Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Okay, we are live. Chair, hello and welcome to the February 4th meeting.

Again with a roll call. Chair Barton present. Vice Chair Cycle present. Commissioner Faircloth present. Commissioner Bell present. Commissioner Analo present. Commissioner Zufka present. And Commissioner Burl present. We have a quorum.

Thank you Mr. Palmquist. Um as always we receive public comment for our meetings um by a variety of means. In writing in advance of the meeting, we receive public comment uh submitted to pz commissionersvillec.gov until 5:00 pm the day before the meeting. Um in person, we accept public comment on items that appear on our agenda. Members of the public can speak for three minutes or if representing a larger group for a maximum of 10 minutes. Um, we will begin as we always do with our land acknowledgement. As we are gathering today as the planning and zoning commission, the body tasked with reviewing and advising on appropriate land use in the city of Asheville, it is fitting to acknowledge the storied history of this land. We occupy the land of the Cherokee people who have stewarded and been in relationship with these mountains and waterways from time immemorial. [clears throat] This land is occupied through violence, oppression, coercion, broken treaties, and forced relocation. Please join me in expressing respect and gratitude for the present-day Eastern Band of Cherokee, the Cherokee Nation, the United GDUA Band of Cherokee, and all of our indigenous neighbors, as well as the past and present marginalized community members as we seek to join in the healing of the indelible trauma that is embedded in this land. Thank you. Um before we move further into the administrative section of the meeting, um some of you may be here to hear the Costco presentation and we wanted to go ahead and um acknowledge that a continuence has been requested by the applicant. This is the second time that a continuence has been um requested.

With everyone's permission, maybe we can jump that to the top of the meeting and get through that first. Any objection? No.

Um, so a continuence was initially requested for the March 4th, our next uh planning zoning commission meeting that's been amended to April 1st. Is a representative of the applicant here and wish to share information about the status of the project and why the continuence request? Sure. Um, some changes have been made based off of the staff report uh that we received last month. Uh, there is an all hands on deck meeting with staff tomorrow um over on Charlotte Street. So, we'll be seeing uh most of the folks that are on the staff side there tomorrow and working on it. Um, in terms of the extended continuence period, we didn't want to get stuck uh in a time crunch. Uh, and so we went ahead and asked for 60 days instead of the the the one month.

Thank you. And could you state your name, sir? Derek Allen. I represent uh Costco.

Thank you. Um, you know, we we do uh see continuences from time to time. This is a complicated project. Understand there's a lot of moving parts. Um it is it does present a challenge in meeting management to continually reserve space on an agenda. So if a continuence is being requested for April 1st, my recommendation would be that's the last continuence that we provide and that the applicant come prepared to present and and be heard. Um any any other comments from commissioners or questions for the applicant about the continuence request? Um, yeah. Uh, thanks for your comments, Commissioner Barton. And, uh, yeah, I agree with it. I mean, I understand the applicants asking for continuence and I want to, you know, give you room to work through stuff. Um, but I agree with Cher Barton. I don't want to keep continuing something. I want to, you know, press forward. Um that being said, um you know, I know there's a lot of I guess part of the reason for that is I'll explain is um one we want to keep pushing things through the agenda and two, you know, I do understand it's hard for the public watching, you know, when stuff gets continued to move. You know, there there's a lot of public comment on this one, a lot of it in support. So I want to make sure people are able to like, you know, if it keeps getting continued, they'll start ignoring, you know, flyers and stuff. So, I want to make sure people are able to like be present for when it's talked through. Um, and two, I guess I want to just kind of ask like do you feel like there's anything we can do to help move it forward or I mean the all hands- on deck meeting of the staff is really, you know, what you need? Is it like I just want to make sure this commission is like putting adequate like I guess pressure on the applicant and staff to like move this. um not to get too much into it, but the the project has a lot of um staff asks and not just staff inside of the city, but also uh if you

look at the the the bigger part of that, which are uh how it ties into uh existing transportation networks and how it ties in uh with NC DOT and MSD, there are a lot of things that go with it. And so, uh, while it is a a big building that's, you know, kind of playing on a, you know, big parking lot, uh, you're talking about, you know, Brownsfield considerations, you're talking about transportation considerations, uh, there may be an annexation piece. Uh, how the the road ties in from one city road to a state road and who's going to own the road. So, there are a lot of things that go with it. Uh, so, as we continue to to work on that, uh, ask questions of staff, ask questions of of us and and, you know, help us, you know, push those things along. uh because coming up with the right project and balancing the different concerns and wants of the different groups that are you know that are the collective staff is what we're trying to do and make it um a such that you can afford to build it

right um yeah I appreciate you talking about it a little bit and other commissioners talking about it um yeah and this is one that that that the continuence is being driven by trying to to make the design work and so I'm I'm mostly out of that because the design professionals are dealing directly with uh the staff on that and that's really the impetus for for tomorrow's meeting. Okay.

To that point with all the complications and and you know we we did review this last night. So you know we understand that there there are a lot of design complications. I definitely see that and I appreciate the the applicant uh and the design team working towards trying to solve those. Would it be um better to instead of a date certain April 1st to continue to a date decided between the applicant and um the chair or the planning department?

The thing is keeping the record notice alive is kind of the the reason that we we do that. So it gets continued to a date certain and that keeps the record notice alive. And I know Miss Ashley was will say the same thing. If it looks like it might drag beyond, you know, the April meeting, for example, we might pull it off and then renotice it all together. We've not discussed that with staff, but that's how you would I'm answering the question that you were trying to ask. Yeah, Miss Ashley, anything to add on that? Okay,

that would be correct. So you can continue to certain or at some point as you're indicating it would just be pulled and then be readverized so that then the public would be aware of what it really was. And in that instance, can it can we ask that it be pulled before the agenda is publicized? Because I think sometimes what what's confusing it's it gets on the agenda and then the public may have questions about is it happening, is it not happening, right? So if we can pull it and then readvertise, can we do that before the April or whatever agenda gets publicized? Yeah, typically we we will know when the agenda goes out um if we've gotten resubmitted plans by then. So, timing wise it should work out where we'll know by then if the project has resubmitted plans and is going forward before the agenda goes live. So, we can certainly um I think that'll happen that way. Um, my last question was, um, I know originally it was set for city council this month, but I guess is it it's obviously being pushed, but is it already on like the April city council agenda or how does that work staff?

It's kind of penciled in or, you know, up in Maggie Berles's head. She's got everything uh figured out. So, she's constantly uh got got all the public hearing items bouncing around. So, she's she knows it's on the horizon. Okay. it's might be maybe maybe pencled in for a potential date. We'll let her know after this meeting if it gets continued to April, then she can move some things around, but she's always juggling public hearings and whatnot on the agenda availability. Okay,

any other questions? Thank you. Um, so with that, I will make a motion to continue item four on our agenda, the request to amend the conditional zoning for the properties located at 264 and 274 Anka Heritage Parkway to date certain of April 1st, 2026. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. Any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. We'll see you back here in April.

Um, so if you're here for Costco, we'll we'll see you back in in April. Um, jumping back to the administrative section of the meeting, we'd need to approve the minutes from the January 7th, 2026 meeting. Um, any questions, comments? Do I have a motion to approve? I have a motion to approve the meeting minutes from the January 7th, 2026 meeting. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I. I. I. Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously. Um, next up in the administrative section, update from committee liaison and workg groupoups. Um, I'll start here just with an acknowledgement that we had a a really robust discussion as a work session retreat of planning and zoning commission. Um, so thanks for staff and my fellow commissioners engagement in that. We mostly heard uh a deeper dive into the process for UDO and comp plan update uh with staff as well as understood some of the um factors at play and any incremental zoning reforms that may be possible in the meantime. Any um reflections or thoughts about our work session and the work ahead from other commissioners? The comment I was going to make is well that was a very exciting and really productive uh work session and I'm just so glad to see this work moving forward. um just from our our work group. I just want to I'm making kind of a mental mental note that the work that Commissioner Cycle and I have done to pull together the plans some 25 plans that we summarized that we went through like all the work that we did do I'll make sure is kind of at a finish point and we can hand it off to the consultants once they get started and um just want to continue that work and we really paused that work because we knew this effort was going to be ongoing so it didn't really make sense to keep keep um researching away, but there is a lot of good stuff there and we'll make it available.

And for um members of the public who may be tuning in, there will be an RFP that the city's releasing this month, is that still the this month or next? Um to solicit a consultant team to guide the process through comp plan and UDO updates. So, um, yeah, a lot a lot will happen. It will take a long time, but getting the right team in place is is really important. So, um, look forward to seeing that RFP released and hopefully lots of interest in in helping Asheville reform its land use regulation.

Um, I'm sorry, are you done? Um, one thing I'd like to request to the chair and vice chair is maybe we add it as a rolling agenda item under administrative just brief update on where the process is. not saying it has to be like staff going through like every single thing that's happening, but at least like, hey, here's the next milestone or here's the next public engagement meeting on that just because I think myself and other commissioners want to be more involved than just us knowing clearly like what's coming up next. We can plug ourselves in as needed. Um, so I'll leave it to staff to structure like how much information wants to be shared at each point, but I think it'd be nice to just keep it in the conversation monthly.

Yeah, I agree that that was something we talked about. Thank you, Commissioner Faircloth, for bringing that up that um it would be a good just kind of evergreen agenda item that will continue. Some some updates will be stay tuned. Some updates will be a little deeper dive. I had two data related uh items that I wanted to update on from our meeting. One uh overall very excited about this project and I think it's going to be a very fruitful uh thing beneficial thing for the city. Um, I was also extremely uh excited to hear that Vision Zero is like a priority for uh for this effort and uh for anybody member of the public who's unfamiliar with Vision Zero. It's the general goal to limit the number of crash fatalities to zero. Uh it's a really ambitious goal. Uh to my knowledge, I think there's only one or two cities that have ever done it. In Jersey City, it's like one square mile. Um but uh it's a top crash fatalities are like a top five killer in the United States and it is one of the things that we can do the most about. So uh it's a passion project and a pocket interest of mine specifically. Um, so with that said, I kind of wanted to just voice an interest in getting like an informal group to do some exploratory analysis on uh on crash crash fatalities and using some of the data that we have available from like the safety uh safety action plan. Um, and then personally, I mean, in my day day-to-day, I've already uh in a previous job done some work related to vision zero. And then my current role, I do data analysis every day. And so, I think I would just like to do do a deep dive, maybe work informally, talk with some other stakeholders within the city. Um, and then, um, potentially leverage a couple of colleagues that I have from other cities who have some insight on

how Vision Zero is working in their city. Um, and if that is something that people we feel okay about doing, I just wanted to voice my interest in doing that effort and check the pulse if anybody was interested in being a part of it. Would that be like a a working group of the the commission? We have to figure out the logistics of that. Um, if you're just kind of reporting back on information, you're not making decisions or policy. Um

yeah so it to be really truly informal in a working group which doesn't go into the point of a subcommittee which has to be noticed then it really we can't you can't really have formal direction you can't be tasked by this board to go do something but if you're expressing an interest I think that's how other work groups have come along and then as we've had with the storm water and anti-displacement just kind of work on their own or maybe one other person and then report back. So you can generally the commission can discuss it but it's wouldn't it be a directive for sure of course create it. Yeah that makes sense. That does make sense. I think that's my intention. I just wanted to

Yeah. Let people know doing it. Do some exploratory data analysis and come back and just share what I found. Yeah. Thank you for offering that. And I think that the standing agenda item could be a good opportunity, especially if we get like a look ahead on what's coming down the pike for each of these core compet competencies within the commission to lend some feedback um at the appropriate time. So yeah, I think that's a that's a great time on our agenda to to bring that in.

I know you mentioned maybe having some crash data incorporated into future staff reports. So if you had some guidance about maybe Yeah. what data source is uh the best one to use and and how to present that data. Maybe that's something you could kind of present to everyone and then staff could learn how to do it and we could start doing it for future staff reports. So yeah, that would be extremely helpful. Cool. Thank you. Any other updates from leaison and workg groups?

I did have one more comment from the retreat looking at the notes that were provided afterwards. So, we did this exercise where we prioritized um some changes that we would like to see in the UDO and the the comp plan and so we didn't get to really report out on those. I read through them. Really interesting, great to see. So, I just wondered if there was any discussion that we might want to have or if we might want to read those off just for the public record or provide the document in our on on in our folder. Why don't we include that on the next agenda so that we can, you know, kind of get an update on the RFP and scoping of the consultant and then a report back on this body's priorities as it moves into kind of a contract phase.

Sure. Yeah. Um my last thought on the agenda retreat and I talked a little bit about it there was um uh obviously there's been numerous other studies and workg groups you know from the affordable housing plan to the missing middle and probably 10 other things I'm not aware of. But like um I guess my question to staff is like I know y'all are going to be pulling on a lot of that work that's already been done. Is there like a a library or like a place all that information is deposited? Like you know if we want to do homework and start reading through that like what would staff advise we go to how would we find that information? Yeah, I mean we've been working on um collating all those plans and studies and um kind of you know analyzing them for relevancy and appropriateness and you know um understanding how they kind of tie into the comp plan update, how they how they currently function as providing policy for for planning in the city. Um so I expect that we could have something, you know, publicly accessible that we could share with the P&Z and and the public. um maybe not not too too long of a time. So um we can we can definitely we have that information for the most part. I think it's just a matter of kind of putting all together making it you know easily to uh to use. So um we can definitely share that out.

Sure. Thanks because I I you know I just speak for one person on the commission but I view that as like you know the question out there is like what is our role in the process? I kind of view that as our role is like hey let's make sure the homework that's already been done is being used for the you know the final thing. So, thanks for being on board of sharing that. I appreciate you uh um almost call me Jared.

I I did not um for for bringing that up because I think I think you know it is it does take a lot of mental energy and and time to like find all these reports. So, um to bringing that up and and and for staff for collating all of that and being able to make that accessible, I think that will be very helpful. Um because I agree we the city has a lot of plans that it's that it's spent money on and time and resources on and I think you know having all that together but there's some good like empirical and like qualitative data in there that like Exactly. Yeah. the new consultant you know person guiding us can use too. So I'm sure it's already in staff's works somewhere.

Yep. Yeah. We started we started doing that and I think making it available to you all in the public is a good next step. So it's great.

Well thank you. Um if there's no other report backs the only other item under um administrative that I'll mention is uh for public interest there was a project that uh came through got a lot of attention set a record for our longest meeting known as 767 Hawkree and that is um it came through this body and uh appeared before council. There is a subsequent meeting at the board of adjustment February 23rd starting at 8:45 a.m. to hear an appeal of an administrative determination of whether the project revisions constituted a minor modification. So, just wanted to kind of share that with anyone tuned in to matters that come before planning and zoning commission. It's not coming back here, but if you didn't get enough and uh want to hear more, tune in to Board of Adjustment February 23rd.

Yeah. and it can be viewed virtually, but those are quasi judicial meetings, so you can't participate in it unless you have standing, but you can watch it and at 8:45 in the morning, which is unusual. It's a really long one. Um, that's the that's the best way probably to view it.

Thank you. We'll now move into the public hearings portion of our agenda. Uh so first up we have item number five, a request to conditionally reszone the property located at 383 North Louisiana Avenue from office one to office conditional zone office 1 CZ. The properties located um the property's bins identified on the agenda. The property owner is Betty Hampton, Melissa Ferris, John Drake, and Mark Drake. Applicants contact is Mr. for Warren Sugg in the planner coordinating review is Sam Starbomb. Mr. Starbomb.

Yes. Thank you, Chair Barton and members of the commission. It is good to be before you again. For the record, my name is Sam Starbomb. I am a planner 3 with the planning and urban design department. Of course, my presentation on this one will follow the same format as all my other presentations. But before I even get into the maps, before I get into the analysis and whether or not this is is compliant and and meets some of these land use goals, I do want to spend a lot of time on this slide discussing this. Why is this here before the planning and zoning commission? This is a unique but not unheard of situation in which you will have a level two conditional zoning. And I want to talk about why that is. So, back in March of 2025, planning staff, mostly parts of of Will's entitlements team worked to develop zoning text amendments that would entice development along transit supported corridors. This is one of them. Now, there were several amendments in this. Two of them were parking reductions, eliminating parking minimums. The others were changing thresholds. So, if you met certain affordable affordability thresholds and and you kept your building within a certain gross floor area, instead of going to a level three, which goes to planning and zoning commission and then city council, that would be kept at the level two review. That means that only goes to the technical review committee and tends to be a little more expedited. Time is of the essence in development. So, this is a unique instance where this meets all those affordability and gross floor area thresholds. So, this is technically a level two. However, the base zoning district, that office one, does have a building footprint maximum of 4,000 square ft. So, that means that this needs that conditional zoning for technical modifications for for that building height, uh, which is also going to be exceeded. We'll get into that later. It does need that technical modification for that building footprint. This has a footprint of

31,898 ft. That's to be expected for a building accommodating 89 units. So this is why this is a level two CZ. Now out of that fact comes two logical questions. Why is this not going to a residential expansion district which you see all the time with CZs? And then also why is this not a variance? This is simply not a residential expansion for the sole reason that we don't allow it. Right? So the UDO is perfectly clear in section 778 that expansion zoning districts are only allowed for level three projects. And again because of those thresholds, this is not a level three project and therefore can't go to that residential expansion. And then to the second question of why this is not a variance is that is something where the board of adjustment only meets on the fourth Monday of each month and tends to add 8 to 10 weeks to the development review timeline. Now this project is applying for LITC credits and must become entitled by the end of April, beginning of May. So time is of the essence here and both staff and the applicant felt that it was most appropriate to go through a conditional zoning process. So again, unique but not unheard of. This is a level two review for a conditional zoning request that will take this from office one to office 1 CZ. This is not a level three. This is not an expansion district and they are treated a little differently. So we will get into this and now I will jump into sort of the familiar rhythm, right? So we'll start with location. We'll look at two maps here. One of them is zoomed out on the left looking at where this is. I would of course call this west central Asheville. On on the right side of the left image, you can see downtown. You can see the river. Moving furthest south, you can see the urban outline of Haywood. Moving less south, you can see where Patton is. And of course, the subject parcel, that 3.13 acre undeveloped site is there just north of Patton and east of the um new Lester

Highway interchange. On the right image, which is more zoomed in, you can see exactly where this is in relation to Patton Avenue and the rest of the neighborhood. Again, just below Hazel Mill along North Louisiana Avenue. And we'll get into more about Patton in just a few slides. Again, I had talked about this in this first slide. This is zoned office and we are going to office 1 CZ. This is not residential expansion. This is shown in exhibits A and A1 in your packets. The only thing of note on this slide and this next slide are really just that these districts that you see in the existing zoning landscape and the proposed zoning landscape is all of these are what we would expect and hope for in in terms of our future land use map and also living Asheville comprehensive plan for urban centers and transit supportive corridors. So that is part of the consideration in making our recommendation is what this zoning is, what it's going to and what it says in the comp plan. We find this is wholly appropriate. So that brings us to the plan. This is the building in discussion. This is again 89 units. It will be a mix of one, two, and three bedrooms. It does have 116 parking spaces. The required minimum is zero. Again, because of those zoning text amendments from March 2025. There is a maximum of 179. So it is 62 spaces below the maximum. We're finding that since we had that March 2025th amendment, people are still providing parking, but it is just substantially less than the maximum where most people floated. This building will be a four and five story mix. What this plan does not show is the considerable topographic change moving south from Hazel Mill Road. There is a a considerable slope there that is part of the grading challenge. So, it will appear five stories on some side. It does also meet all the site landscaping elements as required under UDO section 7112. You have your street trees, your vehicle

use area, your building impact, and then because it is adjacent to an RM residential multifamily district, it does have that buffer to to buffer against that property owner. The applicant is also going to be required to provide open space and tree canopy preservation. I have talked about that in the memo, but generally what I will say on this slide is that you can see where it is proposed on the southeast side. It will be a mix of recreational and natural open space and that's where some of those tree canopy preservation trees will be preserved, but they are sort of shaded out and it doesn't come as through perhaps on the television. So what does this mean for technical modifications? I have already discussed a lot of this. So the first two major ones that need discussion are this 4,000 square foot building footprint. Right? That is what is present in the underlying zoning district of office 1. Because this is an 89 unit apartment, it will have a building footprint of 31,898 ft. So that is a technical modification to exceed that. And again, because of that slope and because the underlying zoning district has a building height maximum of 40 feet, the applicants are seeking a technical modification to exceed that by 8 ft. In addition to those two, which I have already discussed, the applicant is proposing internal sidewalks at 5T. And then there will also be sidewalks along Hazel Mill and North Louisiana Avenue. Those will be at 5T instead of 10 ft. So those are the technical modifications you're looking at. And this is what the building will look like at scale. I think this slide more so than the second slide is a really great visual at painting what that four or five story split on the third elevation from the top which is the north elevation. You can see where that grade really changes and becomes that fifth story. So that is what that looks like and that sort of paints the story of topography. In terms of materiality, this is pretty appropriate and common what you would see in terms of Asheville urban form and

the design language. You're going to have uh manufactured stone, veneer, brick, and then fiber siding. These are common materials seen throughout a lot of Asheville apartment complexes. So that is about the design level, the design as it is on the site and why this is before the PZC. So we'll get now into how and where this complies with some of these elements and as staff tends to look at four things which we bring before you for all our presentations. The surrounding zoning, the future land use, the infrastructure needs and does this meet the goals of the comprehensive plan. And as I had alluded to earlier, these are wholly and totally appropriate for what you would find for urban centers and for transit supportive corridors which you would find in the Asheville plan. Office is existing. This is going to office just with conditional zoning. Staff finds that this is appropriate in so far as the future land use map is concerned. This is considered a traditional neighborhood and that is something that offers opportunities for infill housing in order to approve the supply and mix of housing options and staff finds that this proposal does exactly that. If you go to the existing zoning, you can see that mix and diversity. You have RS8, RM6, RM16 to the east. And there is there is the housing supply diversity we're looking for. And then there is also the affordability component. The applicant is proposing that 100% of these units are affordable. I will let him speak to the level, but this is something that is also going to add diversity in terms of of the applicant and what this is being proposed. So this is compatible with future land use. In so far as infrastructure is concerned, we look at four things. transportation, water, sewer, and storm water and sewer. Check. There are uh letters of commitment. There are allocation requests. Those are fairly easy. There is an existing roadway network in place, but as we know, that is not the whole transportation picture. This is also important because the sidewalk adds a

walkability component to that urban center along on Patton, which has retail, restaurants, commercial, and groceries. Um you know, there is that Engles at the corner of New Leester and Patton. And then also and most importantly, this is already served by Asheville Rides Transit. This is within a walkshed of the W1, excuse me, the WE1 and the W5 lines. So this is is served by the existing infrastructure. This is the infill envisioned that we look for for traditional neighborhoods because the the plans are in place and the infrastructure is there. So that brings us to this last element, comprehensive plan review. Does this meet the goals of the Living Asheville comprehensive plan? And for a lot of the reasons I have already spoke about, it simply does. Again, we're prioritizing greater densities of development overall throughout the city as appropriate. And we do have a preferred growth option in Living Asheville comprehensive plan that says we should put density along urban centers and transit corridors. This is in that area in that preferred growth map. Again, we're ensuring that there is a diverse mix of housing at all affordability levels for a resilient economy. And then we're providing infill development again because this is already served by transit. Uh it already has those elements that we talked about for infrastructure. And again, I I say this pretty much every time I'm before you, right? Like this is staff is not saying this is a perfect development, but what we are saying is when you take the preponderance of evidence for the surrounding zoning, for the future land use, for the existing infrastructure and what is being proposed, it substantially complies with all of these, not 100% but substantially complies. And that is why we recommend approval. So I would be happy to stand for any questions you may have before I guess I answer where we are in this process. Here we are. It did have the initial TRC review that was approved with administrative revisions on December 1st and it will be at that February 24th council. So that is my

presentation and I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you Mr. Starbomb. Uh just a couple of technical clarifications um before we allow the applicant to to speak. Condition number sorry I lost it. Condition number four lists the parking spaces I think as a typo listing a maximum of approximately 216 parking spaces. Development data block says 116 on the plans is 116.

So the maximum base is Parking counts are based on bedrooms and bedroom allocations based on what is submitted. That maximum should be 119. I'm wondering if that wasn't I know that it's 216 for a different one. I'm wondering if that's not pulled that can be corrected to reflect what spaces they'll provide and what the maximum is so we can make that change. And I know that the applicant is also prepared to add conditions that speak to the uh affordability and AMI thresholds.

Great. And then can you remind us [clears throat] the two technical modifications on sidewalk width? Where does the I I guess I had thought the 10-ft sidewalk width requirement lived within uh residential expansion or the expansion districts. So what triggers the requirement that needs to be modified? That is one of those where it is certainly in expansion districts because this is still a conditional zoning. We are still going to ask that that is enumerated that they are going to 5T. That was we see this so rarely but we decided it was to be on the safer side to have everything listed and put those there. But so does also come Oh, go ahead. Sorry.

From the SSDM there are standards in there. I see. Okay. But a tradition like a office district development wouldn't be expected to have 10-ft in internal sidewalks. It depends on what's being proposed. It's hard to hard to say. There are instances in which there could be a five- foot sidewalk in office. There are instances where they would require that 10 foot. So, this is just to get everything above board and and have staff and the applicant be clear about what they're providing so they can provide answers as to why they chose five instead of 10. Understood. Other questions, clarifications from

um Thank you, Mr. Starbomb. I always appreciate your background at the beginning of kind of where this is coming from. Um, remind me because I'm a little blank. Uh, for a level two project, is there a community or meeting or anything or is that Yes. So, yes. So, did anyone attend or anything of note happen? I will let the applicant speak to that. That is something where where for a number of of reasons staff does not

those we don't want to be seen as being for or against a project. We are happy to be a resource should they choose to call us. But that gives the the neighbors and the applicant a chance to form a relationship and if the city's there that tends to get in the way of that. So the applicant can speak to what was said, but I do believe uh the neighborhood meeting registration and the notes which are required to be provided if they're going to move forward are a component of this packet. Gotcha. Um that's my only question of right now. Thank you.

Other questions of staff from commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Starbomb. Uh, would the applicant like to say a few words and please introduce yourself at the mic.

Good evening. My name is Derek Allen um with Allen Stalin Kilborn. I'm a land use attorney here in Asheville um and represent the applicant here. I do have other members of the applicant team. have Sam Weldon from uh Blige Atlantic and I have Warren Sugg with Civil Design Concepts who has been our engineer on this project. Um I'll be brief because quite frankly Sam took all my good speaking points. Um, I wanted to follow up a little bit on this level two issue uh because it has come up and there are other uh underlying zoning jurisdictions where this footprint issue uh does impede what I believe city council in our city. Your um uh intention was in terms of providing this incentive for developers to be able to provide affordable housing or other incentives to do these developments and have them almost as of right. These footprint limitations were something that I think everybody missed and as we go through and try to apply them all of a sudden we have a 4,000 square foot footprint minimum which is just a t it's a tiny thing anyway. It's it's kind of wild. So, I would uh as we look at different kinds of ordinance amendments going forward, including these, it might be that a simple amendment that said something along the lines of uh this is intended to override any other um uh footprint type requirements inside of the individual zoning districts would resolve that issue and we wouldn't have to go through this process for this project that clearly meets all the things that were trying to be served. Um, sorry for that uh for that point, but I want to hit that out there. Obviously, 100% affordable housing. This is a tax credit project. Uh, we are a little late to the game in putting in the condition because we were all just assuming that this was known that uh a tax credit project is 100% affordable housing. So, uh, we've gone back and and borrowed language that, uh, we used on the last MH project. Uh, and I'll pass this. Actually, let me pass it around first.

I've seen it. Thank you. And real simply, what this does is is recite what the the city's affordable housing uh uh parts are. and says all units 100% shall be leased to households earning less than less than 80% of the area median income for Asheville, North Carolina as established by HUD. The minimum affordability period for all units shall be 30 years and shall commence on the date of issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the property. All of the affordable units will also accept but are not restricted to HUD housing choice vouchers. Prior to the issuance of certificate of occupancy for the property, the developer shall record a declaration of restrictions setting forth the affordability terms which shall become effective upon the execution and recording thereof. The affordability terms must be met as evidenced by the North Carolina Finance Agency's lowinccome housing tax credit program qualified occupancy of all units in the development. Um the LITC application process is much more involved than that and I can let Mr. Weldon answer any questions that you might have. Uh we didn't think it was appropriate for for a condition here, but we did want to let the world know and the public know that this is 100% affordable housing that will meet at least these minimum requirements that our city has has set for recognized affordable housing programs. Um Mr. Welden, I would like for you to come up. Uh, in terms of the neighbor meeting, uh, we've had we Mr. Weldon's had detailed communications with Andrea Golden at the part of the Pod Emma neighborhood, and I want Mr. Weldon to

at least address those. Thanks.

Good afternoon, Mr. Chair, commissioners. Uh, my name is Sam Weldon with Blueidge Atlantic. Um, thanks, Derek. I um we've had I guess what's been three months now of great continuing ongoing discussions with Andrea and her team and the whole Poderma neighborhood association. I was actually um over at their headquarters uh in West Asheville near the site earlier before this meeting. Um and we are [clears throat] uh working together as a group and in a community um which is ultimately what we want to be as a good neighbor. Um the conditions here are um you know standard. We obviously can touch more on the affordability if we need to. the NCHFA application has been submitted as of two weeks ago. Um the AMI brackets will be at 30, 50, 60, and 70% AMI um to get more in the weeds. But yeah, um we are looking forward to working with Andre and her team on um some more, you know, in-depth discussions as well as we move forward.

Thank you, Mr. Welen. Any questions of the applicant or do you have more, Mr. on. I don't have any more. Uh if there are questions about the site plan or any of the engineering aspects, Mr. Sugg is here to answer those questions. Uh but I think this one's pretty straightforward and we hope to bring uh 89 units affordable housing and um the 80% again just hitting that that's just the the threshold for the condition. Obviously, as set out by Mr. Weldon's uh comments, uh it's much more deeply affordable than that down to 30% uh with the number of those units. Do we know the percentages on those? Um, we have uh the breakdown. I can provide this to you. We've sent this in if you'd like to see it. Uh, this is from the the application itself.

So, I guess I got two questions. One for you, Mr. Allen. I guess I don't understand why are we not just making the condition what these are. You just Why are we doing 80% if it's going to be less? Well, that needs to be approved and there's a world where that doesn't get approved and the project goes through and then we have a project that we can't use anywhere else. Okay. Gotcha. Or for another developer. Gotcha. Um and I got a second question, but I'll let Miss Bell follow up if you had anything else. Not on that. I'll keep thinking.

Um my second question is probably directed to Mr. Sugg. So, um, the closest bus stop looked like it was when I was there was right across the road in front of the Church of Nazarene. Right there on the corner was the bus stop. [snorts] So, my only thought was being out there if we have this population of hopefully bus riders across the street, you know, putting in a striped walk or something to get across that. I mean, I'm not saying is is there any talk or look into that? Uh, yeah. Warren, civil design concepts. Um, so yeah, I mean we we certainly have those sidewalks that are along our edges.

For the most part, there's not a whole a whole lot of sidewalk anywhere close by outside of those. Um, we haven't had any discussions of crosswalks or anything like DOT because Hazel Mill would be DOT. Um, and I believe that uh North Louisiana is as well. I think both of those are uh actually Hazel Mill is city of Asheville. North Louisiana has a state. So, we can certainly talk to um transportation locally or with DOT and see if that's something that's available. Uh they would probably want it to be at the uh the stoplight and not mid block or something like that.

Yeah, I was I wasn't that was the other ones way down the street near the abandoned Kmart. And so I was thinking, well, the closest ones at the church, not a new stopwalk, but just something at the light, right? You know, drawing drivers attention to the fact that hopefully there's 89 units. some of those people will be using that bus stop right right right there. Yeah. And I would hope that um you know I would definitely hope that the sidewalks that are being proposed here definitely helps clean up that area a lot, makes it a lot more safer. I I was actually the one that put out the signs for the neighborhood meeting and recognize that, you know, there's there's a lot of traffic going through there that um don't have a lot of room. So hopefully these improvements will get folks to have a dedicated area to walk that's further away from that travel lane.

Sure. and and to congregate. Yeah, just to follow up. I I I appreciate that because that was a comment that I had as well with that bus stop being right there on the corner and there actually is a sidewalk on that side of the road on North Louisiana on the on the west side that goes all the way down. But it breaks actually before it gets all the way down. Yeah. Okay. There's a section where there's no sidewalk. Yeah. At the Kmart like just about just off page there. Yeah. Okay. So, I mean, I think a crosswalk would be helpful if if those discussions could happen. I'm sorry. Did you have more? No, that was my last comment.

Yeah. So, just in general, the it's the nonvehicular circulation that's drawing my eye for this project. I think this is a great project. Um, a comment that I have is any residents living in the the north part of this building, um, how do they get to the pavilion, the grill, the playground? Um it ju it just appears the vehicular circulation is takes priority and then the the secondary circulation, the non-vehicular circulation. Um uh it seems like you know you'd have to travel down on that 5ft sidewalk all the way down to the very south of the building and then cross two crosswalks to get over to any amenity for the residents. And I'm wondering um if it's I know that there's a wall on the uh looks like to be on the east side of the property in addition to that buffer there. So dropping a sidewalk there is probably a challenge. Uh is there a way to break mid parking lot uh to bring people over sooner? I don't know. But I just wanted to point that out that, you know, I appreciate with uh this parking lot being just over one space per unit, that makes a lot of sense because there's going to be a lot of people in here that are probably going to use uh the the bus stop. And so, um I just that's what drew my eye was the non-vehicular circulation of the site.

Yeah. So, uh I see what you're saying on the right hand side, the east side. So we do have uh the grade change which is quite a bit left to right and and even more so north to south. Um so we do have a small wall there. It's about a 4 foot high wall. So not large but you know it is a wall. There's a landscape buffer there that we're trying to definitely um encourage and keep as much as we can. Um we also have the 26 foot wide drive aisle that we need for fire protection. So, we're pretty crunched given the setback on our uh north Louisiana side, the building, the grade change that we need to make once we get to the east side of the building, get to the sidewalk that we are showing, um the parking lot itself, having um a reasonable slope, and then getting over there to the east. Uh as you mentioned, we do have the internal sidewalk that gets someone all the way down to the the green area to the picnic shelter, all that. So, they do have a route and the folks that are in the north of the building or or all sides of the building, they do have accessibility within the building itself to hit um that sidewalk condition. But I see what you're saying is, hey, is there some way that somebody uh on the norththeastmost corner of the parking lot could choose to go uh basically straight south as opposed to going uh you know, 50 60 feet to the west and then south. So

you you know and it's it's more than just like having an accessible route. It's more about pedestrian experience, right? And so you know you you have an entrance to the building on that south side of that building with some islands in the parking lot. They're coming out. They could see across the parking lot their playground that they want to get to with their kids, but they then have to travel south to the very edge of the building before crossing the crosswalks.

Right. I'm not saying, you know, I'm just saying I I get the way it's configured now that it's a challenge to work it back in, but from the front end, you know, I just I'm thinking in the future with these projects moving forward, projects that maybe aren't affordable, you know, so that this definitely something that I look at is pedestrian and circulation within the sites. Um, Mr. So, can you confirm the number of parking spaces just as we're trying to uh 116 spaces? That's in our um in our data data block there. So, 89 units, 116 parking spaces.

One one [clears throat] thing that I've, you know, flagged on other projects is the condition reads a maximum of approximately and I don't know how you maximum an approximation. So, um, is there is could we establish a hard maximum both for building height and parking space or is that I guess that's a question for the applicant and staff. Um,

I will I'll say that we we're lucky enough that we get to do a lot of these um through the city and we need to um try to narrow these things down as much as we can, but there needs to be just a wee bit of flexibility so that we don't have to come see you all again and city council again and that kind of thing. So, I think that's where it's built in. I'll let staff definitely talk through what's available. I mean, what we have on the plans is what we're planning on doing. But when we get into construction drawings, if something happened and it ended up beingund and you know, 15 spaces or 117 spaces or, you know, thereabouts, we don't want to get hammered where we need to come back to see you.

Yeah. And I think I think that the maximum should allow that flexibility. You can always go lower. Um, so the maximum that you would need Yeah. Exactly. And and I think you know one example is as you go through the process with the housing finance agency given the location of the amenities and the compactor they may require an accessible parking space down there. So then you're going to lose a parking space. So understand that requiring an exact number of spaces is not ideal but a maximum seems like we should be able to do.

Yes. I will comment a couple things to this end. First, the applicant is willing to do the maximum allowed again, which is 179. So, if you want to amend what is in the project conditions to say that this will not exceed the UDO allowed 179 spaces, that's okay. But I I will say that this is where we need to be careful about this being both an art and a science in policym. Haw Creek is an example of this because there was such specificity and conditions. It's one of the many reasons why it came back. So, we are trying to allow some flexibility. A good example, while you can certainly quantify height, which in our UDO is defined as is where the fire department enters to the highest occupied floor, that's a little challenge once you get into grading, once you set footers, once you set concrete, things like that. So, if you miss that by an inch, then there's a there's a bigger issue there. So there has to be some it's it is a challenge that you know Chris will director Mson Dal and myself are in conversation about especially after the most recent slew of CZs where where everyone was bickering over about three words and and has since led the major amendments. Um but it is something that I think we'll see changes in the future but for now we do have to do this this way just for specificity.

Understood. And I think you know my preference would be if it's maximum approximate of 116 or a maximum of 179 we'll take the maximum approximate of 116 or I I would you know argue for that. I do think it is something we need to continually look at because you know the conditional zoning approval and the site plan is a contract between the city, the applicant and the public. And so when you know neighbors are looking and seeing something that differs from what they remember getting approved it, we need to have some explanation for that and some defensibility. If say, you know, a developer, an applicant wanted to say, well 200 is approximately 116. You know, you know, where do we draw the line of what is approximate? So um understood for this one. I'm comfortable with the language. I just think it's something we got to keep an eye on. I'll suggest that we poke out Sam.

No, I was just going to say this. I I was not offering my answer to be competitive. Staff certainly agrees with you and this is something we're working on. The UDO is not just zoning regulations. It is also processes. Those are threshold amendments. Those are 778 what a conditional zoning is. And as we're doing updates, that's maybe something we can provide.

Constantly refining the process and the products you all see. I will suggest we might massage this condition a little bit. Um I think some other staff had some issues with the word approximate which I think was my suggestion. So I'll take the fall for that. Um so we can probably massage that word out. Um you know the next project you'll you'll consider we just had the blanket um it will comply with the parking requirements. the the site plan to some degree does control for overage of the maximum where if they added like one little tiny bay of five spaces, it wouldn't it would still be um compatible with the site plan. If they wanted to add a whole another parking space with 100 more spaces, then they're obviously not going to be compliant with the site plan. So, we do have some um assurance with the site plan being attached to the ordinance. Um so, you know, I think we kind of we kind of go around on this. we've kind of uh debated different ways of doing this. What's the what's the least worst way of trying to nail this nail this gel to the wall. So, um anyway, that's an option, too, is just have it read to like like Sam said, the maximum per the UDO. Um and then the site plan will keep it within bounds.

You could ask the applicant as well. I know Mr. Allen has done a lot of these conditions. and you you want to if you're limiting the parking to well below the max that's a plus usually estate for your development. uh but legally in the past when I've read conditions I would have normally said approximately this doesn't make sense because that can be arbitrary as you said at some point somebody could say I did want to go up to so if there's something you'd be comfortable 10 20% more that you think you could fit then it would probably be better to see a max of something but probably less than the maximum I don't know Mr. Alan or if you're if you want to discuss it.

And while there's deliberation going on, I will note I appreciate the applicants willingness to go below the NCHFA stated parking uh requirement, which is 1.75 parking spaces per unit, which as we all know is is way higher than necessary. So there is an added process the developer has to go to to request less than 1.75. And I really appreciate in this instance that they took the trouble to do that because we oftentimes see tax credit developments come through that are far overparked. So I do appreciate that that effort for this condition. Uh let's just put the the 10% and we'll put it up up or down. So we'll say uh the number of parking places will be between 104 and 128. So we've done we've done that kind of thing before because then

that gives us that flexibility and you know a couple things. One is the site plan controls a lot of this and so we can't come in and and do anything according to condition 15 that's wildly outside of the site plan and you know that we run into the same issue. I know that uh Commissioner Cycles brought this up and we've been discussing it for years where we put things in as a team that are already in the development ordinance and they go in as conditions. doesn't look like something that you're having to do even though it's already required in the ordinance and it causes at best it's duplicative at worst it causes confusion later on. Um so that's something that I know that we've been talking about for a while and hopefully we'll start to cycle those out so that when we are looking at conditions instead of you know 17 we've got seven and we're really looking at the meat of of what we're asking to do like we're making a variance from a technical modification from a a height requirement or a setback requirement. So that's my two cents.

U Mr. Sir Alan, could you state the range that you were comfortable building in on the park? Sure. Um the the project will include uh between 104 and 128 parking spaces. Thank you. Thank you. Any other comments, questions of the applicant before we open the public hearing or public comment? Can you speak to any concerns that came up in neighborhood meetings or engagement with the community or any adjacent uses um or adjacent residents

you talked to? So um I I conducted and sent out the notices and everything for the first neighborhood meeting. We were able to have that um just off across the street in Hazel Mill on Hazen Mill Road in the church parking lot. Um and it was well attended um by a lot of the community, not only the ones that were noticed, but um even further reaching. Um the news coverage was there. Uh we did have it bilingual because we knew that there would be a a strong contingent of folks who needed that. Um we went through our normal thing which is to show the plans to talk through the process and then we went one by one and asked questions answered questions a large majority of which we summarized and put into the record as part of the submitt but a lot of it was uh based around affordability uh around what it's going to look and feel like uh the process where we are in the process there was a lot of conversation about um traffic in general. I'm going to say the speed of traffic. There's already too much traffic. How much more traffic is this going to be? Um we don't like that people cut through somewhere else is, you know, those kinds of meetings normally get a lot of discussion on traffic because everybody experiences traffic. Um so that was a large part of it. Um and then um I think those were the main points. There was probably a few questions regarded things like storm water. Um I don't remember that being one of the bigger topics. Uh there was discussions on the sidewalk where whether we were putting in sidewalks or not, the danger of that. Um did I miss anything that was a kind of a summary big big picture item?

And then I'll let Sam uh speak to his follow-ups because he's had you know several of those that have been a little more um specific in their intent. I mean, I think just short of what Warren said has more been with Andrea and her team, um, a lot of, um, uh, incorporating local community efforts, uh, which we plan to do. Um there's some property management related items, um you know, stuff like that, training, um section three opportunities, a lot of um triggers, Davis Bacon, stuff like that that we're going to be required to do. Um so I mean, I don't I don't think I don't think I'm missing anything. I think that's it. Maybe Andrea can talk a little more if I'm missing one, but yeah. So,

thank you. I wanted to follow up on the uh rationale for the decision to make the sidewalks more narrow externally from 10 ft to 5 ft.

Yes. So, from my perspective um anytime I can get folks further away from the travel lane the better. Um there's also a drainage component that comes into this is not a section where there's curb and gutter. It's it's for the most part it's just u pavement up against uh dirt. Sometimes there dishes ditches, sometimes there's not. So that's the main thing. Um and 10ft sidewalk here would be a bit out of place in in my opinion. There are definitely places for 10-ft sidewalks. Um there again, it encourages people to be very much up on the travel lane. I don't love that in this case. Um and I and it's a little more added impervious if we had to talk about that as well.

Okay. I would say that this this parcel leading into an urban uh center and so then it does have direct access to other bus stops. I think that in my personal opinion I think that having a 10 foot sidewalk that allows you know more than one person to stand laterally next to each other does make some sense. Uh I understand your perspective on the uh drainage and trying to keep folks away from like the travel in, but uh I think the sidewalk on the other side of the streets at six feet and if we could get just 5 ft is very narrow. Um I would that would have that would be my preference like wider sidewalk in an area that's intended and planned to be a district where we're trying to get people to walk to more things. any any response or or wiggle room on sidewalk width or you feel like five feet is is the extent that you can do on this site?

I mean, if if six feet good, I mean, I I don't have a reason to make it not five and six, but um I would certainly like to work with transportation in NC do and staff to decide if that's um appropriate more than me just say yes. What's the width of the buffer right now between the sidewalk? Five foot green space, five foot sidewalk. Okay. So, we'd be cutting into that green space to achieve it. So, you probably end up with more like a four and six or whatever number. And could you not do the one foot towards the building?

Potentially. Um potentially there may be that as well. That's why I was like I don't you know I don't know. Yeah. I mean that would be preferable. Does that because I think the five foot green space is Ashtto standards without a curb. Sam [snorts] or Sam, what's that? No. So, I know we don't have um I know we don't have transportation here or traffic. I don't know if you guys can speak to this particular corridor. I know sometimes I hear Chris Kins mention that certain areas are meant to be a five and five and some areas are meant to be 10. I I really don't know off top of my head what this one is designated as.

I don't know either. We don't really have a uh way of pulling that up. Um I know in the past transportation's been uh relatively receptive to increasing it to six feet. I think I think preserving the five foot wide planting utility strip is an important component. So I don't think I don't think we want to sacrifice that. Um you know could be a if it's a condition of approval maybe subject to approval by city transportation staff just in case there's any major concerns they don't have to come back for a modification later. Um but it is something we do see somewhat regularly the six foot wide sidewalk to have a little extra path and if there's any obstacles in the sidewalk it allows for that clear space to be maintained. So yeah,

I I mean I I completely agree. Six feet is kind of the minimum you want to go in in my opinion um for for a situation where you're you may be experiencing pedestrian circulation on a somewhat regular basis. You got someone going to the bus stop, you got someone coming from the bus stop, they're going to have to pass each other and five feet is just not sufficient. I like the idea of the of the condition being contingent upon traffic approval.

The only thing I was going to add is this is precisely why we have that final TRC meeting is to reconcile all the legislative sausage making with those UDO standards and this gives transportation the opportunity to provide for that. So staff feels that is appropriate if the applicant will agree to it. Something to clarify. So, is there a curb proposed on um North Louisiana Avenue? Because I'm seeing that the road pitches back towards the site and so I'm wondering how you're going to prevent drainage from the road getting currently there is not curb that's being proposed on the NC DOT's um North Louisiana. Um, so no, there's not

cuz it seems like there might be a lot of flow coming over from the road at that point. And without a ditch, just could be could be something. We have to put in a ditch in that 5 foot green space. Um hopefully we don't get to a point where we have to uh take that drainage and try to get on the back side of the sidewalk. Um but there could be a curb that we'd have to negotiate with DOT. They would want a 30-inch curbon gutter as their DOT road.

Uh which would then bring in uh pipes uh boxes and we'd need to find an outlet place to either connect or dissipate that to. So it does start to unravel quite a bit. So, in the final TRC, that'll be ironed out. Yeah, right now I'd like to keep it the way it is, but yeah, something we can iron out. Okay. Just to kind of circle back to the sidewalk, is there willingness by the applicant to explore the feasibility of six feet subject to traffic engineer approval?

Yeah. And I was just talking to Sam. I I'd like to not put it in as a condition, but maybe as part of your recommendation that and we we're happy to look at that. I mean, we want to make sure we have that five feet and if we can push it closer to the building, then we'll do it that way. But, um, Warren can run that down with the smart folks. I I just had a clarification about the affordable housing. I think you said that is what you're doing, but you didn't want to add it as a condition, or did I get that wrong? We're adding in a condition and the condition we're adding is far below what we're going to do as part of the LIT tech.

No, but the condition you handed out it would you tonight would be agreeing to add all units 100% 80% and below with the understanding it'll be deeper more deeply affordable. We're intending to add that in as a condition. Okay.

Yes. That's what I wasn't clear on. And not to get into the weeds, but the only thing I wanted to be sure. So, usually the city rights, we write our deed restriction. We give it to you guys. I know that the housing finance agency also has a deed restriction. On this last sentence, we I don't even know if you need this whole thing about affordability terms and the housing finance agency. Unless I'm misunderstanding, did you only want to do the deed restriction that the housing finance agency is? No, we literally just cut and pasted that from the the MHO one that came through as a CZ a couple couple months ago. So, okay. So, we can finalize the specifics, but this is the general condition that you will do the deed restriction like we normally do. Okay.

I had a question about the affordable affordability component as well. Okay. Uh I was curious what the if you off the top of your head have an idea of what the proportion of like bedrooms are for each of the affordable like uh we dockets are [laughter] I don't have that memorized off top of my head but that should address your question. just general understand.

Thank you. [laughter] Yeah. So, so right now we've got as you see the one, twos, and threes breakdown gives you the numbers and then it gives you the applicable litec AMI percentage. Sort of pretty straightforward, but that's where we're uh that's where we're at.

Thank you. Any other questions before you open for public comment? I'll just make a comment that I appreciate all the back and forth with the neighborhood. Um, I'm looking forward to hearing public comment from the neighborhood, but this is wonderful to see this kind of interaction and the back and forth. And I appreciate adding the affordability restrictions into the conditions as well. Great. And with that, we will open for public comment at 6:21. As a reminder, please come to the mic. Uh, you have three minutes to speak on behalf of yourself or 10 minutes if you're representing a group. Uh, please state your name into the mic. Any anyone wish to speak for public comment?

Hi everyone. My name is Andrea. I live in the Emma community. I'm here with Rosio and Jessica and we chair the Emma Neighborhood Council. Uh before I express our support of this project, I did just want to very respectfully add some information to staff's presentation. Uh we would not consider this area west central Asheville. It's called the EVA neighborhood. It is not an urban center. It was removed from the urban center work because we recognize that it's an area that needs protection against displacement. Um we do hope that in the future as staff brings recommendations about development and its relationship to alignment to things like the comp plan that you please take into account neighborhood plans particularly within the legacy neighborhoods. I will say we were kind of disappointed to not hear that in the staff presentation. However, we fully support this project and I want to share a little bit. I did go to the public community meeting and we heard concerns from the neighbors that are kind of adjacent to where the development is being proposed. Kind of the concerns that were mentioned like traffic increased density. There was also a lot of neighborhood conversation just about kind of the change to the nature of our community. Emma is a semi-ural community. We are mostly mobile home parks. A lot of us keep chickens, goats, cows, grow our food. And so there is I will just name there's a sadness in the community to see it turn towards more of an urban development. And our neighborhood council grappled with that and had a lot of discussion about it. At the same time, some of our most important housing includes apartment developments like the Woodridge Apartments where so many of our families live. And so ultimately for our community because of the level of affordability, our neighborhood council landed on that it is in alignment with our ultimate goals which are to provide

deeply affordable housing that's in alignment with our neighborhood median income and we just don't see a lot of projects like that. So we're really really excited about this project. Um we worked really closely with Sam and his team um over the past three months to come to a series of agreements and commitments that we'll be working together and would really love to see a community benefit agreement. The Emma community like a lot of the neighborhood the legacy neighborhoods have had previously negative experiences with developers. The Emma community just went through an atrocious experience with the developer at 815 Emma Road, which was with Bunkome County, where a lot of trust was broken about the way that developers came in. Um, but Sam really came in and worked really, really hard to rebuild that trust and showed up uh to answer a lot of questions, has put commitments in writing. And so we're really excited and hopeful to share this as an example of the way that new housing can come into communities that have an extreme concern around displacement and really bring that housing in a way that ensures that current residents, our children who would love to stay in the community and are currently being faced with the decision of having to leave because there's nowhere to go. And we want to see more development like this. And so we are in support. And when I say we, I would like to say I speak for the neighborhood council. There are about 50 neighbors that came together and over a three-month period engaged in debate and dialogue and ultimately had a neighborhood vote where we came to consensus to bring and express our our support. So, thank you so much.

Thank you, Miss Golden. Would anybody else like to speak for public comment? Seeing none, we will close the public comment at 6:25. Um, I appreciate your um, thorough engagement on this project and um, wanted to actually revisit the the comment that you started with around urban centers. I did see that noted in the staff report and maybe staff could provide a clarification. While the Kmart site was removed from the urban place resoning as part of the broader urban centers initiative, how is this site characterized within the comp plan? Um, I think there's a reference that this is an urban center and I I I it's my belief without I don't have the comp plan right in front of me that the urban centers is is a sort of more broader land use categorization outside of the specific urban place resoning that was ultimately pulled back. Is that

Yes, there are a couple of things here and I will go to this slide. First and foremost, I would like to both formally recognize and also apologize to Podair Emma and Andrea. I totally I have that in my notes. It has been a long day and I just totally because it's in the presentation, it slipped my mind. Yes, this is in Podair Emma that is part of the city of Asheville. This is a challenge because there are, as Will was trying to get to, there are the future land use designations that are urban centers, but there is also a more broad element which talks about transit supportive corridors and there's a preferred growth scenario in the living Asheville comprehensive plan and it does have a star and kind of a circle which shows a broader area. Now where this is a difficult thing because where does a transit supportive corridor end and where does an urban center begin? Now the actual future land use designation has strict boundaries but it is harder and and less defined to say where that transit supportive corridor and that preferred growth scenario urban center ends because it is it is just sort of a radius in that map that is shown in living Asheville.

Thank you. Yeah, there was a distinction between those two. So it is not the uh future land use designation that's traditional neighborhood which is different but it is still a Yeah. Yeah. Thank you. Appreciate the clarification there. Any other questions or comments from commissioners? No, I mean I think I really like all the work the development team's done. I'm glad that they've been interactive with the um Emma community there and I'm glad the Emma community showed up. Um I just think there's a lot of pros to this project and I'm I'm prepared to make a motion if there's no other comments.

As as a recap, we're uh there were a few revisions to the project conditions that we contemplated. Do you want me to summarize what we talked about or

make the motion to you got it all written [laughter] down? Just to summarize what we talked about in case I'm forgetting something, uh, a modification of condition number four around the parking spaces to include a range of 104 to 128 parking spaces, the addition of the affordable housing condition as presented and written, and a recommendation for um, consideration of a six-foot sidewalk in coordination with city transportation staff. Those were the three I noted. Anything else?

Good clarification. My understanding was external, but yeah, external. No other comments. Um, sorry to be a stickler, but I have to write this in the morning. When you say external, you are referencing both North Louisiana and Hazel Mill, correct? Yes.

Okay, here we go. I move to approve conditional zoning request for property located at 383 North Louisiana Avenue from office 1 to office conditional zoning and find that the request is reasonable is in the public interest is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and meets the development needs of the community and that the request one provides infield development in targeted growth areas. Two, increases the supply of housing in proximity to schools, transit, and parks. And three, reszones property to transit supportive density in nodal clusters along or near transit corridors with the conditions um that uh all all units shall be leased at 80% uh AMI. Um at least 80% AMI. um and the other affordability conditions as presented by the development team. Um and that the parking spaces be within a range of 104 to 128 spaces with as well the recommendation that a 6-ft external sidewalk is considered between the development team staff and um city traffic what what are they called?

Transportation. Transportation. I believe that was it. How'd we do? All right, we have a motion. Do we have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed?

Motion passes unanimously. Best of luck and welcome to Emma. Next up, we have uh item number six on our agenda. A request to conditionally reszone the property located at 230 Sardis Road from industrial to residential expansion conditional zone. The property is PIN is identified on the agenda. Uh property owner is NPAS America, Inc. Applicant's contact is Mr. Warren Sugg. Planner coordinating review is Will Palmquist. Mr. Palmquist.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners. Will Palmquist with Planning Urban Design. I will be presenting this conditional zoning request for the project known as 230 Sardis Apartments at 230 Sardis Road. Uh just the quick facts, this is a level three conditional zoning. Uh this is due to the uh project proposing 50 or more residential units. So it's a request to reszone from industrial to residential expansion. It's proposing 180 unit multifamily development on 9.19 acres and staff is recommending approval. Um so here you can see the kind of zoomed out uh regional view of the site and then the close-in view. Um you can see along Sardis Road which is in western Asheville uh the existing land uses there are kind of a a variety of residential uh commercial and light uh industrial type uses. Uh this property is right along the city boundary. So um the county is just to the south. Um you can see the existing uh Greymont Village apartments um just to the southwest of the project site. As mentioned, the site is 9.19 acres. It is currently uh used for a plastic manufacturer warehousing space. So here you can see the existing zoning of industrial and the proposed uh residential expansion conditional zoning uh request. Um as far as the city zoning goes, we'll look at the county zoning a little bit on on a future slide. You can see the surrounding uh zoning for the area is um combination of industrial and commercial industrial. There's also a residential expansion conditional zoning just on the north side of Sardis Road in this very oddly shaped parcel. Um that was for a 300 unit project approved in

2022. Uh it's not yet built. Um but that is um a potential uh project that would have a similar uh similar kind of development style and pattern as what's being proposed this evening. So here is the site plan of what's proposed. Um as mentioned um it is a [clears throat] 180 unit multifamily uh development project. The building height is four to five acres uh four to five stories in height. Uh that's kind of to take advantage of the topography that slopes up from Sardis Road and and Greymont Lane. Uh you can see there is um parking lot with um sorry uh 216 parking spaces total which is within the max and minimum of 360 and 180 spaces respectfully respectively. Um some other site amenities include a pool and amenity area. uh a playground um I think a dog park as well. Uh you can see uh sidewalks are proposed um they are proposed at 5t in width along Greymont Lane which is a privately maintained roadway and then six feet in width along Sardis Road which is an NC DOT maintained roadway. Uh the landscaping plan um has all the required elements. Uh there are street trees proposed um large ones along Greymont Lane where there are no overhead utilities and then small maturing trees on Stardust Road where there are overhead utilities present. So shorter trees uh required. Um other landscaping includes parking lot building lot parking lot and building impact landscaping as well. And then the tree canopy preservation area shown here

along the eastern and south and western uh property boundaries um which that is being proposed to be met through preservation of existing canopy. And then the elevation drawings. Um you can see how looking from the side of the building on the the bottom elevations uh that the building is um kind of set into the topography to be five stories facing outward and then four stories inward. Um kind of a prototypical multifamily development type design. um some different materials being proposed uh balconies and then um kind of these different bays trying to give it giving some rhythm and breaking up the the overall mass uh of the building itself. So as far as project conditions go um you'll see and this was just updated today actually that the project conditions have been tweaked a little bit regarding uh parking and height. Those will be those just reference the UDO sections um that that mention and require uh the maximums there. Um the project is compliant with the overall height and and the parking and as mentioned the uh site plan is included as conditional zoning. So that cannot deviate significantly from if if and when that's approved. There are two technical modifications to zoning requirements that are being requested. Uh one of which is regarding sidewalk width. Um the residential expansion district does require 10 feet w 10- foot wide sidewalks externally and internally. Uh the applicant's requesting a modification of that to a six foot wide sidewalk on Sardis Road which again is that NC DOT main roadway, 5t wide on Greymont Lane, which is the privately maintained roadway, and then five feet wide internally. There is also a request to modify the

street tree requirements. Um there is language that uh allows for a maximum uh planting distance of 20 feet from the edge of pavement. And due to um the NC DOT right ofway being really wide in this section um and the applicant um kind of desiring to plant on their property and not really have to go through the um well not exactly sure the the rationale or or what but I know NCOT can be very particular when it comes to their rightway and what can be planted in them. So this will ensure that the trees can be planted and maintained by the project and therefore they're requesting um a distance uh from the edge of payment more than 20 ft which kind of varies depending on the site location between 30 and 40t maximum. So looking through uh the criteria that staff evaluates for conditional zoning requests. Um, and this is a larger zoomed out view of the zoning map that includes both the city and and the county zoning. Uh, as mentioned, uh, you can see the industrial, which is this darker purple color, the commercial industrial and this lighter purple. um the residential expansion project across the street from the proposed site, some multif family residential and single family residential zoning to the east, and then the majority of the zoning to the south of the project site is R3 in Bunkham County, which is a um a zoning district that allows for single family and multifamily development. And that's that's where that Greymont Village uh project is located. Again, staff finds the proposal to be consistent and compatible with that surrounding zoning. Regarding the future future land use um as designated in the city's comprehensive plan, uh it's currently industrial manufacturing. Now, this future land use is mainly

centered around those types of uses. There is some mention of um housing that could support workers and be associated with major u industrial manufacturing uses. However, staff does recommend an amendment to that future land use to that residential neighborhood. That's a more appropriate uh category that would support this project. Um that is actually what um took place for that conditional zoning to the north referenced earlier, which was previously industrial manufacturing and was amended to residential neighborhoods. So, uh, staff feels that's a consistent, um, kind of regulatory, uh, update that will help support, uh, this project in regards to the comprehensive plan. So, staff finds that the future land use designation designation as proposed being residential neighborhood uh, is compatible with the proposed development uh, that includes a variety of housing types including apartment complexes that these neighborhoods can benefit from having more housing diversity over time. Looking at the infrastructure uh of the existing area um there is existing roadway in place that is the NC DOT roadway on Sardis and the privately maintained roadway on Greymont Lane. Uh there is limited bike and pedestrian networks in the area. Uh the proposed sidewalk will um add to that and and be um really the only pedestrian facility uh in the in the immediate vicinity. There is not a bus route or bus stops along Sardis Road. The project received a letter of commitment for water service and a wastewater allocation approval by MSD. And then uh more detailed storm water review and approval is pending the uh conditional zoning approval that would happen at um final TRC. But overall the project is supported by infrastructure. And then finally, looking at the comprehensive plan, uh staff finds that the project does support a number of

goals in the living Asheville comprehensive plan. Uh to encourage responsible growth by prioritizing greater density development overall throughout the city as appropriate, increasing and diversifying the housing supply by increasing the rental housing supply and making streets more walkable, comfortable, and connected by eliminating gaps in the citywide sidewalk network. For those reasons, staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional zoning request. Here's just a overall timeline of the project. Um, it was approved with conditions with revisions required at the January 5th um, TRC meeting. Um, getting to a question we had earlier about kind of the TRC and how that process flows. Um the applicant did make revisions to the plans following the TRC to address um planning comments that were pertinent to the conditional zoning review. There are still a number of comments you'll see on there that are very technical and those would be addressed at the final TRC review um when the project um has the more detailed development plan finalized. Uh it's before you this evening and then has a tentative city council hearing date of February 24th. And with that, I'd be glad to answer any questions you'all may have.

Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. Any questions of staff? I'll just jump in to basically follow up on your last comment. You had a note in the TRC report um for the applicant to provide any information on affordable housing commitments, renewable energy, and innovative storm water management techniques. Was there any followup after that request? No, I'm not aware of any of those components being included or um guaranteed with the project. Any other questions of staff?

I just wanted to clarify. I think you you know you mentioned it was compatible with future land use, but that's essentially if the future land use map were to be amended. Is that what you're saying? Yeah, you could make the argument that to some degree uh the industrial manufacturing would support um housing, but it's really more housing specific to an industrial kind of use. So um that's why staff has recommended that change in the future land use category and then finds that to be um compatible with that. So it's a [clears throat] little bit of a circular argument in that regard.

Um but it's something that um does happen. We recommend from time to time to uh have the future land use behive to trends in um areas of the city and um reflective of projects like this that um you know help with the compatibility of the land use and kind of signals that you know if we have kind of this patchwork land use maybe a more comprehensive look of the future land use network in this area is is warranted. Um so on on occasion this is a recommended approach and then that kind of if the if the project is approved it should be in the motion to recommend approval of the zoning change and the future land use change together and then that would carried to city council and if if city council approves it then that future land use map is updated.

Okay. And we discussed this a little bit at the meeting prior to this meeting, but just to state it here as well, I I think it would be really helpful um for us to be able to see or at least I'm interested in in seeing um a broader like analysis about industrial land that's been identified in the future land use map of you know, how much of that is still available um as an industrial use under current zoning regulations. Um so yeah, if that's something we can follow up on in the future, that would be really helpful.

Yeah. Uh that wouldn't be too difficult to pull together. We can probably get even something for next meeting. Um we could look at both the both the future land use and the zoning change. Uh they should kind of line up for the most part, but there might be some overlap. [clears throat] Um definitely something that um as we get into the comprehensive plan update project, I think looking kind of taking a harder look at some of the future land use designations and some areas maybe warranted and maybe maybe Sardis Road is one of those areas to focus in on a little bit more. Thanks.

Yeah, I would echo that. I think it would be an interesting analysis to see you know what remains for industrial use as well as the patchwork that exists through kind of um parcel by parcel transitions. You know that this if this is approved uh will leave kind of a island of industrial to the east which um is a little bit strange. So that Sardis Road area definitely has seen some transition project across the street. This one and and I think a holistic view of Sardis Road and under the lens of what the future land use designations should be would be a really helpful exercise in the comp plan rewrite. Sorry, revision. [laughter]

Any other questions of staff? I I think I just wanted to clarify that the project did not complete like a traffic impact analysis. Right.

Correct. Um the uh TRC report under the transportation comments does request a trip generation uh by the applicant. I don't believe that's been done yet. So um that would be required uh to confirm at the final technical review. Um it's uh from my understanding it could be close um but um uh the engineers have to provide kind of that detail based on number of uh bedrooms and trip generation numbers based on the handbook that kind of thing. So would that happen? Just so I understand process like they would generate the the trip evaluation prior to the final TRC.

Correct. And if it was lower, they wouldn't have to provide a transportation or traffic impact analysis. But if it would met the threshold, they would have to provide that also to get final TRC approval.

That's correct. and they have to perform um any identified uh mitigation measures to um maintain an acceptable level of service on roadways and intersections. Um yes, that's sometimes you'll see projects have that analysis done already um and it can help inform the project and and be a point of reference. A lot of times it it's kind of after conditional zoning is approved and then get into the weed. Sometimes we'll know for sure if a TIA is required or not. I think this one's maybe on the cusp and be based on number of bedrooms that maybe are not totally fleshed out at this point. Okay. Thank you. Welcome.

I guess I do have a follow-up question on the affordability part. So, you're making a recommendation that it is um in alignment with the comprehensive plan because it increases housing supply and I recognize that. I also have concerns that it ignores the diversify housing supply options, right? And so in the comp plan, there's two outcomes, one for the increase side, one for the diversify side. Um, and there's metrics associated with each of those outcomes. This gets to a little bit of what we talked about at the retreat. Um, can you speak to how the city's been tracking that information and if there's been trends recently that show kind of where that diversify outcome is is heading?

Um, yes. So, there are metrics tracking um outcomes of the comprehensive plan. Um I do not have that information readily available and I know we have been working on updates um as far as like a data update based on that implementation level. Uh don't know where that stands currently. Um that would definitely be something that we would do as part of this um update the comprehensive plan. Um I do not have information ready this evening but we definitely could get for you. Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. Would the applicant like to add any comments? [clears throat]

Sure. A couple. Um, my name is Derek Allen and I represent the applicant in this matter. And, uh, I have two of the representatives from the development uh, group, Dennis Burton and Paul Smith who came up from Greensburg in the back row. Uh Warren Saga is also the engineer on this project. Um one of the things I wanted to point out is on this comp plan, uh the future land use map and the comprehensive plan are always reacting to or should always be reacting to what's happening on the ground here. Uh the project is surrounded u by multifamily and single family detached dwellings and um that's just the reality. So on the ground when we put our uh development beside it, it looks like an extension of the Greymont project that is already on the ground in multif family. Uh and in fact our boundary is the Greymont um entrance. Uh so I think that that that's just a a reaction and reflection of what's actually happened on the ground. Um in terms of uh providing uh affordable housing, uh we don't have the land use incentive grant anymore. um we don't have any way to offset or subsidize uh affordable housing coming from an otherwise market rate project. Uh we know and articles show and speakers talk about uh the fact that unsubsidized affordable housing mandates on market rate projects uh effectively or not effectively end up acting as a tax on renters. uh the other renters in the project end up making for the lost rental income that needs to show for any lender to underwrite a project. And that's the way it works. The flip side of that is uh folks who are uh financing their projects uh with affordable housing tax credits or other um incentives like that come in and they do affordable housing and that's what they do. And so I think this is a good balance tonight to be able to show that uh 100% affordable housing project can

come uh and a market rate project can come and we need them all. Uh we know what the Bowen report says. Uh we need 13,000 units in 5 years. That's a lot. Um it takes a long time to get a project through. Uh anecdotally I can tell you a project that we worked on that was about a hundred um build for rent uh homes. uh it came through this body five years ago and I saw an article on it this past uh two weeks ago talking about this project being built this year and so that's five years from beginning of building and then another year or two to build it out. So it takes a while to get those a long time to get those projects out. So that's uh the response on the the affordable housing piece. Um I would like Warren to walk us through the site plan on this one. This is the bigger project than the the last one. Warren, if you can walk us through the site plan. uh and talk about that a little bit. I think that'll be helpful for the commission.

Sure. [clears throat]

For the record, Warren Suggs, Civil Design Concepts. Pleasure to be here tonight. Um as mentioned, and and please stop me at any point if you have a question, but the um the development is there at the corner of Greymont Lane and Sardis Road. uh one building as shown by staff. It's uh sort of L-shaped and you do get the uh more robust or higher um levels on the street side and then you get the parking lot side. That's the lower that's the fourle side. Um when we were designing this, we were trying to push the parking the less desirable to see item more to the back there and try to have the building um be the thing that is seen. Uh we are using the toeode as best we can to to use not only the split level building but also um you'll notice some dirt moving to try to come closer to balancing this site. Uh we do have our main access off of Greymont Lane uh which is um the the road that goes to the forementioned apartments. It comes into the site. We've got our parking lot with a number of different walkways. Uh we've got the dog park, [music] the playground, um some safe dispersal areas. You'll also see a maintenance building uh in the uh far right hand side of the page which is right beside the compactor uh and some parking for that compactor. Uh you'll see some of the amenities that are closer clustered up near the uh near the building itself. Uh we do have ADA spaces that are up near the building as well as the one that's out by the compactor. Uh we do have on-site storm um collection uh that will be the impervious that's u being proposed here. There is an existing uh building here and building parking lot. So we'll look at that pre and post and it's shown in the data

block. Uh water is available to us along grament line Greymont Lane. There's also water public water that's out in Sardis. Uh it's along Greymont Lane is where we make our connection for our meter and backflow pre. um do have sanitary sewer, MSD, and as mentioned by staff, we've got those allocations from both groups to connect into public sewer. Um there is quite a bit of grade change. You can see on some of the sheets uh that are that were that we're making up here. We've got the landscape areas as well as the open space that are being utilized and meeting all the um the standards there. And I'm gonna just kind of stop there and let y'all ask me questions because that's probably the better way to get to the next part.

Thank you, Mr. Sugg. Yep. Any questions? Okay, I have a number of questions. Um, so it seems like there's a lot of earthwork on the site to make it happen. Um the contours that are to the south, the parallel contours where you're grading into the hillside, there's such a large amount of area between that hillside and the parking that seems like it's just a big flat area. Is that required because of the slope grade?

It's generating the dirt needed to push this building out towards the front. So effectively your cut fill cut fill analysis. We're trying to produce some dirt. And it also makes for a much nicer once completed flatter flatter area back there for recreation and just to be able to use. And that'll be lawn, correct? Some kind. Okay. I mean, I think the tradeoff is you lose a lot of trees back there. um this site has you know a nice forest and we are losing a lot of that with with this project. So just to point out that is a trade-off and I mean I imagine the cost of fill to bring it in is you know a lot. Yeah.

Yeah. Um okay another question is

can I jump in just to piggy back off of that before I forget? Sorry. So I guess I I have similar thoughts and to that point if that back part is going to be flatter right then what's the thought about I understand the green space thought but I guess I'm thinking about what's the reasoning for not pushing the parking lot further back so that the building can sit further back and you can preserve some of that tree canopy on the L sides of the streets.

Well, there's also tree canopy on the where the building is now. So, we could and do an analysis, decide which tree is better than another tree a little bit. Um, and it's also just the intent of how this building is supposed to be um presented, if you will. That's that's the the marketing of it is to have it up as close to the sort of road as we can. But, yeah, I understand what you're saying. The other question is about storm water. So I think you're taking advantage of the incentive to have less open space and do more storm water treatment. Is that right? Um so what is the treatment level that you're able to achieve with this design?

So we have two storm tech uh C501. I don't know if you have those shoot. So that's where we've got both the uh the storm tech shown. Uh we actually have a third one that's down on the slope of um Greymont Lane. Um, so that's where it's going to be handled. We haven't gotten into full design yet of, you know, that, but we're going to meet all the city standards. Okay. Do you can you just remind me of what that requirement is? Like instead of treating the 10 year, it's it's the 25. I think that's correct. No, I think when you're talking about the open space reduction, that has to do with if you weren't required to do storm water. Well, we're required to do storm water anyways because we are increasing impervious. Okay. Okay. Yeah,

you're only intending to do the the uh storm water for pre as the site exists now. Correct. Correct. So, just the difference between what's there and what you're adding. Okay.

Nobody's asked me the question about the TIA for a minute. I wanted to clear up or talk about that for just a minute. So, there is a traffic memo that I think is already in the record. If it's not, we can make sure it is. So, we did have a traffic engineer who did the analysis of the the units and um it does not trigger the 100 peak hour trips, which is the city's threshold for it. Um but we can finalize that as as we go through it, but we have we have looked into it. I'll say from um when I don't know if everyone had a chance to go by the site when I went by there is a short turnout into there. I don't know if I'm using the right word but like it goes from two lanes to three lanes and there's a short little like turn lane in the middle getting from Sardis into Greymont. Um I just think that's a to me that's a good thing that you know when I went to turn it I'm not blocking all the traffic. It's only two or three cars deep, but there is a little bit of um [snorts]

refuge there.

I I had a a similar concern with this one as I did with the last one, which is that the parking lot that you have to travel through six bays of traffic to get to the sorry, the playground. Um, I I I I noticed, you know, the the the pool amenity is right next to the building, which is great, but then the playground is is, you know, six bays of parking away from that. Um, and I I'm curious like I'm just I always try to imagine myself living there, right? Okay, let's say I want to chill in the cabana where it's there's some shade and want to watch my three kids be able to to to play on the playground. I would prefer it to be probably next to the playground. So, I have grouped amenities for my for my development. Um, and I I'm I am curious noticing that you know you have that grade for your cut fill analysis. you are pulling that grade back there. Is it possible to shift the parking up closer to the slope so that you could put more amenity closer to the building so that cuz I I don't I honestly I don't want to go to that playground personally because looking at the planting plan there's no there's not going to be any trees really to shade it out and I'm just going to be kind of standing there waiting for them to be done and then be like can we go back to the can we go back to the apartment?

I'd encourage you to get back to the pool where it's nice and fun. [laughter] Anyway, it's just it's just the non-vehicular circulation of the site is is again my my concern with this one. It's it's the it feels like the playground's just kind of stuck there on that. And you know, and I I get you got in typical uses, right, the to me it makes sense to have the dog park over there because that's a whole different user, but the user who's using the pool and the playground, those tend to have overlapping uses.

Yeah, I I definitely hear your point. I mean, one thought is to have that playground more where you've got more open space and the the natural I mean, but I totally hear what you're saying. It it you could I could hear someone debate, well, I don't want to be surrounded by the building, the parking, the the pool, the caban. I want to be more out there. So, I I Well, those are the Frisbee guys, right? The Frisbee guys are over there using the lawn. The the parents with the kids, they want they want a little bit of shade. I mean, if you're going to plant it up and it's become a bigger thing, maybe. Yeah. Yeah. But thank you. I I I totally hear your comment. Thank you. Sorry, that's really loud.

Um, do you know if there's been any like environmental investigations regarding any like potential contamination from the existing use or anything like that? So, they can get in a lot more detail if they need to, but yeah, we've had phase one, phase two, all those kinds of things done. Thanks, You had a phase two. So the phase one returned a need for a phase two. Sorry, could you comment and speak into the mic? Yeah. And [clears throat] introduce yourself. Paul Smith with the developer Carol Companies. Yeah. We had phase one and phase two. We had a short uh timeline for the contract to purchase

and so we knew the risk and we just because of the use we thought the phase one would likely recommend the testing. So we went ahead and did those at the same time with ECS environmental and so we should have the lab results but we'll manage through whatever hopefully nothing the the smell test on site didn't yield anything but you know the actual labs will tell us. So thank you I have a similar question based similar to the last project is about the sidewalks that are on Greymont. Is there uh are there particular reasons for the narrowing?

I was hoping you're going to bring this up as I was sitting back there. I was like I really hope he asked me about sidewalks. So um you're welcome.

So thank you. So along Greymont is a little bit different. and Greymont already has curb and gutter there with some flumes and a permanent ditch system that that gets that water going through there. So, we want to utilize that in continual. Um, so we would propose to continue to have that five foot sidewalk. I think we actually showed five and five. I saw on this it said something about six. Figured we would talk about that as well. Um, so along Greymont, we are fighting with a bit the drainage that's naturally happened there today. pay along grament loan. We'd like to continue to have that. And we have a similar situation along Sardis Road where the NC DOT does not have curbon gutter, but it does have drainage that comes uh towards us and there's a ditch system there. And that kind of segus into why we need or why we're asking for those trees to be a little further away from um the rideway line or on a public or p private property than you would normally see. Because what's happening is you got a road, you've got some green um shoulder, you've got a ditch. We're then trying to get back up, build a sidewalk, and then get to where those trees would be so that trees aren't planted in the sidewalk or in the ditch or on the shoulder, which DOT would have a lot of troubles with. And there's a lot of utilities along that strip. There's fiber optic, gas, all kinds of things that are also a conflict we don't want to put trees in the middle of. So on Greymont, am I understanding correctly that the street trees that are there now will be removed?

There will be fairly young street trees.

There will be some of those that will probably be affected by that sidewalk going in. There may I'm so sorry. There may be some of them that are allowed to stay. We're as we get into further and further exact analysis, we'll be able to tell, but I don't think it'll be a clean keep or a clean go of all of them. Any other questions? Hearing none, we'll open for public comment at 7:07. Anyone wish to speak on this? Seeing none, we will close public comment at 7:07.

[clears throat]

I appreciate the really thoughtful questions and conversation, you know, as uh has been mentioned many times. The saying that a project is uh you know, worthy of a recommendation to approve is not saying it's a perfect project. And I think we've highlighted some challenges that we're wrestling with. One that I wanted to go back to is the kind of at a a high level the change from industrial use to residential. And um to go back to Mr. Allen's point in the previous item where the office maximum building uh square footage is kind of out of step with the thresholds. In this case, the industrial underlying zoning was thoughtfully kept within the threshold. So, a 50 plus unit project triggers a conditional zoning. And I think that is sort of to cause us to reconcile with uh the loss of industrial land and and look at them on a case- by case basis. So, just wanted to highlight that that you know um while there may be work to do to adjust how our thresholds interact with the office zoning maximum building areas, which I would I would agree with the point made previously that that seems uh like a mismatch here. We're wrestling with something that um is is rightfully in the the higher uh or the the lower threshold for review at 50 units. So, [snorts] um, just wanted to make that comment. Any any recommendations around massaging conditions or further thoughts from the commissioners?

Um, I'd just like to make a comment about uh this project and the last project kind of in general about the site locations we're seeing of these buildings. And this kind of comes from years ago, the the urban centers kind of thing, which I know this is not one. Um, but part of there was some problematic stuff in there, but part of one of the good things I thought in there was trying to push buildings toward the front of the street and parking lots in the back. That was just an aesthetic thing for across the city. Um, so I'm glad that we're seeing from Warren Sugg and other developers more and more of pushing those parking lots behind buildings. I think just aesthetically that makes for a more beautiful community. So, thank you Warren if you're the one pushing all this behind the scenes or something. But I'm I'm glad to see um more of that [clears throat] happening just across the board. That's kind of a general comment, not specific at this project. Um yeah, I'll just echo the comments by Chair Barton. You know, I I think we do have to keep an eye on the industrial uses and taking away. To me, this project doesn't seem to like be the straw that breaks the camel's back, but like it's out there somewhere. So, we got to be careful about um how much, you know, how much we're committing to residential use in the name of need more housing, which we absolutely do need, but um we can't cut everything else out for it. But, I mean, I'm I'm for this project. I'm I don't see any big issues overall with me. Any last minute requests of the developer? If not, I'll I'll entertain a motion. I did the last one. Someone else up while I'm trying to flip to it.

while you're um getting there. I Yeah, I think the the location of amenities and the um kind of interconnectedness of the site plan both internally and then the sidewalk connections externally leave a little to be desired. Sidewalk network in this area, you know, it would be beneficial to have a holistic comprehensive look at Sardis Road. Sidewalk connecting to the southeast is unlikely to really connect into a broader network, but to the northwest, there's kind of peace meal sidewalk network emerging. And it'd be great if there was a holistic plan to to stitch things together as we see greater concentration of residential. Um, so it's a, you know, it's something we deal with a lot where we're, you know, the requirements are the requirements. You have to put sidewalk along street frontage. Uh it would be better if we could get sidewalk where we could connect to things and and this one doesn't necessarily again it's not the straw that breaks the camel's back. It's just a a frustrating thing that we always have to reconcile. I totally agree with Commissioner Cycel's comment on the playground. Really wish there was a way to pull that closer to the the building so that

there is a way. Yeah. W I guess wish that uh it was shown as such. Um it's it's hard for me to envision an on the-fly condition to make it so given the you know the site plan is the site plan. But

something I would like to flag that for further conversation for the UDO is that that might be something we can talk about like greater discussion about how those things are planned and how we're putting the regulating them within like the development code. I think there are ways that we could implement that. there is just gener generally better pedestrian orientation within the parking lots and then the way that we're building them out just look a little bit differently.

Yeah, it's a good point. I think you know with any land use regulations we always have to strike the balance of being too prescriptive to allow variation on sites but stating some kind of preferences and patterns is is helpful um as kind of a guiding document. Maybe it's yeah it's somewhere we can look at I mean, I feel like it there there this kind of language is expressed in the comp plan, which is a guiding document. Um, and I think it's just incumbent like I agree, we can't be too stringent and that's why I think it's just incumbent upon us when we see projects to just mention it, right? And and so that like you know, you know, we we use the comp plan to guide us. And so, yeah, again, to use the this not the straw that breaks the camel's back analogy or whatever, but it's it's like if we keep, you know, pushing this kind of idea of of livable community, right? You know, hopefully we'll see more and more designs that meet that kind of livable community standard.

And I think, you know, what I'm particularly tuned into is uh requirements that drive cost. the kinds of things we're talking about really don't drive cost. You know, they're kind of achievable within the parameters of getting all the parking spaces and all the amenities located. So, um yeah,

I totally agree. I think there may be one or two things that we could like add in that. for example, like internal sidewalks and like connecting pedestrians out of their car and into their apartment. Like uh I don't see why that couldn't be having similar like sidewalk standards to like what is external to the building like on the street like I think if there was like a six foot minimum or something like that just hypothetically just something that gives a little bit more like prioritization and thought to how people are moving around in these areas. But totally agree. Don't want to be too prescriptive.

That that raises a good point. You alluded to I think Mr. Sugg the sidewalk width stated in project condition number 12. So it states a sidewalk width a technical modification for a sidewalk width of six feet on Sardis Road, 5T on Greymont Lane, 5T internally. Are you saying that that is not what is reflected in the plans? And I I was looking for the Sardis road width and I the sidewalk width along Sardis Road. I couldn't find it.

Yeah. So C201, we call out along Sardis, we call out a proposed 5- foot um frontage sidewalk with 10 foot men grass strip from edge of pavement with existing drainage. And then on Greymont, we call out proposed five foot wide frontage sidewalk with five foot men grass strip from edge of pavement along private road with existing drainage. So I think right now we show it as five and five for what we'll call the external sidewalks. When you look at some of the internal um parking lot sidewalks, we've kind of got a a varying thing. We've got some six and a half foot [clears throat] wide of where parking abutts mainly where the ADA spaces are and then we have some 10 foot wide sidewalk as you move further towards the south um which is also our safe dispersal area. We have a safe dispersal area down there by the uh the playground. So we I think right now that's how we show it. Um and and for that reason of those things I talked about earlier with drainage and with the utilities and things like that, we'd we'd like to stay there if we can.

So I think I think the question is then does the technical modification on the uh does that need to change then based on what's being shown in the plans? Yeah, we want that to reflect what's uh being proposed for sure. Um trying to find it. I thought I was going off of the And if you made a mistake on our side and said six somewhere or another, I I completely apologize. Um it's okay. I think I think it was the uh conditions draft conditions document said six and I just missed it on the site plan if said five. So it's good to clarify that tonight. Okay.

So if it is five, we'll need to may make that as a condition of approval and then we can update the project conditions before it goes to city council if that's the case. Anyone ready to make a motion?

I guess the change of condition 12 for technical modification to sidewalk width of five feet along Sardis Road. Yeah, that would be the only one. across the property industrial

from industrial to residential expansion conditional zone as well as amend the future land use map from industrial manufacturing to residential neighborhood and find that the request is reasonable is in the public interest is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and meets the development needs of the community and that the request one prioritizes greater densities of development overall throughout the city as appropriate two increases is the resident the rental housing supply and three eliminates gaps in the citywide sidewalk network with the requirement that we amend the conditions the technical what were they called the condition number 12

condition number 12 the technical modifications so that the sidewalks on Sardis Road um are five feet wide I'll second Any further comments? So, we have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Best of luck. Thank you. [clears throat]

And last, but certainly not least on our agenda under other business, consideration of amendments to the commissioner's rules of procedure. Uh, we have run out the clock on this one, right, Miss Ashley? [laughter]

The city's office wants to be. Well, I [clears throat] don't know if we we have do we hand out the final request that we discussed last time and the city attorney request a lang approval. City manager is something that the city attorney just felt that we need didn't want to amend further because all boards and commissions are agreeing to that. And um

and hopefully the the goal and you understand is that you are working um with with the working plan in mind and that you will be aligned. And so when you do have a subcommittee that you really want um it's not going to be met with opposition just for oppos you know opposition's sake. it's if it's aligns with the the work plan of the department um and the capacity is there to be able to have an actual subcommittee where you can treat it as a public meeting then I then the assumption should not be that you're not going to be able to get approved.

Thank you for uh engaging in our many requests for clarification modification. Um I I'm comfortable with the updated rules as presented. uh in the last red line. But any any questions or comments from other commissioners? Hearing none, I'll I'll make a motion to uh Is it true? [laughter] No comments. Yeah. And we don't need a public hearing on this. I I'll make a motion to adopt the updated rules of procedure for the planning and zoning commission. as presented.

Second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes. And we printed them so it Sorry, I didn't. We'll do it next month. Next time you're around or whatever. Yeah. Or next month, whatever. Send them to you. Yeah. Sounds good. [laughter] All right, that brings us to the end. Our next uh meeting of the planning and zoning commission will be March 4th, 2026 right here at 5:00. Motion to adjurnn. Second. I

I we are journed.