Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-12-18-07CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Tuesday, December 18, 2007 President Ron Carter called the meeting to order at 7:20 p.m. Commission members William Hammer, Jeff Worrell, Rick Sharp and Carolyn Anker were present, constituting a quorum. Also present were Les Olds, Karl Haas, Sherry Mielke, Andrea Stumpf, Darrell Norris and Matt Worthley. Others present: From Shiel Sexton: Ryan Anderson, Tom Plahitko, Chad Danz, Mike Anderson, Joe Shanahan, Doug Adams, Tony Eisenhut From CSO: Dan Moriarity, Randy Robison, Brandon Bogan Contractors and members of the public or press: [See sign-in sheet for detail.] Steve Sturtz, Ed Hill, Paul Brumleve, Eston Hathaway, Lynn Morales, Jim McCoy, Ken Sage, Troy LaMonte, Matt Ahlquist, Bill Ford, Don Purdy, Ted Sander, Rick Osborn, Doug Johnson, Darrell Batts, Francesca Jarosz, Michael Aldrich, Dick Wiisanen, Kevin Sullivan Approval of Minutes Mr. Worrell moved the minutes of November 20, 2007, on page three be corrected to state “the fireworks would no longer be able to be fired from City Center Drive”. Seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously approved. Mr. Hammer then moved the minutes be approved as corrected. Seconded by Mr. Sharp and unanimously approved. Bid Opening Parcel 7A, the Core and Shell of the Performing Arts Center Mr. Olds stated the bids will opened and read aloud. The architect [CSO] and construction manager [Shiel Sexton] will review the bids and report back to the commission at a special meeting to be held on December 28th at 8 a.m. in the Caucus Room. [Later changed to 4 p.m. on the same date.] Mr. Moriarity reported there are eleven bid packages to be opened with several alternates. All bids will be recorded and the tally sheets will be made available to everyone. He stated the bids are for the core and shell, the exterior, roofing and exterior enclosures. [See tally sheets for all bid details.] There were no bidders on the elevators at this time. It will be rebid as part of a package in February. No combination bids can be opened because this was not advertised as an alternate. The combination bid was returned to the submitting company. Mr. Olds thanked all the bidders. Reports from Architects and Engineers Mr. Moriarity reported that things are moving smoothly on the energy center. The bids that were opened today represent about $30,000,000 which is a sizeable portion of the PAC. Earthwork has begun and sheet pilings are being installed along City Center Drive. Mr. Olds reported the next bid package will be advertised in February 2008 and opened at the March CRC meeting. Update on Properties Action Item #1: Approval of the design concepts for Village Green, PAC Site Plan and Monon Trail improvements. Mr. Olds noted the design concepts were distributed at the last meeting for the commissioners’ review. The Monon Trail and overlay is different from what has been approved by the Plan Commission. This concept is hard surface, not the “natural setting” that Plan Commission has approved. He explained the details and differences. Most of the landscaping will be in planters or pots because of all the buried utilities along the Monon. The faster traffic on the trail will be separated from the walkers by the use of planters. Mr. Olds requested approval of the design concept, stating he would come back with actual design concepts for approval and bidding at a later date. The original cost estimate for these three areas was $750,000. Once the design is finalized, actual estimates would be done, costing each area separately. Mr. Sharp is troubled by “broad concept” approvals. He would like to see actual ADLS approvals of City Center. Discussion followed at length. Crossover bridges are at the parking garage and the PAC. Further discussion. Mr. Sturtz stated there is no space to move anything within the site, noting it’s [the four story lofts] a liner building for a seven-story parking garage. It is 220 feet long. Further discussion followed. Mr. Sharp stated that a complete ADLS-type of review for each project should be undertaken by the CRC in one of two ways: (1) by the full CRC; or (2) by a special panel appointed by the full CRC. Further discussion. Mr. Sturtz stated we were totally driven by the necessity to start the energy center for the PAC. Mr. Carter pointed out that the Plan Commission is not involved with real estate deals. The Plan Commission is involved solely with making sure the projects that are brought before them fit with the comprehensive plan and that is appropriate and works\ from a planning and zoning standpoint. “In our case there is a difference. We go out and seek deals; we go out and seek the redevelopment of land. Generally speaking, they are dealing with the development of land, not the redevelopment of land. So we can’t equate completely what we do or the steps we have to take with what the Plan Commission does. With that said, I think you’re right, Rick [Sharp], we need to look at these in more depth and detail and the question before the commission right now is, do we want to reappoint an architectural and review committee or do we want the entire commission to go over all the architectural details prior to the hearing officer’s activity or final approval?” Mr. Haas stated, giving some historical perspective, that normally when the Commission has accepted a bid for a redevelopment project, the bid has included a proposed site plan and elevation. The Commission approves the site plan and elevation by the time that a project agreement is signed. The approved site plan and elevation then serve as a baseline, and any design changes that would modify materially the approved site plan or elevation would come back to the Commission for review and approval. If there simply is refinement of the approved site plan and elevation through schematics to construction drawings (as opposed to material modifications), then approval of the refinements has been the province of the plan review panel. It probably is the case that, although all of the project agreements still provide for the plan review panel, it has not been functioning. It is supposed to be the end of the refinement process, when the plan review panel has approved final plans consistent with the approved site plan and elevation (or has approved final plans consistent with modifications approved by the Commission), that the plans are submitted for ADLS approval. Further discussion. Mr. Sturtz stated the Monon/groundwork is the City’s project. The buildings are Pedcor’s. Changing the building levels would change the economics of the project. Further discussion. Mr. Sharp stated we need to schedule a meeting of only ADLS presentation to approve details of concepts. Mr. Olds said we got general approval from the CRC of the outside of the theater and the energy center and a general approval of the outside of the Phase 4 building but not the elevation along the Monon. We have basically agreed that we can build to the limits that we show on the footprint. The difference being an opinion of a “canyon effect” going through and the skin of the building. The proposed concept has been looked at by many architects. Further discussion. Mr. Olds pointed out that it could be years before all the details were known on the project. Lenders require the letter from the zoning officer before loans can be made. That’s why approvals are requested in piecemeal basis so we don’t back ourselves into a corner as we go down the road. Mr. Sharp agreed and stated that is fair, but he noted this [project] is much different than the Indiana Design Center or Old Town Shops I and II. But it doesn’t mean that we slack in our formal review process and it doesn’t mean that we attempt to solve the problem by doing a premature ADLS. Further discussion at length. Mr. Haas stated, with respect to the Phase 4 buildings, that it appears the only site plan and elevation approvals not already given by the Commission are approvals of the west and east facades of the Phase 3 and Phase 4 buildings (along the Monon), as there is agreement that the energy center and related site plan and elevations already were approved. Mr. Haas further stated, with respect to the Parcel 5 project, that the Phase 1 plans (which includes plans for the motorcourt) already have been approved, together with site plans and elevations for the Phase 2 and 3 buildings, although those plans probably are outdated, and revised site plans and elevations probably need to be submitted to the Commission for review and approval. Mr. Hammer asked if any changes have been made to the topiary planters to discourage weaving in between them by bicyclists. He also asked about the degree of separation between pedestrians and vehicles. Are there safety bollards? Mr. Olds stated these issues will be addressed once general approval is given to the design. Mr. Moriarity suggested a list be made of the important issues which need approval tonight: the road which loops through the village green, parking on either side, generally an amphitheater in that location, and the rest is basically open with a double row of trees down each side. Beyond that, the rest is open yet to further development. After further discussion, Mr. Sharp moved for approval of the design concept of the village green, the PAC site plan and Monon Trail improvements as presented to the Commission on drawings dated November 14, 2007 (including building height and setback from the Monon). Such approval does not imply or explicitly approve the elevations of the Monon lofts as represented on said drawings. Seconded by Mr. Worrell. Mr. Hammer offered an amendment. That the serpentine topiaries be replaced with a continuation of the box planting concept. Mr. Sharp accepted the amendment. The amended motion was approved with four in favor. Ms. Anker abstained. Mr. Sharp moved that the CRC accept the massing of the Monon loft buildings east and west as depicted on page three of the Carmel City Center Mixed Use Development booklet dated November 20, 2007, Docket # 0720001DP/ADLS. The massing was clarified as being the total square footage of the lofts. Seconded by Mr. Hammer. In response to a question, Mr. Sturtz stated the foundation which supports the parking garage also supports the lofts. Pedcor is getting pricing on the parking garage. Getting approval tonight on the concept allows Pedcor the certainty to proceed on foundations. There will be twenty-six lofts. The foundation would have to be readjusted for a façade, if it’s not all needed for taller lofts. Mr. Carter noted that unless the lofts are live/work, two- or three-story units then it probably means townhouse and is not as marketable a product today as it was a few years ago. So we probably are talking loft/flats here in a community needs standpoint as well as a marketability standpoint. Call for the question. The motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Olds asked if a plan review panel needs to be reorganized. Discussion was that any design proposals should come before the full Commission. Mr. Haas noted that this would require the full Commission to sign off on construction documents. Ms. Anker asked whether there is some way that the Commission members could be more educated on construction documents or whether there is a compromise between the approval process employed in the past and having the full Commission approve all design documents. Mr. Haas suggested he and Mr. Olds should make a proposal to the Commission on what it is that would be approved by the full Commission. Mr. Carter said that is what the Action Items were supposed to be, rather than one sentence. Mr. Haas stated that what was approved for Parcel 7C is not sufficient for Mr. Hollibaugh to undertake a review. That level has not been reached for Parcel 5 either. Discussion followed. Mr. Haas will report back on the number of commissioners needed on an plan review panel and the approval process on the project agreement. Mr. Carter recommended the CRC look at the step by step process as laid out by the Department of Community Services for a development. Action Item #2: Approval of Parcel 12, Indiana Design Center, exterior signage program Mr. Olds pointed out the sign package for the Indiana Design Center. Mr. Carter has reviewed the proposal several times, noting his suggestions for changes were followed. Discussion followed. Mr. Sharp moved the CRC approve the exterior sign program for Parcel 12 as depicted on drawings dated October 16, 2007, G1, G2, G3 and G4. Seconded by Ms. Anker and unanimously approved. Action Item #3: Approve the purchase agreement format for Parcel #47 and balance of Parcel #49 for CRC Master Plan for Old Town Arts District Mr. Haas requested approval for two purchase agreements, one to buy fee property from Hearthview Old Town, LLC and the second to purchase Hearthview Old Town II, LLC’s tenant-in-common interest in the Tuesday Morning property. The fee property was identified on materials distributed and it, along with the Tuesday Morning parcel and the VFW parcel would comprise the entire block and would be available for redevelopment. Mr. Sharp moved the CRC approve the purchase agreement for Parcel #47 and the balance of Parcel #49. (This includes the expenditure of $15,000.00 in connection with the purchase.) Seconded by Mr. Hammer. Discussion followed. $5000 is earnest money and the other $10,000 is for appraisals. Call for the question. Unanimously approved. [Amendment on Parcel 12 Motion] Mr. Sharp asked to amend his original motion on Parcel 12. He made a motion to reconsider the Indiana Design Sign Package. Seconded by Mr. Hammer and unanimously approved. Mr. Sharp amended his original motion to state “also included are the further depictions and descriptions of materials for tenant signs contained on pages one through eight, Tenant Signage Criteria, dated October 16, 2007. Seconded by Mr. Worrell and unanimously approved. The amended motion was then unanimously approved. [Back to Action Item #3] Mr. Haas asked for the Commission’s approval to prepare an RFP for the fee property, the tenant-in-common property combined with the VFW property, soliciting bids for a redevelopment project for the entire block. This would be subject to reaching an agreement between CRC and the VFW acceptable to both parties. So moved by Mr. Hammer and seconded by Mr. Sharp. The motion was then unanimously approved. Action Item #4: Approval of insurance for Builders Risk for the Performing Arts Center Mr. Olds reported the City’s insurance consultant got bids for the Builders Risk insurance for the PAC, which is required by the CRC as well as the bond holders. Three bids were received. The consultant indicated the insurance would cover about thirty months of construction, based on the fact the project would be substantially complete in the summer of 2010. The lowest bidder’s cost is $257,735.00 for a one time premium with a $10,000.00 deductible on the policy. This cost was based on completion in June 2011, so it was recalculated. The current amount being requested is $205,000.00 based on completion of July 2010. If there is any adjustment in timing or schedule this policy can be altered. It was unclear whether this amount was an annual charge or a one time premium. This will be clarified, but in the meantime, the policy has to be in effect by December 21, 2007. Mr. Sharp moved for approval of placement of the builders risk insurance for the PAC with Hylant Group for $205,000.00 for the first year premium and the staff will clarify by email as soon as possible what the total project cost of the insurance will be. Seconded by Mr. Hammer and unanimously approved. Action Item #5, Approval of transfer of funds Ms. Mielke stated that due to unanticipated maintenance and repair costs and also changes in the lease for equipment for Brookshire Golf Course, she was requesting a transfer of funds from the 902 fund to the 905 fund in the amount of $150,000.00. She also asked for CRC approval, that after doing a final review of the end of year costs later this week, and if necessary come back with an additional request at the December 28, 2007, meeting. Discussion followed. Mr. Sharp asked that a report be requested from Steve Engelking that details the expenses, especially the unexpected ones. Mr. Haas explained the problems with the pre-existing golf cart lease. Further discussion. Mr. Carter stated he wanted to see one of two things happen: either the City buys the golf course from the CRC or there is a golf course management company that gets a contract to run it. Further discussion. Mr. Carter stated a motion should be made [for a transfer] not to exceed $150,000.00 and if more is needed a detailed explanation should be provided by someone as to why more is needed and why this is needed at the same time. So moved by Mr. Sharp. Seconded by Mr. Hammer. Mr. Hammer stated it would be helpful if Mr. Blockoms and Mr. Engelking attended CRC quarterly meetings to provide a report. He noted there was a lot of deferred maintenance when the golf course was purchased. The motion was unanimously approved. Financial Matters November end of month balance for fund 902 is $3,042,440.00. Invoices in the amount of $516,785.96 from fund 902 were submitted. Move for approval of these invoices by Mr. Worrell. Seconded by Ms. Anker and unanimously approved. Invoices in the amount of $51,638.11 for BGC fund 905 were submitted. Move for approval of these invoices by Mr. Worrell. Seconded by Mr. Hammer and unanimously approved. Disbursement in the amount of $1,645,425.57 from the PAC construction fund was requested. So moved by Ms. Anker. Seconded by Mr. Hammer and unanimously approved. Ms. Mielke reported that Omni Productions will begin taping the CRC meetings in January and the tapes will be run on Channel 16. Also in January, a Redevelopment Commission web page attached to the City’s website will be posting agendas and minutes. The Arts and Design District’s Holiday event weekends conclude this coming Saturday, December 22. The turnout has been very good. Old Business Mr. Haas reported the bid received for the food and beverage service at the golf course is not legally conforming. It does not need to be rejected, but between now and the special meeting, Ritz Charles will be given a chance to provide the other items required to meet the statutory requirements. This can be done since this was the only bid received and it can then be discussed at the December 28 meeting. Mr. Olds reported the Old Town Shops tenants are working feverishly to have their signs in place by January 31, 2008. After that date permit fees will be required. Mr. Carter asked if the white blank signs can be taken down. Mr. Olds will check. New Business Mr. Olds asked if the procedure for approval of change orders for the energy center and the performing arts center is still what the CRC wants: Mr. Olds has authority to approve change orders up to $15,000. Above $15,000 to $35,000 approval is requested from the President of the CRC. Any change order over $35,000 comes before the full commission for approval. Discussion followed. It was decided to leave it as is right now but monitor it over the next few months. Next Meeting Next regular meeting is January 15, 2008, executive session at 6 p.m., public meeting at 7 p.m. A special meeting will be held on December 28, 2007. Mr. Carter thanked everyone for their work this past year. He was in turn thanked for his leadership. Adjournment Mr. Worrell moved the meeting be adjourned. Seconded by Mr. Hammer and unanimously approved. The meeting was adjourned at 10:33 p.m.