Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCRC-11-14-01 CARMEL REDEVELOPMENT COMMISSION Meeting, Wednesday, November 14, 2001 President Rick Roesch called the meeting to order at 7:06 p.m. Present were Commission Members John R. Koven, Ron Carter, Luci Snyder and Edmund Burke, constituting a quorum. Also present were Councilor Wayne Wilson, Steve Engelking, Les Olds, Kelli Hahn, Maynard and Janet Cox (from the College Meadows Neighborhood Association), Buddy Downs, Lisa Lee, Loren Matthes, Peter Miller, Kurt Dehner, Andy Paton, Dee Snively, Fred Molohon, Bob Donahue, Betty Huffer, Stu Hirsch, and Erin Baker (plus one name illegibly written). Phyllis Morrissey present as support staff. Bid Opening for Parcel #5 and Parcel #8 Demolition Mr. Olds opened the bids for the two parcels. Parcel #5 is for the demolition of the Kroger building. Alternate bids were for all the `B" shops, the Kroger parking area, the Herrigan property (building and parking lot) and one for the last strip of parking at the Kroger Center, adjacent to Muldoon's, for a total of four alternate bids. The estimate for the Kroger Center and parking was $500,000 and for the Herrigan property was $75,000. Mr. Olds opened the bids for Parcel #5 and read the figures. He will take the bids back to CSO and do a spreadsheet with all the breakdowns and report back to the December 12 CRC meeting with a recommendation. Mr. Olds said the City's insurance requirements of $5,000,000 coverage in the specifications caused the bid prices to be much higher, because the premiums quoted to the bidders were approximately $50,000 for this coverage. Many of the bidders provided voluntary alternates deducting this coverage. Mr. Olds then opened the bids for Parcel #8 (Old Town) and read the numbers. Eight bids were received. Again, several bidders gave voluntary alternate bids eliminating the higher insurance requirement. Mr. Roesch thanked all the bidders. Public Hearing for Parkwood Economic Development Area Ms. Lee gave a brief description of the project. She stated the purpose of the public hearing is to consider the enlargement of the Parkwood Economic Development Area as well as amending the economic development plan to include the proposed infrastructure projects. If the amending resolution is adopted tonight, the next step is for the City Council to consider a resolution approving the enlargement of the area, which is on their November 19 agenda. If the Council adopts the resolution, then the area would be enlarged officially and the plan amended. Then the Hamilton County Recorder, the Hamilton County Auditor and the State Board of Tax Commissioners would be notified. 1 Ms. Lee continued: The Parkwood area was enlarged rather than create a separate area for two reasons. One is because the infrastructure improvements which need to be done in both areas are so inter related with 96 Street and the utility infrastructure that it made more sense to make that one area as well as [because of] the proximity of both areas to each other. Brief discussion followed about the county's granting to the Redevelopment Commission jurisdiction over the whole area. Kurt Dehner, with Duke Realty, was present to answer any questions, along with Buddy Downs and Lisa Lee. Public Hearing was opened at 7:38 p.m. Janet Cox, 9540 Broadway, from the College Commons North Association. Ms. Cox stated she did not receive any notice and was given a copy by Ruth Hayes, Nora Community Council. [Notices were sent to all adjacent neighborhood associations, (including College Commons, Juanita H. Johnson, President) for which we had information and also to all parcel owners in the affected area.] Ms. Cox asked for clarification of the enlargement. Ms. Lee confirmed that the enlargement area only pertains to the properties in College Hills. This expansion will not go outside those boundaries. Ms. Cox expressed a concern about the changes Duke has made in buildings and parking areas in the current Parkwood East section. Ms. Lee said this expansion has nothing to do with what is being done by Duke in Parkwood East. Maynard Cox, 9540 Broadway, asked for further clarification of the enlargement. Ms. Lee explained, using the map which was sent out. There were no other questions or comments so the Public Hearing was closed at 7:43 p.m. Mr. Koven moved Resolution 14 -2001, amending Resolution 3 -2001 to approve the extension of an existing Parkwood TIF area, be approved. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Merchants' Pointe Item Withdrawn The next item on the agenda was withdrawn due to a delay from the developer's attorneys. [Resolution Amending and Restating Resolution 11 -2001 for Merchants' Pointe. It will be renumbered when it returns to the CRC.] Approval of Minutes Ms. Snyder moved the minutes from October 2, 2001, be approved. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. 2 Ms. Snyder moved the minutes from October 10, 2001, be approved. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. Ms. Snyder moved the minutes from November 1, 2001, be approved. Following a second by Mr. Koven, the motion was unanimously approved. In regard to the reports of the Executive Sessions of October 10 and November 1, Mr. Koven said the minutes of the two Executive Sessions do not follow State statute. "State Statute requires that `The governing body shall certify by a statement in the memoranda and minutes of the governing body that no subject matter was discussed in the executive session other than the subject matter specified in the public notice.' I don't take issue of the fact that this says the subject of the meeting was discussion about purchase and lease of real property, but state statute says we shall certify in the memorandum that nothing else was discussed. So my motion would be that we table these, add that statement to them and bring them up at the next meeting." Mr. Roesch: That's good and thank you for looking that up, John. Mr. Koven: Now having said that, and I throw this out for discussion or nondiscussion and everybody in this room knows exactly what I'm going to say. I do not believe that we can testify to that or we can actually certify that statement with meeting minutes of our November 1st meeting and I'll let it go with that. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas to look into that prior to our next meeting. He agreed. Ms. Snyder noted she has talked with Sue Beesley about this also. Mr. Koven: There was a point in that meeting where it became an executive session, but I don't believe, in my opinion, that the entire meeting was an executive session. So how do we go about making part of our minutes from our meeting public and the other part private? I made my statement in the executive session and I stand by that. Mr. Roesch: I think it is a matter of intertwining and related matters and how much leeway that there is there. Mr. Carter: Based on the legal advice we got at that meeting, I'm going to say right now that I believe we were appropriate. Based on Mr. Koven's objections, pending further clarification from our Counsel, until I get that to my satisfaction, I'm not going to participate in any more executive sessions with this body. I'm not going into executive sessions, and have someone in the middle of that say, "I think this is an illegal session. and then we get information from our attorney that says we're proceeding correctly, we have proceeded correctly, and then that gets brought up again. Mr. Roesch: Karl can research that and advise us at our next regularly scheduled meeting. 3 Report from the Mayor None Report from Director Mr. Engelking noted his report was distributed with the packets. He reported a more recent question came up about the apron from City Center Drive into the AMLI complex. The original specifications called for it to be asphalt rather than concrete. The City Engineer has asked that it be concrete to reduce the possibility of buckling or shrinkage of the asphalt. The additional cost would be $2,000. Following a brief discussion, the CRC members were in agreement preferring asphalt. This will be relayed to the City Engineer. Mr. Engelking reported he has been in contact with the current president of the Carmel Rotary Club regarding the payment due to the CRC on the Rotary Plaza. The verbal agreement was never finalized. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas to complete the agreement. Mr. Engelking noted the amount agreed to in the proposal was $24,000 instead of $20,000 in the report. which was the estimated payment to be received. Financial Report This was distributed with the packets. Mr. Engelking noted this is virtually a recap of what was received at last month's meeting since there's been little change. He distributed a revised draft of the forecast for 2002 along with a note from Ms. Mielke which stated that "Congress has passed and forwarded to President bush for signature the portion of the budget containing the one million dollar earmark requested by Mayor Brainard for Carmel Parks. A portion of these proceeds will likely be evaluated for use in costs associated with the reflecting pond and other park area surrounding the pond." Ms. Snyder: The Mayor and I discussed this briefly. We can use this for the reflecting pond because it is for parks, is that correct? Mr. Engelking said he believed it could be used for the reflecting pond because all that is public land within the sense of "park greenery Mr. Roesch noted it does just say a portion, though. Ms. Snyder asked Mr. Carter if he knew if any of the one million was earmarked for parks in any special way. Mr. Carter: It is my understanding that as far as Parks is concerned, this is not on their horizon. Future income and payments due were discussed. Mr. Engelking reported Ms. Mielke will be out of the office for six weeks beginning November 27 following surgery. Any 4 invoices which are received after that date will be delayed for payment until the January meeting. Mr. Engelking will make sure creditors are aware of this. Mr. Koven asked if there was a guarantee that this money will be available for the reflecting pond. Ms. Snyder said that was what the Mayor indicated to her. Mr. Engelking noted there is no guarantee that the President won't use line item veto but it appears likely it will be approved. Mr. Roesch reported Mr. Burke met with Ms. Mielke to review the financial procedures. Mr. Burke said they were still in the process of evaluating numbers, where each comes from. They still have some more to discuss. Report from the Attorney Mr. Haas reported no progress has been made with respect to Goodyear. He noted this means there is no reason to be carrying $700,000 projected to be spent in January 2002 or any time in 2002. Ms. Snyder: When the borings are completed on the Goodyear property, you will use that for discussions when the court cases come into play? Mr. Haas: Yes. But at this point unless we affirmatively want to acquire the Goodyear piece, Goodyear won't join in with the deal we provisionally approved with the Huffers, so they're going to proceed on their zoning case. Some day that will be turned into, I expect, an inverse condemnation case against the CRC. And given the normal time frame for litigation, if you're not in any rush at that time to acquire the property, my guess is the expenditure is out in 2003. Mr. Roesch: If we should decide we want to acquire and demolish it, sell it, how quickly can we do that? Mr. Haas: We could begin a condemnation case immediately and then it would take two three months. But in terms of budgeting presumably you would have an offsetting payment to you for the rest of the ground. Mr. Haas: I have a bill from Ice Miller that should be submitted to Duke Weeks for payment. Ice Miller sent it to me to look at and make sure the CRC would be comfortable sending it on to Duke Weeks, concerns about waiving attorney /client privilege. I'm comfortable about sending it on so I'm going to do that. I don't think we need a resolution to that effect. Mr. Koven asked if Duke Weeks would pay Ice Miller directly. Mr. Haas affirmed this. It was noted that the CRC would review all bills before sending them on to Duke Weeks for payment. 5 Mr. Haas: There have been questions about Phase Ones that we have done on other properties we have acquired. We have clean Phase Ones on every piece of property the Commission has acquired, other than the Herrigan property. Mr. Engelking said he had a copy of the executive summary from the August Mack, May 9, 2001, Phase One on what is called Carmel Gate retail center, which houses the Schwinn Bicycle Shop, Muldoon's. Mr. Roesch stated copies of each of the reports should be in the files in DOCS, and with the closing documents in the Clerk Treasurer's files. Mr. Haas: The last item on the agenda is the Shapiro proposal. Mr. Shapiro has offered $325,000 per acre for Phases I and II. Mr. Haas noted there are eight other items on the proposal from Mr. Shapiro, including lists of work the CRC would be required to have completed. All are listed on a memo he had sent to the CRC members, except the ninth requirement: If the amount to be offset by BJS against the purchase price of Phase One exceeds the purchase price for Phase I then BJS may offset against the purchase price of Phase II the excess together with a carrying cost on the excess at BJS's cost of funds. Mr. Haas said if there was a motion to approve that transaction on that basis, we'll move forward with Shapiro and bring back to the CRC a project agreement. "You might want to authorize Rick to sign a project agreement on those terms." Mr. Snyder asked if Mr. Haas felt those terms would safeguard the CRC enough. He affirmed they would, along with the customary terms. Mr. Snyder moved the CRC approve the terms [as listed by Mr. Haas] with the understanding that after the agreement is signed by Mr. Shapiro, Rick Roesch] can sign for the CRC. Mr. Roesch said if he was authorized to sign the agreement he would make sure each CRC member got a copy of it prior to signing. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Report of the Architect Mr. Olds noted he had distributed a memo with the packets. In regard to the demolition of the Kroger center, Mr. Olds asked if there was any reason the "B" shops could not be included in the demolition. Mr. Haas said we don't know when the Sherwin Williams lease will be terminated. Question was asked, if this meant the demolition bid could not include the B shops. Mr. Roesch asked when the demolition would start. The bids were good for sixty days from the date of the bid which would be January 14 6 Mr. Haas noted the Sherwin Williams trial goes to court in January so the issue should be resolved then. Mr. Haas felt a continuance would be unlikely. Mr. Olds: The second issue is the Owner Protection Insurance. This is something the CRC might want to consider, but I am not an insurance expert, so I can't make any recommendations. But it is a large sum of money... Mr. Haas: I think we need to get some advice from an insurance expert. The coverage seems large. I don't know what it adds to a smaller primary policy with an umbrella coverage. Discussion followed. Mr. Olds said the City requires an additional $5,000,000 which is standard for the City, but not really in the industry. It's like a project specific insurance. Mr. Haas: One of the differences is this: If you had a claim with the Kroger Center with regard to the demolition, that claim would be paid up to $5,000,000. If you had a contractor who had a $1,000,000 policy with respect to the Kroger Center and a $10,000,000 umbrella coverage, that claim would be paid from his two policies unless he had the bad luck of having liability in other locations at the same time. So if he had three $4,000,000 problems and you happened to be the third one, he's already used $8,000,000 of his coverage and you're not fully covered any longer. That seems to me to be pretty unlikely. Ms. Snyder said this isn't demolition in a downtown area with the possibility of damaging an adjacent building, squashing a parking garage or anything like that. Discussion continued. Mr. Olds reminded the Commission that this is one of the reasons City projects cost more. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Engelking to contact our insurance agent for some advice on how to proceed, whether we should waive that [insurance requirement]. AMLI Signage Mr. Olds displayed signage proposals from AMLI for approval by the CRC. The ground sign was too tall according to current sign standards. Mr. Engelking pointed out that a new business on Carmel Drive had to lower their sign to follow the ordinance. Mr. Olds said the Plan Commission will pretty much go along with whatever the CRC wants to recommend. Ms. Hahn, from the Department of Community Development, said she had met with AMLI's representative about the signage and didn't remember there being any size issues. She pointed out if it was too large, they could apply for a variance. Mr. Koven said he felt the signage should be consistent throughout the City with no exceptions. 7 Following discussion, the Commission gave generalized design approval of the ground sign by the first curb cut on City Center Drive. Ms. Hahn said she felt the size of the sign could be smaller without compromising the design. The motion for approval was made by Mr. Burke. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved. Mr. Olds: The second part is in the Project Agreement with AMLI and the CRC, they are entitled to a sign at Range Line road and City Center Drive. The submittal they have made is a small pylon sign, 5' 6" to the peak, to be placed at the intersection. Mr. Olds continued: The [DOCS] staff, when reviewing it, suggested the developer might want to consider making it so there might be places for additional signs for somebody down the street. You may want to consider making the pylon sign larger to make room. We included a drawing and prices of the pylons that are currently being built on Carmel Drive. There are three sizes of pylons. Would the Commission want to consider as part of the long range plan, as part of a gateway to City Center that a pylon be located on each side of the street? The importance of signage for businesses was noted, but also the need to not let them get out of control. Mr. Olds said if the larger pylon was installed, there would be space for three or four businesses to be listed. The businesses could be charged for the space. Mr. Haas: The issue here is that there is only going to be one sign at that corner and it's the corner of your development. AMLI will build that sign at their expense. AMLI is willing to build something else if you contribute funds to it and then there will be space for a retail developer to put their signage on. I think the issue is whether or not it is important to the rest of the development to be able to have some signage for another portion of the development. Discussion followed. Mr. Burke made a motion the CRC approve the small pylon. There was no second. Ms. Snyder pointed out another consideration. "John mentioned an off premises sign. On the other hand, if this is a City pylon that we allow people to have signs on, that's not quite the same thing." Ms. Haas was asked if the City allowed two ground signs. She replied that off premises signs are illegal in the sign ordinance, but since it is City property, we are exempt from our own rules. It was decided the pylon signs will be looked into further and brought back to the CRC. Ms. Hahn will work with AMLI to get the ground sign adjusted. 8 Architect:Carmel Rotary Plaza Report Mr. Olds reported they are working to try to get the contractor to wrap up the punch list and get it completed. We're waiting on the plaques which will be installed on the wall by Flanner Buchanan. The installation is a donation to the Rotary Plaza. We're in the process of updating the master plan to reflect the graphics and anticipate a design that carries over into Old Town area and the limits that the Commission is working with. It is strictly a conceptual idea that reflects the thinking at that moment, reflects retail, reflects the housing. Architect:Parcel #1 Survey Issue Mr. Olds has discussed with Mark Harris, of American Consulting Engineers, and they will be paying $31,277 to the CRC, because of the surveying error on Parcel #1. Ms. Mielke has sent them an invoice. This amount was recommended by Ms. Weese, City Engineer. Architect:Streetscape for Parcels 1, 3 and 6 Smock Fansler is starting their work, focusing on AMLI's curb cut first. Architect:Reflecting Pond CSO is value- engineering the specifications so it can be rebid at the CRC December 12 meeting. Mr. Engelking is meeting with the City employees who will be responsible for maintaining the pond so we have their input for any alterations or adjustments they feel are necessary that will help in the ongoing maintenance. If those issues become prohibitive in cost, we will report back to the Commission. Reports from CRC Members Ms. Snyder met with Engledow on the Shapiro building and they are going to redesign the landscape so it is more open to the architecture of this entire complex. Mr. Koven asked about the status of the dry cleaners. Mr. Haas said there are three issues with the dry cleaners. One is the well. The City, I understand, has tested the well but the results are not back yet. SESCO is going to test the well itself. Mr. Roesch: They are actually going a little further. They are going to pull the pump. Mr. Engelking: The City is testing the well. And so is the Hamilton County Health Depai tment. Ms. Snyder: SESCO told me the Hamilton County Health Department tested it a week ago Friday and that the City tested last week. Is that incorrect? Mr. Engelking: I was not advised particularly that the City tested the well per se. The only information I have is that the county, so this is new information to me. 9 Mr. Haas said SESCO will be notifying the tenant when they pull the pump because the business will have to be shut down. The tenant's consent is not needed for this. If it turns out that the well is contaminated, then the well needs to be shut down. Mr. Haas: The second issue is the responsibility for the cost of the cleanup. In conjunction with SESCO, we're sending to Mr. Renkin a letter which has been discussed with his attorney, an environmental consultant, because there is probably insurance coverage and certain things need to be done to trigger that insurance coverage. In my mind, the priorities of these issues are (1) if that well is contaminated, then it's a menace and should be shut down, (2) making sure that to the full extent available, we draw on Mr. Renkin's insurance, (3) eviction. I don't want to get those first two confused. I want to make sure we're safely down the road with getting his insurance coverage invoked. We don't necessarily have to wait until all that's settled before we evict. Mr. Roesch: SESCO did receive, with a copy sent to me, a certified letter from IDEM. It lists certain items we need to do under this case number and some questions about the CRC purchase of the site and related information. Mr. Roesch asked Mr. Haas to assist SESCO in replying to the letter with the forty -five days as required, noting there was a possibility of civil penalties not to exceed $25,000 per day for failure to provide this information in a timely and complete manner. One of the requirements in the letter was to locate and identify all residential wells within one mile of the affected area and the distance from the site to the City's wellhead protection zone. Brief discussion followed about the wells. Approval of Invoices The invoices as presented total $73,869.34. Mr. Koven asked if Mr. Haas could consolidate his bill, but still include the detail. Mr. Haas said yes, other than bond matters which are reimbursed from other funds, the bill could be consolidated. Ms. Snyder moved the invoices be approved. Following a second by Mr. Burke, the motion was unanimously approved. Correspondence Mr. Roesch passed around an aerial of the AMLI project which they had sent. Resolution 14 -2001 was signed. The next meeting is December 12, 2001. Adjournment Mr. Koven moved the meeting be adjourned. Following a second by Ms. Snyder, the motion was unanimously approved and the meeting adjourned at 9:15 p.m. 10