The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About3.c. No Parking Signs Follow-up �,.� �� €a� �"`�+�"'�3'�� r ��,. r� a;��* � �t ks f� e-�=a s �-s. „ , �, :,. n ,._ >._ .. . �. , , ,., ,i ..- ,+,,: = . , ., � � �. �.r� .. .y , . ,: ,. ,..e ... _: ,: �. _ ti _ , ` . _ ,, .F .,�- +�' �� V . . . .. .. . . . . . . : � �.. . . . `.!J EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CITY COUNCIL City Council Work Session: July 13, 2005 AGENDA ITEM: No Parking Signs Follow-up AGENDA SECTION: UPDATES PREPARED BY: Jamie Verbrugge, City Administrator AG ATTACHMENTS: Memo from Chief Kalstabakken; letters � �� from city prosecutor and consulting APPROVED BY: en ineer RECOMMENDED ACTION: No action is requested BACKGROUND The City Gouncil directed staff to follow-up on the number of No Parking signs and sign placements in the Carxollton Neighborhoad west of Chili Avenue. SUMMARY Police Chief Kalsta.bakken requested more information from city pxosecutor Shawn Moynihan and consulting traffic engineex Chuck Rickart related to the number of signs and sign placements in the Caxrollton neighborhood as a result of Council direction at the June 15 City Council Work Session. A memo from the Chief is atkached,as axe lettexs from Mr.Moynihan and Mr. R.ickart, fox Council review. 'This item is informational only. Staff recommends no change to the cuxrent sign placement or numbers. Chief Kalstabakken is not planning to be in attendance at the meeting. Please contact him or the City Adrninistrator if you have specific questions of the Chief prior ta the meeting. �� '�i ROSEMOL;[�JT POLICE DEPARTMENT M E M O R A N D U M To: Mayor Droste Council Members Baxter, DeBettignies, hoe-Corrigan and Sterner City Administrator Verbrugge From: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Po ' . Date: July 7, 2005 Subject: No Parking Signs — Carrollton Neighborhood � At the June 15,2005 Council Work Session,Ron and Nina Jacobson presented informarion to the Council requesting that the No Parking Signs be removed from the neighborhood except for three signs at the three street entries into the area. In response to the Jacobson's request, City Prosecuting Attomey Shawn Moynihan and Traffic Engineer Chuck Rickart were asked to formally review and comment on the placement of the no parking signs. Mr• Mojmihan's and Mr. Rickart's responses are attached. Both visited the site befoxe writing their responses. Mr.Moynihan's opinion is tha.t there are not too many signs on these streets and that the removal of all but the signs at the entrance would not give adequate notice to motorists of the parking restrictions. Mx. Rickart's opinion is that the signs have been pla,ced in the correct locations and should not be changed. He writes that signs should be placed at the entrance/beginning of each block,but also need to be placed with sufficient frequency to give a clear message that parking restrictions exist The current placeme�t allows signs to be seen from anywhere a motorist may be along the xoadwap. Sta,ff's opinion is that no changes in the sign placement should be ma.de. The sign locations were determined based upon site lines and the visibility of the signs and that the signs were placed a similar distance to paxking restriction signage on other city streets. , . . _ ♦ FLUEGEL & IVLOYNII�[AN P.A. Attorneys At Law Donald J.Fluegel* 1303 South Frontage Road,Suite 5 Telephone 651-438-9777 Shawn M.Moynihan � Hastings,MN 55033-2477 Fax 651-438-9775 Daniel J.Fluegel June 29, 2005 Chief Gary Kalstabakken Rosemount Police Department 2875 145"' Street West Rosemount,MN 55068 Re: Restricted Parking Sign Question -143'd Street, Etc. Dear Chief Kalstabakken: As you requested, I reviewed information regarding the posting of restricted parking signs on that part of the following streets lying west of Chili Avenue; 143'�Street West;Upper 143Td Street West and 144`h Street West. In May,2005,'the City prohibited parking in this area during school days except by permit. Signs were post�d inforining motorists of the parking restriction. The location of these �'igns are�slio�vn on the attached Site Map with an"X". 'This parking restriction was to address fhe problem of high school students parking in this'residential area to avoid paying the high school's parking fee. I understand a citizen has complained there are too many restricted parking signs posted in this area. Presently,there are essentially two restricted parking signs on each side of the street on each of these three streets and on Cimarron Avenue. It is my opinion there are not too many signs informing the public of the parking restrictions on these three streets. To enforce parking restrictions,the City must be able to demonstrate to the court that the motoring public had adequate notice of the parking restrictions being imposed. For example,handicap spaces must be clearly marked and yellow curbs must be properly painted and kept free from obstructions. I understand the resident has suggested only three signs be posted; one at the entrance at each of the three streets. I do not believe that would give a driver adequate notice of the parking restrictions. I believe that if only three signs were posted and a parking ticket was issued'in this area, the defendant would complain there were only three signs in this entire area and how it was insufficient to give them notice. *Also admitted to practice in Wisconsin To illustrate this point, one only has to think back to last November and December when the City ticketed people for violating the winter parking ban. Each year the City takes great strides to inform its citizens of the winter parking ban. When people receive a ticket,however,they complained about the lack of notice and how unfair it was they received a ticket. I believe if the City reduces the number of signs on these three streets, a similar type of complaint will be heard. To assist me in reviewing this matter, I drove through these streets to view tk�e signs. Clearly,this area is not over signed. In fact,I feel there may not be enough signs posted in this area. The distance between the signs makes it unclear whether the parking restriction is just by the sign or for the entire block. To remedy this problem, I suggest the City consider adding the words "this block" ar "between signs" to the current signs. Either of these options would inform a motorized that the entire block is restricted parking during the posted times. If you have ary other c�uestions I can help you with nn this matter,please do not hesitate to contact me. Very truly yours, FLUEGEL & MOYNIHANP.A. .. `n Shawn M. Moynihan City Prosecutor SMM:ham Enclosure . ," .. �� Infrastructure■ Engineering■ Planning■Construction T01 Xenia Avenue South &Associates,Ina SUIt@#3OO Minneapolis,MN 55416 Tel: 763 541-4800 Fax: 763 541-1700 �Vlemorandum To: Gary Kalstabakken, Chief of Police City of Rosemount From: Chuck Rickart,P.E.,P.T.O.E. Transportation Engineer cc: Andy Brotzler,P.E., City Engineer City of Rosemount Date: July 6, 2005 Re: Parking Sign Locations West of Chippendale Avenue WSB Projeet No. 1045-99 T'he CiTy of Rosemount installed"No Parking" signs on 143Td Street,Upper 143`d Street, and 144�' Street between Cimarron Avenue and Chippendale Avenue. The signs were posted for "Permit Parking Only"in response to students from Rosemount High School parking on these streets to avoid paying parking fees at the high schooL Based on complaints from local residents,the City requested that I review the placement of the "No Parking"signs. Andy Brotzler and I made a site visit to review the placement of the signs. The Manual on Uniform Tr�c Control Devices (MLJTCD) indicates that for signs to be effective,they should meet five (5)basic requirements: 1. Fulfill need 2. Command action 3. Convey a clear, simple meaning 4. Command respect to the road user 5. Give adequate time for proper response The manual outlines five (5)considerations that will ensure that the five basic requirements discussed are met: l. Design: In order to convey a clear message,the physical features of the sign must be considered. 'This ineludes the size, color,and shape of the sign. 2. Placement: The sign should be placed in such manner that each driver can see and react to the sign. � C:�Uw�medsrdSanm6+4�ROB8MOIMIV.odBatliep�T�pnnYldavNFdsVDLKN3W6MOybWb�kk�M7WA3.doc � . Gary Kalstabakken,Chief of Police . City of Rosemount July 6,2005 Page 2 of 2 3. Operation: Signage should be installed in a way that does not conflict with other signs or tr�c control devices. This requires signing to be uniform and consistent. 4. Maintenance: Signing should be maintained in order to be legible and visible during all times of the day and all types of weather. 5. Uniformity: It is very important that signs are used in a consistent and uniform basis to throughout the City. Regulatory signs, including"No Parking" signs should be placed based on the following criteria: 1. Where expected: Signs should be placed on the roadway where the traveling public would expect to see the signs. In the case of the"No Parking" si�ns,they should be placed at the beginning of each block. 2. Consistency: Signs should be consistent with other areas within the City pf Rosemount. Other locations within the City of Rosemount where"No Parking" signs are posted, including the areas to the east of Chippendale Avenue,are posted approximately 500 feet apart. Signs that were installed in this area have been spaced approximately 500 feet apart. 3. Minimal Property Impact: Signs should be placed on property lines where possible. In this case, a11 signs have been placed on property lines. 4. Enforcement: Signs need to be placed in such a manner that no question can be raised to enforcement of the restriction. "No Parking"signs placed in this azea were located in such a manner that a sign can be seen from anywhere you are along the roadway. This gives a clear message to the driver that no parking,except by permit, is allowed on the roadway. Based on the above criteria,the site visit, and my engineering judgment,the"No Parking"signs were placed at the conect locations and should not be changed. If you have any questions or require any additional information on this issue,please contact me at 763-287-7183. C:�Doamatswd5d�'vgdgdcROBEMOUMV.oNseuivgdTmparyidaeetPJe�`OLK113W8M0.qkdmWYtao-0A603Aoc � � Mema -Request June 15,2005 To: Rosemaunt City Cauncil From: Ron and Nina Jacobson Subject: Request for only Three No Parking Signs in Carroliton Now that school is out and students no longer park in Carrollton, it is requested that a second look be given to the new no parking signage in Carrollton and that the three-sign- solution be considered. Three Sign-Solution ; The residential section southwest of Rosemount High School called Carrollton has a street pattern like a capital E up against a north-south collector street on the east end called Chilli. Access to this residential section is limited to three entry points (the right tips of the E),namely 144th, Upper 143rd, and 143rd Streets at Chilli. The Three-Sign- Solution consists of posting a No Parking Sign at each of the three entry points and removing a11 other No Parking Signs currently standing in Carrollton.. At present a No Paxking School Days Sign is at each of the three entry points. It is praposed that these three signs remain and that each sign be complimented with a red and white parking pla.que which would read BEYOND THIS SIGN/BOTH SIDES OF r STREETS. This is illustrated below. d BEYOND THI� SiGN f� . BUTH S1DES OF STREETS The TNT Signs company in Aurora, Colorado have been consulted and the Manual af �; Uniform Traffic Control Devices studied. It is hoped that this 3-sign-solution can be � tried and the ather signs removed. Carrollton has been sign free for 26 years - and the addition of the many no parking signs does not add to the spirit of small town ambiance. RC�SE1�✓10LI�T � d . P �� ADMINISTRATION July 6,2005 r U.S.Repzesentative John Kline 1429 Longworth House Office Building Washington,D.C.20515 Dear Congressman Kline: On behalf of the entire Rosemount City Council,I want to thank you and your District Director Mike Osskopp for appearing at our July 5 City Council meeting. We ue better served being direcdy informed on important federal issues such as uansportation than if we only monitor these issues from afar with no intesaction or dialogue. Your urillingness to share your views in pezson demonsuates to our shared constituents that we are indeed working together for the betterment of our 1oca1 communities. rind it isn't very ofren that we engage in discussioa of foreign affairs at a City Council meeting,so that was a pleasant bonusi On the issue of emuient domain,we certainly appreciate your passion for curbing perceived or existing examples of government abuse and heavq-handedness. I do want to share with you that the City of Rosesnount is moving forward with redevelopment of our downtown area,aad that eminent domain may be an important tool iu our ability to revitalize the historic center of our community. r�ithough we will be going to great lengths to make every effort possible to negotiate fair and reasonable purchases of psivate property,the use of eminent domain map be necessary to preventone or two property owners from holding hostage a pzoject that will benefit the entise communiry. The point of sharing this local story is to be suce that our legislators understand that the circumstances in Kelo v.New London,the pe=ceptions surrouadiag Best Buy in Richfieid,or the Detroit experiences of decades past in destroying whole neighborhoods for the benefit of GM are not the norm when it comes to local economic development. In thousands of small towns aczoss r^�merica,local elected officials are faced with the challenge of keepiag parts of their commuaities from eacperiencxng disinvestment and becoming market obsolete. , Esninent domain is an important tool in those ef€orts. I hope that you will consider the wide and sweeping effect that some of the proposed conections to eminent domain in tl�e U.S.House of Repsesentatives will have on small cides like Roseinount. As just one small example,prohibiting city's to use Community Development Block Grant funds in downtown redevelopment if eminent domain is used—as pmposed—will make it more challenging for us to tum our downtown distsict azound. Kelo v.New London did not legislate new and expaaded powers to govemment. It sisnply confitmed decades of practice and case law that economic development is a"public use"aad not just a"public purpose." I hope you will consider the local impact as the House moves fosward with this important discussion. r�gain,thank you for spending time with us. We look forward to continuing our work together to beaefit the iesidents of Rosemount and the 2'�District. Best wishes for continued successl Sincerely, � � � � � William H.Droste Mayor SP/R/ T OF PR/DE AND PROGRESS Rosemount City Hall • 2875 145th Street West • Rosemount, MN 55068-4997 651-423-441 1 • TDD/TTY 651-423-621 9 • Fax 651-423-4424 www.ci.rosemount.mn.us