HomeMy WebLinkAboutMinutes CRC 3-14-01
CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION MEETING/PUBLIC HEARING
Wednesday, March 14,2001
TAPE TWO
Dan Deeb: .. .the depreciation has been caused. This alone is enough to fail the statutory
criteria. Note that the statute does not require that the Economic Development Plan
protect some property values. If it causes depreciation, the statutory criteria cannot be
met.
Next, the EDP contends that commuting time is what makes a property in Carmel worth
more than a property in Arcadia. Clearly this is not true. First, there are many reasons
why the value of homes in Arcadia and Carmel are different, parks, schools, climate,
crime, etc. Second, there is no evidence presented to show that people in Arcadia have a
longer commute, or further commute than people in Carmel. Third [pause]
The next criteria, and this is a whole new item, that the plan of the Economic
Development area cannot be achieved by regulatory processes or by the operation of
private enterprise without resort to the powers allowed under this section and other
portions of the redevelopment statute.
Due to (and there are subparts) sub A is due to the lack oflocal public improvement.
The CDP states that "Substantial infrastructure improvements are needed to allow real
estate to be developed to its highest and best use." Okay? But even if that's true, why is it
relevant?
No one in Indiana is simply entitled to use their property for its highest and best use. To
the contrary, owners are entitled to use their property for a reasonable use. If the highest
and best use were permitted in for every tract, there would be no regulation. The question
is, "What is a reasonable use for this property?" We would submit, that in our opinion,
that a reasonable use can be whatever use can be sustained by existing infrastructure or
by infrastructure that can be privately funded. No explanation is given anywhere in
materials as to why the private process cannot provide the necessary infrastructure.
Ms. Boldt: Are you saying that the infrastructure in place now serves the community that
is there now? Is that the statement I just heard you make? That the infrastructure in place
in that area serves the community as it is right now?
Mr. Deeb: I don't believe I said that. What I said was that a property owner or developer
is entitled to a reasonable use of property and I would submit, that in our opinion, a
reasonable use is a use which can be supported either by existing infrastructure or
infrastructure that can be privately funded.
Ms. Boldt: So in other words, a cornfield, as it is right now, is supported by the existing
infrastructure and nothing else.
Mr. Deeb: I'm sorry, I'm still not following you. I would say that is the cornfield a
reasonable use of property? I mean under the circumstances obviously, but if it's been a
cornfield, doesn't sound unreasonable to me. I'm not sure I'm following what your
question is. I apologize.
Ms. Boldt: Your comment about the existing infrastructure has to support... Is your
comment about existing infrastructure or proposed infrastructure?
Mr. Deeb: Either. I would say that a reasonable use for property is one that a developer
can go in and develop either using the existing infrastructure or with the infrastructure
that it can build or that it can fund.
Ms. Boldt: Thank you.
Mr. Deeb: There might be other reasonable uses, but that would be a case by case that I
couldn't comment on at this time without more information.
Again, no explanation is given in the EDP or elsewhere that I've seen as to why the
regulatory or private processes cannot provide the necessary infrastructure. There's a
statement (I believe) in the findings of fact, the tax impact statement, that private
enterprise is simply unwilling to provide and I question whether or not a simple
unwillingness on behalf ofthe private sector is sufficient to satisfy this criteria. And
moreover the overriding, we believe that it is the value of the real estate here that is
problematic. To the extent there is a need, and I'm not sure there is one, but since there is
a need for government intervention, I would say that need has been caused by the premier
price for the property, not by the conditions. You'll recall that Duke had submitted a
proposal for this real estate, which, I understand, had a higher density and it did not
propose an economic development plan or the economic equation of an EDA be
associated with it. The explanation given the ECP is that the need for the EDA arose from
the reduction in density. The Economic Development Plan says that time and time again
so to the extent that if there's a reduction in density I would say there should be a
corresponding reduction in value, the cost of the real estate.
The next item, this is sub B, would be the existence of improvements or conditions that
lower the value of land below that of nearby land. There's no evidence that I've seen
before you that the land within the economic development area has a lower value than
that of other nearby land. To the contrary, our appraiser found that this property, in his
investigation, actually has a higher value. Or not a higher value; actually I misspoke. That
it is, that Duke has had to pay a premium for this real estate. I'll submit another letter
from the appraiser, Mr. Bugler, another letter of opinion. I'll read you a portion of it
briefly.
Mr. Koven: It's Bulger. It's not Butler and it's not Bugler. It's Bulger.
Mr. Deeb: Thank you.
Mr. Koven: And that's credibility.
Mr. Deeb: "My investigation indicates (this is a quote from the letter) that the developer,
Duke Weeks Realty Corporation has paid or agreed to pay a very high premium for this
particular parcel consisting of ::!:: 36 acres. The developer is now asking the City of Carmel
to provide economic development assistance to construct the infrastructure for this site
which normally is paid for by the developer. I understand that the developer's claiming
that the ground is impaired because it cannot afford to use all the ground available in a
particular manner. Rather than resorting to economic development incentives, Duke may
wish to renegotiate their option in regard to the premium purchase price on said parcel
with the owner so that they will have enough funds to pay for the infrastructure
privately." I'll submit this for your record.
The next criteria is that the conditions that prevents the private or normal regulatory
process from funding these improvements is the multiple ownership of land. There are no
findings for this particular criteria mentioned in the EDP. I'm assuming, and clarify
please ifI'm wrong, that it is because that criteria is not being applied here or at least the
Commission does not feel that that is an applicable criteria that cannot be satisfied. Is that
correct?
Mr. Roesch: What was the question again?
Mr. Deeb: The EDP states findings for most ofthe criteria, there are a couple of the next
two criteria actually it just doesn't offer any findings for. Now I'm assuming. · ·
Mr. Roesch: I believe you're going to point that out to us so I don't know why I need to
answer that question.
Mr. Deeb: The reason why I ask simply is that this particular condition, there are the four
subs, there's only the requirement that you meet one ofthose and you've made findings
for two of the four, so I'm assuming that is the position of the CRC, that you meet one or
both of the first two and therefore the second two, they are unimportant or didn't apply.
Mr. Roesch: Has that been our position in the past, Lisa [Lee]?
Ms. Lee: Actually, in the Declaratory Resolution, you did make a finding of potential
multiple ownership of land. I believe the evidence that was presented to the Commission
involved the fact that there were two separate owners of some of the right of way for that
property and there was some requirements to get right of way from both ofthem so there
is a little bit of a concern about multiple ownership ofland. Mr. Deeb is correct, most of
these only require an "or" standard. You only have meet one of these in each ofthese
subparts that he's discussing. The fact here is that there was evidence presented to the
Commission based on documents from your professionals, mainly the EDP, and potential
developers that you may in some cases meet more than one of those which is not a bad
thing under the statute.
Mr. Deeb: I'll just state that that was the first I've become aware ofthat statement by
your attorney that there might be a multiple ownership issue here with regard to the right
of way. It was my understanding that this criteria, I'm sorry, that Duke either controlled
or owned all the real estate that is in the undeveloped area of this economic development
area proposal.
The next criteria, I'll just move on, is other similar conditions, no findings are offered in
the EDP and I, ifthere's any evidence, to support a finding of other conditions, I assume
that you'll make that known in the EDP.
The next criteria and this is one ofthe major new criteria; it's not a subpart, is that the
public health and welfare would benefit, benefited by the accomplishment of the EDP for
the EDA. The EDP findings ignore the fact that there would be a significant negative
traffic impact that would be harmful to the public health and welfare from the project
contemplated by the EDP. In this regard I would like to do two things. First, I'll quote for
you a portion ofthe testimony ofthe City's traffic engineering consultant, John Myers,
which he offered at the final hearing for this matter before the City Council.
To set the stage a bit, it has been our contention that the problems that this development
proposal and the EDA cause on Meridian cannot be solved without an expensive rework
ofthe 465 interchange. That interchange has not been addressed by anyone or in this
plan. The City's consultant does not disagree and stated at the hearing in relevant part,
and I'll give you a partial quote, that, "We should expect a congested condition at certain
times for certain periods before the state rebuilds the interchange." In other words, it's
clear the development will lead to traffic congestion as proposed by this EDP, EDA and
the Parkwood West proposal. But rather than addressing them within the EDP or the
EDA the City is acting and hoping that INDOT later takes care of the problem. We
believe it's folly to design an EDP, bring you the development and not include within it
the means by which to completely build the necessary infrastructure.
Secondly, I'd like to introduce Mr. Brad Yarger to do a brief presentation, I believe about
five minutes, to explain to you how the infrastructure improvements contemplated in the
EDA are sufficient to provide for, are insufficient to provide for proper traffic flow. In
other words, Mr. Yarger will show you how this proposal will create increased traffic,
contrary to the public welfare.
Mr. Roesch: Excuse me, Mr. Deeb. I've got a question. So you're saying that we're not
meeting the criterion because of public health and welfare because of traffic? Is that your
contention?
Mr. Deeb: Yes, that's one... this proposal fosters a, improvements that will result in an
incomplete traffic solution.
Mr. Koven: From this one additional building, is going to severely impact the health and
welfare of the area, by adding one additional building to the entire, as I referenced earlier
to the thirty-two that Marion County has already built and the two that we have allowed
to be built. And one more is going to make a severe impact on the health and welfare of
the area, is that correct?
Mr. Deeb: I'm not going to comment about the other buildings. I don't know. I'll let Brad
answer that questions but I will tell you that this development, first of all, is three
buildings. There's not just one. At least that's my understanding of the Duke proposal.
And secondly, yes, this will have a negative impact. Now proportional? I don't know if
the other ones have had a larger impact than this one. I do know, based on our traffic
engineer's testimony, that this development will have an adverse traffic impact that will
cause congestion, or increased congestion. I make no comment about what conditions
were created by the developments.
Mr. Carter: Mr. Deeb, did I understand you to say earlier that we had no evidence that
this was going to create any new jobs in the city? If it doesn't create any new jobs, how
does it create increased traffic?
Mr. Deeb: New jobs in the city. Exactly what you pointed to, is that Carmel citizens, is
the statute criteria is that it will promote jobs for Carmel citizens. And there is no
evidence that that will actually happen.
Mr. Roesch: Lisa, is that true? Does it have to be Carmel citizens?
Ms. Lee: The statute merely says that it will attract a major new... I'm sorry. It will
promote significant opportunities for the gainful employment of its citizens. So if it will
promote some opportunities for some of the citizens of Carmel, then that will suffice for
the statute.
Mr. Yarger: For the record, my name is Brad Yarger. First of all, can you hear me back
there? I'm president of Yarger Engineering. I've made presentations to the Planning
Commission and to the City Council on this matter before. I'm here on behalf of the
Heartland Coalition.
The study area that we looked at is on the screen. What I want to do tonight is present a
very quick, because I know we're under time constraints, before and after comparison.
This may answer some of the questions that have been brought up. This information is
not new. The information you have, or I will present here, is based on the petitioner's
traffic forecast and their geometry. The existing traffic conditions were 1998-'99; they're
not 2001 because that's when the data was taken. We've been using it for an extended
period oftime. Future conditions are 2010 with Parkwood West and several other
developments. Of those developments, three quarters of those that were assumed in the
study area have already occurred. This will give you an idea ofthe average traffic delay
on a before and after case. As you can see I've got a.m., p.m., and a total of both of them
together. In the existing, the a.m. is significantly less congested than the p.m. totally
approximately 300 seconds on the average. Now that's for all traffic signals, all stop
signs within the system.
When we go to the future we see a large increase in the morning traffic congestion. The
evening's approximately the same, although it does relocate to different areas. The
overall net effect is approximately the same, but the total raises from approximately 300
seconds per vehicle to over 500 seconds per vehicle.
The main problem with the future is the interchange. And this being in the morning. The
southbound movement is way over capacity and blocks the upstream intersection. There's
insufficient improvements available without replacing the bridge. We have eight lanes
underneath that bridge. We need ten in order to handle the traffic that goes through there.
I do have the simulations for those. I'll show you what they look like.
Ms. Boldt: Would you like us to ask questions as you go along?
Mr. Yarger: Certainly. If you have any questions I'll be glad to discuss anything with
you.
Ms. Boldt: The one quarter ofthe proposed development assumed in your projections,
that has not yet occurred, but is assumed to be influencing this model, how many cars is
that?
Mr. Yarger: Offthe top of my head I don't know. I submitted 2000 pages worth of
calculations so I'd have to go back through those calculations to find out.
Ms. Boldt: Well, you realize that even though it's a quarter of the proposed development,
it could contribute more than a quarter of the total assumed cars.
Mr. Yarger: No, that's what I'm saying. It's based on the number of cars. The
comparison is 75% of the cars generated.
Ms. Boldt: All right.
Mr. Carter: You indicated in 2010, I think it was slide two, you said this was including
Parkwood West and several other developments.
Mr. Yarger: Yes. This included Parkwood West. The 75% has to do with the background
traffic. It does not deal with the, or the other traffic. It has to do with those, that would
say, be around the Hewlett Packard building or to the east of the Methodist complex. Or
to the east directly of 96th, northeast of 96th and Meridian, there's approximately ten acres
in there. All these are assumed to be developed to a certain extent within the next ten
years. We looked at that. It was decided that it would be a 50% overall development of
what the potential was for all the vacant ground. However, of that 50%, three quarters of
it, otherwise 37% of what's left, has already been developed since the traffic counts were
taken. So now that I have the existing simulation on there, this is out of date.
Mr. Roesch: She said, "Perhaps you could run out and get us Starbucks or something." It
was ajoke.
Mr. Deeb: Okay. I would submit that I'm not required... (Jack, did you want to say
something?) Let me ask you this very flatly. If I read the questions, are you intending to
answer them?
Ms. Snyder: I think we're recording them so we'll have some idea of what you want from
us, but we've been advised that we are probably not prepared to answer those questions
extemporaneously.
Mr. Roesch: That's correct.
Mr. Lawson: My name is Jack Lawson, attorney, Beckman Lawson. I will comment on
that question. And your question, Ms. Snyder, is well put, and the Supreme Court's
answered that question. We don't have to answer it. The Supreme Court of the State of
Indiana already has. And the Supreme Court has said in the recent case, the Jeffersonville
case, as well as several cases since that time, that case came down in 1967, that you are
an administrative tribunal and you are a quasi-judicial tribunal, notwithstanding whether
you think you are or not. That's what the courts have said. And that means that there is a
right to ask questions and there is a right to have responses to those questions as to how
the declaratory resolution was arrived at, and upon what evidence and upon what basis it
was arrived at. It cannot be arbitrary or capricious. It must be supported by sufficient
evidence and it must track the criteria requirements of your own economic development
act and for the area involved. Those questions could be asked. I, in all fairness to you, I
would suggest, ah, we could read those questions tonight to you. Ah, Mr. Deeb can do
that. He's prepared this part of the case. And you certainly could have an opportunity to
think about them and then reconvene this hearing. . .
Ms. Boldt: [Interrupting] Thank you. I think that's something we should say the thank
you for. We'd appreciate that opportunity.
Mr. Lawson: Yeah, yeah. But the courts have said these questions are entitled to be
asked. The cases clearly point that out. Whether you are considering a blighted area or
any other area, the courts have said the right of those questions for those who are
concerned about an area being established for the purposes that are before you this
evening, are entitled to have that happen. And if that opportunity is not given in a full,
fair an adequate manner for both sides, yours as well, then the hearing, the courts have
said is not full and fair and must be done again.
Mr. Roesch: I'd like to ask the question, I guess of you and our attorneys. The Economic
Development Plan, if we accept that EDP, have we met the requirements for the
proceedings and does that, if we choose to believe the content of that EDP, would that not
be sufficient to have made a judgement
[Pause to change tape]