ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 15, 2007
Page 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject: Building Permitting/Plan Review Process Field Visit
Action: Continue evaluation of building permitting/plan review process
improvements by visiting the 14th floor operations in Land Development. We
will meet in Room 280 before moving to the 14th floor.
II.
Subject: Update on Bryant Park Land Use & Streetscape Plan
Action: Receive an update on Bryant Park Redevelopment projects, specifically
addressing possible public/private partnerships with the Merrifield Properties
(Radiator Specialty) and Wood Partners (Wesley Village) development projects.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Councilmembers John Lassiter, Andy Dulin, Don Lochman, Nancy Carter and
James Mitchell
3:00 p.m. – 5:20 p.m.
Time:
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
Land Development Tour Agenda
PowerPoint Update on Development in Bryant Park
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I. Subject:
Engineering and Property Management’s Land Development Services
Division
The Committee was welcomed by Jeb Blackwell, Interim City Engineer and given a tour of Land
Development Services with David Weekly, Nan Peterson, Berry Miller, Laura Brewer, John
Geer, Tom Ferguson and Tom Johnson.
.
II. Subject:
Update on Bryant Park Land Use & Streetscape Plan
Ron Kimble: This is just an update and no decision is required today. We want to give you some
of the flavor of the conversations that have occurred between our staff and the developers. There
was an article in the Charlotte Observer today regarding Bryant Park, so it is getting great
exposure.
Tom Warshauer used a PowerPoint for his presentation to the Committee
Questions/Answers/Comments
Lassiter:
Are there some flood issues?
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 15, 2007
Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Warshauer:
Siegel:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Siegel:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Audience:
Lassiter:
Martin:
Dulin:
Siegel:
Lassiter:
Siegel:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Siegel:
The land that you would raise, delineate that by boundary.
The land that we would raise is virtually the entire site. Is there any portion that
is not being filled in Carter?
No.
The fill varies in height from about 3 feet to as much as 8 feet.
Tom, can you show me where the flood plain is now?
Pointed out on the map the area of the flood plain.
In terms of buildable, what are the buildable restrictions based upon that
floodplain designation?
They need to have the buildings out of the floodplain in terms of elevation. It
would have to be one foot above the floodplain, then you have to have access to
the buildings.
What I am trying to figure out is if the bulk of the property is in the floodplain,
how do we get a value beyond zero other than its current use. Is that where that
$3 million is based upon current use? We’ve got the current tax value of $3
million, improvements to $48 million and I am trying to figure out how is it
worth $3 million if it is un-buildable and un-improvable based upon its
floodplain designation.
The warehouse buildings that are on the site would be part of the $3 million tax
value. One of those buildings has been torn down and another building is still
standing, but will come down.
It would be grandfathered until the … floodplain.
The $3 million is based upon in essence what was current use and now that those
buildings are substantially demolished, what is the value if it is un-buildable?
The largest is still there and it is producing about $300,000 per year on … lease.
We are investors in the land, selling to Wood Partners. There were two
warehouses on it when it was purchased and one of the warehouses was greatly
dilapidated and that one was taken down, but the larger one is there, 150,000 feet
is occupied.
When can you get started if we move forward. Obviously, that building has to
come down. When do you start filling?
As early as January or February of 08.
The request is to take 90% of the taxes on the improvement of Phase I at $48
million. We would have 10% of those taxes of $20,000 in taxes available for the
first ten years, then 100% obviously, past that point.
Correct.
That does not include the remainder of the parcel which is not in the floodplain,
which is the part above that. Is that correct?
The $48 million is the construction of this parcel that is Phase I. It could be
additional rather than come from the construction of the townhouse and the
commercial buildings that would be here. We don’t know exactly when those
will move forward.
Does fill resolve the land issues for all of the parcel, not just the portion of Phase
I?
Yes.
What is the estimate value based upon this plan for improvements in the
remaining portions of the property?
A rough estimate of $2 million
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 15, 2007
Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________________
Lassiter:
Siegel:
Kimble:
Warshauer:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Fincher:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Carter:
Is there a date for that?
There is not a date for that, which makes it hard to assess the value.
Tom, would the synthetic TIF be capped at $1.6 million using the 90% of
property tax?
Yes, we need to fine tune this. We are trying to take care of that gap, but we are
not looking to do anything more than that. This is where our rough figures are
right now, but I think those are not far from being protected.
Continued his presentation with slides on Page 4
Is there work being done on Columbus Circle? It doesn’t look like they are
earmarked for any improvements.
No, we don’t have any in this plan. We have done a lot of work on Columbus
Circle. There are about 15 houses that have been condemned on Columbus
Circle so we are very active and potent of what is in that area and policing that
area now to shut down the drug houses and to get the nature of that neighborhood
sustained. This will be a way of saying we are really a part of revitalization of
this area and not just stopping on one side of the street.
Are the landlords involved in the public meetings?
Out of the housing stock there is approximately 226 homes and there are over 60
homes with code violations in the neighborhood and that are 50 of those that
have been condemned. You voted on the first one last month and it is hopefully
being torn down today.
Have we considered using the neighborhood or the visitor revitalization?
We were hoping that would be a last resort, but taking a look at what the
programming is for the funds and the small area plan to see … The … program
doesn’t meet the warrants for how the Federal program… On major
thoroughfares they do sidewalks on both sides of the street, but on minor
thoroughfares and collectors, like this road, they only provide for one side. The
developer would be putting in the sidewalks already on his side of the street so
they wouldn’t meet the policies for the sidewalk program as currently done.
You are going to see E.D. corridor revitalization funds in the next one.
It is because this is all tied into a business corridor revitalization strategy and the
logic is, to me, rather than take the money away from small area funds, if there is
sufficient sidewalks funds to an allocated area, that is the first place I would look
and it is flush for cash.
That is one of the things we wanted to learn from you today, if you were willing
to use those funds for this area.
If they are not earmarked by budget other than for these general purposes. We
are going to continue to apply them over time and I’ve heard some commitment
on the part of some members of Council to replenish those, if and when they are
depleted.
Continued his presentation with Bryant Park
As we move along with the TIF and Synthetic TIF, can we keep compiling those
numbers in that report that we received about the impact of the TIF funds that are
allocated, in other words creating a percentage of expected tax revenue. I would
like to see the ratio as we go along as I think that is a very important moving
ratio.
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 15, 2007
Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________________
Kimble:
Carter:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
Merrifield:
That is one point and Double Oaks, for instance, is first on the scene. Now you
have these two and we will make sure we keep adding these and combining them
and doing new calculations with them.
And updating us.
On the road costs reimbursement, that is in essence the same arrangement as the
IKEA Boulevard?
On IKEA Boulevard, as we approve plans and as they develop the property, the
taxes are returned to pay for the cost of that road construction. That is essentially
what we are looking at here. The more rapidly they build the project, the more
rapidly their taxes would be used to repay the cost of the road construction on
site for that one component.
Have you run any cost estimates on what that is as a percentage of the taxes
generated from the $138 million?
Just as we need to plan that road to find out how wide it is, and then develop
more costs on that, we think the entire road project is about $1.3 to $1.6 million
road construction project. The total build out given earlier was closer to $200
million for the whole project, but the initial phase is about a $20 million project.
The build out on this is significant and at one point a $6 million road construction
project is relatively small against what I think is a logical tax generation. It is a
question of when that building is coming online and how it affects incremental
new value. As we get some proforma I would like to know the answer to that.
Following up on your comment, Mr. Chairman, in the past we have normally set
the date upon which the capture starts to occur and we only run it ten years from
then and any capture within that ten years, so it doesn’t allow an infinite date of
time for development.
Provided that phasing is working at a fairly rapid rate, it is relatively small
investment.
It is an inducement for the developer to put the development on the ground as
fast as possible.
The second question, is the nature of the structured parking arrangement, that is
different than we have done, but it is closer to the Midtown, because it is more
of a grant as I read it there. It is much different from what we did on Elizabeth
Avenue which was basically a buy down and then the developer could in fact buy
the spaces back from us. What is the idea in terms of how that would operate and
what would be our ownership interest or value in terms of assistance on that
parking structure?
The other projects that we have done where we put the structure parking has been
more of a public purpose. There is some public purpose to Charlotte Boulevard
and it is a bit more of a public purpose … The County does need parking spaces
for the park, so this can be developed as joint uses and be good for all of us.
There may be some opportunity there to take a look at how the county
participates in this structured parking.
What is the current conversation or expectation relative to Bryant Park itself and
the redevelopment of the Lincoln Property? That is where it becomes truly an
active park and active use of the greenway. Where is that to begin to engage the
County on that process?
The WBTV property – currently Lincoln has indicated they are going to look at
selling all their immediate properties and that is in process. The property itself is
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for August 15, 2007
Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
held off on the side as they continue to operate there. The expectation is that
there is going to be some significant change take place with the ownership of
what we know as WBTV and radio station. We hope that will spur them to
finally do something over there. They have indicated that the facility is obsolete
for the industry they are in, but because of the ownership and the transition by
Lincoln, nothing has happened.
Lassiter:
The connection point to me, for the County to engage in it, is the combination of
the greenway and the combination of the redevelopment.
Lassiter:
We are not being asked to vote on this. This is for information purposes. When
will we expect to have the next conversation on this?
We will probably be able to come back to you all in September with more
finalizing plans.
Seeing there is an election in November, we need to be sensitive to that calendar
and what the expectations are as well as development. As to the issues on
Columbus Circle, that is less of an issue than the other two requests because they
are much more serious to the allocation of future tax dollars. I know that affects
development, but it also affects who gets to vote on it.
Warshauer:
Lassiter:
III.
Subject:
Next Meeting
The next meeting date is scheduled for September 5, 2007 at noon.
The meeting adjourned at 5:20 p.m.
Economic Development/Planning Council Committee
Wednesday, August 15, 2007 at 3:00pm
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
John Lassiter, Chair
Andy Dulin, Vice Chair
Don Lochman
Nancy Carter
James Mitchell
Staff Resource:
Ron Kimble
AGENDA
I.
BUILDING PERMITTING/PLAN REVIEW PROCESS FIELD VISIT – 60 minutes
Staff: Ron Kimble, Deputy City Manager; David Weekly, Land Development Services Manager
Action: Continue evaluation of building permitting/plan review process improvements by
visiting the 14th floor operations in Land Development. We will meet in Room 280 before
moving to the 14th floor.
II.
UPDATE on BRYANT PARK LAND USE & STREETSCAPE PLAN– 15 minutes
Staff: Tom Warshauer, Economic Development Manager & Kent Main, Planning Coordinator
Action: Receive an update on Bryant Park Redevelopment projects, specifically addressing
possible public/private partnerships with the Merrifield Properties (Radiator Specialty) and
Wood Partners (Wesley Village) development projects.
III.
NEXT MEETING DATE: September 5, 2007 at Noon, Room 267
Possible Topics: Recommendation on University City Area Plan
Independence Boulevard Transitional Setback Study Phase II
Belmont Retail
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Curt Walton, City Manager
Leadership Team
Executive Team
Update on
Development in
Bryant Park
Economic
Development &
Planning Committee
August 15, 2007
Urban Design Vision
• “Greenway” oriented
development approach
• Stewart Creek Parkway begun
• Mixed use conversion of former
industrial
• Support, connect and expand
existing neighborhoods
• Extend and redesign streets to
support new land uses &
redevelopment
Tuckaseegee
t
rif
Th
Stewart
Creek
Parkway
Berryhill
New Streets
W. Morehead
Bryant Parkway
Wilkinson
Needed
Infrastructure
•High priorities
•Stewart Creek
Parkway/ Freedom
Thrift
•Bryant Parkway
•Include other projects
in City C.I.P.
•Cost of debt much
less
•Not required
immediately
•Greenway and Park
•Include in current
or future County
C.I.P.
Outstanding Issues
•
Wesley Village
– Stewart Creek Parkway /Freedom /Thrift design,
construction and cost sharing proposal
– New – assistance with funds to raise land out of flood
plain
•
Bryant Park
– Millerton extension location – resolved
– Columbus Circle Neighborhood improvements
(adjacent neighborhood)
•
Bryant Park/Radiator
– Bryant Parkway development agreement
– City/County participation in Parking Synthetic T.I.F.
Wesley Village
•298 multi-family units in
Phase 1 (20,000 sf office/retail
and townhouses in Phase 2)
•20.98 acres (both Phases)
Phase 1
•$3,026,600 current tax value
increase to $48,000,000 in
Phase 1 ($206,250 increase in
annual City taxes)
•City request of developer:
•New intersection location
to provide full access
from/to Freedom, increase
connectivity and orient
toward greenway
Wesley Village
•Developer requests:
•To be kept whole for
realignment
•City (CDOT/EDO) to
relocate Freedom/ Thrift
intersection $1,600,000
total costs ($700,000 more
than original budget)
•Abandon ROW – no costs
•Synthetic TIF to assist with
costs of raising land out of
flood plain
•$1.6 M for fill
• 90% of City taxes over 10
years would take cash on
cash yield close to market
rates (from 6.8% to 7.08%)
Bryant Park
•600 dwelling units: combination of
single family homes, rowhouses,
condos and apartments
•36.14 acres
•$5,737,416 current tax value increase
to $110,000,000 ($1,303,282 increase in
annual taxes)
Wilkinson
•City request of developer:
•Density close to Morehead
•Orientation and connection to
greenway
•Possible extension to Morehead
•Possible roundabout at Berryhill
and Columbus Circle
Bryant Park
•Developer and Camp Green
Neighborhood request:
New sidewalk
•Assist with clean up in
Columbus Circle
neighborhood by
installing sidewalk along
Berryhill from Morton to
Columbus Circle
•1300’ of sidewalk to
cost $130,000 - $260,000
(funds from Small Area
Plans, ED Fund and/or
Sidewalk Program)
Freedom
Bryant Park/Radiator
•600,000 sf office
250,000 sf residential
Phased over 10 years
Millerton
•34.03 acres
Morehead
Morton
Bryant
Parkway
Arty
Wilkinson
•$ 7,783,240 current tax value
increases to $138,750,000
($1,643,750 increase in
annual taxes)
•City request of developer:
•Mixed use fronting on
Bryant Park
•Connection from
Wilkinson to Millerton on
new Bryant Parkway
•Site plan approval
Bryant Park/Radiator
•
Bryant
Parkway
Developer requests:
– Assistance with
construction of
Bryant Parkway
from Wilkinson
to Morehead
– Long term
assistance with
structured
parking
Bryant Park/Radiator
•
Road assistance parameters
– Suttle LLC to provide all
r.o.w for new Bryant
Parkway at no cost to City
– Suttle LLC to design, build
and fund construction
– Upon completion, City to
reimburse Suttle LLC for
road costs outside of Suttle
Bryant LLC property from ED
Parkway Corridor Revitalization
Funds
– Road costs on site to be
reimbursed to Suttle LLC as
part of synthetic TIF from
taxes from new development
on site
•
Structured parking
remains an issue for future
development
– Request for
City/County to assist
with parking deck in
year 8, after completion
of buildings 1-4.
– 40 parking spaces
needed at Bryant Park
(existing spaces not on
County property)
Questions ?