Commissioners misinformed during hotel vote

In the aftermath of last Tuesday's lame duck approval of the Griffith Street Hotel by the outgoing Davidson Board of Commissioners, there has been a considerable amount of swirl around town. Much of that regards confusion on the status of the Community School of Davidson at the location adjacent to the now approved hotel site.  This swirl can be linked to what can best be described as "misinformation" from the dais at Davidson Town Hall last week and before.

Here is just a sample of statements regarding this subject from recent meetings.

The Davidson Board met on October 24th for the last discussion on the Griffith Street Hotel before voting on it last Tuesday.  At the very end of the Hotel discussion at that meeting, comments turned to what could be done with the land where CSD's K-7 building currently sits.  Outgoing Commissioner Beth Cashion asked...

"What's the current zoning on the Elox...er, the CSD building?"

More than a decade ago the CSD building was the home of the former Elox Corporation.  Commissioner Cashion asking that question that way was a bit of a Freudian slip showing a disconnect from the facts that space is a school now, it has been for a decade, and has a lease on file for many years more.

That was followed soon after by outgoing Mayor John Woods asking this question to Planning Director, Jason Burdett.

"So, Jason..If that building were to be razed, um...and the school were to relocate, or not, what would be by right zoning there?"

That "hypothetical" about tearing down, or razing, the CSD K-7 building, sure sounds like planning for a post CSD scenario, doesn't it?

Then at the meeting last week before the vote, outgoing Commissioner Cashion again brought up CSD's status on the site as part of her statement before she voted for the hotel.

"The conversations around CSD - certainly supportive of CSD - reached out a couple of times to CSD to meet with them. I have spoken with the owner of the building and it’s a difficult position to be in making a decision about a long term opportunity when you have CSD as a school in an industrial site. I also understand they (CSD) are not the owners of that building, they are leasing that building and it’s an understanding, and a pretty clear understanding that CSD will not be there in that building in 10 years to come. CSD bought 40 acres out on Beaties Ford road and are starting to build their sports complex there so, I think we are tasked with a difficult decision."

Cashion's comments highlighted in bold are misleading on a couple of points.  aShortChronicle spoke to CSD Executive Director, Joy Warner, on Friday to see if these statements could be clarified.  Here is what Warner confirmed.

Yes, CSD leases the building.  However, the lease on file with the Mecklenburg County Register of Deeds shows the current lease runs until January 1, 2027 and has a five year option to extend.  Meaning, CSD can remain on the site for 14 more years as renters.  Furthermore, CSD has in the lease an "irrevocable option" to buy the site between January 1, 2017 and December 31, 2019.  That means the school could be permanently located where it is today.

Additionally, Warner commented to aShortChronicle on the Huntersville property for a sports complex that CSD is in the process of raising money to purchase.  According to Warner, every time that property has been discussed with parents it has been made clear that the Huntersville site is not intended for relocation of either of the school's Davidson campuses.

In the face of this information from the school, how the Town got a "clear understanding" that the CSD K-7 school would not be in its current location in ten years is...well...very unclear.   However, that incorrect understanding and the incorrect idea that the Huntersville site means something more than just being a location for a sports complex, seems to have been one of the driving forces behind the Town's decision to approve the hotel.

For something this important, for something that impacts children, for something that impacts a school that brings many tangible benefits to the town, the Town government could have and certainly should have done a much more thorough job in its due dilligence prior to making its decision on the hotel.

Unfortunately for the town, that did not happen.

Planning Board staunchly opposes Grffith Hotel, Town Board still minimizing concerns

In a nearly 2 hour meeting last Monday night, the Davidson Planning Board unanimously voted that the proposed Griffith Street Hyatt Place hotel was "inconsistent" with Davidson's planning principals and plans.

That's equivalent to a big thumbs down from the citizen group charged specifically to look at these issues in gory detail.  While the Planning Board recommendation is not binding, it is a very strong signal that there are very real issues with this project.

The discussion touched on many of the issues raise here at aShortChronicle with one of the primary ones being parking.  The latest update for the hotel after the public hearing actually made this aspect of the plan worse.  The plan now has just 101 spaces for a 115 room hotel.  That is a reduction from 113 due to the developer no longer including as much on-street parking.  This would appear to be in response to questions asked primarily by Commissioner Jim Fuller at the last Board meeting prior to the public hearing.  The on-street parking part of the plan now includes only those spaces immediately adjacent to the proposed hotel property.

At just 101 spaces, the plan is now 48 spaces (or 32%) short of the requirements per the Davidson Planning ordinance.

Planning Board members also stated the plan was inconsistent with previously approved Town plans.  It did not provide a good transition to the adjacent residential neighborhoods.  Comments were made about it's impact on storm water as well as its proximity to two schools.

While specific safety issues and the public outcry against the project were acknowledged, they were not part of the "inconsistency statement" unanimously passed by the Planning Board because those items aren't within the Planning Board's purview.  Planning Board Chair, Micky Pettus, did say this regarding the public response and referring to the Board of Commissioners.  "There has been a lot of public outcry. They are deaf if they haven't heard it."

Unfortunately, on Tuesday night, the Board of Commissioners meeting showed Davidson's elected officials just might be that deaf.

In a discussion at the monthly work session that lasted less than an hour  (or less than half of the time the planning board discussed it), Davidson's electeds appeared to be running down a pre-determined checklist to minimize or discredit the very concerns the brought up by the Planning Board as well as safety concerns expressed by citizens.

Parking concerns? No problem.  Minimum parking standards are old news according to the Town's planners.  Plus, the developer says it will be fine.  Screening the development from impacting West Side neighbors?  No problem.  We'll use the left over trees to fill in the space behind Woodies.  However, there is no finalized landscaping plan to ensure this works.  Wondering about the possibility of a hotel on the horizon in the long-planned location next to Davidson Clinic right by I77?  Can't talk about that because an application hasn't been submitted even though we know that is an imminent possibility.

Safety?  Well, safety is something we'll talk about for a little bit.

For the first time during the long discussion surrounding this hotel, Davidson Commissioners did discuss safety concerns for more than a few seconds.  Unfortunately, as much time was spent minimizing the concerns as addressing them.

Police Chief Penny Dunn did refer to an alleged 2016 incident where an anti-trafficking advocacy group claims it ran an intervention operation locally.  However, rather than attempting to verify the allegations the focus seemed to be much more on attempting to discredit the activist group.  This of course completely ignores the implications of what such an event would mean as to the likelihood of real trafficking occurring in the area.

There was also discussion around school security with a clear emphasis on that being the schools' issue to solve.  This of course completely ignores the fact that the design of this hotel (street parking and public plaza) encourages the intermingling of neighboring uses making school security more difficult.

There were a couple of safety related questions that are much harder to ignore however.

Chief Dunn did acknowledge that large hotel chains have invested in training to combat human trafficking related crimes.  That includes Hyatt.  In fact Hyatt has partnered with the Polaris Project to provide this type of training to its managed hotels.  Readers may remember that this type of training and the Polaris Project specifically were mentioned in this post.  The fact that Hyatt would go to the trouble and expense of having this type of program debunks the idea that this type of activity doesn't or can't happen in these types of hotels.

Local consultant Melissa Boyes had this to say about the existence of this training days before the board meeting.  "That this training exists indicates that the industry recognizes the risk. I'm an organizational behavior consultant specializing in global risk management; I can say with certainty that no corporation invests in this kind of training in the absence of a very real risk. It's far too costly to develop, deploy, monitor compliance and maintain. Do I think any given hotel is positively teeming with pedophiles, traffickers, and kidnappers? No. Do I think Town and local business leadership are willfully denying what the industry itself has acknowledged? Yep."

At the Board meeting there was also discussion about how guests might be checked to ensure sex offenders aren't staying at a hotel, particularly a hotel immediately next to an elementary/middle school.  Again, Chief Dunn was not able to provide a reassuring answer.  There is no national database tracking offenders and each state manages its own.  There would be no effective way to track this or enforce that guests are checked.  The best Chief Dunn could do was say businesses would be unlikely to have employees who were sex offenders travel for work because of the liability that would involve.

These last two items of course raise the question...again...

"Why put a use such as a hotel that even has to worry about these things next to two schools?!?!  It is simply asking for trouble."

Unfortunately, Davidson elected officials are still entertaining that question.

Contact the Board at Board@townofdavidson.org this week to let them know what you think.  They could vote on this proposal as early as next Tuesday, October 10th.

LKN Citizen doubles-down on Griffith Street Hotel "opinion" bias

aShortChronicle told readers about the ridiculous anonymous editorial penned by the "staff" at the
Lake Norman Citizen mocking safety concerns around the location of a new hotel next to two schools.  They described those concerns as just election year politics.  Well, that piece of writing got quite a response from their readers it appears.  So much so, the paper did two unusual things.

They actually wrote a half decent straight news piece on the public hearing last week acknowledging parental safety concerns were raised.  The paper also said they would print some of the comments received on the column.  This is where things jumped back off the rails.

In this week's edition of the Citizen "staff" did print some comments, but the balance was totally off.  Yes, there were more opposing comments than supporting, but one of the two supporting comments was from the Hotel development company itself.  That one was titled "Self appointed hotel experts".  What the Citizen failed to do was also print an opposing comment it received from an actual hotel expert.

The below comment from hotel industry veteran Fred Dalton was sent to the Citizen in response to the paper seeking comment post on Facebook.  Here's ehat Dalton had to say.

I cannot speak for others who have committed their own personal time towards this issue, but allow me to speak for myself.

I do not speak out against the construction of the hotel adjacent to an elementary school with any political motive or intent. I have met some wonderfully passionate and committed people in the past month. They care deeply about the town of Davidson and feel that the best remaining option to save what they love is through political change.

I am not a resident of Davidson. I support no local politician and am not aligned with any candidates. I speak out because it is wrong. I speak out because I am a CSD parent with a great deal of experience in the hotel industry and because of common sense. I speak out because I am a father.

Yes, “The greatest concern is safety for the school children in light of potential increase in drugs, pedophilia, human trafficking, guns and other violence, and other safety issues.” ... Yes, really.

I speak from 20 years of hotel industry experience that no one else associated with the issue could bring to the conversation.

While the editorial makes light of our concerns about human trafficking, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security is concerned enough about human trafficking that it produces a program within the DHS Blue Campaign specifically for the hotel industry. Within this program they describe: "Traffickers often take advantage of the privacy and anonymity offered by the hospitality industry. They can operate discreetly because staff and guests may not know the signs of human trafficking. Hotels and motels are also major locations where traffickers force sex trafficking victims to provide commercial sex to paying customers. Victims may be forced to stay at a hotel or motel where customers come to them, or they are required to go to rooms rented out by the customers" Information on additional resources, literature, materials, and training offered by the Blue Campaign can be found at www.dhs.gov/bluecampaign  

In 2016, North Carolina saw a 62% increase in trafficking year over year, nearly doubling the also troubling 35% nationwide average increase. In the state, the Charlotte Region has the highest number of cases. DSS and CMS are not making light of this issue either and have worked with Present Age Ministries to teach CMS educators as well as 7th and 8th graders about trafficking and how to avoid becoming a victim.

Mecklenburg County currently has 911 registered sex offenders. Iredell County currently has 257 along with Cabarrus County with 275. There are 34,722 registered sex offenders in the Carolinas and 747,408 in the U.S. Based on GS 14-208.16: "Any offender... is prohibited from knowingly residing within 1,000 feet of the property on which any public or nonpublic school or child care center is located" Unfortunately the statute is non-specific regarding hotel accommodations, creating a potential legal safe space for predators. 

Overall, the hotel industry is a wonderful place. Hundreds of thousands of guests have passed through the doors that I have directly or indirectly managed across the country. Being in a guest services industry, you get to meet many fascinating people. Most that you meet are under the best of circumstances; families on vacations, fans attending sporting events or coworkers gathering for a meeting. Some you meet are under less than ideal circumstances; damaged homes, displaced spouses, or medical procedures. A very small number of guests are those that you refer to as the "unwanted". Regardless of snarky attempts to minimize my concerns in a manner oddly familiar to the same attitude projected from the Board, these individuals do represent a percentage of the overall hotel guest population. 

This developer builds and operates fantastic hotels and top of the line staff. This fact is not up for debate. He is well known and respected locally in the industry. I have no doubt, that no matter where this hotel is built it will be a beautiful and well run property. The only issue with this hotel is the location, and to me it is not a laughing matter. 

Fred Dalton

aShortChronicle has also seen the lengthy response to Dalton's email from editor Lee Sullivan, so it is clear the paper received Dalton's message.

Putting a comment from the developer's firm that focuses on "qualifications" to even be able to comment while at the same time leaving out opposing comments from an equally "qualified" person is the epitome of bias by omission.  Furthermore, the developer's comment acts as if his firm has been portrayed in a negative light.  Again, read the last paragraph of Dalton's comments.  He actually specifically complements the developer on the quality of the firm's hotels.  Opposition to this proposal has nothing to do with the quality of the planned development.  It is simply a question of location due to the potential for safety issues.

Yes, this is the opinion section and not the news, but not presenting all the information available when it was specifically asked for by the Citizen was a real disservice to the public. 

It also shows which "opinion" the Citizen "staff" really sides with.

UPDATED: Exit 30 Hotel - The players...

The Exit 30 Hyatt Place Hotel project is controversial due to its location near schools and in an already congested area as well as being adjacent to a vulnerable neighborhood.  It also includes a web of players and associated individuals that reads like a who's who of Davidson development both past and present.  The paths of these individuals cross whether it be in business, in ideology, in Town Hall, or in just being neighbors in a small town.  That is probably to be expected in a town the size of Davidson.  However, when people along every step of the process have this many interactions it can lead to a degree of group think, and that can lead to flawed decisions.

Here is the roster...

The Developer - Beacon IMG group led by Nish Patel is a hospitality development firm whose portfolio includes the Homewood Suites in Davidson.

The Land Owner - The land for the project is owned by an entity named Davidson Common East Condominium Associates LLC.  This LLC names R Martin Kerr of Davidson as manager.

The Former Land Owner - The current LLC bought the land from an Five Six Five LLC in 2008 for $1.65m.  See here and here.  Five Six Five LLC lists Ed Harris as its manager.  This LLC still owns the land on which the Community School of Davidson K-7 building sits just across Davidson Gateway Drive.

The Attorney - Local Davidson real-estate attorney Susan Irvin has been involved in multiple transactions around this property.  See here and here.  She is also representing the Hotel project team in its interactions with the town.

The Former Banker - People's Bank is the bank listed in deed related documents for this property.  People's is Mayor John Woods's former employer.  When the Woodies project went through in 2013.  Woods signed off on the sale for Peoples.  See here on page 3.

The Architect - Dave Malushizky of the RBA Group is listed as the architect on the project.  Malushizky is formerly of the Lawrence Group.  The Davidson office of Lawrence Group has closed, but that office had long-standing ties to Town Hall.  See here for that background.

The Consultant - Craig Lewis of Stantec.  Lewis was contacted for the traffic study required for the project.  Lewis is also a former Lawrence Group alum.  See here for more on that.

The Town Attorney - Town Attorney Cindy Reid wrote a legal opinion favorable for this project.  See here for that.

The Former Town Attorney - Public records show Former Town Attorney Rick Kline was at least consulted on the opinion produced by Reid.  Also, per a public records request Kline has recently been involved in a separate deal with the same land owner.

The Land Planner - While not involved in the hotel project directly, Commissioner Brian Jenest's land planning firm has been involved in earlier proposed projects to develop this land.  See here.  Commissioner Jenest's firm also worked on the Homewood Suites when it was built.  See here.   Commissioner Jenest's firm and Susan Irvin mentioned above are often seen working on the same projects around Davidson, Potts Street and Davidson Depot to name a couple.  They have also worked together on a similarly controversial hotel plan in Cornelius.  See here for that.

#Exit30Hotel Public hearing on Tuesday Davidson Board agenda

Davidson's Board is set to hold the required public hearing next Tuesday, September 12th for the controversial proposal to place a hotel next to CSD and across from Davidson Day on Griffith Street.

Check out the agenda item materials here.

While a number of conditions are set in these documents, many are only partially agreed to by the developer.  Disturbingly, none of the conditions reflect the very real safety concerns of putting a hotel use next to an elementary/middle school.  In fact, this aspect of safety is not addressed at all in the staff analysis.

As was shown in this previous post researching similar situations, approving this proposal without seriously addressing these safety concerns (some of which are demonstrated as being unaddressable) would place Davidson, and specifically any Commissioner voting for this proposal, seriously out of step with how these situations are normally handled.

To call that irresponsible would be an understatement.

You can see the whole agenda here.

A protest of multiple issues including the hotel is being planned nedin conjunction with this meeting.

Human trafficking, hotels, and school safety

This post will make you uncomfortable.  If you read the below slides and watch the linked videos, you'll learn more facts about the subject of human trafficking than you care to know.  It is not a subject most people would want to investigate, but with the Town of Davidson looking at a proposal for a new hotel next to one school and across from another, it is one that needs investigating.

Many parents are concerned with what a hotel in such close proximity to a school could mean.  Hotels often bring out bad behaviour in people, even nice hotels, so having one so close to schools is worrisome.  In an effort to learn more aShortChronicle contacted "The Guardian Group".  This is a non-profit in Washington State dedicated to combating sex trafficking.  Here's how this group describes itself on its website.

"Guardian Group is a “Team of Teams,” comprised of former special operations military, law enforcement and intelligence community professionals, working to end sex trafficking in the United States. Our team has experience leading organizations within the United States Department of State, Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, and the Department of Justice. While the rescue and recovery of children is paramount, our offensive advantage enables us to disrupt the exploitation cycle before rescue becomes necessary."

aShortChronicle asked GG what they thought about placing a hotel near schools in Davidson, an "affluent suburban college town just north of Charlotte".  Alex Dugan, Lead Engagements Officer, replied with the following.  

"Sex trafficking is a risk for unsuspecting children. The first thought that comes to mind when reading your email is the controversy of placing a hotel across the street from an elementary school while also in close proximity to another private school. Many people believe that sex trafficking is an issue found in other countries, but in reality, it is all around us in the US. Over 300,000 youth, both boys and girls, are bought and sold across the nation each year. Sex Trafficking is a 150-billion-dollar criminal industry and is the fastest growing crime in the United States. I guarantee that there are children, right now, being sold for sex in the community in which you live.

Sadly, much of this illicit activity occurs within hotels. Pimps favor hotels because it is thought to be relatively anonymous with minimal liability. No matter the size of your town, sex sells and sex trafficking is very real. Having a hotel in such close proximity to two schools, places children at unnecessary risk. They could potentially have unwanted contact with a potential predator. The accepted stats state that the average victim lured into trafficking in the United States is 12-14 years old."

12 -14 years old is the same age as the middle schoolers who will be right next door.

What also drew aShortChronicle to Guardian Group was its training program  designed specifically for the hotel industry.  GG provided the below deck as an example of the program content.  Click to enlarge.

People who want to look the other way on this issue might say to themselves after reading the above "well, that can't happen here, not in Davidson.  Plus, this is a high end hotel chain being proposed.  That will prevent bad things from occurring."  Anyone who thinks that should ask themselves what types of hotel chains would pay for this kind of training?  Do they really think it is just the lowest of low-end establishments?
No, according to a follow up conversation with Dugan, the training is designed for all hotels because hotels regardless of brand have to deal with this issue.

So, the planning question to ask in Davidson is this.  Is it really a good idea to put a commercial use next to a school when that specific commercial use even has to concern itself with a training program like the one presented here.  It is a use that has the potential to attract predators to the immediate area, so why would you even consider putting it near a school?

If one still wants to put their head in the sand, saying this can't happen here in Davidson, watch the below videos.  These are by a man named Bo Quickel.  Quickle is with an organization named Vigilante Truth.  It is an organization based in the Lake Norman Area that also fights human trafficking.

Click to watch video

In this video posted in January of this year, Mr Quickel is speaking to the Charlotte Rotary Club.  Watch the whole video, but notice what he says starting at minute 3 about the group's intervention efforts at regional hotels "including the Lake Norman region". You can watch more of Quickel's comments to the Rotary Club here.

These next three videos are also worth watching.  In these videos Quickel is speaking to officials in Rowan County. Part 1, Part 2, Part 3.

Still think it can't happen locally?  Take a look at the below graphic from the National Human Trafficking Hotline provided via the Polaris Project.  This map is from its 2016 Hotline report for North Carolina.  The Polaris Project is based in Washington DC and is yet another organization committed to combating human trafficking.  Take a look at the dots between Charlotte and Statesville right on I77.  Where do those look like they are located?  Right in Davidson's own back yard.  That's where.

So, what is the point of all this information?  Won't people just call it fear mongering?

Well, those who support Davidson Town Hall at all costs certainly may.  Those who benefit from this project either directly or indirectly almost certainly will.  However, those people can go pound sand if that's the case.  Posting this information isn't for their benefit, and it isn't being presented to say another hotel should never be built in town.  Hotels have their place.  That place just isn't right next to schools.

This is an important decision, and it involves the safety of children.  It is not just another academic exercise in the Planning Department at Davidson Town Hall.  It isn't about a few extra tax dollars in town coffers.  To date, public discussion of this aspect of safety for this proposed project has been woefully inadequate.   It's as if Town Hall is avoiding the subject because it is uncomfortable.  It is definitely that, but that's the job they signed up to do.  They need to do it.

The best and most certain way to handle this risk is to simply vote down this proposal.

Hotel proposal could make Davidson "unique"...and not in a good way

After hours of online research, it appears the idea of making zoning changes to allow a hotel next to an elementary or middle school is not all that common.   That's probably something not all that surprising to most.   After trying to find examples, aShortChronicle came across only a few going back to 2007.

These examples show that safety is regularly a primary concern, and projects get rejected for that reason.  Where they aren't rejected, one of two things seems to be present.  The hotel projects get development conditions put on them that cannot be replicated in the Davidson situation - walls or fences surrounding the hotel are required to prevent mixing with students, or there is an existing mature tree buffer, or both.  These approved examples also do not connect to the school property via a road.

If Davidson Commissioners approve the proposed Hyatt Place plan for Griffith Street next to the Community School of Davidson, they will be approving something outside the norm of these situations.  Not only would that be unusual, they would be supporting a project that has design elements that make the situation worse than the examples described below.  The design of the Hyatt Place proposal actually encourages intermingling of people from the different uses because of the high proportion of on-street parking for the hotel and a plaza fronting the hotel along Griffith.  Not to mention there is no possibility of any sort of buffer between the uses because they sit across a shared street.

Here is what the research found...

In this first example from Richland Township in Pennsylvania, a planning board initially approved the zoning but required a solid fence between the hotel and school.  After a court proceeding the local school system bought the property out of safety concerns to prevent the hotel from being built.

Click for story

In this case from 2007 in Lehi Utah, a suburb of Salt Lake City, the decision makers were also dealing with a conditional zoning.  The Board approved the rezoning, but with conditions "to require the hotel to construct a 12-foot wall between the hotel and the school, and trees to block the view from the hotel's upper stories, at the recommendation of the school district. The hotel was also required to create a security plan with Lehi police, among other requirements."

Click for story

According to the below picture from Google, the Lehi hotel was never built.  Inquiries as to exactly why the hotel was not built have not been successful, but the hotel is not there.

In this 2nd case from 2007, a proposal in the Venice Beach area of Los Angeles was unanimously rejected.  aShortChronicle first told readers about this example last year.  In this case the some of the issues echo the concerns from Davidson's West Side residents regarding gentrification.

Click for article from freevenice.org

The next example from 2012/2013 is another rejection.  This time from Plymouth Township in Pennsylvania.  In this example, the town was willing to fight the developer in court rather than compromise its planning ordinance to allow a hotel next to a school.  The land was approved for another use after the town won the case, and a storage facility with no connection to the school and a substantial tree buffer exists today.

Click for story

These last two examples are approvals involving hotels in proximity to schools.  However, in these cases the situation on the ground is not at all like the one in Davidson.

In the first case from Brunswick, GA just this past June, an approval was recommended to sell alcohol at a new hotel in an area zoned for such a use.  That area happened to be adjacent to an elementary school.  The new hotel would have a cedar fence separating the properties in addition to no direct road connection and a substantial tree buffer.

Click for planning recommendation

Now take a look at the below Google aerial view.

Notice that the school is not really adjacent to the hotel property even though the properties abut.  Also, the school owns the wooded land that provides a major buffer which means it is under the school's control.

This final example is a bit different.  It's from the Atlanta area in 2017. This one is a high school, not an elementary/middle school.

Click for story

While this hotel was approved it was not allowed to serve alcohol.  Other conditions include "a fence on the property; rooms accessible only through a central hallway; and no weekly or monthly rental rates advertised."

Here is the Google aerial of the site.  The high school is on the bottom.  Again, a mature tree buffer and a fence separate the properties.

So, as all of these examples show, Davidson will be way out on a limb compared to other municipalities
if it approves this rezoning.  When it comes to these decisions, safety and fitting in with the surroundings are top priorities whether the example is from an urban, suburban, or rural area.

Being different is good - sometimes.  This decision in Davidson is not one of those times.

#Exit30Hotel: Debunking the "previously approved" alternative

Since the beginning of the debate on the proposed new Hyatt Place next to the Community School of Davidson, the developer/landowner position has been essentially this.

If this hotel proposal is not approved, a previously approved plan is waiting in the wings for two office buildings and you really won't like that one.

That 2-building proposal was last approved/modified back in 2013 as part of the Woodies approval.  It was used to present what Commissioner Jim Fuller called a Hobson's Choice during the initial public input session in 2016.  It has been used to impact the Town's required TIA by being included as a valid alternative.

But, is it a valid thing to be used as a comparison?  What if this cudgel is just a figment of legal imagination?  What if the "previously approved" alternative didn't exist, and this hotel proposal had to stand on its own?

The position that the so called previously approved two building alternative exists rests on something called "common law vested rights".  Vested rights allow a developer to build an approved plan for a period of time after approval regardless if zoning or rules change after that approval.

The issue here is that these rights are not supposed to run forever.  There are supposed to be time limits.  Also, invoking these rights requires the developer meet several requirements showing they have good faith intent of developing the approved plan.

When this hotel project first surfaced in 2016, aShortChronical questioned the Town Attorney, Cindy Reid, on the subject of vested rights via a series of emails.  Reid issued an opinion invoking the "common law vested rights" justification, providing that response to the Board in a written opinion in late October of last year.

At the time, aShortChronical pressed Reid and the Board on one particular criteria of invoking these rights.  That involved a criteria surrounding substantial expenditure.  Here is what the UNC School of Government has to say about expenditures needed to invoke common law vested rights.

"The owner must make some substantial expenditure—of time, effort, or money—in reliance on the valid governmental approval. The expenditure must be. substantial in relation to the overall project. Minor site. work may be substantial for a small accessory building, but minor site work may not be substantial for a large-scale development.  Actual construction is not necessary. Expenditures on binding contracts, construction materials, or equipment may be sufficient."

This portion of the legal requirements appears to have not been met because the property where these two buildings were originally approved has remained an unimproved parking lot. When pressed on the justification for an expense that met the above requirements the Town Attorney responded in a November 3rd 2016 email "The letter is my opinion. Please contact the developer or the developer’s attorney if you have questions about work that was or was not done."

Contact the developer for a legal justification why the Town should allow their development.  Ok.

(It should be noted that when aShortChronicle forwarded this information to Commissioners, Stacey Anderson replied on November 6th in agreement with the Town Attorney's suggestion that aShortChronicle should just ask the developer.)

So, why bring this up now many months later?

Multiple revelations have occurred recently that warrant taking another look at this.

1.  The issue is a complicated real-estate situation involving conditional zoning and numerous changes over many years, and Town Attorney Cindy Reid is not a real estate law expert.  This is proven by the fact that the Town has continued to enlist former Town Attorney Rick Kline to handle real estate issues when they come up.  Mr Kline is a real estate attorney.   His continued involvement in Town affairs was revealed in this post.  Mr Kline does not appear to have been extensively involved in writing the opinion pulled together by current Town Attorney Cindy Reid as the invoices during that time period do not show him billing the Town for anything surrounding this.  All of this raises the question, is the current Town Attorney really qualified to write the opinion the Town Board is using as a base for some of its decisions?

2.  Recently, former Town Commissioner Sandy Carnegie posted a lengthy amount of information to Facebook and also provided it to the Town.  It covered several projects involving real estate (Potts Street, Beaty Street, and the Griffith Street Hotel.)  Sandy Carnegie has been practicing real estate law for 40 years.  On the Griffith Street Hotel, he was asked the below question with his response.

This answer corresponds to the exact concerns raised to the Town Attorney and the Board last year, the concerns where aShortChronicle was told to go ask the developer.  Certainly, two different attorneys can look at the same thing and come to different opinions.  However, it would seem prudent to go with the opinion of the attorney who has significant experience in the area of law involved in the question.

3.  The recent appraisal of the Beaty Street property released by Save Davidson shows the value of getting an expert second opinion.  In the case of the Griffith Street hotel the Town and the public could certainly benefit from a second opinion on the issue of vested rights for the hotel property.  Furthermore, in this case that second opinion can't come from former Town Attorney Rick Kline even though he is a real estate expert.  Here's why.

In the same records request used to write the piece in point #1, there are multiple emails showing Cindy Reid at least consulted Mr Kline on the Davidson Commons East/Hotel subject prior to drafting her opinion even though he did not apparently bill the town for these consultations. Secondly, there is an email thread in late May of this year from Mr Kline to town staff stating that he has been enlisted to help another developer on a separate project with the same land owner as the property for the hotel project.  Not only would using Mr Kline not provide a true second opinion on the hotel project because there is no way of knowing how much advice he did or did not give in writing the first opinion, but it is very hard to say that such an opinion involving Mr Kline now would be completely unbiased as he has been recently engaged in private business with some of the same parties on land in the same area involving the proposed hotel.

Before the Town Board votes on this request an outside attorney should take a further look at this issue of vested rights.  Commissioners should not be able to hide behind them when voting to put a hotel next to a school if those vested rights do not exist.

Bonus Observation: Check out this video of Monday's Planning Board meeting.  The topic of the vested rights and the information provided to the town by former commissioner Sandy Carnegie is near the beginning.

Exit 30 Hotel stakeholder provides data to Board prior to update on Tuesday agenda

At Tuesday's Board meeting Davidson's electeds are scheduled to get an update on "stakeholder" feedback regarding the current proposal for the new hotel on Griffith Street next  to Community School of Davidson and Davidson Day.

Since the last update staff has met with various stakeholder groups including:

▪ 8/4/17 - Site Walk
▪ 8/4/17 - Lunch & Learn
▪ 8/10/17 - West Davidson
▪ 8/10/17 - Spinnaker Cove
▪ Various - Additional Stakeholders [Calls, Emails, Meetings]

While these meetings certainly garnered feedback on things like safety, traffic, and parking, most people haven't heard too much feedback on the need for a hotel in the first place.  To that point, aShortChronicle wanted to pass along some information provided to the Board on Friday.  It comes from an individual with years if experience in the hotel industry and raised some serious questions about the very need for a new hotel on top of the numerous safety issues of the site itself.

It seeks to answer the question "Is there sufficient demand in the market to justify increasing the supply in the face of so many risks?"

Information was collected using Smith Travel Research (www.str.com) data from the 24 hotels within a competitive proximity to the proposed site. The average hotel size in the sample was 91 rooms with a combination of full service, select service and extended stay brands. Year to date through the end of July, this competitive set has averaged a 73.5% Occupancy with a $95.40 Average Daily Rate (ADR). Occupancy is down -6.4% from prior year, representing a loss of -23,113 room nights from just the first 7 months last year. On this pace, the competitive set (Comp Set) hotels are projected to lose -39,622 room nights in 2017 as compared to 2016. At the current ADR, this represents a forec asted revenue loss of nearly -$3.8M to the immediate areas hotels this year compared to last year. 

For this proposed site to be considered a successful and profitable hotel venture, one needs to look at market share. A Revenue Generation Index (RGI) is the measure of market share for a hotel. A hotel with less than 100 RGI has less than its fair share, an RGI over 100 has more than its fair market share. To reach fair market share, this hotel would need to meet or exceed the market average occupancy and/or rate. This hotel would need to generate over 30,000 room nights at the current market occupancy at the prevailing ADR to be considered successful in industry standards. 

In support of my own data research, the most recent Hotel Horizons report from CBRE Hotels' Americas Research (formerly PKF) (https://pip.cbrehotels.com/) forecasts a continued decline in occupancy for the Greater Charlotte Area (which includes Davidson) every year for the next five years through 2021. The Northwest Charlotte Sub-market as defined by Smith Travel is not immune to this decline and as a result developers have only 3hotel projects currently in the pipeline! This Smith Travel Research defined Sub-market extends from Huntersville to Davidson and also includes Gastonia to Lincolnton. 

Considering the location of the proposed hotel project in regards to limited access, highway visibility and distance from corporate demand generators in Mooresville, Huntersville and Lake Norman, the 30,000 room nights would need to be generated primarily from new demand coming into the Davidson market as it would be unlikely to pull room night production from those other markets which offer supply well in excess of the demand available. 

Is the current Homewood Suites turning away 30,000 room nights per year because it has reached capacity?
Is the the current occupancy trend at the Homewood Suites in contrast to all available industry statistics, averages and forecasts for this market?

For this hotel development project to be feasible and considered a financial success, several statistically unlikely things must take place:
1. The Davidson market would have to create the demand for an additional 30,000 room nights per year, nearly doubling the existing estimated average for the city. Who or what would be the source of this additional demand?
2. This hotel would have to defy all current market data, trends and forecasts in both the immediate area, the Northwest Sub-Market and the Greater Charlotte Area. What would be the differentiating factor for this hotel that would give it such a market advantage?
3. The developer would have to maintain the current business levels at his existing property. Even if the Homewood Suites is averaging an occupancy at 15% higher than the market average, it is consuming at most 40,000 room nights per y ear. Can the city of Davidson attract or create the demand for over 70,000 consumed room nights that this developer would need to be successful? 

If this proposed hotel beats all these insurmountable odds, the highest possible net growth to occupancy tax generated for the city would be approximately $220k. Is this doubtful and highly unlikely gain sufficient to offset the known risks and negative impact to the area?

What is interesting about this above analysis is that it clearly shows additional data is available to assess the need for this hotel.  It is not just taking the developer's word for it like the Town is doing with the parking needs for this project.  It also shows the Town staff clearly has more work to do on the economic development front to appropriately educate itself and the Board.  Staff, not the developer, should also vet the following:

• Exactly how many FTE does the developer plan to employ?  How does this compare to the FTE and similarly sized hotels in this area?  The developer can not be allowed to inflate this number for the purposes of a "job creation" sales pitch.
• How exactly did the developer calculate its parking need?  How many sold out dates were sampled? What times were sampled on those days? What is the most common mode of transportation for those rooms that don't have cars? 

The same exact types of analysis would apply to the Luminous project and its hotel proposal which is even bigger.

Yes, the private sector has the right to risk its own money on these ventures, but in both cases Davidson elected officials truly have the final say in whether or not these projects go forward.  With that final say comes responsibility.  In turn Davidson Staff has the responsibility to provide them the information needed.  To date, it looks like the Town is relying on the developer to do that job for them and that is not a good.place to be.

Did the "Davidson Way" skew Exit 30 Hotel TIA?

A Transportation Impact Analysis (TIA) is required for various types of developments depending on their size.  They assess the impact of a new development and make recommendations for infrastructure improvements to mitigate those impacts.  They can be useful tools to ensure development does not externalize the costs onto taxpayers by forcing others to pick up the bill.

But what happens if the TIA is skewed from the start?  Unfortunately, it appears that could be the case with the TIA completed for the Exit 30 Hotel proposal.

aShortChronicle has uncovered via public records request information that raises several questions about the TIA completed for the Exit 30 hotel proposed next to the Community School of Davidson (CSD) on Griffith Street.

Now, people may assume that any skewing would come from the developer who pays for the TIA and that could of course happen.  To help prevent that, Town Hall picks the firm to do the TIA, but the developer pays for it.  One would think that should lower the chance for bias.

In the case of the Exit 30 Hotel proposal the skewing appears to come from Davidson Town Hall itself.

The hotel TIA was conducted in 2016.  Below are emails aShortChronicle came across as part of a public records request on the hotel project.  Note the underlined portions.

In this first one, the Town planning manager, Jason Burdett, is shopping for a firm to give a certain flavor to the assessment.

When a TIA is supposed to be an unbiased assessment, saying "the last thing we want" before it even starts is not a good thing.

Two days later Craig Lewis with Stantec responds.  Stantec has done a considerable amount of work for the Town in recent years.  Mr Lewis previously worked for the now closed local office of The Lawrence Group which also had done lots of work for the town.

After this email things moved quickly with Burdett contacting the recommended person at Stantec the next day.  The comment about "deflecting" citizen concerns via the ordinance is particularly interesting.

Stantec appears to have been selected as the firm for this TIA immediately after these exchanges as further emails show the town discussing all the parameters of the study and arranging for collecting traffic counts from the developer's other hotel in town, the Homewood Suites.  Those counts are used as a baseline for the new hotel.

And about those counts...

Regarding the traffic counts from the Homewood Suites, when might those have been collected?  While the TIA Report doesn't say, the public record indicates they were to be done the week of Nov 7 - Nov 11 2016.   That week just happened to include Election Day for the most anticipated election in recent U.S. history on Tuesday followed by Veterans Day on Friday Nov 11th.  As acknowledgement that this could be an issue the below exchange occurred.

So, while at least an effort was made to not do the counts when school was out, what is the likelihood that business travel might have been a little light that week - affecting the baseline counts from Homewood Suites?

So, after asking for a report that wouldn't recommend significant and costly road improvements and taking critical traffic measurements at a questionable time, not surprisingly the final TIA Report recommends no road related changes in the immediate vicinity of the hotel.  That is in spite of the fact that the most impacted intersection has its most impacted direction going from bad, yet acceptable, levels to very unacceptable failing levels.  Look at the Griffith Gateway Drive NB line underlined in red.  That is headed north bound on Davidson Gateway towards Griffith.

This shows that regardless of the development, whether it be the proposed hotel or the previously approved development on this site, this intersection north bound becomes almost impassable.  During drop off and pickup for school at CSD, Davidson Gateway backs up significantly.  Add in the proposed hotel parking scheme that ensures all the street parking in the area is full, and Davidson Gateway may be impassable in the south bound direction as well during these times.

Yet, the report makes no recommendations to do anything about this for cars.  It does say this however about sidewalks.

"Additional and/or improved sidewalks in the area will encourage pedestrian activity to and from the hotel, which may further reduce the amount of vehicular traffic to and from the hotel beyond what has been assumed in this study."

Rather than mitigating the impacts on traffic this development might bring, this feels more like planned gridlock.

Exit 30 hotel parking meets the real world (pictures)

The below photos are an example of the parking disaster awaiting the Circles@30 area if Davidson approves more development next to the Community School of Davidson (CSD) without appropriate parking requirements. These were taken Thursday evening during the back to school Ice Cream Social.  Sent to aShortChronicle by a regular reader.

Facing Griffith, CSD on Left
Hotel will be in back center.

Harris Teeter side lot

Existing street parking
full

Facing up Davidson Gateway from Griffith
Street parking full.
Hotel on left, CSD on right

This situation may be inevitable to a large degree regardless of what is developed on this site, but Davidson Commissioners will make it much worse if they approve a hotel plan that is 36 spaces short of what is required and includes 30 on street spaces.

Griffith Street Hotel Site walk draws small crowd, no electeds, but a few candidates

The Town of Davidson hosted a site walk at the location on Griffith Street next to CSD and Woodies this past Friday that drew a small crowd.  Roughly 15  people not associated with the Town, the developer, or the media were in attendance.  For those keeping score on this kind of election Mayoral candidate Rusty Knox and Commissioner candidates Matthew Fort and Michael Angell were there.  None of Davidson's current elected officials were there through the first 45 minutes of the presentation.

In hindsight, maybe Friday AM during the summer was not the best time.  One has to wonder how many CSD parents might have been in attendance if this event had been held in just two weeks after school starts and drop-off had just ended.

There was considerable discussion about pedestrian safety with regards to the school and large numbers of children walking in the area.  In fairness it did sound as if some of the changes brought on by this project (and likely any project on the site) would bring some enhancements for pedestrian safety.  These include closing the driveways to the property off Griffith and the one directly across from Community School of Davidson on Davidson Gateway. There was also talk of a mid-block crossing over Griffith connecting to the Spinnaker Cove neighborhood and pushing the sidewalk back from Griffith as it crosses the creek on the eastern side of the property headed towards Roosevelt Wilson Park.

Those are definitely a good things and would certainly make things better for pedestrians, particularly the sidewalk being pusbed back from Griffith as that sidewalk is regularly used by CSD for walks to the park with dozens of kids.  However, there would also be drawbacks - the primary one being that the sole entrance to the hotel would be the shared driveway with Woodies off of Davidson Gateway.

Parking was also a hot topic, one that would have also been much more apparent if the walk had been done at a different time.  There was repeated mention of what will the impact be to CSD.  While the problem is not solely the responsibility of the developer, the Town needs to do everything it can to remediate this issue by fully enforcing its ordinance.  The current plan from the developer is 36 spaces short of the 149 required by the ordinance.

To give readers a frame of reference for what this will mean if this site for the proposed hotel goes away and the parking issue is not addressed, take a look at the below picture.  This picture was actually taken last September on a Sunday when CSD was in use for church services.  The church no longer uses the facility, but this same picture could be taken whenever the school has special events.

Woodies is pictured on the right.  The proposed hotel site is directly center where the bulk of the cars are parked.  CSD is off camera to the left.

Clearly this is going to be a major issue, and if the Town handles it poorly, it will negatively impact the quality of life in this neighborhood, not to mention hurt Woodies business.  The hotel looks to use 50% of Woodies off street parking as part of a shared parking agreement required by the town.

To give more of a frame of reference for what this will look like, see the below pictures.  The first shows the rough footprint of the building relative to Woodies, the trees on the property and CSD across Davidson Gateway.  The second is taken from ground level at the rear of where the building foot print will be.

That brings up another obvious issue with the plan, the trees.  The canopy trees along Griffith will come down.  It was unclear if the three largest trees off camera to the right will be able to stay.  The answer seemed to be no, but if the footprint changes a bit that could change.

Nothing on the sitewalk addressed many parents' concerns about having a hotel next to a school which seemed to be an obvious question the Town hasn't addressed, but there was still plenty to discuss besides that.