HomeMy WebLinkAboutRemonstrance1
The Weston Place Homeowners Association
Remonstrance Before the Carmel Plan Commission 71
RED!
JAN 18 2001
Proposed Town Center West
Parcel No.: 17 13- 06- 00 -05- 023 -000
January 16, 2001
As a preliminary matter, we believe that American Village Properties' reques %for
a rezone is not properly before the Plan Commission. We formally filed a petition
to remove this matter from the Plan Commission agenda.
1. AVP filed a petition to rezone the parcel in question as a PUD in October
of last year.
2. Zoning Ordinance 335 prohibits even the consideration of a PUD West of
Spring Mill Road, therefore, AVP was required to obtain a variance from
the Board of Zoning appeals to allow the Plan Commission to even
consider rezoning the parcel as a PUD.
3. On November 27, in a 4 to 1 vote, the BZA unequivocally denied AVP's
request for a variance which would have allowed them to pursue their
petition to rezone the parcel with the Plan Commission.
4. Logically, then, AVP's petition to rezone the parcel as a PUD became null
and void upon the BZA's decision.
5. In fact, Steve Engleking, the Director of the Department of Community
Services took this position at the BZA meeting when he advised the BZA
that in the event the BZA denied AVP's petition, AVP could only go
forwardwith its proposed development by refiling new petitions to rezone
the parcel in another manner.
6. Nevertheless, the Department of Community Services allowed AVP to
resurrect the denied petition by "revising" its PUD request to a request to
rezone to an R -5 district. The effect of this action was that AVP was able
•
to circumvent two clear requirements of the Plan Commission's own Rules
of Procedure found at Article VII §§ 2 &3.
• First, AVP was not required to wait 60 days between making its new
request for a rezone and this public hearing; and
• Second, AVP was not required to pay a new filing fee.
Allowing AVP to revise a denied petition amounts to differential treatment given
AVP as compared to all other similarly situated petitioners, and is clearly contrary
to the Plan Commission's own rules. As such, AVP's petition is not properly
before this Commission.
We therefore request that the Plan Commission adhere to its clear rules of
procedure by refusing to consider AVP's current request and instead require AVP
to file a new petition, should AVP wish this board to consider its new request to
rezone the parcel as an R -5 district.
In addition, we filed an appeal with the Board of Zoning Appeals challenging the
decision of the Director of the Department of Community Services decision to
allow AVP to "revise" its denied petition. Therefore, we believe that AVP's
request to rezone should not be heard by this board until AVP either files a new
petition or until the BZA makes a determination as to whether the decision of the
Department of Community Services was proper and in accordance with the Plan
Commission's rules of procedure.
If the Commission determines nevertheless to hear the petition, the Weston
Place Homeowners Association has grave reservations and strong objections.
1. The R -5 district is strongly disfavored in Carmel and is tantamount to a
PUD, which has already been considered and denied by the BZA because
PUDs are prohibited by ordinance to exist west of Spring Mill Road.
2. The R -5 zoning district AVP seeks is absolutely contrary to the
Carmel /Clay Comprehensive Plan.
3. A rezone to R -5 would be tantamount to "spot zoning," which is
impermissible in Indiana.
A. THE R -5 DISTRICT IS STRONGLY DISFAVORED IN CARMEL AND
AMOUNTS TO A PUD, WHICH HAS ALREADY BEEN CONSIDERED AND
DENIED BY THE BZA.
Similar to a PUD, an R -5 district allows high- density residential development
together with commercial development on a single parcel of land. Carmel has
allowed land within its jurisdiction to be rezoned R -5 precisely once, back in
1983. The rezone allowed for the development of a convalescent home in the
U.S. 31 Corridor, an area which has been specifically reserved for very high
intensity uses. [Exhibit A.]
A convalescent home, which mixes commercial and high- intensity residential
together for a single use, is a classic example of when an R -5 zoning designation
is appropriate. However, Carmel has never approved' a rezone to an R -5 so that
a mixture of separate commercial and residential uses could be developed on
one parcel. Such mixed uses, as proposed in AVP's development plan for the
parcel in question, would effectively result in a PUD - a use which has already
been determined by the BZA to be inappropriate for the parcel in question.
3
• •
Further evidence that the R -5 zone designation is disfavored in Carmel is the fact
that the 20/20 plan, that is, the Comprehensive Plan, does not even refer to this
zoning designation as a possibility.
B. THE PLAN COMMISSION SHOULD SUSPEND ITS RULES AND VOTE TO
DENY AVP'S REQUEST FOR A REZONE TONIGHT BECAUSE THE R -5
ZONING DISTRICT IT SEEKS IS ABSOLUTELY CONTRARY TO THE
CARMEUCLAY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN.
The Comprehensive Plan has established growth guidelines to be used "by the
Plan Commission ... in their decisions over zoning decision - making" in
order "to protect and stabilize residential communities." [Exhibit B.] The
Comprehensive, or 2020, Plan is crucial to the Plan Commission's analysis and
decision. According to Indiana law, a plan commission "shale' ensure that a
proposed development plan is consistent with the comprehensive plan. [Exhibit
C.] Therefore, consideration of what is set forth in Carmel's Comprehensive Plan
for the area must be considered. Such consideration leads to only one
conclusion, that an R -5 district has no business in the area proposed tonight.
In fact, not once is an R -5 district contemplated by, nor even mentioned in, the
Carmel /Clay Comprehensive Plan. To the contrary, the comprehensive plan
specifically designates the parcel in question to be developed with "Low Intensity
Commercial" uses, as part of a Regional and Community Employment Center.
[Exhibit D.]
"Low Intensity Commercial use" are described in the Comprehensive Plan as
including "structures of one to two stories [including] offices" [Exhibit E], for
example, the Carmel Science and Technology Park. Low Intensity Commercial
districts can be adjacent to low intensity residential areas if an adequate buffer
exists or density transition exists.
4
• •
However, nothing in the Comprehensive Plan suggests or contemplates that high
density mixed use districts such as the R -5 district sought by AVP should abut
either low intensity commercial or residential areas.
[Exhibit F.] Now, while the parcel in question is part of a Regional and
Community Employment Center (POINT), the Westons (POINT) is not. Instead,
The Westons is designated as a "low intensity residential community." It is a
stable platted community with a density of approximately 2.05 units per acre. It
has wetlands, a homeowners association, neighborhood playground and pool,
and consists of only single- family homes. The section of the neighborhood
closest to the commercial property is somewhat denser that the outlying areas,
which provides a nice transition to the low intensity commercial development, as
contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan.
The Comprehensive Plan addresses situations such as the one here where
residential communities and community employment areas are adjacent.
Significantly, the plan specifically addresses transitions between parcels of land
used for different purposes or zoned differently. The Comprehensive Plan
provides that transitions, in both scale and density, should occur between
residential communities and community /regional employment areas. [Exhibit
G.] Moreover, with respect to requests for zoning changes, the Comprehensive
Plan mandates that proper transition in scale and density "shall be encouraged
and considered." [Exhibit H.]
The parcel in question is surrounded by a stable low intensity residential
community, rural residential, and low intensity commercial. The parcel also
includes a low intensity community /regional employment area. Therefore, it must
be developed in a manner which provides appropriate transition. Any high
intensity development was not anticipated for this area, and would contravene
the Comprehensive Plan.
5
The Comprehensive Plan specifically provides that high- intensity residential
areas, such as an R -5 district, should not occur directly adjacent to low- intensity
residential areas, such as The Westons. [Exhibit 1.] Instead, the Plan's
preferred /recommended transition is low intensity, one to two story, office space.
It encourages at most medium- intensity residential development, meaning 3 to 5
developed units per acre,' "along the edges of residential communities and
community /regional employment centers!' [Exhibit J.] High intensity residential
or 15 units per acre is in no way contemplated by the Plan.
Although R -5 districts are not included in the 2020 Plan, high- intensity residential
developments are. They are specifically earmarked for the Central Business
District in downtown Carmel and along the edge of residential community areas
only when the residential area is adjacent to high or medium intensity commercial
areas. [Exhibit K.] The R -5 district proposed tonight is much better suited for
the U.S. 31 Corridor or Downtown Carmel, not west of Spring Mill Road.
The Westons and other property surrounding the parcel at issue are not adjacent
to a high or medium intensity district of any kind. They are all low intensity
residential and commercial districts. [Exhibit L.] Accordingly, AVP's request to
rezone the parcel R -5 for purposes of accommodating its proposed high- density
development must be denied as it defeats the Comprehensive Plan's goal of
"logical expansions" which occur without disrupting the quality of residential life in
Carmel.2
' Carmel /Clay Comprehensive Plan, page 4 -6
2 Carmel /Clay Comprehensive Plan, page 4 -4
6
C. THE PLAN COMMISSION SHOULD SUSPEND ITS RULES AND VOTE TO
DENY AVP'S REQUEST FOR A REZONE TONIGHT BECAUSE A REZONE
TO R -5 WOULD BE TANTAMOUNT TO "SPOT ZONING," WHICH IS
IMPERMISSIBLE IN INDIANA.
"Spot zoning" is defined as the singling out of . one piece of property for the
purpose of affording it different treatment from that accorded to similar
surrounding property, all for the economic benefit of the owner or the developer
of the property.3 [Exhibit M.] When a rezoning which is not contemplated is
done in order to allow a developer to avoid certain laws or ordinances applicable
to the parcel in question, spot zoning occurs.4 [Exhibit N.] In Indiana spot
zoning is illegal unless there is a "very strong public health, convenience and
general welfare purpose" for spot zoning a parcel.5 [Exhibit 0.]
Here, rezoning to R -5 would allow the evasion of two ordinances, and we have
established that R -5 zoning is not a contemplated use of the property in question.
First, AVP is seeking the R -5 rezone in an attempt to evade Ordinance 335 which
prohibits PUDs west of Spring Mill Road. That ordinance basically codified the
Comprehensive Plan's intent that development and growth be controlled to
enhance and protect Carmel property values and public interest.
Second, the proposal tonight also violates the Michigan Road Overlay Zone
ordinance which governs the use of the property. The Michigan Road Overlay
Zone Ordinance requires a minimum buffer between residential and commercial
of the greater of 100 feet or two times the height of the tallest building. The
tallest proposed building is 55 feet. Therefore, R -5 buffer requirements, as well
as AVP's proposed buffers of 50 feet and 80 feet are woefully inadequate. Also,
3 L & W OutdoorAdvertisinq Co. v. State, 539 N.E.2d 497, 499 (Ind.App.1989).
4
Id.
5 Hundt v. Costello, 480 N.E.2d 284, 285 (Ind.App.1985).
7
the building materials required by the Michigan Road Overlay Zone ordinance
requires brick not concrete fiberboard. The two and three story all - siding
buildings planned very near our property lines, would be visible throughout our
neighborhood, thus decreasing the aesthetics of our community.
Unless there is a "very strong" public health, convenience and general welfare
purpose for rezoning the parcel to an R -5, the spot zoning requested tonight is
not permissible under Indiana Iaw.Here, rezoning to R -5 in order to
accommodate AVP's proposed high- density residential and commercial
development would present absolutely no benefit to public health, convenience
or general welfare.
To the contrary, AVP's proposed development would decrease public safety and
welfare by generating significantly more traffic in the already overcrowded
Michigan Road Corridor - an estimated 7,696 additional trips per day to be
exact. [Exhibit P.] AVP has reserved only one form of access to and from its
proposed development, and the Comprehensive Plan does not permit access
through low- density residential areas to permit access to high density areas. It
is not clear at all how a single access will accommodate these trips. In case of
emergency, access could be critical. The 2020 plan prohibits access to the high
intensity development through the low density residential area.
In addition, the safety of the many children and families in The Westons would be
severely compromised should a connection between our community and the
parcel in question be made at some point in the future - and a future connection
is a real possibility despite the mandate to the contrary in the Comprehensive
Plan. This is because the Hamilton County Highway Department has reserved
an easement for such.
Furthermore, AVP proposed development, which would add 298 new
residences in probably no more than 17 acres, would burden our schools,
8
which are already at full capacity. The infrastructure in place today and planned
for the future simply cannot accommodate the dense residential area proposed
tonight.
Additionally, the proposed development would impose undesired Tight from tall
parking lot lamps and building and security lights, as well as undesired noise.
The apartment homes would be looking directly into the private residences, thus
diminishing our privacy. As presented before the BZA, when a balloon is lifted to
the height of the proposed buildings, it is visible from all of the surrounding
properties.
Most importantly, we know that the property values of abutting homes will
immediately decrease 7.5% if the proposed development is allowed. [Exhibit
Q.]
As is clear from these facts, the proposed spot zoning will significantly decrease,
rather than increase, public health, convenience, and welfare. Because the
proposed rezone is tantamount to impermissible spot zoning, AVP's petition to
rezone must be denied as a matter of law.
SUMMARY
In summary, this petition to rezone should not even be before you tonight since it
was not filed in accordance with the Plan Commission's clear Rules of
Procedure. However, should you decide to entertain AVP's petition this evening,
we believe the only reasonable course of action for you to take would be to
suspend the Plan Commission Rules and vote "NO" tonight to AVP's rezone
request since
1. It basically would ignore and undo the decision of the BZA that the
proposed development is a prohibited PUD;
9
• •
2. It absolutely violates numerous clear provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan;
3. It would be tantamount to impermissible "spot zoning," and it would serve
only to demote, NOT promote, the safety, welfare and morals of our
community, all of which we rely upon you, our neighbors, to protect.
Respectfully Submitted,
Maureen D. Pearson
Vice President
Weston Place Homeowners Association
3705 Sumter Way
Carmel, Indiana 46032
10
The Comprehensive Plan's growth
guidelines are to be used "by the. Plan
Commis'sion. . . in their decisions over
zoning decision - making" in order "to
protect and stabilize residential
communities."
- Carmel /Clay Comprehensive Plan
(page 4 -9)
•
A plan commission "shall" ensure
that a proposed development plan
is consistent with the
comprehensive plan.
- Indiana Code 36-7-4-601(d)(3)(B) •
Lower Intensity Commercial =
Structures of one to two stories and
includes offices.
- Carmel/Clay Comprehensive. Plan •
(page 4 -9)
"Transitions, in scale and density,
should occur between residential
communities and community /
regional employment areas."
- Comprehensive Plan §1.1.2
•
When zoning changes are
requested, transitions, in scale and
density, "shall be encouraged."
- Comprehensive Plan § 1.1.2
Exhibit i
"High- intensity residential areas
should generally not occur directly
adjacent to low or very low-
intensity residential areas."
- Comprehensive Plan §1.6.6
Exhibit,.)
"Medium- intensity residential
development should be encouraged
along the edges of residential
communities and
community/regional employment
centers."
- Comprehensive Plan §1.5.5
Exhibit K
High - intensity residential
developments are encouraged along
the edge of residential community
areas only when the residential area
is adjacent to "high or medium
intensity commercial areas"
- Comprehensive Plan §1.6.1
Exhibit M
Spot Zoning is defined as the singling
out of one piece of property for the
purpose of affording it different
treatment from that accorded to similar
surrounding property, all for the
economic benefit of the owner or the
developer of the property.
L & W Outdoor Advertising Co. v. State, 539 N.E.2d 497, 499 (Ind.App.1989).
Exhibit N
When a rezoning which is not
contemplated is done in order to
allow a developer to avoid certain
laws or ordinances applicable to the
parcel in question, spot zoning
occurs.
L & W Outdoor Advertising Co. v. State, 539 N.E.2d 497, 499 (Ind.App.1989).
Exhibit O
In Indiana spot zoning is illegal
unless there is a "very strong public
health, convenience and general
welfare purpose" for spot zoning a
parcel.
•
- Hundt v. Costello, 480 N.E.2d 284, 285 (Ind.App.1985).
Exhibit P
Estimated daily external trips
generated by the site would
be 7,969.
- Ted M. Andrews, PE
Traffic & Transportation Engineer
,Exhibit. Q
"The proposed development will
create a loss in value to the subject
properties of 7.5 %."
Nick A. Tillema, MAI, SRA Indiana
Certified General Appraiser
• •
Uhe gOnhestaP gkoup,.9iC.
-- -- Forrestal Environmental .. Forrestal Appraisal
9247 North Meridian, Suite 118
Indianapolis, Indiana 46260
Office (317) 581 -0400 • Fax: (317) 581 -0900 • email ntiliem @indyvaxiiupui:edu
November 25, 2000
Stephenie Veach
Village at Weston Place Homeowners' Association
3832 Constitution Drive
Indianapolis, Indiana
,v
RECEIVED
JAN 16 2001
HOGS
Subject: Estimated Diminution of the Market Value of the residential properties located on
Constitution Drive, Weston Place, Indianapolis, Indiana
Dear Ms. Veach:
Pursuant to your request, I have conducted an investigation, gathered the necessary data, and made certain
analyses that have enabled me to form an opinion as to the most probable loss in value that should be attributed to
the residential units located along the north side of Constitution Drive. Such loss is based on the proposed
commercial and multifamily project that will back up against the rear yards of the properties in question. Based on
your instructions, this report has been prepared in an abbreviated manner consistent with Standard 1 and 2 of the
Appraisal Institute's Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice. This document is comprised of the Uniform
Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice ( USPAP) as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board (ASB) of
the Appraisal Foundation.
The function of this restricted report is to provide a summary of this analysis in order to help establish
information for the zoning hearing. The final estimate of probable loss has been developed through the
investigation and use of the Direct Sales Comparison Approach. The Cost and Income Approach were not used in
the study because they were not considered relevant to the final analysis. Based on an inspection of the property
and investigation and analyses undertaken, I have formed the opinion that the proposed development will create a
loss in value to the subject properties of 7.5% for a total of approximately $285,000.
The narrative appraisal report that follows sets forth the identification of the property, the assumptions
and limiting conditions, the results of the-investigations and analyses, and the final conclusions. A more detailed
analysis conforming to USPAP is included in the file memorandum. Thank you for the opportunity to be service.
If any questions arise or any additional information is necessary, please so advise.
Sincerely,
THE FORESTALL GROUP, LLC
Nick A. Tillema, MAI, SRA
Indiana Certified General Appraiser
CG 69100358
3
Providing real solutions to your environmental problems - coast to coast.
Specializing in: Consultation o Appraisal o Impact & Class Action Research • Litigation o Risk Analyses
SUMMARY OF IMPORTANT FACTS AND CONCLUSIONS
IDENTIFICATION OF THE ISSUE:
LOCATION
3822 Brigade
3823 Brigade
3824 Brigade
3822 Constitution Drive
3824 Constitution Drive
3826 Constitution Drive
3828 Constitution Drive
3830 Constitution Drive
3832 Constitution Drive
3836 Constitution Drive
3836 Constitution Drive
3840 Constitution Drive
3842 Constitution Drive
3844 Constitution Drive
3846 Constitution Drive
3848 Constitution Drive
3850 Constitution Drive
3854 Constitution Drive
3856 Constitution Drive
3822 Vanguard
3823 Vanguard
3824 Vanguard
Determine the diminution in market value of the subject
properties as a result of the commercial and multifamily
project that will abut the rear property lines of the
residential units located on the north side of Constitution
Drive, within the Village at Weston Place, Carmel, Indiana.
Even numbered units between 3822 and 3856 Constitution
Drive, and other units in Carmel, Indiana. More
specifically:
Mathew J & Laura C. Jorden
David Alan & Sabine Abbitt
W. Charles Lederer, III
Jeffry S. & Mary Tyler
Douglas K & Lisa J. Smith
Mark Boyle
Phillip D. & Sherry D. Bruce
James J. & Dawn E. Spille
Mark H. & Stephenie S. Veach
Cheryl A. Rust
Scott W. Dortch
Susan L Able
Lester E. & Naomi L Schwear
Richard A. & Elizabeth D. Lyndo
Jacquelyn M. Kolic
Scott A. McLaughlin
Janet Holt Dykstra
Linda L & Cheryl L Vanmeter
Stacey M. Anderson
Andrew D. & Cheryl D. Cosner
Michael S. & Cathy J. Hamm
James S. & Mary A. Lipe
PURPOSE OF REPORT: Estimate of Market Value loss .
INTEREST APPRAISED: Fee Simple Absolute
FUNCTION OF APPRAISAL: Public Hearing Analysis
2,292 square feet
2,486 square feet
2,510 square feet
2,046 square feet
2,489 square feet
2,283 square feet
1,800 square feet
2,480 square feet
2,500 square feet
1,558 square feet
1,776 square feet
1,494 square feet
1,740 square feet
1,175 square feet
1,153 square feet
1,175 square feet
1,239 square feet
1,184 square feet
1,153 square feet
2,368 square feet
2,380 square feet
2,654 square feet
FLOOD HAZARD STATUS: Current Flood Maps indicate the units are not in flood zone
[Flood Map #180081 0011 C (5- 19 -81)]
HIGHEST AND BEST USE: Residential
ZONING: Residential
INDICATED LOSS IN VALUE VIA: $285,000 (7.5 %)
As of the effective date being: November 25, 2000
4
APPRAISAL REPORT INTRODUCTION
PURPOSE OF THE REPORT:
INTENDED USE OF REPORT:
INTEREST VALUE:
EFFECTIVE DATE OF VALUE:
DATE OF REPORT:
REPORT DEVELOPMENT
AND REPORTING PROCESS:
HIGHEST AND BEST USE:
To estimate the most probable loss in market value as defined by the
Office of the Controller of the Currency under 12 C FR, Part 34,
Subpart C.
For the sole use of assisting the client in determining the most
probable estimate of the loss in market value due to the proposed
units being built behind their homes, thereby, allowing a more
informed decision in regard to public hearing.
Fee Simple Absolute
November 21, 2000
November 25, 2000
In preparing this report, the appraiser inspected the subject site,
gathered information for the subject's neighborhood or similar
competitive neighborhoods on comparable sales in the Hamilton
County area; and analyzed the information gathered in applying the
sales comparison approach.
The Cost Approach is not given credibility due to the market's
reliance on the actions of other buyers rather than the cost involved
in the improvements. The Direct Sales Comparison Approach is
considered applicable and several sales of like properties have been
used in the analysis. The Income Approach is not used because such
tracts of ground are not typically leased.
To develop the opinion of market value, the appraiser performed a
complete process, as defined by the Uniform Standards of
Professional Appraisal Practice. No departures were invoked. This
Restricted Appraisal Report is submitted on the basis of a contract
between the parties. Supporting documentation is retained in the
appraiser's file.
The highest and best use of a property is generally considered
under the following definition: "The reasonable and legal use of
vacant land or and improved property, which is physically possible,
appropriately supported, financially feasible, and that results in the
highest value." Such optimum use may be based upon highest and
most profitable continuous use to which the property is adapted or is
likely to be in demand in the near future. The Highest. and Best
Use as vacant is Residential and its Highest and Best Use as
improved is Residential.
5
REAL ESTATE DESCRIPTION:
The properties involved in this situation are the even numbered
residential units between 3822 and 3856 located on the north side of
Constitution Drive and other tracts located within the Village of
Weston Place. It is located several blocks east of U.S. 421
(Michigan Road) and several blocks north of 106th Street.
DEFINITION OF THE PROBLEM: Property owners involved in this report built their homes during
1996 and 1997 and were told the vacant tract to the north of the
developed area would also be developed with single family homes.
This perception was reinforced by discussions with government
officials that indicated all properties to the north were zoned single
family residential. However, a proposal now in front of the zoning
board would allow two & three story, multi- family dwellings to be
constructed within a short distance of the subject lots. The question
is: What is the probable diminution of value to the subject homes if
the develops are allowed to continue with the proposed
commercial/multi - family dwelling project?
VALUATION PROCESS:
According to information provided by the current homeowners, an
development firm has presented a commercial and residential
development plan that includes a retail anchor building, several
mixed -use buildings (commercial and multifamily), club house,
sports club and fourteen two or three story apartment buildings. The
proposed project is counter to current zoning regulations and requires
a change in zoning to make the project feasible. A buffer zone
between the project and the subject properties has been negotiated
but still will not hide the apartments from the subject.
Per your direction, I have researched the impact on market value for
the units most proximate or adjacent to the proposed development. In
this case market value is defined as:
"The most probable price which a property should bring in a
competitive and open market under all conditions requisite to a
- fair sale, the buyer and seller each acting prudently and knowl-
edgeably, and assuming the price is not affected by undue. stimu-
lus. Implicit in this definition is the consummation of a sale as of
a specified date and the passing of title from seller to buyer
under conditions whereby:
• both buyer and seller are typically motivated;
• both parties are well informed or well advised, and acting in
what they consider their best interest;
• a reasonable time is allowed for exposure in the open
market;
6
• •
• payment is made in terms of cash in United States dollars or
in terms of financial arrangements comparable thereto; and
• the price represents the normal consideration for the
property sold unaffected by special or creative financing, or
sales concessions granted by anyone associated with the
sale. "1
The following factors are important to the final analysis:
• Due to minimum setbacks and proposed minimums, the final
units will be extremely close to the edge of the development
property:
• Height and width projections for the proposed units will
basically eliminate any other view from the subject's back yards,
and
• Estridge, the developer of the subject addition, made verbal
assurances that the property to the north would only be
developed with residential units.
Market value loss of adjacent properties can be ascertained by
matched pairs analysis where an appraiser finds properties that have
sold in the same market with and without the factor and then
compare the difference in price to measure the loss, in any.
Two separate subdivisions (all within Hamilton County) with a
similar type problem have been analyzed. In addition, the subject's
addition currently has a street that abuts the Marsh Supermarket
development on the northeast corner of 106t and Michigan Road.
Market sales of homes that back up to the obnoxious views are
compared to similar homes that have sold in the same market that did
not have such view problems. "Similar homes" are defined as those
with the same square footage — often the same model.
Silver Thorne Addition is a residential development located
approximately East of U.S. 31 and north of 106a` Street. It is
adjacent to a two and three story apartment project that is
sandwiched between Silver Thorne Addition and the Marsh
commercial Complex located at 146t & Meridian. Even numbered
homes between 14902 and 14976 on Oak Road back up to the
apartment project and are readily seen from rear of the homes.
14928 Oak Road was compared to 14973 Oak Road with the only
difference being the location and a fireplace. The unit with the view
of the apartments sold for 6.8% less than the one without the
apartment view.
Definition is per Title XII, Code of Federal Regulations (part) 564.2.F. Thursday, August 23, 1990.
7
•
Shadow Lake residential subdivision backs up to the west side of a
commercial tract located at the northwest quadrant of 146t &
Meridian Street. Parts of Shadow Lake drive back up to the back of
the commercial property. 14701 Shadow Lakes was compared to
1302 Shadow Lakes Drive with the only difference being the
location. The unit with the view of the commercial area sold for
8.56% less than the one without the view.
A situation within the subject's addition has also been analyzed in
the same fashion. 3843 Cornwallis Lane has been compared with
3855 Minuteman Circle are ranch homes that are similar except for
the location. The one with the commercial view sold for 2.42% less
than the one without the view.
An additional factor that is pertinent to the analysis is that properties
in question are homes with values that range from $134,500 to
$225,340. Lower priced home are less susceptible for location
adjustments because the typical buyer is more interested in basic
housing needs such as living area size, garage size, school systems
and maintenance Cost. The owners of the units within the subject
project want homes that include view amenity, landscaping,
convenience of location and etc. Therefore, it is my opinion, based
on these factors and extracted indications from the market date, the
subject property values of the homes will be negatively affected by
7.5% if the proposed apartments are allowed to be built under the
present plan .
Since it is impossible to inspect and analyze any specific unit in the
subject project for value before and after the proposed development,
the estimated dollar loss is based on average sales price per square
foot for units in the designated section. There have been nine home
sell in the Constitution Drive area during the last several years.
Their average sales price has been $89.90 per square foot.
There are twenty two homes that could be affected by the
development project. According to the Hamilton County Assessor's
office, the twenty two properties have a total of 41,935 square feet.
Multiplied by $90 per square foot provides a total market value of
the sixteen properties of $3,774,150. A 7.5% loss in value would
equal $283,061 (rounded to $285,000).
MARKET VALUE CONCLUSION: 7.5% loss in value
ESTIMATED LOSS CONCLUSION: $285,000
8
• •
Underlying Premises and Assumptions
Unless otherwise stated, this appraisal of real estate is made expressly subject to the following premises
and assumptions:.
1). Title:
That no opinion is intended to be expressed for matters legal in character, or that would require
specialized investigation or knowledge beyond that ordinarily employed - byreal estate appraisers, although
such matters may be discussed in the report. No opinion as to title is rendered within this report. Title is
assumed to be marketable and free and clear of all liens, encumbrances and restrictions except those
specifically discussed in the report.
2). Responsible Ownership / Management:
The subject property is appraised assuming it to be under responsible ownership and competent
management.
3). Information Sources:
That while the information in this report has been carefully checked and is believed to be
reliable, no ' warranty is given for the accuracy of information obtained from the owner, from
representatives of the owner, from other informed persons, or from other sources of available information.
Data on ownership and the legal descriptions have been obtained from sources generally considered
reliable.
4). Hidden or Unapparent Conditions:
That there are no hidden or =apparent conditions of the property, soil and sub -soil that would
render it more or less valuable than an otherwise comparable property. No responsibility is assumed for
such conditions or for environmental engineering studies which might be required to discover such
matters. Furthermore, premises as to soil qualities employed in this report are not conclusive but have
been considered consistent with information available to the appraiser.
5). Subsurface Rights:
That no opinion is expressed as to the value of subsurface oil, gas, or mineral rights and that the
property is not subject to surface entry for the exploration or removal of such materials except as is
expressly stated.
6). Exhibits - Graphics:
That all maps, plats, sketches, photographs and other graphic exhibits included herein are for
illustrative purposes only and included as an aid in visnali7ing matters discussed within the report. The
absolute accuracy is not assumed of any graphic representations included, referred to, or which have been
made by others. They are not to be considered or relied upon for any other purpose.
7). Encroachment:
That the use of the land and improvements is confined within the boundaries or the property lines
of the property described and that there is no encroachment or trespass unless noted within this report.
8). Financing:
That it is recognized a potential purchaser will likely take advantage of the maximum available
financing. The effects of such financing on the probable selling price have been considered.
9
• •
9). Environmental Matters:
That, unless otherwise stated within this report, the existence of hazardous materials, which may
or may not be present on or near the subject property, was not observed by the appraiser at the time of
inspection (unless noted). Additionally, no information concerning the presence of potentially hazardous
materials upon or near the subject property was located (unless so noted in this report) during the course
of the appraiser's investigation. However, because the appraiser is not qualified to detect the presence of
such hazardous materials, the appraiser does not warrant against the possibility that environmentally
hazardous materials may presently exist upon the subject. Environmentally hazardous materials such as
asbestos, urea- formaldehyde foam insulation, and toxic waste, as well as the potential presence of a
threatened wildlife species, may adversely affect the value of the subject property. The value estimate(s)
arrived at and presented within this report is (are) predicated upon the assumption that there are no
environmental problems on, within, or near the property which would adversely affect value. No
responsibility is assumed for such conditions - should they exist - orr for any expertise or engineering
knowledge required to discover them. Because the appraiser cannot unequivocally state that
environmental problems do not exist, it is highly recommended that the client weigh the cost of retaining
an expert in the environmental field against the risk of potential remedial environmental costs in the
future.
10). Highest and Best Use:
The subject property is appraised assuming it to be available for its highest and best use.
Limiting Conditions of the Appraisal Report:
In addition to the foregoing underlying premises and assumptions, this appraisal report is presented for
use upon the following limiting conditions:
a). That the term "fair market value," as herein used, is defined as delineated within the Definition of Market
Value sub- section of this appraisal report.
b). That the date of value to which the opinions expressed in this report apply is set forth in the letter of
transmittal, as well as delineated under the section titled "Effective Date of Appraisal." The appraiser
assumes no responsibility for economic or physical factors occurring at some later date which may affect
the opinions stated herein.
c). That the market value estimated and the costs used are as of the efective date of the estimate of value. All
dollar amounts are based on the purchasing power and price of the dollar as of the date of the value
estimate.
d). That the value estimate in the appraisal report is not based in whole or in part upon race, color, religion,
or national origin of the present owners, or occupants of the properties in the vicinity of the property
appraised.
e). That the estimated market value is subject to change with market changes over time; value is highly
related to exposure, time, promotional effort, terms, motivation, and conditions surrounding the offering.
The value estimate considers the productivity and relative attractiveness of the property, physically and
economically in the marketplace. This report does not consider the potential discounting required to
reflect a motivated or "forced sale" due to bankruptcy or foreclosure.
10
•
f).
g).
•
That, unless otherwise noted within this report, any value estimate(s) set forth within this report applies to
the subject property in its entirety. Unless a specifically identified proration or division is set forth within
this appraisal report, any proration or division of the total into fractional interests will invalidate the value
estimate. Furthermore, that any allocation of the value estimated between the land and improvements (if
any) applies only under the stated program of utilization. The separate values allocated to the land and
buildings are not to be used in conjunction with any other appraisal and are invalid if so used.
That no environmental or impact studies, special market study or analysis, highest and best use analysis
study, or feasibility study has been requested or made unless otherwise specified in an agreement for
services, or in this report.
h). That the appraiser, by reason of this appraisal report, is prepared to give testimony in court with reference
to the property in question, and the interest therein, provided satisfactory negotiations have been made for
payment of services, for attendance in court, while under subpoena, or in any other pre -trial work
requested by the attorney for either party.
j)•
That possession of this report, or any copy thereof, does not carry with it the right of publication, nor may
it be used for other than its intended use. The physical report remains the property of the appraiser, and
are for the exclusive use of the client only. The fee is compensation for analytical service only.
That this appraisal report may not be used, except in its entirety, by anyone but the principles identified in
the cover letter. Such other use is specifically unauthorized. Possession of this report, or any authorized
copy thereof, does not carry the right of publication, nor may it be used for any purpose other than its
intended use. Duplication of this report is unauthorized unless the principle appraiser signing this report
has been notified and consented in writing to the request for duplication.
k). That neither all, nor any part of the contents of this report, (especially any conclusions as to value, the
identity of the appraiser, or the firm with which the appraiser is connected), shall be disseminated to the
public through advertising, public relations, news, sales, or other media, without the prior written consent
and approval of the certifying appraiser. Notify the Appraiser signing the report of any request to
reproduce this appraisal in whole, or in part.
1). That this appraisal consists of "trade secrets and commercial, or financial information," all of which is
privileged and confidential, and exempted from disclosure, under 5 U.S.C. 552 (b) (4).
m). That the projections included in this report are utilized to assist in the valuation process and are based on
current market conditions, anticipated short term supply and demand factors, and a continued stable
economy. Therefore, the projections are subject to changes in future conditions that cannot be accurately
predicted by the appraiser and could affect the future income or value projections.
n). That the appraiser reserves the unlimited right to alter, amend, revise or rescind any of the statements,
findings, opinions, values, estimates or conclusions upon any subsequent study, analysis or previous study
subsequently becoming known to him.
o). That much of the information and analysis presented within this report, as well as the physical appraisal
report itself, was generated by way of electronic means. While the appraiser assumes the responsibility for
mathematical calculations, spelling, and grammar, the appraiser relies upon the accuracy of all software
77
p).
• •
and hardware employed'. The appraiser does not assume responsibility for potential software deficiencies
that are beyond the scope of knowledge of a typical user.
That the Appraisal Institute, (formerly the Society of Real Estate Appraisers and the American Institute of
Real Estate Appraisers), conducts a voluntary program of continuing education for its designated
members. MAI's and SRA's who meet the minimum standards of this program are awarded periodic
educational certification. Nick A. Tillema, MAI, SRA, is certified under this program through December
2005.
Acceptance and use of this report shall constitute contractual agreement with an implied consent to all
of the foregoing premises, assumptions, and limiting conditions, as well as all purposes, functions, and
definitions, stated hereafter in this report.
1 Software employed in this.report is specifically identified as a combination of Wordperfect for Windows, Version 5.2; Lotus 123 for Windows,
Version 4.0; Paradox for Windows, Version 10.1 for DOS; all of which are managed by Microsoft Windows, Version 3.1, (and Dos 6.0), and presented
by way of Bitstream Facelift for Windows, Version 2.0.
12
CERTIFICATION
The undersigned hereby certify that, except as otherwise noted m the appraisal report:
1). I do not have a present or contemplated future interest in the real estate that is the subject of
this appraisal report. I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the subject matter of
this appraisal report or the parties involved.
2). My employment and compensation for rendering this report and my opinions are not contingent
upon:
a). the reporting of a predetermined value, or direction in value that favors the cause of
the client;
b). the amount of the value estimated;
c). the attainment of a stipulated result; or
d). the occurrence of a subsequent event.
3). I have personally inspected the property.
4). The appraisal has been made and the report rendered strictly in conformity with the rules of
professional ethics of the National Association of Real Estate Boards and the Code of Ethics of
the Appraisal Institute.
5). To the best of my knowledge and belief the statements of fact contained in this appraisal report,
upon which the analysis, opinions and conclusions expressed herein are true and correct and
that no important facts have been overlooked or withheld from this report.
6). This appraisal report sets forth all of the limiting conditions (imposed by the terms of the
assignment or by the undersigned) affecting the analysis, opinions and conclusions contained in
this report.
7). I, Nick A. Tillema, MAI, SRA, and no one other than those specifically mentioned in the
report, provided significant professional assistance in the preparation, the analyses, conclu-
sions, or opinions set forth in this appraisal report.
8). I, Nick A. Tillema, MAI, SRA, am currently certified under the Appraisal Institute continuing
education program for the MAI designation through 2005. _
As of November 21, 2000
As written November 25, 2000
A,JL \A„„,„
Nick A. Tillema, MAI, SRA
Indiana Certified General Appraiser
CG 69100358
13
Oualif cations
of
Nick A. Tillema, MAI, SRA
TILLEMA & ASSOCIATES-
Address: Telephone:
9247 North Meridian, Suite 118 Office (317) 581 -0400
Indianapolis, Indiana 46260 Fax (317)581 -0900
FORMAL EDUCATION
9-68 to 8 -71 INDIANA UNIVERSITY
Bachelors of Science (BS - Finance)
9 -71 to 7 -72 ARIZONA STATE UNIVERSITY
Masters of Business Administration - MBA
9 -81 to 1 -87 INDIANA UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF LAW
Doctor of Jurisprudence (JD)
PROFESSIONAL EDUCATION AND SEMINARS
EMPLOYMENT
SOCIETY OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
Principles of Real Estate Appraising
Narrative Report Writing Seminar
Condominium Appraising Seminar
R-41B & Professional Practice Seminar
Instructor Course (101)
Appraising with the URAR Form
Marshall & Swift Cost Seminar
Legal Liability
AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
Basic Valuation Procedures 1A -1 & 1A -2 (Instructor)
Capitalization Theory 1B -a & 1B -2 (Instructor)
Case Studies & Report Writing
Standards of Professional Practice
Numerous Seminars
Instructor's Course
APPRAISAL INSTITUTE
Capitalization Principles (Instructor)
Instructor's Course
Standards of Professional Practice (Instructor)
1 -82 to present NICK A. TILLEMA & ASSOCIATES
Appraisal / Research / Consultant
1 -92 to present SYCAMORE TREE DEVELOPMENT,_ INC.
Real Estate Development - President
6 -90 to 1 -94 MEDLEY, SMITH, KOLAS & TILLEMA
Attorneys at Law
4 -75 to 6 -82 MERIDIAN MORTGAGE COMPANY, INC.
Senior Vice President - Administration
7 -72 to 3 -75 LANDAU, HEYMAN & CLAY, Chicago, IL
Commercial Leasing (Indiana)
121
PROFESSIONAL ORGANIZATIONS
Appraisal Institute Designated Member of the Appraisal Institute (MAI - June 1992)
Regional- .Representative - Region 5
National Ethics Committee - Assistant Regional Member
Indiana Chapter Bylaws Committee - Past Chairman
Indianapolis Sub - Chapter - Past Chairman
Currently on Instructor Status
(Note: Society of Real Estate Appraisers & American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers merged in 1991.)
Society of Real Estate Appraisers
(Chapter 5)
American Institute of Real Estate
Appraisers
National Builder's Association
National Association of Environmental
Risk Auditors
Indianapolis MortgaEe Bankers
Association
National, State, and Local Board of
Realtors.
Indiana Institute of Real Estate
Educators_.
National Academy of Conciliator
Indiana & Indianapolis Bar Association
(Past President ['89], Secretary ['84], Director ['85 -`87])
(Chairman of Standards of Professional Practice, 1987 -1990)
Designated as Senior Residential Appraiser, 1985
Member
Member
Member
Currently on National Instructor Staff
(Past President - 1979)
Member
Past Chairman Appraisal Committee of Indiana State Realtors
Designated as Certified Real Estate Instructor — CREI
Charter Member
Certified as Dispute Settlor
Member
Certified Mediator
EXTRACURRICULAR
Teaching INDIANA UNIVERSITY/PURDUE UNIVERSITY. INDIANAPOLIS
(1993 to present - Part-time Instructor - R -305 Real Estate)
INDIANA UNIVERSITY - ARESC (1979 to present)
(Real Estate & Appraiser Licensing Courses)
APPRAISAL INSTITUTE (1982 to present)
Course 110/120 - Basics
Course 310/320 - Capitalization Courses
Course 410/420 - Professional Standards
BUTLER UNIVERSITY
1976 - 1978 (Principles of Real Estate Law)
SOCIETY OF REAL ESTATE APPRAISERS
Principles of Real Estate Appraising -101
Seminar "Appraising for Underwriters"
CER 111-1ED AUCTIONEER ASSOCIATION
1989 to 1993 (Real Estate Appraisals and Auctioneering)
NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF ENVIRONMENTAL RISK AUDITORS
1988 to 1992 (Environmental Effects on Real Estate)
Legal Indiana and Federal Bar (June; 1987)
Author INDIANA REAL ESTATE LAW AND PRACTICE MANUAL
Commissioned by Indiana Real Estate Commission (1990) - Revised 1995.
15
OVERVIEW OF TRAFFIC IMPACT
FROM AVP's PROPOSED DEVELOPMENT Roma
• The following comments address traffic impact concerns for the proposed AVP JAN 16 2001
development: DOCS
• The proposed American Village Properties development will generate newer raffic
volumes on US 421 and intersecting roads such as 106th Street and 116 Street..
Based on the traffic impact study prepared for American Village Properties, 702 new
external trips will be generated by the proposed site during the weekday afternoon
peak hour. However, using the same variables and methodologies from the traffic
impact study as well as the Institute of Transportation Engineers, Trip Generation
Manual, the daily external trips generated by the site will be 7,696. If this site is
approved, the construction of the development can commence and be completed
before US 421 is even improved by the Indiana Department of Transportation
( INDOT). It should be emphasized that although INDOT has scheduled
improvements on US 421 to start in 2001 and 2002, these schedules maybe subject
to change and be postponed. Furthermore, there are additional commercial and
residential developments that are underway on Michigan Avenue from 96th Street to
SR 334. Given the development intensity and trip generation of the proposed
American Village Properties and all of the other ongoing developments along
Michigan Avenue, the accumulative traffic volumes on an unimproved US 421
may create unsatisfactory traffic operations and also effect quality of life
concerns for a number of years.
• The Westons Subdivision currently operates as a self - contained development from a
traffic standpoint. All traffic enters and exits the subdivision via 106th Street and
Shelbourne Road. Any additional access points via adjacent developments may
have undesirable effects on traffic patterns that were not originally envisioned or
planned. Based on the recommendations of the traffic impact study and the Hamilton
County Highway Department, a roadway connection between the Westons and
American Village Properties via Monitor Road is not required. However, based on
the Hamilton County Highway Department letter dated October 16, 2000, an
easement must be maintained to allow for a possible connection from Monitor Lane
in the future. Such a connection has the potential to increase traffic volumes as
well as alter traffic patterns in the Westons Subdivision. The likelihood for
conflicts with pedestrians, especially with many small children who reside in
the Westons, would increase.
I am a registered Professional Engineer in the State of Indiana. I am employed as a
traffic and . transportation engineer for a civil engineering consulting firm in Indianapolis.
performirrraffi impact studies on a regular basis.
/-/W
Ted M. Andrews, PE
November 27, 2000