My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Agenda Packets - 1992/04/27
MoundsView
>
Commissions
>
City Council
>
Agenda Packets
>
1990-1999
>
1992
>
Agenda Packets - 1992/04/27
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
1/28/2025 4:47:38 PM
Creation date
7/17/2018 3:03:03 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
MV Commission Documents
Commission Name
City Council
Commission Doc Type
Agenda Packets
MEETINGDATE
4/27/1992
Supplemental fields
City Council Document Type
City Council Packets
Date
4/27/1992
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
84
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
MEETING MINUTES OF THE <br /> REGIONAL SENIOR COMMUNITY CENTER TASK FORCE <br /> March 25, 1992 <br /> Rice Creek Plaza <br /> 7:00'p.m. <br /> CALL TO <br /> ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 7:07 p.m. <br /> MINUTES: Minutes of March 11, 1992 were approved by <br /> consensus. <br /> SITE <br /> PRESENTATION: Mr. Thomas Immen, Eberhardt Commercial Real Estate <br /> provided information regarding the building. Some <br /> of the points were: <br /> 1. The building does not have separate heating <br /> for the different tenants. <br /> 2. Walls could be taken down, although there <br /> would be load bearing pillars that would need <br /> to remain. <br /> 3. Expansion of the building would be possible <br /> either up or towards the park with Option B. <br /> Option A is less flexible. <br /> 4. Currently steps prohibit easy access. <br /> 5. Sprinkling and plumbing is in. Restrooms <br /> would need to be expanded. Windows could be <br /> added. <br /> 6. Option B provided for more window space. If <br /> Option B were chosen, existing tennant leases <br /> would most likely be re-negotiated. <br /> 7. Eberhardt can lease the building but cannot <br /> sell it. The owner however may sell the <br /> shopping center with the permission of the <br /> lender. <br /> 8. There is a first and second mortgage on the <br /> building. The holder of the second mortgage <br /> isNorwest. <br /> 9. The building was not built with TIF monies. <br /> 10. If Option A were chosen, the bottom floor <br /> could be renovated with the possibility of <br /> leasing and renovating top floor space. <br /> 11. Relocation fees for moving current tennants <br /> would need to be negotiated. <br /> The Task -Force discussed the -pros - and cons of the -building. <br /> There was concern expressed regarding the close proximity of <br /> the bar and over the fact that the Seniors would not have any <br /> control over who the tennants of the building would be. Also, <br /> there was a concern that the Senior Center would be in a <br /> commercial atmosphere rather than a campus type atmosphere and <br /> a campus atmosphere was preferred. Concern was expressed <br /> regarding the "look" of the building. It was suggested that <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.