Loading...
HomeMy Public PortalAbout11-04-1991 BOARD OF PUBLIC WORKS AND SAFETY OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND, INDIANA, NOVEMBER 4, 1991 1 The Board of Public Works and Safety of the City of Richmond, Indiana, met in special session November 4, 2 1991, at the hour of 9:00 A.M. in the Municipal Building in said City. Ms. Hauptstueck presided with Mr. Smith 3 and Ms. Planck in attendance. Absent: None. The following business was had to-wit: 4 5 HEARING TO RECEIVE REMONSTRANCES WITH REGARD TO A RESOLUTION AWARDING DAMAGES 6 FOR THE ACQUISITION OF CERTAIN LANDS AND STRUCTURES 7 • 8 Ms. Hauptstueck opened the hearing of the Board of Public Works and Safety to receive remonstrances with 9 regard to Resolution No. 3-1991 fixing awards for damages for the acquisition of certain lands and structures, 10 particularly for the extension of Elks Country Club Road and Industries Road and one In-Fill Housing property. 11 12 The Proof of Publication was presented and found to be in order. Ms. Planck moved to accept and file the Proof 13 of Publication, seconded by Ms. Hauptstueck and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 14 15 Mr. Metzger requested the Board to continue the hearings on the Elks Road and In-Fill properties to November 16 27, 1991. He explained that there were still questions on the Elks Road property and the return receipt for 17 notification had not been returned on the In-Fill property. 18 19 Ms. Planck moved to continue the hearings on these properties to November 27, 1991, seconded by Mr. Smith 20 and on unanimous voice vote the motion was carried. 21 22 The following properties were presented for remonstrance: 23 24 1. Tom & Debra Adams. Mr. and Mrs. Adams presented another appraisal to the Board for 25 consideration,the appraisal having been provided by Mr.John Whalen and an official remonstrance as 26 filed by their attorney, Mr. Clyde Williams. The Board noted that damages had been set at 32,625.00 27 and the appraisal presented by the Adams was at 36,500.00. It was recommended that the highest 28 appraisal received by the City as 34,500.00 be averaged with the appraisal presented by Mr. and Mrs. 29 Adams for a damage amount of 35,500.00. 30 31 Mr. Metzger explained to the Board that they should consider written evidence and can adjust the 32 award for fair market value if all of a property is taken. Mr. Metzger said that Mr. Adams wanted 33 relocations cots and the City is not allowed to offer that, but only offer the average of the two highest 34 appraisals. 35 36 2. Mrs.Omar Havens, Vera Solomon. No one appeared in protest of the damage award, however the 37 Board did receive a letter from Mrs. Havens with a suggested damage award, but no additional 38 appraisals were presented. 39 40 3. David V. Smith, Jr. Ms. Nancy Smith represented the remonstrance and did present a letter in 41 protest, but had no additional appraisals. Ms.Smith felt she should get what they paid for the land or at 42 least 11,000.00. 43 44 Mr. Metzger explained they were only taking a small strip of the land. 45 46 Ms. Smith told the Board without the full three acres, it would be difficult to continue the use as a 47 commercial development. 48 49 Mr. Metzger told the Board that both appraisers, Mr. Emmons and Mr. Dickman were in attendance 50 and could further justify their appraisals. 51 52 Mr. Tom Dickman explained to the Board that the land in question is located in the NW Industrial area 53 and the Chamber of Commerce sold the land at 5,000.00 an acre. Mr. Dickman said with a base value 54 of 5,000.00 to 10,000.00 per acre he felt the 7,500.00 per acre was liberal. 55 56 Mr. Emmons agreed and added that they appraised at today's values. 57 58 Ms. Smith questioned the difference in the assessed value and appraised value and Mr. Dickman 59 explained the assessed value does not always correspond to the sale price of a proprety. 60 61 Ms. Hauptstueck asked Mr. Dooley about commercial development and acreage required and Mr. 62 Dooley stated that there was no acreage requirement in an M-2 district. Mr. Dooley, in response to a 63 questions from Mr. Metzger, indicted that the zoning in that area was intended for industrial and 64 identified for such. 65 Board of Works November 4, 1991 Page 2 1 2 Ms. Smith requested to see appraisals and Mr. Emmons said he had no objections to sharing the 3 appraisals, but did object to sharing the comparables that the appraisals was based on. He said that 4 was not even shared with the City. 5 6 Ms. Smith explained that the property was now being used as a truck terminal and it was felt the 7 property would loose value with the area being taken by the City because of the access needs of the 8 trucks. 9 10 Mr.Tom Kovach, Manager or Yellow Freight,verified that they did utilize all of the property. 11 12 Mr. Metzger asked the appraisers if they noted damage to the residue of the property and Mr. Dickman 13 said he felt this would enhance the property since it would widen the road and make access easier. Mr. 14 Emmons agreed and stated this area was not developed. 15 16 Mr. Kovach felt the access for the trucks might be more difficult as the road approached their facility. 17 18 Mr. Bob Wiwi informed the Board that they would not infringe upon the parking area and explained 19 where the right of way would be versus where the road would be located. With this explanation, Mr. 20 Kovach agrees they would have easier access to the terminal. 21 22 Ms. Smith expressed her concerns about mixing the truck terminal with mall traffic and felt she should 23 get the value paid for her property in case they would vacate the property. 24 25 Mr. Metzger stated that if there would be a traffic problem, the City would be willing to look at that and 26 alleviate it. 27 28 4. Laurence and Lucile Weatherly. No one make an appearance at the hearing, but the Board did 29 receive a written remonstrance and no additional appraisals. The written response made a reference to 30 a"gas line"and Ms. Hauptstueck asked for clarification. 31 32 Mr. Wiwi explained if there was a gas line it would be removed and that the entrance to this property 33 would change very little and any problems would be corrected. 34 35 5. Dana Corporation. No remonstrances were received. 36 37 6. U.S.Army. No remonstrances were received. 38 39 7. Robert and Fola Meadows. No remonstrances were received. 40 41 8. Fred and Mary Daniels (three properties). A written response was received and Mr. and Mrs. 42 Daniels were also in attendance. 43 44 Mr. Metzger explained to the Board that the figures in the resolution were for the taking of the entire 45 property and they also have appraisals on just the portion being affected. 46 47 Ms. Mary Daniels told the Board they would sell all of #7 and #5 Dana Parkway and a portion of #6 48 Dana Parkway. 49 50 Mr. Metzger informed the Board the appraisals on the affected portion of #6 Dana Parkway were 51 764.24 from Mr. Emmons and 796.00 from Mr. Dickman and the affected area was 38/100 of an acre. 52 53 Ms. Hauptstueck asked if the City had offered to purchase all of the properties and Mr. Wiwi explained 54 that we do not need all of#'s 5 and 6, but felt the Daniels wanted to sell all of the property. 55 56 Ms. Hauptstueck asked if the value of #7 would be hurt if the road was close to the property and Mr. 57 Metzger suggested that if the property left was without value they might as well take all of it. Mr. 58 Metzger stated the decision to take a portion or the entire lot was left up to the property owners. He 59 added the City can purchase the entire lot, but are not forced to do so. 60 61 Mr. Fred Daniels expressed concerns that the rear yards on #'s 5 and 7 would be dangerous for 62 families with children. 63 64 Mr. Adams commented on the City being allowed to take property they did not need, yet not being able 65 to help with relocation. Mr. Metzger stated he agreed with Mr. Adams in principal, but had to proceed as the law was written. Board of Works cont'd November 4, 1991 Page 3 1 2 9. Tom Raper(three properties) No remonstrances were received. 3 4 10. Richard Brown. No remonstrances were received. 5 6 11. Charles Paul and Ed Mullin. Mr. Paul and Mr. Mullin were in attendance to present their 7 remonstrance. Mr. Paul presented a written remonstrance and an appraisal by Mr. Matt Nepote. Mr. 8 Paul told the Board that the appraisals offered by the City were less than the property was purchased 9 for 11 years ago and Mr. Nepote agreed that the value should be 12,000.00 and not the 7,450.00 10 offered. 11 12 Mr. Dickman said he was curious to the comparables used by Mr. Nepote. He said they were dealing 13 with an irregluar shaped land which was overgrown and not able to be developed. He said the curb cut 14 by the City would also benefit the lot along with being a corner lot. 15 16 Mr. Emmons explained they try to do current comparables and only go back as far as necessary and do 17 stay within the area of the property with comparables. 18 19 Mr. Paul stated that Mr. Nepote felt the new road would not increase the value of the property 20 particularly with less frontage available. 21 22 Mr. Metzger requested time from the Board for both Mr. Emmons and Mr. Dickman to look at the 23 appraisal presented by Mr. Paul. 24 25 Mr. Smith moved to recess until 10:30 AM, seconded by Ms. Planck and on unanimous voice vote the motion 26 was carried. 27 28 RECONVENE OF BOARD 29 30 Upon reconvene of the Board, Ms. Hauptstueck asked for comment from the appraisers. 31 32 Mr. Dickman commented that only one of the comparables used by Mr. Nepote was in the NW 33 Industrial area and that was in 1988, indicating limited sale of property in the area. He said if this were 34 a nice lot ready for development, it would be worth more and he stood by his original appraisal. 35 36 Mr. Emmons agreed with Mr. Dickman that the appraisal should have been adjusted for comparable 37 with the lay out of the lot. 38 39 Mr. Paul commented on a 150.00 included for damages on a sign rental on the lot. 40 41 Ms. Hauptsteuck asked Mr. Metzger if the sign should be included and Mr. Metzger indicated it does 42 affect the market value and neither appraiser included the relocation cost of the sign. 43 44 There being no further remonstrances presented, Ms. Planck moved to amend Resolution No.3-1991 as follows: 45 46 Adams property award to be 35,500. 47 Fred and Mary Daniels#5 to take parcel needed at value of 186.00, #6 to take parcel as needed at a 48 value of 780.12 and#7 entire parcel at 20,500. 49 Charles Paul and Ed Mullin property award at 7,450.00 and sign relocation at 150.00 for a total award 50 of 7,600.00. 51 52 Mr. Smith seconded the motion to amend Resolution No. 3-1991 and on unanimous voice vote the motion was 53 carried. 54 55 ADJOURNMENT 56 57 There being no further business,on a motion duly made, seconded and passed the meeting was adjourned. 58 59 60 61 62 63 Carrie N. Hauptstueck, President 64 65 ATTEST: Mary Merchanthouse,City Clerk