res_6794 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

4 haven't talked to all four residents, but I know three are not in favor of the additional changes you propose. Another question is except for the state money that's involved and helping Roseville up-grade that road, I wonder why it's being up-graded unless it's to promote additional traffic up and down that road which is not really in the best interest of the residents of that street. MR. HONCHELL: It's being up-graded because as we reviewd all of the M.S.A. roads we found this to be in extremely poor condition and in need of extremely heavy maintenance or re- construction. MR. JACKSON: I guess my point would be up-grading does not necessarily imply M.S.A. That's the interpretation. MR. HONCHELL: The alternative would be to up-grade (inaudible) MR. JACKSON: I'd like to call attention to the hazards already on Highway 8 and C-2 that I think will be accentuated, and, I agree with a speaker of the previous hearing - we have the speeding problem from industry which has been reported to the Police Department - and from the retail businesses. We have a car testing problem which will be accentuated by the extension of that street. They usually hit my spot at about 50 and there's a slow sign there, and they get to 30 by the time they get to the corner. The bad road now slows them down or they would be doing 80. It's a speeding thing and it's a truck cut off and we will find those trucks barrelling up and down there. I stopped one myself and said there's a sign that says you don't belong here. Oh, is that right, he said, and went right on by. I think what your plan is - I like the idea of up-grading the road but not to these standards which would encourage continuation of that kind of behaviour. I'd like to make one comment to your response about not being able to control (inaudible) of law violators (inaudible). MR. HONCHELL: I'm sorry if I implied we were (inaudible) MR. JACKSON: I really do seriously wish that the Council would consider not proposing this project at this time because of the reasons which I have just cited. MR. CHARLES KOHL, 3585 North Lexington: I'm here representing Williams Pipeline Company. We own all the property on C-2 that's under this project. We'd like to go on record expressing our opposition primarily because as it's stated it provides no benefit to our facility. We access our property off of County Road C. We do not use C-2 and we will bear a major portion of the assess- ment and for that reason we're expressing our opposition to it.