Laserfiche WebLink
<br />weeks. The' Administrator indicated that preliminary plat proposals for two <br />subdivisions north of the Peterson Addition had been received Which have the <br />affect of creating a solid line of contiguous subdivision from the Burlington <br />Northern Railroad tracks at the south to County Road 32 in the north. The . <br />questions posed by these subdivisions are, (1) who i,s a$,,,e~.~edt01".therai1 ... <br />crossing? (2) 'lfhat roadways are built and who, in fact" pays for those road- <br />wayS? The Administrator indicated' that after a staff review, it was ,recommended <br />that the rail crossing be constructed in the interest of the hea1th,safety <br />and welfare of residents in the area and that the cost of the rail crossing <br />be assessed to all individuals from the railroad tracks in the south to the <br />County Road 32 in the north who might have access to the rail crossing. In <br />addition, the Administrator indicated that it was recommended that a bituminous <br />roadway be constructed from the Burlington Northern Railroad tracks in the ' <br />south through the Peterson Addition, the proposed Christian Addition' arid the <br />proposed Coleman Addition and link with County Road- 32 in the north, and that <br />said,rq~~~ay be assessed to ,benefiting properties. The Administrator indicated <br />that the., C0ur;1~i1 need nqt take action on' these questions or concerns at <br />tonight's meeting, but that they shoUld be recogidzed by' the' Council' arid at <br />some point in the future formal action would be required by the City Council. <br />Two petitions were presented,to the members of the City Council by residents <br />4 in the area of the Peterson Addition., One petition requestedt.heCity Council <br />to leave the roads ':in the Peterson' Addition' in their current stat.e,. arid' riot to <br />improve theroaclswith bitUminous surfacing. The second pet.ition requeSted <br />the City to arrange a conference between Peterson Addition 1andowners"the <br />Burlington Northern Railroad and the City of Elk River to determine under <br />what conditions the private rail crossing servicing the Peterson Addition <br />could remain private and available for general use. Mr. Doug Sehuster, <br />one of the individuals who signed and presented the petit.iotl to the.Counei1, <br />asked if the City Council 'had considered assessments for the proposed.rai1 _, <br />crossing to service the Peterson Addition for future subdivisions to the , <br />east and west of the area' in question which may have access to the rail <br />crossing. Mayor Madsen indicated that all benefited areas would be ,assessed <br />fo~a portion of the cost of the rail crossing. Mr. Schuster then asked the <br />Council if the cost of the project was reasonable and was the Burlington <br />Northern Rai1road,)n fact, increasing the price so as to dissuade t.he City <br />from. constructi:ng tl).e r4i1 crossing. . . Mr~Ly1e' Swanson, the' City's .engineer<::Ql1 <br />this project, indicated that in his estimation the' Price was reasonable and <br />that it was required that the railroad build the crassing, not the City f)f <br />Elk River.. Mr. Cliff Lundberg asked the members of the City C.ounci1 if it <br />might not be advisable to wait on the. Peterson Addition road improvement and <br />rail crossing until such time as more is known about the crossing and the <br />need for roads in the area, and then do the entire project from the Peterson <br />Addition north to county Road 32 at one time. Mayor Madsen indicated that over <br />the past several months public hearings had been held and that re.sidents .indicated <br />that they wanted a rai1crossing constructed and not a roadway to the north, and <br />as such, this action was being implemented by the City Council. Mr. Lundberg <br />indicated that perhaps not enough options were presented to residents '.at . that <br />time, such as negOtiating for a continued private rail crossing. Mr. John <br />Miller, an attorney representing residents in the area, indicated to the <br />Council that the Burlington Northern Railroad would under no conditionsall()1f <br />a private rail crossing because of the liability and responsibility which would <br />fall upon the Burlington Northern Railroad in the event of an.acci<ient or death. <br />Mr. Miller indicated that the Burlington Northern Railroad' had' stated' that in <br />order to have a public crossing, it is necessary to have also a PUblic street, <br />and as such,it would not be pOssible to have a rail crossing and gravel streets . <br />not accepted by the City of Elk River in the Peterson Addition. Mr. Dave peterson' <br />