Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC_Minutes_2011_0321 Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 21,2011 Page 2 Mayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 6:00 p.m. and reconvened in regular session at approximately 6:37 p.m. 1. Roll Call Mayor Roe called to order the Roseville City Council regular business meeting at approx- imately 6:37 p.m. and welcomed everyone. (Voting and Seating Order for February: Johnson; McGehee; Willmus; Pust; and Roe). City Attorney Charlie Bartholdi was also present. 2. Approve Agenda Councilmember Willmus requested that approval of meeting minutes be separated for each meeting date. Mayor Roe requested removal of Consent Item 7.h entitled, "Accept a $300,000 Livable Housing Incentives Account Grant for Sienna Green II and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with AEON regarding the use of the grant." Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the agenda as amended. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. 3. Public Comment Mayor Roe called for public comment by members of the audience on any non-agenda items. Nobody appeared to speak at this time. 4. Council Communications,Reports and Announcements Mayor Roe noted the display of approximately forty (40) wall quilts at City Hall until April 30, 2011, by the MN Contemporary Quilters and their 2010 Challenge Theme, with additional information available at MNContemporaryQuilters.net. 5. Recognitions,Donations, Communications 6. Approve Minutes a. Approve Minutes of February 28, and March 14,2011 Meetings Mayor Roe had submitted his comments and corrections to the draft minutes prior to tonight's meeting and those revisions were incorporated into the draft presented in the Council packet. Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, approval of the minutes of the February 28, 2011 meeting as presented. Roll Call Ii � I I- Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 3 Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. Johnson moved, Pust seconded, approval of the minutes of the March 14, 2011 meeting as presented. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. Abstentions: Willmus. Motion carried. 7. Approve Consent Agenda There were no additional changes to the Consent Agenda than those previously noted. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Bill Malinen briefly reviewed those items being considered under the Consent Agenda. a. Approve Payments Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the following claims and payments as presented. ACH Payments $1,294,377.98 61743-61921 677,010.93 Total $1,971,388.91 Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. b. Approve Business Licenses Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of business license applications for the period of one (1) year, for the following applicants: Applicant/Location Type of License Jennifer Campbell at Serene Body Therapy Massage Therapist 1629 West County Road C Charolette Heil at Work of Heart Bodywork, LLC Massage Therapist 2489 Rice Street, Suite 140 Colleen and Company, 3092 Lexington Avenue Massage Therapy Establishment Work of Heart Bodywork, LLC Massage Therapy 2489 Rice Street, Suite 140 Establishment St. Francis Animal & Bird Hospital, Inc. Veterinarian Examination & 1227 Larpenteur Avenue W Inoculation Center Roll Call Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 4 Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. c. Approve Corpus Christi One-day Liquor License Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the request by Church of Corpus Christi for a Temporary On-Sale Liquor License at 2131 Fairview Avenue N on March 18, April 1 and April 15, 2011. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. d. Renew Knights of Columbus Bottle Club Liquor License Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the renewal of the Knights of Colum- bus Bottle Club (set-up) License at 2233 North Hamline, Suite B-12, for the pe- riod of one (1) year to expire on March 31, 2012. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. e. Approve Law Enforcement United, Inc. Off-Site Gambling Permit Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the request by Law Enforcement United, Inc. for a One-Day, Off-Site Gambling Permit for April 2, 2011, at the B- Dale Club, located at 2100 N Dale Street. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. f. Approve General Purchases and Sale of Surplus Items Exceeding$5,000 Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the submitted list of general purchas- es and contracts for services presented as follows: Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. Iii Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 5 Department Vendor Item/Description Amount Info Tech CDWG Telephone Equipment $17,016.38 Replacement Fire Motorola Solutions Fire Radio Replacement 11,866.62 Sewer Connelly Controls Lift Station Control Panel 26,805.51 Replacement Recreation Upper Cut Tree Service Diseased and Hazardous Tree Removal 20,000.00 Utilities Ziegler, Inc. Sand Bucket for Backhoe 7,641.58 Utilities Ziegler, Inc. Air Compressor 17,372.00 Engineering Elk River Fleet Sales 2011 Ford Escape 17,826.73 Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. g. Approve an Agreement with Ramsey County for Supplemental Law En- forcement on Lake Owasso Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of an Agreement between the City of Roseville and the County of Ramsey (Attachment A) for supplemental law en- forcement services on Lake Owasso at a cost not to exceed $1,722.00, to be funded from the 2011 Police Department Budget; and further authorizing the City Manager to sign the agreement upon final review by the City Attorney. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. i. Approve the Acquisition of a Permanent Easement for a portion of Property located at 2280 Terminal Road City Attorney Bartholdi noted the need to add supplemental language to the proposed motion to include authorizing$10,000 for that land acquisition Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the Acquisition of a Permanent Easement for Railroad Crossing signal on a portion of property located at 2280 Terminal Road, City of Roseville ; and further authorizing $10,000 for that ac- quisition. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. j. Approve the Acquisition of a Parcel from the Reiling Estate for Storm Water Purposes at 8XX Brenner Avenue City Attorney Bartholdi noted the need to add supplemental language to the proposed motion to include authorizing $65,000 for that land acquisition. Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of the execution of a Purchase Agree- ment (Attachment A) between the City of Roseville and US Bank, N.A., personal � ; II Regular City Council Meeting Vlonday,March 21, 2011 Page 6 representative of the Estate of George J. Reiling, for a Parcel of Land (Lot 27, Block 3, Minnesota Realty Co's Owasso) located at 8XX Brenner Avenue, for storm water purposes; and further authorizing $65,000 for that acquisition. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. k. Approve Temporary Construction and Access Easement fro Rosewood Wet- land Expansion and Consider a Resolution Regarding the Relationship of the Acquisition of Real Property to the Comprehensive Plan Pust moved, Johnson seconded, approval of a Temporary Construction and Access Easement (Attachment A) from John Robinson for the Rosewood Wetland Expansion. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. Pust moved, Johnson seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10884 (Attachment B), entitled, "A Resolution Regarding the Determination of the Relationship of the Acquisition of Real Property to the Comprehensive Plan." Roll Call (Super Majority) Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. 8. Consider Items Removed from Consent a. Accept a $300,000 Livable Housing Incentives Account Grant for Sienna Green II and enter into a Memorandum of Understanding with AEON re- garding the use of the Grant(former Consent Item 7.h) At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed this request as detailed in the Request for Council Action (RCA) dated March 21, 2011. Mayor Roe noted language in the supporting documents stating that a local match of 100% was required, and clarified that the funds would be utilized from Tax In- crement Financing(TIF) funds for the site. Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon advised that he was not aware of any local match required as part of this grant, and that there should be no additional dollars as part of its receipt; but that some TIF assistance had been created for Phase I of the project, and not fully vetted yet, and would be coming before the City Council again in the future. I � Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 7 Mayor Roe referenced Section 2.02 of the Grant Agreement regarding match re- quirements, dollar to dollar; and again on Attachment A, page 2, with local re- sources from TIF dedicated funds. Mr. Trudgeon suggested delaying action on the item at this time to allow staff to further review and research the grant terms; noting that the language was standard for these types of funds; but noted the need to make sure all parties were fully aware of the grant requirements. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon advised that there was no time factor precluding delay of this item. Willmus moved, McGehee seconded, TABLING this item to the March 28, 2011 regular City Council meeting. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. 9. General Ordinances for Adoption 10. Presentations a. Receive Fire Facility Committee Final Recommendation and Consider Au- thorizing an RFP for Architectural Services for Preliminary Drawings, Final Drawings and Building Cost Estimates Fire Facility Committee members were in attendance and introduced themselves. Those present included Mike Bierscheid, 20-year Roseville resident, airline pilot with experience in quality control matters; Bob Murphy, 37 year resident of Roseville, former career at a computer manufacturer, and one of the two retired firefighters on the committee, with twenty-one (21) years of active firefighter ser- vice; Pam Billado, seven year Roseville resident and eight year Roseville fire- fighter with a background in strategic planning and public safety education; Neil Sjostrom, seven year Roseville resident, with six years as a Roseville firefighter; Georgeanne Hall, a forty-one year Roseville resident with a history of involve- ment in various civic activities; and Hubert Thibodeau, community member of the Committee, a forty-nine year Roseville resident, and retired electrical engineer with the University of Minnesota in its Engineering/Architectural Division. Dave Burbank advised that he was the "neutral person" on the Committee, not be- ing a Roseville resident, but living in St. Paul, and volunteering for the committee based on his twenty years of experience with another area fire department, and serving on their building committees as well. Mr. Burbank advised that he was retired, and while not living in Roseville, "loved your town, that it wasn't a city, but a town." � II i ! j Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 8 Other Committee members included Darcy Huberty, Roseville resident for thirty- eight years and on the Roseville Department for sixteen years; Hart Gillcrest, a fifteen year Roseville resident and member of the Roseville Fire Department, with a career with a GIS engineering firm; Greg Petersen, Roseville resident for seven- teen years, and career as the pilot of a light helicopter service in Anoka; and Jim Tschida, thirty-six year Roseville resident, and previously employed by the Rose- ville Parks and Recreation Department for ten years and a past Roseville Fire De- partment member for thirty-two years. Fire Chief Timothy O'Neill noted that Councilmember Jeff Johnson had served on the Committee as Council Liaison; along with members of the Technical Advi- sory Committee including himself, Fire Captain David Brosnahan, and Fire Mar- shal John Loftus. Fire Chief O'Neill reviewed a brief history of the department and past studies over the last ten (10) years in determining community, department, and station needs. Each Committee member reviewed various components of the study, in- cluding a history of the committee, citizen perspectives, and the 2010 study group meeting since August of 2010; history of the three-station model, including past equipment and response times, as well as past staffing models for those existing stations. The presentation went on to compare the 20th Century versus the 21St Century staffing models for fire and emergency medical services, 24/7 staffing at this time, and aid agreements with adjacent Fire Departments and first responders. Additional information included the Committee's decision that the Fire Depart- ment services could be effectively provided to the community from one station, providing more efficiencies for day-to-day operations with a centralized location. The best location for that one station was determined by the Committee to be the location on the City Campus at Lexington Avenue and Woodhill at the site of the existing Fire Station #1. It had been determined that this would allow the De- partment to maintain, or even improve on, current response times averaging 3.5 minutes; use current city-owned land rather than a proposed Dale Street location where sufficient land may not be available for purchase; and allowing for all pub- lic safety operations to be located and tied together at one location on the City campus; in addition to possibly utilizing the geothermal system already in place on campus. Ms. Hall concluded her portion of the presentation by expressing her honor and pleasure at serving on the Committee and to be involved with so much talent and knowledge; and noted that the Facilitator kept them on task, with three-hour meet- ings every two weeks. Mr. Thibodeau's portion of the presentation included the Committee's study on whether to construct a new facility or remodel existing stations. Mr. Thibodeau II I I'. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 9 advised that the Committee' decision was that new construction would best meet the current and future needs of the Fire Department and the community. Mr. Thi- bodeau reviewed conditions at the three existing stations, constraints of remode- ling; current and future needs; contingency and back-up funding for unknowns during extensive remodeling projects based on his experience; and his original perceptions when joining the committee that remodeling would be best from his casual observations until he saw the reality of conditions at the stations, which he found disappointing. Mr. Thibodeau reviewed the history of each station and specific issues at each one; and recommendations to demolish the existing Station #1, originally built in the 1930's as an auto dealership and modified in 1950 for a fire station. Station #2 located on Fairview Avenue, was noted to be presently non- operational, having been built in 1967 and now having a failing roof and cracked foundation, extensive exterior repairs, outdated and inefficient electric- al/mechanical systems, and little or no insulation. It had been determined by the Committee that this space was inadequate to house 24/7 service, and was land- locked with a water tower and high voltage transmission line in the immediate area and no adjacent land available for purchase to expand the station. The Committee recommended that Station #2 be repurposed for other community uses. The Dale Street Station #3 was the newest facility, having been built in 1976 and formerly used as a call-back station, but now with 24/7 coverage, had many in- adequacies for mixed-gender staffing, lack of code clearances for crews, and the building footprint on the site not allowing for building expansion. Mr. Thibodeau noted that this building had serious structural and system problems, including roof leaking requiring replacement; exterior walls built out of porous block and ab- sorbing water and peeling off; water leakage into the building with past sealing of the structure failing, in addition to outdated mechanical and electrical systems. The Committee recommended that the Station continue to be used as presently done on an interim basis until a new facility could be built, and then all services be moved into the new building. Mr. Thibodeau referenced the Imagine Roseville 2025 goals and vision for Rose- ville to be a safe, caring and progressive City, and offered the Committee's stand that building a new fire station to provide high quality fire and emergency servic- es for the community now and in the future would serve to meet that vision. Fire Chief O'Neill concluded with the Committee's recommendation for a one- station concept located at the current site of Fire Station #1. Chief O'Neill, on behalf of the Committee, noted their work over the last nine (9) months with a ze- ro budget, with expenses absorbed within the 2010/2011 normal operating budget; � i � llll � l_ III i Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 10 expressing their pride in that achievement. Chief O'Neill advised that a written Committee report would be forthcoming upon its completion. Councilmember Johnson, as Council Liaison to the Committee, offered his con- gratulations on the work of the Committee and their great, succinct presentation; and concurred with their findings, and echoed the comments of Ms. Hall on his honor in serving on the Committee, meeting past and current staff, and the great learning opportunity provided during the process in seeing how the operation worked. Councilmember McGehee concurred that it was an excellent presentation. Coun- cilmember McGehee questioned how the Department intended to retain its re- sponse time when there would be more delayed access to the freeway system from the Woodhill location than Dale Street location, recognizing that it was a more central location, but questioned whether they could cover 10% more of the City in the same response time. Chief O'Neill addressed the response times given considerable study by the Committee to ensure that whatever location for a single station ensured that there would be no negative effect on response times for any portion of the community. Chief O'Neill advised that response time maps were available with GPS allowing for significant review of response times, with existing Station #3 located near the freeway for easy east/west access, and Station #1 more centrally located. Chief O'Neill noted that the City had opticoms on street lights to turn them green; but noted that County Road C as a corridor was actually more convenient than High- way 36 as it provided more room to maneuver and optional routes in cases where the main route may become jammed, and depending on the distribution of calls; and using County Road C may actually improve response times. Councilmember McGehee expressed disappointment in hearing about the amount of disrepair of existing buildings, and questioned why that disrepair had occurred, whether it was a function of lack of money in the infrastructure/repair budget or another reason. Councilmember McGehee noted further disappointment that the Committee recommended repurposing Station #2, but that it still had the same roof leaks and cracking foundation, and questioned why the buildings haven't been maintained to minimum standards. Chief O'Neill reviewed the condition of the three stations and how those condi- tions occurred; reviewing past decisions in 2001 when studies were initiated and City Council decisions to not invest significant funds in existing buildings for long-term use, given the major repair and maintenance indicated. Chief O'Neill noted that Station #2 was in the best condition of the three stations, but that it did need some work; and if repurposed, it would need to be addressed; and would need to be used as an interim station for approximately two (2) years following � h Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 11 those improvements if the existing Station #1 was demolished to make way for a new central station. Councilmember Pust thanked each member of the Committee for their time and work, and for their great presentation. Councilmember Pust questioned if the Committee's recommendation was for one centrally-located station, whether they had considered that same location if the City should move toward regional fire- fighting, or if it was only applicable within Roseville boundaries. Chief O'Neill advised that the Committee had reviewed a possible shared services concept, and exiting services provided by surrounding communities. Chief O'Neill noted the Committee's observation that limited land was available within the City of Roseville, and to share services with other communities, a centrally- located station would still have the same ability to move in any direction and not limit response times within the City or region. Chief O'Neill noted that consoli- dating services into one station has many cost efficiencies; and when everything was considered following a review of potential shared services, the Committee had determined that such a scenario was not feasible at this time, even though it may be considered in the future; but that by positioning the central station in the center of Roseville, it allowed the City to be in place to provide services now and in the future, whether for the community or from a regional perspective. Councilmember Pust questioned if in the design process, the Committee took that into account as well, and how different communities in the region approached their firefighter services. Chief O'Neill advised that design was the next part of the process, with the Committee having focused to-date on how many stations and their location. Chief O'Neill advised that, if the City Council authorized the Request for Propos- als (RFP) process, the Committee would move into the next phase: planning and implementation, with involvement by the City Council, community and Fire De- partment, to determine a design that would serve the community today and well into the future. Councilmember Pust encouraged Chief O'Neill and/or Committee representatives to attend the upcoming Ramsey County League of Local Governments (RCLLG) meeting on April 28, 2011 where the topic will be reviewing fire-fighting assets geographically and regionally, not just defined by city boundaries. Chief O'Neill advised that he planned to attend, and was actually one of the pre- senters at that meeting. Councilmember Willmus thanked the Committee and Chief for providing a tour for him of all three sites; noting that he initially had different thoughts on the process, but after the tour he had a more realistic idea of the needs, and how the , Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 12 community and Fire Department have continued to evolve. Councilmember Willmus opined that this was a step in the right direction; and echoed the com- ments of Councilmember Pust on the need to look at issues from a regional pers- pective going forward and be prepared to incorporate that thinking into any future design. Chief O'Neill briefly reviewed the next step in the process as detailed in the RCA dated March 21, 2011; seeking RFP's to enter into a contract to develop concept and preliminary drawings and cost estimates, noting that it was a multi-step process, with bids based on best value process. Chief O'Neill noted that each step of the design phase would continue to involve input from the City Council, the Committee, Fire Department and the community at large; and anticipated that it would remain relatively inexpensive, estimating an expenditure of approximately $10,000-$15,000 for conceptual drawings. Chief O'Neill noted that the cost for full architectural drawings would be much more expensive; but reiterated that each step of the process would come before the City Council and community for those steps and cost estimates from professionals. Discussion among staff and Councilmembers included the process and intent of the RFP; use of the best value process; proposed funding for the RFP through use of funds budgeted in 2010 for the Assistant Fire Chief positions that remained un- used, in addition to funds set aside for Fire Relief Association payments that were not needed due to an uptick in the stock market; those funds not built into the 2011 Budget; and the Committee's hope to use the same firm for the concept and future architectural drawings in an attempt to save funds. Johnson moved, Pust seconded, authorizing the Fire Department to issue a Re- quest for Proposals (RFP) for Architectural Services including Preliminary Draw- ings, Final Drawings, and Building Cost Estimates using the Overall Best Value process. Councilmember McGehee sought clarification on what was intended to be speci- fied in the RFP, and asked that it include tying a new station into the existing geo- thermal field unless found to be insufficient to satisfy the needs of the Fire De- partment, and other potential options if that was the case, such as solar. Council- member McGehee expressed her interest in seeing that the building would be built adequate for the foreseeable future, be energy efficient beyond the bare minimum, and potentially LEED certification; noting that the City had enough experience with past fire stations and their inadequate and poor construction; and suggested looking at other green building potential, such as green roofs; all to be included in an RFP. Chief O'Neill reiterated that the design phase had yet to be entered into, but that he hoped it would be an interactive opportunity for feedback from the Fire De- partment, City Council, and community to transition from a Building Facility III Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 13 Needs Committee to a Building Concept Team, including a review of other cities and stations recently built; as well as from the perspective of services today and those anticipated well into the future, including room for expansion and changes in equipment, staffing, and community needs. Further discussion included future asset status of existing stations and property when the new station is built with final decisions at the City Council level; poten- tial that the RFP include the possibility of the same architect providing an option for refurbishing existing buildings for repurposing rather than as a separate process; interest received to-date by the community and groups in repurposing Station #2; and once preliminary drawings and cost estimates were received, creating another decision point for the City Council to review alternatives and funding aspects. Additional discussion included the future location of the License Center in the next ten (10) years to avoid off-site rental and discussions to-date related to that possibility and the need for a substantial volume of parking for that service; con- sideration of emergency vehicle access and quick response in multi-use facilities; and existing easements on the City Hall campus; and consideration of a Commu- nity Center and License Center incorporated in the same facility as part of the Parks and Recreation Master Plan discussion as well. Public Comment Written comments received by staff included two (2) e-mails from Roger B. Hess, Jr., 1913 Shady Beach Avenue (expressing caution in proceeding; funding and staffing concerns; and supporting a new station at Dale Street based on its close proximity to Highway 36 and access to the east and west portions of the City in less time than if located on Lexington Avenue), attached hereto and made a part hereto. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. Mayor Roe thanked the Committee for a job well-done, and for their participation and informative presentation. 1. Public Hearings Recess vlayor Roe recessed the meeting at approximately 7:46 p.m. and reconvened at approximately ":57 p.m. 1 2. Business Items (Action Items) ICI Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 14 c. Consider a Resolution Supporting Efforts to Establish a Yellow Ribbon Community Mayor Roe welcomed City of Maplewood Mayor Rossbach; and by consensus, Item 12.c was moved forward at this time to facilitate Mayor Rossbach's atten- dance at the meeting. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Manager Malinen briefly reviewed the RCA dated March 21, 2011 related to the process in supporting efforts to establish a Yellow Ribbon Community. Councilmember Pust, attending meetings of the group in Councilmember John- son's absence as Liaison to the RCLLG, shared that group's position on the Yel- low Ribbon Community initiative by advising that many communities were inter- ested in this great program. However, the RCLLG sought to pull regional efforts together, as the program had been found to be very volunteer intensive, and in or- der to do justice to the efforts of the program, the RCLLG wanted to coordinate as many neighboring communities as possible to make the program work: in other words to "walk the walk, not just talk the talk." Councilmember Pust expressed her interest in hearing the comments of Mayor Rossbach and his perspective. Mayor Rossbach, City of Maplewood Mayor Rossbach advised that the Maplewood City Council had passed a resolu- tion of support at approximately three months; then had found out the amount of work involved, specifically in administering and organizing multiple efforts to meet the needs of military families, and getting people involved in future activi- ties. While immediately receiving a list of twenty to twenty-five (20-25) interest- ed citizens for various hands-on projects, Mayor Rossbach noted that actual key administrative people to coordinate the volunteers was not easy to obtain. Mayor Rossbach noted that the Mayor or City Councilmembers could not and should not administer the program, as it was meant to be a citizen-run organization, not a city function; and noted the challenges found in Maplewood in getting those critical administrative efforts together. Mayor Rossbach noted the interest expressed from the Cities of Shoreview, Vad- nais Heights, and others, as well as Ramsey County in a city-wide and/or county- wide effort, along with other groups involved in the RCLLG, but reiterated the need to coordinate a larger pool of volunteers for the program. Mayor Rossbach expressed his interest in the City of Roseville's efforts and process that would provide their openness to work within a larger group. Mayor Rossbach further noted that the City of Maplewood had changed their fo- cus by getting the word out to other interested communities and entities interested in participating in the initiative. Mayor Rossbach noted the difficulty in obtaining military family information as there was no central source of military personnel, t I Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 15 given the need to respect classified and personal information and data privacy is- sues. Mayor Roe noted the City Council's interest in the initiative, and questioned if their adoption of this resolution would serve to get the process started and the program in the public eye, and provide coordination between the number of or- ganizations currently providing services to military families in Roseville and throughout Ramsey County. Councilmember Pust expressed concern with the current resolution language as drafted, opining that there needed to be more community discussion, which should happen by those attending or watching the meeting tonight, or any of its rebroadcasts, and encouraged interested citizens to contact City Hall or City Councilmembers, as well as community organizations who may have leaders will- ing and able to take on the administrative side of things. Councilmember Pust as- sured all that she was very supportive of the program's goals, but wanted to make sure a framework and accountability system was in place prior to adopting a reso- lution of support, rather than adopting the ordinance and having it fall through the cracks. Councilmember McGehee concurred with Councilmember Pust, noting that it was not as simple as passing a resolution, when volunteers may be forthcoming, but no leaders or administrators. Councilmember McGehee suggested that the City's various media sources be used to determine interest and response of citizens prior to proceeding further. Councilmember Pust offered her willingness to speak to organizations in the community and to serve as an interim point person for interested parties to contact over the next month as interest was determined; at which time she could report back to the City Council, and then a resolution of support could be adopted based on that level of interest. Mayor Roe suggested that anyone else on the City Council could also get in- volved at their discretion. Councilmember Johnson opined that there was nothing wrong in adopting the resolution tonight; further opining that it would show the City Council's interest in moving forward, sending a clear message to potential volunteers that the City was committed, but recognizing the need to be fluid on that commitment based on the level of support coming forward. Councilmember Johnson expressed his sup- port of Councilmember Pust as interim point person. Johnson moved, Roe seconded, adoption of Resolution No. 10885 (Attachment C) entitled, "A Resolution Supporting the Efforts to Create a Yellow Ribbon Com- munity;"to support local military members and their families. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 16 Councilmember Pust suggested that the language be changed to broaden it from the Roseville to Ramsey County area. Mayor Roe spoke in support of the resolution language as presented, opining that the"Roseville area" sufficiently stated the intent. City Manager Malinen clarified that the actual resolution component would sup- port efforts of partnerships in the Roseville area, not exclusive to Roseville. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; and Roe. Nays: McGehee. Further discussion included future reports to be included in the "Council Commu- nications, Reports and Announcements" portion of upcoming agendas; pursuing advertising as suggested by Councilmember McGehee; City staff continuing to serve as the City's contact as long as it continued to reflect the City's pledge of support,but not becoming staff-intensive with hard costs associated with it. a. Consider a Resolution Removing Parking Restrictions on the East Side of Prior Avenue Public Works Director Duane Schwartz briefly reviewed the RCA dated March 21, 2011, and the request submitted by Roseville School District No. 623 to con- sider removing the parking restriction on the east side of Prior Avenue from Shryer Avenue to Eldridge Avenue to allow for the increased number of visitors to the Fairview fields associated with newly-constructed girls softball facility. Councilmember Willmus noted that, when Fairview was a functioning Junior High School, efforts were made to minimize impacts on that neighborhood; and expressed concern that the addition of ball fields did not diminish that concern. Bob Rygh, School District No. 623 Mr. Rygh provided the School District's perspective in making this request to make parking available on both sides of the street for those attending functions at the fields, following their recent renovation. Mr. Rygh reviewed other areas on the site for parking, and potential conflicts in parking space availability based on other activities at the building, including senior citizen activities and classes. Mr. Rygh opined that the School District felt they paid their fair share of infrastructure and roadway assessments, and felt their request was reasonable in seeking to ac- commodate families attending various events, in addition to those attending City Parks and Recreation events, a co-user of the facilities during the summer months. Discussion among Councilmembers and Mr. Rygh included whether the School District had made any commitments when building the field as to whether that i Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 17 parking would be opened up on Prior as opposed to the parking lot, with Mr. Rygh responding that original proposed fields now looked entirely different, and noted the School District's meetings with residents over the winter months; how- ever, he didn't recall any promises being made by the District to not open up parking on Prior Avenue. Further discussion included other areas beyond the main parking lot to facilitate parking during the daytime, as well as during the evening; other activities on site, including adult and alternative high school activities and classes, and senior citi- zen activities; restricted parking and possible use of those parking stalls during off-hours; use of the field by other communities as well as the Roseville School District; pathway access and handicapped access to the fields and current parking areas; ongoing work at the fields and their use for varsity and junior varsity activi- ties; and how serious of a parking problem actually was anticipated beyond cur- rent available parking. Additional discussion included limited School District funds for this type of con- struction and other allocation of those funds; possibility of using the fields for a season prior to changing parking restrictions; current and potential impacts to res- idents along Prior as well as throughout the neighborhood; and the review and subsequent recommendation of the Traffic Safety Committee that removing park- ing restrictions on the east side of Prior Avenue was safer than having parking elsewhere or pedestrians required to cross streets. Councilmember McGehee opined that the school district had certainly given every impression to the residents during meetings that no additional parking would be needed or requested. She said that she detected an element of entitle- ment from Mr. Rygh regarding how Roseville chooses to purpose its city streets and felt this was inappropriate. She indicated that the area was not vegetatively screened from the neighborhood as around other parks within Roseville or as re- quired of many commercial properties. She also mentioned that there was no pathway along the street beside the fence. She commented that the fence facing the residential neighborhood was repaired on a patchwork basis. As for crossing streets, the safest location for parking was in the Fairview Lots on the north and south of the building as it required no crossing of streets. Councilmember McGe- hee stated she supported efforts to discourage parking anywhere within or along the residential neighborhood on the west and south of the fields. Public Comment Written comments were received by staff, and attached hereto and made a part hereof, from Chris Doneen of Shryer Avenue (in opposition); and Karen Rajcic, 1948 Skillman (in opposition and questioning assumptions and assertions); Mike Gregory, 1945 Sharondale Avenue (providing a historical perspective of ball fields and parking, in opposition); and Karen Willett, 1969 Shryer Avenue W (in opposition). it Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 18 Phone calls received by staff were provided and made a part of the record, at- tached hereto and made a part hereof from Bill Blake (in support, conditioned upon handicapped parking); Mike Gregory (in opposition); Karen Rogers (in op- position); and Mary Schwartzbauer and her sister (in support). Gary Grefenberg,91 Mid Oaks Lane Mr. Grefenberg addressed correspondence between himself and School District representatives, and explicit questions regarding whether on-site parking would be sufficient with the improvements to the ball fields, and their assurances that it would be; and that they would put in a pathway connecting parking to the newly- refurbished fields. Mr. Grefenberg asserted that, whether that was a promise or not, it was a firm commitment, that had been reconfirmed in subsequent corres- pondence with the School District that parking would be handled on-site, and not negatively impact the neighborhoods surrounding the athletic complex on three sides. Mr. Grefenberg noted that removing any additional green space in the southwest area of Roseville was a very controversial issue; and opined that the SW Roseville neighborhoods had long felt that the School District was not the most reliable neighbor; however, when he specifically asked the questions, he took their commitment that all parking needs would be met on-site to be true. Mr. Grefenberg referenced the correspondence dates and recipients and offered them as part of his testimony to the City Council. Mr. Grefenberg expressed his, and the neighborhoods, frustration with the lack of cooperation the neighbors had with the School District; and spoke in opposition to the proposed motion, and asked that the City Council not take action tonight. Mike Gregory, 1945 Sharondale Avenue Mr. Gregory noted his residency next to the Fairview Community Center adjacent to Prior Avenue; and his service as the Neighborhood Block Captain, and the area he represents. Mr. Gregory had provided his comments in writing, as previously referenced, and highlighted the issues. Mr. Gregory referenced his efforts to me- diate alternatives, including a non-structural solution in bagging "No Parking" signs where parking was currently restricted on-site. Mr. Gregory noted concerns with the fence gate that was installed as well. Mr. Gregory expressed frustration that the School District was not holding up their previous commitments and com- promises with the neighborhood. Karen Rajcic and Francesco Favazza, 1948 Skillman Ms. Rajcic referenced past correspondence based on her work with the City Po- lice Department in alleviating parking near the corner and blocking fire hydrants; and landscaping done by the Boy Scouts to facilitate people not parking on the grass. Ms. Rajcic asked that the City Council not approve this request tonight un- til a significant amount of discussion was held to provide the full picture and process. Francesco Favazza � I � II Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 19 Mr. Favazza expressed his concern with safety for children and other pedestrian traffic in the area, especially during the summer months. Karen Rajcic Ms. Rajcic noted that this had been her parent's home and she had observed in- creasing difficulties throughout the years, including State Fair parking on Skill- man during August; and the need to all work together. Ms. Rajcic advised that she had worked continually with City staff, both in the Police and Public Works Departments, to alleviate safety, signage and other concerns along Skillman and Prior. Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, to TABLE this action to an undetermined time. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. In the meantime, Councilmember Pust encouraged the School District and neigh- bors to discuss the items brought forward during tonight's discussion, and find resolution. Mayor Roe noted that this would allow a season for use of the fields to determine if any additional parking was needed. b. Consider a Resolution Approving the Request by Pulte Homes of MN, LLC for a Preliminary Plat of the residentially-zoned property in the NW corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2 Community Development Director Patrick Trudgeon reviewed the request of Pulte Homes to plat the northwestern corner of the parcel at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2 to accommodate twenty-eight (28) one- family lots. Mr. Trudgeon advised that plat proposals were reviewed primarily to ensure all proposed lots met minimum size requirements of the City's Zoning Code, and that adequate streets and other public infrastructure were in place or identified and constructed; and that storm water was addressed to prevent any problems on nearby properties or within the City's storm water system itself. Mr. Trudgeon briefly reviewed staffs analysis, through the Development Review Committee (DRC), a body comprising staff from all City Departments, and their findings pertinent to the plat; and as detailed in the Request for Council Action dated March 21, 2011. The staff report included several submittals: Tree Preservation Summary (At- tachment D) for Josephine Wood dated February 24, 2011 by Alliant Engineering, Inc.; Pulte Homes Traffic Study (Attachment E) by SRF Consulting Group, Inc.; II Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 20 written Comment received to-date by staff(Attachment E); and DRAFT Planning Commission Meeting Minutes dated March 2, 2011 (Attachment G). Mr. Trudgeon pointed out corrections to the Drainage Plan as part of conditions of approval; and noted that Pulte Homes would need to enter into a Public Improve- ments Contract with the City for construction of roads and public utilities in con- junction with the Final Plat coming forward; and other conditions as detailed in the RCA. Staff recommended approval of the PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property in the northwest corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2, based on the com- ments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the conditions of Section 7 of the RCA dated March 21, 2011. At the request of Mayor Roe, Mr. Trudgeon reviewed the next steps in the process as the applicant prepares the Final Plat to be recorded with Ramsey County; their development and submission of final grading and drainage plans, and final street plans, receipt of the necessary watershed district permits, staff review of each component submitted during the process; and negotiation by staff of a Public Im- provement Contract between the developer and City for City Council approval, with each document recorded prior to construction start, anticipating a minimum of six (6) weeks to two or three (2-3) months before returning to the City Council for action. Discussion among Councilmembers and staff included Attachment C pathway connections, with Ms. Bloom confirming a continuous pathway along County Road C-2, crossing the new Fernwood Street at a width of eight feet (8'); confir- mation of drainage requirements on-site and mitigation requirements; perfor- mance requirements of the City of Roseville and the Rice Creek Watershed Dis- trict to maintain water quality and remove phosphorus; eventual drainage into the wetland across Lexington rather than into Lake Josephine through use of a diver- sion pipe installed by the City with EPA grant funds in 1976; warranty periods to ensure compliance and functionality of infrastructure in the development; delay in installing the bituminous wear coat until all work is confirmed and tested; and easement signage to educate homeowners related to overall stormwater manage- ment. Further discussion included the timing of the traffic study and trends for a.m./p.m. peak traffic with little change in those trends based on summer traffic accessing Lake Josephine; commendation to staff for the environmental work on this plat and for application of the Tree Preservation Plan; and apparent gaps in the berm for the private property with the drainage easement. Developer, Ian Peterson,VP of Land for Pulte Homes Ii 'I 1 Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 21 Mr. Peterson reviewed the area in question on private property and appearing to be a gap. Mr. Peterson referenced staff's Condition 7.b regarding limiting fences to preserve the integrity of the storm water treatment areas; and the developer suggesting one deviation along Lexington Avenue to bridge that gap and avoid access of the public onto private property by installing a fence across that ease- ment area, to be owned and maintained by the Homeowner's Association, with the understanding that it could be removed or replace in order to repair the pipe, at the Homeowner Association's expense. Mr. Peterson opined that this would al- low continuity as well with the proposed four foot (4') fence and retaining wall along Lots 9, 10 and 11; and agreed that no stone columns would be installed on that easement. Discussion among City Councilmembers and Mr. Peterson included the extensive drop-off on the western elevation along County Road C-2 and their intent to ad- dress that grade through with level driveways off County Road C-2 and walk-out home designs for those lots, in addition to fill; removal of the existing billboard on the northeast corner of the property as part of the purchase transaction, with the advertiser already given notice for removal, pending City action on the Final Plat and subsequent land purchase; and aesthetics of the proposed four foot (4') fence and its common theme rather than each individual homeowner having their own choice of fence. Further discussion included proposed property covenants and timing for their ad- ministration with the Association based on occupancy levels and addressing inte- rior and exterior requirements; and targeted price ranges for the six (6) different options and floor plans at approximately$430,000. Public Comment Written comment via e-mail was received from Jeffrey Strobeck, 1297 West County Road C-2 (opposed to opening County Road C-2); Gerald McDonald, 2857 Dellwood Avenue (opposed to opening County Road C-2); Scott Cum- mings, 1175 Josephine Road (in support of opening County Road C-2); Richard Skaggs, 1160 Josephine Road (comments related to drainage infrastructure) were provided by staff as bench handouts, attached hereto and made a part hereof Pam Newcome, 1245 Josephine Road Ms. Newcome noted her attendance at the March Planning Commission meeting and the robust discussion held on whether or not to open County Road C-2; and subsequent advisement by the Commission that County Road C-2 would not be part of the discussion of this development, but was a separate issue. Ms. New- come expressed her frustration that the Traffic Study was not available on the City's website. Ms. Newcome questioned the traffic study's methodology of current observation predicting future use; questioned traffic patterns and possible alternative routes Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 22 and distribution for 110 cars per day; their rate; and her assertion that Josephine Road residents were being overburdened and bearing the brunt of east/west traffic from Hamline to Lexington. Ms. Newcome asked that the City Council provide more information and show some sensitivity about the traffic study and possible changes in service levels beyond her perceived optimism of the report; and that more time be taken to study traffic that given to-date. David Miliotis, 1128 County Road C-2 (cul-de-sac resident) Mr. Miliotis advised that he represented a group of homeowners Roseville C-2 Neighborhood Association, and referred everyone to their website at www.saveC- 2.com. Mr. Miliotis provided the Association's position with respect to the neigh- borhood and their concerns; and summarized several facts, and provide a histori- cal perspective on actions of past City Council's related to County Road C-2 and its elimination as a through street. Mr. Miliotis provided additional references to the traffic study and projections. Mr. Miliotis concluded with the Association's advocacy of the goals presented in the Imagine Roseville 2025 and 2030 Compre- hensive Plan Update related to quality of life, safe neighborhoods, and pedestrian friendly neighborhoods where property values were also preserved and enhanced. Mr. Miliotis advised that the association did not support creating another major thoroughfare through Roseville that would only create additional traffic and safety concerns. Mr. Miliotis suggested that the City work on a solution to traffic con- cerns through development of a comprehensive traffic management plan, not through knee-jerk reactions to limited areas of concern. Chuck Stokes, 2875 N Griggs Street (C-2 and Griggs) Mr. Stokes thanked Councilmembers for their service to the community; and spoke specifically to the Josephine Woods Development, opining that County Road C-2 issues could be hashed out separately. Mr. Stokes expressed his prefe- rence that the development not occur, as he enjoyed the natural area currently in place. However, he conceded that, since that was not up to him, the plans submit- ted by Pulte Homes and approved unanimously by the Planning Commission, seemed to represent about as good of a plan as could be hoped for, and showed a great deal of respect for the adjacent established neighborhood through construc- tion of this new neighborhood, not just another housing development. Mr. Stokes expressed appreciation to the developer in their attempt to save historic trees, pro- vide and connect walking paths and other amenities; and opined that this was a good step forward. While expressing some concern about the current and poten- tial drainage issues, he expressed confidence in the City and developer's address- ing that situation; but also asked that a contingency fund be established to replace trees inadvertently damaged during construction. Mr. Stokes spoke in support of the City Council proceeding with the Planning Commission recommendation as presented. gill � Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 23 Regarding County Road C-2, Mr. Stokes expressed his major concern if it became a through street was based on safety with those living on the cul-de-sac unable to see traffic coming; in addition to losing 15-18 heritage trees currently being pro- tected. R. J. Newcome, 1245 Josephine Road Mr. Newcome advised that he represented twenty-plus residents along Josephine Road who supported opening County Road C-2; and opined that Josephine Road was currently overburdened with traffic; and while welcoming suggestions for ways to slow traffic down, remained convinced that County Road C-2 should be opened. Mr. Newcome addressed comments made by City Engineer Bloom at the March 2, 2011 Planning Commission regarding County Road C-2 serving as a collector road similar to Josephine; however, he opined that it was not being used as a collector with it currently being blocked off. Mr. Newcome questioned what the trigger would be to warrant opening the road, and if not with the Pulte devel- opment, would it be someone getting killed. Mr. Newcome further opined that traffic would only continue to increase in the future, and that the Pulte project would serve to further that increase, in addition to other future projects proposed for the area. Mr. Newcome opined that it was only reasonable, fair and equitable for all involved to open County Road C-2 at this time, and that not opening it was short-sighted. Johnson moved, Willmus seconded, extending the meeting beyond curfew to 10:30 p.m. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. Jeff Strobeck, 1297 County Road C-2 Mr. Strobeck had submitted written comments; and expressed concern regarding safety for residents, bikers and pedestrians if County Road C-2 were opened. Mr. Strobeck asked that the City Council consider the residents on the cul-de-sac who purchased their homes with the understanding that County Road C-2 would not be a through street. Mr. Strobeck volunteered to work with Josephine Road residents in resolving their traffic issues. Lars Ever, 1241 County Road C-2 Mr. Ever expressed his excitement about the Pulte development, but his sadness in losing the trees and natural environment. Mr. Ever asked that County Road C- 2 not be opened, consistent with his discussions with the City before purchasing his property. Mr. Ever opined that any traffic improvements through opening County Road C-2 would be nil due to creation of another intersection on Lexing- ton Avenue and additional traffic hazards. I ; I Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 24 Mr. Ever referenced Page 11 of Attachment C and his preference for option two for the pathway to avoid loss of any more of his front yard. Mayor Roe clarified that Mr. Ever's objection was based on extending the path- way to the west past the borderline of his property to Merrill; and noted that this was not under consideration at this time, as confirmed by City Engineer Bloom. Jill Schwiff, 1233 Josephine Road Ms. Schwiff advised that residents dealt with ongoing traffic issues on Josephine Road every day; and asked that the City look at this and multi-family housing and future development around this particular area for impacts. Ms. Schwiff ques- tioned why County Road C-2 was ever closed in the first place; and opined that everyone needed to share the issue and not place the entire burden on residents on Josephine Road. Ms. Schwiff further questioned how construction traffic would be handled to avoid further negative impacts on the neighborhood and existing homeowners. Sheila Stokes, 2875 N Griggs (C-2 and Griggs) Ms. Stokes offered her perspective, as a resident of the home on the end of the County Road C-2 cul-de-sac, and her experiences with traffic coming down the hill at an excessive speed before turning onto Griggs; and addressed the signifi- cant amount of traffic along County Road C-2 to Cottontail Park; and the lack of sidewalks in the area. Ms. Stokes recognized the differing opinions for area resi- dents, but asked that people understand the speed with which people came over that hill. John Jacobson,2864 Fernwood Street (south part of C-2) Mr. Jacobson spoke in support of the project, opining that there would be nothing better to develop in that area than single-family homes. Mr. Jacobson provided his perspective on projected traffic increases in the area; reviewed statistics on daily average traffic in 1999 and 2009 data, and future driv- ing habits, and opined that those habits would change and be duly reflected. Mr. Jacobson noted the grade changes between Merrill Street and Fernwood Street on County Road C-2 and suggested additional review of safety issues based on that grade if and when County Road C-2 was put through. At the request of Mayor Roe, City Engineer Bloom responded to questions of the public related to traffic analysis of the additional projected 110 daily trips and their conservative nature based on current observations and modeling for future patterns; rationale for the assumptions used in the traffic study; current and pro- jected service levels at the five (5) intersections in the area; and review of the larger picture beyond the neighborhood in determining the acceptable service le- vels during peak traffic periods. Related to construction traffic, Ms. Bloom noted that the majority of that traffic would be using County Road C-2; and that addi- Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 25 tional parking prohibitions could be addressed for construction workers, seeking to keep them off public streets and internal to the site as much as possible; with staff and the developer working together and incorporating neighborhood com- ments and concerns into those discussions and negotiations as applicable. Ms. Newcome Ms. Newcome reiterated her allegations that the traffic study and its assumptions were flawed; and asked for additional information on that analysis. City Engineer Bloom expressed her confidence in the traffic study and its assump- tions; and offered to follow-up with Ms. Newcome outside the meeting. Ms. Bloom noted that the study being requested by Josephine Road residents of pend- ing and/or future development impacts was completely different and had not been done to-date; but that traffic studies were based on specific developments as they came forward. Ms. Bloom advised that the Pulte development and traffic projec- tions for an additional 268 daily trips did not indicate any degradation of service levels at the five intersections nor did it create any additional safety issues; there- fore, no mitigation was proposed based on those results, or any additional traffic control issues recommended. At the request of Councilmember Pust, Ms. Bloom clarified the map referenced on Page 11 of the Traffic Study and location of the current cul-de-sac bulb and pending revisions to address drainage following further plan refinement and staff review. At the request of Councilmember Willmus, Ms. Bloom addressed past discussions on retaining the right-of-way, based on the reality of documents already refe- renced by members of the public, and a 1988 motion to vacate the County Road C cul-d-sac right-of-way that failed on a 3/2 vote. Further discussion among Councilmembers and Ms. Bloom included County Road C-2 being a State Aid road and comparison of this segmented road with oth- er State Aid roads; examples by Ms. Bloom of'/2 mile segments for the Ramsey County system; and review of comprehensive transportation plans for residential and connector streets for functionality. Ms. Bloom advised that, from an engineering perspective, connecting County Road C-2 through would benefit the overall transportation system; however, without additional study of additional signals from Lincoln to Victoria and im- pacts for those intersections and other safety concerns, the actual ramifications remained unknown. Johnson moved, McGehee seconded, approval of the PRELIMINARY PLAT of the property located at the northwest corner of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2, pursuant to Roseville City Code, Title 11 (Subdivisions); based on the � I it Regular City Council Meeting Monday,March 21, 2011 Page 26 comments and findings of Sections 4-6 and the conditions of Section 7 of the Re- quest for Council Action (RCA) dated March 21, 2011. Councilmember Pust spoke in support of the motion; while recognizing that addi- tional study may be needed for County Road C-2. Councilmember Pust sug- gested that additional study of the situation would be beneficial and once and for all put to rest the various opinions and settle those disputes for the entire commu- nity and affected neighborhoods. Councilmember Pust noted the need for the en- tire community to talk it through, addressing changes to the community and how to resolve the situation. Councilmember Pust expressed appreciation for the res- pectful discussion of the neighbors and their differing views; and suggested fur- ther review and study of this topic at community meetings, and not linked to to- night's action. Councilmember Willmus spoke in support of the motion; opining that the deci- sion was not contingent upon whether or not to open County Road C-2. However, Councilmember Willmus advised that he would support a detailed look and traffic study for the area as outlined by Councilmember Pust; opining that it may be time to revisit this issue and make an informed decision. Councilmember McGehee spoke in support of the motion. Councilmember McGehee advised that she was not supportive of reviewing every little traffic is- sue as an individual situation,but opined that it was important to keep as much pass-through traffic out of residential neighborhoods as possible. Councilmember McGehee opined that it appeared that there was no overall plan to address the im- pact of traffic trying to get through the community. Councilmember McGehee opined that it was important to recognize that Roseville was a regional service community for regional shopping, senior housing and its other amenities; and when the freeways get jammed up,people look for alternatives, and Roseville's well-maintained public streets served their purpose. Councilmember McGehee questioned whether we had any obligation to provide through access on every neighborhood street. Johnson moved, Pust seconded, extending the meeting to 10:35 p.m. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. Councilmember Johnson spoke in support of the motion; and commended the res- idents on both sides of the issue of County Road C-2 coming to the City Council in such a respectful manner. Councilmember Johnson noted that the developer had come out shining and commended their company on their proposal and their reputation. Councilmember Johnson recognized the positions of both Josephine 1H II Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21, 2011 Page 27 Road residents and County Road C-2 residents; and while not having a firm opi- nion on whether that needed further study based on current information available; he spoke in support of the Pulte project and its moving forward, based on results of the traffic study supporting ongoing safety levels. Mayor Roe spoke in support the motion; expressing his enthusiasm for the devel- oper and their excellent work in meeting requirements of the City's new zoning code and tree preservation ordinance. Mayor Roe noted the need, in reviewing whether County Road C-2 should be ex- tended through from Victoria past Snelling as a corridor, to ensure that the solu- tion was not creating another problem elsewhere; and supported looking into it, suggesting that it be included in the City Council's work plan. Mayor Roe asked that staff follow-through with the developer on the fence along Lexington Avenue as the Final Plat and Public Improvement Contract were nego- tiated. City Engineer Bloom advised that she and Community Development Director Trudgeon were already discussing language for an Encroachment Agreement as part of the Public Improvement Contract to facilitate the fencing. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. Pust moved, Willmus seconded, directing staff to proceed with investigation of pursuing a corridor study to consider pros and cons of connecting County Road C-2 based on impacts city-wide and beyond; and to return to the City Council with their recommendations upon their completion. Roll Call Ayes: Pust; Willmus; Johnson; McGehee; and Roe. Nays: None. 13. Business Items—Presentations/Discussions (continued) a. Review City Council Work Plan b. Review City Manager Goals c. Discuss Advisory Commission Appointment Process Mayor Roe suggested that the City Council follow the approach used by the Parks and Recreation Chair with individual Councilmembers providing their top three candidates with no particular ranking order; and submit it by e-mail to Ms. Dris- coll prior to packet deadline for the March 28, 2011 meeting. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 28 14. City Manager Future Agenda Review City Manager Malinen distributed upcoming preliminary agenda schedules; noting that the March 28, 2011 agenda included the community survey results and 2011 budget exer- cise. Mayor Roe asked that items be moved to the April 11, 2011 meeting as applicable. 15. Councilmember-Initiated Items for Future Meetings a. Long Range Development Planning (McGehee) 16. Adjourn Willmus moved, Johnson seconded, adjournment of the meeting at approximately 10:37 p.m. Regular City Council Meeting Monday, March 21,2011 Page 29 Al 1) w'?' Daniel J. We, Mayor ATTEST: Wil 'am alinen, City Manager � III, Bi4 IAA hdet,34?I/l support@civicplus.com Saturday, March 19, 2011 2:50 PM *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen Fire Station/Hess Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ing form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council ire dept. report er b. hess, jr 1913 shady beach ave. eville iou prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact 1. : No Reply Necessary r: . e Your Comment, Question or Concern: before you hire someone to develop plans for station, you need to look at the other building needs of the city. could a license ncorporated into a fire station building? are there any components of the parks n that could be incorporated into the fire station site? please do not make the es that have been made in the past when these types of decisions have been made in manner. do not consider just the fire station, but other needs of the city that ,lfilled at the same time. i : re stations are built all the time in the united states. you should not need to scratch. why not look around the area at other fire stations that have been built end if you find one that meets roseville's needs, why not just purchase a set of that city, rather than spend a huge amount of money on developing new plans. believe a new station should be built on the site of the dale st. station because ed next to highway 36, so fire trucks can reach both the east and west borders of n less time than fire trucks located on lexington could. Information: ted on: 3/19/2011 2:50:02 PM nom IP Address: ge: No referrer - Direct link 1 l ene.4 1- AIfI (/0, Driscoll support@civicplus.corn Sunday, March 20, 2011 12:35 PM *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen Fire Station/Hess Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ing form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council re dept 2r hess, jr 1913 shady beach ave ou prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact I a. : No Reply Necessary ass. . ,r: . e Your Comment, Question or Concern: after closely reading the packet concerning ation, it seems there are other fire dept. issues to be resolved before planning a all calls are handled by on-duty staff, is it time to eliminate the on-call have surrounding communities help with the remaining 1% of calls? i assume the call-back firefighters would reduce the space needs of a new station. the fire dept. have $100,000 left over from 2010? was there unnecessary padding dget? d $100,000 on planning and final blueprints before the funding to build the in place? if funding is not approved by the voters, that money would have been k around the state, I'm sure stations have been built in the last 2-3 years, so a rough estimate of the cost of a new station. t put the cart before the horse. ss, jr. information: ed on: 3/20/2011 12:34:36 PM 1 Driscoll Duane Schwartz Monday, March 21, 2011 4:29 PM Bill Malinen; Margaret Driscoll Doneen/Prior Avenue comment on parking •en of Shryer Ave. called and commented she is against a change of parking ins due to added traffic concerns and safety of young children in the neighborhood. ality Statement: The documents accompanying this transmission contain confidential ),n that is legally privileged. This information is intended only for the use of the s or entities listed above. If you are not the intended recipient, you are hereby ' hat any disclosure, copying, distribution, or action taken in reliance on the of these documents is strictly prohibited. If you have received this information in ase notify the sender immediately and arrange for the return or destruction of ments. 1 • i 31,c.Gt L 3/ l/'j :)riscoll support@civicplus.com Monday, March 21, 2011 12:00 AM *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen Prior Ave Parking/Willett Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ing form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council emoving parking restrictions from Prior Avenue (agenda item #12a) en Willett 1969 Shryer Ave W eville 3 you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact n. : No Reply Necessary ess: : er: : re Your Comment, Question or Concern: I am sorry that I cannot attend the city eting on March 21, 2011 because I have a previous commitment. I am very concerned wing the parking restrictions from the east side of Prior Avenue. When the as made to construct the new softball field and neighbors voiced concerns about the the neighborhood, the School District stated that the parking at the community ld be adequate. Now they seem to be changing their mind. This kind of behavior is h me. The school district needs to keep to their original commitment of using off- king for the softball field. That field is very very close to our neighborhood little setback and no buffers. I encourage all members of the city council to deny L for eliminating the parking restrictions on Prior Avenue. Information: t:ted on: 3/21/2011 12:00:03 AM From IP Address: age: http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/index.aspx?NID=56 ss: http://www.ci.roseville.mn.us/forms.aspx?FID=115 1 7J3‘.2.4,1Lik44144514:2f- i3/1;11/j/ 12.a -Original Message 11: supportPciwicplus.com fmailto:support( civicplus.coml Saturday, March 19, 2011 7:53 PM Duane Schwartz sect: Online Form Submittal: Contact Duane Schwartz following form was submitted via your website: Contact Duane Schwartz : : Karen Rajcic -ess: : 1948 Skillman : : Roseville _e. . MN : 55113 ,_ Phone Number: : ime Phone Number: : iLl Address: : l3se Share Your Comment, Question or Concern: Mr. Dwayne Schwartz, i ,3ve spoken with you on several occasions regarding the traffic in and around Fairview Fields, including getting the cross walk on Fairview and a bush ;)ved on Prior 'and Roseville. I am writing to you today because ii letter below that you received was sent in great asumption. The parking on !lman is an issue, has been an issue and will be an issue. I worked with the >ville police department to get no parking signs on the corner of Skillman and )r after both of my kids, our dog and my dad had near misses of getting hit. I 0 a list of complaints regarding the ball fields and parking. The people ,i1d park at Fairview and Corpus Christi and walk. They are suppose to be ! ,etes and we are a nation of obese. There is absolutely no reason to park There on the west side of the Fairview Field. There is a giant lot at the unity center and at Corpus Christi. The no parking signs on Prior are brand and the street has been no parking since at least 1969. . : 11 be at the meeting on Monday. Mks, +'n Rajcic ER: ' -e is a meeting Monday evening at City Hall to allow parking on Prior. I do know if I can make it. I sent this letter off to our Mayor and each member of City Council. The City Manager said the meeting starts at 6 PM and he fight this would be on the agenda about 7:30 PM. ,> Gregory i .irday March 19, 2011 . ,nt to thank Dwayne Schwartz , Public Works Director, for sending out the ? ' er regarding "City Council considering of removing parking restrictions on east side of Prior Avenue" dated March 14, 2011. I called and discussed with Dwayne Schwartz on March 17, 2011. Unfortunately, I am not sure I be able to make the meeting on March 21, 2011 when this is heard before the icil so I wanted to provide you with some comments for your consideration on my inability to organize in the short term. so appreciate the foresight to not recommend parking on Prior Avenue between Age Avenue and Sharondale Avenue since this is a drop off and pick up area various individuals that use the Fairview Community Center from preschoolers eniors. that the intention is to allow parking on the east side of Prior between er Avenue and Eldridge Ave "to be allowed to park in adjacent the fields er than out in the neighborhood if existing parking lots are full." I eve this can be accomplished without any existing changes to signage and I do believe parking in the adjacent neighborhood is an issue. 1 the co-block captain and organize a neighborhood block party each year for hbors on County Road B, Sharondale, Eldridge, Cleveland, Wilder and Prior ues. I attended Park Board meetings and meetings with the Bob Riggs and ,r representatives of the School System as we explored girls' softball fields he area south of the Fairview Community Center (hereafter designated as "open e"). e is a need for more open green space in the southwest section of Roseville. is an agreed upon position. Initially Bob Riggs and members of the School em suggested two girls' softball fields on the east side of the "open space". -at with neighbors east or and west of the "open space", and as a certified ator with the MN Supreme Court I suggested ways to try and mitigate this ess. Eventually it was agreed to build initially one girls softball field ig the west side of the "open space" on the northwest corner. The neighbors ' he west side of the Fairview Community Center did not object to this scenario gong as the fence stayed up and parking remained as it is now. There was a ern about traffic, trash, noise and safety. This was voiced in a public am by members of the community including myself. ent to the Fairview Community Center and asked to see plans related to the 1 field layout with a girls' softball field on the northwest corner of the space. I was told in the office that they had none for the layout and they not know where to obtain those plans. I asked if the fence on the west side id remain in place. I was assured it would be placed back where it was ginally. the fields were completed the school district did not replace the fence re it had previously been. Rather the fence now has a gate that is wide ,gh to drive a vehicle through the opening. Note there had been storage in area before and there was a gate to a totally fenced in area so that this was a thoroughfare. A wide asphalt drivable path now runs from Eldridge around south side of the Fairview Community Center to the parking lot on the east If this remains closed except for when the school district needs to duct maintenance we see no problems in the neighborhood, but clearly this was expected. In every public meeting I attended the school district 'esented the traffic flow was intended to be from the parking lot in front th side) of and next to (east side) the Fairview Community Center. The Doi district never indicated any intention to removing parking restrictions on east side of Prior Avenue or access via Prior Avenue to these fields. ghat can we do about this? When we have had high school graduations or other Lar events in this neighborhood, where neighbors have wanted to make use of ing on Prior Avenue we have contacted the city, obtained permission and ed bags over the no parking signs for limited periods of time to allow for ing on the east side Prior. I believe as an accommodation this could ntially work for dates when "existing parking lots are full." I see this )eing very infrequent given normal traffic in the lots. Perhaps a similar oach could be implemented. However, I would recommend remaining the status with the signs in place. ently the boys baseball field on the southwest corner of the "open space" works out fine with the current restrictions. On game days cars park her up the street on Skillman when the small lot next to the tennis courts is and this works out fine. lye lived here since 1991. I would offer the following comments. s aesthetically pleasing to look down Prior to the tennis courts and not see parked cars. I believe the walkers, joggers, those that drive disability )ters, and neighbors in this area appreciate this too. It adds to the feeling ,pen space to not see parked cars on the east side of Prior Avenue. With this ue being a primary pedestrian area with no sidewalk, the wide street is ucive to this type of bike and pedestrian traffic. out people parking here, there is limited trash and debris. I often walk up ,r Avenue after baseball games and pick up trash placing it in the garbage ainer at the boys' baseball field. When that is full, I have picked up trash brought it to my own home for disposal. I am concerned that parking on Prior ue will make this problem worse. ought there was no parking there initially when I moved in the neighborhood matter of safety. The fence for softball or baseball is relatively close to street. I thought this was a wise idea to keep cars from being damaged. I ,ght that was very progressive on the part of Roseville. There is a fence oximately 12 feet from the street that runs parallel to Prior Avenue. increased car traffic and people, a quiet peaceful street will now become active due to those parking on Prior Avenue. None of the neighbors have , :,lained about parking on the adjacent streets to my knowledge. This has not an issue. n these facts, I would respectfully submit to have the no parking ban tinue on the east side of Prior between Shryer and Eldridge. I believe the of district was not entirely forthcoming regarding the gate and now the ing issue presented here. By the way I just walked down past the gate (noon aturday March 19, 2011) and it was wide open so a car could have driven ugh from Prior Avenue to the east parking lot. Unfortunately, I do not eve I will be able to attend or organize the neighbors by Monday. However, ou elect to allow parking on Prior Avenue, I will follow up with neighbors if there are neighborhood objections, I will be happy to bring these back to attention. I do believe the many walkers, seniors, disabled on motorized and neighbors in general in the neighborhood would object to the change in ing recommendations presented in the March 14, 2011 letter from the city as noted by the school district. This is a quiet well traveled thoroughfare with walkers, and others as indicated above. The safety issue with these viduals is another concern when softball games are in session since there has no parking on this street since 1991 when I moved here and there is no walk. )ectfully Submitted: Gregory Sharondale Ave. 1zville, MN 55113 + . 3/a i I I \ 12.a 3/21/11 3:40 p.m. r Avenue parking issue/Blake; Gregory; Rogers and Schwartzbauer phone calls not ';i itted in writing Blake ;?ortive of allowing parking on the east side and suggests handicapped parking ,ad be provided for those that need accommodation. Gregory erned about the change and stated the School District indicated to the hborhood additional parking was not necessary. >,n Rogers used to the change to allow parking and is concerned it would add traffic ,ugh the neighborhood. School District indicated there was sufficient parking existing lots. Schwartzbauer ')ehalf of her and her sister who also lives in the neighborhood are supportive he change as the existing signage is pushing the parking deeper in the rhborhood. 1c k +691e nth J 12''6 n 3�a(IIl support @civicplus.com Monday, March 21, 2011 1:21 PM *RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen Josephine Woods/Strobeck Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ing form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council pposed to County Road C-2 Opening frey Strobeck 1297 West County Road C-2 eville you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact n. . Email ess: : er: : re Your Comment, Question or Concern: re is recent activity afoot to open up County Road C-2 between Lexington and am opposed to it and wish for it not to be considered due to safety concerns from traffic, increased emissions, and unwanted congestion. Roseville and the g communities have plenty of options at Larpenteur, County Road B, B-2, C, Hwy 36, d E, and 694. idents of County Road C-2 and our neighbors share the same sentiments. I ask for rt to decline review of the issue. I support the Pulte Homes addition in Josephine roposed. www.SaveC2.com for reading, 4?ck Information: tted on: 3/21/2011 1:20:45 PM from IP Address: age: http://www.cityofroseville.com/index.aspx?NID=56 ss: http://www.cityofroseville.com/forms.aspx?FID=115 1 z.b )riscoll support@civicplus.com Sunday, March 20, 2011 4:23 PM "RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen Josephine Woods/McDonald Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council ing form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council annecting C2 ald McDonald 2857 Dellwood Avenue eville N you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact n. : No Reply Necessary ess: : er: : re Your Comment, Question or Concern: I understand that the homeowners along Road are attempting to get County Road C2 connected between Hamline and Lexington ut that would be VERY bad! There are quite a few accidents at those two ons already, and to increase traffic would only cause many more. t of money was spent to make Josephine Road what it is now, and it was done with Ming and the results have been fantastic! What they want now is reduce traffic on and push it elsewhere. The sad fact is that the places they will increase traffic great harm and inevitably cost more for the city. Road was always connected and has always been an east/west route. County Road C2 been fully connected, and should not be unless many changes are made to the peed limit, and the addition of traffic lights at Hamline and Lexington Avenues. ly, the homes along Josephine were designed to be along a major thoroughfare with ack, whereas the homes along County Road C2 were not. Pulte development has an excessive amount of homes being added in my opinion, but to direct the traffic north and south seems to be a reasonable approach. I uggest doing a traffic study at the two intersections of Josephine Road at Hamline ton Avenues, and the junction of County Road C2 and Lexington Avenue and see what mpact is after the development is done and most of the homes are occupied - but pay ntion to the increase in traffic accidents at these locations as well. To tie in traffic across County Road C2 will further add to the danger of all citizens along Road C2 and will certainly increase accidents and possibly add personal injuries ians that are currently forced to walk the roads due to a lack of sidewalks. 1 dly attend the meeting on March 21st and add my voice to the concerns of almost eighbors, but have to work that night and it will not be possible for me to miss ery much! ald Information: .:ted on: 3/20/2011 4:22:55 PM p=rom IP Address: age: No referrer - Direct link ss: http://www.cityofroseville.com/forms.aspx?FID=115 2 (a,.b Scott Cummings I. Friday, March 18, 2011 1:37 PM *RVCouncil Josephine Woods Development&County Road C-2/Cummings ncil Members - ress my concern around the development of Josephine Woods without consideration of opening County fortunately, I haven't been able to attend the couple of recent meeting on the topic. But, I've long e reasoning behind not having County Road C-2 connect Snelling through to Victoria, regardless of this new It seems at all of our other County Roads connect East-West with the exception of where lakes or other exist. In light of this new development, I think it makes even more sense to leverage County Road C-2 and inector. lerstand the reasoning for it not being opened up as part of this new development. If there is not a strong C-2 closed, I would strongly advocate for it being opened to create another east-west connector. Est person for me to talk with to understand the situation? lgs ne Road 1 1 1 support@civicplus.com Thursday, March 17, 2011 11:27 AM `RVCouncil; Margaret Driscoll; Bill Malinen Josephine Woods/Skaggs Online Form Submittal: Contact City Council 1 n form was submitted via your website: Contact City Council isephine Woods Development lard Skaggs 1160 Josephine Rd eville N you prefer to be contacted? Remember to fill in the corresponding contact n. . Email ess: : S er: : 651- 1 ire Your Comment, Question or Concern: I am contacting you about the proposed Pulti N development of Josephine Woods. My comment concerns the drainage report. The 1, 100 year return period precipitation design values used in the modeling appear to fated from maps originally published in David Hershfield's Technical Paper 40, firmed by a Pulti representative at the 2 March 2011 Planning Commission Meeting). two reasons to question the adequacy of Hershfield's estimates. First the most a used in that study was 1958. The precipitation climate of Minnesota has changed ter conditions in the intervening 50+ years. Second the analysis method used by combined hand curve fitting and the Gumbel distribution. Today, most ists believe that extreme precipitation distributions are heavy tailed and are with a Generalized Extreme Value distribution. I and a former student studied ecipitation over the Twin Cities area using a high density precipitation network by the State Climatologist. For a 10 by 10 KM area in which the project is ne GEV gives precipitation design values for 2, 10, and 100 year return periods of and 8.8 inches rather than the 2.8, 4.1, and 5.9 inches used in the modeling. In ;r, period from 1970 to 2003, the 2.8 inch 2 year return period value was equaled or n 23 years somewhere in the 10 KM square area when 16 or so times would be The 10 year value (4.linches) was equaled or exceeded 8 times versus an expected 3 s, and the 100 year value was exceeded once. objection to the proposed development. But I would like to see a more robust rid flood infrastructure built based on what in my opinion are more appropriate ' ion design values. I understand that the Rice Creek Watershed District and the ify the Hershfield estimates but surely as a minimum. In my opinion using the the modeling when there is substantial evidence that the Hershfield values now are rates reduces the initial costs to the developer but puts the city at risk for more frequent infrastructure repair costs. 1 1 - 3 !D.( I 1 I March 7, 2011 Roseville City Council 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear City Council Member, Residents of the cul-de-sac at County Road C-2 and Lexington Avenue were notified of the proposed development of Josephine Woods and were invited to attend the Roseville Planning Commission meeting on March 2, 2011 to learn more about the development and to ask questions. Residents from the cul-de-sac and along areas of C-2, from Hamline Avenue to Victoria Avenue, attended the March 2 meeting. We were surprised and dismayed to find that the meeting became dominated by the agenda of Josephine Road residents,who provided written copies of their position to the citizens attending the meeting and who repeatedly stated to the Planning Commission their opinion that there is too much traffic on Josephine Road and the only solution is to open the cul-de-sac on C-2 in the hope that it will divert traffic onto someone else's residential street. The Roseville C-2 Neighborhood Association is providing you with copies of letters, a petition and other information regarding County Road C-2 so that you may be informed of the history of these issues. We invite you to walk or drive along the roads being discussed, from the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2, north on Lexington Avenue, west on Josephine Road, south on Hamline Avenue and east on County Road C-2. We would like you to especially be aware of the large hill at the junction of Merrill Avenue and County Road C-2 and the safety risks that the hill already presents. The Roseville C-2 Neighborhood Association embraces the goals and policies of our 2030 Comprehensive Plan. We want to live in a neighborhood that is safe. We want to preserve our quality of life and the value of our homes. We support decisions based on accurate facts and data, not opinions and projections. Thank you for your time and your attention to this matter. Sincerely, Donna M. Miliotis C-2 Neighborhood Association saveC2.corn `>eptember 21, 2005 Zoseville City Council 660 Civic Center Drive Zoseville, MN 55113 Dear City Council Members, It has come to our attention that the residents of Josephine Road are recommending that the cul-de-sac at County Road C-2 and Lexington Avenue in Roseville be demolished to permit another through route between Lexington and Hamline Avenues. In their August 1, 2005 letter to the Roseville Public Works Director,Mr. Duane Schwartz,the Josephine Road residents allege that there is too much traffic on their street,that drivers on the street travel at"excessive speed" and that Josephine Road is half as wide(32 feet) as County Road C-2 (66 feet). A copy of their letter is attached; please see Appendix A. We,the residents along County Road C-2 and the intersecting cross streets, are vehemently opposed to demolishing the cul-de-sac. We object to each of their following allegations: 1. The Josephine Road residents argue that their street is a"narrow" one of 32 feet in width,with residential drives and a"slight hill that reduces visibility." They make the exaggerated claim that County Road C-2 is 66 feet wide,when, in fact, the curb-to-curb measurement is the same 32 feet in width as Josephine Road. In addition,the"slight hill"reported by the residents is barely detectable to the naked eye, standing in sharp contrast to the real hill between Merrill and Griggs Avenues on County Road C-2. Even with the cul-de-sac, drivers speed down this hill to the point that our children are told to walk on the"wrong side" of the road to avoid being hit. Furthermore, Josephine Road pedestrians have a beautiful, new, extra-wide sidewalk to accommodate pedestrians and protect them from traffic. County Road C-2 has no sidewalk. 2. The Josephine Road residents also argue that drivers travel at"excessive speed" on their street. Their most recent data, collected during the summer of 2005, indicated that the average speed on the road declined from 38 mph to 32 mph. Is 32 mph considered"excessive"in a 30 mph zone? 3. The argument that ambulances will choose to travel on Josephine Road is entirely presumptive. There is no way to predict if or how often ambulances might use Josephine Road. Even so, surely the ambulance drivers can be instructed to use Woodhill Drive,the same route used by Roseville Police and fire personnel, which has comparatively fewer residential driveways than Josephine Road or County Road C-2. Logether with these objections,we outline for your consideration our additional areas of ?oncern: 1. We are extremely concerned about the safety impact for the broader community in creating a through street on County Road C-2. There have been at least two major motor vehicle accidents at the intersection of Lexington Avenue and County Road C-2 since May 2005. Motorists drive at excessive speeds on Lexington Avenue, uninhibited by stop signs or traffic lights on the long stretch of road between Woodhill Drive and County Road D. We agree with Josephine Road residents that it often seems difficult to enter the Lexington Avenue traffic stream at certain times of the day. But opening up yet another east-west route to Lexington Avenue via County Road C-2 will only compound this problem. It will force not one,but two lines of waiting cars to compete for the few entry points into a congested traffic system. In addition,we were informed that jurisdiction over Lexington Avenue belongs with Ramsey County, so opening County Road C-2 as a through street elevates these concerns from the city to the county level. Lexington Avenue is not the only north-south passage which would be affected by making County Road C-2 a through street. With the destruction of the cul-de-sac, County Road C-2 would connect Snelling Avenue to Victoria Avenue, creating a huge, adverse safety impact on residents around County Road C-2 between these avenues. We would like you to note that the attached petition(Appendix B) contains the signatures of numerous residents residing in the County Road C-2 area near Hamline Avenue and Victoria Avenue. These residents are also concerned about the speed,traffic flow and congestion on Hamline and Victoria Avenues,as well as traffic/pedestrian visibility issues. 2. We would like to remind you that Josephine Road residents collected their questionable speed statistics during a summer of major road construction in our area. The main east-west passage in our area is neither Josephine Road nor Wood hill Drive,but County Road C,which has been under major construction for months and operating at greatly reduced capacity. Naturally,motorists have sought alternative routes, but these are temporary. In addition to the construction on County Road C,there has also been recent major construction and traffic interruption on Victoria Avenue, Snelling Avenue and on Lexington Avenue north of County Road E. If there are any driver frequency statistics to be collected,they should be gathered at a time when adjacent roads and connecting routes within a mile or two are not under major reconstruction. 3. Residents along Hamlin Avenue indicate that much of the traffic on Josephine Road comes from Lydia Avenue,not County Road C-2, as people head to Lake Josephine County Park. Making County Road C-2 a through street is unlikely to change such driving patterns. 4. We are particularly concerned about the devaluation of our property. Many of us were assured by city officials that the cul-de-sac issue was settled years ago and that it would remain a closed issue. Please refer to the Appendix C letters from the Roseville Public Works Director and Planning and Zoning Administrator to Roseville residents. 5. There are several large,beautiful oak trees located on the cul-de-sac. To consider destroying this part of our community's natural environment to make way for more traffic is an irreplaceable loss for all residents. 6. Finally,the issue of who pays for road reconstruction is a touchy one. The residents of Josephine Road recently received a beautifully remodeled street, complete with colored, stamped concrete walkways, landscaping, special areas for parking extra cars on the road and a wide sidewalk. We find it especially ironic that these residents contributed no property tax money of their own for these improvements, and instead found a way to appropriate state money for their project. If any other street in Roseville received such improvements,who would be assessed additional monies to pay for them? In the case of Josephine Road,the taxpayers at large have funded a road improvement project for the benefit of a handful of lakefront homeowners. Why,then, shouldn't the residents of the area enjoy using the road they paid for? We think there are less expensive solutions to the alleged problems on Josephine Road, beginning with their suggestion that a stop sign be placed at Josephine Road and Fernwood. We also believe a strategically placed stoplight on Lexington Avenue at Josephine Road would slow and stop traffic often enough to allow sufficient entry points for motorists waiting to enter Lexington Avenue at Josephine Road(see Appendix A, Josephine Road letter about traffic concerns on Lexington Avenue). Again,we refer you to the petition in Appendix B signed by Roseville property owners against removing the County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. We are confident that we can obtain additional signatures, if necessary. We thank you for considering our point of view in this matter, and strongly urge you to leave County Road C2 unchanged. On behalf of the Concerned Roseville Residents of the County Road C-2 Area, Donna and David Miliotis 1128 County Road C-2 Roseville,MN 55113 Ph: (651)484-6782 cc: Duane Schwartz,Public Works Director Deb Bloom, City Engineer Roseville Housing and Redevelopment Authority 111 I Appendix A Josephine Road Resident Letters August 1, 2005 Mr. Duane Schwartz 2660 Civic Center Drive Roseville, MN 55113 Dear Mr. Schwartz; The data collected regarding traffic on Josephine Road confirm the concern of the local citizens— safety and the planning for future growth. Below is an outline of each area of concern and a recommendation for action. 1) Traffic Levels-Based on the data,the through traffic volumes on Woodhill Drive are roughly equal to the traffic volume on Josephine Road. The differences in the width of these streets and the number of residential drives on the streets are vastly different,yet the through traffic volumes are roughly equal. Josephine Road is a narrow street with many residential drives, a slight A4-4 s; ibili r,mid:pedestrians._ .ulting.;in a dangergas situation. ...w.. . Before construction of the Presbyterian Homes planned for Hamlin Avenue and County C2, with an expected 90-100 units, action is needed to provide additional routes for through traffic. With the current road situation,Ambulances heading to the Presbyterian Homes from the dispatch center(located in Arden Hill behind Cub Foods off Lexington)will travel south on Lexington to Josephine Road. Ambulances,traveling at higher rates of speed on a narrow street with limited visibility and no shoulder for drivers to safely pull off,along with the additional through traffic from the Presbyterian Homes residents makes this situation volatile. 2) Excessive Speed.-While the data collected indicated average speeds were reduced from 38 to 32 MPHe location for measurement was only one block from the intersection where autos are either slowing or not yet fully accelerated in the past,the speed measurements were taken from the center of the street,rather than near the intersection. Therefore, speed continues to be an unresolved issue on Josephine Road. As residents we observe most speeders to be people using the road as a commuting through route. 3) Street Width and Residential Drives—Between Lexington and Hamlin,Josephine Road is only 32 feet wide and has 32 driveway entries. W ith over 2200 cars using this street as a daily commuter route, backing out is dangerous. In contrast,county C2 has a width of 66 feet with only 23 residential drives between Lexington and Hamline, making County C2 a good `' alternative to share some of this daily commuter through traffic. `NY I &r Below are two recommendations s to adders the kerns identified above: is y 1) Open County C2 between Lexington and Hamline Avenues to allow for additional through 3)._ routes to support current and future traffic loads on a wider,safer street. p-k,w 2) Place a stop sign at the intersection of Josephine Road and Merrill Street to reduce the WI speed of through traffic traveling on Josephine Road between Lexington and Hamlin. Providing County C2 as an additional through route and a stop sign at Josephine and Merrill,we believe the issues will be resolved. Attached are the signatures of the Roseville residents in support of the recommended actions. Sincerely„The Concerned Citizens living on and around Josephine Road ..... ..... : r ......k :5 I. 5• b August r8, 2005 Dear Neighbors .;. ,rC F`3''zr -t.1 .e A \ r .i,. i.SX .,. 4 �,y h 'av 2-kl�:tr; ' _ ', - c -,- �,- ... 5 •.: Y t : '"j,'y�^ �n; K '� t. i #� '°tom, a :F>< '' F S c'a # ., - ail } a t o- _ ✓" x .�. r r Mahy Q s�n th:.•; .c�rk�0od 3� � -1 i �, fl e . eR e . a- :ar •. r, �..!--t as.. - a r -,-'5' ,4 a Josephine F � ct a t�iee _ - -,e -� _ . becoming lo,n � d{10,0a e ncVo S> u : 9 0 , S itu tion e 'm�4� - /-i1}z r7 19 , r. a r i N _ ?, ,7- x n3 s »1 'x^'r .s, -:� e*x �'�;`.�.'Yt Y'S..,s. d:`J�"FFir n County Road �21S:g iii not Li< TF lE�fz�i ',....;::.-..1.:r LVY�� .� ®c1 /lu- ;9lA l Opernng�C2 could J ', .-' th 3 p A -.a• t, °r'F.:*,', ti . F.:S f -; �.® G '. r r,,,1;.,,,,,,-,..�. ".tit .: � sl" �S t� „u�� (>k ar :%r••stop sign ors 404,ephitri ,! � - �,5 `� 4:� �l' _! 4 Ih .- 4 , of 4 N r .r Road fin -.-..o`tfiondea -<- :- -3:= - -xnR .�4 .t - 2r There i�vill.be�� •�, e� ',.,;�'..�;��y�' ,-��� � $��t � , :� �� �T,� .t. psi. _ r=S.��'."i`. 4 r 3030 N:�Ha ne � - ���:<` .r�.,',: -;'�� ,t�: �t;��,.: : �: .�u r•:�� .4-�..'. .',-,..g..;,, is F... tit' e s. There e i,vi�l;�e:a: e s. .,4 ' ��- v °�' , - Tom:' _ 1�'s :.:'Y rX ........:. C.'e i C.:. 4 ! .y., E'.: ;;a ,, I Ric-+i•n;i.`tM ,,:: ._, .,,�N,• _ , s' Y.tY �. (< •''t e r:1 '$., .."..', >.Y.'.. F.• f t , , '. ....,.-.�... rte.:. t as • - :. ... .: ..:.-.ten.:.� .. .. '.: XyeF.'� -r _ 1 1111. , 4. Appendix B Petition PETITION Date: 9A) A I oseville City Council 1 I undersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change 1 ty Road C-2 by Josephine Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street 1 Hamline and Lexington Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington for the following reasons: Safety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. Safety concerns due to added traffic onto Hamline,Lexington and Victoria Avenues from County Road C-2, particularly vehicles attempting to make left turns. Safety concerns due to large hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. Inaccurate and/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine Road residents. Devaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. Destruction of mature oak trees on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. Cost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. re Printed Name Address Phone Dorcna— M /<nJ s uae r/yide 2/0 /k/ AVitiit _bo l4 M11 i0 /12 S C©.RC,eZ l ev1f/e, M N G 6--,...1.04...6,782. J ii a.(0. - b4 ice. tfo(+ I C.4-- sQ C P-S VI-- (33 38, / /LOLL / y� ! '51 g. .• atit46-E S1 2$75,i/,c t4-SSr, .c � r'f a C -,l�vrucs (917/ ,�.∎ oi A(ail anne-x.n el 1;b taw a Cvvri led Cat. �C�cui I, - r zee . C? 3 A-e I; ' l'41 A 0,:j4.-.) btu:44' i-ii 4/r1/- /7-- 0,-(1-11 ew 6v. ga,,,,,, 36,30„, i ). .i) • "i!„.,..4- 3 € 7 S fl ,,,. /f S/. eias, /4 ‘11- i.: ' a 2875 pe i tc,dood Ave_. euc(.(e M ni ( 4.3_3. `�00p5 c-R,O i t b0 Coca-Ab Q,,.. G2 t)J_ Q.asc,v tLc..€ 110 6S l-ifta`3 -223 ''' d 7 - //V 64/44 c� g.e�.ilie N 65/ ssy-,?..?26 r / PETITION Date: (7/-/(JS- y eville City Council I idersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change i 1 Road C-2 by Josephine Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street amline and Lexington Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington I rr the following reasons: afety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. afety concerns due to added traffic onto Hamline,Lexington and Victoria Avenues from County Road C-2, irticularly vehicles attempting to make left turns. afety concerns due to large hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. taccurate and/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine oad residents. )evaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. destruction of mature oak trees on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. ost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. Printed Name Address Phone g�A1 E W II-if aE 9-W e Ad d-.2. 6s7-f -1- 4 • Q a v .4 a.r, e 9 2y V. co - Roe-2 /57-YPY-22-Ps- , ' (Q CI C. CAL ' ti�.'i.46. I I VI ,Co OC-'4•S — «,rq 41 wide/� ZotAtie/ y/5 Gz/. /e� e-s 6 S�/-L/P(-,red P. `: _. /r e K 4° o . . • 4./ _ --/63b ce4,0.1 kiwi/7 PQri-t ff elder roc it 3 ` ' -M09' i .. /014a #e4rerhc., ti A .•L" / - 7 ./C . F/S.� //36 CouWTY RD cz cU GS/-446%--294 7 9 7 5 if-e , l'Cf1 /,,ar-le,----;Z-> .1(r--n-,./4- --r ‹.41c/4., ,7‘c wc.„4/frtg4 c._-_ _ egy- vk v--...s-(97 r I 07 NCl/6111c Ah ,M AI,1 se nl, 6. C 6'S/-Yery X33; .r z. ,�!y�L l D 1f wr Q f� C--4 `�� K but L Sf 3 7 t^ F y37 e PETITION Date: 7/77/0, I ' Seville City Council undersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change ty Road C-2 by Josephine Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street Hamlin and Lexington Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington for the following reasons: Safety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. Safety concerns due to added traffic onto Hamline,Lexington and Victoria Avenues from County Road C-2, particularly vehicles attempting to make left turns. Safety concerns due to large hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. Inaccurate and/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine Road residents. Devaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. Destruction of mature oak trees on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. Cost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. i' ;re Printed Name Address Phone A ii ,i /° •••-•* .�► C •-/ arz IiGA/1-✓4-t_ //4-/41 6 go « w. 45/-513-41-*2,z y ' .:• d Ex-stE. t'■E(_ %%No Cam fi�ib caw (b5i�4Bb- -8�1 �NV J 2cA ,tIkNNI \ *Ji 2 11 MOVE . 4029 c\--t ,4s-4,-,1 Shp.,,nor, N 3 an a. 15 rrrr 1 15+ (co SO) („67.56 %-(011-.3 .., "' reqfibmwren 17.61 V( .%(2 (S/63y-f I ' ' ukJ'ik Clo4we1 17,6/ tau) s (&2 6. --i-6"35—??:// & ....T.5 .9.,40, ,7, riezAk _0/4n ittc r C` K 2151 Y T.e L 1--`0 1 6 A A i t<- ':"W12( .i 1 M,0 -t e l-' Dab(e 5 4 r o e C/c- 17-17 141_co /2/OA-Z. 161-636-/563 ,D, . / 7J3 f ilia 1, A /V It t/V mivA Aiwa;i 1302 LoES - co Div /1(1).C2-4) t', ' , , % E& 1S k l • 1303 ury •C2. ( i�-b.13 9. L.- ) 7/eO BE 4 Rc G' Cc cc s /305'c c7--1-i c-2 /< 33-( c, f t , t V n a 1-1 'h a 'pen 1 y i/ 'la b o n 47-- 4.45-.2a17 , je. r AP-ro,�/f-.1- © .� A/s_,' ' 1 . 7' A ,� - 2, / 3 PETITION Date: 900/ 0 c eville City Council ridersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change Road C-2 by Josephine Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street {amline and Lexington Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington r the following reasons: afety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. ,afety concerns due to added traffic onto Hamline,Lexington and Victoria Avenues from County Road C-2, oracularly vehicles attempting to make left turns. Safety concerns due to large hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. naccurate and/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine clad residents. revaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. estruction of mature oak trees on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. ost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. t.-. Printed Name Address Phone . - Q s,�r► 1L t� Li k k a s v? kJ . "6,,,A wo�C k1e, a�-19 n `1 5QvI 1-e- )M1\ . 55113 :d� .� 15 e �W a ns ay. $3 b 1 ell woo i�}vte. bs�-6.12r-og37 ,; ` Ake.5 �� N°seolte,mills3`ir3 Ake.5 �( 5 I2 { Co Ca. --[ci.z9.4 test v , '` `ft V,eu rn c)(M ten, t t6-ZCS5izDc 65(• -0 -, ,, , J att Ja(. .a 1Oret el 2 8614 t=ervtwo . f, 63-1-W37--(466 83-x(.66 ,-,,t;41 y .......✓„ 61 654;0.e E r4.-to s 0 gG Nei w (i Ke/dtie Ai. 6c/4?636z7- A, "-Auk_1 l a`n i 1 At .2...93u wea &. 65'-?65- 47o �— 2-R3D Fe,1,.A.4)11 1 S bt/)61`o . (4--- jztA),7„, aC3,-)6, rk L�,,) i c 1:2_7E-0, ,.t.,,,, r , . v VAS J i///1' /_L......116r WinirlA I ..� t 1 it / .07 S z� ‘51- 433--3-2.5 V PETITION Date: 9//0/OS seville City Council ndersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change r.!r Road C-2 by Josephine Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street F-I amline and Lexington Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington `..)r the following reasons: afety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. Safety concerns due to added traffic onto Hamline,Lexington and Victoria Avenues from County Road C-2, particularly vehicles attempting to make left turns. Safety concerns due to large hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. naccurate and/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine Road residents. I:>evaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. Destruction of mature oak trees on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. ∎:)ost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. re Printed Name Address Phone ,Ift, f-CVa• cpj 0 rug he in 114v 6 a `1 g3r.;,23(,. ,:y: xiL(.J4,-, I/2-0 tk- Z 2 q -r - 16 S9 ':r kefsw 1b. L . Ca q i- iYr-R , I. z, GAE6dvdr E- 'Grpes6 1 d SO C2,o.C-2.14-) 4 Si 14-i a Q co.t / �.e..tA, in.. AL C_g# ) e4ff k . 1 0 L(o ` Q.p e aZ kL3 qs "a[18 ,;l r C a oe,,,,,# ,,, tele--"'7 e 1?ksitf a,I74/Oirt 111^P J-C 2 +/1P0 0 9,2 'I' IP:"I'irraTNIWYArrairlIpiplprirgn 0 1 eiti 1 Ftir 6 - ' ' 44.1 -cf. g -Zgc6 Air / : taikirasiii __,:,........./. .. 11;' 9; - 4‘,9 ,,, 1 'E u Roi�.�-ks q4s CV ca OW 34o- aq3•f e ,�illliT trl, i� / //�///f/�Ob,/� r,O / Iv i 't 1\ -4 — �?fe l�u1 I(� -- -7 0 C2 . v 9 it,d_t_,S.r / : 4 • CgX 1051-Uno- 7 It Irt��/ , . . .: ► .�li.� _ PETITION Date: 7//0 j0.c Seville City Council iidersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change Road C-2 by Josephine Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street 1 lamline and Lexington Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington r the following reasons: afety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. )afety concerns due to added traffic onto Hamline,Lexington and Victoria Avenues from County Road C-2, earticularly vehicles attempting to make left turns. ,afety concerns due to large hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. naccurate and/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine oad residents. revaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. ?estruction of mature oak trees on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. ost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. 1: _ Printed Name Address Phone °,..,..,. ∎'∎. . \ \ ■ --II,. G211 7 I _`t, 22•,)., . a'r. - -∎ ` . .. ' ti' - r-, t 1 6 et/n u n�fer 2810 7 &i�u0.av ,�`�osev isae G5l-j,3 -90 , 651 9 83-5 9 t •JV_o_ ..L1. a • . A4 • % i, i • k 0cb , � 4105V VI Ile s73 / - Ge r,�/,. - Lam, , , - a, . G• c 6, VT- -., / /� '" 4-.•t-to af,4_44_,.._:.4., I rf C �1L'-r °Z(,,a.-2 6,,y 7"-- V (I'CI3e11 /r , / J ILL, / if.vA/ 2833 al,(9q df4 0-3—//z 9 . ( i1 /1 httetSe, o�. �fi 2_%2o �1.tn-i It S- 1091 -o-2-L1 2_ /4t ) Li J k✓' t'' 866 �f rrj15+ 7 1 -ob y � y ?, _., " . 4 2ALp /-k-Q►JkI� 2gs DELL/A.190_0 Akvk.. Llls--q S 7 3 :. ` apeir j-tl/l lel 1 Y etffty \ -4-1 to X1,4 y—(;\ c a" t i t c `4 1 1 PETITION Date:1//3/0_1----- eville City Council I dersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change Road C-2 by Josephine Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street i-1 amline and Lexington Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington i r the following reasons: afety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. afety concerns due to added traffic onto Hamline,Lexington and Victoria Avenues from County Road C-2, 1 articularly vehicles attempting to make left turns. afety concerns due to large hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. ; accurate and/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine oad residents. ?evaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. estruction of mature oak trees on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. ost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. e Printed Name Address Phone r. ea rd/ >-►o s aS : Ifler-rI I . , s s 7 ' / L Jve Amos . aSS: yr - f-," / 4S - , as- , 5ai-bccto L-1 nt cm a S55 0h eer/l/Y Oy-955/2._ ' ,h" AerV f LLB..n Dyl. rwfl .2salksuvu,0 5 63 3-I4 rf G ..� hienkris 0??3o/Pirntitoed S/- 'VSL- c2- < Lout_ .z.J Oe4, ali ,- 1I • a' D Me ril St 65/-8517 ,�u(1 • S OP 3 e i ,D-7/0/40 - ( /)633-4/ã ': IS , 0.4/Mc 51vedit.' _Mot Me,- l IS+ tpl 692-0 W . �.i Z, d v • ( S-- ! _ , L - - i ffr hi ' _ -ad f its . T,et2 c:/ ..3 ��--$qq) ` 0. U � a' ,A,, t9A'l , t-ViccED9.5. 7. PETITION V/6705 Date: fseville City Council ] ,indersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change ., Road C-2 by Josephine Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street r 1 Iamline and Lexington Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington i Ior the following reasons: Safety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. Safety concerns due to added traffic onto Hamline,Lexington and Victoria Avenues from County Road C-2, particularly vehicles attempting to make left turns. Safety concerns due to large hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. Inaccurate and/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine Road residents. I_)evaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. Destruction of mature oak trees on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. Cost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. 'r_ire Printed Name Address Phone N r .1 i4 Bet/het ►O &hp 7 7ncy m 6.S^/-V (3-5j( ;c . 4t./._e__, / i l 09fi cp s /� 4'5/—Y S 9 3 5 i tct.ScZ�j�71 WALgeR Pa > o u 081 h...f.,: .1 6614-86-692-6-%_ I yi,be I - // (erm.be I R 'r t. 105'T i 6g/4j /o7 7,' • 't !, .,. G ' :? & AGLw,+V 6.'1-41-Q� 8; r 5 " Is I 1 � � v i �US� tab .:,r,,,,, CtiQ 9 9- �]iear, ' . - 6C1--44� -4E/ 9-Li 1 r tJ ` ? /1 1S Got -a v WZII r *fevx.Are_ O7 3U 44 s* ■ PETITION __?/a/a__ ___ •• -.:' - Date: Roseville City Council• e undersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change my Read, -2.by 7tlseh}ne Road.residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street en Hamlin and LrFf1.4 ton Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington ,e for the fgilq, t}g reasons Safety conces due to;increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2 from Snelling to Victoria Avenues Safety„ceerns due to added traffic ggto Hamhne,Lexington an d Victoria'Avenues from County Road C-2, ' plc ' e lfr Safe y� ctnc [r'i - ,urge h}l and J;;,,;(;1.7 isibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. Inaccurate or misleadm data re ardin respective street widths ands eed of traffic as claimed b lose .hire ,� �, ,e g , g g P P Y p Road tesideRts , N Devaluatton.ofproperty of residents on and around County Road C-2. Destuctton o£mature oak trees.on County Road C-2 cul-de-sac. Cost to,oxpayers fora project that is not necessary and is unwanted. k tore Printed Name Address Phone ,., t 'find. W r V u',,,;,,,,,..',44.,0',1.0 ��7 Y �, ay .. ki° t Sd.�'F,..4$ -=a �' t x# i ,.; 'fir >M .� t hx -M.' ,.,y ,...''"_""� e:;.. . ,:,, •€ a a 5'N s"x'Y"r a 9,(1. .. Iwo ` - -t 9 r :` X 3 6i / --'4,'A'',-;` "..�„�i'i/ f '' - �,V� s `�,.s ,SA^`+3F,,.7 i z� V c�£1 :�; ;ltrsvl i.,k 2 z �� . •dam -ai .� `� .4 , �_ ' -47 .� z iQ� '!_p'_z' a la 1... 1� fo3`3" � ® ,�9 �4*! A•''''1,..-'.''I 1-i'es..4-:.,:ro,--vri,,,,,,.fi....01.,,,,,,,,.,,,,,, '.914 fa,;.,j JA ._ ' .� is, ;` d -v x , i '.,; L .,. i 3 A s £#s. .L . y�� z Na . 451 a � 7 � � 5 74'.0:4 4...,n rah f.`s- 's is r 2i 9 n,,,o,..,y��F ,trro `yy�.�!i I fi y ¢ z r.1., ..,,,,ibali,i,,„?;',',,,,,,,:-.. - ..,-,,i4iri-if,:-',i-.;--,':-..,1,-7i-.3;55--. Od,fatsal(ti r 0/ leii.iii.:,,i.;iiip.-0„,..(4tLi,,,*;.",-7,..;;....;.:;_li.if:„.-,1;;;:t3,,•.:•fA-,-1.1,:• ,?•':,- .,/ fir B� ` -, +�^ c • l //_ i �z- r .® F. , , r_% . 6 !��/', Iv. 6 - �'f• 4 x, ; ° 3 9, 1 h fig' 1 r* } of., 3 w PETITION Date: ,.)seville City Council ■ undersigned owners of property on and around County Road C-2 who are adversely affected by the requested change y Road C-2 by Joephine.Road residents do hereby protest against changing County Road C-2 to a through street ,,Hamtne:anci Le,xingtoin Avenues. We protest the destruction of the cul-de-sac on County Road C-2 near Lexington. for the following reasons;' Safety concerns due to increased flow in traffic on County Road C-2.from Snelling to Victoria Avenues. Safety concer}}s due to aided traffic onto.Hamline,Lexington and Vctoria Avenues from County Road C-2, particularly 1!e kccles a�np j ng to make.left turns, Safety concertls4due to a'ge hill and poor visibility on County Road C-2 from Merrill to Griggs Avenues. Inaccurate;a d/or misleading data regarding respective street widths and speed of traffic as claimed by Josephine Road residents, Devaluation of property of residents on and around County Road C-2. Destruction of-mature oak trees on County Road.0-2 cul-de-sac. Cost to taxpayers for a project that is not necessary and is unwanted. 1 are Printed Name Address Phone �; ia , n7 d �?;. (� �1���, G!/l t s 4 h �`�-1 i rJ ill a�ao J CI -e>,.).s' r • �.� At . , v . i $ R€,- €, ,� #id's.: 1:. .-','4„,),�b T .�, .. I"® t MT') V{/ d�.{ v �.r aY' �'�(® T � , r F_,�^I � ::t "�+„A F 1N a 11:-. :�Ev��d,} 5 � F � $`. ��q�,Y,'� t - T_ .. 2/2‘ # � G h z/1� s s ; tF,�.- rt F f")/4 ''''''' b, b /O ,;ry 3 1 1 Appendix C Roseville City Letters to Residents 447,AsEviux ,une 16, 1989 --A-1"---1-61:1-r14-44-' ---- v-___ C- - - j---/C--ky r. G. Heppner _--C, . ).-i_ei2;- 1 367 Griggs Street oseville, MN 55113 • e: Closure of County. Road C-2 and Judith Street east of Griggs ,ear Mr. Heppner: ailir letter to the city manager dated June 5, 1989, was referred ' ) me for conpigpration. You requested that permanent closures [1, made on County Road C-2 and Judith east of Griggs as promised the review and approval granted by the Roseville City Council the CanAm project. ..e city staff has reviewed your request in the field. At the esent time, because of the need to possibly make minor grade thanges in conjunction with finishing this site, we do not ]t,lieve it 4 practical to install permanent, wooden barricades osing the road. At the time the project is completed, this ,( )rk will be undertaken and finished by the Roseville Public ,iirks Department. , 1 the interim we will request that the contractor pile rth-bg,M3,40 both the County Road C-2 and Judith Street ends ,. ist or2GF4ggs to effectively close the road to through traffic. esetempqrary earth bermes will prohibit the public from ziving .in, an4 qpt of the area but will allow the contractor the t- , portunityktecuRe, equ4pent to move the dirt piles when it, is r4 Jsolutellepeoessary to allow delivery of concrete or other instruction material during the project construction. (), we would like to note that we have recently awarded a qstruction contract for completion of the County Road C-2 cul- 0 • sac off Lexington Avenue. This work will be started in July Ji opFRAepe4,0x,fai4 . , As part of that contract, a permaneW 11L-de.saiiyi Aponcreteicurb and gutter will be built on County Jid cratqo Wypurfilocation. This construction will also 014 t'ectivelrelimihate through traffic for the County Road C-2 r •ta• 2660 CIVIC CENTER DRIVE • ROSEVILLE•MINNESMA • 55113 •612-490-/200 I I Page 2 [r. G. Heppner :rune 15, 1989 :►nce again, to answer your request, the wooden barricades will be ,:rected upon ,completion of the project. On an interim basis, tiarth bermswjll' be built by the contractor to restrict access. Iopefully, this is satisfactory. If you have any further ,Juestions or comments, please contact my office. incerely, -v A: Catlin Public Works Director ,DG:cy :: . Steve North, Acting City Manager Bob Matson, Council Member �,y: - , Rt711 :r„. , ti`. ',larch 23, 1995 4--e-s-/ 'y�'�' :hn Demma I.60 County Road C-2 W. i)seville, MN 55113 G°:.E: EXTENSION OF COUNTY ROAD C-2 :ar Mr. Demuna: you are aware, County Road C-2 currently ends in a cul-de-sac west of Lexington Avenue. ,st of Hamline Avenue, County Road C-2 ends at N. Griggs Street..Although right-of-way i sts to connect these two segments of County Road C-2, the City of Roseville has no current gins, nor future intention, to make this connection. 1.<a entire segment of County Road C-2 from Hamlin Avenue to Lexington Avenue is :.ignated as part of the City's Municipal State Aid (MSA) system. Cities can designate up to 'o of their total local street mileage as MSA streets. This designation allows cities to receive , 4,enues from State gas taxes. As such, the City will retain ownership of the right-of-way for I linty Road C-2 from Hamline Avenue to Lexington Avenue. The City is not obligated, ,,„vever, to construct the entire roadway. As stated above, the City has no intention to connect two segments of County Road C-2. P act, in 1995, the City will reconstruct County Road C-2 from Hamline Avenue to N. Griggs et. The current pavement of County Road C-2 extends to the east of N. Griggs Street. amp -_ ::pe this letter clarifies the City's position with regard to the extension of County Road C-2. se contact me at 490-2220 if you if you have any questions or would like to discuss this issue per. erely, Fol Ao:"..4.1 e izza I p. Keel :tor of Public Works cy 20.-.1 Cr, i.. . . `. . L)..1\, _ a i\c' vlLLE: e ` :1\\ES • 5 Il, ill