Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

and really appreciate, you know, we our community needs affordable housing and appreciate any project that brings forth a meaningful number of affordable housing units. So, um, thank you for for bringing this project before us. I think a lot of the public comment that we received and um, was regarding the traffic and dispersal of cars onto Ravenscraftoft. So, have a couple of questions related to that. Um the project condition number six stipulates a maximum parking count of 125 spaces. You're showing 121. Um knowing that the North Carolina Housing Finance Agency has a far inflated ratio of 1.75. I really appreciate that this development is coming well below that. Um, but I'm just curious if there is in your mind a functional minimum for this program given its proximity to the bus station and pedestrian friendly surroundings. Um, as we dial in a maximum parking that's in the project conditions, could it go lower? Um, I I think that would be possibly up to the ownership team. um depending on what their um their I guess risk for functionality is. Um I think we try to aim for at least one parking space per uh I think uh one parking space per um bedroom I believe it is. Um and I'm I think it's we're currently at 1.59 spaces per dwelling unit. You're well below that, wouldn't you be? I mean, 121 spaces for 203 units. So, your bedroom count's probably 300.

Yeah, I I think that is below one.

Yeah. So, is that I guess that's the question. You know, we're we're there is no parking minimum in the central business district for Asheville. So we are with this conditional zoning establishing that maximum framework. Um is 125 that number is the question. Kevin Amos of Bolton and Meek as well just to help Paul with this question is um it is um the the housing finance committee does require a certain min minimum amount of parking spaces right but we're asking for a waiver for less and I think based off of Harmony's uh experience with this type of model and just um where we feel like this is uh also you know they also you know we are asking for a waiver to be less than we already are required to be. So, we feel like this is a functional number that for for this amount of units. Um, you know, I think it's it's a it's a it's kind of a balancing act. And I think in this case that um if there was a chance to reduce them more, they probably would if they thought it functionally could because it's obviously less cost associated with it. But I think given uh the the the unit count, the unit mix, and the fact that we're already asking for a waiver and and where we where they've been successful getting waivers in the past, this is about where where we've landed. So, um you know, and we're at schematic design at best. So, we we could go we could reduce them some just because of how the design works out moving forward. So, we think this is a functional number, the lowest we could go now, but that number may come down as the design moves forward.

Yes. Sorry if please come up to the mic being recorded.

Add to everything they said. There's always a trade-off financially between the units themselves and parking. Um I would love to build more units and less parking personally because that's what I'm in it for. Uh but we also have to be considerate of our neighbors and we've heard from the community that there's a concern with the folks who are currently parking their car there that we don't want to place an additional burden on them either. So all of this to say where we've found the most likely number to be is that 125 and we'd like to move forward with it y'all's permission and we'll continue to interrogate it. Um the hope is always to build more units that's parking but we also have to be practical about it.

Thank you. Um, as it relates to the traffic impact analysis that was prepared, um, you know, we received comment and as as confirmed by reviewing that it omitted the intersection of Ravenscraftoft and Hillyard. Um, could you speak to that? You know, how that how the scope of the TIA was made.

All right. So on the traffic study, you know, we our traffic engineer sat down with the city presented the project and then the city provided the scope of the intersections to study along with NC DOT based off the fact that there's dual you know there's roads that have both jurisdictions city and in the state here. Um when we and originally we did not have I'm not sure who everybody's familiar the design did change uh from the beginning when we first submitted we originally had exit uh ingress egress on Ravenscraftoft and Sawyer Street. we did not have it on Cox Avenue, but from the feedback that you received during the neighborhood meeting um and just the evolution of the design um along with some other changes in the building facade, especially on Cox Street where we moved the the um the the dumpster the the trash compactor

um to a more you know, you can see it more internal to the site. Um a lot of those changes evolved from when we originally submitted. So a lot of the folks in the neighborhood meeting saw a different uh point of ingress egress. Um that is also what was part of the traffic study. So when we made those revisions um we did revisit that with the traffic um department, you know, the traffic engineering um team here at the city. And um so the the traffic study was modified, but we did not add new intersections. Um and so it just wasn't part of the original um study, but we did go back and revise the numbers based off of the fact that the trips are going to be coming out in different locations. So the big request was to get less traffic on Ravenscraftoft in which we felt like moving and and put it more on Cox Avenue where everyone felt like that that's where the capacity was from from the neighborhood perspective. So we felt like we did achieve that and trying to get more of the traffic out. That is not a circulating deck. So all of that that one level is going to come out to Cox Avenue. It doesn't really have an option to go with the Ravenscraftoft. So the study was something that we just we followed what we were given in terms of scope as a long answer, but I wanted to give you all that context.

No, that's very helpful. Appreciate that. Other questions of the development team. Um thank you for that background. That does help a lot. I guess um I appreciate now that there's two egresses for the two different there's an egress for each different level since we're going both ways. Um was there a reasoning behind 71 unit one going to Ravenscraftoft and the 50 parking space one going to Cox? I mean is that an option to flip-flop?

It's it's grade related. Ravens cross sits about a level up from just you know that's where the ramps are. So when you don't have a non-irculating ramp, we just try to tie in to where the grades really work. So it's just a matter of the design and also, you know, when we're trying to create units uh and and activity on certain facades, that starts to drive where we can get spaces and not so it's really more a function of just the the grades on the side.

Gotcha. Okay. Thank you so much for this presentation and it seems like a really exciting very much needed project. So I have a number of questions. Um first can you speak to the technical modification around the one story and then the step the step back? It seems like that's grade related, but can you explain why you're asking for that and why it's designed this way? Um, this is where I I wish I had uh the architect with us today.

Let me see if I can answer that. Um again this is Kevin if Ammons if I need to clarify who's speaking but um the step back um above the first level mon and will you can jump in here if I'm mis misrepresenting the ordinance but the step back is to try to reduce kind of that straight up building that's so you know as it gets taller right and in this case I think that we we are providing some step back but it's also the fact that it is a fairly really uh you know unique um um footprint in terms of the the parcel. And so in order to actually get an efficient building, which efficiency is really important obviously in affordable housing, um we also have really small units. And so to kind of fit that footprint in there, that's where that modification's coming in in from. So, um it's not uh it's it's really more of a functional building issue to make sure that we can um meet the requirements of of the design and not lose very valuable units to us but but still meeting the intent of of having some step back.

Does that answer your question? Yeah, I think so. I mean, it seems on the other side that on one side of the building where there's the town homes and those are two stories. So, you've got a twotory step back there. Yeah. And then on the other side you have one and it seems grade related but

yeah and and and the also on the on the sawer street side there's there's just the opportunity just in how the building lays out. Again we felt like you know you're balancing a lot on a parcel like this that has a lot of topography challenges. Um we're also trying to activate the streets that need to be activated. Um you're also trying to make sure you get an efficient building to have the unit count. So, I think that design there was a place that we could step down. We certainly didn't want that twostory elevation on Cox Street, but on Sawer Street, that opportunity presented itself. So, I think in this case, it's just that narrow portion. If you step back that full amount, then you're really impacting your ability to to to achieve a usable footprint.

Sorry, J Marker. Uh just wanted to make sure I'm understanding you correctly. Are you saying that would this project be possible if we enforce this the twotory step back?

I I'm not an architect so I don't want to say definitively but it does make it more challenging if you have a if you you know if you have that amount of a step back in order. It all depends on the parcel and you know there's always a way but yeah on a typical building you're about 75 foot wide on a on a normal kind of market rate multif family building 70 75 ft uh that can change a little bit but it bases how unit sizes are and a corridor size is. So when you have that step back and you're trying to achieve a certain density on a certain site yet it can limit the ability for it to proceed. Does that answer your question? Yes. Thank you.

Yeah. But this the step back depth isn't changing. I thought that was 10 feet like the standard. So I think you're good on that. I think that's not the question. Okay. Well, maybe I've misunderstood your question. So it's it's all about unit stacking. So you know the first occupiable floor of residential units is where that step back is. And that's to speak to your point. It's to gain the efficiencies of construction and not being at the same structural offsets within the residential. I'm sorry. Yeah.

And the reason why the stepbacks at two stories on this facade is because of the deck, right? They're able to achieve that. Yeah. It's also unit stacking above when you know once you start having residential units, you want that to from efficiency standpoint, you want those to stack in order. you wouldn't want to have a another step back at that second level.

Right. Right. Okay. That that answers that question. So, um another question about um the parking kind of programming and and you all may not have an answer to this um and you might have an answer. So, the question is because in this design you have two separate decks. is the intention that one deck is is serving and you know allocated to some units and so people are kind of assigned a a deck or assigned a spot and does some units come with parking and some don't. I'm just wondering like if I'm driving home and I'm like is there going to be a spot for me today? I would want to know like I have one saved or not. you and I'm sure anybody who lives in this building. Uh I currently live in an apartment building and would sure love to have that opportunity. Uh so we will certainly be programming the parking in a way that's organized. It will be

um our hands are I think for the best tied in the sense that we cannot profit from the parking since we are taking public dollars to build it which means um you know it'll be reserved for residential use primarily and then we'll have some sort of numbering system some sort of key fob system. Sorry, I'm bad. They're having a hard time. Yeah, they're having a hard time. Can you all hear me? I'll repeat myself then if you don't mind.

Yeah. So, and I feel so rude turn my back to y'all. I'm so sorry. Um, so the answer to the question is that uh once we build the structure, it'll be reserved for residential use. The driving factor there is we are accepting public dollars in order to build the property and make it affordable for those 30 years at least. uh which I think for the best ties our hands and we can't make a profit off of the spots which means um you know and we'll have some sort of system to be determined uh that's numbering key fobs some sort of organization.

Okay. To follow up on the parking questions, was there ever consideration for doing a two-level parking deck that does connect where the residential units don't start until the third floor?

Um, we always like parking decks to connect if possible, but the, you know, parking decks are an extreme premium in terms of their cost. And when you start to have the deck circulate, you need a lot more room. Again, not to say that this wouldn't be developable, but you can kind of see the the the width of the parking deck. So then if you had you wouldn't have enough width to create an internal ramp. So what you would have is kind of a ramp on the side of the deck, which is kind of what they call a jump ramp in in layman's terms. And in that case, um it's a huge added expense. then you're seeing that kind of jump ramp as a as a facade.

And I just don't think in this case given the fact that we're really trying to minimize parking that trying that that um and also that might have been a tougher thing for us to s solve if we had a flat site, but we had the opportunity to take advantage of of different grade elevations to tie our parking deck into. So that kind of helps us not have to have an internal ramp. So again, from a a tenant standpoint, you'd always love to be able to circulate around and find your spot. And I think that's why they'll have a program to help identify probably where where people's spot is on one level or the other. But it it's a lot of reasons why we didn't do it, but the grade really allows us not to do it and and it ultimately helps with the the overall cost of the project. And I know that's not something you all judge things on, but again, it is it's just the function of the project and and in in this particular case to hopefully that answers your question.

Yeah. And just to follow up, am I correct in seeing that the town home units would have to go outside and around and could really only enter the fif the parking deck we're showing here. Like those town houses aren't connected to any interior part of the parking deck. Yes, that's correct. Meaning like is there a stairwell that would spit out on the street?

Yeah. So they could they could only easily access this level of the parking deck. to get to the other level of the parking deck. They're going outside inside into an elevator or stairwell, right? Yes. They would be accessing through that corridor. Through the corridor, they would have to leave their town home and then go out and up that the stairwell that you see there on the plan east side of the site. Okay? So they either go out and directly into this level or they go out and go up one level. Yes, that's correct. Okay, thank you.

So I know the rightway for Sawyer Street is gone, but now is Sawyer Street all the way to the Ravencraftoft intersection that is no long that's going to be cars free after this project like it's going to be a pedestrian area. Are cars still going to be able to drive down Sawyer Street and get stuck in a 8-point K? So, cars will be able to drive down Sawyer Street and then proceed to north through the oneway alley out to Ashton Street. Okay. So, they're you're let me catch up here. Is that

So, we're still leaving that alley. Oh, okay. I see right there. Is that will is that dedicated right away? The alley it will be. Yeah, I believe it's like an unopened rightway which means there hasn't been any. He said two currently right away. Yes, the it's going to be improved. Yes. Okay. And and in the DRC comments from city transportation, it has to meet city standards for an alley.

Yes, we understand that. Just to add to that on the when when the rightway was abandoned on Sawyer Street from Cox. Um so Sawyer Street rightway continues from the alley back. So that rightway is staying in place. That was not abandoned. Um, you know, we were really trying to balance driveway entrances and site circulation both for pedestrian and vehic vehicles and really trying to focus on the pedestrian, but to your point, we looked at a lot of configurations and once saw your street remains open, you really end up with a deadend alley condition, which we were very skeptical operationally, safety, it just creates a lot of issues both for the tenants and the public because it's got to remain as a public right away. So that's when we went and really focused on the taking that existing ride ofway and working with the city for an acceptable cross-section uh that would let it maintain let it remain as a as a a one-way rideway so circulation could continue out. There is an ability to turn around but we really want people to circulate out. So that alley is going to be left open for the tenants to get Well, that that does relieve a lot of my fears because if you don't want to take a right on Ash Ravencraftoft and deal with all the Hillyard stuff, you can

100% sneak back over to Cox. Another route of relief. We wanted to maintain that circulation invest and and functionally for the trash remactor and then head out the alley. The fire fire does not need it for egress, but it is designed so their trucks could go through it. that we've worked out where they they need fire lanes and fire access, but so it's not needed for that, but it will serve that and trash trucks and other service vehicles. Right. And while we're Go ahead. My point being like tenants from that second level getting on Ravencraftoft could really only be on there for like 30 feet till they're snaking back over.

We feel like a lot of pressure off Ravensoft maintaining the app creating the act the access on Cox Avenue. to to add to add on to that though um because coming out onto Ravenscraftoft you have to make a left on a Ravenscraftoft and then a left on a Sawyer and then a right onto that alley and then you know a left. Um did you guys explore like a woolerf idea on Sawyer to Cox? Yes. I mean

sorry for everybody else in the in the room who may not know what that is. I wonder if it's a it's a Dutch term, but it's a it's basically the idea of mixing pedestrian and vehicular in a scenario. So, it's kind of like Wall Street in Asheville, you know, it's like that cobble road, and it's got that pedestrian feel. So, having that pedestrian plaza space under there also allow vehicles to pass through in a traffic calmed kind of way. You're looking at me really strange.

No, thank you for explaining what that word meant. No, I think Jason uh that's something we did explore and um I'm a big fan of the the Warner style and the European uh influence there. Um you know, one thing we heard in our public engagement is sort of the the fear of cars blowing through there and um you know, trying to create a a pedestrian space coupled with vehicular traffic. Um so that's sort of how we arrived at this solution. Uh, additionally there it would create additional right ofway uh not or non-standard items in the right of way and um additional right ofway that would possibly have to be acquired on Sawyer Street where there are curb cuts um at that adjacent property there um right at the corner of Ravens Croft and Sawyer Street. So those are some of the challenges that we were studying as we looked through or worked through that. Um, so this is sort of how we arrived to this uh circulation solution to date.

And also just to clarify that that on Sawer Street, you know, we Harmony really only controls from the center line over. So any kind of woundorf design that's in the rightway would have to have agreement from the adjacent parcel owner, too. So So we've studied it. Sure. I'm I'm I'm thinking you ignoring the part in the rideway, the part that you guys have now um underneath the building.

Oh, yeah. Well, okay. That's a good point. Well, that originally um that rideway was abandonment happened prior, you know, so that was built and the intent was to provide public access, but everything we've been told is that they didn't really want car circulation through there. We didn't necessarily want it through there either um because it is much more intended to be a pedestrian connection and when you start to take we looked at even potentially having the fire truck to go through there originally when we weren't sure the alley was going to be sufficient and so as we were able to rule that out and not take the fire trucks through there then we were pretty excited that we could make it more pedestrian feeling and taking everyday car traffic through there also seemed to be problematic. So, we really see that area that's underneath the building footprint, that kind of square, big square L, a reverse L there is um going to be both for the tenants but also um the public because there's a public access easement through there where the rightway used to be. So, we see that being much more pedestrian friendly. Um and so, kind of taking your ideas, we really want to try to extend that up Sawer Street as much as we can. And on the side of the street that we are we have is, you know, we're doing things that we hope will kind of bring it to more of a pedestrian scale and do the best we can to make it bonor flight. But um just to acknowledge that we we have thought through that. We're still at schematic design. If there's ways that we can make that alley or that space more pedestrian focused, that's what we're going to do. Yeah, I was mostly just thinking about traffic alleviation and if Sawyer could be one way out through there and I I understand what you're saying about the pedestrian vehicular conflict, but that's kind of the point of the Warner Freight is to be able to design it so that both can exist together. Yeah,

I'm also just a little skeptical about the success of the pedestrian space under there with the the length and width ratio to the height of that void. Um, I just wanted to throw that out there. I'd imagine that that could be relatively dark. Um, and just uh a sense of scale seems a little off to me as far as the height to the to the depth of that cutout. Yeah, it is a it is I don't know the exact height under there, but it is a it's 13 feet. So, it's not 10, which is, you know, or 11. So, we tried to extend that and that was also to allow there to be

um at one time, you know, a fire truck to go through there. So, understand your comments. The the other challenge is just getting landscaping in there. But we're going to look at lighting. We're going to look at, you know, we're still at early stage of that design and we recognize that that's space that's important not just to the tenants and harmony, but also the public. So, um, appreciate the comments and we're certainly want to do our best to make that as inviting and as functional and, uh, as, you know, pleasing as Yeah, I would recommend just paying attention to the septed principles. Um, you know, I'm sure you've heard from the neighbors and I know you have about uh some of the activity around the area. So, yep.

Yeah, I want to echo the recommendation for landscaping and kind of considering all creative solutions in that area. That's a big area. I think you could do a lot. Um, even some simple buyer retention cells that are less about like volume and more about aesthetics um and education. I think could be really positive. Um there was also mention about adding more um treatment and detention to the green roofs that are proposed and that's something I something I would really love to see as well. I think um what you're asking for with the reduction in the the tree preservation percentage is substantial in a time when the community is really hurting from the loss of trees definitely um due to Helen and you know lots of reasons um and I think there's a way that we can find a balance that u maybe can't hit that 10% but we can do some other important environmental things to to balance that Well, maybe pay like a really small part of the VNL somehow where we can kind of meet in the middle on this. That's what I would like.

Yeah, I want to second that. I think uh if if you can't meet the 10% in tree canopy, green is better than than no green, right? And so that's where the the green roofs I think are an amazing amenity. Um and uh I think that's one way that the that you guys are showing you're offsetting you know the you're compromising right and that's what we want to see is like if you're asking for something somewhere where are you giving somewhere else and that's the nature of the the condition the whole zoning

if I could uh since we're talking green roofs uh I heard a concern earlier about them getting ved out quite frequently which I have also seen in my career and I very much hope were not headed in that direction. Uh I just wanted to put it out there that was a condition of the original RFP that we won from the county. So we would never be in a position to unilaterally make that decision if it's any peace of mind. Um I appreciate you saying that. Thank you, Miss Williams. And the springboard off what y'all said and um so you're saying you would not be opposed if I if this board put that into a condition. I didn't quite say that

because just and it's not an attack on you. I want to make that clear. I just have seen so many projects with green roofs and solar panels and it all gets ve the second bids start hitting. So how do I protect against that?

Well, the protection that's currently in place is that so I I personally in harmony as an organization totally agree is better than no grain. No argument. Uh the issue is we are using these public dollars and I it's difficult to prioritize some of those things over others, right? like what do you cut when you have to cut and we try very hard to avoid those scenarios. So the restraints that are currently in place is Harmony could not unilaterally decide to remove it and I would hope that the planning commission is comfortable with that. But the Can you say that one more time again? Just so

the um the current restraints in place per the RFP are that Harmony could not unilaterally decide to remove the green roof. The solar panels are also on that list. I believe the dog park is on that list. And there's probably one or two other things. Um, but I would have to check my notes. Um, so I would hope that the planning commission is comfortable with that restraint for the sole reason that if and when we often find ourselves in these ve predicaments due to the lack of public funding for affordable housing, I typically don't have three or four months to solve the issue. I can promise we will be communicative but um you know if we needed to come back through a formal process it might be a significant challenge for the deal

to I appreciate that. Thank thank you for that um kind of commitment or um offer to sort of take that as the intent of the project. When you say it wouldn't be Harmony Housing that could unilaterally remove those things, what you're saying is it would be a county Bunkham County decision to relieve those expectations that were in the RFB. We are contractually obligated to consult with the county and get their rubber stamp gold star uh in order to make that specific change to the plan. to to that end, this might be an opportune time to talk about that intersection of Ravens Croft and Hilliard.

Yeah, I I did notice that um well, a number of the public comments that we received um you know expressed concern about the safety of the Ravenscraft and Hillyard intersection, which I understand was not part of the scope um as you mentioned as as required by the city. Um, one thing I think, you know, in particular that was raised about that intersection is the line of sight, um, especially sort of on the northwest corner, um, as a very tall like retaining wall. Um, and I I believe that parcel is actually owned by Bunkham County. Um, and so I don't I say all that and and don't really necessarily know the best mechanism to try to um discuss that with them, but I I don't know whether it's possible for them to look at um improvements they could make to that parcel to help improve the line of sight. Um

yeah, so I'm just going to add to that. I I I would argue that it is a is not a retaining wall. It's a freestanding wall. Yeah. You could see that the yeah the dirt doesn't go all the way. So, it's a freestanding wall and just my assessment of it, I believe that it could easily be removed. Um, and since it's county owned property, I think that could solve a lot of concerns that the neighbors have about line of sight at that particular intersection. Do we do we have a county comment on the issue? Oh, we knew

we we don't I mean I don't Matt Card with Bunkham County working community development and helping with the Cox Avenue project. Um you know, obviously this parcel here is a separate parcel from the project itself and I believe if I remember correctly that there is a historic there's some historical nature to this retaining wall and I'm not sure. So I do think that that would have to be looked at. It does have like a mural on it. There's a mural. there is a mural, but I believe that there is some kind of historical part to that. I mean, that's something that the county can look at, but I don't think that's something that we could, you know, necessarily agree to tonight. Thank you.

Yeah, I guess kind of the broader point is, you know, there are some things that are not going to be or are not currently proposed as conditions within the city zoning approval that are part of the development agreement with the county. But what we are being asked to accept is a traffic condition that at present day, you know, has some line of sight issues. So, it's just sort of a diff if if there is an opportunity for a holistic conversation, I think it's one worth having and it may be between the city and the county, not necessarily between Harmony Housing and the city.

Understood. How do we um chair, how do we how do we ensure that that conversation continues? I just want to I just want to emphasize that I I I'm a pretty confident driver and I hesitate to make a left at that intersection from Ravenscraftoft onto Hilliard. I I I would hesitate to make that left. I I was going to add to like I don't know again I don't know the best way to ensure that this conversation continues but I think it's worth the city potentially looking at whether it makes sense for Ravenscraftoft to be one way going north. Um you know whether and to avoid that scenario together um you know I think

one or the other I think there's yeah multiple ways to look at it. Would it be acceptable just to at least commit to evaluating that and and bringing those, you know, that that information back to staff to say, you know, sounds like if there's no historical reason or other reason that the wall would need to remain, I'm sure the county would be open to discuss, you know, looking at that, but as Matt said, they just don't know the details of it. So, um I think it's the best we can do is evaluate commit to evaluating it and and bringing it back to um you know to see if it's an option.

I I think that's fair and as we talked about when Mr. Pomquist was presenting there's customarily a TIA condition and conditional zoning. So perhaps, and you know, I'm I'd defer to the city's city staff's work with you all to kind of craft that, but maybe if we added something that says, you know, as part of the city traffic engineer and DOT's acceptance of the TIA, a conversation around Ravenscraftoft and the particularly the intersection at Hillyard, would it be um adding that intersection to the TIA study scope and or looking removing the wall. Those are kind of two separate things.

Yeah, I don't know that we have the answers and I I hesitate to say that's a condition because that could result in months delay of updating the TIA and I don't think that's the intent but right um investigating like the safety improvements visibility and that could be something the city I think part of the final TRC review. Could the city engineer commit to to you know looking into the safety of that intersection?

I think the city could certainly commit to working with the applicant and or the county in this case to um evaluate improvements to that intersection um as part of that final review or or just sorry separately from the final review. Okay, that's fair. That I would be comfortable with that. I think that helps with avoiding an a lengthy delay to the decision is important just given the the the overall schedule and to get to the NCHA financing etc. So, you know, we want to try to not aggressively push it forward, but we want to try to resolve issues in a way that we can maintain our schedule, but not necessarily, you know, say we're not going to address the issue as well.

Understood. I got two more. Yeah. Um, you mentioned interest in the green enterprise program, something like that, and um, that you're exploring LI for that lower area that doesn't have anything shown on it. Um, can you just say more on that? And I'm as someone that designs those types of projects, I'm just I feel like you could commit to some trees and then that could be integrated into some sort of storm water facility in the future. And is that what you meant by LI would be specifically storm water?

Yes, that's correct. So I think um currently we've been working with Harmony Housing on the possibility to provide potable water during the case of an emergency or power outage um in addition to either um rainwater retention or a blue roof if you will. Um so at this time we've studied that at a real high preliminary level. Um, so we studied that location as a possible use for that in addition to the green roofs, like a a sistern of some kind. Okay, that's correct.

The the long kind of skinnier sections up against the parking garage. Could those have trees? I'm just not sure why they wouldn't have trees. Yeah, I think we have no objection to adding more trees there. Um I think again at that very schematic level um and possible just uh omitting from our part we we certainly could add that to the landscape plan.

Okay. I think that would that would go a long way. So, my other thing, um, we haven't talked about Asheville Yards being next door, and as someone that loves going there, it can be very loud, and I would like to see that the windows on um, at least on the building that's facing that facility have windows that are rated to 85 dB. Um, I think that that would really impact the livability of those units. and there's already been tension at times in in the South Slope with that um venue. So thoughts on that?

Well, I will say I mean Harmony can speak to this more, but they have commissioned a study just to kind of understand what those noise um we heard that loud and clear in the neighborhood meeting too and um so I think from that point they've really been working and I I'll set aside provide more detail. Yeah, I mean I personally see it as a great venue or sorry amenity. Um I wish Willie Nelson was playing that close to where I live, but we have commissioned a noise study to make sure our windows are appropriately rated and folks are, you know, enjoying their homes. Um and again, you don't have to take my word for it. HUD is going to require that of us as well. I don't know that they would specifically require 85 dibels, just to be clear with you, but they require the study and they'll be reviewing it thoroughly. M

I think when there's night life family there is sound transmission transmission coefficients they have to abide by per building code. Now I can't remember exactly what those are but having done similar things there is like a step above just like R19 insulation in there they have to do. There's some like double drywall and like C channel on the ceilings they got to do.

Yeah, we're asking our folks to look at all of those steps. And yeah, I I can confirm that as you know, in my day job, I do affordable housing development and with HUD funding, a HUD environmental review is is no walk in the park to get through the noise study component. So, it'll certainly be addressed. Um, and I have I have full confidence that that's going to be the most restrictive standard. No, you know, additional provision that we put on it. And if you're familiar with the term, it's a part 50 that we're providing. So, yeah. Okay.

I I think actually that there's the indoor uh sound level requirement for HUD is less than 75 dB or even lower. Um so, it's a pretty Yeah, it's it's a really tough You'll likely have to do some upgraded windows, maybe some mass loaded vinyl walls. It's there is going to be quite a bit that's expected of HUD as part of the environmental review. Yeah. And I think that's absolutely accurate and also we want to do the right thing. So both things.

Will there be units um that are designated as no parking spaces? I'm just because I know there's the intent to encourage people to walk, use the bus, and ride their bikes. And so if we have units that are like this is specifically for people that don't have a car um or they're going to park it somewhere else. Is that something that you pursued? I would so how it works at our properties currently um and we could program this once we get further down the line in the process I think but typically we do like a first come first serve. um when the property lease is up, the the leasing agent will say like, "Hey, do you need parking?" Um if so, sign you up. Once it's full, it it's full. Um

anecdotally, I will tell you that often takes quite a while. So, most people who live in our buildings would have a difficult time affording a car. Um depends on the market, depends who lives there. With this particular building, I think that parking garage will get quite a bit of usage and that's why we're building it. But yeah, usually first come, first serve. Mhm. Okay. Picking picking up on that question, I'm curious if there were any considerations for parking share options with other parking structures within the region. I'm having a little bit of a hard time hearing you, but I think I heard the word parking share.

Yeah, sorry. I can repeat my question. Uh it was yeah if there were considerations for parking share options uh with other parking garages in the area wherein other folks could come park at our lot or that our our residents could if you had if you had tenants who were or I don't know for whatever you know series of options but if someone wanted to live in this development but then park their car in another location I definitely think that's something we could explore. Okay. There's no definitive plan at the moment, but she'll be open to that. Deck is just right there. So, he has a lot right across the street that they're hoping to develop.

Right. That's it. Thank you. Any other questions before we open for public comment or uh I apologize. This is this one's actually for staff. Uh I had a question where kind of with the conversation about the traffic impact analysis and uh surrounding intersections. Um I know the French Broad had put together the safety action plan. They have a data set where they look at intersections and they'll tell you the probability of crashes happening there. Would it be possible at all to get that as a data point for staff reports? Is that is that feasible? I don't want to give you all undue.

We can definitely look into it. Um yeah, if it's a data source that's out there and and readily available, um we can certainly consider incorporating that. Uh I know there's a few things we've been trying to work in to add some more information to these so we can kind of put that as one of them that we as we kind of revamp things a little bit. For sure. Sure. Okay. Yeah. Could you say what that question was again because I do work at Landis Sky which houses the NPO. So I'm curious.

Sure. Yeah. I I had asked that the the French Broad MO had um had put together a safety action plan. Uh and then part of that effort was they created um it created a data set for the entire uh you know jurisdiction of the MO that uh identified high injury networks and then intersections that were high probability of crashes happening. Uh and so and then they broke it out into a couple different data points from there is that you know there were some intersections that were high probability for pedestrians for uh intersections that were high probability for bikes, high probability for like car on car. Uh and so yeah, the data points that I think that would be most interesting would I guess honestly for for me it would be all three of those types and then I would also kind of like to know if this was like a high injury network.

Um that would be Yeah, sure. I just got one comment and uh thank you to Miss Williams and the the project team. I really appreciate it. I I do understand that on your level this is a schematic drawing, but this is a final review for this committee. So, it's a chicken and egg problem. Like we don't have the full drawings until you know you have approval. We're approving something that's not like the final drawing. So, these are nitty-gritty questions, but this is our final look at it. So, please understand that like that's how we have to approach it. But thank you.

I'll just say we appreciate that and Bolton and Mink hasn't done a conditional zoning in Asheville and we've done work here in the past, but um I just want to say it's been a great experience because uh from Will and staff and and just the collaboration um and really the input from the neighborhood meeting. I I I made a joke that in the neighborhood meeting, we heard a lot of comments, but we also pretty much everyone that had a comment said, "We really love the project and we need more affordable housing." So, I think that says a lot about the community and just again, it's been a great process. We do a lot of resonings in a lot of places and I think it's been a great process and that we appreciate that as well. Did you want to say something?

I would just echo the same thing I said earlier. Um, I'm from Philadelphia. I am not accustomed to folks being so uh supportive of affordable housing and has been a breath of fresh air. Um and I'm very grateful for the experience so far.

Thank you. Um appreciate your um lengthy engagement in addressing some of the questions and comments of this commission. Um we will open for public comment at 6:49. So again, the way this will work is uh if you'd like to speak, come up. You have three minutes if you're speaking on behalf of yourself, 10 minutes if you're reflecting uh a collective group who we will ask to identify themselves in the room. And um try to you know keep your comments specific and and help inform the discussion without being overly repetitive. That would be great. So if anybody would like to speak, please approach the mic and introduce yourself.

Hello. Good evening. I'm Kira Kavanaaugh. I'm a resident of the neighborhood. Um I live at Hillyard and Cox and I cross the Ravens Wood or the Ravenscraftoft um Hilliard intersection every day. I am um the one who organized uh public comment for the neighborhood. I'm not sure what the official um representation rules are. I know if the if you have at least two people here that are seating their time to you and identify themselves. Two people seating their time. Can you get 10 minutes? We have one. Can I speak on your behalf? Anyone else? No.

Oh, okay. But my husband was here but had to leave. But that doesn't count. What if you could just kind of keep it brief but we we'll maybe not be strict and enforcing.

Okay. Thank you very much. So, first of all, I want to thank you very much for your willingness to um make the final TRC review um look at the safety of the intersection of Ravenscraftoft and Hilliard. Um I submitted some photographs to Will. Is it possible for you to pull those up? I thought it would be beneficial for you to be able to see some of the photographs of the site itself. Right behind where the building is going to be built, there's a little neighborhood tucked in there. That cute little street called Ravenscraftoft. There aren't driveways for at least one uh house that doesn't have a driveway. So, um, beyond the intersection of Ravenscraftoft and Hillyard that didn't get included in the TIA, even though there are 71 cars that are exiting, we would ask that. Thank you. Okay, thanks. We would ask that you postpone or or I don't really know how it works, maybe make another condition to actually review Ravenscraftoft itself. It isn't just the intersection that's an issue. So, if you look at the pictures here, you can see we're missing a sidewalk on an entire side of Ravenscraftoft. So, even though the development will have a 10-foot um sidewalk, it won't extend all the way to that intersection. So, I know it sounds like there hasn't been a review of the pedestrian impact of this development on Ravenscraftoft, but individuals won't be able we have to walk in the street on the one side. On the other side, the sidewalk is very narrow and so you would actually have to cross Ravenswood from the affordable housing development, walk down the narrow sidewalk, then cross again to be able to get across the street. So, as

much as we think about the retaining wall or the wall um being the issue, there are far more um accessibility considerations. The other issue is we do want to acknowledge that we support this development and we want to acknowledge that we appreciate the developer and the architects at least moving some of the traffic onto Cox, but as at least one of you noted, there's more cars that are still going to exit onto Ravenscraftoft than onto Cox. It sounds like there are uh obvious reasons why the architect developed the or designed the building the way they did, but we would ask that that parking ramp be connected and be able to exit all of the traffic onto Cox as was stated in the public devel or the public comment by more than one person. Ravenscraftoft is a little bitty bitty street. I appreciate your recommendation to look into a northbound oneway. It can't. You can see in those pictures with those cars parked there, you cannot get two cars through plus bikes plus pedestrians. Um, so we would ask that all of the traffic be uh the vehicular access only be restricted to Cox Avenue. I understand some of the constraints that they're talking about here. And I'd also like to just register, I don't know why the city wouldn't recommend a traffic study at the primarily impacted um intersection. The other issue is that parking, you can see the cars there. There are not going to be enough parking spaces for the number of residents in the building, which is fine, understood, except that if I'm in that building, I want to park along that street. And the parking along Ravenscraftoft is relied upon for residents that don't have driveways and also for businesses clientele. At least one business in the neighborhood meeting

said that they would consider moving their business if uh their clients were not able to park. I know uh a representative from the developer had said that there's currently a standing lot that supports 100 cars, but there is access onto Cox and it's far easier to access that 100 spaces in the surface lot and most of those cars are not leaving through Ravenscraftoft. So, we would ask that a parking plan be considered for the spaces on Ravenscraftoft that would restrict the 50 Cox Avenue residents from being able to park there, which sounds mean except what we really are intending to do is to protect those spots for the residents and the businesses. the other street that is not being

the other street that is Oh, this is one of the the homes that doesn't have a residence and you can I mean a driveway and you can see how the park the sidewalk doesn't extend on that street. And then you can see it isn't just the retaining wall at that intersection. that intersection, that crosswalk is at the top of a hill. So, as cars are coming up on either side, they can't see the pedestrian and the pedestrians can't see the cars. So, it's more than just um a question of the retaining wall. So, I would ask if you are going to ask the for a final TRC review to look at the safety of the intersection that you also direct them to look at the pedestrian crossing. You can see there's a yellow sign there. But there are far better ways to signal the presence of pedestrians in a crosswalk than this. And I don't know if you can tell, but those lights were actually on and it's the middle of the day, so with the sunlight, we can't see them. The last thing I wanted to mention about the traffic issue is there also was not a traffic impact analysis done at Church and Hilliard which is the other street one block over that would take some of the outflow from that vehicular access on Ravenscraftoft. You can see that the crosswalks aren't well marked. You can see there's also uh blocked visibility from a wall there and that's Church Street. So on Sundays, depending on when the traffic analysis would be done, which it wasn't, you've got all kinds of cars exiting church um the three churches on Church Street. The last thing that I would ask you to consider is, and I appreciate all of your comments about that pedestrian overhang, that plaza and that alley, and I

appreciated you recognizing the public comment around there, the neighborhood neighborhood has deep concerns about the safety aspects of that. So looking into lighting isn't enough. They had also suggested at the neighborhood meeting that they could hire a 24-hour security guard. I don't see how a $60,000 a year paid security guard is afforded from an affordable housing building. So, I would ask that as a condition that the Asheville Police Department or some interesting ways of designing the plaza um would be part of your approval process. So the last thing just to reinforce, we are deeply concerned about the traffic exiting on those cars exiting from the building onto Ravenscraftoft and it certainly seems to us like there are other ways that the the building could be designed to respect and appreciate that neighborhood behind. Thank you so much for your comments. I appreciate all your listening. Thanks.

Thank you. Anyone else wish to speak? going.

Hi, my name is Susan Griffin. I live in the ASTE at 61 Church Street. Um, I'd like to agree with everything that Kira said. Um, I think the other street that's being ignored is Sawyer Street itself. First of all, we're losing about 20 free parking spaces downtown. And to cut the parking in this uh housing by any amount is going to really make a big difference. I mean, I I don't know where people would park there. The county lot is there. Um, I don't know what discounts they would have for this, but it is to have free parking downtown being taken away is a big deal, especially for people who might need it the most. Um, the other thing about Sawyer Street is if you look at the plan, Ravenscroft comes up and curves and there is a triangle there and to make a left onto Sawyer. So, I I thought I heard something about using this as like a circulator coming through Sawyer up through the um alley and then exiting onto Aston and Cox. That that turn is not it's just not a good turn, especially if you're going to be putting landscaping there, trees. It's just it's a very invisible turn. And our parking lot is accessed right across the street from there. So, we I mean I need Sawyer Street access. Um but I just wanted to say that it's just emphasize unless you are actually driving a car in this area, it's hard to imagine that you don't see on the schematic what it actually is like and um it it's difficult. It's there's a lot of one very narrow roads and very awkward turns involved. So, thank you.

Thank you. Good day everybody. My name is Bill Carpenter and I live in the Aspen as well. Um I agree with everything that's been said, reinforce it, ditto. Um I'm very supportive of additional housing of of this project in general. um have extreme concerns about the traffic and I I wonder I don't know if I get an answer but um why there wasn't a formal traffic study done around this project. So I understand it the developer did one but the city or there hasn't been a really formal one and I don't understand why that is because of everything that's been said. Um it's it's going to be a mess if you approve it as it is. So, I'm really asking you to think hard, work hard, and try to figure this out. And I understand about the timing and all that. I used to be a developer. I served on the Center City Commission in Memphis, Tennessee in my former lifetime. So, I've sat while you guys where you guys are sitting. Um, and one of the things I learned from that is if it's not in writing, it's just wishful thinking, you know? So, promises, promises, and all that. If it's not in writing, it doesn't really matter. So I would ask you to consider that. Um and that's what I have to say. So thank you for your service.

Thank you. Thank you.

Hi. Um my name is Cristiano. I am at 100 Cox Avenue. Um, I live with uh the same building as Kira and I'm actually I'm a full-time resident but I'm new to the area and I walk this all the time. So, um, again, I just want to reiterate what everyone's been saying that Ravens Croft and um, Hillyard is a is a tough um, intersection for a pedestrian just to walk. And with 71 cars coming from that second floor parking lot, I think it'll be pretty challenging. Um, and then I also wanted to talk about, obviously I don't have tons of opinion or sway I suppose with this, but the whole um losing of the canopy, you know, I took the survey for um improving um tree coverage down in Asheville and um if they're not going to plant trees, but then they're not going to pay for them when they should. I don't know. I don't really love that. So anyways, that's everything. Thanks. Thank you. Anyone else care to speak for public comment on this item? Seeing none, we will close the public comment at 7:03. Um I guess one to clarify just one issue that we heard during public comment about uh why is there not a a real traffic study for this? Um maybe the city could speak to kind of the typical requirement and you know this the TIA that was provided is kind of the customary tool that the city uses. Correct.

Right. So in these uh types of scenarios, the city does not um initiate or do their own traffic study, but we require that developers of projects do the traffic study which is reviewed and as explained earlier um scoped with input from the city traffic engineer and NC DOT. Um so that's the process that this project is going through. um but not something that the city will necessarily initiate on their own, but but it's part of a sort of standard DOT format and you know it's under the the guidance of DOT. That's correct. Yeah. And it's it's a stamped and sealed study,

right? Yeah. um other kind of I guess would love to hear some thoughts from the commission on uh potential additional conditions or anything that we'd like to ask of the developer to make as a formal commitment.

Um I guess I'm looking for to staff and legals advice. I mean, um I think I did like a lot of uh I'm forgetting her last name is Kiara's comments on some of the traffic stuff. I mean, do we don't have the authority to like make permitted parking spots on Raven Crafter for the existing residents. That's without with outside of our purview. Correct. You understand what I'm asking?

I I think I'm sorry. that would be outside of your purview as a condition because it's going to property that's not located in the project. So, you couldn't put that in for the developer. You can do recommendations as you often do to say that you'd like city staff to um city traffic staff to consider that there are certain narrow streets. I was thinking of that that that are residentonly parking. I know up near the the Whole Foods up in North Asheville, there are little streets there that were being impacted by the traffic and so the city did decide to do residentonly parking. But um they have a process, the transportation traffic department has a process for granting those kinds of requests. So is if that they know about this comment and you recommend that they look at that, then you could do that. Because I guess, you know, my my gut feeling is, you know, I think it's a wonderful project as far as what development teams put together for the affordable housing and some of the infrastructure and pedestrian flow, but the the oneway the switching Ravencraftoft to a one-way street and protecting that resident's parking, I'd like to figure out a way to incorporate that somehow. That's I'd like to hear from the other commissioners if I agree with you on that.

I agree with you, Lindsay. like Raven's Croft Drive one way north I think is an elegant approach or something that definitely should be investigated as its feasibility. I think that in and of itself would help preserve some of the roadside for the residents just because of the nature of the difficulty of residents of this building finding those spaces on getting to their building. Um, so yeah, I I agree with you. I don't know what regulatory authority that we have other than the recommendation. It's sounding to me like as far as we can go is to make a recommendation on that. And

I guess my stance is I would I get the feeling from the applicant that they are willing to follow through with investigating these things. I would be comfortable in making it a recommendation. And I do not know what the comfort level on my fellow commissioners is.

Yeah. And I think at least my understanding city legal can weigh in that what we um as a body recommend to city council has um you know we are recommending conditions and then those recommendations get memorialized in the motion that then is presented to city council and is sort of on record in that way. is that so so there's you know there are conditions if we were suggesting adding conditions to the exhibit E project conditions that would have a little bit more teeth the recommendations would just run in tandem as part of our motion

and is it possible so to to that point is it possible to to have it like if we say um we recommend investigate traffic impacts and safety on Ravenscraftoft and the intersection of Raven Croft and Hillier i.e be exploring one way north on Raven's Croft and or or and also including both whatever uh removal of the wall on the corner looking at pedestrian safety at the intersection. Is it possible within the condition? I know we're on a quick turnaround with this. I know Chris has a lot on his plate. Chris Car has a lot on his plate right now. Um but is it possible to have that investigation done between now and council? probably not. Um, we can certainly look into it and I can't speak for him, but it's correct that he is incredibly busy. Some things might be able to get started, but some some things do take longer depending on the scope um and the scale of the uh study that all those elements.

I know I just know the residents would like to get some sort of you know because they're probably gonna assuming this passes go to the council meeting as well. Yep,

we can start that conversation and continue it um even after the project is reviewed um you know I think this kind of opens the dialogue and I think those conditions to help kind of um solidify that commitment to explore those opportunities and there's things that you know maybe it's not the project's responsibility to improve Ravenscroft but it's something that the city's responsible for um working with the the residents to make better. So regardless of what happens with the project, that's still something that can move forward, you know, outside the timeline of the project, it might take longer than the timeline of the conditional zoning anyway.

Sure. Sure. Some level of commitments, further commitments. And then I know you you you mentioned that you'd be willing to ex investigate. Is that something that's feasible with with

Yeah. I mean, what I want to be careful of is I think Harmony is certainly open to exploring this. Um, however, on the traffic study piece, what we don't want to do is is obviously we can't afford a four-month delay. Um, and so, but I want to also note that I'm not a traffic engineer, but when you do a traffic study, and these are typical of everywhere, you know, you look at existing conditions versus proposed conditions. The existing lot has 120 spaces. Now, there's only 71 spaces on the level that goes out to Ravenscraftoft. And so I'm not suggesting that that 120 spaces can all exit onto Cox though,

right? But but what traffic studies do is they look at where people are typically going to go because they can't predict. It's a model, right? So they're saying most people are going to go to Cox because that's where most people are going to go right now anyway because that's where the traffic would go, right? So, but in theory, most people are probably not going to go to Ravenscraftoft now either because, you know, they're going to go out and take a left to go back out to um church to um Ashton Ashton because that's where they get to a signalized intersection quicker.

And what when we when we do the study and again, you can amend the study, but they look at our development, but they also look at all the existing conditions. And my guess is the reason the city didn't ask for those originally is because when they looked at the site in total, they looked at the the intersections as they exist now and how they may be impacted. I don't live there. I they certainly have a better idea of what's going on. And we're not contesting that at all, but I'm saying if we do that study, it's likely the city would have to kind of look at the overall study and look at the other developments that are happening and all the things that you look at in a traffic study in addition to our project. So my concern is just the length of the study that would have to to study everything from the retaining wall is one thing but to look at one way it's not just our development solution. It's not just a Ravenscross solution because the city's going to look at the overall network of circulation and and so it is a study that's doable and I think we're open to doing it but we would just like whatever that condition would be that it doesn't necessarily um slow us down and I agree within the time that we had to get to city council. It's unlikely we would have a result from a study. Just wanted to clarify kind of where existing now and where we're where we're head. So, it sounds about

tying it again to the final TRC review piece like because I I think that's I mean that's up to the developer as to when they return for that. Is that correct? Yeah. And that's usually a little bit further past the uh any council approval. Uh that could be something a timeline kind of working on towards that a little bit more. And um the CRC can't hold him accountable to anything though that comes out of that. There's no would be no conditions at that point. Yeah, it's a little tough because and no feedback to the to the residents. I mean, is there a mechanism for I see what you're saying.

Well, I mean, you know, I I think city staff is is is happy to work with residents directly, you know, even outside of this project. So, if we know that there's concerns about safety in the area that are going to be there, even if the project gets built or not, you know, we want to hear from them. Um, folks can reach out to me. I can put them in touch with Chris Karens. We can start that conversation and that's you know that's what we're here for. So I mean that's something that we're happy to do starting tomorrow. Yeah, I think that's a I think that's a great idea because it sounds like and it and I know from experience that uh those safety concerns exist now even before this development.

Right. Sounds like the applicants ready to uh commit to investigating the safety improvements of that intersection uh through the tech final review of the project. Yeah. And and I think that for the benefit of the neighbors, you know, it is a miracle that any affordable housing gets built and the this is one hoop of many many more to come. Yeah.

Um to line up all the financing and um so there there is a lengthy process still. This is the moment that we have as a city the opportunity to have that dialogue with the developer about what our expectations are. Um so it is a good time for this conversation in terms of implementation understanding what's possible. There's plenty of time before the the first mobilization of construction it would even be possible. though.

So, are we what's the language on a recommendation or you know I kind of I think we're kind of um talking towards something but I'm not exactly clear on the scope or the you know milestone that we are expecting some something to happen. Sounds like the applicant was willing to investigate the uh safety of the intersection of Ravenscraftoft and Hillyard um or the you know throughout the final technical review of the project um and have that be something that you know they help to uh dialogue with the city about. But it's hard to it's kind of hard to put a word around it because it's a little bit outside the city scope and they're not going to be responsible for those improvements per se and we're kind of hanging it on the project in a voluntary fashion. But I think saying it in that language won't be in the project conditions per se, but made a recommendation that the project team work with the city to investigate safety improvements of Hillyard and Ravenscraftoft through the technical review of the project. is is the city's Cox Avenue um pedestrian improvements complete streets project does that have any you know bleed to surrounding areas or is it very confined

and what about the transitioning to a one-way street and resident potential resident parking how could we include that I think those would be elements that we could explore separate from the project that the applicant expressed some hes hesitation about tying it to their project as it could impact like the TIA they've already completed and and that sort of thing.

Um that'd be something that I would just have ask community to reach out to me directly. Um wp pomquistnc.gov put you in touch with cairensc.gov of and start that conversation and we can do that you know first thing tomorrow. So I think that's probably the better avenue for those types of conversations.

But a recommendation again it's not the same as a condition but the recommendation gets council's attention and I'm sure that the neighbors are going to be saying the same thing at council. So if it passes tonight it would go on to council. So, it just might prompt council to say, "Yes, transportation staff, take a look at that." I I believe it was Commissioner Cycle who was kind of going through this and kind of hit on some wording that might be right for that type of recommendation, which was a general looking at improvements to the uh safety and protection of Ravenscraftoft and then providing some of examples of what those kind of things could be like like you just mentioned um would probably get you there.

Thanks. And I should have mentioned this if it wasn't entirely clear. We are the recommending body for conditional zonings, right? City council is the decision-making body. So I think everybody is aware, but just to make sure. Um, any other thoughts or requests of this project? One comment that I think should be baked into that recommendation is evaluating the left turn from Ravenscraftoft onto Sawer Street. I think initially it seemed like oh that's going to be a great option and now we know we've we're we've heard that that turn is really difficult and so I think it either there should be a sign not allowing people to turn there because it's just unsafe or there's another way to configure that street. So, I think that's kind of a a mix of developer looking at that and the city evaluating its own streets. Yeah. I mean, looking at the plans, um I think there is opportunity uh to try to increase the radius there, right? The building doesn't come that far out. But I think there's actually opportunity to increase to improve that intersection from a site

engineering perspective. The sidewalk extends really far there. It's like a big bumpout and so that could maybe be not sure if the engineer is still in the room but Oh, he's right there. Yeah, I think there is opportunity. I'm just we're talking about the intersection of Ravenscraftoft and Sawyer where it does curve and it looks like it's one way. There is opportunity to to get that intersection closer to a 90. Sure. I think. Yeah. Sure. And I think uh the plan now is proposing um improve curbing curb I don't believe gutter but granite curbing there and asphalt and milling and overlaying. So that's something we can look at.

Okay. or I I believe the um ownership team would be willing to look at. Okay. You're saying the the sidewalk could be reduced like you know what I'm talking about. It's radius can be the radius can be increased larger. Yes. It can be increased be offset from that. Yes. Yes. As we already are improving that within a part of this design. Yes. Okay. That's what you were alluding to with talking about the adding the curb. You're you were basically saying you're already improving it to some degree. Yes, the project is already considering that to begin with. Thank you. Okay. So, is that an is that a further recommendation or exploration? Absolutely.

Or could it be a condition? Right. I was going to ask for clarity. Are are we saying now no conditions and all recommendations or some of the conditions? I guess you know we want the condition to be precise and so do if we know precisely what we're asking for then and we have a willing applicant in a willing city then we can make it a condition otherwise I think it's if it takes you know some massaging with the design team it may be more exploration

so so can we have a condition to explore all the intersections along Ravenscraft and the safety I think the comments have been that that would be like many months to do it properly, but correct me if I'm if I'm wrong on that. I think that's the hesitance, right? So something that wouldn't happen before council, but something that could be a condition of the project that has to be met before it starts for final TRC,

right? Before final TRC. I think it sounds to me like the the the bump out at the Sawyer Street intersection feels like it's something that could be addressed by the developer, whereas the safety assessments and amenities as part of the rightway on Ravenscraftoft is within the city's purview rather than the developer to some degree. Like the city has control over how to those concerns. Um, so it feels to me like the Sora Street bumpout thing could be a condition, but the other pieces would be a recommendation. I I agree that it could be a condition. Um, I would be hesitant to uh put on the development team and the engineers a specific condition just as a designer myself like giving them some wiggle room.

I agree with you. Could it be a condition as long as it you know it I mean I think it's an odd curb line right but I think it was it was there and existing condition just given how that whole network went and probably trying to prevent people from taking a ride on Ravenscoft. Right.

Sure. And so I think you know as part of we can I think it's fine for us agree to have that conversation with department of you know the city of Asheville uh and the transportation department but there may be a reason again it may be said well we don't want it is still a two-way and that is another way to get prevent traffic from going on Sawyer Street. There won't be a lot of it going I guess in that direction but it would it's another way to prevent people from taking a right on the Ravenscoft. It's kind of like a, you know, the pork chopper on a right in right out. So, you aren't preventing. Well, right now there would be no way for anyone to take them a right. Well, you do have a little bit of a turnaround, but there's not there's not any traffic.

Yeah, it's not much. I'm just saying we I don't we're going to, as Paul said, they're already improving that curb line. So, there would be no reason we wouldn't we would have to not do it. But to your point, we don't if there's some other reason that I don't want to he Yeah. Right. You got the language on that one, Commissioner?

Well, I mean, if someone wants it to be a condition, I'm I'm willing to entertain that. Okay. But as of right now, I'm my language is somewhere in the lines of investigate traffic impacts to multimodal safety on Ravenscraftoft and the intersection of Ravenscraftoft and Hillyard, i.e. exploring Ravenscraftoft to a oneway north and or removing of the wall on the southwest corner. In addition, including in I'm sorry, I think it's the northwest corner, isn't it?

Yes. Northwest corner. Thank you. And in addition, uh, investigating improvements to the intersection of Ravenscraftoft and Sawyer, i.e. increasing the radius of the southwest corner to achieve closer to a 90 degree intersection. What about resident parking exploring? That's a city call, but and a a recommendation that the city traffic engineer explorer u the possibility of reserving resident parking on Ravens Square

on reserving for residents. Yeah, I don't know. I'm sorry. I thought this was on but I thought that was mentioned that they said if you even if you made it one way that's a solely city thing though, right? Yeah, but that's on was part of the recommendation to be working that this recommending that the city is also evaluating. Okay. I I just was that's how you're saying it, right? It's a recommendation. They work together to the extent they can, and then possibly the city engineer also looks at making something a one-way street, which only the city could do, or and having resident parking.

Yeah. Yeah, I mean we could kind of blanket these a little bit and say investigate in conjunction with uh city traffic engineer those items and then it's not we're not hanging at all on the applicant and it's just kind of you know they know what the discussions were. We'll talk with Chris Garens. We'll we'll kind of sus out what what city transportation can do, what they can recommend. If there's improvements to the intersection then they want it they can do that all the better. That just kind of leaves I think a little more open-ended how we actually go about doing it. I didn't if you're okay with that. It's a helpful

Yeah. I think you know having just a general recommendation around the issue provides an avenue for the city to work interdep departmentally between planning and traffic engineer. Um, so I I if if it's a priority of the commission, I it seems like we're swirling around a motion if someone I I do want to propose a condition that's separate from this conversation. Um, okay. I'm going to try to get this right and how I explain it. So, regarding the tree preservation, this is kind of my proposal for meeting in the middle. Right now you're at 1.7, is that right?

1.2%. Um, so what if we agree to 5%. And you can achieve that either with fee and loo or in raising your percent of trees. So maybe you can raise your trees to 3% and then pay for 2% fee and Lou. I think we could discuss that with Harmony. Um I this was uh brought up earlier but somewhere or with our current pres percentage um of having a deficit of 8.8% that puts our fee in L between 166,000 and 196,000. So I just something to consider. Um but

that's what the 8% would cost. You're saying that's what 8.8% 8% would cost, which is pretty significant. Um, sure. But of course, we don't object. I would never object to planting more trees in and green space. So, I think if that's something harmony is uh willing to accept.

I appreciate the regulations as they stand and like I said previously, more green's better than less green. I have to unfortunately say that the project financially just it the budget is quite strained. Um and I'm attempting to avoid veing some of the amenities that we've discussed tonight and it would just be irresponsible of me to agree to additional cost. Um I would be especially to bind the project to additional cost. I would be willing to consider it. And if there were, I don't know, an alleviation in the budget or, you know, one of the major issues we're dealing with right now is that um with the big beautiful bill, the solar tax credits went away. So that's a half million dollar hole in my budget from what was originally planned. It's just not something I could agree to. I'm sorry.

Yeah. Okay. Uh yeah. So it just piggybacking on that. Well, Go ahead. Sorry. Well, okay. My one followup is could you raise your tree percentage some like could you agree to two or three and or or maybe not a specific number, but could you do could you plant? I know you're looking at that one area for the for the blue the blue roof and the portable water, but there it does look like there is some space where maybe you could explore some trees. I do reasonably think we could get somewhere between two and 4%. Okay.

And that is a very easy yes for me. If it's feasible to put the tree there, that's very the tree is cheap in comparison to the fee. Yeah. Exactly. Yeah.

I think it's also that we want to try to balance the other programmatic needs that are part of that. You know, there I think there's also hope that there's a little area for dogs too to be able to, you know, walk your dog a little bit. So that that area may that doesn't mean there can't be trees above trees too, right? So I think ultimately we're going to be committed to having as many trees on the site as we possibly can fit on there. So, I know that's not a a formal commitment, but I if there's maybe the recommendation is that we explore ways to increase the amount of uh tree coverage, and I don't know if there's a minimum that or more than we're willing to commit to, but

I as far as a number, I think I'd be a little hardressed uh to come up with one, but I and put them in the plans tonight, right? Just put them right here. Yeah. Uh certainly can agree to investigate maximizing tree coverage. Um yeah. Is is there a way we could commit to a number after you gave me 24 hours to evaluate it

or is the language that we we we work to maximize it. Um and you know it still has to go through permitting. So urban forestry or whoever is going to kind of have perview over that could certainly say that you you still have opportunities to put trees here. You haven't maximized your site so to speak. So is it maximize all available area that would meet the tree the requirements of the city for for tree planting something like that. I think I think I I'd just like to comment here that I think generally it seems to me that there you're facing regulatory constraints from a variety of different sources and there's very limited space on the site and I'm not inclined to put additional prescriptive requirements around that.

Yeah, I think yeah, well said. I kind of agree with that and if we had endless time which I know we're kind of pushing this to a long hearing it would be great to hear where other you know regulatory requirements of the city or driving cost. I know I saw one comment in the TRC report around whether the city wants to impose its running bond sidewalk pattern which comes at a premium to conventional sidewalk. It's not a conversation we've had and it hasn't been a request of the developer, but you know where there could be cost shifting to things that have benefit to the city as opposed to just a scoring pattern in the sidewalk. I'm all ears for that, but I don't want to belabor this conversation. So,

um, but I I hear you and I agree. I think we need affordable housing units and I want to try to make sure that we can Yeah.

ensure that those happen. Yeah, I agree with you and I I I think that you everyone here has been acting on in good faith and I want to just shout out kudos to Bunkham County with this project um at Ferry Road project. I think they're doing great work uh maximizing their properties for affordable housing. Um and I think this is a fantastic project and kudos to them for for for requiring the green roof. I think that's a that's an amazing step that the county did there. Um, so, um, yeah, I I I I do think we should include it as a recommendation

and I and I I I do believe I face. Yeah. Thank you. Thank you, sir. I I appreciate your sentiments. I I just I I would rather it be more like a recommendation. Yeah. I would be satisfied with that recommendation and um I think adding in so not not just look maximizing the tree coverage but looking for storm water green storm water opportunities and again these can be kind of light touch. They don't have to be big quantity, very expensive, but the more plants you can put anywhere, the better,

not just and another thing to note, which wasn't um conveyed on the plans on the green roofs there, they're they're depending on getting into the details and the weeds of it, there is opportunity for tree canopy up there as well. Um, oh, I asked about that. Anything we can told me that wasn't possible. It's not not not confirmed, but there's there are there is additional space on the site. Awesome. Yeah. Uh I'd be fantastic. Keep exploring that if there's opportunities for trees on the roof. I'm all about that. I do have one consideration I'd like to bring forward to go back to the right angle between Raven's Cross,

Raven's Cross, uh sorry, Raven. Yeah, Raven's Cross and Sawyer. Um, one I did just want to bring up. So the if the spirit of decommissioning Sawyer Street to pedestrianize it is going to incur more pedestrians coming down Sawyer. Uh I I don't see exactly how that intersection won't be turned into a right angle without expanding the intersection between RA R Raven's Cross and Sawyer, which would make it easier for cars to make a left turn, but would make it much more dangerous for pedestrians who are crossing through the intersection. Uh the majority of like pedestrian fatalities occur in intersections. And using the numbers that are like, you know, in Google Map in Google Maps of the intersection currently, if you go from the sidewalk on the east side of Raven's Cross Croft to the curb of the parking lot that's there, it's about 50 ft. And if you made it a little bit more of a right angle, it would be pushed up to about 67 feet. So that would and if there's not a crosswalk or any sort of pedestrian safety that's involved in that intersection, that would be, you know, about 67 feet of someone just walking into the middle of a road. Uh so a consideration I would I'm not saying I won't, you know, I'm not in favor of the city looking into it, but I think I would appreciate if there were some safety considerations with a change in the way that that piece of the road is working. I I think that's a good point and you know normally we'd try to narrow crossings and and so in this case that facilitate flow you know potentially there's something like a pedestrian island you know to bifurcate and provide some safe refuge not being a traffic engineer you know I'm not going to design the street crosssection but I think you're right I you know we we want

that to be a consideration so um maybe as part of the recommendation to investigate it's also to consider or prioritize pedestrian safety. Yeah. Yeah. Pedestrian would be fantastic. Anything that would be I wasn't sure what our perview for that recommendation could be with, you know, DOT, but pedestrian would be my cons would be my preference. Yeah, good thought. Anybody uh ready to make a motion?

We've talked around a lot of issues. Really appreciate the willingness to enter into discussion. you know agree and echo the comments of others that uh this is a this feels like a discussion in good faith. It also is a really um important and visionary project that is repurposing um publicly owned land for a public good. So um just appreciate all aspects of that and what we're trying to do is kind of massage the fine grain. So thank you for that. and Commissioner Cycle, not to put you on the spot, but would you be willing to make a motion or anyone for that?

Uh, I'm finishing writing one of them up now. Um, can we pull up Where's the motion? Well, get to it. Is this the right one? Okay, I found it. I found it. Well, I got it. All right. So I move to recommend approval of the conditional zoning request for the properties located at 50 Cox Avenue from central business district CBD to central business expansion conditional zone CBD expansion CZ 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 in that the request one provides infield development in targeted growth areas two incentivizes redevelopment especially mixeduse development that contain maintains housing with in identified transit supportive centers and three increases the supply of housing including affordable housing in proximity to schools, transit and parks with the recommendations to investigate with the client to work with the city of Asheville um to investigate traffic impacts on multimmodal safety on Ravencraftoft and the intersection of Raven Ravenscraftoft and Hillyard. i.e. Ravenscraftoft to looking into possibly Ravenscraftoft to a oneway north only and or removal of the wall on the northwest corner of the intersection of Ravenscraftoft in Hillyard. Um for the city engineer traffic engineer to explore resident only parking on Ravenscraftoft and to look at improvements to the intersection of Ravenscraftoft and Sawyer. Additionally, uh recommend maximizing tree canopy including

exploring looking at adding trees to the south side of the building with the addition as we explore Ravenscraftoft and Sawyer of a consideration of pedestrian safety with intersection modifications. Yes. Thank you. We have a motion. Do I have a second? I'll second that. Is there any further discussion? We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I.

Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Best of luck. Thank you for your endurance of this uh lengthy discussion. Next up, we have Item seven on our agenda, a legislative public hearing request to amend the conditional zoning for the property located at 30 Buchanan Place for purposes of amending project conditions. The property's pins identified on the agenda. Property owner is city of Asheville. The applicant contact is Mr. Dustin Clemens and planner coordinating review is Will Palmquist. Mr. Palmquist.

Good evening commission. Will Palmquist with planning and design. I'll be presenting this conditional zoning amendment request for the property at McCormack Field which is at 30 Buchanan Place. Um this is the site of the Asheville Tourists. It's already zoned um institutional CZ from a prior resoning in 2023. Received an amendment to the conditional zoning exactly six months ago uh to add a uh an additional technical modification. and it's before you this evening to request another technical modification to uh standards in the unified development ordinance. Uh so here you can see the uh the site um in the between kind of downtown and the south slope area of Asheville and then the um aerial imagery of the kind of former configuration. It's currently under construction now um for the improvements. Uh here's the zoning of institutional uh conditional zone. Then here's the I think most up-to-date uh site plan showing uh showing the existing grandstands and the improvements of things to like the pavilion area uh the the team store located here, clubhouse and locker room space, outdoor seating areas in the north section. Um so the conditional zoning originally came to you all back in 2023 I believe. Um purpose of which was to receive technical modifications to development standards things like setbacks and buffers. um that was approved and then the project came uh back for one additional conditional zoning uh amendment for one one more technical modification for the height of lighting fixtures for the playing field um in in October of 2025.

It is before you for one uh one last and final technical modification to development standards. This one regarding uh signage, specifically the number of signs and the maximum square footage. This was not in the original conditional zoning. So we are reverting back referring really back to the institutional district for guidance about the max signage which is relatively limited compared to other districts in the city. Um, so this request would um would allow for three signs total where two is typically the limit as well as a total square footage of 292 square feet where 120 square feet is typically the limit. And there are three different signs. I'll walk through them a little bit here. Um, it's a little hard to see on here. I might just link to the the sign package and and walk through it for um clarity. Here you can see a rendering of the entryway uh to the fields. Uh you can see kind of as you approach there's a mural kind of two separate areas of this mural on on the ramp. Uh the areas with the logo the A and then the word Asheville Baseball is considered signage because it's branding. Uh there's a proposed signage on the roof of this um of the ticketing kind of turn style and there's signage um in like a a banner type format. Um it's more of like a luminated signage above the um I think it's the concessions area. So here's some renderings what they would look like. This is above that uh turn style ticketing kiosk area. Um it'd be internally illuminated with individual lettering. Here's the details on that. This one

would be um 64 square feet total. Uh here's view at night. Another view with the turn style. Um here you can see uh details on the mural and the two parts broken out between the logo and then the astral baseball at 90 uh feet square feet and 38 square feet. another rendering of how that would look. And then finally, the sign above the grandstand area. Um that would be uh 100 square feet which is just measured around the letters. I think it's proposed to be an internally illuminated um like box or cabinet essentially. Um so those are the signs that are being proposed. Uh a lot of this is kind of recycled presentation material from that original or last amendment. Um so gener and I'm kind of folding in the review uh generally with the project as well. So u in the fact that the existing zoning uh is not changing and it remains to be compatible with the surrounding area. Uh it is compatible with the future land use of parks and open space which talks about a variety of different park facilities um that will serve the areas of the communities in an equitable fashion. Uh the existing roadway networks in place. There is still the uh traffic control and parking plan adopted as part of the initial CZ. So those conditions and that conditions document will remain the same with just this one additional modification added to that section. A final TRC approval has been issued for water, sewer, and storm water already. It meets the goals in the city's comprehensive plan to promote access to well-maintained parks and open space for all and to enhance and celebrate

Asheville's unique places and destinations. Staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional zoning amendments. Uh so um the initial TRC happened back in October of 2023 is before you this evening for a tentative council date of April 14th and then following that would be when the applicants would um be be submitting and looking for their uh building permit approvals and for the signage. With that I got to answer any questions. We also have representatives from uh the city's um know it's decre I can't remember what it stands for department here with us this evening.

Thank you Mr. Palmquist. Um at the risk of shortcircuiting discussion I'm prepared to make a motion public comment. I I know we we'll do public comment as well, but that's just a I don't know a cheeky way of saying uh this is a strange reason that we need to conduct a public hearing. You know, something like this should be a minor modification and the fact that it has to go back not just before planning and zoning commission but on city council is um further evidence that our UDO needs work. So, um, appreciate all the work of staff and I don't mean to undercut that at all, but, um, any

I totally agree. My only question would be like if any of the signs needed updating for whatever reason, they wouldn't need to come back to us. Correct. Yeah, I appreciate that clarification. So, um, yeah. So, what's before you tonight is the the sign the size and number um of the signs and the square footage, but not the content. So, if the wording need to get changed or the colors or whatever, um that could be done without um having to get re-reed. Let's say for some reason though, like the lights investigated fully, they needed an extra square foot or two. Could you make that decision?

I couldn't. This planning director could consider it as a minor modification. You know, I think if maybe the overall square footage stayed consistent and they kind of shifted a couple square feet here and there, that might be an avenue. Yeah, exactly. That I think that's probably an option that could be explored if that scenario arose.

It's a good question actually. I I'll open for public comment at at 7:49 and I'll close the public comment at 7:49. my favorite part of the meeting. Um, applicant like to um say anything or

I'd like to say I think the only way I could consider this is if we add the condition to double the Engles free sub sign in size is the only possible way I would consider approving this. I I made that joke last time. I know. I stole it from you. Roll tape. Roll tape.

Exactly. I'll move to recommend approval of the conditional zoning amendment request for the property located at 30 Buchanan in place zoned institutional conditional zone and find that the request is reasonable as in the public interest as consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and meets the development needs of the community and that the request one dedicates adequate resources to meet the maintenance demands of existing parks including sufficient capital and operational funding consistent with best management practices and community standards for high level of service and two continues to create accessible urban places throughout the city and ensures that downtown services, amenities and resources are designed to serve residents as well as visitors.

Seconded. Have a motion and two seconds. All those in favor say I. I opposed. Motion passes unanimously. Uh I hope to not see you guys back here. Okay. Um, when is opening day? Uh, all right. Thanks. Our next meeting of the planning and zoning commission is May the 6th. Yes. We'll see you back here then. Meeting adjourn. Chair, I do have a dis a short discussion slash