ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 1
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
Carolina Theatre
Staff has met with all parties and will report on the status of the easement to
the Committee and request action.
II.
Subject:
Greenway Business Center Grant Request from Charlotte Mecklenburg
Development Corporation
On July 24th, the City Manager referred this item to the ED & Planning
committee to make a recommendation to City Council on the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Development Corporation’s request for a $500,000 grant to
complete rehabilitation of two vacant buildings at the Greenway Business
Center.
Action:
III.
Subject:
Action:
Special Needs Usage in I-1 Districts
At the July 20th Zoning Meeting, Councilmember Barnes requested that the ED
& Planning Committee review the Text Amendment and which Amendments
allow for special needs housing in I-1 Districts. Staff will present background
information to the Committee on location for special needs housing.
IV.
Subject:
Action:
Small Business Assistance
Provide response to Committee’s request from the Small Business Resource
Event for information on small business assistance.
IV.
Subject:
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date is scheduled for September 2, 2009 at 12 Noon.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Council members John Lassiter, Nancy Carter, Patsy Kinsey and James Mitchell
Anthony Foxx
3:30 – 5:07pm.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
PowerPoint presentation: Carolina Theatre Update
PowerPoint presentation: Greenway Business Center
PowerPoint presentation: Special Needs Housing
Handout: Small Business Resources
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I.
Subject:
Carolina Theatre
John Lassiter, Chair:
We have four items on our agenda; the first is an update on the Carolina
Theatre with a couple of decision points relative to our current options.
Zeiler:
As you recall in May and June of this year, we came before this Committee and
brought you up to date on the financing and progress of the Carolina Theatre project.
Then in June this Committee recommended extending the option at no cost until
December 1st, 2011. That was on June 15th on June 16th we got a hurried call from
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 2
Lassiter:
Motion:
Vote
Lassiter:
Bank of America regarding the fire easement from the Montaldo’s building. In the final
Council meeting in June you approved a temporary 60 day extension to work through
those issues. In July we came back and briefed you on what those specific issues
were and what the next steps are. In order for the Carolina Theatre and CMP to get
drawings and understand how they could reconfigure, keeping the existing temporary
easement, turning it into a permanent easement, would run about $150,000 dollars.
That is just for the drawings, Bank of America has refined the design option for the fire
egress, the cost will run $250,000 to $280,000 dollars at the time the up-fit is done
along with the Montaldo’s build out for the Foundation for the Carolinas. The next
step is for Bank of America and Lincoln Harris to conduct a full fire egress survey for
the building and verify that this plan actually meets County requirements and to
understand whether that front little bit of the easement that is closest to Tryon Street
is still needed for fire egress for the front half of the building. At this point we feel we
can go ahead and sign the option extension as recommended by this Committee and
not impact our property negatively or impact the property around Montaldo’s
negatively nor create situations that we cannot get ourselves out of easily. Just to
refresh your memory, this would be the general route from Montaldo’s, exiting out to
the Hearst Plaza. There may be in the future, depending on the outcome of the fire
survey, a need for a small permanent easement yet to be defined near the front. This
would not interfere with the construction or plans for the Carolina Theatre. The folks
at the Carolina Theatre have said they would be happy to work with us on that
easement. So today we would like reaffirmation of this recommendation that we can
take to Council for the meeting next Monday. We may need to come back to you in
the future to discuss that small permanent easement.
So all we have done is to make sure legally we have what we need; this is a
reaffirmation. Reaffirm our previous decision; the motion has been seconded by
Carter. All in favor say aye.
To reaffirm the Committee’s recommendation to Council made on June 15th to extend
the option on the Carolina Theatre until December 1st, 2011 and direct staff to include
a negotiated property maintenance agreement between CMP Carolina Theatre
Corporation and the City.
Lassiter:
Carter:
Kinsey:
Foxx:
Mitchell:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Absent for vote
Absent for vote
Great, thank you.
II. Subject:
Greenway Business Center Grant Request from Charlotte Mecklenburg
Development Corporation
Lassiter:
The second item is a presentation relative to a grant request from the Charlotte
Mecklenburg Development Corporation that relates to the Greenway Business Center
located on Rozzelles Ferry Road. Bob Sweeney is here as a resource, he may want to
make some comments as we get into this presentation.
We thought a good place to begin this conversation is to remind you of the success we
had on Wilkinson Boulevard working with the CMDC and the County to build out what
was 32 acres of run down property into the Wilkinson Business Park. It was
construction beginning in 2003 and completed with the area occupied by a restaurant
supplier. The increase in the tax base was about $12 million and about another 240
permanent jobs created out there. So this is what we accomplished last time, the
Flynn:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 3
Kinsey:
Flynn:
Kinsey:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Greenway Business Park is just on a smaller scale. The same type of light industrial,
once again just on a smaller scale. It is located in one of our targeted business
corridors right on Rozzelles Ferry Road, near the Smallwood and Lakewood
neighborhoods; very close to Johnson C. Smith. So this alot of what we have been
trying to do with collaboration of Economic Development radiating out into our
neighborhoods. This is the site plan for the park, it is divided up into a number of
parcels including a greenway that runs along the right hand side of the park. A lot of
this area here is not usable due to flood plain; the County will take that and
incorporate that into their greenway park.
What creek is that?
That is Stewart Creek.
Stewart? Thank you.
CMDC developed this in the summer of 2008. They have completed all of the
infrastructure improvements; including the site work, roads, water detention and
landscaping. The City and County have both invested about $950,000 dollars into the
park; the County committed and additional $835,000 for park improvements related
to the greenway, this commitment is pending. They have not been able to fund that
due to their bonding issue; but that is a commitment that they have made to the park.
CMDC has rehabbed one of the three existing buildings on site.
Do they have any projection as to when they can meet this commitment?
No not at this point.
There is no sense of priority of projects before them now?
No, not at this point. We have talked to Jim Garges and the County Manager’s Office.
They have not been able to say with definition when it would be final.
Does that include the entire amount from the County or just that additional?
They have already done the $950,000 it’s the $835,000 that has to do with the
greenway.
How does that impact this proposed construction?
It does not. The business park has already been built so what they would be doing is
making improvements along the creek and the path.
So it’s not an eye sore or public nuisance?
No.
It looks amazingly like that. It is big with trees. It’s laid out well, the road network
is not all paved; very attractive with an urban feel.
These buildings CMDC has also purchased, these three, they have rehabbed the center
one shown here. That one is also occupied by the BRIDGE Jobs Program. We will
show you some pictures of what has been done on that building. What they are
asking for is City money to do the restoration on the other buildings. The pictures
show a striking difference. CMDC rehabbed the 5,860 square foot building and
finished the rehabilitation on time and under budget. The BRIDGE Jobs Program, a
non-profit, has signed a lease for half of the redeveloped building and is currently
occupying the space. CMDC is requesting $500,000 to be used to offset construction
costs to rehab the remaining two vacant buildings. CMDC owns the buildings and they
are ready to move forward. They think they can be underway with this renovation by
the end of the year. Basically this is a straight up project and we will show you the
numbers shortly as to why this doesn’t work but for City assistance. As you look at
this as standard commercial property it does not cash flow and it does not provide any
returns. This is the first building the one on the far right with the renderings as to
what this building might look like after the renovation. This is a rendering of the
Theatre building up here. We think this will add some character, renovating older
buildings does add a certain character. In terms of why staff is recommending this is
that it really does support our redevelopment of our priority business corridor. It is
also adjacent to three of our target neighborhoods. It certainly improves the
marketability of the Greenway Business Center by renovating some unsightly buildings
turning them into some real landmark buildings in terms of historic preservation.
There is a current market opportunity for lease space. Because of the way the market
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 4
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Sweeney:
Lassiter:
Sweeney:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Sweeney:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Kinsey:
Sweeney:
Kinsey:
is now there are lots of requests for leased space that they do not have to buy into.
We also think it is possible to have some neighborhood-serving retail here including a
restaurant. The costs would run about $120 to $125 per square foot less than what
new construction would be. These buildings are in pretty bad shape. They are going
to take all new plumbing and HVAC. Also there is no asphalt or water or parking, they
are really reconstructing these buildings from the ground up. This is the Greenway
proforma with City funds. As you can see, the total cost of construction is about $1.7
million dollars. City funding at $500,000, CMDC would put in their equity of $500,000
and conventional debt at about $731,471. They would not pay interest on this loan.
They would pay off the loan through other proceeds when they sell the land to the
park, as well as use some extra money here to pay off the loan. That gives a return on
equity of less than 5%. You have conventional debt of about $1.2 million dollars
which is about 71% loan to value and there is not that type of financing available right
now.
Those are the addresses and those are projected revenues?
Yes.
That is based upon what kind of tenant?
The building on the far right would be more conventional office space. The other
building would be renovated to a “vanilla” shell with the idea that it would be available
for different types of interests. For example, a restaurant, the tenant would furnish
the fixtures over and above what we did.
All improvements would be included in the $500,000?
Yes.
So you can see a conventionally financed project doesn’t work here, it comes up
negative. So there is still a “but for” City assistance to make this work. They are
already requesting $500,000 in City Grant Funds and we are recommending approval
of that funding under the Business Corridor Funding, which currently has a balance of
$7 million dollars uncommitted.
At the sale of the property is there any flow back to the City for those grants?
CMDC would like to keep these as rental properties and use that to fund the operation.
So under this scenario there would be no money coming back to the City.
I think there is some expectation of resale of the other parcel to create positive cash
flow; it’s a long term of expectation of how the dollars are recouped.
The other thing to think about too is no one ever makes a profit from this, the CMDC.
Everything that we get goes into the next deal and every deal we do is the same. If
we have $500,000 at the end of the day it would go into the next deal. What
happened here that was different from Wilkinson was that we sold land very easily at
roughly no cost in the back of the park. Here the market had changed; initially what
we tried to do was to bulldoze these buildings. The land acquisition had really dried
up and we wanted to keep it going so the idea would be to get them to a vanilla shell.
We have various interests in that including a restaurant which would work quite well
there. That would give positive cash flow on the operations of CMDC; for some reason
we sold them to pay off the conventional debt and the land sale would pay off the debt
too.
Can we make sure that this investment by the City contributes to the historical
knowledge of the group that there is $500,000 of the City embedded in this?
Yes.
Historically carried along and reported out when this subject is approached.
Yes.
I just want to make sure I understand. You are just taking these buildings down to
the shell, there is no restoration? When these buildings are finished they are not
going to look like they do now?
When the buildings are finished they will be finished. For example, the theater will
have new windows and new roof new everything.
There is no historic value there? I just want to make sure that I understand, there was
some comment about saving the building.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 5
Sweeney:
Kinsey:
Sweeney:
Kinsey:
Sweeney:
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
Sweeney:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
When you look at the building to the right was a candy factory the building to the left
was an old theater. The façade will be brought back to the way it was.
That’s what I want to understand, you said you were making it a vanilla shell.
The interior will be a vanilla shell, for instance if you took this room, it would look like
this room with the ceiling walls and windows but with no carpet, vanilla built for a
tenant.
What has already been done is very nice, but I guess the theater is the one that I
would be interested in, maintaining some historic value.
Yes it will look like it did yesterday, the façade will be restored.
Yes, I think that is great.
I have been in the space that BRIDGES is leasing and it’s got a utilitarian quality.
There is a finished concrete floors nothing unique about the sheetrock walls, but for
them it’s a house because they were in borrowed space. They have programs that
provide t.v. all during the day for students that want to get into the workforce. They
are just ecstatic because it works for their classroom space and individual learning.
I know these are just drawings, but the façade of the building has been changed in the
suggested drawings so if you are going to maintain the historic façade of the building,
you don’t want the curve.
We are going to keep that front.
I don’t think we need to make a decision today this was just for information. We may
want to have the other two members here at our next meeting. I think it would be
good in the interim to circulate to Mr. Mitchell and Mr. Foxx a little bit of proforma.
Mr. Foxx is on the CMDC Board as a representative along with Mr. Peacock and make
sure everyone is comfortable. The real question for me is by putting this $500,000
dollars in this deal, will we in fact be able to lease the property or we’re going to have
$500,000 dollars tied up in property we are trying to lease. We are operating as a
landlord in the short term but the idea is to roll the property out of our hands and not
to cash flow it off of the rent. The effects of which creates more synergy for the
property resulting in more leases being taken down, then we begin to get our
investment back and that’s the whole idea of the deal. How do you convert those
remaining nine parcels into something that someone comes in and builds on as
opposed to decayed buildings that are sitting there right now? Are there any additional
questions or comments? I think we are going to wait for our next meeting for any
action.
Yes, that will be our September 4th meeting.
The third item is a referral that came to us from Council, to begin a discussion to look
at our I-1 Districts and the current allowance for special needs uses within I-1
property. This is coming off of the Moore Place acquisition by Urban Ministries, and Mr.
Barnes asked our Committee to begin looking at this issue.
III. Subject: Special Needs Usage in I-1 the Districts
Campbell:
Young:
Katrina Young will be making the presentation. However, I would like to take this time
to talk about the information we wanted to share with you. We did not reach a
conclusion. We were not given a lot of direction about the issues. We will simply give
you information about the topic of special needs housing. We will talk about the
districts that they are permitted in and we will talk about how other cities are
regulating special needs housing. We will spend a little bit of time on single room
occupancy; that is what generated this whole discussion, where those types of uses
are permitted. With that said, I will turn it over to Katrina. Toward the end of this
presentation we will ask for direction.
I am going to begin this presentation by giving you some background on special needs
housing. We will also talk a little bit about the special needs housing and the districts
that they are allowed in. At the July 20, 2009 City Council Zoning Meeting, Council
referred the issue of special needs housing being allowed in the I-1 zoning districts to
Council’s ED & Planning Committee for review and discussion. The issues raised by
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 6
Campbell:
Carter:
Young:
Kinsey:
Young:
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Young:
Carter:
Young:
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
Young:
Kinsey:
Young:
Kinsey:
Young:
Council was, are too many uses being permitted in the I-1 zoning district? Why are
nearby property owners not being notified when special needs housing is located
nearby? And lastly, what is the rationale for permitting these uses in the I-1 zoning
districts. The types of special needs housing that we currently have are boarding
houses, commercial rooming houses, group homes. There are three types of shelters
accessory, emergency and homeless, there are also short-term care facilities and
single room occupancy.
These are definitions from the Zoning Ordinance.
I don’t understand the accessory shelter?
I will explain that in just a moment, let me start from the top and go through all of the
different types of special needs that are available. Boarding houses are basically
allowed in all districts except light industrial. The property owner must reside there.
The rooms in the principal structure are rented as an accessory use. There are no
separate cooking facilities provided for any border. There are no separate exterior
entrances for the borders. The boarding house may have up to 8 boarders at one
time. They can have four borders in two rooms and eight boarders in four rooms.
Katrina are you saying that all of these are allowed in I-1?
No.
They are not? Ok, this is a definition.
Just a definition, we are starting from this from the base plan. Here are all the
specialty housing types.
Commercial rooming houses have at least 10 rooming units available for rent for more
than seven days. The seven days would be a minimum stay. These tenants are
considered as permanent and not temporary. There are not necessarily kitchen or bath
facilities available in the room. This is different from a group home in that a group
home is a residential building with support and supervisory personnel. Up to 10
handicapped persons with temporary or permanent physical, emotional, and/or mental
disability. This facility provides room and board, personal care, and rehabilitation
services in a family environment; this is also known as a “family care home”. A group
home of six is permitted in a single family district with prescribed conditions. Group
homes with up to 10 are permitted in multifamily districts and office districts. They
are not allowed in commercial districts or in light industrial districts. Accessory shelters
are going to be regulated by non-profit organizations. Accessory shelters are located
in an accessory building or site owned and operated by a religious, civic, fraternal,
social institutional or government agency. It may house up to 15 individuals at any
one time and can operate up to two days and nights per week. Emergency shelter is
one that we provide during inclement weather, extreme weather conditions. They
provide temporary housing to individuals or families during severe, life-threatening
weather conditions or other emergency conditions. Those can be pretty much
anywhere.
I am still dealing with accessory shelter. Is that a shelter that has supervision?
Yes, they provide free lodging.
Just like the Boy Scouts spending two nights there.
What about Rooms in the Inn?
I don’t understand?
The church, our church participates in this.
Oh, I did not know if that was a particular ministry. Yes.
O.K.
Then there are homeless shelters that provide free lodging and at least one support
service. Support services such as medical treatment, psychological counseling, and or
supervision, assistance to become drug or alcohol free. Services also may include job
training and placement, child care assistance or assistance in finding permanent
housing. Homeless shelters are permitted only in light industrial and commercial
districts. Short-term care facilities are a not-for-profit organization that provides
short-term care to patients discharged from a hospital or emergency room and with no
place to recuperate. The clients must be referred by a hospital or an emergency
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 7
Lassiter:
Lassiter:
Young:
Lassiter:
Young:
Lassiter:
Young:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Young:
room. There is on-site management in a 24-hour safe, structured and monitored
environment. There may be up to eight individuals at any given time. The services
may include meals, secure storage, refrigeration for medications, medical observation,
nursing care and or supervision. There is no time period for the individual in the
short-term care facility; the time needed for recuperation is determined by the
operator as to how long they may stay at the shelter. These facilities may be located
in office, light industrial or commercial districts.
The last facility is a single room
occupancy (SRO), this is described as being a building with between 11 and 120
rooming units available for rent for periods of seven or more days. There is on-site
management 24 hours in each building. There are cleaning services provided and
utilities mass metered. There is a maximum of 120 rooming units per site and a
minimum of 11 units. There is a Class B buffer if abutted property zoned or used for
single family residential use.
How did we end up with those designations, is that historical? Did we just come in
and say make decisions about this is what we want? I can understand the issues of
single family, how did we end up sliding three of these uses, commercial rooming
houses, homeless shelters, and SRO to only commercial and industrial uses. These
are considered temporary residences as SRO and homeless which are put into a hotel
and motel type districts.
Why is an emergency shelter allowed in an office district and a homeless shelter is
not? They are very similar; you would not know the difference looking at them.
The emergency shelter is allowed for specified kinds of life threatening weather. The
occupants are not going to be there all the time. Whereas the homeless is a
permanent unit.
So the winter shelter is not classified as an emergency shelter?
It has to be classified as an emergency shelter.
It is only in the winter and it gets extended into June, sometimes. Snow is gone. I
am just interested, did we firmly make this decision or did someone over time?
Homeless shelters would fill the need first and then there became a need in some of
the churches and other facilities wanted to assist in the inclement weather. But
because they were not in the correct Zoning districts they could not. So that is where
we came to allow accessory shelters and the emergency shelters to deal with those
issues. At the time, we only had the one homeless shelter and it was located in an
industrial zone.
We looked at them to see how we could allow for these type uses and minimize the
potential threat of impact to those living in single family neighborhoods or residential
areas. For instance, SRO we had no clue of what it was, it was very new to us. We
knew that we would have to go through a political process in order to allow it. It is
not permitted, at least now within a residential area. Now that we understand what
the use is, we feel the policy should be allowed in other districts. Actually, it’s almost
operating as an apartment complex.
McCreesh Place feels like a family neighbor next door to Villa Heights. The Villa
Heights people, when you are talking to them, actually like it better than when they
used to have loitering and they were just moving up and down the street. There is
some value in having some facility that does not have the outward effect.
We agree with you and we’ve gotten interest from people wanting to do SRO’s. I have
gotten heat from them saying they don’t know why we are treating them differently;
then say an apartment complex. They have a lot more supervision and management
than some local properties.
I agree with this statement and I think it’s something that we need to address. This is
something that needs to be brought forward in a planning mode, look at the parallels
and address.
The only thing I would remind the Committee about is I believe that there is concern
by a Councilmember to go in the opposite direction.
My sense is that Mr. Barnes did not send you in here to make it more liberal.
We surveyed SRO regulations in 30 cities similar to Charlotte. In 24 of those cities,
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 8
Lassiter:
Young:
Lassiter:
Young:
Lassiter:
Young:
Carter:
Young:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Young:
they did not have any SRO regulations. The following cities have SRO regulations
most like Charlotte, and permit SRO’s in the following general category of zoning
districts. Atlanta, Chicago and Greensboro allowed SRO’s in residential districts.
Chicago allowed them also in commercial districts. Only Greensboro allowed them in
all residential, office, commercial and light industrial districts. Just a little bit about
the history on single room occupancy; the SRO definition and prescribed conditions
were added to the Zoning Ordinance through a text amendment in 1999. Prior to
adoption, the Zoning Administrator interpreted an SRO use as being most closely
related to a “hotel” or “motel”. The rationale to permit SRO’s with prescribed
conditions in the I-1 zoning district was they functioned similar to a hotel or motel and
those uses are permitted in I-1.
How is Hope Haven classified? It is an old hotel, an old convention hotel.
I don’t know what it looks like inside.
In the classification of all these uses that we are talking about, it is proximate to the
neighborhoods that are concerned? I think the question is; is it classified as an SRO?
Is it classified at all?
It’s probably a commercial rooming unit; again it’s classified as a rooming facility but
not necessarily a group home.
I think they have common cooking areas; they don’t have cooking within the room.
Yes, probably a commercial rooming unit.
One item that we have not talked about is turnover in population. If it is more
permanent in nature, I think that would reflect in the way that citizens would feel
about it. In that way it could be incorporated into the stable neighborhood process.
I think this is a step before homelessness, but before getting into a crisis situation.
Where as if they were going into an apartment, with first and last months and security
deposit, they may not have enough to pay that, they may only have enough to pay
one week’s rent at a time. The multi-family provided a measure of security and
opportunity for the Police department to come there at will. It is more transitory than
an apartment where you would have a lease agreement with a commitment for a one
year stay.
When you have community life as in Druid Hills or North Davidson where there is a lot
of industrial business, you have the opportunity to have a concentration of these types
of uses. I think his concern is how you defer the uses concentrating in one area. A
couple of things that you have thought about is the way that group homes have been
permitted in single family neighborhoods, that you have a separation between the two
uses.
This is a fair housing issue and I know that we are not unique with that specified
separation and I hear that each hour.
It is not against the law and I think that there are housing issues that will come in that
will not allow. We are saying a distance apart not concentrating and I believe this is a
test of Federal law and I am stating my opinion.
This goes back nine years ago when we had this discussion about group homes and
the report back on that was if we ever challenged that description that we would lose.
I am wondering that if we push it by addressing it to another type of housing, I would
be very concerned.
We personally do not want it to be more difficult. We probably have the most
challenging housing crisis that we have ever been confronted with. So to make it
more difficult to allow many types of uses, we think from a land use and regulatory
prospective we now understand requirements and management. So from a land use
prospective and planning prospective, it’s very difficult for us to figure out why you
want to make this change, other than possibly allowing this in more parts of the
community restricted district.
I think also the separation the family unit of six or less is the challenge. A family unit
is six or less unrelated people. That is one of the options that you do have a
proliferation of SRO’s. Then we have the option to allow that proliferation in certain
areas if that is what we wanted.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 9
Mitchell:
Lassiter:
Mitchell:
Young:
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Mitchell:
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Mitchell:
Staff help me with two pieces of information; one can we get a map of current SRO
locations?
There is only one.
One? So the other classifications of group homes there are different classifications?
How do we process group homes in communities? I have one that neighbors are
complaining about, it occurred in a community. Are there any types of regulations that
we have around group homes?
If that is something that is being funded, it can be reported to that agency. Let them
know that is not operating.
I think we are betwixt and between a variety of policies. It has come to this
Committee because part of our charge is planning and within that are the
recommendations to the Zoning Ordinance. It is not in front of us because of
operations of facilities or appropriateness of care or any other thing that might fall into
another committee or political box. I think what we have to decide is has this come to
us for a recommendation for a look into it? Within the responsibility of this Committee,
broadly stated, what do we want to ask staff to do next, in response to the referral?
We have good analysis of Zoning classifications and uses of those; here is some of the
strengths and weakness of those and why. Do we want to go further into opening up
a can? Is it too liberal in some places or too restrictive in others? Or do we want to
say that it’s just fine and we want it to be handled by another Committee of Council?
This could be easily handled from Housing and Neighborhood Development, who could
talk about decisions that could be made. I think that Committee has a larger decision
to be made about SRO’s, because this is a policy question. I throw that out, or do we
want some external input, I hate to talk about stakeholders, but.
There is I think
some reason to bring input from effected neighborhoods and those that are providing
housing in this community to talk about this particular decision. Is it appropriate for
2009 City of Charlotte? I just throw that out to frame where we are and decide are we
going to jump in the pool or not?
We know why this was referred. What is the timing on this? Is there a Zoning coming
up?
What is happing is that Moore Place, provided that it gathers it’s funding, can build by
right in a I-1 piece of land off of North Tryon Street.
Oh this is the Moore Place issue?
Yes, and Mr. Barnes has constituents that are very concerned. They were frustrated
that there was no way to stop it. They did not require any Zoning approval provided
the limitations of separations. So it’s going to occur either way.
If the funding is there?
If the funding is there, similarly there are two other projects that are coming on line
on West Boulevard. One by Family Services and one by Charlotte Rescue Mission,
similarly are facilities that will come in an area where some folks will wonder why they
are getting more of that. They are also by right and so the question is do we have the
right mix of controls and how do we respond to neighbors who go I want that and I
can’t do anything about that.
I am not sure removing them from I-1 is the answer and that is the only thing that
would stop them, so where are we on that?
That is why we are laying the issue out so that we all understand the issue; I don’t
have the answer. We have to decide, we can say we looked at it. We don’t think we
will make a change and we will take no action. We could take an affirmative step we
have no change, we all agree to not change. We could go further, and say staff we
want you to convene some off line analysis like we have done with other issues related
to it. The relationship between residential property and industrial property and say
let’s come back with some recommendations on what we think we should do.
Recognizing that if we do have recommendations we may have things that might not
be fully consistent with the nature of the referral which is looking for a more restrictive
code.
When you say Moore Place, let staff help me out here. Where is the one SRO that we
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 10
Kinsey:
Mitchell:
Campbell:
Mitchell:
Campbell:
Lassiter:
Mumford:
Mitchell:
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
Kimble:
currently have now?
McCreesh Place, North Davidson.
North Davidson, your district as you go to Villa Heights? Staff how difficult would it be
if we treated the SRO as regular rezoning issues, land use? I do remember Mr.
Barnes, said some of the neighbors were very adamant about we have our share.
They feel with the winter shelter on the other side of Statesville Road and now we
have another one, so we have our share. It would be difficult if we were to take this
out of I-1 and make a regular rezoning partition. What are the pros and cons of doing
that?
Don’t take this personal.
I won’t take it personal, Debra.
I think it would be viewed as what is so unique about this uses. Differentiate this one
from all the others special needs houses, until we can figure that out from a legal
perspective, I think that we would be discriminating against this particular use. Saying
that this is so unique, I would definitely need help in coming up with something like
needing a special use permit, which we no longer do those type things. Certainly
there can be discussions and talk about the alternatives, but again, I would still want
to know what makes this unique apart from any apartment complex. The research we
did on other communities they all allow generally. These are the cities we looked at
that were similar to Charlotte, smaller than Chicago more like Atlanta, Ga.
When this issue came up everyone had great fear how adverse this would be to build
McCreesh Place. If fact, it has been the opposite. It has been a great success and a
good neighbor and a much better neighbor than the homeless shelter that it in part
replaced. So the argument is this kind of managed, single entry, low impact kinds of
communities have less consequence than free-wheeling types with people coming and
going in and out of the shelter. You all go over and you walk through, it’s a mess. It
bleeds into the neighborhoods, you have people that have substance problems and
they carry those into the surrounding neighborhoods. They have criminal histories and
they carry those into the surrounding areas. The impact at McCreesh Place is nominal.
The arguments for the other ones that are going to be built are pulling people away
from the environment and limiting their impact on those around them. I think we
have to be careful when we say let’s make it harder to do that; what we need to do is
make sure that they are done in a way that replicates success. We do have the
capacity to build them unrestrained within limitations. When you look at Atlanta you
can only build them in residential areas, they are not going to let them go industrial. I
think it’s really a mixed bag.
You want to run the Committee the agenda items on special needs housing in I-1 you
have gotten into the discussion to SRO’s. So it’s really all of those types of housing
within one location.
Pat, I think you make an excellent point, but we all remember the discussion. The
biggest issue in Druid Hills was the citizens not having a process to voice opposition. I
think we struggle to provide the opportunity. We are going to see this on West
Boulevard that the train has left the station we just need to make sure we find a way
to slow down the train or provide a way that the citizens get their voices heard. That’s
what I struggle with how we do that, we don’t want West Boulevard saying we had no
say so, it’s not an agenda item it just pops up in our community.
We disapproved a homeless shelter on Beatties Ford Road. We are in the business
and maybe the next step to resolve this is to have staff think through some
methodology some opportunity for people to voice their opinions. Through the
housing community and within the people that are affected, gather some thoughts and
issues and see what we can come back with.
Really what authority do we have? We are not doing any of the funding and it is by
right. I know more places wanting trust funds, but if we are not doing any funding
and it’s by right, we really can’t do too much. Right? If we start doing something we
will open a can of worms.
You are down to three basic points; notification provision, spacing or separation
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 11
Lassiter:
requirements and which Zoning districts things are allowed in. We can go back and
give some thought as to any conversation we want to have about any of those three
areas as it relates to special needs housing. That’s a little bit broader than the referral
was, but I think the issue is the compact nature of these occurring in one specific
location. It’s notification, spacing and Zoning classification, that’s the only way that
you can address the issue.
I think the interaction with the citizens is crucial; the interaction sometimes improves
the project. I think that is one of the best things we can do with rezoning.
I think you have to be careful stimulating the opportunity for the people to really have
an impact on the action. A lot of times when we have explained the logistics the
people do not want it in the neighborhood. We have to be very careful. I think the
next step should be to have Councilmember Barnes at the meeting. Do you want us
to start over with the education for him?
I believe he is beyond that so he is o.k.
I think we have opened up the can so I think it’s really appropriate to really look at
how we are going to solve these problems. How do you keep from impacting the
neighborhoods, what is the broader issue and what are the next steps? It also will
weigh in as to what is on the horizon as we go along. We can at least start with those
three points and decide how we engage input from those affected and who care and
who are trying to make things happen. One of the things that is going along on a
parallel track in the Housing Committee is doing an overall assessment of our housing
policy, looking at the housing alternatives and what that means, so it’s very
appropriate to have these things running parallel because they should move effectively
together. Location and zoning issues match up to what you want to do policy wise.
One point that needs to be made is thoroughfares, that is probably the most
permissive of and I think that is a crucial element of what we are trying to do, but
clustering is most difficult. It’s a difficult balance. I am concerned and want people
engaged so that things can be built and enhanced by these structures.
Anymore discussion on that? Alright, thank you all.
IV. Subject
Small Business Assistance
Lassiter:
The last item is a short update on small business efforts underway in the City. Nancy
Rosado is here to give us a quick update on what they have been doing as it relates to
small business.
You should have received in your packet a two page summary of resources that the
City offers under the Small Business Opportunity Program (SBOP) or by our partners
that we refer. These resources are offered in an effort to grow and develop small
businesses here in the Charlotte regional area. The Small Business Enterprise (SBE)
Certification is a race and gender neutral program that ensures small business
participation in contracting and subcontracting opportunities with the City of Charlotte.
Applicants must meet the eligibility requirements to earn the SBE designation.
Eligibility requirements include such things as income and location within the Charlotte
regional area. The Small Business Enterprise Loan Fund is a public/private capitalized
fund providing small businesses with access to capital with more flexible underwriting
standards than a traditional small business loan. The City contributed an initial
investment of $500,000 dollars to the fund, which is administered by the Self-Help
Credit Union. This is for small business owners who probably would not be able to get
a loan through traditional channels.
Other financial partners include: Bank of
America, Branch Banking & Trust, First Charter, First Citizens Bank, Foundation for the
Carolinas, John S. and James L. Knight Foundation, Piedmont Natural Gas, RBC
Centura Bank, Self-Help Credit Union, Time Warner Cable and Wachovia Bank. The
SBOP has also created further opportunities for small business development by
providing tuition assistance of up to $300 dollars per SBE per year for enrollment in
the Central Piedmont Community College (CPCC) – Institute for Entrepreneurship
courses. In FY08 -09, the SBOP paid $6,000 in tuition costs for SBE’s to take classes
Carter:
Campbell:
Mitchell:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Rosado:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 12
Carter:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
at CPCC. The Mentor Protégé Program is an internal program that provides hands-on
managerial and technical assistance by matching SBE owners and managers in need of
guidance and training for the “Protégé” with larger more experienced companies the
“Mentor”; an example of that would be our NAWBO partnership. We actually have a
partnership with the National Association of Women Business Owners. A group of
women are currently mentoring three of our SBE’s, the SBE’s have told us that it has
been a wonderful experience. This is a year long process that they have built on. The
SBOP is also in association with professional associations that provide partial
sponsorships of $100 dollars towards annual membership dues for the professional
associations such as the Charlotte Chamber of Commerce, Carolinas Association of
General Contractors (AGC), Metrolina Minority Contractors Association (MMCA),
National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) and the Latin American
Chamber of Commerce (LACC). We recognize the value of networking; in FY08-09,
the SBOP paid $2,700 dollars in membership dues to these local organizations on
behalf of our SBE’s. On the second page is a list of the current organizations that the
SBO Program also collaborates with, they are external organizations that assist small
businesses. SBOP staff regularly refers customers to our financial assistance partners
such as Self-Help. Self-Help is a nonprofit community development lender whose
mission is creating ownership and economic opportunity for small businesses and
nonprofit organizations headed by minorities, women, rural residents and low-wealth
families. Self-Help also administers the SBE Loan Fund, which is a Federal 504 Loan
Program. Centralina Development Corporation, working in corporation with a bank,
Centralina provides Federal 504 Loan Program financing for fixed assets at a low-fixed
interest rate.
BEFCOR, Business Expansion Funding Corporation, working in
partnership with a bank, BEFCOR provides Federal 504 Loan Program financing for
fixed assets at a low-fixed interest rate. Then there are our educational partners
including CPCC which I have already mentioned. The Small Business & Technology
Development Center provides management counseling and educational services to
small and midsized businesses. Their primary focus is operations, and business
planning and feasibility assessment. The Counselor to America’s Small Business you
may know more readily as SCORE. SCORE members are a group of retired business
professionals who provide volunteer business services to those interested in starting or
expanding a business. Free consultations are available to help individuals define a
successful marketing strategy, develop a marketing plan or help solve business
problems. The Minority Business Development Center, offers managerial and technical
services to assist minority entrepreneurs. Assistance provided in writing business
plans, marketing management, technical assistance and financial planning. And then
the Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County has sample business plans,
sample business research tools and much more, all available at no cost on the second
floor of the main library located on North Tryon. I believe Ms. Carter mentioned at the
last meeting putting together some type of group.
Thank you for letting us know what we do and how we partner. This does not indicate
how much these services are used or if the community knows how successful they are.
I am asking if this is the best use of our money to provide what is needed by our small
businesses? I respect this but I would still like to see an advisory group pulled
together that have been through this or have tried to access or been successful. I
would like a good dialog or discussion about how we are serving these small
businesses.
I think that if you as a group would like to pursue that, I think the full Council has to
weigh in and then how does that layer with the current Business Advisory Committee?
Also considering whether this group would be joined with that or a spin-off of that or
totally unrelated to that? I think there just needs to be some logistical issues that we
need to work through as well.
I think Nancy and her department interviewed a lot of companies on the SBE and got
feed-back on how the program was doing. To Councilmember Carter, let’s make sure
that some of the companies that she has requested were not some of the companies
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 19, 2009
Page 13
Flynn:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Adjourned:
that we have already interviewed. I know that we got great feedback and a lot of
those companies have already been interviewed, let’s make sure that we getting all of
the constituents. Sounds like Councilmember Carter has a few business owners that
maybe we did not interview with.
What are you asking us to look at? Are you asking what we provide to Certified SBE’s,
or are you looking at all small businesses in Charlotte?
Or people that are interested in forming small businesses. I think this is a seed
process, and that is why I am not sure where we are going.
We have run two conferences in the last three years for that particular purpose. I
regularly refer people to Nancy’s office that call me asking how to find the resources. I
will make a suggestion. I think it would be good to have our Business Advisory
Committee to take a look at this and ask where are the opportunities, or give advice
and recommendations from small business owners on that body. Let them take a stab
at it and come back with their recommendations.
Perhaps opened up in public meetings?
Yes.
Get it a little more publicized so that will put more interest in it.
Before doing a public hearing, let Nancy go and give them a presentation to hear
what we are doing, as opposed to a public hearing. I don’t know what is going to
happen. I just think we need to take advantage of the resource that we have, they
meet on a monthly basis to talk about business-related activities. We don’t often
utilize that resource back to Committee, and this is a good chance to do that. We
have had our business corridor meetings, two of those, and those were very
complicated to organize and very expensive.
5:07pm
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, August 19, 2009 at 3:30pm
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
James Mitchell, Vice Chair
Nancy Carter
Anthony Foxx
Patsy Kinsey
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager
AGENDA
I.
CAROLINA THEATRE – 30 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Manager & Peter Zeiler, Transit Station Area Coordinator
Action: Staff has met with all parties and will report on the status of the easement to the Committee
and request action.
II.
GREENWAY BUSINESS CENTER GRANT REQUEST from CHARLOTTE MECKLENBURG
DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION– 30 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Manager & AC Shull, Special Projects Manager
Action: On July 24th, the City Manager referred this item to the ED & Planning Committee to make a
recommendation to City Council on the Charlotte Mecklenburg Development Corporation’s request for
a $500,000 grant to complete rehabilitation of two vacant buildings at the Greenway Business Center.
Attachment
III.
SPECIAL NEEDS USAGE in I-1 DISTRICTS – 30 minutes
Tim Manes, Planning Coordinator for Land Development & Debra Campbell, Planning Director
Action: At the July 20th Zoning Meeting, Councilmember Barnes requested that the ED & Planning
Committee review the Text Amendment and which Amendments allow for special needs housing in I-1
Districts. Staff will present background information to the Committee on location for special needs
housing.
IV.
SMALL BUSINESS ASSISTANCE – 5 minutes
Nancy Rosado, Small Business Program Manager
Action: Provide response to Committee’s request from the Small Business Resource Event for
information on small business assistance. Attachment
V.
NEXT MEETING: September 2, 2009 at Noon, Room 280
Possible Topic: Follow-up on Special Needs Usage in I-1 Districts
Distribution: Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
SMALL BUSINESS RESOURCES The City of Charlotte’s Small Business Opportunity Program (SBOP) offers the following programs and services in an effort to grow and develop small businesses in the Charlotte Regional Area: Small Business Enterprise (SBE) Certification: A race and gender neutral program that ensures small business participation in contracting and subcontracting opportunities with the City of Charlotte. Applicants must meet the eligibility requirements to earn the SBE designation. Small Business Enterprise Loan Fund: A Public/Private capitalized fund providing small businesses with access to capital with more flexible underwriting standards than a traditional small business loan. The City contributed an initial investment of $500,000 to the fund, which is administered by the Self‐Help Credit Union. Other financial partners include: Bank of America; Branch Banking & Trust (BB&T); First Charter; First Citizens Bank; Foundation for the Carolinas; John S. and James L. Knight Foundation; Piedmont Natural Gas; RBC Centura Bank; Self‐Help Credit Union; Time Warner Cable; and Wachovia. Institute for Entrepreneurship Tuition Assistance: Provides tuition assistance of up to $300 per SBE per year for enrollment in Central Piedmont Community College ‐ Institute for Entrepreneurship courses. In FY08‐09, the SBOP paid $6,000 in tuition costs for SBEs to take classes at CPCC. Mentor Protégé Program: Provides hands‐on managerial and technical assistance by matching SBE owners and managers in need of guidance and training (“Protégé”) with larger more experienced companies (“Mentor”). Professional Association Sponsors: SBEs are eligible to receive partial sponsorships of $100 towards annual membership dues for the following local organizations for one year: • Charlotte Chamber of Commerce • Carolinas Association General Contractors (AGC) • Metrolina Minority Contractors Association (MMCA) • National Association of Women Business Owners (NAWBO) • Latin American Chamber of Commerce (LACC) In FY08‐09, the SBOP paid $2,700 in membership dues to these local organizations on behalf of our SBEs. 1 The SBO Program also collaborates with external organizations to assist small businesses. SBOP staff regularly refers customers to the following area partners: Financial Assistance Partners: Self Help: A nonprofit community development lender whose mission is creating ownership and economic opportunity for small businesses and nonprofit organizations headed by minorities, women, rural residents and low‐wealth families. Self‐ Help also administers the SBE Loan Fund, which is a federal 504 loan program. Centralina Development Corporation: Working in partnership with a bank, Centralina provides federal 504 loan program financing for fixed assets at a low‐fixed interest rate. BEFCOR‐ Business Expansion Funding Corporation: Working in partnership with a bank, BEFCOR provides federal 504 loan program financing for fixed assets at a low‐fixed interest rate. Educational Partners: CPCC Institute for Entrepreneurship: Provides one‐on‐one counseling and access to their resource center with materials and resource information to plan or improve small businesses. Free seminars on business related topics are offered most months at the Institute and various public library locations. Small Business & Technology Development Center: Provides management counseling and educational services to small and midsized businesses. Their primary focus is operations, and business planning, and feasibility assessment. Counselors to America’s Small Businesses (SCORE): SCORE members are retired business professionals who provide volunteer business services to those interested in starting or expanding a business. Free consultations are available to help individuals define a successful marketing strategy, develop a marketing plan or help solve business problems. Minority Business Development Center: Offers managerial and technical services to assist minority entrepreneurs. Assistance provided in writing plans, marketing management, technical assistance, and financial planning. Public Library of Charlotte and Mecklenburg County: Sample businesses, sample business research tools and much more are all available on the second floor of the Main Library. 2 9/2/2009
Carolina Theatre Update
Carolina Theatre Update
ED & Planning Committee
g
May 13, 2009
ED & Planning Committee
August 19, 2009
Activity Update
• Bank of America has refined design options for fire egress
• $250,000 ‐ $280,000 estimated in additional up‐fit during build out for Foundation for the Carolinas
• B of A will have code review performed to obtain approval for solution and determine if easement is needed for front exit to Tryon
• Any new easement in front can be defined and approved at later date
at later date
1
9/2/2009
Potential Easement
Action Items
• Reaffirm June 15 ED&P recommendation
• Review any future refined easement needs
2
9/2/2009
Greenway Business Center
Grant Request
Economic Development & Planning Committee
August 19, 2009
Wilkinson Park Success
• City Investment
- $2.1M
• Federal
F d
l Grants
G
t
- $1.7M
• Construction began
in 2003
-Completed in 2008
• Increase in tax
b
base
- $12M
$
• Jobs Created
- Construction: 915
- Permanent: 233
1
9/2/2009
Title
– Item
Title
– Item
2
9/2/2009
Background
• The Charlotte Mecklenburg Development Corporation
(CMDC) began development of the Greenway Business Park
in the summer of 2008.
• All infrastructure improvements are now complete, including
roads, water detention, landscaping, utilities, and site work.
• Site work was completed on the Park in the Spring of 09.
• City and County both invested $950,000.
– County committed an additional $835,000 for park improvements
(pending)
• CMDC has rehabbed one of the three existing buildings on
site.
– Funded by Federal grants totaling $429,000
2732 Rozzelles Ferry Road
• CMDC rehabbed the 5,860 square foot building.
• CMDC finished the rehabilitation on time and under budget.
budget
• The BRIDGE Jobs Program, a non-profit, has signed a lease
for half of the redeveloped building and is currently
occupying the space.
3
9/2/2009
Request
• CMDC is requesting $500,000 to be used to offset
construction costs to rehab the two, remaining, vacant
buildings.
• CMDC owns the buildings and is ready to move forward
immediately.
• This project would create an additional 14,300 square feet of
lease space.
• City funding is needed, as market rents will not support the
project.
Illustrations of Proposed Buildings
– Item
4
9/2/2009
Illustrations of Proposed Buildings
– Item
Rationale
• Supports redevelopment of priority business corridor and
adjacent target neighborhoods of Smallwood, Lakewood, and
Seversville.
• Enhances the overall Greenway Business Center - improves
look of unsightly buildings & sets stage for further corridor
activity.
• Current market opportunity for lease space.
• Provides opportunity for neighborhood-serving retail (e.g.
bank, credit union, restaurant).
• Creates approximately 75 temporary construction jobs and
50 permanent jobs.
5
9/2/2009
Costs Include
• Renovation and site costs estimated at $120 to $125 per
square foot.
• CMDC estimates new construction costs $130+
$
per square
foot.
• Rehabilitation of vacant buildings preserves history &
character of the neighborhood by saving the buildings.
• Renovation and site costs include:
– Site work (asphalt, grading, curb, gutter, water taps, sewer)
– All new roofing, plumbing, electrical, and HVAC
– Green building adaptive reuse practices add additional cost
Greenway Proforma:
Option One
Proforma One (with City funds)
USES
Construction Costs
1,731,471
1,731,471
Sources
City Corridor Funding
CMDC Equity
Conventional Debt
500,000
500,000
731,471
1,731,471
NOI
2734 Rental Revenue (NN)
2730 Rental Revenue (NN)
Less: 10% Vacancy
Less: Operating Expenses
Less: Interest
49,851
78,588
(12,844)
(24,974)
(43,888)
46,733
Return
NOI
Equity
ROE (City & CMDC)
46,733
1,000,000
4.67%
6
9/2/2009
Greenway Proforma:
Option Two
Proforma Two (w/o City funds)
USES
Construction Costs
1,731,471
1,731,471
Sources
CMDC Equity
500,000
Conventional Debt
1,231,471
1,731,471
NOI
2734 Rental Revenue (NN)
49,851
2730 Rental Revenue (NN)
78,588
Less: 10% Vacancy
(12,844)
Less: Operating Expenses
(24,974)
Less: Interest (6%, 20yr am, 5yr tm)
(105,872)
(15,251)
Summary
• CMDC is requesting $500,000 in ED Grant Funds
pp
for funding
g from Business
• Staff recommends approval
Corridor Revitalization Funds
– $7 million uncommitted balance
– If approved, will be under construction by end of 2009
7
9/2/2009
Katrina Young, Zoning Administrator
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Planning Department
1
9/2/2009
“Special Needs Housing” Types:
g House
ƒ Boarding
ƒ Commercial Rooming House
ƒ Group Home
ƒ Shelters
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Accessory
Emergency
Homeless
ƒ Short-term Care Facility
ƒ Single Room Occupancy
2
9/2/2009
ƒ Property owner must reside on the premise.
ƒ Rooms in the principal structure are rented as an
accessory use.
use
ƒ No separate cooking facilities provided for any
boarder.
ƒ Up to 8 boarders permitted.
ƒ No separate exterior
entrances for boarders.
ƒ A building containing up to 10 rooming units available
for rent 7+ days.
3
9/2/2009
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Residential building with support and supervisory
personnel.
Up to 10 handicapped persons with temporary or
permanent physical, emotional, and/or mental
disability.
Provides room and board, personal care, and
rehabilitation service in a family environment.
Also known as “family care home”.
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Located in an accessory building or site owned and
operated by religious, civic, fraternal, social,
institutional or government agency.
Up to 15 individuals at any one time.
Operates up to 2 days/nights per week.
Provides temporary housing to individuals or families
during severe, life-threatening weather conditions, or
other emergency conditions.
4
9/2/2009
ƒ
Provides free lodging and at least one support service:
ƒ Meals
ƒ Medical treatment
ƒ Psychological counseling, treatment, and/or supervision
ƒ Nutritional counseling
ƒ Assistance becoming drug or alcohol free
ƒ Employment counseling
ƒ Job training and placement
ƒ Child care
ƒ Assistance in finding permanent
housing.
ƒ
A not-for-profit organization that provides short-term
care to patients discharged from a hospital or
emergency room with no place to recuperate.
ƒ
Clients must be referred by hospital or emergency
room.
ƒ
On-site management in a 24-hour safe, structured
and monitored environment.
ƒ
Up to 8 individuals at any given time.
ƒ
May include meals, secure storage, refrigeration for
medications, medical observation, nursing care
and/or supervision.
5
9/2/2009
ƒ
A building with between 11-120 rooming units available
for rent for periods of 7+ days.
On-site management 24 hours per building.
ƒ
Cleaning services provided and utilities mass metered.
ƒ
Maximum of 120 rooming units per site; minimum of 11
ƒ
units.
ƒ
Class B buffer if abutting property zoned/used for single
family residential use.
Special Needs Housing
Boarding House
Single-Family
Districts
Multi-Family
Districts
Office
Districts
Commercial
Districts
PC
PC
PC
PC
Commercial Rooming
Houses
Group Home
PC
PC
PC up to 6
X up to 10
X up to 10
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
PC
Short-term Care Facility
Shelter - Accessory
Industrial
Districts
PC
PC
Shelter - Homeless
PC
PC
Single Room Occupancy
(SRO)
PC
PC
Shelter - Emergency
X - Permitted
PC - Permitted with Prescribed Conditions
6
9/2/2009
ƒ
Surveyed SRO regulations in 30 cities:
ƒ
ƒ
24 cities do not have SRO regulations
The following cities have SRO regulations most like
Charlotte, and permit SRO’s in the following general
category of zoning districts:
City
Residential
Districts
Atlanta
Atl t
9
Chicago
9
Greensboro
9
Office
Districts
Commercial
Districts
Industrial
Districts
9
9
9
9
History
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
The SRO definition and prescribed conditions were
added to the Zoning Ordinance through a text
amendment in 1999.
Prior to adoption, the Zoning Administrator interpreted
an SRO use as being most closely related to a “hotel” or
“motel”.
The rationale to permit SRO’s with prescribed
conditions in the I-1 zoning district was they functioned
similar to a hotel or motel and those uses are permitted
in I-1.
7
9/2/2009
ƒ What additional information is
needed?
ƒ Committee direction on next steps
8