HomeMy WebLinkAboutHRA MINUTES 03281989W _ 1
(--=Y O F' S T _ ANTHONY
HOU S = N G AND REDEVELOPMENT
AUTHOR = TY M 2 NUT E S
MAR C H 2 8, 1-989
1 Chair Sundland opened the meeting at 9:05 P.M.
2 ROLL CALL
3 Present for roll call: Sundland, Vice Chair Enrooth,
4 Secretary/Treasurer Marks, and Commissioners
5 Ranallo and Makowske.
6 Also present: David Childs, Executive Director
7 Sue VanderHeyden, Assistant to the City Manager
8 FEBRUARY 28. 1989 H.R.A. MINUTES
9 Motion by Ranallo, seconded by Marks to approve as presented.
• Motion carried unanimously.
11 CLAIMS
12 An explanation that the checks for $153,475.00 and $141,677.50 listed
13 in the January 31st verified claims in the agenda packet represented tax
14 increment bond payments, preceded the motion:
15 Motion by Marks, seconded by Makowske to approve payment of all the
16 accounts payable listed for H.R.A. payment in the January 31st agenda
17 packet.
18
Notion carried unanimously.
19 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to approve payment of $5,524.67 to
20 the Dorsey S Whitney law firm for service to the H.R.A. during January,
21 1989.
22
Notion carried unanimously.
23 Townhouse Developers Clear All Title Impediments to Project Only to Face
24 Further Setbacks From the Soo Line Railroad
25 Vern Hoium, President and Ursula Sheehy, Vice President of Evergreen
26 Development were present to discuss the "Catch 22" prospect they were
Is 1
I now facing after a protracted but successful effort to clear the title
for the project.
3 lir. 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
46 by the Soo Line engineering department. The City Manager contacted Soo
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 $75,000.00
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.
0 2
-- 1
The possibility of condemnation was explored briefly before staff was
requested to reopen discussions with railroad engineering department
3 officials to get their final position with reapproachment of the Soo
4 Line President left as the final recourse.
6 Motion by Enrooth, seconded by Marks to adjourn the Housing and
7 Redevelopment Authority meeting at 9:50 P.M.
U
9 Respectfully submitted,
10 Helen Crowe, Secretary
11 :cjk
•
0 3
Notion carried unanimously_