Urban Renewal and Economic Development Committee — Charleston, WV
Date: 2020-02-06
Time: 17:30

CITY OF CHARLESTON
 West Virginia
 Council Member – 13th WARD

Brent Burton Urban Renewal and Economic Development, Chair
340 MacCorkle Ave SE Finance Committee
Charleston, WV 25314 Parking Committee
Telephone: 304.541‐0991
E‐mail: brent.burton@cityofcharleston.org




TO: Urban Renewal and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Brent Burton, Chair
RE: Committee Meeting

There will be a Committee meeting of Urban Renewal and Economic Development on February 6, 2020 at
5:30 PM, in the A/V Conference Room, City Hall, Room 308.

The agenda will be as follows:

Approval of Previous Minutes

 1. 1‐23‐2020

Discussion concerning downtown revitalization, housing and the new projects from the water crisis
settlement funds.

 1. Business Economic Impact fund

 2. Tourism and Promotions Fund

 3. Coliseum and Convention Center Fund

 4. Community Participation Fund

 5. General Engineering/Maintenance fund

Adjournment




 *Meetings may be recorded and broadcast via internet https://charlestonwv.civicclerk.com

BB/ns



 City Council | 501 Virginia Street, East | Post Office Box 2749 | Charleston, West Virginia 25330
 www.charlestonwv.gov | 304.348.8179 | 304.348.8038 fax

CITY OF CHARLESTON
 West Virginia
 Council Member – 13th WARD

Brent Burton Urban Renewal and Economic Development, Chair
340 MacCorkle Ave SE Finance Committee
Charleston, WV 25314 Parking Committee
Telephone: 304.541‐0991
E‐mail: brent.burton@cityofcharleston.org




TO: Urban Renewal and Economic Development Committee
FROM: Brent Burton, Chair
RE: Committee Meeting

There will be a Committee meeting of Urban Renewal and Economic Development on February 6, 2020 at
5:30 PM, in the A/V Conference Room, City Hall, Room 308.

The agenda will be as follows:

Approval of Previous Minutes

 1. 1‐23‐2020

Discussion concerning downtown revitalization, housing and the new projects from the water crisis
settlement funds.

 1. Business Economic Impact fund

 2. Tourism and Promotions Fund

 3. Coliseum and Convention Center Fund

 4. Community Participation Fund

 5. General Engineering/Maintenance fund

Adjournment




 *Meetings may be recorded and broadcast via internet https://charlestonwv.civicclerk.com

BB/ns



 City Council | 501 Virginia Street, East | Post Office Box 2749 | Charleston, West Virginia 25330
 www.charlestonwv.gov | 304.348.8179 | 304.348.8038 fax

 Page | 1 of
 MINUTES
 URBAN RENEWAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

 5:30 P. M., JANUARY 23, 2020

 A/V CONFERENCE ROOM

Tiffany Wesley-Plear, Vice Chair, called the meeting of the Charleston City Council
Committee on Urban Renewal and Economic Development to order at 5:30 p.m.,
JANUARY 23, 2020, in the Audio/Visual Room in City Hall.

Committee Members Present:
Tiffany Wesley-Plear, Vice Chair
Ben Adams
Naomi Bays
Caitlin Cook
Jennifer Pharr




 1. Approval of Previous Minutes – Councilmember Bays moved to approve the
minutes of the previous meeting on 12-5-2019. Councilmember Adams seconded.
There was no objection and the minutes were approved.




 Page | 2 of
 2. West Side Community Renewal Plan
Councilmember Wesley-Plear asked City Attorney, Kevin Baker, to speak. Baker
explained that during the public hearing for the bill, Reverend Watts requested that the
City procure a legal opinion on the sufficiency of the plan from the West Virginia
University Land Use Clinic, specially from Mr. Jesse Richardson. The City entered into
an agreement with him to prepare an analysis of the plan in light of state code. His
analysis has been provided to the Committee. The first few pages discuss the various
sections of law, and whether or not the plan is considered under state law an urban
renewal plan or an urban redevelopment plan. The end of the letter contains several
tables that show the differences between the two. He ultimately concluded that that it is
an Urban Renewal Plan:

 (1) The draft West Side Community Renewal Plan should be considered
 an urban renewal plan, and should meet the requirements for urban
 renewal plans, not the requirements of an urban development plan,
 (2) A court would be slightly more likely than not to find that urban renewal
 plans must comply with W. Va. Code, §§ 16-18-6(b)-(j). Although
 application of these requirements to urban renewal plans would cause
 some redundancies, application makes more sense than not applying
 the provisions. The draft plan fails to comply with W. Va. Code, §§ 16-
 18-6(g)

Baker added Richardson stated that even if those sections regarding redevelopment
plans do not apply to renewal plans, W. Va. Code, § 16-18-26(2) requires a renewal
plan to “be sufficiently complete to indicate such land acquisition, demolition and
removal of structures, redevelopment, improvements, and rehabilitation as may be
reposed to be carries out in the area of the urban renewal project, zoning and planning
changes, if any, land uses, maximum densities, building requirements, and the plan’s
relationship to definite local objectives representing appropriate land uses, improved
traffic, public transportation, public utilities, recreational and community facilities, and
other public improvements.” (emphasis added by Richardson)

Baker explained the language would require more specificity than is currently contained
in the draft plan. “Bolstering this conclusion is the requirement that the renewal plan
conform to the City’s comprehensive plan.” Since the comprehensive plan is very
general, in order to conform to it, Richardson believes that a redevelopment plan should
be more specific. “…the fact that the plan must be attached to an urban renewal project
implies a degree of specificity that is lacking in the present draft.” Baker summarized
that Richardson’s conclusion is that the plan before the Committee does not sufficiently
comply with what state law requires of those plans.

One of Richardson’s recommendations is that the City consider working with the West
Virginia Municipal League to amend the statute to clarify the ambiguity contained in the
state code. He additionally recommends that the City adopt the renewal plan as an
amendment to the City’s comprehensive plan. The city can then adopt a more specific
urban renewal plan in the future.




 Page | 3 of
Baker stated that in light of the opinion obtained, a resolution has been prepared to
present to the Committee.

Resolution No. 283-20 - Whereas, the Charleston Urban Renewal Authority worked with
the community to draft the West Side Community Renewal Plan; and

 Whereas, the draft West Side Community Renewal Plan contains a history of
Charleston’s west side and a vision for the future of the community; and

 Whereas, the draft West Side Community Renewal Plan received substantial
community input and has undergone numerous revisions to address concerns raised by
community members throughout the development process; and

 Whereas, the City of Charleston’s Urban Renewal and Economic Development
Committee received a summary of the draft plan and heard community feedback
regarding the plan at multiple meetings; and

 Whereas, the City of Charleston’s City Council held a public hearing regarding
the draft plan and received negative feedback regarding the plan; and

 Whereas, a speaker at the public hearing specifically requested that the City of
Charleston obtain a legal opinion from the West Virginia University Land Use Clinic as
to the sufficiency of the draft plan with respect to the requirements of state code; and

 Whereas, the City of Charleston retained the West Virginia University Land Use
Clinic to review the draft plan in light of state code and provide a legal opinion regarding
the plan; and

 Whereas, the legal opinion of the West Virginia University Land Use Clinic,
attached to this resolution as Exhibit A, generally held that the state authorizing statute
is unclear and confusing; and

 Whereas, the legal opinion of the West Virginia University Land Use Clinic
concluded that the draft plan is an urban renewal plan and not an urban redevelopment
plan, but that nevertheless “[a] court would be slightly more likely than not to find that
urban renewal plans must comply with [requirements that are specifically applicable to
urban redevelopment plans]” and that “the draft plan fails to comply with W. Va. Code §
16-18-6(g),” which requires that redevelopment plans contain “a statement of the
proposed method and estimated cost of the acquisition and preparation for
redevelopment of the redevelopment project area and the estimated proceeds or
revenues from its disposal to redevelopers; a statement of the proposed method of
financing the redevelopment project; and a statement of a feasible method proposed for
the relocation of families to be displaced from the redevelopment project area.”; and

 Whereas, the West Side Community Renewal Plan that is currently in effect




 Page | 4 of
complied with that provision of code; and

 Whereas, the City recognizes that the state code related to urban renewal
authorities lacks the necessary specificity to conclusively answer the questions posed
by the City and the public speakers; and

 Whereas, the City is cognizant of the potential for litigation and the need for
adopted plans to conclusively meet state law;

Now, therefore, be it Resolved by the Council of the City of Charleston, West Virginia:

That the City Council of the City of Charleston hereby refers the draft West Side
Community Renewal Plan back to the Charleston Urban Renewal Authority with the
direction to review the legal opinion attached hereto and make any necessary
amendments to the draft plan to satisfy the legal opinion provided.

In the alternative, the City Council of the City of Charleston asks the Charleston Urban
Renewal Authority to adopt a motion requesting that the City of Charleston adopt the
draft plan, with any necessary changes, as an amendment to the City’s comprehensive
plan, as suggested by the West Virginia University Land Use Clinic, in order to ensure
that the significant work already completed to create the draft plan is not lost due to the
lack of clarity in state law.


Councilmember Cook asked what the timeline would be if CURA chose either option.
Baker responded that if CURA chose to update the plan to meet the code requirements,
specific redevelopment projects and associated funding would need to be identified,
which would most likely take some time given the current financial state of CURA. The
Director of Planning, Dan Vriendt, added that the plan would need some editing to
include it in the City’s comprehensive plan. The fastest option would be for the
consultants to make those changes as opposed to the Planning Department. He
estimated a time frame of 90-120 days. Bays asked who would pay for the adjustments
to the plan. Baker responded that it would be appropriate for the City to pay if it was
adopting it into the comprehensive plan. The fee would most likely be under the $25,000
threshold. Baker added that the resolution puts the decision to CURA to choose an
option.

Councilmember Wesley-Plear asked if projects could currently be done based on the
2008 plan. Baker replied that he didn’t see why not. Additional if the proposed draft
became a part of the City’s compressive plan, the 2008 Urban Renewal Plan would
remain in effect. Councilmember Pharr asked what would happen if CURA did not want
to pursue either option. Baker replied that they could decide to shelve the proposed
plan. Ideally, there will be a discussion between the City and CURA.

Councilmember Wesley-Plear invited Reverend Watts to address the Committee. He
stated that he commended the Administration for seeking an outside legal opinion. He




 Page | 5 of
did not feel that his and others’ comments were taken into consideration by CURA. He
suggested developing a specific plan around a smaller area that would become a
template for others. He expressed support for the resolution.

Councilmember Adams moved to approve the Resolution. Councilmember Cook
seconded. With a majority of members present recorded thereon as voting in the
affirmative, Vice Chairperson Wesley-Plear declared Resolution No. 283-20 approved.

  3. Administration Updates –
Councilmember Wesley-Plear stated that the City did not meet the qualifications for the
HGTV Hometown Takeover grant. The City is too big, but she has asked if
Wards/Districts could apply.

Vriendt added that the Planning Department staff had been meeting with Kevin Baker,
the Director of the MOECD and Larry Malone every Tuesday for the past year,
discussing housing issues on the West Side. Since the City has been efficient in
demolishing dilapidated housing, there are numerous empty lots with nothing new being
built on them. Vriendt showed the Committee a graph depicting housing permits over
the last 20 years that showed the current average market rate for building a new house
is $155,000 and above. Anything at that price has been built without any sort of subsidy.
Everything less than that amount, apart from a few exceptions, has used a subsidy like
Habitat for Humanity, RCCR, low income housing tax projects, etc. A typical lot on the
West Side is 25x120 or 40x120.

Their proposal to help mitigate the costs of building a house on these lots is to create a
Neighborhood Reinvestment Overlay District (roughly Patrick Street to Glenwood
Avenue to Washington Street West). They have identified this area to have the greatest
need for infill housing. This is starting to be a trend in other cities with housing
shortages. Oregon was the first state to pass a bill that prohibits exclusive single-family
residential zoning districts in cities over 10,000 people. When the West Side was
originally developed, it was done so as a mixed-use neighborhood.

They have been discussing rolling back some of the zoning regulations for the overlay
district that would allow for a 3’ side set back (the current code is 5’). The front setback
will also be reduced to eliminate the requirement of onsite parking spaces. In addition to
changing the single-family zoning regulations, they also propose allowing duplexes on
the lots, with up to 4 units on corner lots. Vriendt showed the Committee an example of
a fourplex that is sitting vacant because it cannot be renovated as a multi-family
dwelling under the current code.

They have visited every dwelling in this area, handing out information and getting
feedback. So far, the feedback has been very positive. This proposal will go the
Municipal Planning Commission in February, Planning, Streets and Traffic Committee at
the end of February and will go the Council for vote March 2, 2020. The City has
recently received a grant for housing templates, which will allow outside firms to design
pre-approved floorplan templates for the lots in the proposed area. Property owners




 Page | 6 of
would be able to get permits immediately as well as save money on a floor plan.

Councilmember Wesley-Plear expressed concern that allowing duplexes and fourplexes
would create overcrowding and other unintended consequences. Vriendt responded
that it is not a suburban area, and citied the East End as a desirable area with a higher
density. Vriendt added that while the code allows for an unlimited number of people
related to each other to live in the same dwelling, the limit for non-relatives by blood or
marriage is 5.

Councilmember Cook asked if there are examples of other cities adopting these
regulations that are of similar size to Charleston. Vriendt responded that since this is a
new trend (citing Oregon and Minneapolis as early adopters), it is too soon to know
what the full ramifications will be. Councilmember Adams asked how the Land Reuse
Agency will be involved. Vriendt replied that the CLRA would be able to clear the titles
of the properties to make them available to the public to be developed. Councilmember
Wesley-Plear confirmed with Vriendt that they would not be able to limit the number of
duplexes allowed on a street. Vriendt added that they will only allow a door to serve no
more than 2 units. Every house will be required to have a front porch.

Councilmember Bays asked about the status of street vendor applications discussed
during a previous meeting. Sutton replied that there was a meeting about the
applications that day, so they will be working with the City Collector’s Office soon that
will likely be either pro-rated or will span the calendar year.




Councilmember Bays motioned to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Cook
seconded.

Meeting adjourned.




 Page | 7 of

MINUTES
 URBAN RENEWAL AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE MEETING

 5:30 P. M., FEBRUARY 6, 2020

 A/V CONFERENCE ROOM

Brent Burton, Chair, called the meeting of the Charleston City Council Committee on
Urban Renewal and Economic Development to order at 5:30 p.m., FEBRUARY 6, 2020,
in the Audio/Visual Room in City Hall.

Committee Members Present:
Brent Burton, Chair
Tiffany Wesley-Plear, Vice Chair (via phone)
Ben Adams
Naomi Bays
Jennifer Pharr
Bobby Reishman




 1. Approval of Previous Minutes – Councilmember Bays moved to approve the
minutes of the previous meeting on 1-23-2020. Councilmember Pharr seconded. There
was no objection and the minutes were approved.
 2. Discussion concerning downtown revitalization, housing and the new projects
 from the water crisis settlement funds.

Councilmember Burton asked Mayor Goodwin and Chief of Staff, Matt Sutton, to give
the Committee an update. Mayor Goodwin asked if members had questions regarding
the outline for the Community Participation Fund that they had been given. She remined
them that the funds have to go through a 501(c)(3). Councilmember Bays confirmed
that they could buy equipment for a Community Center.

Mayor Goodwin added that the enhancements have been made to the Coliseum and
Convention Center, such as the basketball/volleyball courts. She stressed that there
had been no plan on how the newly renovated Convention Center was to be utilized to
its maximum potential. The funds will be used to attract people/groups to the facilities.

Mayor Goodwin also stated that some of the money in the Business Economic Impact
Fund will go to façade grants. Additionally, it will also go to assist businesses in creating
business plans. The Administration is currently working to coordinate with the local
Universities and Business Schools for an unspecified entrepreneurial project.
Councilmember Bays confirmed that the façade grants will be based on similar CURA
grants but for the entire City.

Mayor Goodwin stated that a long-term but very important project will be advertising and
promoting the City. The Administration wants to develop strong, effective marketing
strategies. The Mayor added that last May, the Convention Center and CVB had a
meeting to create a strategy to work together to promote the facility. Anything spent for
advertising and marketing will need to have quantitative and qualitative data attached to
it, such as focus groups and surveys. It will be a national approach. As an example,
Mayor Goodwin cited the colors assigned to the different neighborhoods; it was a good
idea, but was executed inconsistently. She stressed that this kind of re-branding will
take a lot of time and funds to do correctly and effectively. Councilmember Wesley-
Plear stated that a friend from out of town was confused about the different colors, and
the reasons behind them weren’t obvious or meaningful. Councilmember Adams asked
what the process and time frame would look like. The Mayor answered that research
would come first, involving outside companies and focus groups, and future decisions
would be based on the results.

Councilmember Pharr asked if there was any sort of requirement that the various
groups involved (CVB, Charleston Main Streets, CAA, etc.) would have to effectively
communicate with each other and the Administration if the City had provided funds to
them. Mayor Goodwin answered that there was. Mayor Goodwin stated that she
believed that if the City went to those various groups with any research data that had
been gathered, it would be easier to get them on board. Sutton stated that, in his
experience, the most successful City re-brandings are those that listened to the outside
consultants. Councilmember Pharr pointed out that the City does not have any billboard
in any direction that describes what they can do in Charleston. The Committee
discussed that the blue travel signs are not allowed by the DOH, but they could get
creative with billboards on strategically placed buildings along the interstate. Mayor
Goodwin stated that the City needs to think about what it can invest in that will attract
massive amounts of people, such as sports tourism.

Mayor Goodwin updated the Committee on the installation of the kayak dock by saying
that the location may need to be changed to the other side. The goal is to get it
completed by Spring. The Administration is also working on relaunching the Charleston
Summer Youth Professional and Career Program for 14-17-year-old kids to get
experience in a career field. Councilmember Wesley-Plear suggested reaching out to
West Virginia State.

Chief of Staff, Matt Sutton, stated that over the past few weeks, there had been a very
large amount of business owners seeking medical marijuana permits. While the City
does not reap the tax benefits of the dispensaries, they do provide 8-16 jobs at each
location, with growth facilities providing more. Councilmember Adams asked if there
was going to be a cap on locations per region. Sutton answered he did not think that will
be the case as there are only a few cities in the state in which the businesses seem
interested. Sutton added that the businesses seems most interested in Kanawha City,
Downtown and the West Side.

Councilmember Pharr suggested that the Committee invite the leadership of the CVB,
Charleston Main Streets, CAA, etc. to speak about updates and what the groups’
commitment will be to work together.

Councilmember Pharr asked for an update on the search for a new Director for the
Convention Center. Sutton answered that the consultants met with the stakeholders and
will begin to write the job description based on those needs. The Convention Center
Board is also looking into hiring an outside marketing and booking firm.




Councilmember Reishman motioned to adjourn the meeting. Councilmember Adams
seconded.

Meeting adjourned.