ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 1
I. Subject:
Action:
II. Subject:
Action:
III. Subject:
Action:
IV. Subject:
Utilities Rate Options
Review and discuss Utilities rate considerations for FY2010 in preparation for a committee report at the March 25 th
Council Budget Retreat.
Independence Boulevard Area Plan Update
Present the current status of the Independence Boulevard study
FY2010/FY2011 ED Focus Area Plan
Recommendation to the City Council on the ED Focus Area Plan for
FY2010/FY2011.
Next Meeting Date: April 1, 2009 at 3:30pm, Room CH-14.
Present:
Absent:
Council members John Lassiter, Nancy Carter and Patsy Kinsey
James Mitchell, Anthony Foxx
Time: 3:30pm.
1.
Handout: FY2010/FY2011 ED Strategic Focus Area Plan
2.
Mayor and Council 2009 Annual Retreat Notes
3.
Handout: Budget Analysis-No Rate Increase Impacts
4.
March 4 th
ED & Planning Committee Q & A from Utilities Financial Presentation
5.
PowerPoint Presentation: Independence Boulevard Area Plan
6.
Handout: US-74 Existing and Future Typical Sections
I. Subject: Utilities Rate Options
John Lassiter, Chair:
For those of you that are here for item #3 Strategic Focus Area Plan, we will not be reviewing that item today. There are two Committee Members absent so this item will be deferred. I will begin with the Utility Rate Option.
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
I would like to introduce you to our Advisory Committee, Bob Linkner, Keva Walton,
George Beckwith and Erica VanTassel.
Thank each of you for your service to our City.
This is the third meeting about the Capital Improvements Program. In the first meeting, we talked about how we bill it and how the projects get in. The second

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 2
Carter:
Bean: meeting, we talked about the model for capital and how that works. We talked about some of the impacts of the zero rate options. At the last meeting, we gave you a table but you also had a number of questions. We sent out to you the answers of the questions you had at the last meeting. You have a couple of schedules in that handout that I think you also asked about; one is the debt retention schedule. The other was the how we tackle programs if the project was delayed and how it’s tied back to the presentation numbers. That schedule is laid out over a number of years and shows how it’s tied back in. The other item shows what the adjustments are that we have made since the last time we were in here. This will get us closer to something we believe is workable. If you recall what we did, we presented this chart with a whole list of balancing items. We have a couple of columns that have no rate increase and we will show you what it took to get there. We also have an alternative that is more sustainable than last time. If you remember, we started with a premise of business as usual based on a model that we showed you last year. We would have a rate increase of 11.9% percent beginning this year. That was the starting point, recognizing the climate, what was going on and what is happening to the program.
We could not come out at all with a rate increase that approached that. We started working to try to get to a rate increase that would provide sustainable alterations. The no rate increase would cause us to use the Fund Balance and possibly all of the extra
Fund Balance in one year, a huge reduction in operation that would create some problems, increasing the consumption rate to 2% percent and a lot of other things that were risky. We made some adjustments the last time to a rate of around 5.6% percent realizing that is was still early, these are preliminary numbers, but might be something that is doable. Let me go through the numbers and show you what it looks like now. The right hand side of the Budget Analysis handout shows the adjusted rate is going from an 11.9% percent down to 5% percent. In the Use Fund Balance we were able to reduce it from $9.6 million to an even $2 million of the Fund Balance.
That is a more manageable number. Reduction on Operations, we kept that to $6.4 million as we said before. We also kept the increase in consumption to 1% percent, this is a key number. That is showing a 1% percent increase in consumption from what we expect this year. That is not a very big increase; however, we are still a under restriction and that bothers us a lot. If you cut back on Fund Balance and cut back on Operations and then when you stretch the consumption, it gets very risky.
What we are suggesting here is to keep with a 1% percent consumption number.
You said “from what you expect this year”, what you are basing this on? Is this expectation and not reality?
What we are suggesting is that we stay with a more conservative 1% percent and we can adjust that over the next thirty to sixty days, knowing what the spring usage is going to be. We would also look again at the restrictions at the end of this month. If
April and May are really warm and we do not have restrictions, we may push the 1% percent consumption to 1.5% percent or 2% percent. That would have some impact on the rate proposed for next year. It could also happen later in the season. What we are saying is that it would generate some additional revenue for additional Pay Go or help the Sewer Overflow Program. So given another thirty to sixty days, we will know a lot more about consumption levels and we will be able to predict it a little bit better.
Some of the other things are in delaying Capital Projects; we finance all of our rolling stock equipment. Based on some of the reductions in personnel and some of the slowdown in work, we will not be buying as much equipment, so we saved a little in that area. We are saying not to eliminate all new Capital Projects; it’s at $1.7 million dollars, that’s not too much. If we were to delay those at this point, it would not be good. We did put back in the Street Degradation; we put the money going for street repaving back in. We did not do away with the Sewer Back-up Program; that
$300,000, we feel that is money well spent. It’s good customer service, we would have more than $300,000 to pay in legal fees without that. We were able to get some new numbers on Cost Allocation, Revenue Division, and in General Insurance; those

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 3
Carter:
Harrington: are things that come to us from the General Fund. They have been tweaked and show some more savings in reductions. When you take all those reductions it made up the difference in the Street Degradation and a little bit more, we got that down to 5.2% percent. We think we are pretty close, within 5% percent, based on finalization of these numbers and also looking at what that consumption might be by the time the budget is ready for Curt in May. We don’t think it could go much higher, we think we are close but we want to work on it for another sixty days before we finalize it.
The last two items on here, are you allocating cost adjustments or eliminating costs?
As we look at the budget process, we are fine tuning, sharpening our pencils and going through those allocations as we move along in the process. We are getting more information, working with the estimates and submission numbers as we move through
Carter:
Kimble:
Bean: the process.
Are you allocating other cost centers?
It’s using the same allocations but having more accurate and definitive numbers to work from now. So it’s how it is applied across the board to the Cost Allocation Plan.
Where we sit today is trying to work from that 11.9% percent down to 5.2% percent,
Kinsey: give or take about ½% percent. Recognizing that there are still some big reductions; in delays and big reductions in operations that may have some service impact. But given where we are this year in this economy, we believe that we can make it down to
Kinsey: this number.
Long Creek sewer treatment plant, originally you had estimated $200 million and now
Bean: it’s down to $197 million. Is that correct and what did you remove?
Long Creek has not been eliminated.
Harrington: Let me interrupt you for just a minute. The dollar amount, the $197 million, is the same that has not changed. The schedule is pushed out to early 2014 or 2016.
Are we still planning to run that line across the Catawba? We don’t have customers over there so why are we doing it?
Bean:
Kinsey:
Bean:
Kinsey:
We would have a partner in that project with Mt. Holly if we ran that line. We would only run that line if they were going to be a partner.
So that is not in the price right now?
Bean:
Kinsey:
That would be part of the cost that Mt. Holly would be paying for.
So if they are not in, we are not going to do it?
Bean: Correct.
Kinsey: So that would come out of it? We ran one across the Buster Boyd Bridge and we don’t have customers in South Carolina.
Bean:
The line that would go across the Catawba would be to pick up Mt. Holly.
I don’t think they are interested right now.
We are not going to run that line. The line that we would run based on discussions with them; that’s a line that they would be paying for or exchange for some capacity.
The only reason for that line is if Mt. Holly was a partner in it. We are proposing to do that as a regional solution. We would not be compelled to put that across, they would have to be participating in the Federal cost of the project. The first thing is the decision the second is the permitting. Permitting is the greater task. We cannot start any construction until we have a permit to build that plant. Part of the permitting process is will there be a partner? So we are trying to work with the State as well as
Mt. Holly, we will not be spending money to do the design and permit for the construction until we know we have a partner.
Kinsey: O.K.
Lassiter: A couple of related construction questions. Now that we have gone back and
Bean: examined our Capital Project Plan, what if when we go back into the market place and determine what vendors are willing to do in road construction and other kinds of public projects? We have seen dramatic cost reduction because people are willing to work and some of the material costs have dropped. Have you opened up your vendor list in any way to test out whether there is cost savings in our Capital Plan?
Yes, we are putting that out now. We are getting 20% percent.

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 4
Harrington:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Kinsey:
The production is not going to apply to those numbers those are last year’s numbers.
If this is a combination of construction and debt and usage, how do we know and we are studying the rates, what your model says about decreased construction costs?
Loaded into the debt service, resulting in less debtless issues and a fall on the line that is the debt service, where can we see that?
It’s not in the model that shows a reduction in debt service, because we would be writing it to commercial paper for that period of time. We have not calculated that, it’s not an immediate savings.
You are going to be moving through the short term and long term debt in the course of the year. You can model what that is as you reach current financing. It does have an impact on the debt service component of that rate.
I think it’s in materials cost what the current construction will be. Bond issue and physical design is all that you would notice in 2010.
As part of the project that is currently on the ground, everything has been bid.
Or is in suspense except for that current bond issue. So for just a few cents, $100 million dollars and you can save 10% percent and pay $10 million dollars. The savings that are in the Operating Budget is the interest carried, which is the $10 million dollars carried for half of the year.
2% percent on a big number.
We would be spending less than $200 million next year. Construction costs themselves, if we had a 20% percent reduction of the 20% percent construction then whatever the interest is on that difference is something we could fight with.
Yes, if you could shave that number of $300,000 dollars, show me the model, we don’t know. If we had a model that says, “X” amount of reduction in our interest payments; based upon “X” amount reduction of our costs of construction. If we can fund that in a way that is still within the same conserved estimate, it may shave another couple hundred thousand dollars.
I do not want to speak for our Finance Department or our bond rating entity, but one of the pressures here is if you push every number on the chart, then you are really running down to your narrowest of margins and you have really squeezed this to a point where you may get some adverse push back and reaction from the bond rating agencies about how you are pushing every number on the chart. What you would do is pick up the savings that would then be returned to your fund balance, that then could bolster to the fund balance and do the re-analysis the next year. Your point is a valid point from a theoretical stand point, but it’s coming at a time when there is a lot of scrutiny on every number that is on here from the bond rating agencies.
We have some pretty safe categories; it’s likely that we would only use $2 million dollars Fund Balance and not $9.6 million, that number could be different. I am not going to argue about your operation monies. I don’t know how to total that any better, it’s a number that you have kept constant. There is float in your consumption number and we have footnoted that to indicate that consumption is feedback we have got a use for those savings. I don’t think running a tighter number on our debt model, based upon our construction costs, is put down too much because everyone knows that is a real number. Let’s say 30% percent, no let’s say a more conservative 20% percent and we will apply that to 80% percent of project that are going to be bid. You have created a pretty good cushion for government work.
With the Consumption Number and the Reserve Number used from Fund Balance, these are the real critical factors.
This year’s balance is about $100,000 dollars, would you be comfortable with that?
What I am trying to do is get enough tools accountable, so that we can feel we have done as good a job as we can to try to scrub these numbers. I don’t want to push this so far that we have mistakes in our analysis and we have to come back and explain that we were wrong and then have a mid-year rate increase.
The item for Water Tank Painting and Rehab, how many water tanks do we have?

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 5
Kinsey:
Shearin:
Bean:
Kinsey:
Bean:
Kinsey:
Bean:
Carter:
Shearin:
Carter:
Kimble:
Bean:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
That is a large amount, $6 million for six tanks?
Some of these tanks have lead primer on them. What we have found is that increases the price. We are hoping that number is high.
That is an important point, how much is rehab and how much is just painting?
That seems to me to be just a little big high. I may be over simplifying, but let’s not charge people for that now.
What we are saying is, given now we will be doing those in several years. Some of those tanks require a lot more than we have been anticipating. We want to be sure we have enough to cover it; we are not just trying to inflate numbers. We wanted to show we had enough to do the job and do it right. In the first one, we had it scaled back considerably to a range within our budget. We don’t want to do that and not have enough, it’s a small amount that we are trying to cover.
My point is; you still want a rate increase and I don’t want to give you one.
I understand. We have tried to bring those in under budget and until recently we have been pretty tight. But because of this downturn of competition that we have come pretty close on that.
Are there any Environmental Grants for lead based paint?
I will have to look at that and see, those grants are intended for residential.
They are, but I wonder if we make sure on that?
We will look into that.
Yes, we can look at that.
I will point one thing about this chart; you have to understand the numbers that we are messing with. The numbers allocated to Debt Service are really hard for us. So when you take $2 million dollars off, it’s the Debt Service on $2 million that you are carrying. So when you are playing with that number, it takes a lot to move from $1.7 million to zero. To move it into some positive number is pretty aggressive. The numbers that have more play in them are the analyzed numbers. Operational Costs which are annual expenses but have consequences to them because they are basically people and products that are moving through on an annual basis. The consumption number would depend on what your estimates are. The other ones we could scrape them back if you wanted them positive they could move on that bottom line. We need to make sure the numbers we are using here are accurate so that we don’t over spend for any project. The aggressive bidding and sourcing of that is critical, but it’s hard to recover that in a rate structure.
May I close with a comment? Mr. Bean has spoken with Mr. Walton; our goal is not to stop here if we can get lower. It can come with some conditions and provisions, but we are going to continue to work on this all the way through this to the Manager’s recommended budget. We are not stopping because we have hit this point. It’s harder and harder to squeeze more and more out and the folks sitting behind me are watching every move. They have to then respond and report to the bond rating agency with Doug and his staff. We are monitoring this as close as we can because we do understand the economic times in which we are living.
I do appreciate that. I think all of us have struggled with this because it is a time when every dollar is a lot to people. This particular money has an effect on folks on how we are managing government costs. It’s become symbolic to move this number at or below traditional kinds of rate increase. I think it would be an easier sale for those of us around this table. We took a pretty good hit last year in part because we didn’t have this many cases between your department and the Council. I think this process has helped us get ahead of this, I appreciate the candor. I particularly appreciate all of your budget committees being here today. What I ask here is to make a recommendation, what we have got here are some choices to take back to the
City Manager. You have effectively assembled the building blocks and as we get into that conversation as to how you make that number move, you know the pieces you have to work with to do that so that we can come up with something that hopefully makes some sense, fiscally and operationally.

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 6
Kimble: Next Wednesday, March 25 th , we have the Budget Workshop and the Storm Water
Rate Analysis is making its way through the Environment Committee. The way it is set up is for the Chair of the Committee, ED & Planning, to make some opening remarks and comments to the full Council. Then turn it over to the staff to make a shorter version, shorter bites of the information that you as Committee Members have more to chew on and more activity to bubble this up to the whole Council. So there will be some interaction you need to have with Mr. Lassiter and then the Committee
Members to feel free to chime in next Wednesday for the benefit of full Council about what is going on.
II. Subject: Independence Boulevard Area Plan Update
Lassiter: The next item on the agenda is an update on the Independence Boulevard Area Plan, focusing on the transitional setback. This is an opportunity to look at that issue in some more detail with examples of the impact and alternatives.
Warshauer: We will be reviewing the past meetings with you and showing you cross-sections of the Independence Boulevard Area Plan boundary. We will go over the plan principles and the defining of US 74, along with the cross sections of the plans use. How do these sections of Independence really work with the properties along the sides?
Independence Boulevard covers half of the City. On the other side of town there are two freeways that serve that area, so we recognize the importance of Independence for the community as well as mobility needs on both sides of Independence, as well as the communities developing further out. This is a really important area and we need to get it right as we move forward. We have various nodes that we are working with along Independence, for retail shopping and more neighborhood oriented nodes in some of the areas. Independence has always been something of a “strip”; our meetings with the community are helping decide how it will become something more.
We need to make sure that those nodes are successful in this development as opposed to it being a stripped out Independence Boulevard, so we developed a whole set of guiding principals in our meetings with the community. We have been building on what the community wants, replanting the natural features along Independence. We
Carter: have a successful framework, but now we really need to get into weave and the very specifics of exactly what Independence would like to be. What do we need here or there and how does that impact Zoning issues and the real access we need for properties along Independence.
Going back to the traffic data it looks as though US 74, Independence, has as many cars as I-485. Does that figure include the assumption that I-485 will be completed?
That is the most southern section that is the one with the most traffic.
So this figure represents only one portion of I-485?
Horton:
Carter:
Horton:
Carter:
Yes, that’s just the southern section.
So that makes it relatively important not only for local business but also for the high traffic flow using US 74.
Warshauer: N.C. Turnpike Authority expects to build the Monroe by-pass by 2013 at an expected cost of $756 million dollars. This will connect for our traffic at the I-485/US 74 intersection, and that will alleviate traffic through Monroe and Marshville. Let’s take a look at transit we don’t know if it will be BRT or LRT, but we have a good idea where the stations are. Independence has been dubbed as first or second priority when it comes to managed lanes. This would be one HOV or HOT lane in each direction.
Independence is seemingly to continue to evolve over time.
Carter: To confirm that those HOV’s are to be on the outside perimeter of the interior lanes?
Warshauer: Correct. That’s what we have been modeling. The summary of future transportation elements are Transit, managed lanes, freeway lanes, edges and access. How do the edges really work? How do we make sure that we are building a freeway that has a value to the businesses on the edge and has a value to the neighborhoods on the edge? How do we build a freeway in Charlotte that we can be proud of? So let’s back

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 7 up and go back to 1989, what we have reserved is 350’ feet, that was the recommendation from City Council. That would include curb pavement and a reversible HOV lane in the center; it also included a planted border on the outside.
This is one of the things we wanted to look at in this study. We are looking at a different Independence now, one that would have transportation in the center. That would be a big change from what we initially set aside in 1989 without setbacks and the reservations we had. What we are looking at now is West of WT Harris coming in through the City. From WT Harris in there is a cross section of 250’ feet as opposed to
360’ feet, so there is a reduction of 100’ feet. That 100’ feet will split on each side.
Transit zone in the center with an HOV lane on the outside, then three general purpose lanes and a fourth access lane. There will be access to Independence in some areas and not in others. There will be areas where people will want to turn their backs to Independence to develop so that they are facing the neighborhoods or the community. When that happens, we are looking at a record setback from what would be a wall along the edge of Independence. There will be sites where we can make that happen. We will still have access and need access to Independence. We want everyone to be really comfortable with the edges and that it is acceptable to the community and the residents and neighbors along the side. There is a 20’ foot setback for buildings facing Independence outside of the 250’ feet. There are design assumptions such as the cross-sections that have 230” wide between stations but this rarely applies due to frequency of stations and/or interchanges. The transitions between cross-sections are 600’ foot taper for LRT to transition between stations and
1500’ foot taper for BRT to transition between stations. The station dimensions will be
300’ by 20’ feet center at LRT platforms and 65’ by 20’ feet center at BRT platforms.
Lassiter:
There is a 100’ foot approach on either side of the stations.
Where do we have stets that kind of ROW allocations?
Warshauer: 250’ feet?
Lassiter:
Horton:
We are moving here to four lanes to six lanes of traffic?
The 350’ has four general purpose lanes; we would be changing that fourth lane to an
Lassiter:
Warshauer: There is an HOV then one, two, three lanes then an auxiliary lane for merging and then you have a shoulder. Then you have a gutter and then a clear zone on the outside. This not another lane this is a shoulder.
Lassiter:
HOV lane.
I am just counting the lines. I have four lanes in 1989.
I am just trying to think in my mind where we have that kind of width. Why we would have that kind of width when we don’t have it on I-77 and we don’t have it on I-85 or
I-485 or 277. We don’t have that on any projects built by NCDOT anywhere. It’s nice to say I want everything, but realistically you can’t. The time in which this can be built out is way past 2030. It is 2050. We had the greatest gift of infrastructure dollars ever distributed in this country; even that did not provide anything for any of these roads. So we are now in our normal funding cycle with the State in serious financial situation for the foreseeable future. The likelihood of new sources of funds in the next twenty years, twenty-five years, thirty years funding to this kind of width is impossible. The numbers for US-74 in 2030 are less than the numbers for I-77 today.
Warshauer: You make some good points there, but one of the things we are looking at is providing better options. One of the problems that Independence has had is being able to build up front over the last twenty years. So if we ever want to have any of these implemented, we are going to have to be very careful. If we allow development to grow too closely, you severely limit transportation to the community. When you take a
Lassiter: look at that first side, Independence has a lot of service areas that it needs to turn.
This has impeded the development on the east side of town, so if we don’t take steps to make sure that we can preserve ROW for the future; we really limit the east side to achieve all that it can be.
I understand what you are saying. I see it exactly in reverse, and that is, consuming all of this space you will narrow the width of the parcel, this inhibits the

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 8 redevelopment. They are narrow and backing up into neighborhoods on both sides.
Then to make a difference you have restricted the capacity for someone to come in and build closer and take up the road space in front. I struggle in my thoughts that if we lay out a potential road build-out, that it’s not going to happen for another 30 plus years. It will affect our ability to reinvest in the area for the temporary time. I would much rather see that road crowded and all the land around it developed than I would have to take a piece of road that is designed for the transportation needs of 2050.
Warshauer: We agree, this has been a real challenge for us, to make sure the parcels that are left have the ability to redevelop and we think they do. We think the difference between what you might schedule to eliminate is an option to the future maybe another 10’ feet. Another 10’ feet, that could be important, but we think that people will still have abilities to redevelop with 50’ or 60’ feet. The comparison of impacts of 350’ feet vs.
280’ feet is shown in the “East of Harris“ illustration in your handout. With the 350’ feet the thirteen existing buildings will be within 195’ feet of centerline. In the 280’ foot example the same thirteen existing buildings are within 155’ of centerline. Both have the 20’ foot minimum setback. The other concern wasn’t just the section but how does it actually impact the property on Independence? How long are those sections? This is another level of complexity working through this was it’s own level of complexity. How much space do you need for the lanes? How much space do you need between lanes? How much space do you need between moving traffic? Light rail, how do you manage pullovers? There is a lot of real coordination to get these numbers. They were not arbitrary numbers, this space that you actually need. The other question is how is that work down into the plan and its complicated here as well.
The BRT station is 65’ feet and the LRT platform is 300’ they have different tapers that they need in order to be able to access and get around the station. The taper for the light rail is 600’ feet and the taper for the BRT is 1500’ feet. So they have different longitudinal impacts as well as sectional impacts. By the time you enter and leave a station you are at an intersection. If you go out Independence toward Sharon Amity, here the stations begin to be more coordinated with the freeway overpasses. Those areas like Conference Drive and Sharon Amity, the State is going to be building a section to accommodate the BRT by-pass lane. We will have a section that will work with our 250’ foot lift. Once we get past Village Lake, we don’t have those interchanges defined. There will be by-pass lanes at Conference and Sharon Amity, built by NCDOT. There will not be by-pass lanes at Amity Gardens and Briar Creek.
There are design exceptions needed to address physical constrains. Outside WT Harris with standard freeway of 250’ foot there is more design flexibility even beyond the committed project. There is a greater potential for station location to shift, interchanges are not yet designed. How does this hit the ground on buildings that are along the corridor? In the “East of Harris” illustration in your handout; you can compare 350’ vs. 250’ feet. In the current envelope of 350’ feet, Briar Creek to WT
Harris, there is 175’ feet off of the centerline, there is a 20’ foot minimum setback for buildings. There are 192 existing buildings within 195’ feet of the centerline. In the potential envelope of 250’ feet the same section of Briar Creek to WT Harris, there is
125’ feet off of the centerline with the same 20’ foot building setback, of the 111
Lassiter: existing buildings still within 145’ feet of centerline.
Say that again, I have myself oriented; I am at the Ramada Inn. Show me where the lines are and what they mean.
Warshauer: This top line is the 350’ foot line that is the existing setback line. The red line on the inside is the proposed 250’ foot line and the green line just above that is the setback
Carter: line from the 250’ foot ROW line. In some instances that can be a little close, we have moved in 50’ feet, which is pretty substantial. It takes us from 192 buildings that are inside of the 190’ foot centerline down to 111 buildings that are within 145’ feet of centerline. That means that there many more buildings that are more conforming and you have 50’ feet more room on your property to locate your building.
If we really want to have an urban fronting this do we need to look at plantings?

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 9
Warshauer: When we were building the basic Independence, people really want more access.
People don’t want to pull off to get a latte at fifty-five miles per hour, so we don’t need to increase the density of the development. We want people to have alternative access other than Independence. The businesses that will be locating there will also want alternative access. A lot of retailers who locate on streets with speed limits of more than forty-five miles per hour, so there is a prospect of intense development in the access corridors. When we see intense development around our transit stations, we are looking at building increased amounts of road networks. This is done with private sectors to make sure that we have access that works from the neighborhoods.
Carter: What kinds of flexibility can we generate here for the long term?
Warshauer: When a building doesn’t have access, we are looking at a 10’ foot setback. More
Carter: accessing that is not coming from Independence means that the building can be closer leaving more room for parking.
Have we paid attention to noise pollution? This seems to be an issue on Independence particularly when we look at a greater intensity of development around Independence, so looking at those noise pollution areas have we incorporated that in the plan?
Looking at the design of the buildings that are fronted, I am concerned. I am trying to learn from experience in other places that noise pollution is rising significantly in other urban areas; probably more intensely in Europe than here.
Warshauer: That’s one of the reasons we wanted to show edge condition. The last thing we want to happen is people grow close to Independence and over the next twenty or thirty
Carter: years we put in a freeway and there are cars running right underneath their windows.
A large part of our conversation was centered on that.
I really do want to make sure we have considered that.
Lassiter: We are looking in the area of Wal-Mart; explain what that green area is on the south side of Independence.
Warshauer: What we have done is a concept plan about what should happen in the development.
Do we support planted restoration into the neighborhood? Based on the conversation we had enhancing and greening the area. There are areas along there that are prone to flood; people would like to see more green. And it’s those planting areas that we can do to improve and enhance the natural amenities along Independence. There are
Lassiter: some opportunities to open up some things that were previously covered. We did something similar in the MidTown development. We want to be able to see the amenities along Independence.
If you get a traditional development pattern, on the west side of Independence under the 250 number and if you were now trying to access at that point, and every point of access was coming off of the rebuilt Pierson Drive, you would then be able to go 10’ feet?
Warshauer: Correct.
Lassiter: Which would be an additional 60’ feet from the current traditional setback?
Warshauer: Correct.
Lassiter: Now, if that is assuming today that there is another 30’ feet that is not built? I am trying to get to the point that if, today with that current cross section; there were three lanes plus the transit in the middle, right? I am not sure what that is, how much undeveloped land exists from the time you are waiting for the rest of the road to be built? Is it 20’ feet, 30’ feet, 40’ feet?
It’s the difference between 250 that is not in the ROW. You are asking what is behind Horton: the curb?
Warshauer: About 35” feet. You have a 200” foot roadway now, and then you would have 250”
Lassiter: which is what we are proposing. There would be 125’ feet on one side, with an additional 25’ foot, plus an additional 30’ something.
That becomes a real question for me. You can pick properties up and down this stretch; I don’t know what the setback is but there are condos at Elizabeth and
Chantilly that maybe have 30” inches. They are smack on it and people bought them.
Warshauer: There is a lot of elevation difference that we don’t have in some of these other areas,

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 10
Lassiter:
Horton:
Lassiter:
Horton:
Lassiter: so they get a different noise level. When you are living that high above it you are going to have an easier noise level.
What is the width by the old Merchandise Mart?
About 180’ feet.
What is BoJangles, what is the width there?
It’s the same about 180’ or 190’ feet.
The expectation at this point is that those two buildings are going to be there for the next twenty years. If that is the case, you can’t possibly widen the road to maintain the road network because there is a strangle point.
Lassiter: My point is to maintain as much flexibility in this cross section. Based upon development patterns that are presented to us, you can’t say you can’t build here because we are conducting a transitional setback and all of the latest data doesn’t show up in this map. That’s the problem because we say this is this but there is another 20’ feet and another this and another that and all of a sudden the uses are not compliant, which is pretty significant when you are not going to move them for a while?
Warshauer: That’s one reason we have been working with all of our citizen advisors; what is the vision you have for Independence down the road? We really hate to have building conditions that in twenty years, when you do want to widen it, what you will have will be very unattractive. How does it look down the road? How do we make sure when
Kinsey: we are placing development in the best place that it can be for the future as well? We really do not want people investing, putting their buildings in a place where we need something different. We can’t do something different without hitting this wall.
I have a problem when it comes to widening this road and yet we are also talking about BLT or a light rail. The whole idea in providing mass transit is to not widen the roads. I just have a little problem, my office is right there on Independence. The traffic and the noise doesn’t bother me, we are smack dab right on Independence.
You keep talking about widening or light rail or DLT.
Warshauer: We agree we really want to be able to support with what is happening all the way around. What area this will disturb and how we will be planning for growth in our
Kinsey: community. If we do intend to see vital growth with jobs in our area we need to be able to preserve and enrich, and it’s going to take a pretty penny to do that. If we have the whole street lined out with other buildings you really make it much more challenging for future Council to really do a great Independence that is successful for everybody.
I think we are handling traffic from the Belk onto Independence very well because of that setback.
We are trying now to find out what our future options are. Fifty years from now Horton: however it won’t fit if we allow development to come closer today.
Warshauer: Let’s take a look going further out in this area we have newer development in place.
Once you have the 350’ foot setback you only have 13 buildings that are within the
195’ foot building setback. This is essentially what we are looking at in this area and the kind of impact as we move further out. The preliminary implementation strategies include; policy guidance, Zoning changes, capital projects (CIP) public-private partnerships, catalyst sites and transitional setbacks. There are a number of parcels that don’t have any development features, regardless of the setback. There are a number of the parcels that we will be acquiring with this plan. I don’t think we have a solution and we haven’t been able to find a solution. We have provided great stuff for all properties, but there are those that simply need to be bought out for safety or greenway issues or because we do not have a development future. We think there are a number of public and private properties that will make this work. It will be another area like Bryant Park that we are taking a look at. We have some on Elizabeth and
MidTown we need to work with the private sector to make it sure that we can put in the road to make these parcels more developable. Regardless of how much property

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 11 people have in some instances, its’ only access is off of Independence. There is a very limited future for their re-development. At fifty-five miles per hour you don’t pull over in stop and go traffic, you really need an access off of a neighborhood street.
Regardless of what we do, a number of these parcels just do not have a future. What we are looking at is how do we provide better futures and give consolidation with other neighbors and what other kinds of access are available? Our next steps are to receive citizen input on potential cross-sections. We want to confirm corridor impacts and refine future plans recommendations for: land use, community design, transportation, public facilities and infrastructure as well as the environment. We also want to be coming back to you to develop implementation strategies of how to get the neighborhoods along the edge. Not just a stand-a-lone strip Independence, but a real
Independence that the neighborhoods and property owners would like to see.
When you talk about redevelopment, it’s the quality of that redevelopment that is really important to the businesses as well as the community. You want to be really careful with the properties that are redeveloped are good opportunities to be successful. They are not just neighbors, they are really good neighbors. The tentative schedule thus far is the Citizen Advisory Group #4 and #5 will meet in April. Draft
Area Plan Refinement scheduled for the end of May or first of June. The Community review of the Draft Area Plan Recommendations will be in the summer, and we plan the review and adoption process in late summer or fall.
The Monroe by-pass will handle a lot of traffic. If you are going to have a toll road, Carter: you must make sure that the roads and highways that connect to it can handle the traffic. I truly appreciate what you all have done, but I am not sure that NCDOT will ever have a vision.
Lassiter: Are you almost done?
Warshauer: Well that was an extraordinary question. Yes, almost through.
Lassiter: We are ready for the Wal-Mart study.
Warshauer: You want to see that? Alright here you go. This green line is the 250’ foot mark; this is the setback from the 350’ foot mark. The blue line is our proposed 250’ foot setback line and the dark blue is the proposed 35’ feet from the proposed 250’ foot setback.
You can see that under the existing classification the conditional setback lines cover a
Carter:
Horton:
Harmon:
Carter:
Harmon: large area of the parking lot. It takes many fewer spaces in the new proposal, however, parking that exceeds what is required is permitted in the traditional setback.
It is permitted in the traditional setbacks all along the corridor. In this case, all the parking that Wal-Mart has in either of these setbacks is parking that is in excess of what is required, so they are permitted to build this plan under the current rules that we have.
NCDOT is now requiring a turning lane from Independence into the parking lot. How does that turn lane impact what we are proposing?
In the cross section, there is an option for a right turn lane so they are going to go with the existing highway. There will be more impact on the neighbors; NCDOT is going to come in from the west with the right turn lane into that driveway near the northwest corner of the site.
Specifically with the right hand turn lane, there seems to be some issues but Mike
Davis with CDOT is working as an intermediary. There is not enough lane for that right turn lane on the Wal-Mart site. NCDOT will have to re-do the turn lane, staff is committed to work through this issue with Wal-Mart and CDOT to try and resolve this.
It will require off site purchase according to NCDOT. Right now, according to the timeline, there is inadequate time for process for developing Wal-Mart or those alternatives.
Is the breakdown on their side?
What has happened is that they have had some changes in personnel. They have also experienced what has happened with this portion of the freeway being built. NCDOT said two years ago that they would not be requiring a right hand turn lane, they are saying now that they will require a right hand turn lane, so we are doing the best we

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 12
Carter:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble
Carter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter: can to find something that can get them comfortable with minimum impact to the
Wal-Mart site.
Is there any way we can use that further east to provide access to Wal-Mart?
It is my understanding that is how it was originally setup. NCDOT said two years ago, yes that’s how it will work. As Laura just said, change of personnel, change of mind.
I think it’s time for the City Manager to take a run at this and if the City Manager can’t have any influence then we need to consider involvement at the highest level. Not because we are trying to create friction, but because we are trying to get the Wal-Mart project to happen and to happen quickly.
We just need some sales tactics.
That’s right. I think that is probably where we need to go in a hurry.
If there is any way that we can facilitate; I am in Raleigh on Tuesday, I will go.
Thank you. We will try the one next step, if we can’t shake it loose, we will go to the next step.
In the new transitional setback, right there in that plan, insiders knew there was a transitional setback.
Yes, we have that configured as the cross section that we have designed there, we can do that. We can do that within the current setbacks as it is now that can be built and permitted right now.
I think we need to come up, in relation to the transitional setback, questions and some flexibility based upon limitations and timing. That doesn’t mean you can’t, where you have open land as you get further out, figure how do I make this thing match up.
There are places that you can’t. If our rules are going to let people redevelop property; then that will make it essentially not work. We need to work with what is there. The property that is near or adjacent, BoJangles Arena and the Merchandise
Mart, you are not going to get any width on that no matter what you do. As you move further, out the width gets better and more flexible. You have a lot more depth on the property. When you are constrained and the depths of the properties are constrained.
We need to find a way to make it viable and attractive for private investment.
That is another reason to for us to check in quite often on these before going to the next step.
Thank you all. Our next meeting is scheduled for April 1 st
. Wait a minute we can’t go that route.
And we have moved by the adoption by Council, all the Focus Area Plans up to April instead of March.
There was something in the Council-Manager Memo yesterday concerning the stimulus money coming through the Workforce Investment Act. It spoke to the adult money and the youth money. In order to spend this money quickly, the Workforce
Development Board has an RFP out on the street looking for vendors to come in particularly on the youth money. Process forward is that they are going to be taking in these RFP’s and begin to review them. On April 14 th,
we will have on the Council
Agenda a change in the scope of services with them. This will be an amendment to that for the stimulus money. We are working with them to void that scope of services so that the Council will have an opportunity to approve that scope of services before those contracts are approved by the Workforce Development Board. They would not be approved until about a week after the Council acts. So if you see something out there or someone asks you about that, I just wanted to be sure that you knew that you are going to approve that contract amendment first before the Workforce
Development Board does anything. If anyone has questions about that just have them give myself or Brad Richardson a call.
I did meet with Laura Fitch on Tuesday of last week, she empathized the need to access those dollars for our partnership with Goodwill.
One thing we are looking at came out of California, green youth jobs, so we are looking at that to see how we can pull that in.
Thank you all, we are adjourned.

ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for March 19, 2009
Page 13
Meeting adjourned at 4:35 pm.

Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Thursday, March 19, 2009 at 3:00pm
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members: John Lassiter, Chair
Nancy Carter
Staff Resource:
Patsy Kinsey
Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager
AGENDA
I.
UTILITIES RATE OPTIONS – 20 minutes
Staff: Doug Bean, Key Business Executive
Action: Review and discuss Utilities rate considerations for FY2010 in preparation for a committee report at the March 25 th Council Budget Retreat.
II.
INDEPENDENCE BOULEVARD AREA PLAN UPDATE – 20 minutes
Staff: Tom Warshauer, Economic Development Manager, Alysia Osborne, Principal Planner & Brian
Horton, Transportation Planner
Action: Present the current status of the Independence Boulevard study.
III.
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)
IV.
NEXT MEETING: April 1, 2009 at Noon, Room CH-14
Possible Topics: Arts & Science Council Endowment Campaign
Business District Organization Program
Deferral Policy for Rezoning
First Ward Park & Parking Deck
Distribution: Mayor/City Council Curt Walton, City Manager Leadership Team Executive Team

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 x x
The sale of Charlotte’s largest employer, Wachovia, to Wells Fargo with yet to be determined job loss consequences for Charlotte.
The dramatic realignment and shrinkage of the financial services sector, which has been one of
Charlotte’s key engines of economic growth.
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.
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Promote Economic Opportunity
ED.1
Ź
Ź
Ź
Focus Area Initiative:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Measure:
Target:
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
Job growth in new sectors
5% increase (Develop baseline information)
FY08 - New measure
Number of existing businesses visited and serviced through BusinessFirst Charlotte, the
City’s business retention & expansion program
Total: 400 (Business Corridors:120)
FY08 - 416
FY07 - 174
Percentage increase in hospitality tax revenues and room nights generated by Amateur
Sports
3% increase in all hospitality tax revenues; 5% increase in amateur sport
ED.2
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 Ź
Prior Year:
Measure:
FY08 - 12.1%
Number of SBE submitting bids on informal contracts
ED.3 Focus Area Initiative:
Ź Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
Ź 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
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Expand Tax Base & Revenues
ED.4
Ź
Focus Area Initiative: Business Corridor Revitalization and Redevelopment
Measure: Advance/complete development of priority projects and corridors
Target: 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)
Prior Year:
- 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
Expand Tax Base & Revenues
ED.5 Focus Area Initiative: Promote infill development/redevelopment in the Center City, distressed business districts and adjacent neighborhoods, and transit stations
Ź Measure: Building Permit value of construction in the Center City, Business
Services Program Geography, and within 1/2 mile of identified transit station locations
Prior Year: FY08 - $819,000,000
Ź Measure:
Target:
Prior Year:
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
Develop Collaborative Solutions
ED.6 Focus Area Initiative: Business Facilitation/Business Process Improvements
Ź Measure: Average number of reviews on all land development permitting submissions
Target:
Prior Year:
Ź Measure:
< 2.5 reviews
FY08 - New measure
Percentage of permitting report initiatives implemented
Prior Year: FY08 - 12 initiatives endorsed by City Council
Ź Measure: Conduct “competitive advantage” analysis of permitting systems and
processes of in
Prior Year: FY08 - New measure
______________________________________________________________________________________________________

I
NDEPENDENCE
B
OULEVARD
A REA P LAN
March 19, 2009
• Update
(since Dec. 2008)
• Plan Principles
• Defining US 74
• Cross-Sections
• Plan Views
• Next Steps
1
4/29/2009

CC&W Growth
Framework
– Provides “starting point” for developing plan recommendations
– Most of plan area within growth corridor wedges
– Will help refine corridor/wedge boundary
Briar Creek
Transit Station
Amity Gardens
Transit Station
Sharon Amity
Transit Station
Conference
Transit Station
Village Lake
Transit Station
Sardis
Transit Station
Employment
District
Independence
Business District
2
4/29/2009

1. Strengthen and Build Neighborhoods
3. Reclaim and Showcase Natural
Systems
4. Orient Toward Monroe and Central
5. Leverage Opportunities
6. Provide Choices
7. Balance Neighborhood, Community, d R i l N d
8. Define U.S. 74
9. Implement the Plan
10 mi.
15 mi.
5 mi.
20 miles
16 miles
Hwy 2005 2030
US 74 139,000 170,000
I-77 172,000 186,000
I-85
I-485
161,000 196,000
133,000 178,000
3
4/29/2009

• 21 miles from I-485 to
Marshville
• NC Turnpike Authority expects to build by 2013
• Estimate cost of $756 million
4/29/2009
• 13.5 miles, 16 stations
• MTC completion estimate of
( h )
• $582 million escalated cost estimate
• Only rapid transit corridor within same space as radial freeway
4

• MUMPO-adopted Long
Range Transportation Plan
• US 74 advanced to Phase-II of FastLanes Study even with physical constraints
• Initial cost estimates for
Independence:
4/29/2009
™
™
™
™
5

1989 – 350’ Recommendation Adopted by City Council
42’ Border
& Frontage
50’ Outer
Separation
48’
Through
Pavement
70’ HOV
Reversible
350’ Transitional ROW (Existing)
48’
Through
Pavement
50’ Outer
Separation
42’ Border
& Frontage
4/29/2009
250’
29’ min Clear Zone
2’ Aesthetic Wall
68’ Through
Pavement
52’ max Transit
(LRT or BRT)
68’ Through
Pavement
250’ Potential ROW – Briar Creek to WT Harris Blvd.
29’ min Clear
2’ Utility Strip
6

280’
29’ min Clear Zone
2’ Aesthetic Wall
68’ Through
Pavement
82’ max Transit
(BRT with by-pass lanes)
280’ Potential ROW – Beyond WT Harris Blvd.
68’ Through
Pavement
29’ min Clear
2’ Utility Strip
4/29/2009
250’ Potential ROW – Briar Creek to WT Harris Blvd.
280’ Potential ROW – Beyond WT Harris Blvd.
7

Cross-Sections
• 230’ wide between stations but rarely applies due to
• 250’ wide at stations (LRT or BRT without by-pass lanes)
• 280’ wide at stations (BRT with by-pass lanes)
Station Dimensions
• 300’ x 20’ center LRT platforms
• 65’ by 20’ center BRT platforms
• 100’ approach either side of station
Transitions between Cross-Sections
• 600’ taper for LRT to transition between stations
• 1500’ taper for BRT to transition between stations
250’
250’
250’
8
250’
280’
280’
4/29/2009

Urban Freeway - 250’
Inside WT Harris
• Design exceptions needed to address physical constrains
• Stations without by-pass lanes (Briar Creek, Amity
Gardens)
• Stations areas built by
NCDOT with by-pass lanes
(Sharon Amity,
Conference)
Standard Freeway -280’
• Design flexibility (beyond committed project)
• Greater potential for station location to shift
• Interchanges not yet designed
Current Envelope - 350’
Briar Creek to WT Harris
• 175’ off centerline
• 20’ i b ildi setback
• 192 existing buildings within 195’ of centerline
Potential Envelope - 250’
Briar Creek to WT Harris
• 125’ off centerline
• 20’ min. building setback
• 111 existing buildings still within 145’ of centerline
9
4/29/2009

Current Envelope - 350’
WT Harris to City Limits
• 175’ off centerline
• 20’ min. building setback
• 13 existing buildings within 195’ of centerline
Potential Envelope - 280’
WT Harris to City Limits
• 135’ off centerline
• 20’ min building setback
• 13 existing buildings still within 155’ of centerline
10
4/29/2009

ł Receive citizen input on potential cross-section
• Confirm corridor impacts
• Refine future plan recommendations for:
• Land Use
• Community Design
• Transportation
• Public Facilities and
Infrastructure
• Environment
• Develop implementation strategies
Citizen Advisory Group #4 & #5
Draft Area Plan Refinement
Community Review of Draft
Area Plan Recommendations
Review and Adoption Process
April ‘09
May - June ‘09
Summer ‘09
Summer/Fall ’09
4/29/2009
11

4/29/2009
12