ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
Area Plan Inventory and Assessment Process
Received information on plans that have been adopted and the process to
determine when plans are updated
II.
Subject:
Action:
Update on University City Area Plan
Receive an update on discussions with Crescent Resources and issues
related to the amount of retail development proposed for land located
between I-85 and North Tryon Street (Edge Area A) as recommended in
the University City Area Plan.
III.
Subject:
Action:
Belmont Retail
Consider staff recommendations for purchase of closed nonconforming
convenient stores and new retail development at Parkwood and Pegram
Streets.
IV.
Subject:
Next Meeting Date
The next meeting date is scheduled for September19, 2007 at 3:30 p.m.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Councilmembers John Lassiter, Andy Dulin, Don Lochman, Nancy Carter and
James Mitchell
12:00 noon – 1:45 p.m.
Time:
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
PowerPoint Presentation on Area Plan Inventory and Assessment Process
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Area Plans that update the District Plans.
Power Point Presentation Belmont Neighborhood Retail Development
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I.
Subject:
Area Plan Inventory and Assessment Process
Garet Johnson, used a PowerPoint for her presentation to the Committee
Questions/Answers/Comments
Carter:
It would be interesting to see if we could overlay the other plans, such as parks
and try to interface with other branches of government to see whether the plans
they have made and see if there are ways that we can collaborate.
Campbell:
Part of what we do in the Area Plan Process is to try to have that collaboration at
the outset. Obviously, there are master plans that have been done by Park and
Recreation, master plans that have been done by the Library or whomever, that
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Johnson:
Whitesell:
Lassiter:
Whitesell:
Lochman:
Campbell:
Johnson:
Lochman:
Campbell:
McCullough:
Carter:
McCullough:
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
actually they invite us to participate. One of the things we were talking about as
part of the General Development Policies (GDP), the infrastructure piece was
actually this kind of level of collaboration among all public interest so we don’t
have people going on and doing their own thing.
I’m glad we’ve got this in an electronic format, but my question is, if I am a
neighborhood leader and I want to know what is going on in my community, is
this interactive? Can I come on and zoom it in and zoom it out like Google maps
or something that would let me put an address in, like you have with the Board of
Elections where you put an address in and it shows your precinct.
These maps are actually a format where you can zoom in and out and can
actually see the parcels, but they don’t allow you to put in your zip code or
anything like that.
You can’t right now, but in a few months you will be able to.
Good, I think that is what people are looking for when they get ready to buy a
house or buy a piece of property, or they are concerned about a piece of vacant
land or see a rezoning sign. There is a resource they can go to that very quickly
will let them go to the details of where they are and it will provide their
information it is tremendous.
We have applications in development now that has more of a prototype. We are
refining it now.
We have a rezoning that is in an existing district plan, do we have any feel for
how often we go against that plan?
We do. As part of our Balanced Scorecard, we actually track our consistency of
the vote of elected officials with adopted plans. Contrary to what people think,
you run about a 90% to 95% rate of consistency with adopted plans. We will be
glad to show you the trend of actions that we have been keeping.
We give out that information a lot in our public meetings. People ask that all the
time and some of the more headline type rezoning that are in the news that
people hear about, 95% of the rezonings are honored.
I’m surprised a little bit to see the context of the GDP’s and the perception.
We treat General Development Policies as adopted policies and so it is consistent
with the adopted policies.
Continued the Presentation with Area Plan Assessment on Page 4
Are we looking also at the plans for Mint Hill and Matthews area or are we
considering it contractually a region?
Generally we are considering input within Charlotte’s sphere of influence.
This might be something that we need to look at because of Albemarle Road and
how it splits between Mint Hill and Charlotte. Plans that are mixed competition
would really benefit, but I don’t know how you would do that. That probably is a
policy consideration.
Yes, and this process is trying to assess where we need to focus on long range
plan resources. I would imagine that through the kind of collaborative process
that we have, that the area plan assessment, it is likely that someone will call
about some of these projects that are being proposed and some of the other
municipalities … but we don’t have a formal way that we interact.
Is there a way that we could assist you with that? I don’t want to increase your
workload because I know that you are understaffed and highly over worked.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________________
Campbell:
Johnson:
Let us think about that.
One of the areas we look at is what we call spill-over. We are looking at what is
happening in the adjacent jurisdictions that may be spilling over in our
jurisdiction and vice versa.
McCullough:
Dulin:
Continued the presentation with slides on page 5 – 7
I want to go back to building permits. Those are the actual numbers, that 50 to
100?
Percent change and it could be an area that is basically building out or is already
built out or the change that there is an economic decline in the area.
Those are based upon census tracks?
Interest block groups. The building permit data is … so I aggregate it by …
How much do you think that would change if we added 2006 and 2007 numbers
in there. Those have been boom building permit years.
And we would for the next assessment. We would update all of the assessments.
I don’t see how this particular slide helps us.
It is just the source of the data. One data source is used in order for us to
determine any geography. We layer all of this data so it is not one single shot of
information, but it is accumulative and aggregate amount of information that
gives us the picture of whether we need to …
We have about 25 different sources of data.
McCullough:
Lassiter:
Whitesell:
Dulin:
Campbell:
Dulin:
Campbell:
McCullough:
McCullough:
Lassiter:
McCullough:
Continued the Presentation with the slides on Page 8
Can you tell me what those colors mean?
Sure – the red inconsistently … from 2005 to 2006 … that would indicate that
they will have a whole lot of rezonings that are inconsistent and you can see there
are small amounts of red on this map. The green color indicates vacant and
undeveloped land. The gray circle indicates the I-485 interchanges. The purple
indicates the rapid transit station corridors and the blue line is recent planned
projects.
McCullough:
Campbell:
Continued the presentation on Application of Data
There is a little subjectivity in terms of trying to balance the growth areas with
redevelopment areas. We want to make sure we give the adequate attention to
both of those projects.
McCullough:
Mitchell:
Continued the presentation with slides on Page 9
Let me thank you for the North Lake Area Plan. I think that is a prime example,
that when the mall was built it became a catalyst and so much redevelopment
started occurring. Thank you for getting ahead of the curve because I think to a
lot of citizens, they thought just about the mall, but now you’ve got the Super
Target, the Lowe’s. The participation by citizens has been great and the
feedback I have received, they thank you for allowing them to participate. So
often they say the City doesn’t allow us to plan, but plan for us, but that seems to
be going well.
Our major intent in presenting this was, number one to deliver, and to encourage
plans when they were adopted. More important we wanted to deliver to you the
process that we go by to determine when plans need to be updated. What we
Campbell:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lochman:
Campbell:
Johnson:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
have failed to say is that anytime that Council tells us to do a plan, all this goes
out the window and we don’t stress this is on our work program. We wanted to
make sure you understood that this is not a squeaky wheel get the oil because we
really do go through a more analytical process at determining where the need is
for those planning resources. The only thing that is kind of a demand response is
the plan amendment. If someone wants to initiate an amendment to a plan, as
part of the General Development Policies, that plan amendment section, the
Planning Director, as part of your adoption, gave me authority to assess our
resources and direct them to that plan amendment process as necessary.
Obviously, you solved the Albemarle Road/I-485 plan amendment request. For
those of you who have been on Council for a while, this is the second time within
three years that we have had a request to amend that plan. We hope we are going
to get it right this time and will develop it as a result of it.
I would like to go back to my original question. If I understood what Mr.
Lassiter was getting at – let’s just suggest you are a new buyer and you want to
know what the plan is around the perspective house you are buying. To me that
district plan/ area plan is hard data. My question originally was what percentage
of zonings are consistent with the existing plans and I thought you said 90
something percent. Then I think I heard you suggest that if the GDP’s apply then
it goes down as being in compliance with the policy. My point would be,
however, the suggestion was to have a data on which a buyer can hone in on.
The GDP’s did not provide that because the GDP’s are a policy activity that can
overlay an existing hard set of data, particularly the GDP’s with the manner in
which we score them. I wonder if you didn’t have the advantage of the GDP’s
how we could vote for them relative to the existing plans.
When we use the GDP’s is early in the process where there is not an adopted
plan.
Comments inaudible…….
And in areas, for example, like Central District, it has multifamily corridors.
Does that mean it is 6 units to the acre, 22 units to the acre or 43 units to the
acre? We run the GDP’s to make sure we can hone in on the appropriateness of
the … If it says single family we would run the GDP’s to make sure at what
density, but if there is an adopted plan that says single family and you have an
adopted plan that says 3 units to the acre, we would utilize the most current
adopted plan because for that number of units we wouldn’t use the GDP’s.
On the website, do we advise people who are investigating the shopping quality?
I think there is a little confusion about the zoning versus area plans. In our transit
station areas we have adopted plans for the SouthEnd area but I think there is a
little bit of confusion, for example in the Dilworth area, where you have Historic
Overlay District and you have transit oriented development zoning which has
authority. In zoning, we think the overlay trumps the underlying zoning. There
is no real trumping issue I don’t think with area plans. Area plans are policies.
They are not law. Council can vote anyway they want to, but in terms of
implementation, if there is an adopted area plan that is generally the
recommended land use. When there is discussion about changing the intensity of
that land use, then if the adopted plan doesn’t have a density recommendation,
then we would go to the GDP to understand more about the appropriateness of
intensifying that area from what it may call for in the area plan.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
Johnson:
Campbell:
Kinsey:
Campbell:
Johnson:
Lassiter:
II.
If you have adopted a transit station plan it will update the land use.
I think if we leave you with two or three messages, one is we understand the need
to be able to get pretty specific about what is the policy if an investor when
purchasing real estate or is already in the neighborhood, wants to know what is
happening around the neighborhood. We are enhancing that capability now. We
think it the fairest and most democratic way because we have found in the past
that we were going back to the same geography doing area plans because those
are the strongest neighborhoods and they had the outcry and got to faster than
anyone else. Thirdly, we will provide you with an update on some trend analysis
on that consistency of your vote as it relates to adopted plans.
There are a couple of neighborhoods in District 1 that want their small area plans
updated and they are willing to work on themselves. How do you get that into
this overall area plan?
UCP was the same way where they actually paid for it. We will allow that, but it
still take a tremendous amount of staff resources because we continue to get
plans delivered to us that are not in your format and not what you are accustomed
to adopting so it is a tremendous amount of work for staff. We put them in the
hopper as part of the assessment, or if it is an off year when we are not doing an
assessment, I just have to make the determination as to whether we can absorb
the workload. Even if it is … we still have to manage the product, the process
you wanted to use. I don’t care who does it, private sector or public, it is the
same planning process.
Another thing we like to do too, is to sit down with people that are wanting an
area plan reviewed and try to figure out why because sometimes they make the
area plan their answer to everything. We might go through two years of
developing the area plan and we might not solve the problem that they really
wanted to solve with that area plan.
Thank you very much, it is very helpful and we will kind of keep that in the can
because this issue will come up with Council at some point.
Subject: Update on University City Area Plan
John Lassiter: There is an expectation to defer item number two.
Debra Campbell: As you will recall, we had some issues with an area called Interior 8 with
regards to the amount of retail development that is being proposed. We want to give you an
update on that process in terms of our discussions and let me know a tentative schedule for when
you think we may be coming back for action on that plan.
Kathy Cornett: We’ve met a couple of times with the City staff team and we are going to meet on
Friday, September 14th with the Crescent Team and the City staff team and work through some of
the design issues and some of the numbers issues. Our goal is to bring it back it back to the
Committee on October 3rd and that would set us up to bring it back to the Council around
October 10th.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Dulin:
Mary, are you guys alright with the push?
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 6
______________________________________________________________________________________
Hopper:
Lassiter:
III.
It is more important to get it right than set a deadline. Everybody has been most
cooperative. It has ended up being a good experience.
Thank you.
Subject: Belmont Retail
Tom Flynn used a PowerPoint for his presentation to the Committee
Questions/Answers/Comments
Mitchell:
Where will Villa Heights School be located on this map?
Audience:
On the north side of Parkwood.
Carter:
Asked about grocery stores from the northwest, Graham Street and Tryon Street
area.
Flynn:
There is one at Eastway Crossing. We looked at ones relative to the market here.
Flynn:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Shull:
Dulin:
Shull:
Dulin:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Continued his presentation with Belmont CDC Interest
At one point we had thought about going for Federal appropriation on something
like this, but Belvedere Homes moved ahead of it.
Does that land cost include demolition costs?
It does not. The estimated land cost was estimated by our Real Estate Division.
The demolition costs is probably $150,000 to $160,000 and needs to be on that
proforma.
It is not quite that much, but we possibly could have some environmental costs
with regards to the removal of asbestos.
Now – I think that is holding back information that has been on the out lists for
the last year or two.
Who owns and runs this completed product?
Private sector.
It could either be Charlotte Mecklenburg Development
Corporation which was the City West Commons model or we could go out and
seek a private developer to own and operate it. We would not be in that business.
Are we building it with public money?
We would be assisting the private sector and the private sector would still be
responsible for that first mortgage loan of $2.4 million. This is basically the
GAP financing similar to what we provided on City West Commons or the
University City Shopping Center.
The slide is kind of backwards here. You’ve got a recommendation of what you
would want to do relative to this parcel on the next slide. I think the financial
piece follows it so it might be good to talk as opposed, here is what we would
spend and talk about what you would want to do with one of those
recommendations and then try to go back and look at that financing.
Continued his presentation with Staff Recommendation
What do you mean by possible new business opportunity for existing C-store
owners?
He looks at it as a business opportunity. Can you point out those on the map?
Yes, there is a slide coming up, but they are #8, #9 and #6. Those are the three
vacant, non-conforming. The one at Seigle and Tenth is also vacant and non-
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Flynn:
Shull:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Watson:
Shull:
Mitchell:
Shull:
Mitchell:
Kinsey:
Mitchell:
Shull:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Shull:
Flynn:
conforming, but the others want $2 million for it. (these are shown on the map
entitled Belmont Convenience Store Locations).
Fill us in why it is important for us to buy those three when they don’t have
anything to do with the site at Pegram.
Part of the Belmont Area Plan is to reintroduce housing into that area. We see
this as part of the redevelopment of this area to take out non-conforming uses and
to bring them into blighted uses that are pulling down the neighborhood as a way
to implement that plan and bring back more housing into the neighborhood.
Can the homeowners of those parcels, if they need the money, sell them to a
home builder?
At this point, we are estimating that the cost of purchasing each one of these is
probably going to be $100,000 to $150,000 and there is no way you could put
that sort of land basis into a single family residential structure in this
neighborhood.
Then why is it a good deal for us to do it?
I said we would have to be writing down the cost of that land in order to
implement your plan to bring back residential. We did exactly the same thing on
Wilkinson Boulevard with the Wilkinson Park. We wrote down the cost of that
land, probably by about 50% at the end of the day in order to accomplish the
Wilkinson Park. We are taking out blighted uses that helps promote and solidify
the neighborhood and helps reintroduce for sale residential product into the
neighborhood, which was part of the Belmont Plan to bring more stability to the
neighborhood.
Those vacant structures are places for not so good activities in a residential
neighborhood.
This map has no streets on it and I’m having difficulty getting anywhere. Can
you point them out on the map.
Pointed out on the map the stores that are non-conforming.
So it is Josh’s Jiffy Mart, Fatback Queen and Midtown Food Mart, and Walker’s
Grocery, that is four.
Pull Midtown out.
Midtown is not subject for acquisition.
A. C. I am a little slow, let me go back to the one at Seigle. Is that Jiffy Mart?
Seigle is Midtown and Josh’s is 909 East 18th Street, Fatback Queen is on
Pegram Street .
I’m just talking about the three.
Josh’s, Fatback and Walkers.
Josh’s, Fatback and Walkers.
Not Midtown and not …
That is what is being talked about for that first recommendation to buy those
three with an expected appraise value between $100,000 and $150,000 a piece.
Is that expected appraise value of $100,000 to $150,000 because there is a buyer
sitting out there called the City of Charlotte that is going to buy it from them?
These were values estimated by our Real Estate Division.
We need to do a lot of work on this. We want to get the Committee and the
Council to say yes, and continue to work on this. That is one of the reasons that
if you say yes, work on it, then we will have the Real Estate Division will do a
lot more work and they will get appraisals and obviously all their acquisition
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 8
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Watson:
work will be based upon appraisals. These are just estimates at this point.
I guess what we are trying to say is, we might have gotten out in front of you the
last time and we don’t want to make that same mistake again. We want to give
you ideas and then have you evaluate it.
The appraisal is not a function … and yet different ways to use appraisals. Our
interest doesn’t necessarily change the value unless we buy one on …
Right, and we don’t have to buy it if you think it is too expensive.
That is issue one. Issue two goes back a slide and that is what Mr. Lochman
asked about.
That was to pursue the development of a mixed use center at the corner of
Parkwood and Pegram by beginning to look at purchasing additional land for that
center.
Continued his presentation regarding recommendations
Are the owners making sizable equity contributions?
We haven’t had that conversation at all.
I personally have no interest in bank rolling. Somebody could walk through the
door and say I got a business here and it isn’t all that great, but I would love to
use your money to get into another business that I think I can do better at. That
wouldn’t give me a warm feeling at all.
I think the assistance we are talking about is more along the lines of business
training, business plan development and those sorts of things rather than financial
assistance.
Well, forgive me, but that don’t sound like a business opportunity. Being trained
is not a business opportunity in my view.
There are representatives of the C-store owners here and they have expressed a
desire to have that conversation.
I’m sure they would. They see a money box sitting out there with plenty of
money in it.
Would you like to ask Mr. Watson a question relative to what their interest is?
No.
I would. What is the idea for some of the C-store owners in being a participant in
any potential redevelopment?
I fully support this plan. My background is in planning also. I was Economic
Development Director for the City of Houston before I came here and we did
these kinds of deals. I call them targets of opportunity. Situations where you can
bring a blighted area back from where it is to something new. The convenience
store owners, many of them are land owners and they own their property which
will be sold and that property will be down zoned and made into residential
property in the future. If you are going to buy those stores and you want to close
those stores that purportedly contribute to crime, etc. you will close them. Then
people have a right to be in business so you have to have some place for them to
go. There would be a retraining process or re-entering process where maybe a
Subway sandwich store or maybe a drycleaners. After getting input from this
neighborhood as to what it is that they see and want in a retail development, you
would try to respond to those needs. It is not a give away program by any
stretch. The grants and those kinds of things are available from the Federal
government and the City, and a loan is a loan, so you are not really giving them
anything. They come in with money, but they are going to need technical
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 9
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Watson:
Lassiter:
Watson:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
assistance and may need access for the loan fund that we set up for inventory or
whatever else they don’t have money for. It is definitely not a give away
program. It is a program that is like dropping a stone in water. It is going to
ripple and cause some more positive things to happen in the neighborhood. Right
now people are looking at Belmont and seeing the glass half empty. I see a glass
half full and certainly with a project like this the glass is going to be even more
full because you are going to have a turn around in an area that people are kind of
thinking, should I go in there as private development. Should I or shouldn’t I?
This gives them some assistance to do some things.
The idea is that they would bring new retail businesses into this small center and
may or may not take the equity position based upon how CDC organizes the
ultimate development, so in fact some equity piece that is available, based upon
how this plays out.
I call this a catalyst – you are a catalyst for change, you are catalyst for getting
something going and then it goes by itself.
Is the sense that these are only for those C-stores that are currently operating, but
not to create a vehicle for somebody whose property is being purchased under the
first scenario and to convert that cash back into a new deal.
They are out of the business. It is for those who are currently..
I guess I am still struggling. Is the theory that if they sell their property for
$150,000?
The vacant stores are the three up above and have nothing to do with the second
scenario. You have the rest of the stars on the map and these are folks in which
we would also like to have them change their business model or get out of the
property. I think the idea is that you might have an attractor that would have this
person be willing to put their property on the market, get out of the C-store
business and open a dry cleaners or a Subway franchise or whatever as market
consistent with the retail plan long term.
So what they would be bringing to the plate would be the value of what they sell?
They add new equity. It might not be completely absorbed in the sale of their
property because their property is going to be converted from retail to more than
like to a residential use. It may not be as value as an asset.
Ultimately would they be employees in the new enterprise?
They would have the capability of bringing equity to the table if they sold their
existing property so the answer is yes.
I don’t know the dollars they bring are important and what is the source of the
dollars. The source is what is the value of what they sell.
We haven’t gone to that extent yet. This is conceptual plan, but yes, they could
bring equity to the equation.
My point is, if I want to have a business, the bank says how much money they
will put into it. I want to know how much money these people are going to put
into it, or is it simply government gratis that says you are there so we will help
you be there again.
I think it is much more the bank model.
So they will bringing money in?
Yes sir, but I can’t answer you questions exactly how much because this is a
concept and we want you to talk to us about your thoughts on the concept, get
Council’s thoughts on the concept before we have any further conversations.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 10
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Lassiter:
A C-store owner sells their property or mortgages their property while it is
waiting for sale to generate X amount of cash. They then take some portion of
that cash, acquire a franchise for a Subway and they then become a lease/tenant
in property that is initially owned by the CDC, pays market rent and then the City
for some period of time, along with CDC, holds an equity position in that until it
is fully leased out, in which case like City West Commons, it was placed back
into private hands, the City cashed out its million bucks, then the CDC can take
that million and reinvest it in another project. I think that is the premise.
City West, Remount and … predates my Council work, but that is running well
over there?
Yes, it just got sold and the City got all its money back out of it.
I hear the bank model, but then I see Federal grants, tax credits, etc.
There are two pieces. There is the hard development, the actual land
redevelopment and building of the new retail center which is going to require, we
believe, some public assistance investment to make that happen. The other piece
of it is bringing tenants into that retail center and that is where we are talking
about using the bank model with some of the existing convenience store owners
to convert to becoming as Subway franchisee, go to the bank, get a bank loan and
become a Subway franchisee.
The loan would be to be the franchisee?
Yes, because you have to pay the franchise fees, you have to upfit and that sort of
thing.
That loan is paid back out of the proceeds of the business?
It could be taken out of the proceeds of the Subway. If I was the banker, I would
say you just sold this property, you’ve got equity there. Can’t you put some of
that in because I’m not going to bankroll the whole thing.
They could qualify for a small business loan and there are a bunch of ways to go
find money. I think the premise is, this is staff’s thoughts rather than the original
approach of trying to buy as many as we could with $2 million. The idea was,
can we create a market driven model where we are an investor with an X strategy
that also converts into a market driven retail complex along the lines of what is
envisioned within the Belmont District Plan.
So we are taking care of a portion of the hard costs through government money
and then driving down what would be the least expense that the bank would be
underwriting.
It is the acquisition costs of what you are writing down because we are getting
into the deal with hard cash. CDC operates it more like a traditional developer.
I accept the fact that you are going to put government money into this and the
idea is for the greater good of more people. I just want to make sure that no
individual profits unduly for something that is being done for the benefit of the
good.
Everybody understands that.
We have talked about all the other things on the other slides except probably the
fact that if Council blesses this concept we would clearly involve the Belmont
community in this. We would obviously be talking with CDC about that as well
as some of the convenience store owners to move that forward and be coming
back to you. This is our recommendation for the Committee’s consideration.
Patsy is here as that community’s representative and I want to make sure all of
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 11
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kinsey:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
your questions to this point have been answered.
Yes they have.
What are you asking us to do today?
If you are ready, we would like you to make a recommendation to Council to
move forward on the staff recommendation.
With Councilmember Carter leaving, it is my intention to vote against the first
recommendation of buying the three vacant non-conforming C-stores. It is my
sense that just one more Council person sitting at the table today to vote against
it. That is likely to be a tie vote. It is my intent to vote yes for the second
recommendation so if you are going to make a motion, you might want to make
them in two parts because if together I will vote no.
Let’s deal with the second one first, just to make it easier.
We have a
recommendation from staff to pursue a development, in essence develop a
proposal. It is not to immediately go in to a redevelopment plan, but to develop a
proposal that would have those potential components and the recommendation
would be to ask City Council for approval to proceed with that process.
That is correct.
VOTE:
Mr. Mitchell moved to recommend to Council to proceed with pursing the
development of mixed-use retail/office at Parkwood and Pegram and working
with existing convenience store owners to explore possible markets based
financial partnerships for them to open new businesses as tenants in the mixed
use development. Mr. Dulin seconded the motion. The vote was recorded 3 to 1
with Mr. Lochman opposed. (Ms. Carter was absent for the vote).
Lassiter:
I do want to make sure that Mr. Lochman’s point is clear, that this is not an
opportunity for individual C-store owners or individual owners of former C-store
property to unduly benefit without an expectation of an equity position
comparable to the value, however it comes in. Whether it comes in inventory,
franchise, or it is constructed with the idea that it is a wash as opposed to a …
If you want to weave that into the recommendation we will be glad to write it up
that way.
I think that is the understanding. That is what the idea here is, that we are
proceeding to partnering with these individuals to move them into businesses that
are more in line with where we want the community to be, but the expectation is
that should they wish to be a part of that, that it is not a gift, it is a financial
partnership with the expectation that we operate the model much like the City
West Common property and with CDC we are looking to get ourselves out of
that and would cover our cash contribution in whatever dollars come in through
the sale of the property. The first issue is to recommend to Council to purchase
and demolish three vacant C-stores which are identified as Josh’s Jiffy Mart,
Fatback Queen and Walkers Grocery, and to sell that to CHA or Belmont CDC
and keep it within a use that would provide housing stock or some other
redevelopment from the CDC, based upon appraised values of what those values
are. Those proceeds could then be used to help defray some of our costs relative
to what we just voted on.
Kimble:
Lassiter:
VOTE:
Mr. Mitchell moved to recommend to City Council to purchase and demolish
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 12
______________________________________________________________________________________
three vacant non-conforming C-stores (Josh’s Grocery, Fatback Queen, Walkers
Grocery) and sell land to CHA or Belmont CDC for residential development. Mr.
Lassiter seconded the motion. The voted ended in a tie with Mr. Dulin and Mr.
Lochman opposed (Ms. Carter was absent for the vote).
Dulin:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Lassiter:
Watson:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Flynn:
Dulin:
Watson:
My position hasn’t changed since we started this. If these businesses want to sell
they can put a “for sale” sign up. I don’t think it is our … to get in there and start
buying out businesses.
Let me give you a different perspective on it. The original recommendation that
rolled through here was to buy a whole bunch of these. They were all shapes and
sizes, operating, non-operating. That has been reduced to the purchase of three
parcels that are currently vacant that are creating difficulties for that community
to redevelop because of vacant properties that hamper neighboring properties that
otherwise might redevelop. We have a significant amount of redevelopment that
is occurring in the area, largely in part by private sources. We have used this
methodology all over the community to buy vacant properties, whether they are
vacant from former residential use or commercial use. The idea here is to use
those purchase funds which we have and convert those back into housing stock
that would be managed or redeveloped either by the Housing Authority or by the
CDC who will likely be our partner in the redevelopment of the other property.
The proceeds from the resale of this property, whatever that happens to be, can
be rolled back into what we have just agreed that we would like to try to do at
Parkwood and Pegram that will result in a significant elimination of both active
and enactive uses in the community without us going in and just willy nilly
buying it and putting people out of business. These are currently not being used
and they are not exactly attractive streetscape models for what we are trying to
do. They create opportunities for loitering and they create opportunities for
criminal activity, and they create issues for our police and code enforcement
folks to keep these properties sealed up. My sense is that that is a well
throughout compromise from where we originally were. The first one I had real
difficulties with, but I think this one is consistent with our methodology.
What happens today if in fact this vote between the four of us is split?
It goes back with no recommendation, but it will still go back to Council with no
recommendation on this issue.
What I would like to add is that using this same scenario, for the last four or five
years I have been the real estate broker for the Charlotte Mecklenburg Housing
Partnership and we have bought property in Druid Hills and all over – the same
scenario, using appraised value to go in and buy the property. I negotiate those
sales. We have been doing that forever all over town, so this is no different here
in Belmont.
That is the point I tried to make. This is something we do all the time. If we
don’t do this today, will we want to do it, still vacant, two years from now. The
property would be worth more money, so the appraised value will go up simply
because of the increase value around it.
Do we know who owns these three pieces of property?
Yes.
Are they currently paying taxes on these three pieces of property?
Yes, but low taxes. I think they will go up.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 13
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Watson:
Flynn:
If we decide to sell these three pieces of property, Mr. Watson are you going to
be the listing agent on it?
No sir.
The City Real Estate Division will handle the property.
VOTE:
The vote was taken on the motion and was recorded as a tie with Mr. Dulin and
Mr. Lochman opposed (Ms. Carter was absent for the vote).
Mitchell:
How do you handle the absence of Councilmember Carter? I know in our
Council meetings when they leave they are considered a yes vote unless they
announce they are leaving.
That is correct and I was going to make that point immediately. If she did not
ask to be excused and you did not excuse her then her vote is counted as a yes.
My point is that of those present we had a two to two tie and I think we can take
it back to Council and discuss the issue in more detail. Some of the questions
that were asked here, we can get some more information in the presentation to
Council and we can talk about the interrelation.
I appreciate your stance, but I personally don’t care if you want to make it three
to two.
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Lochman:
IV.
Subject: Next Meeting Date
Mr. Kimble said I think North Lake Area Plan, Angela, are they bringing it back on the 19th ?
Listed on your agenda we have the Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback Study Phase II,
we are also trying to set up CDOT for you to make your personal field visit to the sixth floor to
talk about building permitting plan review with CDOT and we have the North Lake Area Plan.
You have got all three of those for the 19th. On the 3rd of October you would have Infrastructure
GDP which just got referred last night and University City Area Plan that we just talked about
from an update today.
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Mitchell:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Lassiter:
What happen to the street lighting?
Ms. Campbell has that pretty much written up in consultation with C-DOT, so
that could be coming as early as the 3rd. We also have TIF limits. You have
about 9 or 10 issues lined up to get through Committee right now.
Can we have staff to bring all these issues in the cue so we can look at them and
put some prioritization on them. I am interested in the street lights.
I will talk with staff in advance of the meeting and advance of the notice and get
what is ready. If some things look like they will be ready by the time we meet
we will try to put them in there.
I am very familiar with these stores and if the Real Estate staff or someone else
associated with these projects would like to spend time with me and go over and
see them again and for me to listen to the staff’s side of what is going on, I will
do that. I will be willing to put time into it to hear both sides.
Bear in mind, what we are asking you to do now is very different from what we
were doing before. We are talking about buying three empty buildings. It is
putting nobody out of business and the ones that have an interested in being a
partner with us, we may be creating an opportunity for them. Quite honestly,
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for September 5, 2007
Page 14
______________________________________________________________________________________
Dulin:
Lassiter:
Flynn:
other than the fact that we don’t like what they are doing, we don’t care about it.
That is an entirely different way of approach. You are free to do that, but what is
going on in the store today makes no difference. If it is empty we care and we
have an interest in potentially buying it. If it is operating we would like to get
them out of that business somewhere else voluntarily.
Giving them a shinny new building to do business in is not going to make them
any better business people.
Some of these are pretty good business people. They are just feeding what the
market is interested in.
We will follow up with you Mr. Dulin.
The meeting adjourned at 1:45 p.m.
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, September 5, 2007 at Noon
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 267
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
Andy Dulin, Vice Chair
Don Lochman
Nancy Carter
James Mitchell
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble
AGENDA
I.
AREA PLAN INVENTORY and ASSESSMENT PROCESS – 30 minutes
Staff: Debra Campbell, Planning Director; Garet Johnson, Land Use Program Manager &
Melony McCullough, Planning Coordinator
Action: Receive information on plans that have been adopted and the process to determine when
plans are updated. No action required
II.
UPDATE on UNIVERSITY CITY AREA PLAN – 10 minutes
Staff: Debra Campbell, Planning Director & Kathy Cornett, Planning Coordinator
Action: Receive an update on discussions with Crescent Resources and issues related to the
amount of retail development proposed for land located between I-85 and North Tryon Street
(Edge Area A) as recommended in the University City Area Plan. No action required
III.
BELMONT RETAIL – 45 minutes
Staff: Tom Flynn, Economic Development Director; Debra Campbell, Planning Director &
Stanley Watkins, Key Business Executive
Action: Consider staff recommendations for purchase of closed nonconforming convenient
stores and new retail development at Parkwood and Pegram. Draft PowerPoint Attached
IV.
NEXT MEETING DATE: September 19, 2007 at 3:30pm, Room 280
Possible Topics: Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback Study Phase II
Permitting/Plan Review Process Field Visit to CDOT
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
AREA PLAN INVENTORY AND
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
Economic Development and
Planning Committee
September 5, 2007
Area Plan Inventory
and Assessment
¾ What is the adopted future land
use and how is it updated?
¾ How do we determine where to do
an area plan?
Area Plan Inventory
¾ What is the adopted future land
use and how is it updated?
2005 Generalized
Land Plan
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
District Plans
Central
East
South
Southwest
Northwest
Northeast
North
Area Plan Inventory
¾ What is the adopted future land use
and how is it updated?
Area Plan Inventory
¾ What is the adopted future land
use and how is it updated?
• Area Plans
• Plan
Amendments
• Rezonings
Area Plan Inventory
¾ What is the adopted future land use and
how is it updated?
Questions
¾ Area Plan Assessment
Process used to determine:
ƒ Where future planning efforts should be
focused
ƒ Type of planning effort needed
ƒ Potential resources needed
Key characteristics of Process:
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
Comprehensive
Objective
Analytical
Inclusive
Key Process Steps
Internal Planning Team Meeting
Interdepartmental Assessment Team Meeting
(CATS, CDOT, Economic Development, Planning, Police, CMU, and Neighborhood Development)
January
To
April
Assessment Tasks
1. Update Information
2. Develop list of areas to analyze
3. Receive input from staff, Cabinet and Joint Use Task
Force
4. Review and Score Data, Rank Areas and Determines
the Appropriate Type of Planning Initiative
Area Plan
Plan
Amendment
Incorporate into the work program
of the Planning Department and
other KBUs
Problem
Solving
Forward to
Neighborhood
Development KBU
Plan Assessment Considerations
Needs are assessed
based on:
ƒ Requests for Planning
Services
ƒ Land Use and Rezoning
Activity
ƒ Transportation
ƒ Socioeconomic
ƒ Public
Investments/Infrastructure/
Services
ƒ Environment
Data Sources
1. Previously Adopted Land Use Plans
2. Building Permit Data
3. Location of Vacant and Underutilized Land
4. Rezonings
5. Road Projects
6. Quality of Life Index
• Socioeconomic Changes
• Population by Census Tracts
• Employment by Census Tracts
Data Sources
Previously
Adopted
Plans
Data Sources
Quality of Life Study
Data Sources
Building Permit
Activity
Data Sources
Compilation of
Data
• Rezoning Activity
• Vacant / Underutilized land
• Building Permit Activity
• I-485 Interchanges
• Recent or Proposed
Roadway Projects
Application of Data
1. Each potential plan area is “scored“ according to
the criteria.
2. Team reviews the scores and considers any need
for adjustment based on:
•
•
•
Type of Plan/plan amendment
Geographic distribution of plans (ie, can nearby areas be
combined, should we focus all resources in one area,
location relative to Centers, Corridors, and Wedges)
Department & City Business Plan Goals & Objectives
•
Joint Use/Opportunity to leverage resources
3. Team selects plans to include in work program
FY ’06 Plan Assessment Results
ƒ
Identified 35+
Potential Plan Areas
ƒ
Narrowed to 17 Areas
for Full Analysis and
Scoring
ƒ
Outcome:
1. Catawba
2. Northlake Area
3. Steele Creek Area
4. Midtown
FY ’08 Work Plan
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
ƒ
University City Area Plan (adoption)
Northlake Area Plan (completion)
Catawba Area Plan
Midtown / Cherry Area Plan
Steele Creek Area Plan
Albemarle / I-485 Plan Amendment
Independence Land Use and
Transportation Phase II Study
Questions
Thank You!
Belmont Neighborhood
Retail Development
ED& Planning Committee
September 5, 2007
Overview
• Background
• Questions raised at last meeting
• Parkwood and Pegram retail
redevelopment costs
• Staff recommendations
Background
2003
• City Council adopted the Belmont Area Revitalization
Plan
2004
• City staff commissioned CMDC to study 13
convenience stores for highest and best use
2006
• Council approved CIP which included $1.1M of
Neighborhood Improvement Bonds to purchase 6-7
“C” stores in Belmont
March 2007
• Council directed staff to explore alternate retail
options with ED&P after voting down CMDC “C” store
purchase proposal
Questions Raised at
June ED&P Meeting
• Pegram/Parkwood location in relation
to Seigle Point, existing retail, and
NoDa
• CDC interest
• Retail cost & gap analysis
• Cost of drill-down study ($50,000)
• Planning/Neighborhood Development
recommendation
Retail Near
Parkwood/Pegram
Belmont CDC Interest
in Retail Options
• Belmont CDC supports the redevelopment of
Parkwood/Pegram for retail/mixed use
• CDC owns land adjacent to Parkwood/
Pegram and would like to participate as a
development partner
• CDC currently developing 10 single family
homes in area with CHA
Preliminary Proforma:
Parkwood/Pegram Retail
(30,000 sf)
Cost Type
LAND
ARCH & ENGR
CONSTRUCTION
FINANCIAL
ADMINISTRATION
MARKETING
LEGAL
RELOCATION
CONTINGENCY
TOTAL COSTS
Amount
Totals
$460,000
$142,935
$3,254,000
$369,400
$202,400
$62,500
$19,450
$125,000
$391,292
$5,026,977
Financing Sources
Amount
Totals
Environmental Assessment & Remediation
$75,000
Federal/Public Grants
$418,460
City Loan
$900,000
City Grant
$1,000,000
Equity
$200,000
First Mortgage Loan
$2,433,517
Total Financing
$5,026,977
$5,026,977
Cost S/F
$168.00
Recommendation
• Purchase & demolish three vacant, non-conforming
C-stores & sell land to CHA or Belmont CDC for
residential development
•City Real Estate staff
•City Council approval of each purchase
•Proceeds to help fund new retail
•Pursue development of mixed-use retail/office at
Parkwood & Pegram
•Purchase additional land
•Pursue federal grants/tax credits
•Market study
•Possible new business opportunity for existing Cstore owners
•Solicit developers
Purchase & Demolish Vacant
Non-Conforming C-Stores
• Four vacant, non conforming C-stores exist
1.Midtown Food Mart – adjacent to Seigle
Point
2.K&L Laundry
3.Walkers Grocery
4.Josh’s Grocery
2
3
• Estimated land cost $450,000
• Midtown Food Mart not included due to high
cost ($2M)
4
Purchase & Demolish Vacant
Non-Conforming C-Stores
• Sell land to CHA or Belmont CDC for
housing
• Considerations
• Addresses vacant/blighted &
nonconforming property
• Provides housing opportunity for infill
housing
• Does not address Belmont community
concerns about remaining, operating Cstores
Pursue Mixed-Use at
Parkwood/Pegram
• City owns 3-of-6 parcels
• City loan funds available for gap
financing similar to City West Commons
• Considerations
• Utilizes vacant City-owned land
• Improves neighborhood services
• Catalyst for Belmont redevelopment
• Could relocate/reposition existing Cstore owners
Process Moving Forward
• Engage Belmont residents in market study
• Engage existing C-store owners in
discussion of redevelopment/repositioning
opportunities
• Engage Belmont CDC on
Pegram/Parkwood redevelopment
partnership
Funding
Neighborhood Improvement
Funds
$1,100,000
Purchase land for Mixed Use
Development at Parkwood &
Pegram
$370,000 - $460,000
Purchase vacant, nonconforming C-stores
$400,000 - $450,000
Contingency
$190,000 $330,000
Committee Discussion