Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout1991 08-12 HRAP HRA AGENDA CITY OF BROOKLYN CENTER AUGUST 12, 1991 (following adjournment of City Council meeting) 1. Call to Order 2. Roll Call 3. Motion to Authorize to Execution of Quit Claim Deed -Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Farm - Brookdale Corporate Center 4. Adjournment HOLMES & GRAVEN CHARTERED CHARLES L. LEr' EVERE 470 Pillsbury Center, Minneapolis, Minnesota 55402 (612) 337 -9300 Attorney at Law Direct Dial (612) 337 -9215 337 - 9262 July 12, 1991 Mr. Brad Hoffman City of Brooklyn Center 6300 Shingle Creek Parkway Brooklyn Center, MN 55430 Re: Brookdale Corporate Center Dear Brad: Attached is a copy of a letter from the attorney for Northwestern National Life Insurance Company (NWNL). Mr. Bogart is requesting that the City and HRA execute quit claim deeds to Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Farm. He has also attached proposed quit claim deeds for the City and the HRA. This case involves part of the property which was the subject of a redevelopment agreement dated December 19, 1985. Under that development agreement, the developer was obligated to develop a project on the real estate described in the attached quit claim deeds. Basically, this project has never gotten off of the ground. The mortgagee, NWNL, has foreclosed on the property. As mortgagee, NWNL is interested in cleaning up the title to the property so that the property can be marketed more easily. Under the development agreement, the City and HRA had certain limited rights. Most of these rights have already been taken care of or have lapsed by the passage of time. For example, the agreement required an easement for, and construction of, a storm water holding pond on part of the property. Sy Knapp informs me that this right has already been taken care of by dedication on the plat of the storm water holding pond. The City and the HRA were also given a right to require a parking area to be constructed if a need was demonstrated for such parking. However, this was to occur, if at all, prior to June 1, 1989. Since no need was demonstrated prior to that date, and no notice was given to the developer requiring it to construct the parking area, this right on the part of the City and HRA has lapsed. The redevelopment agreement provides that the rights of the City and the HRA are very limited in the case of a mortgagee in foreclosure such as NWNL. Basically the only remaining rights with the City or HRA might argueably have is a covenant that the owner will not use the property except as specified in the redevelopment agreement without the written approval of the City. However, the City is required to approve ove develo ment of the property if i in PP P p p y i () it s accordance with the redevelopment plan, and (ii) the development is in accordance with trip generation standards contained in an exhibit to the redevelopment agreement. With the respect to the requirement that development be in accordance with the redevelopment plan, it must be noted that the redevelopment plan is very unspecific. It basically shows a map of the property with a proposed footprint of a building to be constructed on the property. However, even that plan does not necessarily mean that the City could enforce the construction of a building only having the footprint specified in the plan. Therefore, this requirement really adds very little to the City's general authority to regulate the construction of improvements on the site. With respect to the requirement that development be in accordance with the trip generation standards contained in Exhibit k to the redevelopment agreement, you have indicated that given the development of the surrounding area and the zoning for this property, it is highly unlikely that any development of the property will result in a generation of excessive vehicle trips. It should also be noted that there is some ambiguity in the language -of the redevelopment agreement and the deed of conveyance from the HRA to the developer which could make it difficult for the City to enforce these restrictions in any case. Therefore, it does not seem worthwhile to oppose NWNL's efforts to clear title on the ro ert . p p y The City would incur legal expenses in an effort to do so, and that effort might not be successful. Even if it were successful, it is questionable whether the City secures any significant advantage from these remaining restrictions on development. If the City and the HRA agree with this analysis, I would recommend that both the City and the HRA authorize the execution and delivery of quit claim deeds to NWNL for Lot 1, Block, Brooklyn Farm. I believe that action by a simple motion recorded in the minutes would suffice for this purpose. I realize that the EDA is the successor to the rights and obligations of the HRA. However, since the contracts are still technically in the name of the HRA, I would recommend that, for purposes of simplifying this matter, the action simply be taken by the HRA. Finally, before executing a quit claim deed, the legal description (Lot 1, Block 1, Brooklyn Farm) should be checked to assure that this is property in which the City and HRA do not have any other interest (such as utility easements, roadway easements, and the like) so that we do not inadvertently surrender any substantial property right in Lot 1, Block 1. If you have any questions about any of these matters, please give me a call. Very truly yours, Charles L. LeFevere CLL /cmm BR291 -019