Laserfiche WebLink
Redevelopment Commission Meeting <br />Regular Meeting — September 3, 2004 <br />6. NEW BUSINESS (CONT.) <br />D. Sample -Ewing Development Area <br />(3) continued... <br />a commercial landscape distribution center in <br />or near the Studebaker /Oliver <br />Redevelopment project area. <br />Mr. Laurent indicated that staff recommends <br />rejecting the Option Agreement to Purchase <br />Property for Private Development submitted <br />by Michael Stepanek, Jr. on behalf of <br />Kenneth and Kimberly Poling LLC executed <br />June 3, 2004. <br />Ms. Greene also noted that at the time Mr. <br />Poling's letter came in for consideration by <br />the Commission, at Mr. Laurent's request, <br />she also reviewed the proposed option <br />agreement. Although the disposition of <br />property (which is governed by I.C. 36 -7 -14- <br />22) does not expressly discuss the possibility <br />of option agreements, legal counsel believes <br />that disposition of property could be <br />accomplished by way of an option if the <br />Commission made an affirmative finding that <br />it is in the best interest of the community <br />from the standpoint of human and economic <br />welfare. Because the property was proposed <br />to sit for one year, pending exercise of the <br />option, staff delivered to the Commission a <br />report setting forth the factors that suggested <br />that disposition by way of an option was not <br />in the best interest of the community. If the <br />Commission determines to reject the <br />proposed option, it must make an affirmative <br />finding that the reason it is not choosing to <br />dispose of the property to Mr. Poling in such <br />manner is that the proposed sale under the <br />terms of the proposed option agreement be <br />15 <br />