools feeding bus routes through that area; and suggested that many of the traffic issues in the area could be alleviated with additional traffic control measures in place. Ms. Hagen opined that if the City Council supported this as High Density that they perform a traffic study for safety purposes first, and at the best, only support Medium Density. d. Consider Request to Conduct a Resident Survey Councilmember Pust asked that staff confine their presentation to the new infor- mation requested at previous meetings unless their presentation had significantly changed from that previously presented to the City Council. Communication Specialist Tim Pratt advised that City Council action had been deferred pending staff response to Councilmember Ihlan' s request for additional information. Mr. Pratt briefly provided additional information as detailed in the RCA dated October 18, 2010; as well as a diagram showing the continuum of re- liable public sentiment and reliance of municipalities on citizen surveys, as refe- renced by the International City Manager Association (ICMA). Mr. Pratt advised that, in response to Councilmember Ihlan's request to combine the City's survey as a benchmarking tool to measure budget performance with cit- izen satisfaction and importance, with the proposed survey following the Parks and Recreation Master Plan process for implementation and mechanisms for im- plementation its need to generate data, staff did not feel that justice could be done to either survey by combining them. Mr. Pratt further noted that funding for the City survey would come from the Communication Fund and should be done sepa- rately from the Parks and Recreation Master Plan survey. Councilmember Ihlan suggested that, if not possible to combine surveys into one to save money and reduce the number of people to be surveyed, her follow -up question would be whether the same company could do both surveys and thus save money. While not in favor of two separate and equally expensive surveys,