Consider Restrictive Covenants for the On-Site Sale of Motor Fuels Associated with the Sale of Property at Sunwood and Armstrong Boulevard.

The development team has been working with potential buyers of parcels at both Sunwood Drive and Ramsey Boulevard, as well as Sunwood Drive and Armstrong Boulevard for the development an operation of gas/convenience stores. Over the last several months, these discussions have included the concept of a restrictive covenant or exclusive use agreement that would essentially ensure that the eventual user had some sort of protection that they would be the only gas/convenience operation within some distance of the acquired property.  This, of course, could only effect HRA owned property, leaving the east side of Ramsey, and the west side of Armstrong unaffected.

By way of background, there was some discussion in the early phases of RTC that contemplated excluding these uses from the project altogether. Later, the zoning was amended to allow Little Dukes, as a conditional use.  There has been substantial discussion since the re-visioning of The COR as to the potential uses at these corners, and it is fair to say that there was concern about allowing this use into the project. In the end it was determined that these are viable service corridors, and as the first access north of 10, viable service corners.  The HRA directed the development team to prepare purchase agreements for both sites and present them for consideration at a future regular HRA meeting.

In the process of negotiating the terms of the purchase agreement, the development team was asked by the buyer to consider an agreement of exclusivity covering all remaining HRA property IF the buyer were to close on both sites, AND as long as they maintained operation of both sites as a gas/convenience store.

While our first inclination was to negotiate the scope of the agreement to a smaller subset of the project, consideration was given to the current vision of the project and it presented a question for which we would like direction from the HRA to proceed.  Would the HRA consider an exclusive over all remaining HRA property if the terms outlined were met?  This essentially prevents any additional uses of this type from coming forward in the future, and sets the number and locations of this use within the project. Does this meet the current and long-term vision of the project?

If the development team was successful in narrowing the scope of the exclusion to the east and west ends of the project, it would only free the center of the project from an exclusion, which would likely be considered the least desirable location in the current vision for the project.

The restriction/exclusive currently requested by the buyer has been drafted as an exclusive for "the on-site sale of motor fuels". This leaves open the possibility of any other fuel sales for uses other than automobiles such as cylinder exchanges, camping fuels, etc.. The development team was also able to negotiate the exclusion of retailers over 50,000 sq.ft. that sell fuel as an accessory item such as Costco or others.

The development team recommends the HRA consider the concept of the exclusive agreement discussed and provide consensus direction on finalizing this issue.

N/A

Provide consensus direction on a proposed exclusive agreement for motor fuels and direct the development team to prepare final language based on discussion.  This item will be brought back with the proposed purchase agreement at a future regular meeting of the HRA.