ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 1
______________________________________________________________________________________
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Action:
University City Area Plan
Receive as information and set date for City Council public comment on
the draft plan.
II.
Subject:
Action:
Bryant Park Land Use & Streetscape Plan
Receive as information and set date for City Council public comment on
the draft plan.
III.
Subject:
Action:
ED Grant for IKEA
Make a recommendation to City Council on framework for E.D. Grant to
Crescent Properties for IKEA store in University City.
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Time:
Councilmembers John Lassiter, Andy Dulin, Don Lochman, Nancy Carter and
James Mitchell
12:00 Noon – 2:35 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1.
2.
3.
PowerPoint Presentation and draft of University City Area Plan
PowerPoint Presentation Bryant Park Plan; Proposed revisions to May 1, 2007
Draft Document
Crescent Reimbursement Agreement for Connector Road, Attachments A, B &
C (Exhibit)
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
I.
Subject: University City Area Plan.
(Kathy Cornett, Planning Coordinator, used a PowerPoint to give an overview of the
University City Area Plan)
Questions/Answers/Comments
Dulin:
Kathy, how old is that picture? None of the new buildings are on there.
Cornett:
This is probably at least two years old.
Cornett:
Carter:
Cornett:
Carter:
Cornett:
Continued presentation with existing land use
Asked a question about the residential property.
No it does not. If you are talking about on campus it would not, but it would
count for the multifamily that surrounds the campus and the study area boundary.
Comment inaudible.
It is definitely included when we talk about the transit corridor. We do include
the campus population in our numbers, but in terms of our land use we call it
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 2
______________________________________________________________________________________
institutional so we can look at the changes.
Cornett:
Dulin:
Cornett:
Dulin:
Maloomian:
Dulin:
Maloomian:
Cornett:
Dulin:
Cornett:
Dulin:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Kimble:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Continued presentation with last slide on Page 3
Are we getting the name and address of the people signing in so we can
communicate with them?
Yes. We also have it on the web and people have really taken advantage of that.
We have all the presentations and information on our website and folks have
been taking advantage of that as well.
George, your people are actively going to that site and tracking where we are?
Yes, plus we have a land … site with University City Partners. We have all the
updates, all the information from each of these meetings. It is on the University
City Partners’ website as well.
I bring this up because we do all this work and we don’t get any value with it
sitting on the shelf.
We’ve had a website and it is a very important part of our communication, at
least for University City Partners’ website and we’ve actually invested a lot of
resources in updating. It is very functional and informative.
Continued presentation with the Vision on Page 4
If we are going to get out of UNCC’s way, are they going to then take control of
their own reporting? I don’t see how we should give the authority to plan a
station on our line.
Are you talking in terms of the land use that would surround it?
We are doing all the planning around these other stations and we are going to
back out of their way and let them do their own planning which seems to be a
little bit of a disconnect there.
Having some experience in a previous life with universities and how it relates to
the surrounding community, we have had a good set of feelings with UNCC and
have asked to be a participant in their master planning process. I think that is a
great entree into having the connections, cooperation and collaborations between
the University and the City. I think the master planning process with UNCC is
key and having us participate in that will lead to some better combination and
solutions. I think the fact that we have been invited in is very healthy.
That just seems a little bit odd to me that we are going to build a train and we are
going to be nice enough to run it through your campus for their students and then
they are telling us that they want to do the planning.
I think what we need to do is develop that bond and that relationship and that
collaboration will lead to greater things with everybody’s help.
I think they just want input.
There are a lot of things that relate to campus-owned property versus property
that surrounds the campus. Clearly, you will have the ability in the area around
the campus. I think we are talking about campus property and how do we
connect with their master plan that does involve other communities because they
can’t house all their students on campus. A lot of their students are housed in
communities around the campus which are parts of our community itself. Having
that ability to influence and have input into their campus master plan is a very
important component and then how that would relate back to the community.
This new administration has shown a greater propensity to cooperate and to allow
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 3
______________________________________________________________________________________
us to have significant input into the things that are happening in and around
campus.
Cornett:
Dulin:
Cornett:
Dulin:
Kimble:
VOTE:
Mitchell:
Cornett:
Carter:
Lochman:
Mitchell:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Continued presentation with slides on Page 6
Which one is best for you of the next steps, the 26th or the 25th?
For City Council public comment, our preference would be June 25th. Then it
would go to the Planning Committee on the next day.
Do we make that an agenda item for the 25th meeting?
Public comment would be an item on your agenda for the Business part.
Mitchell Moved to recommend to City Council to receive Public Comment on the
University City Draft Plan at the Public Hearing on June 25th. Mr. Lochman
seconded the motion and the vote was unanimous.
Regarding the corrective rezoning, would that be a partnership or would that be
something that the City would initiate?
I’m sorry, I should have mentioned that. That is a separate process from this plan
so adoption of this plan would not rezone any property and that would be
undertaken as a separate process. That would be something that would be
established for the most part and I would expect that we would have some
participation from the University City Partners and I would also expect it would
take 18 to 24 months to move all this through.
I do want to compliment those who are involved with this plan. It is really an
outstanding plan and one of the most detailed revisions …. I think that we on
Council who are interested in this discussion about the potential repeal of the
transit tax need to request that any hearings or any public communication to deal
with this proposed area plan include discussions of the impact of an appeal of the
transit tax. I think it is a very important basis for the implementation of the area
plan as well as others and I am very serious when I talk about the impact because
I think we can alter the future of our City in a very significant fashion.
November 1 indicates the first lightning rod of the impact. It would be a public
discussion and I am not saying that we are advocating … inaudible.
The same thought occurred to me but then it also occurred to me that this is a
long, long, long term area plan. Even if the sales tax is resented it doesn’t mean
that there will not be light rail at some point regardless of this vote and I think
you have to zone with that in mind.
Just to follow up with staff with respect to the District Rep who is not on … for
this district. Do you know Councilmember Barnes’ schedule for Monday, just to
make sure he is …..
I called him this morning and he was out of town and could not attend today.
He’s been keeping up with planning up there and you all have been doing a good
job.
II.
Subject:
Bryant Park Plan
Kent Main, Planning Coordinator, used a PowerPoint for his presentation
Councilmember Lassiter Arrived at this point.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Dulin:
That is not considered Camp Green? Camp Green is up on the hill, probably
another mile?
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 4
______________________________________________________________________________________
Main:
Carter:
Main:
Carter:
Main:
That’s right. He pointed out the Camp Green neighborhood on the map. This is
right across Berryhill Road from that site.
Is there a restriction about a traffic light?
Yes there is.
Are we within those parameters?
Yes, that is the basis for our discussion going back up here. Suttle Avenue is an
existing street there and that is too close to make the standards that NCDOT has
for traffic light location. In our discussions, dating back to when we were
working on the transit line, we had established a distance down here that was a
more appropriate distance that would be suitable with NCDOT.
Main:
Dulin:
Main:
Continued presentation
When you say future, do you have any idea what the future is for the greenway?
They are building that right along side Lela Court today. There is one piece that
they don’t own yet and it is not involving the present landowners so that is still a
complication. He pointed out another piece that is still on their future unfunded
list, but they have indicated an interest and a willingness to move that forward if
development moves forward in this area.
Main:
Lassiter:
Continued presentation
Right now that intersection works okay because you don’t have a lot of traffic
flow through it. What tends to come through is traffic going down Freedom
Drive and heading further out. The traffic on Thrift Road seems to be going
down Thrift Road and then feeding back to the freeway. If this gets redeveloped
you are going to have a lot more traffic going every which way. What is the
sense of what needs to happen to make that intersection work?
We had a detailed meeting with the developer just before this meeting, going
over some of those very issues. Part of the whole concept of this extra road
network is as we add all these residents and new developed office buildings, we
are going to need more road network, more capacity. Thrift Road is very low
volume right now, and most of it is truck traffic. We are looking for a way to get
a natural signalized intersection to control the traffic. It does not work at the
existing location because there is a railroad track crossing as well as a number of
other reasons which was the reason for coming up with this new location to try to
get a full cross movement through there. It was also intended to alleviate some
of the congestion at West Morehead and Freedom Drive.
That is where the bulk of the traffic is now where it is backing up, trying to get
up Freedom Drive. They are all kind of mangled in there and we don’t own all of
that property. That will be a critical intersection for all of us.
Part of that has to do with this rerouting of Thrift Road and we will continue to
have a roadway there that would probably be a right in and right out.
How do you treat these properties that are pedestrian scale over Freedom Drive?
I believe we were looking at an under the road crossing there eventually, but it
would be a crossing of the street at least at an intersection. That is another reason
to get the intersection closer to the greenway, not to mention that Park and Ride
is very excited about this because it get the eyes on the greenway, so we have
people walking and riding along it for just natural surveillance of the greenway.
What is your time schedule? 2009, 2010, 2012 to try and get that pushed through
Main:
Lassiter:
Main:
Carter:
Main:
Dulin:
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 5
______________________________________________________________________________________
Main:
Dulin:
Main:
Main:
Lassiter:
Main:
Lassiter:
Main:
Dulin:
Main:
Dulin:
Main:
Dulin:
Main:
Carter:
Main:
there?
It is going to be a piece by piece situation. This last piece, we don’t even have
discussions going right now for getting that. That is a future link that we will be
looking for. He pointed out pieces where zoning has already taken place and
construction is underway as well as pieces up to the north which need more
work.
Tuckaseegee is at the top?
That’s right.
Continued presentation with Sub-area 4 on Page 12 and Sub-area 6 Wilkinson
Boulevard on Page 13
Not very far from there is the Queensgate Redevelopment and you’ve got some
uses on the southwest side of Wilkinson that potentially could be redeveloped as
part of building into that development and then feeding into Ashley Road and all
that neighborhood that is up above that. Is the sense that you would in fact have
some mixed use begin to kind of flow toward this to link the retail components
that are now across the street so that it is not so abrupt and you end up with some
combination of neighborhood office and a step up into more industrial zoning as
you get down toward the end of Wilkinson?
The actual development is outside our study area and it was not addressed
specifically in this plan. I know we looked at it when we were doing the West
Corridor study and I think our vision does include that flowing across. I think
there is a little more land down there, particularly because it is a very large
property.
It is still narrow because it backs up against the railroad track and that creates a
problem unless you can somehow get over or under it, but to me, trying to link
the efforts in sub-area 2 that begin to low back into more residential and retail
uses long-term makes that not quite as hard edge and gives the whole thing a
sense of place.
We really didn’t focus on the area down by Ashley, but I think our expectations
over there are for a little bit better connection across to the Wal-Mart.
The Top Hat Hotel that was shut down the other day is right there at the corner of
sub-area 7.
Continued presentation with sub-area 2 on Page 14
(referring to the land owner) Have they requested to stay out if it?
Yes, we’ve been in contact with them and they are agreeable with that. In fact
some of our maps show that they were a little concerned that we were trying to
not allow them to develop as much in the floodplain as they would like to do. We
have inserted some language in there as well to the extent that permits allow
them to do that.
The E. C. Griffith Company?
That’s right.
You were talking about the church and it was encouraged to have development
around it. Is this church development progress or is it development that is around
the church?
The church has been a partner with us, and in fact, we hold our meetings there.
They are looking to do a redevelopment that would include some other uses as
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 6
______________________________________________________________________________________
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Campbell:
Carter:
Main:
Campbell:
Main:
Lassiter:
Dulin:
Steinman:
Lassiter:
Steinman:
Campbell:
Dulin:
well, so they are very interested in new development opportunities around them.
When a church develops other uses on its site, does that transform the site or
portions of the site out of the institutional use?
Obviously, it depends on what other kinds of uses. It would also depend on what
kind of zoning they want. You are asking a question on the Land Use Map and if
the church develops some other uses, is that going to change the land use plan to
indicate the other types of uses.
Do they have to go through a process to rezone or do they exit from a non-profit
status? All of this to me is a question.
They as an institutional body – their status doesn’t change. If they want to do
some other uses that are not in whatever the zoning category they create the
church in, then they would have to go to a rezoning.
Residential?
Residential is allowed in institutional.
To me it is a question that we may have to face down the road when we try
mixing uses such as that.
Essentially this one is zoned R-22MF. It is a multifamily district so churches are
allowed in that district. If they are intent on doing childcare or adult care center,
that is all in the program, but that is still very conceptual at this point.
We are also in the process of developing some potential changes to institutional
uses in residential districts. We are working on Text Amendments and that will
only apply in an institutional use located in a residential district.
Continued presentation
We’ve already executed that on East Boulevard and are in the process of doing it
on West Morehead. There is always some concern on the part of the folks
around there that you are going to compress my accessibility, but I think it is
working on East Boulevard pretty well. If we have some data that talks about low
and the number of cars it is actually carrying in the new configuration. It might
be helpful to have that as part of the public process so you can say here is what
was happening over here before and here is how it is working now, so to defuse
that for somebody saying, we want it immediately. As soon as the trucks start
working we will be getting phone calls about people who are saying, I can’t
believe we are talking about adding more roads here and compressing others.
The fender bender information would be interesting.
We’ve actually got extensive information about the … issues on East Boulevard
and … changes have been implemented. We’ve been tracking the daily volumes
of people, hour by hour … the accidents and we can provide you with that
information.
It would be helpful to have that.
What we can assure Councilmembers in general, the same kind of concepts have
also been implemented on Tuckaseegee Road. Anytime we do these kinds of
road conversions, we probably do more analysis than we normally do to make
sure that the traffic will continue to flow. Pedestrians…
We are making a conscious effort when we make these recommended changes to
roadways to use a term of cost analysis for our own benefit to make sure the
recommended ….
It would be very interesting to see that and be able to distribute some of it to our
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 7
______________________________________________________________________________________
Steinman:
Main:
Dulin:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
VOTE:
constituents that are still asking.
Again, these roadway changes work only when the daily traffic volumes are at
20,000 or 22,000 vehicles per day. Some of these kinds of changes will not work
on roadways where the traffic volumes are much higher than that.
Continued presentation with slides on Page 15
It is not currently on the agenda for Monday night?
The agenda goes out today. It is written up as if it could when it goes out, but all
of this information will have to be submitted.
I think it is appropriate that we set the public hearing for Monday, June 11th.
Because this is our first run at a corridor revitalization, it would be helpful I think
to make sure that we send copies of the information to the Stakeholders
Committee. I would like to have them engaged on this process because they
helped us develop a set of standards which bleeds into a lot of decisions that are
here and getting them to buy into the philosophy and recommendations of the
first effort I think is critical, which will then trigger doing the next steps of all the
remaining corridors we are working on.
Lassiter made a motion, Dulin seconded to recommend to City Council to receive
public comment on the Bryant Park Land Use and Streetscape Draft Plat at the
Public Hearing on June 11, 2007. The vote was unanimous.
III.
Subject:
ED Grant for IKEA
(Tracy Finch, Transit Station Coordinator, gave a quick overview of the site and the location of
the connector road)
Questions/Answers/Comments
Carter:
I am wondering if the people who own the property to the right in that area, are
they participating?
Finch:
That is Crescent’s property. Everything inside the red line is all Crescent land.
Dulin:
Finch:
Lochman:
Finch:
Lochman:
Finch:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Let’s take about that $7 million. Is that real numbers or are those numbers
today’s dollars?
Today’s dollars.
When we first discussed this there was some percentage of the road work which
was already planned by the City at some future point in time.
That is City Boulevard, and if you will remember, there was a reimbursement
agreement that was passed and that agreement was that the City would reimburse
Crescent for … enforcement.
This $7 million is separate from that previous activity.
Yes, completely different.
This connector road has been on your plans and when CDOT went to NCDOT
and modeled the new upgrade intersection of North Tryon and City Boulevard,
they assumed that this connector road was going to be built.
So that would be applicable to this $7 million?
There were no funds set aside for it.
No, but it was planned. I’m just trying to get a feel for if we did everything we
had on the books then what would be incremental to the cost that would be
associated with doing that? I’m just trying to justify the whole thing in my own
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 8
______________________________________________________________________________________
Flynn:
Lochman:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Steinman:
Flynn:
Kimble:
Lassiter:
Kimble:
Carter:
Finch:
Carter:
Flynn:
Lochman:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Kimble:
Dulin:
Carter:
Lassiter:
mind.
When you say everything we had on the books, are you talking about funded?
No, not funded, but what would be the cost estimate, if we had planned to do the
connector road anyway at some point in time or the State had assumed that we
would, that is a value that was on the books albeit some future activity.
I’m just going to ballpark this. That means that we would have had to build the
entire connector road from City Boulevard to McCullough. They are now getting
Crescent to now pay for a full 1/3 of that so maybe they are avoiding about $5
million of costs.
I know I’m playing games in a way, but it does put a different perspective on it.
If you assume that the City’s planned activity would have taken place at some
point in time anyway.
CDOT never anticipated that the City would build this.
It was shown on the plan but it was so far out.
This is pretty much the positive collision of the University Area Plan, economic
development, job creation, transportation network and solving a future problem
in a public/private partnership that I think makes sense for the City and getting
that infrastructure built in a very creative way.
But for the assemblage by Crescent and development of IDEA property, this road
would never be built, at least not in a reasonable period of time simply because
there was never going to be a source of funds to satisfy this road network need
that is integral to try and create some level of connectivity within the University
City area that right now is quite limited because of the dominate use of …
It doesn’t just set it up for the present, but it sets it up for future development
potential of the entire area.
The reimbursement to Crescent of $5.3 million, does that displace any other road
construction?
Yes, that $5.3 million is generated all of the fare projected CATS additional taxes
that would be generated from the development.
In other words the 10% is …
That 10% goes to your General fund.
It is incremental monies that were not contemplated in the CIP.
Its cap at $5.3 million in … not escalated net present value dollars, is less than
what the cost of the road would be and only funds a portion of the connector
boulevard. It will never exceed what the cost is if it is under $5.3 million. There
are a lot of safeguards in here to make sure that that number is a good number for
the City of Charlotte. If the development doesn’t happen, the taxes don’t grow.
It is not eligible and there is a 10-year window starting no later than three years
after the development to capture the 90% of property taxes.
May I try to braise Ms. Carter’s question? She is hung up on the 90% tax
generation of the 100%, 90% going back to Crescent. Can you explain that to
us?
It goes to Crescent to reimburse them for constructing the road.
The pay 100% property tax and are refunded 90% of that back.
If they get back 90% and we reimburse the $5.3 it seems like ….
No, no, let me try. Crescent is going to proceed with construction of this road at
their expense. They are going to build it. The can receive up to almost $5.4
million, of which the source of that funds is 90% of the tax value paid by
ED & Planning Committee
Meeting Summary for June 6, 2007
Page 9
______________________________________________________________________________________
VOTE:
II.
Crescent on the property. It is not a double pay. That is the cap of what can be
paid and if their costs exceeds $5.4 million they still pay it and we know the road
is going to cost $7 million. So they are only get reimbursed $5.3 million.
Mitchell made a motion, Lochman seconded to make a recommendation to City
Council to adopt the proposed framework for E.D. Grant to Crescent Properties
for IKEA Store in the University City area. The vote was unanimous.
Subject:
Next Meeting
The next meeting is scheduled for June 19, 2007 at 3:30 p.m. in Room 280.
Questions/Answers/Comments
Lassiter:
Mr. Mitchell has raised a referral question to look at street lights. I don’t know if
that is going to be ready for that meeting or not.
Kimble:
Ms. Campbell and I exchanged e-mail this morning and she is going to develop a
timetable and process to roll that back to ED&P.
Lassiter:
Called attention that the 19th of June is a Tuesday because the following day is
the Intercity Visit.
Flynn:
Because this Committee has spent so much time on the Business Corridor
Revitalization, I have arranged Thursday at the Intercity Visit some time with the
Director of Community Development if Council Members are interested in
having that …
The meeting adjourned at 3:35 p.m.