08-20-1979 CC MIN - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DETERMINE IF THE PETERSON ADDITION PROJECT WOOLD BE ORDERED AND IF RESIDENTS WOULD ALTH.l!;J!; TO AN ALT.I:ili.NA'l'f!j Jlli0.1!iO::>MiNT Mf!j'l'HOD. COUNCILMAN ENGSTROM SECONDED THE MOTION. MOTION PASSED 4-0. 10. Peterson Addition Road Improvement and .Railroad Crossing Projec't The City Administrator, the Cit.y' sengineers represented by Mr. Skip . McCombs, Mr.. IQleSwanson, the City Attorney represent.ed byI.indaFisher, s,nd the City Planner represented byMr.Zack Johnson were present, to explain for the members of the City Council and the residents- presentvariousB,spects of the Peterson Addition Improvement project. Mr. McCombs began his presenta- tion by indicating that several levels of benefit hadbeenident.ifiedin the project area and that in developing this areas the over all street pattern had been taken into consideration.. Mr. Johnson indicated that the road system as is currently established was used as a beginning.pointandl:lu.i.lt upon to form a conceptual road system for future developments in the area which might eventually be linked to the proposed rail crossing. Mr. McCombs indicated that level #1 was the highest benefit and that level #3 the lowest level of benefit and reviewed the proposed costs per acre'.ofeachofthe three levels.. The City Administrator indicated that the transportation pattern and the degree of access to a particular area, including the amount of need or use of the proposed rail crossing, were all taken into consideration in establishing the various levels and areas of benefit.. .Ms..Fisl1.er~~yiewed for the Council and residents present actions which the City .counc:il<;an tak.e at this meeting to consider. the improvement and reviewed the green. acres provision of the state law which is applicable in several instances Premo sed to be assessed. Ms. Fishera.l:~~Elwed.> briefly the 1s,wofbenefitaIl4 indicated that the principle for assessing property was to use t.he highest and best Mure use of the area .in q~estiqll.'rl1.ecl,qse .of~a.f~ .c(m~nen.t.s, it was the concensus of the City Council to conduct two separate public hearings on the improvements projects. One hearing for the ro~d improve- ment and one hearing for the railroad crossing improvement., ':~Ms point, Mayor Madsen declared the public hearing for the railroad imProvement project to be open. The following individuals addressed the City Council on this subject: Mr. Dick Hinkle addressed the City Council and indicated that his farm would be assessed the single largest sum of money for the proposed rail crossing project. Mr. Hinkle indicated that he was not responsible for the problem and he did not feel then that he. should have to pay to remedy the exist.3.bg problem.. Mr. Hinklei1ndicatedthat hew1ll notbedevelopingMs PropelFty in the future as he had a major investment in his dairy operation on the premises he owned. Mr. Hinkle indicated further that he felt the problem had been created by the developer of the Peterson Addition 8.ridtlititthe developer was aware of the problem as should have been the people buying lots in the. area. Clifford Lundberg addressed the City Council and asked if the property at the southeast portion of the area proposed to be assessed had been included in the public notice. The City Administrator indicated that it had been excluded, but that the property owner was present tonight and the City Council could correct the public notice at the meeting this eve~ifthey chose to do so. Mr.. Lundberg also indicated that he ~elt thattheColelllan Addition to- the north of the area proposed to be assessed should be included in the assessment. notice. . The City Administrator indicated to Mr. Lundberg that the Coleman Addition was specifically excluded because two accesses were provided to the area and, as sUch, the City could not make a finding of benefit for Mr. Coleman'S area. John Coleman addressed the City COuncil and indicated he felt the developer should pay the total cost for. the improvement projects and not the farmers surrounding the area of housing subdivisions. . . . . .. . '" ....- . . .