ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 1
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
FY2010/FY2011 ED Focus Area Plan
Recommendation to City Council on the ED Focus Area Plan for
FY2010/FY2011.
II.
Subject:
Action:
Business District Organization Program
Committee input on changes to the Business District Organization Program.
III.
Subject:
Action:
Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback
Receive information and consider making a recommendation on path forward
for the Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback.
IV.
Subject:
Next Meeting Date: May 6, 2009 at Noon, Room CH-14
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Council members John Lassiter, Nancy Carter and Patsy Kinsey
James Mitchell, Anthony Foxx
3:30pm
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
4.
FY2010/FY2011 ED Strategic Focus Area Plan
Mayor & Council 2009 Annual Retreat Notes
PowerPoint Presentation: Business District Organization Program Refinement
PowerPoint Presentation: Independence Boulevard Area Plan
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I.
Subject:
FY2010/FY2011 ED Focus Area Plan
John Lassiter, Chair:
We have three items, one of which we have to pass or shoot the dog. We have had
this item for several meetings, giving everybody here an opportunity to vote on our
ED Focus Area Plan for the coming year. That is item number one. Ron, do you want
to start by running down any changes since last time? I think we are working on the
same draft?
Kimble:
We left it the same shape that it was as we sent it off to Retreat. We have also
produced the information for you and the notes from the Retreat for each one of the
Focus Areas. If you wanted to make any tweaks or changes, I think it would come out
of the notes you had for the Retreat. Other than that, we will take direction from the
Committee. These are scheduled to go to Council for adoption at your April 13th
Council meeting.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 2
Lassiter:
Mitchell:
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Vote:
I think the comments that came out of the Retreat were emphasis points and not to
make a change in any particular item at this point. So I would like to hear a motion.
I would like to make a motion that we adopt the ED and Planning Focus Area Plan.
I second that.
Motion made and seconded.
There is some issue of the green development that we talked about, I am holding an
item that is of interest to this Committee and this group. It is not an area in the Focus
Area, it was mentioned at the Retreat, it is not in the Retreat minutes. It is something
that is very important to the Committee and the City and would put us on the cutting
edge. Given the concept of energy, automotive in the same building in our area and
looking at the bio-sect area, it would be complimentary to it. It would be used by
CPCC, UNCC and the Green Triangle. It is something that is a real driver and I don’t
want the Committee to forget about it.
I think that language is in ED1 and it is more than enough to include an examination
of that opportunity, it does speak to strategies and growing employment in the green
industry.
We also added a sentence on the first page, in the last paragraph, to include green
and renewable energy.
I think that is where we tried to respond to that,
Councilmember Carter.
It’s more generic than I like, but I do appreciate that effort.
Additional comments? The motion has been seconded, all in favor say aye.
Motion by Mitchell; Seconded by Kinsey
To recommend to City Council the ED Focus Area Plan for FY2010/FY2011
Lassiter:
Mitchell:
Carter:
Foxx:
Kinsey:
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Yes
Lassiter:
It’s unanimous, thank you all, and thank you staff, for being patient with us.
Subject II:
Business District Organization Program
Lassiter:
The next item on the agenda is the Business District Organization Program. This is a
new item for us; I think Tom is going to start this off.
Taking a look at where we are with our Business District Organization Program, we are
going to review for you what our current program is and talk to you about some
opportunities that we see in the districts that we have worked with, actually John
Short is going to talk about that. We will discuss what we are proposing for expansion
of that program. So our current program provides up to $10,000 dollars in matching
grants for administrative and operating expenses. This is money that they have
raised; we match that one for one. They also have access to matching neighborhood
grants, they have not really taken advantage of that but they could do that if they
want to take on a project where they could match materials and labor. The groups
that we have been working with are really not involved in real estate, so these are not
the CDC’s, these are business organizations. For real estate redevelopment, CDC has
really been a help has really been our arm for that kind of work. For program
requirements, they need to be 5013C or C6’s and located in one of the designated
corridors. This was setup to be a business organization so the board members must be
75% percent businesses, with at least ten business members. They had to be active in
participation, including regular board meetings and submit an annual work plan for our
Warshauer:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 3
Mitchell:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Short:
approval. This is a pretty high threshold if you had to be organized and already on the
ground running to qualify for these matching funds. Our current recipients and we only
have two recipients, one is the Freedom Drive Development Association; they have
been grant recipients for three out of the last four years. They hired Mary Hopper to
manage their meetings and provide guidance to them. They hold monthly meetings
with over thirty people usually attending. They have been very impressive; they have
been out there for fifteen years. They have an estimated budget of somewhere around
$20,000 dollars, they typically raise between $10,000 and $15,000 dollars in a year.
The other recipient is North End Partners it has been a grant recipient for three years.
They hired an administrative assistant which provides much less guidance to them
than Mary provides to the Freedom Drive Development Association. They too hold
monthly meetings and have about forty businesses that attend; today they had one of
the quarterly meetings there were about 20 to 30 people in attendance. Their budget
is much less at about $15,000 dollars a year.
North End Partners, could you give me their geographical location?
The old Tryon North Association. They have from North Tryon at Brookshire on out as
part of their group.
Are they co-located with the Hidden Valley Neighborhood Association?
Hidden Valley attends as a neighborhood, representative Ronnie Hill of Hidden Valley
attends. Freedom Drive likewise has people from Hidden Valley attending their
meetings. Some of the successes that they have had are that they really provide an
opportunity for all to meet and understand what is going on and for elected officials to
see for themselves. Freedom Drive also lobbies to get rid of the negative view of the
area, and they worked really hard to close down the Arena Club. They have also
facilitated in bringing back interest in the corridor. They flew in one of the owners of a
major parcel and told her that they would love to see a difference in this area and
could she find it in her heart to sell the property. And she did, so they are able to do
things as a neighborhood group that we probably could not do as a City. They have
very successful in helping the region come alive. North End Partners has been
instrumental in getting a Day Labor Ordinance created and they helped get rid of
unwanted visitors that began after the closing of the Crown Hotel/Alamo Hotel further
up the street and they have also facilitated a homeless study. Some of our questions,
as we looked at what we could do were, how could we improve the effectiveness of
our existing organization? What could their role be, how might they expand their role?
What kind of budget would they need to fulfill their role in our community and how can
the City better support them in this economic climate? So we sent John to do some
research.
I looked at a wide variety of cities, not only geographically but according to size, those
that were comparable to Charlotte now and in the future. Some of the programs
included providing support on a general level from those local governments; what they
are doing helps to support these business organizations. The national programs such
as Main Street, LISC and MSB, those are primarily located in larger cities such as
Boston, St. Paul and Oklahoma City. Some of the trends that I saw nationally were
that commercial activities and commercial events are heavily emphasized across the
board. Typically the city or group that is doing these types of things is operating on a
budget of around $50,000 dollars; that would include the festival, sign activities and
commercial events of many kinds. Cities that are in the Main Street Program also
budget heavily for marketing and commercial activities. Regardless of whether it was
coming from the local government or a national program, special interest is part of
what these groups are doing. The city employees provided assistance to groups
forming on their own volition; they did not go out and try to solicit a group to form in
any area they were working in. Many cities have moved their business groups or
districts into a MSD framework, but the key caveat there is that, this is not something
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 4
Carter:
Short:
Carter:
Short:
Lassiter:
Short:
Carter:
Short:
Carter:
Short:
Carter:
Short:
Warshauer:
that is being utilized in areas that are already distressed. Such as our business
corridors that we have here, it’s not necessarily a good viable option. The national
programs such as Main Street have been around a while. They hold national
conferences and some on site workshops which may be something for our business
districts organizations to consider. I don’t think Main Street is a good option for the
particular segments of our corridors such as North Tryon and Freedom Drive. The
larger cities, Boston and St. Paul were budgeting around $40,000 to $50,000 dollars.
Did that budget include administrative costs for the city?
Yes, it did.
So I am assuming there was a part time employee who could administer this?
Yes. That is a total budget not just promotional asset of a budget. LISC specializes in
distressed businesses and residential communities. They work primarily with real
estate acquisition and things like that. They work predominantly with CDC’s to provide
training, consultation or even capital financing. If we were to incorporate LISC, you
may want to recap the fees about one point. For our business specific program, LISC
does not seem to be a very compatible option at this time.
We did communicate with LISC as part of our efforts in the Housing and Neighborhood
Development Committee to see whether or not they were interested in working with
us on foreclosure and with neighborhoods that needed services due to significant
budget. Now is not a good time to enter into our marketplace, and now that we have
two departments working together, it will be easier to see how that plays out.
Some of the practices and other keys that were tailored more to the type of business
employers’ aid that we have here were found in cities like Tacoma, Jacksonville and
Orlando. They provide separate funding for conferences and leadership training.
Tacoma has a cross council government, where leaders from all of these groups come
and meet together.
Are the groups coming together in the government offices? Is it the government that
is handling these meetings? I don’t understand the concept.
When that program initially began, I believe it was the city staff that was leaned on
heavily to get it up and running. Since that time the action is much more the staff
being in an advisory position, something like I am with our current business groups. I
go as a City contact to the business meetings. Established over time, they have their
own board meetings that are run solely by the representatives from each one of the
fourteen business districts. The City staff is the contact person.
How does that City contact feedback into the City structure?
What is their primary role?
Yes, that too. Do they report to Key Business or Council Members?
They report to the City Manager. The lady that does that reports directly; that is her
sole job to work with these businesses. They are funded by the City; they receive a
grant every year, annually, to help with the district government. It’s not maintained
by her specifically, meetings are run and elected officials represent the districts. They
provide free marketing, promotions and consultations as part of their service. They
have a membership fee, along with City money and promotions they get around
$40,000 dollars, that is a target number that we are seeing. It seems to be what these
groups need to be successful in their endeavors. They also operate special event
planning as a separate grant in the business districts. I think Tom is going to go over
what we are proposing as changes to the new program.
Based on our research what we were thinking of doing was to extend our current grant
to a 2:1 match, where the City matches $2 dollars to every $1 dollar raised. The City
would cap it’s contribution at $30,000 dollars. So people that are raising $15,000
dollars, they would get $30,000 from the City, and have a budget of $45,000 dollars.
This they would use for promotions and to run their meetings. We are hoping this will
enable people to do more in the lines of promotions and marketing. We would expand
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 5
Foxx:
Warshauer:
Foxx:
Warshauer:
Foxx:
Warshauer:
Mitchell:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Carter:
the perimeters of the fund to be used to make sure that marketing special events and
esthetic improvement are eligible activities toward their funding. We think that using
money for marketing helps people create that sense of place, along our corridors, that
they have a place that they can call their own. We would still require that
organizations submit all of the current documentation. But we would change some of
the board requirements so that there could be neighborhood participation. The
change in the board ratio requirement, is from 75% percent business to 50% percent
business, and allows a business with a pending 501-C3 or C6, status to be eligible.
This change in ratio would provide more collaboration between neighborhoods and
businesses.
You have two organizations that are using the program now?
Right.
Are there other organizations that are not using the program and if you changed the
criteria what are the potential users of the program?
We believe that with more participation, that we could get groups around
Plaza/Central to participate. Possibly NODA and farther up Central Avenue where we
have a lot of people in east Charlotte that are more neighborhood oriented. With a
75% percent business ratio requirement, that would be a pretty high number for them
to get to. There are some people working out on West Boulevard that could also be a
possibility.
So if we were to survey the City right now, are the two organizations that you just
talked about the only two that meet our criteria right now?
That meet our criteria right now, would be Freedom Drive and North End Partners.
One thing I would like to suggest that you build into the program, Tom, into that dollar
guide is based on the experience I had on the historical west side. They built a
business directory, they purchased twelve garbage cans; they did a lot to change the
perception of the corridor. I think if they had better leader, they would still be an
organization now. I totally agree, I tried to do the MSG route, but they wanted the
extra “C” to start the organization.
It would be interesting to see if we can combine some existing groups. East Charlotte
has been pretty effective for the last few years, run by Jarrett Royster and Kyle
Woudstra. There is also a business group around Eastland, chaired by Mac Everett
that is completely business oriented. The business subsidiaries run by Kyle Woudstra
and Andy Phillips are very good. What I am saying is that there are some groups that
could collaborate. Charlotte East Partners are more neighborhood oriented. How do
you qualify that 50% percent business? There are solo business owners who do
participate but not necessarily as business owners. I think we need a better definition
but also the capacity to group people together. Have an umbrella group to address
specific issues. I think there is a potential also on Independence. You have lists of
people that have been attending those meetings. I do not want fragment and loose
the impact of the money that we can invest.
We only have a one to one maximum so it takes a lot of money. By having this
program out there we think that there are a number of people that are somewhat
organized or who would step up to the plate and take on more. There will be more to
take on because there will be more to take on. They will be more excited if they know
there is more money available to them. This really enables people to have more due
to volunteer work they have created to drive these projects. We would also develop a
“start-up guide” that interested parties can access online. We will detail how to form a
business organization and how outlining some of the procedures and actions are
necessary for success.
The last item is special events; I would be concerned that if there are some
established events, that it will create competing events. I am very concerned about
that because it dissipates your volunteer participation.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 6
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Flynn:
We agree with you, with the conversations we have had so far, we have been able to
take a look at the ethnic festivals. We have met with the Asian Chamber and the Latin
American Coalition. What kind of thing were they doing and what would they like to
do? What would it take for those to be more prominent and more coordinated with the
business district? How can we take Taste of The World to another level? So that was
why we were looking at the special events category to develop some partnerships to
get more festivals from groups that would not normally have qualified. They are not a
business association; they don’t intend to be a business association, but they can do
some great work with other businesses on how they work and manage their business.
That was the direction we were going in.
I have two questions, the first one relates to making the business a neighborhood, and
how to form business organizations? We use this as a way to develop businesses and
not to organize neighborhoods. What is the expectation when you have up to 50%
percent of the participants that are neighborhood oriented? How do you decide what
is the right project? When is a project neighborhood driven? How will that work when
you are using this as a business development tool?
What we are saying is, coming back to the concept that you cannot have good
corridors that have neighborhoods behind them in distressed conditions and vice versa
and so we really saw going in this direction, we probably should begin to help drive
those associations to work in both areas.
Both in the corridors and in the
neighborhoods; work on projects that are going to be projects that are mutually
beneficial to both of them. That was our thinking, trying to move it a little bit more so
that you could have more neighborhood participation.
Yes, but my thought was that we have several strategies within the neighborhood
development silo. This is a business organization development; I understand the
issues of areas that do not have enough businesses to qualify, but you still want the
focus to be business, and you don’t want to be dragged into neighborhood
organization and neighborhood activities because that is not the point. The point is
how you are developing business activities and linkages that grow the business. I want
to make sure that your expectations of qualification are maintaining that focus and the
neighborhood engagement and the neighborhood participation is used to bolster that
not to bolster neighborhood issues.
We really agree, but we will lose the business community if all the time is spent
dealing with the neighborhood issues such as domestic violence and code enforcement
issues in neighborhoods. We really have to make good by having and keeping an
agenda. A business agenda, the neighborhoods still need to be organized to work on
those issues inside the neighborhood.
Maybe what you could do is in that “Start-up Guide” is also in that best practices or
recommended activities. Something that gives examples of the kinds of things that
have worked somewhere, whether it is from job research about the community or
what is happening on Freedom Drive. That becomes a model that you can share
information to others about successful things. This can be designed in a way to benefit
the particular part of the city you are in.
Good idea.
The same questions are in regard to the funding issue. There is no funding required to
do this but because we are going to have a different match and more programs, we
are going to have more dollars allocated. Does that mean that we aren’t utilizing all of
the funds currently available within the Facade?
Right now we are getting and using a lot more grants. We do have a balance in those
programs to carry it forward. Even if we were to expand this from where it is now, to
around a $30,000 dollar per year program to close to a $100,000 dollar a year
program, we would have those funds available.
Given our current level of activity with Façade and Security, that amount will work.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 7
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Kimble:
Kinsey:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Foxx:
Warshauer:
Kimble:
Do we have a ceiling? If twenty organizations came in and had raised $20,000 dollars
each, can we give it to them on that amount?
We will look at that and see what that ceiling is.
I don’t know to what extent it would be utilized but, you have got to have something
that says this is all we have. If maybe it’s more like a small annual grant process that
has a time limit for putting in the request along with the business plan. That may
dictate whether we will have sufficient funds.
Going back to your point of, are they doing activities within our recommended risk?
I want to encourage it. But in the same sense, I don’t really see that we have a lot of
money just lying around for anyone that just comes in.
Looking down the road, is there a possibility that we could use this as seed money for
a business investment district? In other words, if there is an area within a business
district that cannot afford those fees that we normally assess, could we possibly give
grant money to help cover? This would be to cover those distressed areas or
businesses that don’t meet a certain threshold so that the whole area can participate.
I am thinking specifically of the Streetcar funding.
We think ideally that this is a step toward establishing a graduated step.
But on down the line if there is an area in that designated district, can this be used?
It’s not part of our recommendation at this point. However, I think you would need to
judge the evolution of this program and how successful it’s been against your other
budgetary needs. It’s the prioritization of funds for a different purpose.
What is DARF?
Development And Revitalization Fund. The new program measures would include
membership of the current groups expanding, organizations increasing the number of
special events that they are doing, positive media exposure increases and new
organizations form. We would hope to see more activity along the corridors with
people embracing the business districts more than they have in the past.
I am hung up on your last bullet, “new organizations formed.” Is the idea to
assimilate the enthusiasm or do you want them to unite?
What we mean is that we have two organizations now and we would really like to see
organizations in NODA and farther out Central Avenue. We have been hearing about
that very thing happening. People are very excited in those areas about the possibility
and we are hearing about groups re-forming on Wilkinson. People actually want to
become more engaged in community activities.
I think as these two departments innovate, a function like this one starts bearing more
on neighborhood issues than it has in the past. I really think it’s going to be touch and
go for a little bit, we are going to depend on these different areas to figure out what
the big issue is. I am talking from experience about neighbors that consider it their
business in knowing what is going on in the business corridor. The businesses being
concerned about what is on the neighborhood side for them. The relationships are not
always close; we have found that out with the Charlotte Mecklenburg Development
Corporation. When you go in there and you say; “we are going to do a business park,
doesn’t everybody feel good about that?”
And the answer is no. Sometimes you
have to spend time with neighbors so that they understand it. I see a lot of
opportunities to create more communication and better information. While I do think
that it does need to be on the business side of things, I think we have to work on
developing our own soft sell skills within the City. At least in the way we reach out
with this program.
It’s good to hear what you all want and that we are on the right path.
Do you want us to take one more crack at this with some of the input that we have
gotten and bring it back one more time? Mr. Mumford can weigh-in, in the mean time,
since he is new to the dialog.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 8
Carter:
Foxx:
Short:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Could you provide a little more definition to the funding too? Make sure we have
adequate funding for the programs that were listed, based on history and demand?
One of the questions that I had is; how are we going to staff this program? Are you
going to have traditional people there or are you going to have liaison people there?
How are you going to be able to respond to some of the issues that come up? But the
more fundamental question that I have is; what is the bigger picture on how we are
going to integrate those two funds?
I would like to speak to that one. We agree that is the question. Current economic
development activity between housing and neighborhood activity; right now we are
going through the process of seeing how those things come together in this new
corridor and neighborhood revitalization effort. We are working on exactly what you
are asking and seeking those answers as well. It’s not easy; we have had two
separate focus areas on business and neighborhood.
Everybody intellectually
understands one can’t be successful without the other. But you are actually right,
business folks do not think the same typically as the neighborhood and they are not
coming together as we would hope.
Just one more suggestion. One of the things that we might have to put our money
into once they get organized is staff. We can provide through our core of liaisons and
interim staff, they can run initial meetings and help work through organizational
issues. This might be a good use of their time because they are trying to get a
foothold and then we can let them walk on their own. They also will engrain our
energy into the folks who are on the ground. This might be a great way to facilitate an
additional organization; that they may not have been able to identify easily on their
own. There is a balance there between; there is someone here from the government
to help you and here is what the City will do to help you. At some point, we will
become a consulting and advisory source. Come back when you are ready, this was a
great use to time and thought.
It’s more difficult these days and times for these groups that may want to form to be
able to raise the money in this environment. In the grand scheme of things, it’s not a
lot of City money, maybe we can jump start something earlier than we thought.
The idea that business owners and the interested neighborhood leaders buy into a
common agenda is pretty good. The idea is they can take ownership in what that is
and we simply help in whatever way we do. I like what you are thinking. Thank you
all good work.
Subject III:
Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback
Lassiter:
The last item is a follow-up on the Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback. We
had a fairly serious conversation at our last meeting. We talked to staff about looking
at alternatives and give us a cap forward.
They have come back with a
recommendation that they would like to run by us and potentially take to Council to
give us some direction. That would give us some relief for the ongoing projects and
would retain some authority to go back in and look at future needs of setback issues.
Ron, are you going to start this off?
Excellent set-up. We want to see if there is a way we could show good progress, good
faith, and moving forward on what we feel is some pretty good work in the
Independence Corridor. Not waiting until the end of the Independence Boulevard
Study to roll out with all of it’s recommendations and then be in the fall before we
could take any action. We had a really good conversation, as Mr. Lassiter said, last
time and we think we might want to suggest moving forward on a piece of the
Independence Boulevard Study; namely the Transitional Setback and speed that up a
little bit without going too fast and showing great cooperation with any development
that may want to occur in the Independence Corridor. Tom Warshauer is ready to
Kimble:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 9
Warshauer:
Kimble:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Carter:
Flynn:
Johnson:
Carter:
walk you through that in a very brief PowerPoint. At the end he is going to have three
different possibilities for a timeframe to move this through He is going to need some
feedback from you on what timeframe is comfortable to you.
I want to recap where we were at our last meeting. We are looking at defining US-74
at this point. We have had a lot of public input and that is very important to us. We
are looking at the potential and future Right-of-Way. The 250’ foot section runs west
of WT Harris to Briar Creek. The 280’ foot area begins at WT Harris east to Hwy 280.
I will be glad to go back and answer any questions, but we spent quite a bit of time
looking at this last time. This is just giving you a reference on what our construction
potential is. Essentially inside of WT Harris, we will not be doing any by-pass lanes on
the outside area east of Harris, we would be having by-pass lanes. The reason being
the difference between the 250’ and the 280’ feet. The reason that we are expediting
this process is that we noticed the need for businesses in that area. We are going to
be getting public input in April through June. Staff has identified a preferred cross
section which will be for public input as I said in April through June. The draft plan will
be completed this summer, with adoption to follow that. We know that there is a text
amendment for City-wide Transitional Setback scheduled for your consideration on
April 20th.
We think we can advance the text amendment for you separately on
Independence. For a tentative schedule on the plan tomorrow, we have a Citizens
Advisory Group meeting then again on April 30th. We are scheduling Citizens Advisory
Meeting number five to hear the draft plan recommendations and key implementation
strategies. During June and July, we should bring forward an additional setback text
amendment for Independence Boulevard. We are expecting a public meeting for the
draft plan sometime in June with plan review and adoption sometime in late summer
or early fall. The options that we have for moving forward with the additional setback
would be a public meeting on July 20th, there is no meeting in the month of August.
Our recommendation is to move forward on the public hearing meeting on July 20th, so
that we can get this in a more standardized manner. We think this gives us a lot of
time to get some input from the public and our Citizens Advisory Group, and still be
able to move forward.
If we wanted to meet that June 15th and July 20th dates, we would have to have some
indication from the Council; from the Committee first and then full Council. If this is
the direction you want us to go then we need to get it in the pipeline and get going
through the text amendment process.
My reaction is the sooner the better. Does this impact the Wal-Mart decision?
No, it does not impact the Wal-Mart decision. At the Committee meeting last time we
walked you through the Transitional Setback and how the Transitional Setback has
absolutely no impact on the Wal-Mart site plan. The day before that meeting, the
members of Planning, CDOT, the City Attorney’s Office and Economic Development
met with the Wal-Mart representatives and State representatives. We are still waiting
to hear back from them, the conformation that they are o.k., but we are still waiting
on that confirmation from the Wal-Mart folks.
I think there still is a question on the parking and the Transitional Setback?
Wal-Mart can meet all of the parking requirements, required by the Zoning Ordinance,
outside of the Transitional Setback. But we explained to Wal-Mart that they do have
some Wal-Mart requirements. As you all know, Wal-Mart has above and beyond
parking requirements. We have to be inside the Transitional Setback, which is totally
allowable. They can do it. We are fine with them putting that there.
As I understand it, there are different parking requirements for parking in a retail area
versus a shopping center area? How is this defined?
I am going to have to look to Planning to answer that one.
I am not sure of the difference but we can get back to you on that.
Thank you, I think that is crucial in how that is structured for the parking in front.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 10
Johnson:
Carter:
Foxx:
Kimble:
Pleasant:
Kimble:
Foxx:
Pleasant:
Foxx:
Pleasant:
As we looked at it, Tom is correct, based on the requirement, Wal-Mart can easily
make all of the parking requirements outside of the Transitional Setback.
I hate to make another protest statement, but I am very concerned with this issue.
We are in a threatened economic time; Wal-Mart is making this decision on ease of
covering the rezone etcetera and we have gone two and a half years on this.
I know this is an issue of vital importance to a number of businesses and residents on
the east side of Charlotte. Ron, in your comments you expressed that this would be
something like a symbolic gesture in addressing this issue. I guess the two questions
I have about it are; provide some assurance that this is not purely symbolic in that
this is actually going to be a difference in making life better for the business
community. Secondly, what conversation have we had with NCDOT about the long
term viability of some of these expansion plans? Depending on that conversation,
what is your conversation on more aggressive reduction of the Transitional Setback?
Good questions. When I said “symbolic” that means that in the full Independence
Boulevard Plan, that we are taking a piece of it and we are implementing it
immediately. At the 250’ and 280’ foot and we are still going to continue to look at
this to see if there is any way of further tweaking of the 250’ and the 280’. I think
right now we are pretty good in all areas of the 250’ and the 280’, it preserves and
protects what you all might want to do in the future with this corridor as it relates to
both transit and roadway car vehicular traffic. If we need to go any more narrow than
that it needs to be studied very carefully and we are still doing that. The 250’ and the
280’ is the maximum amount of distance we are going to need or continue to look at
through the end of the study to determine if it can go any lower than that. We don’t
think it can, but we are trying our best to look at all pieces of this because every foot
that we gain in not having it in Transitional Setback is another foot for development
potential along the corridor. We really want to take the look that the Committee asked
us to look at last time and make sure that we can’t get it any lower and any narrower
than that for development purposes. With NCDOT, we have worked with them on one
issue and that was Wal-Mart. Danny Pleasant has taken the lead with CDOT to try and
work through that. Does anybody have a latest update on working with NCDOT as it
relates to Wal-Mart?
NCDOT has asked for a right turn lane, I think that we talked them down to one that is
much smaller and in front of Wal-Mart in the far right lane of Independence. I
understand that part has resolved itself. We have over-laid the cross-section of
Independence with the existing traditional setback and proposed Traditional Setback
and the plans we are currently working on with Conference Drive, the overlay shows
that the project fits with the planned changes in the Conference Drive area. The new
setback is reasonable for the amount of space planned for traffic lanes. We feel like we
can still squeeze in, the traditional setback is holding space so that we are not buying
buildings later on.
We are more comfortable at 250’ feet and 280” feet preserves what you would expect
us to preserve and not put an undue hardship on the City at a later date to go in and
make major acquisitions of buildings to widen for a later project.
Let me ask a question about the expansion of US 74; how does that expansion
compare to what we are reserving? I know that you don’t always build out to what
you have reserved.
From what we can tell so far is that we have planned our projects on the traditional
setback so they fit within that 250’ and 280’ that we were talking about. We are
planning for future building and future residences.
I know that the future NCDOT plans fit within the proposed new traditional setback,
but once the gap between the current plan and the Traditional Setback as proposed.
We have done some typical plan guessing which we feel is reasonable attitude within
that corridor, so we think we have contributed enough space to put it in. We feel
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 11
Foxx:
Pleasant:
Kimble:
Kinsey:
Warshauer:
Kinsey:
Pleasant:
Kimble:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Warshauer:
comfortable. To make sure that we are as clear and accurate that we can be, the
NCDOT project is built as an interchange type of location to go outside of the area.
Currently, US 74 is proposed to be built sometime in the future, I think we are
reserving more space than is currently in the Transportation Improvement Plan. I
understand why but, I think that if we go forward into this plan stage, it’s going to be
critical to really identify as best we can the character that we want that boulevard to
have. When we get to the point where we are looking at this traditional setback,
again we measured out what we want the tenants to look like and now done our best
to reduce the impact of the traditional setback.
We agree with you and I think you will see as a real simple test approach. The
traditional setback is, according to the Zoning Code for that particular functional
classification, Independence is in the same classification as interstate, expressway.
We may want to talk about speed, because if you want to go with the fastest, it could
be the third bullet point where the public hearing and decision at the same meeting as
we suspect on June 15th, if you wanted to rush it. So I just wanted to point out that
the top one takes a more measured approach, but it gives the public hearing on one
date and the decision on the other. If you really wanted to go as fast as possible, it’s
number three on the list, doing it all on June 15th, that’s the choice for you to think
about in your recommendation.
I want to make sure that we really are talking about traditional setback and not things
like; well on one map you have freeway edge and on another you have a highway
edge. I want to know if that is affecting what we talked about today?
Those drawings show only one side of Independence, we were showing what those
restrictions are. It doesn’t mean that one side of Independence will be all closed off
and the other side open. What we are using on those maps when we have one side
that and the other side something else, we were showing you what those dimensions
would be in someone having access and someone else not having access.
Yes, my question was about what we have been talking about today.
We are using conceptual models to find out what is a reasonable setback would be; we
are using a very, generalized concept.
You are correct; those were for illustration only so that we could get a good view of
how wide the Transitional Setback would need to be.
Two questions, at the very end it said “measure 175’ feet from the proposed centerline
building line”. This 125’ would be the building line, is that correct?
The 125’ is not the building line. It would be to the edge of the ROW, the building line
would be, depending on the Zoning classification and with no access to Independence,
then the building line would be an additional 10’ feet. If there were no access to
Independence, there would be an additional 20’ feet. Currently, the building line is an
additional 20’ feet off of the 350’. For the most part, based on the classification, the
building line is 195’ from the centerline. Do you want me to go back and show you on
the drawing?
I think we understand where we are, it’s just a question of where we want to go. I
think we have the stuff.
From experience of other large cities, this is a statement about the ROW and why it
was enacted. There would not be extensive construction of retaining walls, which
would result in additional substantial cost reducing opportunities for landscaping and
creating walled rather than a visually open freeway environment. Have we reassured
ourselves that we are not getting into this walled environment?
That is one of the reasons we wanted to leave it at the 250’ foot mark. There are
elevation changes along Independence and we want to make sure that we do have the
area to be able to slope down so that we can minimize the number of walls that we
would have to build. We haven’t done the detailed work to the extent that we can say
at 250’ feet there would never be an instance where we would not need a retaining
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 12
Carter:
Lassiter:
Walter Fields:
Lassiter:
Fields:
Lassiter:
Fields:
Lassiter:
Hagemann:
Lassiter:
Hagemann:
Lassiter:
Hagemann:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
wall. But that is one of the reasons that we have wanted to have that transitional
space on the edge, to tie that into the existing elevations without having to get into a
retaining wall. Some areas of Independence are very flat but it is not always that
situation, that’s part of the reason for the 250’ debate.
The alternating green space with occupied territory is very healthy, provided we have
good landscaping. I think it’s an asset to the community for us to provide green
spaces for those that travel the corridors.
Under the current configuration; can the Wal-Mart project move forward? Can
someone answer that question for me from the Wal-Mart prospective or other?
I want to be sure that I understand your question.
I want confirmation for what I heard, and that was, “based upon where we are today
that the Wal-Mart project can go forward with what is being requested in design” short
of the issue relative to a driveway cut, that there is portioned space to provide parking
required by code and additional parking required by the developer to meet their WalMart requirement.
Based on the drawings that I have seen; the staff statement that Wal-Mart can meet
It’s regulatory parking requirement and stay outside the Transitional Setback. They
have verified that Wal-Mart has additional parking standard that they believe is
important to provide for their customers. There is some question about how much of
that will be affected based on the changes they can make to accommodate the State’s
turn lane, even with the reduced ROW. At a meeting that I attended a few weeks ago,
statements were made by the staff that we would be able leave that additional parking
over and above code in the Transitional Setback. We would be able to reduce the
setback, from 35’ to 14’ feet, to provide for the State’s lane. We are trying to finalize
the plan to make sure that we can work with that, and if so, we will ask staff to put
that in writing and we will attach that to our administrative request. That then would
make the plan work out.
Yes, find some way to get that in writing to the Committee.
I would like to offer an observation if I could, Mr. Lassiter? There is a text amendment
scheduled for a hearing on the 20th of this month. We have been asked to delay that
text amendment until the 27th. Mr. Hagemann will correct me, but will leave him the
legal standards for advertising a text amendment with City Council or to modify text
that we want to discuss at that hearing. Modifying the proposed text amendment to
include this reduction that the staff is proposing today, that could be something that
the Council could consider.
Can we look at the language that is being suggested to for this filed text amendment
to make this an advanced to the June 15th date?
I believe that you can.
If that text amendment is heard, we can offer suggestions for decisions that would
make changes that would satisfy the recommendation coming through. Is that correct
Bob?
Yes.
My last question; I get a little nervous when I start reading memos that are this old. I
was on the Planning Commission on September 8, 1989. This language in here, I have
no recollection of this but if the Planning Commission has been given the authority as
defined by the writing and can make the decision about what could be cut back and
did in fact do that, I am wondering how it now got to the City Council having to do
that and when did the authority change?
My understanding of the history is that the original ordinance gave staff the authority
to determine the setback within a specified range. The ordinance was amended in, I
believe, 1994 to set the setback at a specific distance.
So the rules have changed in the present sense?
Yes, and then it reverted back to where we started.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 13
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Foxx:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Vote:
O.K., that’s an even quicker solution, so the Planning Commission can make this call.
Now you don’t have to go through these steps to take care of this, I presume code has
changed and the problem has been removed? All things said, I think what we are
being asked to do is to make a recommendation back to Council relative to discuss the
take on and response to this. I think we can actually; there is a fourth category that
allows Council to move forward with the text amendment currently filed. If Council
chooses, it can modify that text amendment in a way that would accomplish these
things. It could forward an advance summary and any subsequent changes for further
review, so with that I am looking for a motion or recommendation or a series of
strategies that we want to send back to Council or give Council a menu of options.
That would be for the end of this month.
Correct, so we could beat that number by two months.
Why is this the earliest date that we could get in for a public hearing?
If you wanted to just follow a normal course but do it as fast as we could under the
hoops that you would have to jump through, that would be a June 15th and July 20th
decision.
It takes to the following date to get it into the system; we could re-target but that is
as soon as you could get those two in and then to public.
The question is; the end of May is the second hearing?
I think it is April 30th. April 2nd is one and April 30th is the next.
Here would be my suggestion; that we recommend to Council to consider using the
pending text amendment as a vehicle to implement these recommended changes or in
the alterative, choose the first available date which is the 15th for a hearing and
decision.
Motion: Recommend to Council to consider adoption of the text amendment,
following a public meeting to be held on April 2nd.
Motion made by: Carter
Seconded by: Foxx
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Vote:
All of this is just a recommendation, Council can choose not to do and they may do
that, based upon a public hearing that will be scheduled for the end of June. It may
be that it will all play out that is totally their call.
The only thing that I would ask is that staff, strongly present it to the people who
attend the April 2nd meeting and itemize the debate that went on here and ask that
the input be e-mailed to Council Members as well as staff. In other words, to have a
general feedback to know that there will be a public hearing on the 22nd in which they
can participate. The 2nd is not the only issue for Independence. It is not necessarily a
spoken point, it is one of the spoken points and truly I respect the individual decisions
that do move forward on this in giving people a chance to speak at the public hearing.
A motion has been made and seconded all in favor say aye, it’s unanimous.
Lassiter
Mitchell
Carter:
Foxx:
Kinsey:
Yes
Absent for vote
Yes
Yes
Yes
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for April 1, 2009
Page 14
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Adjourned:
This will be on your April 13th Council agenda, for Council to determine how we will
move forward.
That’s all for today. Our next meeting is May 6th, I will not be here.
Neither will I.
O.K., we may have to reschedule that meeting to an alternative date. We are
adjourned.
4:55pm
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, April 1, 2009 at 3:30pm
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room CH-14
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
James Mitchell, Vice Chair
Nancy Carter
Anthony Foxx
Patsy Kinsey
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager
AGENDA
I.
FY2010/FY2011 ED FOCUS AREA PLAN – 30 minutes
Staff: Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager
Action: Recommendation to City Council on the ED Focus Area Plan for FY2010/FY2011.
Attachments
II.
BUSINESS DISTRICT ORGANIZATION PROGRAM – 30 minutes
Staff: Tom Warshauer, Economic Development Manager & John Short, Business Corridor Liaison
Action: Committee input on changes to the Business District Organization Program. Attachment
III.
INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD TRANSITIONAL SETBACK – 30 minutes
Staff: Tom Warshauer, Economic Development Manager
Action: Receive information and consider making a recommendation on path forward for the
Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback.
IV.
NEXT MEETING: May 6, 2009 at Noon, Room CH-14
Possible Topics: Arts & Science Council Endowment Campaign
First Ward Park & Parking Deck
Deferral Policy for Rezoning
Distribution: Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
FY 2010 & FY2011 Strategic Focus Area Plan
“Charlotte will be the most prosperous
and livable city for all citizens through
quality economic development.”
The City of Charlotte’s long-term economic health is in large part driven by the City’s ability to facilitate
private sector job growth and investment through partnerships with agencies such as the Charlotte
Chamber, Charlotte Regional Visitors Authority and the Charlotte Regional Partnership. These
partnerships have resulted in a diversified local and regional economy, which requires public investment in
public services and facilities and infrastructure. A healthy economy also requires a commitment to
existing businesses, small business enterprise, entrepreneurship and business corridors. In order to foster
effective economic development we must coordinate the commitment from both the public and private
sectors.
Several significant structural changes have occurred in the economic environment that will impact the
City’s economic development. These include:
x
The freezing of the lending market has slowed commercial development as developers struggle to
find loans for office, multi-family and retail construction.
x
The sale of Charlotte’s largest employer, Wachovia, to Wells Fargo with yet to be determined job
loss consequences for Charlotte.
x
The dramatic realignment and shrinkage of the financial services sector, which has been one of
Charlotte’s key engines of economic growth.
x
Fluctuating fuel prices and the economic recession have impacted the airline industry, raising
uncertainty about US Airways and its 6,000 Charlotte employees.
There are opportunities for continued economic growth as Charlotte has enjoyed stable housing prices,
moderate construction slowdown, relatively stable employment and reinvestment in the City’s core and
adjacent business corridors ($819M in FY08). A well educated workforce and available Center City office
space also provide opportunities for economic growth. In addition, Bank of America’s acquisition of
Merrill Lynch is a positive indication that Charlotte will continue to be a strong market for financial and
professional services. However, the loss of Wachovia’s headquarters will result in job losses and increased
Center City office vacancy. This, along with the broader economic recession, will have ripple effects in
other professional services, retail, and hospitality sectors, and will impact the housing market as dislocated
workers put their houses on an already saturated market.
Charlotte’s continued success will be influenced by our diverse economic base and efforts with our
partners to grow and broaden into growing business sectors, including: renewable energy, green industry,
health care and high growth/high tech. This success can also build upon the previous year’s Business
Corridor Revitalization planning efforts. Since private capital will be harder to find, the City will need to
become more aggressive in pushing forward to ensure the economic growth and health of the corridor
businesses and the adjacent neighborhoods. This is also a time to lay a foundation for the next wave of
growth by business friendly process improvements and updating plans for major employment centers such
as Center City and the University Research Park. To grow the hospitality and tourism sector of the
economy, the City can build on recent investments in hospitality and tourism infrastructure, scheduled to
open during FY 2010, including the NASCAR HOF and Wachovia Cultural Center.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Economic Development
Promote Economic Opportunity
ED.1
Focus Area Initiative:
Ź
Ź
Ź
ED.2
Ź
ED.3
Ź
Ź
Promote a healthy business climate by 1) implementing a strong business expansion and
retention effort, exploring with the Chamber the effectiveness and metrics of the
BusinessFirst program, 2) addressing the needs of Charlotte’s largest employers, and
developing strategies and growing employment in: renewable energy, green industry,
health care, hospitality and tourism, emerging industries and high growth/high tech
companies (including an update of the City’s Strategic Plan and a strategy for use of
available industrial land) and 3) working with internal and external partners to grow
Charlotte’s hospitality industry, including quarterly tracking of hospitality revenue
streams and exploring partnerships to expand Amateur Sports
Measure:
Job growth in new sectors
Target:
5% increase (Develop baseline information)
Prior Year:
FY08 - New measure
Measure:
Number of existing businesses visited and serviced through BusinessFirst Charlotte, the
City’s business retention & expansion program
Target:
Total: 400 (Business Corridors:120)
Prior Year:
FY08 - 416
FY07 - 174
Measure:
Percentage increase in hospitality tax revenues and room nights generated by Amateur
Sports
Target:
3% increase in all hospitality tax revenues; 5% increase in amateur sport
room nights
Prior Year:
FY08 - 9% increase in all hospitality tax revenues
FY07 - 27% (Increase over base:11%)
FY08 - New measure (percentage increase in amateur sports room nights)
Focus Area Initiative:
Ensure that small businesses have the opportunity to participate in informal City
procurement and contracts through increasing SBE utilization and participation in SBE
development programs
Measure:
Percentage of informal contracting dollars awarded to SBEs
Target:
12%
Prior Year:
FY08 - 12.1%
FY07 - 13.7%
Measure:
Number of SBE submitting bids on informal contracts
Target:
New measure
Focus Area Initiative:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Workforce Development
Number of youth accessing skills assessment and training at JobLink Centers
1500 youth at JobLink Centers and place 500 youth in jobs
FY08 - 945 trained/273 placed
Promote strategy and develop partnership to retrain displaced workers
Inventory/Evaluation/Adjustment of City’s workforce retraining efforts
including online services
FY08 - New measure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
Economic Development
Expand Tax Base & Revenues
ED.4
Focus Area Initiative:
Ź
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Expand Tax Base & Revenues
ED.5
Focus Area Initiative:
Ź
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Ź
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Develop Collaborative Solutions
ED.6
Focus Area Initiative:
Ź
Measure:
Ź
Ź
Target:
Prior Year:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Business Corridor Revitalization and Redevelopment
Advance/complete development of priority projects and corridors
Eastland Mall (MOU by December 2009)
Five Business Corridors:
- North Tryon (Developer by September 2009)
- Independence Boulevard Phase II (Begin Implementation Fall 2009)
- Rozzelles Ferry (Greenway Business Park completed by December
2011)
- Beatties Ford (Begin one redevelopment project)
- Freedom/Wilkinson/Morehead—leverage Bryant Park project and
County’s Freedom Center
- Conduct Urban Market Studies and Recruitment for Corridors
FY08 - Held a corridor symposium; Began Independence Boulevard Phase
II; Grant program revisions approved by City Council; Identified catalyst
sites on North Tryon; Continued implementation of ULI
recommendations for Eastland Mall
Promote infill development/redevelopment in the Center City, distressed
business districts and adjacent neighborhoods, and transit stations
Building Permit value of construction in the Center City, Business
Services Program Geography, and within 1/2 mile of identified transit
station locations
$500 million
FY08 - $819,000,000
FY07 - $732,528,837
Number of recommended new capital projects implemented in area plans
Initiate two new area plan capital projects
FY08 - Inventory of area plans completed and presented to City Council
Business Facilitation/Business Process Improvements
Average number of reviews on all land development permitting
submissions
< 2.5 reviews
FY08 - New measure
Percentage of permitting report initiatives implemented
100%
FY08 - 12 initiatives endorsed by City Council
Conduct “competitive advantage” analysis of permitting systems and
processes
Elimination of System Barriers/Conflict/Impediments in application
of regulations
FY08 - New measure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________
MAYOR AND COUNCIL 2009 ANNUAL RETREAT
FEBRUARY 5-6, 2009
Retreat Notes
How should we approach the budget and capital investment plan (i.e., questions,
assumptions, guiding principles) in light of the current economic outlook?
¾ Identify and apply best practices, e.g., fee collection
¾ Look harder/closer at realizable savings
¾ Look at possible organizational efficiencies/streamlining
¾ Protect core services
¾ Look at possible short-term economies due to shifting workloads and service
needs/demands
¾ Look at opportunities for more equitably and efficiently allocating and leveling costs
among the city’s financial partners
¾ Continue forward with the CIP to protect/maintain our bond rating
¾ Look at fees in terms of appropriateness, sufficiency, and whether any reductions
might help
Council Priority 1 – Community Safety
¾ Strengthen linkage between gang membership and criminal conduct
¾ Strengthen federal relationship
¾ Emphasize prevention, e.g., youth
¾ Use COPS money
ƒ Note: In principle, police and public safety are a city matter, but pragmatic
needs may warrant use of outside funds
¾ Engage city employees, e.g., sanitation workers
¾ Incorporate national safety comparisons, not just state and local
¾ Refer special grand jury concept to council committee (note: while this was
discussed, Council did not refer this to committee)
¾ Explore the city role in probation
Council Priority 2 – Business Corridors
¾ Status reports on public private partnerships (PPPs)
¾ Coordinate business corridor, environment, and community safety discussions and
focus spending on areas where these priorities intersect
¾ Energize vacant building ordinance
¾ Make sure PPPs have adequate time given credit crunch
¾ Identify and vet new opportunities
¾ Coordinate economic and community development liaisons
Council Priority 3 – Transportation
¾ Sales tax decline pushing back transit investment/progress
¾ Strengthen regional focus
¾ Preserve public trust regarding assuring citizens that ½ cent sales tax for transit is
sufficient
¾ Discuss urban street design guidelines
¾ Continue achieving economies and efficiencies that help provide current service at
less cost help obtain federal funding
Focus Area 1 – Community Safety
¾ Investigate whether there are better ways/measures for reporting crime
¾ More targeted communication about real crime/reduction (e.g., type of crime, where)
to address public perception
¾ Continue to develop police force diversity
¾ Continue to seek innovation in criminal processing/adjudication
¾ Get AOC more involved in city’s court discussions in support of county efforts
¾ Look at coverage/cost/redundancy of city fire protection in ETJ
Focus Area 2 – Economic Development
¾ Strengthen leadership and focus on “green” economy
¾ Address the “cost” of doing business in Charlotte through opportunities to improve
our regulatory approach and framework
¾ Take a fresh look at brown fields
¾ Balance housing/neighborhood standards/sustainability with cost of construction and
re-energizing development
Focus Area 3 – Transportation
¾ Review/study regional transportation planning history, governance and structure
¾ Test USDG and evaluate impacts, e.g., economic impacts, possible onerous impacts
¾ Coordinate better with NCDOT on land use/road construction, e.g., 485, 47, etc.
Focus Area 4 – Housing and Neighborhood Development
¾ Address unintended consequences of neighborhood graduation
¾ Supplement regulatory/code enforcement with rehabilitating housing stock
¾ Determine what role home ownership should play in neighborhood development
efforts
¾ Identify not just number of foreclosures, but principal reasons behind them
¾ Discuss CDCs in light of forthcoming evaluation and communicate their role to the
public
Focus Area 5 – Environment
¾ Hold on tree canopy study
¾ Continue tree ordinance review
¾ Feed “expert” knowledge into committee process
¾ Public communication challenge: addressing tree protection/preservation vs. tree
removal/replacement
¾ Consider adopting “corporate-wide’ conservation practices throughout the city
¾ Find ways to better communicate current green efforts and challenges, e.g., LED
lighting, building emissions
¾ Look at ways to better target peak use hours for energy, transportation, etc.
Principal Messages, Directions, and Feedback from Council Regarding Policy
Direction, Assessing Success, Communicating with the Public, and Next Steps
¾ Adapt immediately to the economic realities, i.e., the “new normal”
¾ Preserve core services
¾ Find creative ways to get things done, and how to do them
¾ Create a local stimulus
¾ Sustainable spending and investment
¾ Help private efforts to work well
¾ Sustain long-term investment plan
¾ Explore ways to expand prevention
¾ Be good stewards of tax money
¾ Be able to say, “We sustained Charlotte”
¾ The public knows we have been working on their behalf and is proud of their city
government
¾ We will leave the city better than we find it today
¾ Tell the community how we will address/deal with the current economic climate
¾ Follow through on our economic development efforts ~ complete what we started
¾ Communicate a message of empathy and understanding
¾ Set an example/be a role model
¾ Convey and act on a sense of urgency
¾ Develop proactive communication about city spending
5/8/2009
Business District Organization Program
Refinement
Economic Development & Planning
April 1, 2009
Overview
• Current Program
• Issues and Opportunities
• Research Areas
• Proposed New Program
1
5/8/2009
Current Program
• Provides up to $10,000 in matching grant funds
for administrative and operational expenses.
• Matches cash only.
• Groups also have access to the Neighborhood
Matching Grant to help fund other projects.
• Groups not involved in real estate development
or land acquisition. CMDC manages
commercial/industrial redevelopment.
Program Requirements
• Organizations must:
– Be a registered
d 501(c)(3)
( )( ) or ((c)(6)
)( )
– Be located in the one of the designated Distressed
Business Corridors
– Organization’s board must be 75% business and
organization must have at least 10 business
members
– Demonstrate active participation,
participation including regular
board meetings
– Submit an annual work plan detailing objectives for
the year
2
5/8/2009
Current Recipients
• Freedom Drive Development Association
–
–
–
–
–
Grant participants past 3 out of 4 years
Hired Mary Hopper to manage meetings and provide guidance
Hold monthly meetings
Membership of 30+ businesses
Estimated budget for 2008-09 is $20,000
• North End Partners
–
–
–
–
–
Grant participants past 3 years
Hired administrative assistant
Hold monthly meetings
Membership of 40+ businesses
Estimated budget for 2008 was $15,000
BDOP Successes
• FDDA:
– Meetings provide businesses access to neighborhood advocates,
government employees and elected officials
– Lobbied as a group to get rid of a negative business (The Arena
Club) from the area as well as facilitated the land sale for the
current ALDI grocery store
– Helped transform façade of Shops at Freedom and made it an
asset for the corridor
• NorthEnd Partners:
– Instrumental in helping get a day laborer ordinance created
– Helped get rid of unwanted businesses from the area (The
Crown Hotel)
– Facilitated a homeless study for the area
3
5/8/2009
Issues and Opportunities
• How can the effectiveness of our existing
g
be improved?
p
organizations
• What should their roles as organizations be?
• Determine the size of the organizations’ budgets and
how the funds should be raised.
• How can the City better support business
organizations during the current economic climate?
Research Areas
Programs researched:
Cities researched:
• Support for business
organizations
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
• National Main Street
• Local Initiatives
Support Corporation
(LISC)
• MSDs
Boston
Chicago
Jacksonville
Oklahoma City
Orlando
St. Paul
San Diego
Seattle
Tacoma
4
5/8/2009
National Trends for
Business District Programs
• Promotional activities and special events are
emphasized heavily. A budget of around $50,000
is needed to have an effective impact
• Even those cities utilizing Main Street Program
(Boston, St. Paul etc.) emphasized generating
strong marketing/promotional campaign
• City employees provide assistance to groups
g of their own volition
forming
• Many cities have moved their business groups/
districts into an MSD framework, but not in
distressed areas
National Programs
Main Street
• Centers around four points:
¾ Organization
¾ Economic Restructuring
¾ Design
¾ Promotion
• Holds national conferences and
provide on-site workshops and
seminars
• Boston, St. Paul & Oklahoma
City - Budget $40k-$50k for
marketing and promotional
events – mostly grants
LISC
• Specializes in distressed
b
business
and
d residential
d
l
communities: www.lisc.org
• Real estate acquisition and
redevelopment are cornerstones
of the program
• Works predominantly with CDCs
to provide training, consultation
or even capital financing
5
5/8/2009
Practices in Other Cities
• Tacoma, Jacksonville & Orlando:
¾ Has cross-council
cross council government over all 14 business districts
¾ Provide separate funding for conferences and leadership
training
¾ Provide free marketing and promotions consultation
¾ Provide start-up kit for neighborhood groups
¾ Di
Districts
t i t use membership
b
hi ffees and
d Cit
City money ffor promotions
ti
~ $40,000
¾ Offer separate grant for special events in business districts
Proposed New Program
• Expand current grant to a 2:1 match, where the City matches
2 dollars to every 1 dollar raised. City will cap its contribution
at $30,000.
• Expand parameters of how funds can be spent to include
marketing, special events, aesthetic improvement and
branding.
• Use positive marketing and events to help corridors create a
destination and a “sense
sense of place”.
place .
• Organizations will still be required to submit all of the current
documentation.
6
5/8/2009
New Program Continued
• Change board ratio requirement from 75% business to 50%
and allow businesses with a pending 501 (c)(3) or (c)(6)
status to be eligible.
g
• Develop a “start-up guide” that interested parties can
access online. Will detail how to form a business
organization and outline some of the procedures and
actions necessary to be successful.
• Explore a separate special events grant to facilitate
collaboration between neighborhoods, cultural organizations
and business districts
• Fund program from DARF (used to support Façade, Security
and Brownfield Grant Programs). No new funding needed.
New Program Measures
• BDOP expansion metrics of success:
– Membership of current groups expands
– Organizations increase the number of special events
– Positive media increases
– New organizations form
7
5/8/2009
Next Steps
• Receive input on program
• Refer to Council for consideration.
8
5/8/2009
INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD
AREA PLAN
Economic Development & Planning
Committee
April 1, 2009
Area Plan - Guiding Principles
1. Strengthen and Build Neighborhoods
2 Create Nodes
2.
3. Reclaim and Showcase Natural
Systems
4. Orient Toward Monroe and Central
5. Leverage Opportunities
6. Provide Choices
7. Balance Neighborhood, Community,
and
d Regional
R i
lN
Needs
d
8. Define U.S. 74
9. Implement the Plan
1
5/8/2009
Comparison of Cross-Sections
250’ Potential ROW – Briar Creek to WT Harris Blvd.
280’ Potential ROW – Beyond WT Harris Blvd.
Potential Future ROW
West of WT Harris - 250’
•
•
•
Design exceptions needed
to address physical
constrains
St ti
Stations
without
ith t b
by-pass
lanes (Briar Creek, Amity
Gardens)
Stations areas built by
NCDOT with by-pass lanes
(Sharon Amity,
Conference)
East of WT Harris -280’
•
•
•
Design
g flexibility
y (beyond
( y
committed project)
Greater potential for
station location to shift
Interchanges not yet
designed
2
5/8/2009
Reasons for Expedited Process
• Known issue for businesses and residents
• St
Staff
ff has
h identified
id tifi d a preferred
f
d cross section
ti
– Public input to be completed in April – June
• Draft plan complete this summer, adoption will
follow
• Text amendment for city
y wide transitional
setback considered on April 20
• We can advance text amendment for
Independence separately
Tentative Schedule for Plan
April 2nd - Citizen Advisory Group Meeting # 4
Receive citizen input on potential cross-sections
Share strategy for addressing transitional setback
April 30th - Citizen Advisory Group Meeting # 5
Share draft plan recommendations and key implementation
strategies
June/July - Transitional Setback Text Amendment
Alternate Text Amendment to address the Transitional Setback
along Independence Boulevard
June - Public Meeting on Draft Plan
Receive feedback on draft plan and key implementation
strategies
Summer/Fall - Plan Review and Adoption
3
5/8/2009
Schedule Options for
Trans. Setback Text Amendment
• June 15th Public Hearing & July 20th Decision; or
• July 20th Public Hearing & Sept 21st Decision; or
• Public Hearing & Decision at Same Meeting
4