Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-05-08-02CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 1 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting Wednesday, May 8, 2002 President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 7:05 p.m. Commission members present were John Koven, Luci Snyder and Ed Burke, constituting a quorum. Also present were Mayor Brainard, Karl Haas, Wayne Wilson, Kate Weese, Lance Stahley, Trent Newport, Les Olds, Steve Engelking, Kelli Lawrence, Sherry Mielke and Chris McComas. Phyllis Morrissey, support staff. Brian Shapiro arrived at 5:15, Ron Carter at 5:25 and Cathy Kightlinger at 5:30 p.m. Approval of Minutes Ms. Snyder moved for approval of the minutes of April 10 meeting. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Agenda Change Ms. Snyder moved the order of the agenda be changed to allow Shapiro’s streetscape to be discussed at this time. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Shapiro Streetscape Mr. Olds said he and Mr. McComas met yesterday to discuss and plan the streetscape concept, using the input from the CRC members. They have two different approaches, the same general concept used as a framework with different types of inserts. Chris McComas, from Rowland Design, presented the proposed streetscape for the Shapiro’s property. One of the issues was the site line exiting the Fire Department drive out on to Range Line Road. They worked with Ms. Weese on this, and at her recommendation, nothing elevated will be put in the site line area. They are suggesting that elevated tree wells be placed close to the building front. In keeping with the design around the reflecting pond, concrete would be used on the sidewalk area, with brick pavers or stamped concrete which looks like bricks used in large areas of the sidewalk. Mr. McComas continued: We’re doing the tree wells and still creating an edge along Range Line, some sense of security, not a big issue. The reason we’ve abandoned the idea of onstreet parking is because once we got the vision triangles in those areas, it became an issue of how many parking spaces would really be available. And it became a grading problem as well, because the site slopes ten feet from corner to corner. We have to bring in some fill to level it out. Shapiro’s building is sort of depressed in front of Range Line. If I pull that paving back, I get real problems pulling that too close to the building. I need to keep it pushed out so I’ve got some land in front of the building to develop landscaping and to make that grade transition back up to Range Line. In actuality, Shapiro’s floor level is about the same height as the street, but once you go back up for the curb, across the sidewalk and back down again, it appears depressed. CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 2 For Phase I, preliminary pricing for plain uncolored pattern concrete would be $15,000 - $18,000 for that piece of sidewalk. These numbers don’t include the tree wells which are probably $5,000 apiece. We’re going to build those out of masonry with a brick that will be approved by the City, whether it’s going to match the AMLI sign or what. They will be 14” off the street. There will be two in front of Shapiro’s and continue along Range Line eventually up to City Center Drive. Mr. Olds said they would eventually continue on west on City Center Drive. Ms. Snyder asked what is along the edge of the street. Mr. McComas said it was a concrete ribbon, either holding the stamped concrete or concrete pavers in place. It’s a flat portion of concrete that runs in front of the tree wells. Mr. McComas said stamped concrete would be about $30,000 for Phase I and concrete pavers would be $55,000. Mr. Olds said we had $105,000 budgeted for streetscape and curb work along that section [Phase I and II]. Included in that was one light fixture at a cost of $7500. Mr. McComas: Basically take the $30,000 and double it for comparison’s sake because that budget was done when the Phase II site was fifty feet shorter. Mr. Olds: So for Phase I we’ve got $20,000 for the four tree wells, plus $7500 for the light fixture. Ms. Snyder: As you told me earlier, the major advantage of the pavers is that if they are damaged, they can be pulled out individually and replaced. Mr. Olds: Part of the other reason the cost is expensive is that we specified underneath it a concrete slab and then we used an inch of sand leveling material which we compact down. The slab, which acts as a foundation, will have holes in it for drainage. Mr. Roesch: So if we went with the pavers it would be $125,000 for Phase I and II and we had $95,000 budgeted for materials. [There were engineering and architectural costs of $9,400.] Further discussion followed. It was noted if the stamped concrete was used, the cost for the same area would be $50,000 less or $75,000. Mr. Roesch noted this would be setting a precedent for the rest of the street. Mr. Olds, responding to a question about aesthetics: If you use stamped concrete and it is “brick” colored, most people would not be able to tell the difference when looking at it. Mayor Brainard said we have had some issues about the stamped concrete being slick when it is wet. CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 3 Ms. Weese: She asked if there would be enough money to include a small wrought iron fence along the concrete edge next to the street to prevent little kids from going right out into the moving line of traffic. “I’d just like some attention given to that… if there’s just some protection.” Mr. Olds: Our major focus was to come to grips with the framework, the inserts and issues like that and the planters across the street. The issue that Kate brings up is a valid issue, but the whole world operates off of streets in major cities all the time with hard surface up to the edge. We talked about a two foot wide strip and what could be done with it. And we’re dumping salt on it continually. It’s hard to maintain it. If you put one of those little fences on it, it would have to be aluminum construction and with a specialized coating to resist, and then people are going to knock the thing down, bang in to it, kick it, stand on it. I don’t see any answer because even if you made it five feet wide, and decided to plant it, you still have the problem of deterioration. Ms. Snyder: I hadn’t thought of it, but picturing the Fourth of July parade and everybody’s going to have their little kids up on the fence so they can just see up a little higher. Mr. Olds: While it’s a nice idea, I don’t think it’s practical. Mr. Koven: It’s even less of a period. Mr. Roesch asked if the CRC was developing a consensus. Mr. Carter: What’s Les’s opinion, as our planner and architect? Mr. Olds: I prefer the cast concrete paver, but I’m also cognizant of the fact we’ve got money issues. We’ve got an issue, for example, tonight, on the reflecting pond, a soil issue that’s a sizeable number. So that even adds more emphasis on caution in selecting the material. Mr. Koven moved we proceed with the stamped concrete. Seconded by Ms. Snyder. Discussion followed. Mr. Carter asked why this was being presented by Mr. McComas. Mr. McComas: The only reason we are doing this, is because Brian [Shapiro] is under contract to design it and build it, in his project agreement. Mr. Olds and I are in total agreement about what we prefer and how it’s worked out, but it’s your money, the citizens’ of Carmel’s money and you’re here to represent that and you need to make a decision based on that. CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 4 Mr. Haas: Before you vote on this, I believe this is a credit item for Brian. As you’re thinking about your costs, whatever you approve here will be offset against Brian’s purchase price, most certainly, I think for the second parcel. Mr. Haas continued: Brian will pay for it. There are three categories of cost. One is work the City (or the Redevelopment Commission) is doing and paying for. There’s another category where Brian does the work and he is then reimbursed for it. There’s another category, in which this falls, where Brian does the work and then he credits that amount against his purchase price. Mr. Roesch: I am developing an opinion. I have to be a fiscal conservative on this one. Mr. Carter pointed out there is already a crack in the stamped concrete in the intersection of Range Line and City Center. Ms. Weese said there is a higher degree of salt on that and a higher load. Mr. Olds: All concrete cracks. We try as hard as we can. We specify as best we can. We try to convince the contractors to hire the best people. We pray for good weather. But we’re at the mercy at the couple of people out there that are dealing with a chemical reaction that’s going on. If they don’t catch it just right or do it just right, they will get cracks. We try to put enough expansion joints in to allow for that. But it’s hard to provide crack free concrete. Mr. Roesch said we do have a motion on the floor. The motion was approved four in favor, Mr. Carter opposed. Mr. Roesch thanked Mr. McComas, Les, Kate and everybody for their work on the streetscape. Mr. McComas: I want to personally recognize Mr. Carter. Even though he voted against this proposal, he’s spent a lot of personal time meeting with me, getting the traffic and safety concerns [inaudible]. Report from the Mayor Mayor Brainard reported he has met with three retail developers, two of whom are still interested in the project. “One of them is making tremendous progress and I’m very optimistic we’ll have something to present at the next meeting.” Mayor met with the president of Cinergy, Indiana area. He indicated he wanted to look at two things. In the old days they would bury or move lines at no cost because they could see new business. They quit doing that a few years ago because it looked like deregulation was coming and they weren’t sure how many new customers would actually be theirs. Now that they see deregulation does not appear to be coming very quickly in Indiana, they’re willing to look at that again. So we’re pulling out the old calculations CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 5 that CSO did, trying to update them, and then will give them to Cinergy to see how much they could do for us. Secondly, they agreed to look at whether we could make payments over time, tied to when the final land sales are. Report from the Director As the Shapiro project continues to progress, we still have some challenges. We’ve not had as many complaints in the last week or so regarding parking for Muldoon’s. We are going to put some temporary signs out there identifying the parking for the three businesses. The Street Department is making a weekly run through there to clean the parking lot of construction debris. They also are keeping an eye on potholes. The second issue is the old town AMLI site demolition which is essentially complete. Still outstanding is the relocation of the electrical box and line. The other issue is in regard to the sidewalk and light fixture construction that that company also had as part of their contract. The items are on back order for that so that will continue to move forward. Report from Ms. Lawrence, DOCS Ms. Lawrence: I did have two items in my report that I’d like some discussion or feedback on: The Redevelopment Petition Process that was distributed to you at the last meeting and then the Redevelopment Plan Policies. We would like to move forward with this as a Comprehensive Plan Amendment sometime down the road since we do not have any Comprehensive Plan policies related to the redevelopment areas. As we are looking to expand the area of influence, which has been discussed at several CRC meetings, the Department was trying to develop some framework policies that could guide that expansion and any public input process we do as far as on Range Line Road. I was just looking for feedback on those two items, and the rest [in my report] was informational. Mr. Roesch: We have talked about expanding the area of influence in our Strategic Planning Session. I think we should review some of those items that we reached consensus on before we actually make a decision on some of these things, to remind everybody of what the consensus was. Any other thoughts? Mr. Carter: I don’t have a problem on the process. Ms. Lawrence: So are you comfortable with it, when people come in and are interested in the C-1 or C-2 area, we can distribute this to them as a guide for them in the review process? Mr. Roesch: I am comfortable with it. It’s good to let them know what is expected. Ms. Lawrence: This is similar to the other zoning processes we have, the same format. General agreement. CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 6 Ms. Lawrence: Just so I’m sure I understand what you’re asking for on the policies, a lot of those things we talked about in the planning session, are incorporated into this draft document, I want to make sure I understand how to move forward. It was noted a summary did come out of the strategic planning session. Ms. Lawrence: I was looking at this as the next step, taking that summary, and trying to create some land use policies. General consensus. Mr. Roesch said the CRC should revisit the question of area of influence as it applies north of City Center on Range Line Road. Ms. Snyder: I am concerned about trying to create another overlay zone. The one in Old Town was simple compared to this section [Range Line Road] because there are viable businesses of every stamp and variety. You make something that pleases somebody there and it doesn’t please somebody else. [inaudible] sphere of influence, where we can move in case we have to and for lack of a better word, overlay. I’d like to discuss that. One of the thoughts is, as things develop, businesses that are viable in this area will want to conform. There’s always the odd, errant person. Other businesses that perhaps don’t fit might sell at what they consider an extremely advantageous price and leave and go to a more suitable area. But I think we have to be very careful of being conceived as trying to force businesses out of this area. It’s a lot trickier than homeowners. So maybe we can bifurcate it and move ahead separately. Ms. Lawrence: If someone comes to us and says, “What do you want us to do?” Here are the land use polices. It’s not a zoning ordinance. The land use policies for this area that give you the general framework for design in this area, what we want to see happen. So we have that in place and then tackling a zoning change is another issue. We looked at this as a consensus way to start, to get the CRC on board, make sure this is what you were hoping in general terms would happen in this area. And then move on to more detail in the zoning ordinance. Ms. Snyder: If somebody comes in with an existing business and they get that, and then they decide not to do it, they don’t have to or do they? Ms. Lawrence: They don’t have to. It doesn’t have the force of a zoning ordinance. Mr. Engelking: This is a complement to the Comprehensive Plan which does not have the ability to be enforced. It is a guide. The zoning then becomes the enforcing tool. And this is a complement to the only two zoning areas that exist right now, the C-1 and C-2. Ms. Snyder: Some people will welcome the guidance. As they see Shapiro’s as the first piece, something gorgeous coming up, and realize that other things are coming, the streetscape is going to have a certain look, I think people will want to be part of it. They CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 7 certainly will understand that as it develops, property is going to be worth more. And it will be easier to convince them as a few more pieces fall into place. Right now it’s all designers’ plans, once you’ve got some physical things there, and people are talking about it and businesses are coming. And they will say, “This could be good for me.” I would hope that without losing any ground we could achieve what we want in a softer way and get them to buy into the concept, rather than saying “Thou shalt”. Ms. Lawrence: That was the attempt with creating the policy, so we at least have some guidance for those people who want to come on board. Mr. Roesch: So we should adopt these policies and they are policies. Ms. Lawrence: For them to be amended, though, to the Comprehensive Plan, they have to go through the Plan Commission and the City Council, but we started here knowing this was the area you were targeting as a redevelopment area in the long term. Mr. Roesch: If we pass a resolution saying we’re recommending the adoption of these policies, this would allow us to take this to the Plan Commission. Ms. Lawrence: Yes, we could move forward with it. Mr. Carter: Or, on the other hand, we wouldn’t have to take it to the Plan Commission. If we decided we didn’t want to formalize it that much, it could lie as: This is our policy. This is what we’d like to see you do. On the other hand, if we determine we are making enough headway with commercial and residential property owners, and they feel comfortable enough with it, maybe it does go to the Plan Commission at some point to become more codified. Ms. Lawrence: I do agree that there needs to be another step in between your support of this by resolution, or however you do that, and then when it gets to the Plan Commission, involving the property owners. There is a middle step that Ron is pointing out, that will need to happen. Mr. Roesch: I’ll entertain a motion that the CRC adopt these policies [as presented by Ms. Lawrence]. So moved by Mr. Carter. Seconded by Ms. Snyder, who asked that the motion be amended to include that “these policies go no further at this time.” Mr. Carter agreed. The motion was passed unanimously. Before the policies go further, time will be taken to explore their ramifications. Mr. Carter asked if we needed to adopt the process too, since we’ve adopted the policies. Mr. Engelking: Just as the Plan Commission has a set of written administrative rules that they follow for processing, this kind of fits that kind of analogy…[inaudible] it might be in the best interest to adopt these. CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 8 Mr. Carter: I said earlier I didn’t have a problem with the process, but one thing has occurred to me. I don’t see anything in here that talks about the project agreement. Should we put something in here that says the project agreement should be in hand? Ms. Lawrence: The only mention of the project agreement is in the statement which says we will not schedule the hearing date before the Director until the project agreement is finalized. But if that could be part of this that would help everyone as well because those are two processes that are going on somewhat at the same time, somewhat not. So if we could have a full understanding of how that is supposed to work, it would help everyone involved. If Mr. Haas could investigate how the project agreement process could be worked into this, that would be good. Mr. Haas and Ms. Lawrence will work on the petition and come back to the CRC. City Engineer’s Report Ms. Weese reported regarding AMLI Old Town, that a change order will be requested for North American Construction to allow them to relocate the City’s electrical supply to our street lights. Cost is unknown, but Ms. Weese estimated it would be between $4,000 and $8-9,000 at the most. Contractor hopes the old lumberyard mall will begin coming down in the next thirty days. Shapiro’s Ms. Weese reported there was a pipe that was not put in the right location. Two issues came up anyway with an electric conduit and three conduits with fiber optic lines. We have met with the contractor and engineer. The whole detention system will have to come up .35 feet. Ms. Weese pointed out that in spite of the pipe location problem, having the Street Department do this work has saved the City probably $40,000 as well as time. “I would recommend we use them whenever we can on similar projects. So far the cost has been $4,472.00. All the cost of labor was absorbed.” Dirt Issues Ms. Weese: We were able to get free dirt and have been storing it west of the Goodyear building. It will be staked off and left as a stockpile for future use. Ms. Weese met with Mr. Olds about stabilizing the soil area which will be under the skating portion of the pond. This will be covered further in Mr. Olds’ report. Financial Report Ms. Mielke: To keep you updated on the TIF revenue, I did receive a call from the assessor’s office, and our annual TIF revenue has increased by about $330,000. Report from Attorney Mr. Haas reported the latest settlement proposal from the Indiana Insurance with regard to the contamination is $400,000 cash payment. However, that is a one time payment that CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 9 would not cover any additional costs if it turns out the decontamination is more expensive. Mr. Haas asked if the CRC members were prepared to approve the Conflict of Interest Policy. Mr. Burke asked that it be tabled till next meeting. Report from Architect Mr. Olds reported the contractor [Eden Enterprises] of the reflecting pond could not get any work done in February or March and nothing much done in April because of the weather. The rain has put them to a standstill. They are requesting a sixty day delay from the July 1st completion date to complete the project. They have also indicated they will probably be coming back and asking for another thirty days. Most all the materials are stacked on the job site so if we have a reasonable break in the weather, hopefully they’ll be able to make up some of the time. It was noted AMLI should be notified. The contractor is hopeful they will be able to make up some of the time, but are asking for the delays so they will not be subject to a large penalty. They have all their documentation about the weather. Mr. Haas said under the project agreement with AMLI we are entitled to extension for unusually inclement weather, which would probably be an extension for the extra number of rainy days we’ve had over and above what’s usual. “I would want to either get AMLI to sign off on it or I would tell them they can give an extension by change order.” Brief discussion followed. Security of the materials was a concern. Mr. Engelking will check to see if they are insured. Mr. Olds: The second issue noted in the report is that in the excavation for the west end of the reflecting pond they came across unsuitable, mucky material below grade. We informed the contractor he needed to get a separate soil engineer to evaluate the situation and report back to us. [A soil engineer company] PSI engineering evaluated it and agreed the material had to be removed. The contractor then gave us a series of options. The range of costs to do this was from $30,000 to $104,000. The unfortunate part is the lower value recommendations they gave could not give us the guarantees that we demanded in terms of avoiding settling and cracking of the concrete area. The best solution was approximately $95,000. Mr. Olds met with Kate and the soil engineer. Kate recommended the unsatisfactory material be limed and then placed back in the project. The contractor then devised a plan that they would dig the material up, spread it out near the north side of Parcel 2, lime it, then replace it in the hole for compacting within the site. The revised price for this is $75,000. Testing would be included. The area where the material is dried would have to be regraded and seeded afterwards. CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 10 Mr. Olds: “We are holding the contractor accountable for cracking. We do not want to give them any leeway on any of this because we expect the work to be done in a good workmanship like manner, compacted properly and anything else they need to add to it to give us that guarantee and this is the soil engineer’s recommendation in support of the contractor.” Discussion followed. Mr. Roesch: I will entertain a motion to approve a change order up to $75,000 to the reflecting pond contract to cope with the soil problem discovered there. So moved by Mr. Burke. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. Parcel #5 Demolition Mr. Olds: We had a demolition price from Brandenberg for $60,000 to do the project. We were authorized to find another contractor, so we asked for a quote from North American. They have submitted a bid for $28,400, which is good for ninety days. Mr. McComas and Mr. Shapiro have agreed to give up the staging area further north on the site. Mr. Roesch expressed a concern about the pressure that would place on the other staging area and Muldoon’s parking. With this in mind and because Shapiro’s is scheduled for completion mid June, it was decided to award the contract after that date and have the work start then. Mr. Olds reminded the CRC of the bid opening at 5 p.m. on Monday, May 13. Mr. Roesch said there was one other thing on that agenda: the bond for Parkwood West. Mr. Olds: On Parcel #4, CSO has done a layout for a bank building to suggest how it could fit on the site. A two or three level building could be built, with drive up facilities on the lower level. The existing curb cut which currently serves the back of Mohawk Plaza would have to be eliminated. Reports from CRC Members None Approval of Invoices Invoices totaling $473,272.93 were submitted. Ms. Snyder asked about the $2700 for CSO for the design work for a building for Parcel #4. Mr. Olds said it was not authorized and since it wasn’t authorized… part of that was also for the study of the retaining wall and the fill computations for the site. Mr. Roesch: That had to be done. How expensive was the retaining wall? Mr. Olds: If you build the building, the cost of the retaining wall drops down to $20,000. The amount of fill would drop to $50,000. CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 11 Mr. Koven: I don’t have so much concern about the cost as the fact it was done without authorization. Mr. Roesch: I kind of encouraged Les because we’ve had this problem with this property. I suppose I’ve challenged Les for a long time because I didn’t think you could build anything on the darn thing. I’ve had other people look at it and say it was too narrow, too sloped. Mr. Koven: On another invoice, I thought we had come to the conclusion that the CRC would not pay for the improvements to be made to the Fire Station for the fire trucks to come out the west side. Yet we have an invoice here for $2, 404.71 for Carmel Fire Station site work. I believe that’s a City expense. Mr. Olds: That’s a good point, John. Right. In fact, the bids that you’re getting on the 13th have the fire station work in that bid package. Mr. Roesch: But we’re being reimbursed. Mr. Olds: Right, and I treat it as an alternate so you have the dollar amount for it. Mr. Koven: Well, I’m not holding my breath. I think the Fire Department should pay. Mr. Olds: We can’t send that bill directly to the Fire Department. The only reason we did it this way was because we thought that bill along with the bid package would be submitted as a total cost for the Fire Department to pay. We were running it, trying to make the bid package a reasonable size so we’d get a little bit of interest. They’ve also, by the way, expanded the amount of work behind the fire station beyond the original $20,000 limit that we had to correct some other problems. Mr. Roesch: Remember this miscellaneous reimbursement line on the cash flows. I assume this is how we’re getting the money back. Mr. Engelking: That is correct. Mr. Roesch: We need to keep track of it though if it’s included in other invoices. Mr. Koven: I would rather not pay it. Interestingly enough, the invoice is actually billed to the City of Carmel and all the rest of them are billed to the Redevelopment Commission. I don’t have the confidence of getting reimbursed for this. I had one other question, the huge bill from Ray’s trash Service for $745.05. Where were the previous invoices and why did they not get paid in a timely manner. Now that we own these buildings have we gotten quotes on trash service? Who does the trash service at the City building now? CRC Meeting, May 8, 2002 12 Mr. Engelking: Ray’s and this is a better price than was in existence when we took over the lease. We cancelled the old contract and got this contract. I’m not sure I can adequately answer your questions about the balance carried forward, but I can tell you it is significantly less expensive than the other one was. The invoice was rejected pending receipt of more detail. [Mr. Carter left the meeting at 6:50 p.m.] Mr. Burke moved the invoices be approved in the amount of $470,123.17 (with the $2,404.71 and $745.05 invoices eliminated). Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved by the remaining four CRC members. Correspondence Notice was received of a meeting May 28 of the Carmel Board of Zoning Appeals, at which Mohawk Landing shopping center is requesting a variance for signage. Mr. Roesch asked Ms. Lawrence if this was going through the Department of Community Services, and asked her to report back at the next meeting what the decision was. Next Meeting The meetings this summer will be moved to Tuesdays, at 5 p.m. because of the Wednesday evening concerts at the gazebo. The dates will be June 11, July 9, and August 13. Adjournment Mr. Burke moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was approved unanimously and the meeting adjourned at 6:55 p.m.