PL PACKET 05121989 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

l 1 l 1 now facing after a protracted but successful effort to clear the title 2 for the project. • 3 Mr. Hoium described in detail an almost five month effort to remove 4 drainage easements dating back 75 to 100 years on the City's properties 5 as well as bonded properties. He said he was quite confident the 6 barriers had been removed for getting clear title to those two parcels. 7 The developer said he was also very optimistic that there would be no 8 further problems getting Rice Creek Watershed District to approve the 9 project. He indicated he also perceived a strong public interest 10 remained in the project as evidenced by the fact that there were still 11 21 of the original 28 prospective buyers who had left $1 ,000.00 12 reservation deposits with his company. 13 However, because of the rise in interest rates during the period the 14 project was delayed to get the drainage easements, the price range for 15 the units had risen about 10% to approximately $110,000 for each unit. 16 Unreasonable Charges for Putting Fill on Railroad Right-of-Way Could 17 Make Project Too Expensive to Construct 18 The developers request to put a strip of fill 20 feet wide by 550 feet 19 long in the ditch next to the tracks to create a gradual grassy. slope 20 down from the roadway through the project to meet the grade descent from 21 the tracks had at first resulted in a quote of $16,500.00 from the 22 railroad's real estate department. This quote was then countermanded 23 by the Soo Line engineering department. The City Manager contacted Soo • 24 Line President, Dennis Cavanaugh, which resulted in a meeting of 25 railroad representatives, staff and developers at which the time 26 railroad representatives called for further soil borings and quoted a 27 figure which "could run into six figures" as the charge for using their 28 right-of-way. 29 The line next to the property had gone from two to a one track run ,over 30 which only two or at the most three runs are made each day so the 31 engineer had considered it highly unlikely that filling in the area 32 between the road and the track grade could affect the stability of the 33 grade. It was also perceived that the proximity of housing next to 34 their tracks should not be a matter of concern to the railroad because 35 the mortgage company had required that no unit be constructed closer 36 than 100 feet from the tracks. 37 Mr. Hoium reiterated his February 10th letter stating that the 38 railroad's decision was a major stumbling block to the project. 39 He stated further that it would cost the developers at least $75,000.0.0 40 to construct 550 feet of retaining wall and fence and would necessitate 41 dropping at least 10 units from the project which would leave too few 42 units to produce enough tax revenue to pay back the tax increment 43 financing. He also stated that he wouldn't want to put $5,000.00 more 44 for soil borings into the project without some hope that the railroad 45 officials weren't going to just refuse the request as a matter of 46 policy. • 2 i