Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Redevelopment Law. Staff stated that the first step was to declare the property blighted and that <br />there was a need to redevelop the property. The blighting analysis was been prepared by PGAV, <br />a local planning firm. In accordance with the Land Clearance Redevelopment Authority law, it <br />was found on August 8, 2012 that the property could indeed be declared blighted. The second <br />step in the process was to adopt a redevelopment plan. This plan was previously presented and <br />adopted by the City Council in the form of a Conditional Use permit on August 8, 2011 and was <br />essentially the construction of the 14,000 square foot retail space with pharmacy, and <br />construction of the 30,000 square foot office building. This, again, constituted and met the <br />statutory definition of a redevelopment plan. Staff stated that regarding development approvals, <br />the Conditional Use Permits were approved on August 8, 2011 and September 26, 2011 and an <br />extension was granted on July 23, 2012 as Conditional Use permits are good for only one year. <br />Staff stated there was City support for the project and redevelopment plan. The attorney for the <br />developer, Robert Droney, was present to answer questions regarding the redevelopment plan. <br /> <br />Questions/Comments from the Plan Commission and responses included: <br /> <br /> <br />-Has the long-term tenant currently occupying the property been made aware of the <br />upcoming hearing? Staff: Multiple attempts were made to reach out to this tenant to no <br />avail. <br /> <br /> <br />-Has the tenant been made aware of the present meeting in order to provide them an <br />step as per the state statutes. <br /> <br /> <br />-When does the t Attorney: 2017 (50 additional <br />months) <br /> <br /> <br />-Is there a premature termination clause in the current lease? Attorney: <br />There are no liquidated damages provisions in the lease. The delaying issue does not <br />seem to be one of opposition or flat rejection, but unresponsiveness on the part of the <br />tenant in spite of multiple concessions on the part of the City. <br /> <br /> <br />-What is the name and professional field of the tenant? Staff: Dr. Ward, a dentist. <br /> <br /> <br />-What is the potential for litigation against the city by the tenant? Attorney: <br />It is highly unlikely to sue because it is difficult to sue a public entity on the grounds of <br />legislative acts. <br /> <br /> <br />-How many jobs are presently provided by the tenant? Attorney: There are <br />approximately one full-time dentist, a full-time assistant, and two or three dental <br />technicians. <br /> <br /> <br />-Is it very frequent that the Plan Commission is asked to do the work of the building <br />owner and to step in for cases of economic under-performance? Staff: No, but it is <br />required of the Land Clearance Redevelopment Act of the state statutes, and the role is to <br />tm; šE  <br /> <br /> <br />