Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
1998-City Center Redevelopment Plan (2)
i 1 Carmel Redevelopment Commission 1 Carmel, Indiana 1 1 City en er i Redev mit lopment Plan Strategy 1 1 January 9, 1998 1 Michael R. Shaver, President 4742 Bluffwood North Drive Indianapolis, IN 46228 (voice) 317/299 -9529 (fax) 317/329 -9885 (e -mail) wabsci @aol.com 1 1 1 1 Table of Contents I The Redevelopment Plan Strategy 1 Overview 1 Definition of the Redevelopment Area 1 1 Conformity with Previous Plans 3 The Old Town Economic Development Area 3 The 126 Street Corridor Economic Development Area 3 I Statutory Context of the Redevelopment Plan 4 rY P 1 Establishing the Statutory Parameters of the Project 4 I Blighting Influences: Findings of Fact 5 1. Lack of Development 5 2. Cessation of Growth 6 I 4. 3. Deterioration of Improvements 6 Age 7 5. Obsolescence 8 I 6. Substandard Buildings 8 7. Other Factors 9 Conclusions Regarding Findings of Blight (IC36- 7 -1 -3) 9 I Statutory Tests of a Redevelopment Area IC36- 7 -14 -15 rY P 10 1 Designating a Redevelopment Area 11 I Possible Amendments to the District 11 Tax Increment Financing 12 1 Determining the "Base Assessed Value" 12 Recommended Projects 12 I Thoroughfare Improvement Rehabilitation 12 Infrastructure Redevelopment 13 Acquisition Demolition 13 1 Relocation of Existing Businesses 14 Parking Facilities 14 1 Conclusions Recommendations 14 Conclusions 14 I Recommendations 15 List of Property to be Acquired 16 Estimated Cost of the Projects 17 1 1 i r s u_ L► -va w a� oie I •w s sf d CENTER 4 H M sT, sf REDEVELOPMEN E A i y; 0 wd I Ai p� auor t�ra AMENDED 126 th STRE ,i CORRIDOR ECONOMIC 1'" "°SOW DEVELOPMENT AREA rte ''��iiiiiiiiiii 4 NOW pt Vie:: �wrs R i i urn d9.' �••••••v► mt Qdl i •�•a• NN4AI 1 i s e :srd s,IT ,as,ac OR. i. i il oauna ME I i CARREL owe i I 1 i c} I. a� 1 11 1 l I: 1:T 1 1 2: 1 „M V. 0 1 1 f, I -,!1 't I wc. I I CITY CENTER REDEVELOPMENT AREA AND 1 AMENDED 126 th STREET CORRIDOR 1 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA 1 MAP No. 1 1 WABASH SCIENTIFIC, INC. 1 I r =I 0 gam ic Fl• Pz,.., i l i c 4, II I a, Sim ..y.cits _SST` -4:1= �wnm LIME f 'I i ti II ,d es t M of q©1 t 1 (ET eft 7 I j vi 1 c cl :9 di. •iiii els a 1 44 die oa ile r )60 Pi ir.rii* li (:c am a.� r c r-T-- 3 now A ri I moo, 1 ,1,,,,4,1„. In 1 1 t Id Or INP 96 tie I :jt t i I I J 'Z ti t .1 t 1 y i" i I TI i 11, tY i 1 1 i• t- Am es da Yr or ri e AS L I' t 1. l i 1 4 t M *a Y i 'u t i �c� p a.w I 11 ouareo.e_r. I 1 .0 4 m p igh, 1-8-1 v) 1 =n� m z X r "I z z J hr-_ 1 3 O :t i =—/'JJ. If m Z 70 rd C/3 r IL r F "ILI. r"" T 1 Olii %J 1 1 rte' 1 o 0 MAP NO. 2 9 r"-} r 0 l Carmel City Center I Site Plan li 1 The Redevelopment Plan Strategy Overview The City Center project was conceived and presented to the public in the summer of 1997. During the next 6 months, the community was encouraged to informally consider the benefits which the City Center can bring to the City of Carmel. In that time, much of the community's leadership has confirmed that the creation of a major retail center in the heart of the city would at once define and join the City's historic center with its business center. The City Center project effectively provides a planned and integrated architectural core which physically and architecturally links the historic Old Town area with the modern commercial areas of Carmel Drive, 116 Street and the Science Technology Park. Map #1 depicts the proposed Redevelopment Area. The architectural plan for the City Center was developed by CSO architects and is included as Map #2. The complex is designed around a major entertainment center including facilities for both live and media performances, with office and retail space surrounding the entertainment complex. Despite its upscale and successful development, Carmel currently lacks a major theater and entertainment complex. By providing a major entertainment facility whose scale is unmatched in the community, the City Center provides a location where the community can come together. This major entertainment center is coupled with the center of the city's government to create an area which will become the focal point of the community. In order to execute that vision, a small portion of the Rangeline Road Corridor on the west side of the corridor, between the Government Complex and 126 Street, must be redeveloped,. This area contains some of the city's older retail parcels, but it is primarily (about 70 composed of unimproved land. The city has already moved to purchase an old grocery store complex which had apparently been repossessed by the lender (about 8 acres). Definition of the Redevelopment Area The proposed Redevelopment Area is south of 126 Street and west of Rangeline Road and includes approximately 85 acres of retail, public and unimproved land. According to the records in the Hamilton County Auditor's office, there are 9 parcels in the proposed Redevelopment Area, including two parcels containing the Government Complex (about 11 acres), one consisting of the old Monon Railroad, a dilapidated shopping center which had been re- possessed by the lender (containing about 8 acres and recently purchased by the City), two older retail parcels (consisting of about 3 acres), and over 61 acres of unimproved land. The Redevelopment Area is more specifically described as follows, based on the aerial plat maps on file at the Hamilton County Auditor's office (1974 aerial photos): Beginning at the northeast corner of parcel 005, as shown on Map #09- 36 -00, and continuing City Center Redevelopment Plan 1 a eastward along the north property line of said parcel to the northwest corner of said parcel as 11 shown on said map, then turning southward along the west property line of said parcel to the southwest corner of said parcel, then turning eastward along the south property line of said parcel to the point of intersection with the west right of way line of the old Monon railroad corridor (shown as being owned by the CSX Transportation, Inc.), then southward along the west right of way line of said parcel to a point directly west of the south property line of parcel #015, as shown on Map #09- 36 -00, then crossing the railroad right of way in an easterly direction to the south property line of parcel #015 (containing the Carmel City Hall), and eastward along the south property line of Parcel #015 to the point of intersection with the west property line of Parcel #026.001, then northward along the west property lines of Parcels 025.001, #024, #023, #022, #021, #020, #019, #018, #017 and #016, then crossing the street right of way to the south property line of Parcel #008.001 (Police Station), then eastward along the south property line of said parcel, to the southeast corner of said parcel, then northward eastward along the east property line of said parcel to the point of intersection with the west right of way line of Rangeline Road, then northward along the west right of way line of Rangeline Road to the point of beginning. According to the Auditor's maps, the following table of parcels and areas is offered as a complete list of al parcels contained in the proposed Redevelopment Area (note: parcel numbers are listed as shown on Auditor's Map Number 09- 36 -00, based on 1994 aerial photo): Parcel (Auditor's Acreage Owner of Record Acreage to be Map #09- 36 -00) Acquired 005 60.651 Mueller, Helen Moffit 60.651 1 005.101 7.993 City of Carmel 005.001 0.956 Huffer, James E. Trust Betty J. 0.956 1 009 1.754 Kestner, E. Nicholas 1.754 010 0.88 Harrington Enterprises, Inc. 0.88 i 011 0.88 City of Carmel 008 3.770 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 1 015 7.440 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 008.001 1.370 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 1 070 (partial) 9.030 CSX Transportation, Inc. (partial) 9.030 Rights -of -way 5.000 City of Carmel (estimated) totals 99.724 Property to be Acquired 73.271 1 1 2 City of Carmel, Indiana 1 Conformity with Previous Plans This Redevelopment Plan is developed and presented as an integral and coordinated part of the overall Economic Development Plan for the central area of Carmel. This Redevelopment Plan is specifically developed in close coordination with two Economic Development Plans which were unanimously approved and funded in 1997 by the Plan Commission and City Council: the Old Town Economic Development Area and the 126t Street Corridor Economic Development Area. THE OLD TOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA: The Old Town Economic Development Area was presented to and approved by the Plan Commission and City Council during the early summer, 1997. The creation of this Economic Development Area enabled the City to pursue COIT bond funding for infrastructure improvements to the original town center of Carmel, installing various street furniture and other amenities to create viable pedestrian access within the area. The overall effort to improve the Old Town area will be undertaken in phases, several of which have already been completed. The City Center project includes as one of its elements the improvement of the Monon Trail Corridor which provides a pedestrian link to the entire north side of Indianapolis, including the Broad Ripple historic area and the Nora retail area. The Monon Trail will provide an effective recreational link between the historic area of Old Town Carmel and similar recreational facilities covering approximately 5 miles. This pedestrian linkage element of the overall design of these projects has been an important element of the Comprehensive Plan of the city for many years. For these reasons, the City Center Redevelopment Plan and the Old Town Economic Development Plan are closely integrated and coordinated to compliment and augment one another in pursuit of greater overall development in the center of Carmel. THE 126TH STREET CORRIDOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AREA: This Redevelopment Area has been amended out of the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area which was developed and approved during the summer of 1997. At that time, the concept of the City center was not yet fully developed and had not been presented to the public for scrutiny. Since that time, the Mayor and City Council have worked cooperatively to acquire the old Kroger center in a negotiated purchase, thus beginning the overall redevelopment effort in support of the City Center concept. The primary purpose of the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area is to support the implementation of the 126` Street road extension from Rangeline Road to Adams Street. This road corridor had been planned by the City for some time, but by creating the Economic Development Area, the City was able to finance the roadway through the use of COIT bonds which were approved and sold during the summer of 1997. Engineering design documents are now in the final stages of preparation for construction in 1998. The 126` Street extension will reduce traffic loading on 116 Street, linking Carmel's east and west sides across the Old Monon corridor as well as Rangeline Road. This linkage is important City Center Redevelopment Plan 3 11 to the community at large, even without the City Center. However, the additional traffic access 1 will most certainly benefit the City Center development, providing access from all parts of the City to its government and entertainment center. As such, the 126t Street Corridor Economic Development Plan will directly benefit and ampify the success of the City Center project. Statutory Context of the Redevelopment Plan The effort to redevelop the geographic and business heart of Carmel will require a great deal of 1 public and private cooperation. Generally speaking, it is the responsibility of the City to develop design standards and parameters for the overall project, and then to assemble the real estate for redevelopment. After the real estate is assembled, it is then divided into "packages" containing 1 various elements of the project. In the case of the Carmel City Center, for example, the entertainment complex may be developed separately from other elements, and the retail and office space offered for private development in one or more packages. These redevelopment "packages" can then be coupled with various economic development incentives, depending upon the nature of the end use and the need for new investment. Any investment of economic development incentives would be based on the need for the incentive in order to achieve the ultimate upscale goal of the City Center project. As such, Tax Increment Financing (TIF) could be an important redevelopment tool for the property within the Redevelopment Area. The primary purpose of this Redevelopment Plan is to determine whether the specific attributes of the proposed Redevelopment Area meet the statutory requirement for such designation. Establishing the Statutory Parameters of the Project Indiana law (IC36- 7- 14 -15) sets forth the terms and conditions under which a Redevelopment Area can be established. The three tests are: 1. IC36- 7- 14 -15(a) Whenever the redevelopment commission finds that an area...has become blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operations of private enterprise without resort to this chapter, and 2. that the public health and welfare will be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of the area, and 3. IC36- 7- 15(b)...the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the (city) and its inhabitants, and that it will be of public utility and benefit to acquire and redevelop (the area).... The discussion which follows represents a review of the conditions within the proposed Redevelopment Area and the extent to which they meet, or fail to meet, the statutory tests cited above. Obviously, each of the three tests cited in IC36- 7 -14 -15 are rooted in the determination that an 4 City of Carmel, Indiana area is "blighted." As such, it is also necessary to establish a statutory definition of "blight" and then determine whether the details of the Plan project and its strategy meet the specific terms of the definition. IC36 -7 -1 -3 cites eight criteria for determining a "Blighted Area," as follows: 1. Lack of development; 2. 3. Cessation of growth; Deterioration of improvements; 4. Character of Occupancy; 5. Age; 6. Obsolescence; 7. Substandard Buildings; 8. Other factors that impair values or prevent a normal use or development of property. Based on this section of the statute, it is clear that the situation surrounding the redevelopment of the City Center area complies with several of the definitions of "blight" as defined in the statute. In short, much of the area remains undeveloped, despite a thriving real estate market in the area, it has experienced a cessation of growth, the existing retail facilities are older and becoming 1 obsolete in relation to newer development occurring nearby, the existing developments are having an increasing difficulty in functioning competitively in the modern marketplace, the buildings no longer meet current development standards for the area, and beyond these considerations, there are other factors which prevent modern use of the site. A detailed explanation of these considerations is set forth below. Please note that although the blighting influences cited above appear as separate arguments, they are, in fact, interwoven. Therefore, the blight findings discussed below will contain some redundancy of data, information and conclusions, from one blight finding to another. Blighting Influences: Findings of Fact 1. LACK OF DEVELOPMENT: The lack of development within the proposed Redevelopment Area is its most glaring and undeniable evidence of blight. According to the Auditor's aerial plat maps, a single parcel composing the entire north end of the Redevelopment Area (parcel 09 -36 -00 -005 containing 60.651 acres) remains undeveloped despite substantial growth all around it. In addition, a second parcel, (parcel 09 -36 -00 -011, less than one acre) located just north of the police station also remains vacant. When combined, these two unimproved parcels account for over 70% of the land within the proposed Redevelopment Area. The fact that these parcels remain totally unimproved is important considering the overall development of the City of Carmel. Two of Carmel's oldest retail areas are located adjacent to these parcels, suggesting that development pressure has been prevalent for decades and the owners are non responsive. Coupling this private sector development pressure with the consideration that the new City Government Complex was constructed, including a new city City Center Redevelopment Plan 5 a Hall, Police Headquarters, and Central Fire Station immediately to the south, shows implicitly that there is ample opportunity for development of the highest order, yet not a single improvement has been implemented on either of these parcels. 8 Construction of the 126t Street extension will substantially enhance transportation access to the area and development pressure will again increase. It is imperative to the quality of the development of the City that these parcels be developed to their fullest and highest potential. These considerations meet the statutory definition of blight as "lack of development." 2. CESSATION OF GROWTH: A review of the Redevelopment Area and the commercial areas existing there shows that the area is not thriving economically. The parcels within the Redevelopment Area have been experiencing difficulty in competing in the broader economic market of the community, and a substantial amount of retail vacancy has befallen the existing commercial areas along Rangeline 1 Road, particularly the Kroger center. In fact, it is that cessation of growth and reinvestment that enabled the City to negotiate the purchase of the Kroger Center from American United Life, which had re- possessed the property as the primary lender. 11 Despite ample new development around and within the Redevelopment Area, there has been only the most modest efforts to reinvest in the existing retail development along the corridor, and it has not occurred even while new buildings were developed and occupied at greater cost, and while the existing retail buildings became increasingly obsolete and economically irrelevant. Two parcels located immediately north of the Police Station are in substantial need of reinvestment. While the businesses located within these parcels would probably be viable in newer surroundings, the landlord of these facilities has not provided a substantial and visible effort to remodel and upgrade the buildings in a manner commensurate with other development in the area. As a result, the combination of these two buildings with the vacancies of the Kroger center creates a distinct negative image for the area. The Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of "cessation of growth." Over 70% of the area remains totally unimproved despite immense investment all around the area, both in private and public sector activity. In addition, the developed parcels containing retail establishments have suffered from vacancies and disinvestment despite their prime location in a thriving local economy. These facilities need improvement and re- modeling in order to become economically viable and competitive. For these reasons, the Redevelopment Area is found to meet the statutory definition of blight through "cessation of growth." 1 3. DETERIORATION OF IMPROVEMENTS: As noted above, over 70% of the Redevelopment Area is totally unimproved and vacant. In addition to these parcels, approximately 11 acres have received substantial reinvestment by the 6 City of Carmel, Indiana 1 1 City in the form of a new Government Complex, including a new City Hall, Police Headquarters and Central Fire Station completed in the early 1990's. Three of the remaining parcels contain developed retail space which has substantially deteriorated in recent years due to lack of reinvestment. These buildings, however, appear to contain viable businesses which could be preserved through creative redevelopment. The Kroger center is perhaps the most obvious example of deterioration. The center has experienced substantial vacancy and was recently purchased (through negotiated purchase) by the City in pursuit of the City Center project. This purchase serves as a sign of the cooperative efforts between the City Administration and City Council in pursuit of the City Center. Without substantial deterioration in the Kroger center it is unlikely that the building would have been 1 offered for sale under these conditions. The two retail properties immediately south of the Kroger center are also in need of rehabilitation and reinvestment, but they do not have the level of vacancy of the Kroger center. The businesses located in these two retail buildings appear to have viable niches in the local retail marketplace, and could thrive even more greatly with appropriate reinvestment in the overall facility. Even the most cursory review of these properties, however, would suggest that they are tired and lack the type of reinvestment needed to keep pace with the new developments which virtually surround the area, as well as the extremely high level of public investment which has occurred in the form of the City Government Complex. While it would not be accurate to say that these facilities have degenerated to the extreme, it is clear that they have not kept economic pace with the 1 surrounding property. For these reasons, it is the conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the Area meets the 1 statutory definition of blight in terms of "deterioration of improvements." 4. AGE: The retail development in the proposed Redevelopment Area is 40 50 years old. While this is not old in an absolute sense, it is important that a substantial amount of competing space has been developed during the intervening period and has been maintained to a higher and more economically competitive standard. The "age factor," in itself, is not an absolute blighting condition in this case, because it is feasible that the existing development can be remodeled through reinvestment to meet the higher standards of competing space in the immediate area. The fact that such reinvestment has not occurred constitutes evidence that the landlords may not be as responsive to the changing marketplace as may be required in this particular local market. Carmel represents one of the most upscale retail markets in the State of Indiana. If retail developments remain competitive in such markets, they can be incredibly successful, however, in order for those developments to remain competitive, they must be periodically renewed through significant reinvestment in order to remain relevant to such a market. As the income of the customer increases, they become increasingly intolerant of inconveniences and more demanding City Center Redevelopment Plan 7 1 1 of amenities. The retail development within the Redevelopment Area has been non responsive to 11 these customer changes. For these reasons, it is the conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "age." S. OBSOLESCENCE The issue of obsolescence is only relevant in this case with regard to the need for reinvestment. 1 In the case of the Redevelopment Area, the retail buildings are not obsolete in developmental terms, but are in need of substantial reinvestment in order to respond to market realities. As such, obsolescence is considered a blighting factor in that the retail buildings will require 1 substantial reinvestment, even to the point of possibly demolishing some buildings and removing retail development from the mix through acquisition/redevelopment and re- configuring the developmental patterns, properties and amenities of the area to increase operational efficiencies such as ingress /egress, parking, visual/street appeal, landscaping, and architectural updating and improvements. Such improvements are a part of the proposed City center project. In this manner, it is concluded that the Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "obsolescence." 1 6. SUBSTANDARD B UILDINGS The issue of substandard buildings is similar to the issue of obsolescence, in this case. While the buildings are not substandard in terms of sanitation, health or safety factors, the buildings (especially the retail buildings) are not developed to a standard sufficient to enable them to attract new clientele from growth markets. As stated previously, new retail investment is needed to serve this market, and if the existing retail space within the proposed Redevelopment Area is not reconfigured and remodeled, it will become increasingly irrelevant to the local market, similar to 1 what has happened in the Old Town retail area, located just north of the Redevelopment Area. In the case of Old Town, the original retail spaces /developments of the `old town' of Carmel lacked sufficient reinvestment and reconfiguration and, with time, the retail area became economically 1 irrelevant to the growing city. A similar "devolution" could occur within the Redevelopment Area unless reinvestment occurs. Using this factor as the basis for consideration of this blighting influence, the retail buildings g g s g within the proposed Redevelopment Area are found to be "substandard" for purposes of attracting a viable share of a growth market which is vital to the continued economic viability of the area. These considerations suggest that properties within the proposed Redevelopment Area meet the 1 statutory definition of blight in terms of "substandard buildings." 1 8 City of Carmel, Indiana 1 1 7. OTHER FACTORS 1 The redevelopment statutes in Indiana also allow for something referred to as "other factors" which could contribute to blight in a particular area. In the case of the proposed Redevelopment Area, the prominent "other factor" is the development of the City Center project plan. The City Center project proposes a massive reinvestment in the Redevelopment Area to create a viable retail area centered upon entertainment and community activity. The City Center Redevelopment Area will also include the government complex and will be physically linked to the rest of the 1 community (and southward, into Indianapolis) by the Monon Trail corridor, initially acquired and developed by the City of Indianapolis, and which has become a highly popular and well acclaimed public improvement for the north side of Marion County. The City Center Plan 1 includes the creation of a major theater complex (which is generally lacking in the Carmel area), an amphitheater for outdoor performances, a performing arts center, a community center, and a substantial amount of private sector commercial and retail space. All of these developmental elements are architecturally interwoven in order to optimize the parking facilities and traffic control which are designed into the overall plan. The City Center project, as proposed, will provide an overall development pattern for the Redevelopment Area which includes full 1 development of the area to its highest and best use for the benefit of the community at large. These considerations suggest that the Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in terms of "other factors," as provided by the statute. Conclusions Regarding Findings of Blight (/C36- 7 -1 -3) The discussion presented above clearly indicates that the proposed Redevelopment Area is suffering from blighting influences on the community. The statute cites eight possible criteria for a blighting influence (including "other and the proposed Redevelopment Area suffers from seven of those influences, as presented above. The facilities were once the center of the Carmel economy, but competition from new retail development and the lack of timely reinvestment and/or investment in undeveloped property ended up becoming functional liabilities. Without 1 substantial reinvestment and reconfiguration of the retail and service market within the proposed Redevelopment Area, the area cannot remain economically viable. 1 Based on these considerations, it is clear that the proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight in accordance with 1 1C36- 7 -1 -3, and that redevelopment of the area will be necessary in order to deal with that blighting influence. 1 1 City Center Redevelopment Plan 9 1 O Statutory Tests of a Redevelopment Area (IC36- 7- 14 -15) As noted in the chapter entitled, "Establishing the Statutory Parameters of the Project, there are three statutory tests under IC36- 7- 14 -15. The first test, contained in IC36- 7- 14- 15(a), states that the Redevelopment Commission must find that the area has become "blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to 1C36-7-14." In the case of the proposed Redevelopment Area, it is clear that the ordinary operation of private enterprise has been either unwilling or unable to direct investment in the properties within the Redevelopment Area so as to create viable market function. As noted above, more than 70% of the land is totally unimproved, despite a lucrative local marketplace, and another 15% of the area has received significant public investment to create the city government center. When these two fundamental land uses are combined with the fact that the City Council recently purchased the Kroger Center through negotiated purchase (another 8 acres), the total amount of undeveloped and public land in the area is over 93% of the Redevelopment Area (not counting the Monon Trail). It is clear from this ratio that the remaining retail development within the Redevelopment Area covers only a minor portion of the area. Although the businesses located within the Redevelopment Area appear to be viable and competitive in the local economy, it would appear that they, too would benefit from a commitment by the landlord to reinvest in the property, however, that reinvestment has not occurred in proportion to the investment in adjacent properties. Considering these factors, there appears to be no feasible means of applying the regulatory process to this area in order to induce the level of reinvestment necessary to bring the existing retail development up to the level present in adjacent areas. As such, these findings conclude that the proposed Redevelopment Area has met the statutory definition that "the area has become blighted to an extent that cannot be corrected by regulatory processes or the ordinary operation of private enterprise without resort to 1C36-7-14." 1 The second statutory test for establishment of a Redevelopment Area is that the Redevelopment Commission must find that the acquisition and redevelopment of the area will "benefit the public health and welfare." The discussion above clearly points out that the City has developed a plan for establishing the City Center project which will make the Redevelopment Area the predominant entertainment complex in the region, including an outdoor amphitheater, a movie theater complex, a performing arts center, a community center, substantial retail development and coordinated and integrated parking and traffic facilities which will be enhanced by the advent of the 126 Street extension project (previously approved for COIT funding). Considering that the area has remained essentially undeveloped despite the market pressure in the area, it would appear that the economic welfare of the community will be directly benefitted by the implementation of the City Center project. Therefore, it is the specific conclusion of this Redevelopment Plan that the implementation of the City Center project will have a definite benefit to the health and welfare of the community, thus meeting the statutory requirement that "the public health and welfare will be benefitted by the acquisition and redevelopment of the area." 1 10 City of Carmel, Indiana 1 The third statutory test is that the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the city and its inhabitants and that acquisition and redevelopment of the area will be of "public utility and benefit." The Redevelopment Plan clearly that the proposed Redevelopment Area is suffering from a lack of appropriate investment and/or reinvestment, with more than 70% of the land completely unimproved and another 13% of the land developed as public space. If the existing retail area were returned to viability, and the unimproved land developed in an appropriate fashion, the overall investment would provide a tremendous boost to the local economy, and would thus be a significant public utility to the community and its inhabitants. Therefore, it is the conclusion of this 1 Redevelopment Plan that "the blighted area is a menace to the social and economic interest of the (city)," and that establishing the proposed Redevelopment Area and pursuing a range of recommended redevelopment activities within "will be of public utility and benefit." These considerations, in conjunction with the discussions and analyses presented in this Redevelopment Plan, lead to the finding that the proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory tests of IC36- 7 -14 -1 S with regard to establishing a Redevelopment Area. Designating a Redevelopment Area 1 Having determined that the Proposed Redevelopment Area meets the statutory definition of blight as defined by statute, this Redevelopment Plan recommends the boundaries of a "Redevelopment Area" within which redevelopment economic incentives can accrue to encourage public and private entities to undertake redevelopment projects which would eliminate the blighting factors, through eminent domain and other activities. In this case, the Study Area for the project included the Proposed Redevelopment Area which closely follows the proposed boundaries of the City Center project, but does not include the entirety of that site. Given these factors, it is recommended that the City of Carmel designate the Proposed Redevelopment Area as the "City Center Redevelopment Area." The area the contains a mixture of retail, office (service), and undeveloped real estate. Map #1 shows the area recommended for designation as the "City Center Redevelopment Area" (hereafter, the "Area Possible Amendments to the District Indiana statute includes provisions for amending a Redevelopment Area. While there is no current reason for including property outside of the proposed Redevelopment Area within the District, it may become prudent at some future date, based on some future development proposal, to amend the boundaries of the District to include additional property. If and when this happens, the Redevelopment Commission can consider such proposals on a case by case basis and can amend the boundaries of the Area accordingly. Depending upon the size of the area, it may be necessary to also amend this Redevelopment Plan in order to comply with statutory requirements. City Center Redevelopment Plan 11 1 a Tax Increment Financing Designation of the proposed Redevelopment Area carries with it a number of possible a redevelopment incentives. The incentive with the greatest potential fiscal impact on redevelopment activity is that of Tax Increment Financing, commonly referred to as "TIF." TIF is a redevelopment tool where the future increases in property revenues generated by private 111 investment are used to fund improvements within the Area. The maximum statutory life of a TIF Allocation Area is 30 years, however, the term of financing for any TIF -based debt issue is generally shorter than the full life of the area. DETERMINING THE "BASE ASSESSED VALUE:'' When a Tax Allocation Area is established, the County Auditor determines the "Base Assessed Value" of all property within the Allocation Area. This "Base Assessed Value" is established as the fiscal baseline for the Allocation Area. The intent is that the community, including all taxing entities, continue to receive property tax revenues based on the assessed value as of the date of origination of the Allocation Area, which is called the "Base Assessed Value." Recommended Projects The Redevelopment Commission has the authority to implement a broad range of projects in an a effort to redevelop an area. The statutory procedure for project and funding approval assures that the project is considered and approved on several levels before it can be implemented. After following that procedure, the Redevelopment Commission has a great deal of authority. The Redevelopment Commission has the power to acquire and assemble parcels of land under single ownership in order to promote new development. In order to implement projects, however, the Redevelopment Commission must include the projects in the Redevelopment Plan. This Redevelopment Plan, therefore, recommends that the Redevelopment Commission (RDC) consider the following projects: THOROUGHFARE IMPROVEMENT REHABILITATION: There are two major thoroughfares of the city which directly serve the Redevelopment Area: a Rangeline Road and 126 Street. Improvements to either of these corridors would deliver traffic more efficiently to the Redevelopment Area and would enhance the overall performance of the local thoroughfare system. While it is not proposed that Rangeline Road be improved immediately, minor improvements to the corridor in the vicinity of the Redevelopment Area could occur, such as landscaping improvements to increase the visual appeal of the corridor. 1 The 126 Street Corridor project was approved for funding using a 1997 COIT bond issue. The proposed project is currently in the final phases of design for 1998 construction, and includes Q 12 City of Carmel, Indiana a 1 completion of the corridor from Rangeline Road to Adams Street. The alignment of the proposed roadway is along the far northern boundary of the Redevelopment Area, connecting the existing intersection alignment of Rangeline Road and Mohawk Avenue westward, past the Monon Trail corridor and continuing westward past 3` Avenue Southwest, then turning southwesterly to connect with the Adams Street corridor which currently extends northeasterly from Carmel Drive. The completion of this thoroughfare corridor has been contemplated by the Comprehensive Plan for the community for many years. Once completed, transportation access to the Redevelopment Area will be dramatically improved, and the economic competitiveness of the redeveloped real estate will also be enhanced. INFRASTRUCTURE REDEVELOPMENT: Along with the proposal to improve transportation corridors serving the Redevelopment Area, it is suggested that improvements to other infrastructure systems in the area may also be 1 appropriate. Such improvements may be sought for the water system, natural gas, electric power, drainage, or sewer service to the Redevelopment Area, as well as other infrastructure improvements which would enhance the opportunities to redevelop the real estate in the Redevelopment Area. At this time, there are no specific plans for such improvements, but in considering various forms of redevelopment activities which may be required, it is logical to foresee the need for improvements to these infrastructure systems, when more specific information becomes available. 1 ACQUISITION DEMOLITION: The Redevelopment Commission should also carefully consider acquiring property in an effort to improve retail activity and re- direct development in the area. As noted earlier in this Redevelopment Plan, as well as in the 1997 Economic Development Plan, there are several parcels which contain what appear to be viable businesses, however, the properties have not received appropriate levels of reinvestment to keep pace with surrounding retail areas. The Redevelopment Commission has the ability to acquire land within the Redevelopment Area. This land can then be reconfigured and sold back into the private marketplace. For example, a parcel can be reconfigured in several ways, including but not limited to: 1. The property purchased and its boundaries re- defined allowing wider rights of way for proposed road improvements. In some cases, such acquisition will facilitate road improvement projects by reducing the difficulty of right of way acquisition. 2. The property purchased and assembled with adjoining properties for redevelopment en masse. This technique was used for retail redevelopment projects such as Circle Center Mall in downtown Indianapolis. 3. The property purchased and structures demolished to enable the land use to be changed on a wholesale basis. For example, acquisition and demolition of several buildings to create permanent office or retail development. 4. The property purchased and redeveloped to provide adequate parking, landscaping and other ancillary requirements of current zoning for that land use. City Center Redevelopment Plan 13 1 11 The net result of such redevelopment activities is to generate reinvestment in the property which 11 would allow it to reflect current market realities, including implementation of the City Center project. In fact, acquisition and demolition may, in some cases, be the only means of enabling a particular site to be redeveloped to meet the demands of the current market. RELOCATION OF EXISTING BUSINESSES: Also noted in the analysis above was the indication that some of the retail buildings contain viable businesses which might benefit from relocation into the new retail space proposed for the 1 City Center. It would be good public policy for businesses which are currently located in the Redevelopment Area but whose buildings might be acquired and demolished to be offered space within the new retail complex. Such a policy would enable those businesses to remain within their geographic and market niches during the redevelopment process. PARKING FACILITIES: It is also common for public funds to be used to create parking facilities to serve an integrated complex such as is proposed for the City Center. In general private sector development, each parcel or development is responsible for generating parking to serve its own development. In highly integrated and coordinated projects such as this, however, which encourage pedestrian interaction, it is common for certain areas to develop more intense parking facilities than could otherwise be supported by the individual development. In this case, parking for the amphitheater and/or other public buildings within the City Center complex will likely be required. As such, parking facilities would be an appropriate use of public funds for the redevelopment effort. Conclusions Recommendations The Redevelopment Plan contains an analysis of the statutory definition of blight as well as the 1 finding that the real estate within the Redevelopment Area is blighted in accordance with Indiana law. Based on those findings, the following conclusions and Recommendations are offered for the consideration of the Redevelopment Commission. Conclusions The total body of analysis contained in the redevelopment Plan leads to a series of fairly succinct conclusions, which are listed as follows: 1. The area recommended for declaration as the "City Center Redevelopment Area" under Indiana statute was originally contained within the Economic Development Area established as the 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area. 1 14 City of Carmel, Indiana 1 1 2. The 126th Street Corridor Economic Development Area is being amended to delete the area recommended for declaration as the "City Center Redevelopment Area." 1 3. The area recommended for declaration as the "City Center Redevelopment Area" meets the statutory definition of blight. 4. The City Center Redevelopment Plan (this Plan) identifies and outlines a series of projects which can be undertaken to address the blighting influences which currently afflict the area. 1 5. The primary project which can be undertaken to address the blighting influences which currently afflict the area is the implementation of the City Center project which was publicly announced during the summer of 1997 and includes the creation of the city's 1 major entertainment complex, as well as new retail space and improvements to the city's public spaces and thoroughfares. 6. The City Center project will directly benefit from improvements to the Rangeline Road corridor, as well as the 126 Street Extension project which was approved for COIT financing in 1997. 7. The City of Carmel should be prepared to acquire some or all of the real estate within the Redevelopment Area in accordance with the list of property to be acquired, as contained in the "Recommendations" section of this Redevelopment Plan. 1 Recommendations The Redevelopment Plan represents an analysis of the parcels within the proposed "City Center P P Y P P P tY Redevelopment Area" and has concluded that the area meets the statutory definition of blight as defined in Indiana law. Based on this analysis and the information provided in the Redevelopment Plan, above, the following recommendations are offered for the consideration of the Redevelopment Commission: 1. That the Redevelopment Commission should move to amend the 126th Street Corridor 1 Economic Development Area to exclude the area identified as the proposed "City Center Redevelopment Area." 2. That the Redevelopment Commission should establish the "City Center Redevelopment Area" in accordance with the information presented and findings of blight contained in this Redevelopment Plan. 3. That the Redevelopment Commission should approve the list of projects contained in this Redevelopment Plan as a strategy for addressing the blighting conditions found in the "City Center Redevelopment Area." 4. That the Redevelopment Commission should approve the list of properties recommended for possible acquisition in implementation of the City Center project. 1 City Center Redevelopment Plan 15 1 0 5. That the Redevelopment Commission should also move to establish the City Center ll Redevelopment Area as an Allocation Area for the purpose of affording Tax Increment Financing for projects undertaken to combat blighting conditions in the City Center a Redevelopment Area. 6. That the Redevelopment Commission should initiate the statutory approval process for the Redevelopment Plan, including presentation to the Plan Commission and City Council for a confirmation of the findings, conclusions and recommendations contained herein. List of Property to be Acquired Q The following table shows a list of the parcels within the Redevelopment Area, as well as those II parcels which will be acquired as part of the redevelopment strategy for the area. (note: parcel numbers are listed as shown on Auditor's Map Number 09- 36 -00, based on 1994 aerial photo): 0 Parcel (Auditor's Acreage Owner of Record Acreage to be ll Map #09 -36 -00) Acquired 005 60.651 Mueller, Helen Moffit 60.651 005.101 7.993 City of Carmel 11 005.001 0.956 Huffer, James E. Trust Betty J. 0.956 009 1.754 Kestner, E. Nicholas 1.754 II 010 0.88 Harrington Enterprises, Inc. 0.88 011 0.88 City of Carmel 008 3.770 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. a 015 7.440 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. 008.001 1.370 Carmel Civic Square Building Corp. a 070 (partial) 9.030 CSX Transportation, Inc. (partial) 9.030 Rights -of -way 5.000 City of Carmel a (estimated) totals 99.724 Property to be Acquired 73.271 11 11 16 City of Carmel, Indiana H 0 4 i 1 1 Estimated Cost of the Projects The following costs are presented as an estimate of the cost of acquisition and redevelopment recommended in the Redevelopment Plan for the purpose of addressing the blighting conditions 1 and influences in the City Center Redevelopment Area. 1 Land Acquisition $8,100,000 Demolition $500,000 1 Utility/Infrastructure Relocation $400,000 Parking Facilities $1,500,000 1 Totals $10,500,000 i /crrdpfin 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 City Center Redevelopment Plan 17 1