Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-08-07-011 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Tuesday, August 7, 2001 President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Commission members present were Luci Snyder, Ron Carter, John R. Koven, Ed Burke. Also present were Mayor Brainard, Karl Haas, John Molitor, Les Olds, Kelli Hahn, Steve Engelking, James E. Huffer, owner of the Goodyear Building, Betty J. Huffer, Ronald A. Renken, owner of The Village Cleaners, and Susan H. Miller from the Indianapolis Star. Sherry Mielke and Phyllis Morrissey present as support staff. Minutes Ms. Snyder moved for approval of the minutes from the July 10 meetings as mailed. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the minutes were approved with four votes. Mr. Koven abstained since he was not present at those meetings. Agenda Change Mr. Burke moved the agenda be changed to allow the architect’s report at this time. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Architect’s Report Mr. Olds distributed the RFP for Parcel #5, noting the original master plan had approximately 430,000 square feet in it. “Two areas have been added to that: the surface parking areas adjacent to the amphitheater. Some of the original discussion was that the CRC would build those two parking areas as part of the their work. However, because of the value of the land, we felt it might be important to include those two pieces in the RFP. The CRC can reject or do whatever they want with those two pieces of property, but at least in the RFP you will have publicly bid it and you have freedom to do whatever you want with it at a later time.” Mr. Olds continued: We have provided legal descriptions in the RFP for all those elements. Karl has prepared the front end. The only thing that is lacking is to include the amount of money required for the project as well as establishing the dates for the advertisement and receipt of bids. We have included in the package the original master plan and also the seven alternative concept ideas for the project. You’ll note we have defined a legal description for the restaurant property separate from the rest of the parcel to determine the exact square footage that would possibly be taken by the Shapiro proposal. [127,000 square feet, 2.9 acres.] This does not include the street. There are seven different “scopes of work” which would be provided by the CRC to provide a buildable site. These are listed on the diagram for the quadrant. Mr. Olds went on to explain what the different scopes were. One was for an additional hard surface parking area west of the fire station since some of what they use now is proposed to be in the new road area. Total estimated cost of all seven scopes is $811,022. Mr. Roesch: So the only thing we have to do with the RFP is address the issue of the appraisals at this time? 2 Mr. Haas: That is correct. Discussion followed about the different scopes of work. Mr. Haas asked if the CRC could commit to certain scopes of work, but not to others. Mr. Olds: Correct. Veteran’s Way [street] would not have to be committed to; the fire department service area would not have to be committed to. We basically put it on there so the Commission would have an idea of future expenses. We’re saying the site is technically a buildable site in its current condition. The initial design concepts that were presented to the Commission reflected the slope of the ground which drops about eight feet from the southeast corner to the northwest corner. Ms. Snyder: So we have to do 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7? Mr. Olds: Right. The scope of work #3, the north drive, is the most expensive at $246,860. It would not have to done immediately since there is currently a curb cut that could be used temporarily. But as the second building would be built and the parking developed around it, the building then of that road would be important. Mr. Roesch: We approved the issuance of the RFP in the last meeting and the authorization for appraisals. This is informative. I would like to talk to some of our Councilors before our next meeting about some of the things which might be done, assuming that the whole parcel does not sell in the RFP. Perhaps the City would share with the CRC in some of these improvements. Mr. Olds: The next item is the reflecting pond. As you know we’re proceeding with the construction documents. Several of the members at the last meeting talked about the possibility of ice skating on an area of the reflecting pond. We went back and took a look at it. The difficult part of that is that the pond in the center section is 8-10 feet deep. The freezing of that is somewhat impossible. If you skate on a pond normally the ice would be frozen to about six inches thick before people would use it. We do have a suggestion. A portion of the pond could be set up for ice skating. The original pond design would be modified with construction of an additional concrete walk barricade at this point. The section on one side could be two feet deep. We could control the water level in the wintertime to drain down to six inches allowing that area to freeze. There would be no mechanical equipment involved. The area is about 17,000 square feet. The downside to it is the construction of this walkway which would cost $50,000-60,000 because we would have to install handrails on both sides for safety because in the summer time people would be walking across it. 3 We do need to resolve this somewhat quickly because we are in the process of trying to get the documents finished. There would be no mechanical refrigeration involved in this process. It would just be draining it down, letting it freeze, and letting people skate on it. Mr. Roesch asked if the skating area could be added at a later date. Mr. Olds said it would be enormously expensive. Discussion followed. It was decided to have the pond bid both ways [with or without the lower wall, but not the walkway] so the CRC members could make a decision after the cost was known. The next issue is the access from the Kestner property down to the Monon Trail. Several options were considered at various costs. To build an ADA approved ramp with handrails on both sides, the cost would be $90,000. Alternative: build a “service drive” down to the trail for $17,000. This would not meet any codes Mr. Olds is aware of. “It is on Kestner’s property, not any CRC property. We would not be involved in it; it would be something he carried out himself. However, I’m not sure in terms of the project agreement you have with Mr. Kestner and the right for the public to park in his parking lot, whether we are creating a problem and I have to look to your counsel.” Mr. Haas: Under no circumstances can we authorize someone to violate code. On the other hand, if Mr. Kestner were to do something on his property that did violate code, while we would have rights under our declaration of covenants and easements to bring our own enforcement action, we wouldn’t have to do that. But also we couldn’t prescribe any of the other City agencies from bringing a code enforcement action so he would be doing it at his risk. Mr. Roesch: If there was a problem wouldn’t we potentially have some liability there for not bringing enforcement? Mr. Haas: No, you wouldn’t have any liability for not bringing any enforcement. You’re not charged with code enforcement. That, of course, doesn’t mean you wouldn’t get sued by someone who gets hurt there. But if you were sued, I don’t think you’d have any liability. Mr. Carter: What would be the code violation in the first place? Mr. Olds: The code violation involves a ramp that does not have hand rails on it for safety. Mr. Carter: But I thought we weren’t talking about a ramp here. I thought we were talking about a service road. Does a service road have to be ADA approved? Mr. Olds: If it’s a true service road and it’s controlled and barricaded off so the public cannot get on to it, that would be our interpretation. There is the option to go back to our original concept of just building the stairs on the north side of the property. 4 Mr. Carter: What about a free standing core ten stairway that would have flowers on the green space that’s left there now to the side of it? Mr. Olds: The stairway is acceptable. That’s not an issue. Mr. Carter: There were problems with retrofitting a traditional stairway in there from the standpoint of getting it up next to the brick, back where we were talking about in the first place. Mr. Olds: Trying to work within there would evolve tearing out probably parts of the plaza. Mr. Carter: But what about a freestanding one anchored at the top, center and bottom. Is that something that would work? Have you looked at that? Mr. Olds: No, we haven’t. We will do that and report back to you. Mr. Roesch asked if there were any other alternatives. Mr. Olds said the easiest and least expensive alternative would be to build just a stairway on the north side of the Kestner property. It would have a handrail and then have a sidewalk going to the trail. We could probably get that for $20,000 maximum. Mr. Olds: So my marching orders are to look at a freestanding stair in the plaza area and look at a stairway on the north side of the Kestner property? Mr. Koven asked why the Commission was concerned about it at all since the property is already sold. Discussion followed. Mr. Koven: I would like to go on record as saying to everybody here I want to see the success of City Center as well and I think we do have an obligation to make sure that we have good tenants and good businesses and everything else, but I just fail to understand why once we sell a piece of property, it’s our problem. It’s not anybody else’s problem anywhere else in the real world. Only where we’re dealing here with government apparently do we seem to think it’s our problem. He selected this piece of property as a place where he wanted to build his bike shop. I would assume it was his responsibility to get the plans for the building he wanted to build. It would have been his responsibility as would have been any other site developer somewhere to make sure that he had access to a lower level tenant. We can get access to the Monon all over the place. I don’t see that as having to be a critical one right there. I just fail to see it as being my responsibility as a member of this Commission to worry about how he gets ingress and egress to his tenant because quite honestly the stairway we took off at 126th Street was not being put there for the benefit of his lower level tenant. At least not anything I had to say about it. I was dealing with a safety issue. Ron and I had a conversation [earlier] and my understanding was he [Kestner] had a concern his lower level tenant had no way to get out of there at the end of the day, security-wise. And I was thinking maybe he should have put a secured 5 stairway on the back side of his building. That’s poor design of a building and here we are trying to take more money that we need for development to solve a problem that I don’t feel is ours at all. Mr. Carter: I’d like to clarify that a little bit. John, I think you’ve got the cart before the horse here. Mr. Kestner purchased the property and the building was designed long before this Commission voted to take the stairway out. Once Mr. Kestner had the property purchased, and had the building designed, we probably should not have taken that stairway out of there without sitting down with him to find out how this was going to affect what you’re putting into place. If the talk from Ritter’s was still going on, they would look at that and say, “Only open the bike shop hours? No thank you…” I don’t think that is a bad business decision on anybody’s part when their time is restricted as far as when they can be open. Mr. Carter continued: I agree with Rick. We need to try to make this as appropriate as possible for those merchants who might look to being down there. Mr. Kestner designed interior stairs for people to get there while his building is open. We, in effect, had designed a stairway in there for ingress and egress to the Monon and we took it out. It’s as simple as that. I think we do have some responsibility, one way or the other, to help with this situation. Mr. Kestner did not cause this situation. When he bought the property, that stairway was in there. Mr. Roesch: I see everybody’s perceptions here. However, I do think we have a problem that needs to be solved. I don’t know that we’re going to solve it here tonight about who pays for it. We need to have further discussions with Mr. Kestner about the alternatives and what the costs are before we can really vote on something or give you [Mr. Olds] a charge. General agreement. Mr. Olds: I’ve got one more item, a handout. This is the Master Plan updated to reflect the square footages of the available land that is left. There are two concepts. One is the original Parcel #5; the second one is the Parcel #5 plus the surface parking area adjacent to the amphitheater. It also picks up another parcel, #9, which is the small office space at Third Street and City Center Drive. This is just an update for reference since we continually refer to these parcels. Mr. Koven: Can you go back and have someone in your office color each of these parcels a different color so we can actually see where one starts and the other stops? Mr. Olds agreed and said it would be done gratis. Mayor’s Report In Mayor Brainard’s absence, Mr. Engelking reported that one of the potential developers who was coming to tour the City Center area will be rescheduling. 6 Director’s Report Mr. Engelking reported the specifications for the demolition of both the Old Town buildings should be ready in two to three weeks. The Kroger center specs are finalized and CSO has those now. Those will be going out for bid and Mr. Engelking will also be finalizing the issues with regard to the common wage. Mr. Engelking distributed a marketing packet from Casas de Amore. This is a project by a large group of volunteers to build frames for homes. It is a faith based organization represented by Jim Kraft. They have requested permission to use the Kroger Center for access to the green space just north of there on September 28 and 29. All materials would be removed from the site on the 29. They have a $1,000,000 insurance policy. Discussion followed. Ms. Snyder noted there could be favorable publicity for the CRC. [The Arts Festival is being held on September 15 and 16 this year so that would not interfere.] Mr. Koven felt the insurance policy should be more than $1,000,000. He also expressed a concern about the general cleanup afterwards. Mr. Haas said he thought the $1,000,000 was low also. He said a deposit could be required to cover any cleanup needs. Mr. Carter said an understanding would be needed for who is going to pay for police overtime unless we’re going to donate it. This would be needed because of the large number of participants. Mr. Carter asked if this was the first time this project had been done. Mr. Engelking did not know of any other communities where this had been done. Mr. Roesch called for a motion. This died for lack of a motion. Discussion followed again. Mr. Burke moved the CRC approve the request provided adequate insurance is obtained along with a “cleanup” deposit of $1000. Mr. Roesch suggested $5,000,000 be the amount of the insurance. Mr. Haas said he would get the agreement in place at no charge. Councilor Kirby: “On construction projects, when we’re dealing with government, we look at $500,000 personal property, $1,000,000 liability and, I believe, a $2,000,000 umbrella. That’s working for the State of Indiana.” Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Burke if that was acceptable to him and he affirmed. Ms. Snyder seconded the amended motion and it was approved unanimously. Mr. Engelking said he would readdress it to Mr. Kraft under those conditions. 7 Mr. Engelking then introduced Ms. Kelli Hahn, a planner with the Department of Community Services. Ms. Hahn reviews the projects that come through DOCS for the C-1 projects. Financial Report Ms. Mielke distributed updated reports. The August 1 projected balance is $$3,056,837. Ms. Mielke noted there are a few minor changes from what was sent out previously. The report has been updated to more accurately reflect the Kestner purchase/exchange. The new numbers have come out for the TIF. All contracts have been checked as to remaining balances. Mr. Roesch asked if the TIF figure could be considered accurate. Ms. Mielke said that figure was provided to her today by the Clerk Treasurer’s office. This money will be received in December. It is based on present activity and assessed value. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas to confirm the Ryland money was in escrow. Affirmative. Mr. Haas said it would be coming out of escrow soon. Mr. Engelking said he would find out if the Plan Commission Committee had approved the encroachments for the project noting it might be approved tonight. Attorney’s Report Mr. Haas: “Other than the status of the Ryland money in escrow, which we’ve already covered, and the Huffer litigation, I don’t have anything for this evening.” He suggested the Huffer matter be discussed at this time. Mr. Haas: We’ve been negotiating for some time with the Huffers to acquire the property in which the Goodyear tire store has been operating. Negotiations have not been successful. During the period of the negotiations, the zoning was changed. That zoning may or may not be inconsistent with the operation of a Goodyear store. Goodyear wanted to reopen their store and the City took the position that reopening the store was not permitted under the new zoning. As a consequence of that, the Huffers brought an action against the City, not against the Redevelopment Commission, for a temporary restraining order which would keep the City from enforcing the current zoning, or alternatively stated, would permit the Huffers to allow Goodyear to reopen in that location without impediment by the City. To settle that litigation, John Molitor, as counsel for the City, and Dave Coots, as counsel for the Huffers, reached a consent agreement and basically under that it was agreed that the action, though relating now to a zoning, would be converted into a condemnation action, or an inverse condemnation action. That’s the part that affects the Redevelopment Commission because the agreement, though made subject to approval by the Redevelopment Commission, would require us to either commence condemnation litigation or permit the Huffers to convert this to an action for inverse condemnation. The basic terms of that are that we would agree to deposit $700,000 into court which was the appraised value and that would give to the Redevelopment Commission the right to the 8 possession of the property and then the litigation would proceed with respect to the determination of damages. Mr. Roesch: If that’s our wish, Karl, can you word a resolution to that effect for me to ask for a motion for it. Mr. Haas: Yes, I can. I asked John Molitor to write a resolution since he’s involved in the litigation. [Mr. Haas then read the resolution which is included separately with these minutes.] Mr. Haas continued: What that means in plain English is that you’re agreeing to deposit the $700,000, you’re going to be a party to a condemnation action to take the Huffer Property, you’re provisionally approving that subject to Rick [Roesch] approving the language and provisions of the pleadings that put this into effect. So moved by Ms. Snyder. Following a second by Mr. Carter the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Engelking to get with Clerk Treasurer Cordray to see that the appropriate check is issued. Reports from CRC Members Mr. Koven noted the importance of receiving reports and information in advance of meetings to give members time to review the material ahead of time. He noted the CRC passed a resolution to this effect earlier and he is disappointed this is not being followed. Mr. Roesch agreed, noting in our efforts to try to accommodate everybody, we have gotten lax or too generous stretching that time. He asked everyone to try to get everything to the Commission ahead of time. Mr. Koven: We need to go back and review that resolution. The Plan Commission and the Council, for instance, have deadlines to receive items, or they don’t get on the agenda. Mr. Carter: The RFP was in our emails yesterday. Being there twenty-four hours doesn’t give us enough time to really peruse that and look it over as we should on a document of that size. I concur with John that we do need to have these in a more timely fashion. Mr. Roesch asked Ms. Morrissey to look up the resolution send a copy out to everybody. [There seems to be no official resolution about this, but motions were made to this effect at the December 2, 1999, meeting. I’ve enclosed a copy of those minutes.] Mr. Snyder: I met with the architects for Shapiro and we looked over some suggestions and material choices. We looked at setbacks, street trees and other plantings, brick choices, and signage. Ms. Snyder recommended spigots be put on front of the buildings. They also talked about sidewalks, imprinted concrete with brick inserts. 9 Approval of Invoices Mr. Koven moved the invoices in the amount of $26,746.34 be approved. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. New Business Mr. Roesch asked for approval of the Phase II Environmental study for the Sitzmark Building. Brief discussion followed. Mr. Roesch noted he wanted to discuss the propriety of doing this with Mr. Haas and review the file to see what we already have. Ms. Snyder moved the CRC approve the expenditure of up to $3,000 for the Phase II Environmental Study. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Engelking reported the only outstanding issue with Ryland is the Secondary Plat which was approved by the Plan Commission. It is now pending Ryland’s engineer’s delivery of a mylar for the Department of Community Service Director’s signature. It would then be presented to the BPW for final approval. The mylar has not been delivered for signature yet. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas to follow up on that and he agreed. Adjournment Ms. Snyder moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Mr. Carter, the motion was unanimously approved and the meeting was adjourned at 8:40 p.m.