Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello and welcome to the June 4th meeting of the Nashville Planning and Zoning Commission. Thank you all for joining us in our alternate home on the sixth floor conference room. We will begin with a roll call. Commissioner Zio, Commissioner Wheatley present. Vice Chair Present. Commissioner present. Commissioner is absent. First item on our administrative agenda as we always do is um affirm our land acknowledgements. As we are gathered gathering today as the planning and zoning commission, the body reviewing and advising on appropriate land use in the city of Asheville. It is fitting to acknowledge the storied history of this land. We occupy the land of the Cherokee people who have stewarded and been in relationship with these mountains and waterways from time in memorial. This land is occupied through violence, oppression, coercion, broken treaties, and forced relocation. Please join me in expressing respect and gratitude for the present day eastern band of Cherokee, the Cherokee Nation, the United Band of Cherokee, and all of our indigenous neighbors, as well as the past and present marginalized community members as we seek to join in the healing of the indelible trauma that is embedded in this land. Thank you. Um, next up we have the approval of minutes from our last meeting, May 7th. Um, any comments, questions,

clarifications. A motion to approve the minutes. We have a motion. Second. A motion and a second. I'll When we vote tonight, let's raise our hands just so the video catches it. All those in favor, please say I. I. Any oppose? So, as a point of clarification, even if you don't attend meeting, you are able to wish to because you can always read the minutes and say you that's okay. So, motion carries. Um, next up, updates from committee liaison and workg groups. Um, are there any I guess I'll I'll start by saying there is a city of Asheville leadership summit for advisory boards on June 16th that I will be attending for vice chairs and chairs of the advisory boards as they kind of read through normal operations. Um, I'd be happy to report back on that messages or things that have there been any other work group meetings or multimodal that multimodal. Ask that folks speak up too. We got it's coming through. Okay. It's just our volume's kind of low for the reason the slides up. All right. If everybody can

use their outside voices. The flood plane and storm water work group is just continuing to do our review of all the plans. There are many 25 something like that. So we will report that next time. Thank you. Um moving into our on the um the anti-displacement working group. I'll provide a quick update there. Um we're really um primarily focused on making a clear definition of what displacement is as currently when conversations are had it's mainly around the physical displacement of people and not inclusive of cultural impact or economic impact. Um so we're really working to refine that definition to bring forward for um kind of larger discussion within the commission. Um that being said, it's really timely and important because there's some discussion for instance with the businesses of South Slope about um requesting a social district and you know Southside United has been clearly recognized as uh you know including what's now called South Slope. Um, and that would fall under many of the accepted definitions of displacement would be not acknowledging um the history of urban renewal along what's now called South Slope and how that may impact residents and displace culture in that part of our city. Um, so it's kind of ongoing and also like important based on what we're hearing in the community. Thanks. Yeah, thank you for that report

back. Um, we we've also as followup, I think to our last month's discussion, we have requested uh presentations on the city's affordable housing plan. I think that's in the works and maybe uh as the affordable housing advisory committee gets kind of rebooted, there'll be a presentation to that body and then also to us. So maybe July, maybe in August, we're going to we've started coordinating with staff. And in addition, you know, we have um started scheduling our planning and zoning commission with three and several commissioners have identified anti-displacement as a good topic to delve into. So look forward to that. We've also um extended an invitation for the chair of the affordable housing advisory committee to join us at the retreat to kind of facilitate some of his work around this place. And then um Commissioner Zia, if you want to talk a little bit about legacy neighborhoods coalition, you talked a little bit at our last meeting around formalizing a leazison role. I know we're not there yet. Yeah. Um so I did bring that question to the LNC meeting last month when we met um May, right? Yeah. um and they really like the idea and um you know had questions around like what it would look like and I think that would be a collaborative effort between LNC and PMZ. Um they did conclude by saying that they are interested and they would like to ask that the chair of PMZ be the official liaison for like continuity sake. So it's not a person specific role but it's a

uh position position. Thank you. So if you are open to that you did bring it up. So careful what you ask for I guess. Yeah. No happy. I think strengthening that bond and kind of um allowing a place to listen there and report back here would be something I would be happy to participate in. Yeah. So, they um they are they are working more on I don't want to call it a strategic plan because it's really not that, but they're really working on figuring out um who they are as a collective. So, working on being proactive rather than reactive. Um so, I think we'll need to carve out time for a discussion of like what that leaison role looks like. Um so there was no time for that kind of discussion but um that great work forward to progress and more. Anything else before I move on to public [Music] hearings. Great. Um we have two public hearings up tonight. As a reminder, uh we will accept public comment only on the items listed on the agenda for all the people here tonight. We'll have three minutes to speak or if there's a group, 10 minutes. Um first up, we have a zoning map amendment. uh a request to reszone property located at 999999 Trade Street from River Arts Forum District Neighborhood Transition Rat NT residential multifamily medium density RM8. The property is identified with him on the agenda and the property owner is Bumos LLC. Applicants contact is Mr. Bo Carpenter and the planner

coordinating review is Will Conquest. Thank you chair. Uh good evening commissioners will pop with planning urban design. I'll be presenting from here if this works okay for everyone. Um so this is a straight reszoning request for property without an address of 99999 street from the existing zoning river arts form district neighborhood transition to residential multifamily RM8. Quick facts on the property including that's a straight zoning request is that it's about a quarter acre in size and staff recommends approval of the zoning request. Here you can see uh the location of the map uh in the river arts district uh the overview on the left and then the close in on the right. Uh this is the subject property as currently mapped in Baltimore County's GIS records. As we noted in the premeating, um applicant has presented a V that shows that um this unidentified portion to the east of the property is actually a second track on that deed associated with this property under the same pin and the book and page numbers. So it'll effectively reszone this portion of land that is under the same ownership and property as was shown in the red outline here. Uh you can see some of the surrounding uses including to the west which is a former church as shown on the aerial imagery here but is now um being developed in town homes. You can kind of see with these new revised property lines shown here. So here's the map of the existing zoning. You can see the outline for the RAD neighborhood transition district that kind of loops around here and the

borders up against the residential multifamily medium density for the east. The proposed zoning would change that boundary line and include subject property into the RM8 instead of the red entity. There's also should have been a future land use tab. I guess I'll get to that use this new presentation format. Um this chart breaks down some of the key differences between the RAD NT and the RNA districts. Uh probably the most important ones are the allowed uses between the two districts. So the RAD NT allows for a variety of um multif family type residential uses but does not allow for single family and two family uses whereas the RM8 does allow for those two land uses as well as other residential uses. Overall um the RA the RM8 allows for more density as calculated based on on these metrics. However, the structure size of any individual structure is limited in the RNA or it's not limited in the RAD building height in the RAD is four stories or in cases where the bus RNA zoning is three stories. There are also some form code differences between the two districts where the RAD is a form code and the R8 is not based on the revised parking requirements. The RAD NT does not require parking for residential uses in most other uses as well. The RM8 is still under the standard parking requirements of one space per unit typically for units with two or fewer

bedrooms. The RANT also has a more robust um bike parking requirement including for short and long-term bicycle parking spaces. It has a build to zone requirement where the front edge of a site must be occupied by 70% as built as it has transparency and window requirements and also sidewalk requirements whereas the RM8 only has it requirements for developments of more than 20 units. So going through some of the uh consistency analysis, here's a map of the the zoning. Again, um the existing zoning showed shown with the property outlined in black. Staff finds that the zone request uh would be compatible with the surrounding zoning districts that is adjacent to the RM8 already. Talks the RM8 purpose is outlined here talking about being a transitional area between higher density single family multifamily uses and other nonresidential uses. Regards to the future land use review, the future land use of the property is traditional neighborhood. This reser request is consistent with that future land use category traditional neighborhood which talks about a variety of housing types. such as single family, accessory uses, duplexes, town homes, multif family apartments, all seamlessly located together. Infrastructure analysis is not actual. This is not conventional zoning projects. There's no site plans or project proposal associated with it. It's just a straight zoning. And uh staff also finds consistency with the request with the comprehensive plan

including um local goals and strategies under the local built environment theme. One to increase and diversified housing supply by promoting zoning policies and create more housing and to celebrate unique identity neighborhoods through creative placemaking by continuing to support contextually appropriate development and a variety of housing types. So staff has identified a pro of the redevelop of the proposed resoning. Um it would um reszone consistently with the neighboring RNA uh zoning district which is what the larger weekend is mostly zone to. There are a few cons associated with the new zoning as well that staff has identified. The first one being it is a reduction in diversity of allowed land uses. RMA does allow for single family and two family but the predency does allow for a number of neighborhood serving retail and kind of smallcale uses like that. but also remove those form code considerations from this property like the transparency sidewalks um the bill to area as well. And then finally it does kind of shift that geography of the abuing RM8 closer to the other RAD districts. Talked about that a little bit at the pre meeting. So um basically those properties now directly to the west the north of the subject property would be limited to three stories in height because they would now become adjacent to RM8 whereas they are not today. SAT does recommend approval of zone requests from the RADNC the RM8

district is before you this evening. It is tentatively scheduled for a city council hearing of June 24th. If I answer any questions you may have. Yes. Um so on the pros and cons, you listed the one pro which kind of reads as neutral to me. It's consistent with an adjacent zoning and and three cons, some of them which seem possibly could be kind of large. So I'm just curious as how you guys came to the the suggestion to to approve. Sure. So um you're correct um that that there are might appear the cons outweigh the pros just on that on that one slide. Um you're looking at it I guess a little more broadly and looking at the site and the parcel itself. um you know being a relatively small site that doesn't have a lot of opportunity to maybe be a more mixed use denser kind of development that the RAND tries is trying to envision. Um also trade series being such a narrow street infrastructure to to serve a development such as that. um staff felt that the RM8 would be in some ways not maybe not better fit but just as good of a fit on that on that property given the constraints that it currently has and unlocking its potential by allowing for single family duplex for example might be might be the highest and greatest use of that property so it might be a better fit might be a better fit than what it's actually Right. When it comes down to when it comes down to the constraints of the um could so the adjacent properties

you're talking about shifting of the geography of of the adjacent allowable use. Basically it's now shifting those adjacent properties can now only go up to a maximum of three stories. Correct. Correct. And the RM8 has a maximum of 40 ft. Correct. So could this could is there is is this considered some sort of or could it be considered some sort of downzoning of the adjacent parcels? Not sure they considered downzoning. You're limiting it's limiting the development potential of those adjacent parcels. And I'm the only reason I'm bringing this up is I know the town homes are going in, but that you know this what if those get bought out and someone wants to do something there or right land gets given back from the I20 six project and that small parcel then what if they get the opportunity to expand all that's right now that's DOT right away right what if they get an opportunity to expand there right and a multifamily development goes in there they're now restricted to three stories instead of or yeah depending on the kind of geometry of that geometry right parcels parcels yeah there could be I mean we have to we have to anticipate all potential geometries right correct yeah no that's that's why staff raised that point is um you know today on the ground it might not have a huge impact um based on what's existing and what's already under construction in the area um but it is true that um for instance if there was you know property left over in this area and somehow combined with this property it was all one big property would would be adjacent to that

RMA and be three stories two stories and 45 ft um in height adjacent to the RMA so it doesn't doesn't necessarily change whether it's down or not is is a tricky question doesn't of uses or anything else like that, but it does it does kind of um reduce the the maximum size of that that property. Let's say it's not downzoning in the sense that the Senate Bill 382, it declares that when you do a new zoning, a new like a zoning amendment that you're downzoning. It's so the use is still allowed and the same probably those properties will have to come in for like a CZ to maybe ask for higher you know a limit or less of a buffer or something that you see sometimes and um but I would not call it a like a making it a down zone that's precluded by that it's an impact it is I mean it is an impact act. I mean, it could potentially reduce the economic outcome or development use of that parcel in the in the future. Yeah. And and and that will als it also depend on what any future properties if they got created or zoned. So they might not be zoned at RDN ention have that provision. So only if it was zone RNC um you know but there are other districts too like you know highway business and other commercial districts require landscape buffer adjacent to RM and RS so became a commercial district like that maybe adjacent at least where

this RM parcel might be now would have to have a landscape buffer where it wouldn't necessarily adjacent to RAD NT like is today. So yeah, there are yeah, there are different considerations like that. I mean, it feels like clean boundary to me. Like it seems like it makes sense. I just wanted to dig into that those potential downstream impacts. Those are very real considerations. There was land added to it from um DOT. Would it stay the same zone? Yeah, I don't know. Uh maybe there's a better a better zoning district for it. Maybe it's a more mixed use corridor kind of district because it's adjacent to the rad. Maybe it's I don't know. It's hard to say what it would become, but it might not necessarily be empty. It's not the rad proper study on that topographical constraints though. That's the side of a hill. I mean that if the if you have a too there like the property to the north of it there that grade is like 40 feet below the interstate like that's not that's a hole. It looks like it's flat but that's a hole. Like you could almost jump from the interstate down onto that property because it's such a steep fall. Like there's many constraints to that site. without getting into setbacks, heights as it abroads the adjacent property. Like that's a very constrained parcel of land just based on nature. Um so do we know how tall the town homes are going to be? Could find out. I don't know off the top of my head. Yeah, I was by the other day

construction couple stories, but they're they're grandfathered in. Yeah, you know, they're they're approved that project the R the R the old church that is it was grandfathered in as town homes. That's for town homes. Any other questions, clarifications of staff before we speak anything? Yeah. Hello. Sure. Uh my name, this is really weird. You're probably more used to standing up there. Oh, will to come back over here. My name is Derek Allen. I'm with Allan Solborn. Um pinch hitting from a law partner, Bo Carpenter, uh who represents the applicant here. Uh the applicant has been involved in that town hall project in this project uh needed to be single family uh residencies and uh the RAD NT doesn't allow that. Um, in addition to that, and I I should have pushed back some on that listing of pros, cons pieces where we could pull them out. Uh, but diversifying the housing stock uh was listed as a con when actually I think it should be a pro here because you can't do the single family uh residences in the RAD NT. Um, also uh this lot is less than 100 ft wide, which is the minimum width for a RAD NT project. So, I'm automatically got a non-conforming issue that I've got talked to Will and Janice about how we would even do that. So, um to me that

natural break line, this is one of the ones where you look at at the existing zoning and you're like, why did it go there? That really doesn't make a lot of sense. The rest of the street, single family residences, uh and I think that you hit it, you know, right top of the head with this seems like the natural break line and that's the way the market is is going. And to to Jared's point, uh that that steep climb in the back, if you've ever done those steps on that pedestrian bridge, I mean, it's a workout. So, that's um it's really steep there. I don't think that's realistic. Uh and those town homes uh are not going to be four stories and they're already under construction. So, I think that was the questions I heard. I'm happy to talk about it, but I think this kind of one of those no-brainer ones where we can add two more houses to to the neighborhood and move on. One question I have is on the resoning application and then Will's presentation, it listed 27 acres. Is that inclusive of track two or would it go up? I don't know. Uh but we can figure that out before we get to to council for sure. Um I'll find it out from from that. It's not super material, but 27 is just shy of 12,000 square ft. And given that there's 4,000 square foot minimum lot size, it gets a third house if that's anticipated by the builder. Yeah, I can I can tell you from this survey, the 027 is just that track two. So it doesn't include the other part that goes with it. Track one is the sliver. Well, on this survey, track one would have been where the town homes are going and track two is is where the single family houses are going. And that's probably why this thing was uh put into poss to begin with because the comm's ownership um by the church. [Music] When you say it has

in terms of of the the development um it's just what what fits for that particular lot. Um otherwise we're going and trying to figure out how to put a you know some kind of allowed uh you know apartment complex on a lot. It's not wide enough to do it. I would terms and are there the additional tracks that I don't know. I'm sure there's some uh ease that we own there for uh utilities. Um but I don't see anything here that that is jumped out and I'm looking at the recorded Any other questions of the applicant? If not, I'll open public comment at 5:43. None. Close public comment at 543. I just add to plug plans for that project. actually are adaptively using that way. I have plans for so so we're basically the same height as the existing group which is comparable to to building any other questions comments deliberation not I'll entertain a motion I move to recommend approval of the reszoning request for the property located at 999999 Trade Street from River Hearts

Form District Neighborhood Transition Rad NT to residential multif family medium density RM8 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 Quest one promotes zoning policies to encourage more housing and two supports contextual appropriate infill development and a variety of housing types. Second. We have a motion and a second. Please raise your hand to vote. All those in favor say I. Any opposed? Motion carries. Thank you. Thanks. Our next and final public hearing item on the agenda is a zoning text amendment. Um, we have a request to consider a proposed zoning text amendment to the unified development ordinance, chapter 7 of the Asheville Code of Ordinances to reinsert sections 7-11-8 C, D, E, and F, which were inadvertently removed during the recent zoning text amendment adopted. And ordinance number 5127, planner coordinating review is Post. Mr. confer. Good evening again, commissioners. Um, so this is a commission, this is a zoning text amendment request to clean up an error made during the last round of zoning text amendments. Um, that's ordinance number 5172. Sections were removed accidentally to restore those sections and staff recommends approval. So, back on March 11, 2025, as recall, staff brought forward a series of text amendments. One of those was to the project threshold levels for one, two, and three, level one, two, and three projects, but also included changes to

um vacancy triggers for level one um site plan review, full site compliance, and also sidewalk requirements. And um those were those vacancy triggers were removed from those types of requirements. Um, basically what happened when staff drafted the ordinance and the final adopted version, removed or replaced the sidewalk requirement section, but only stopped with the replace language after that and vacancy portion and forgot to add in sections C, E, and F that deals with um other considerations for when sidewalks are required like for ADC lower than 500 vehicles a day and most importantly and L section was was not inserted into that. Um so this amendment would restore those sections that were inadvertently um removed during that ordinance 5127 while retaining the intended change to not require new sidewalks when the use of building has ceased for a period of more than 180 days. Uh this zoning tax amendment is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan in that it makes streets more walkable, comfortable connected by promoting zoning policies to save and encourage more housing should say uh by by constructing these more sidewalks. Um also to enhance the safety of the public realm by constructing pedestrian facilities that enhance pedestrian safety. The pro of this proposed amendment is that it would reinsert the language to clarify when new sidewalk construction is required and when the payment of PM sidewalk construction may be administered. No cons identified. Staff recommends approval of presenting text amendment. It is before this evening with a tenative city council hearing

date of June 24th and answer any questions you may have. Thank you, Mr. Pong. Any questions for staff? Um, on the fee and loo uh portion, was any debate had around including um additional options to receive fee and loo? No, we did not consider any revisions to that uh section. uh basically just wholesale putting back what was there before. Uh this kind of excited me because I when reviewing it, the fee and loose section is written in such a manner that it essentially tries to put sidewalks in. And sometimes what we have before us are um an opportunity where a sidewalk isn't necessarily a public benefit, doesn't connect to adjacent properties. as well. Um, for instance, I'm thinking of the I can't remember the address, but on Swanilla River Road or across from Swanola River Road, we approved the 200 unit apartment complex that had it was like a small small portion of sidewalk that was maybe only 50 ft long and it was um I want to say it was like adjacent to uh a bridge abutment And so as part of the CZ, we removed the requirement for the sidewalk, but because the way the fee in L is written, we couldn't receive the fee in lie of the sidewalk. So we forewent the sidewalk as part of the condition, but didn't get the public benefit of what would be a fee for that sidewalk. So that to me was like one of these catch 22s where we had the right to exclude

the sidewalk, but we didn't have the right to be like, you're removing it. Um, and so I guess like if I had something to say about this or my comment would be like maybe adding a stipulation that if he and Lou could be um accepted if it was either approved as part of the conditions of approval of this board um or the other thing we do in the video is quite a bit is at the um like uh the direction of the director of planning and urban design. Um, so I think it has seven potential requirements that would allow for a fee and loo to be utilized. And I would like to hear if other folks feel like this board may be able to request the fee in L instead of just excluding sidewalks component because we already re receive kind of the fee and L for trees and seems like sidewalks a logical component to have. So only during this review not changing the word. Um, yeah, the wording would be I can pull up the exact markup here, but I think it would be like number eight. It stops currently at number seven. Um, but would be, you know, [Music] um, if if mutually agreed during the conditional reasoning process, something to that effect. any feedback from staff on that? I thanks for highlighting that because I do remember that being kind of a weird loophole. Yeah, I should have looked up

the address, but it was a big apartment complex with a lot of London Road. Yeah, the Lond It's the London Road apartment. And a big component of that is like an existing building on the corner where we wanted a um a bus stop and there's no con connectivity along Sweden Creek, right? Um and so there was connectivity where you could move pedestrians along London Road but not Sweden Creek. And so I mean look, it's to the benefit of the developer that they don't have to pay a fee and they don't have to provide a sidewalk. But from the public's perspective, connectivity at that intersection, we had a lot of public comment around like traffic congestion, you know, that um it's uh it's I think it's only formally like a four-way, but there's another connection around a convenience store at Sweden Creek that comes into that area that kind of makes it a fiveway intersection. Um, and so just like any little amount if you read like the way the fee and loo money is supposed to be sent spent that would have been a great opportunity to take that for like signalized pedestrian crosswalk or additional signage or you know I think there were opportunities to um improve the public benefit associated with that project. Um, start with J. Can we like we can't I'm trying to remember why what the advice may have been that you can't so we used to have people saying we'll give you money to build affordable housing and we'd say we can't make that part we well instead of building affordable housing we'll give you money to go into the housing trust fund and legal had advised that that could not be put into the conditions and instead we did it outside donation agreement outside the conditional zoning process. This doesn't

give me as much concern because it is it is a fee that we already it's it's a fee that is related to something that is clearly part of zoning. You know, the question about affordable housing is is that even really a relevant factor in the zoning? And you're you're right, it's a conditional zoning. So if they agree to it and they realize and they're getting that too then but then you have to realize if they don't agree to it I guess you you could just say well I think we should get the fee too. Um, but if it's worded the way you you're mentioning it, I think we can say the condition is in lie of the sidewalk, you can opt for the fee and loo option in a conditional if in if in a conditional zoning put that. So the whole reason that that fee and loo has these particular, you know, you can only ask for a fee and loot in these particular cases is because you can't make it just openly discretionary. You can't say right well I think we'll let them have a fee and Lu and we won't let them have but if we keep it to but in the case of a conditional zoning where you're asking to not again the wording it's kind of eluding me but asking to not have to meet sidewalk requirement that uh you could still make it a condition a requested condition to pay the fee. I think that's exactly it. It it empowers the city to be able to ask the question, you know, whereas currently this developer could say, "Well, I can't do it." And then the city can't say, "Would you propose a fee condition for not doing the sidewalk would be required under fe or something?" It helps you anticipate it. Although I I do think if

it came up during a conditional zoning probably on the fly legal might say, "Well, I don't know if we can do that." But when you give a heads up to it, then it's like, "Yeah, that could be something that they can be considering." And we have the fees and uh charges manual. So that's clearly defined. Like it's before they show up, before anyone shows up, if we know within the conditions it's being requested to remove the sidewalk. It's also, you know, sometimes folks say like they don't know what it costs, so they have to go back and look. This is like a really clearly defined kind of like, oh yes, we mutually agree to the fees and charges like it's a public document that anyone can look at and understand, right? And what everybody else should understand about fee and lo, it has to be used that money has to be used in the is that the one that says in the vicinity. So, as you're saying, that area that you're mentioning, that specific example, the money would have had to be used in that area for improvements, sidewalk. I think it's broader than just sidewalks like street. It is. It is. Yeah. Other pedestrian pedestrian. Okay. So, and that's something I think that you know gives a lot of agency to to like Yeah, that's a good suggestion. You know, call it multimodal transportation if they understand that there's a broad public concern. Like specifically at that intersection, I remember I think at the city council meeting somebody had brought like a filmed video that was highly edited like showing different parts of the day and how much was going on like near misses with vehicles. It was um yeah I I just like the passion I saw about pedestrian safety that is the sidewalk fem administrator the

city transportation transportation. So maybe our recommendation could be that you know if we if we are voting to recommend approval of this that an additional trigger in the field. Yeah, that was something for I'm almost thinking because it's adding an option instead of taking something away that you could add it to the proposed text amendment and then it will go up to council with that and then with review of the transportation director. Yes. So, I might not have the language perfect, but we could say as as discussed and we'll come up with something. I think we've got unless you want to try to just want to run the risk of having this kind of get drawn out and the city council might continue it. And meanwhile, we don't have any fee. So, we can't miss today until council approves this new session. I mean, my concern is there's other that there might be questions about Oh, well, that's a point. city council has continued for an entire month until end of July meeting and we're about so I know staff and I think if Chris was there enough for him probably just want to make sure we get it like back in there as was and as easy as possible because why would they have to continue it? I don't know. I'm just saying I just don't know if there questions I think it's if there's any concerns that we might be anticipating not having a chance to really delve into it. I I don't know. question for you is you know we Chris were talking about it earlier on um saying you think this would

yeah potentially um slight policy change a little gray area yeah staff was just presenting this as just yeah fixing a clerical of error for the most part. Um so if you expand the scope of it, maybe it changes what it is a little bit. Um which has as mayor there's definitely something worth pursuing here because that one road project was frustrating for the reasons that we've been discussing. Um yeah, I would just uh I just worry that if there's any kind of complication and things have to get continued then then we're without um this language for longer. Um, I know there's a lot of lot of folks in the city staff that are a little bit um nervous about not having this language available to us, not having as an actual option right now. I don't really have an opinion per se, but I'll also add in that um there's there's a path to get [Music] resources which is very exciting and still very long. So that's out there. approaching [Music] opport. So that's really like Maybe can we do two separate motions? You could do a recommendation. I was just saying that I don't think from an

advertising perspective that this needs to come back through planning and zoning to add in that either either a proposed additional text amendment which council could go up to council and council could say no that's too much of a change. We just want to do what we what was there. if it if it was or you could do the recommendation route which is with a recommendation to look into this but then I think it would it it wouldn't be able to go right up to council I don't think with that without the wording amendment if that makes sense approving that next well a recommendate what Jeffrey said m Mr. Barton said, you know, maybe a recommendation to discuss that with the engineer, traffic engineer, but that would still be delaying, I think, at that particular text amendment for another time, right? Maybe that's I mean, is there a sense since this already went to Are you saying it went to P a discussion of this text? Okay, the chair just Okay. There might be other changes to the that folks want to make that we're not even aware of. So, oh that's true, but this one just came up. But again, it's always council's option to say not at this time and we've done that before. That that has happened before that it's too much of a change, not just just put the change into I don't think it would stop it necessarily from just implementing what's already there. This seems pretty simple and I do want to make the point it's come up more than just one road. That was the most recent, but it's come up in several prior CZs. And yeah, it's I do agree maybe it's a little bit of a gray area whether it's just clean up or not, but it to me it's almost like clean up because it's

closing a loophole that was just like an unforeseen miss. If it was a completely ch a change that was doing something more regulatory, adding something regulatory that wasn't advertised, I would say that you couldn't add it at this, but it's not. It's it's sort of opening up another option for clarifying when you could pay the fee. I've suggested language. Sure. Um, so just B8, the removal of sidewalk requirements is mutually agreed to be removed or is mutually agreed upon as part of a conditional reselling. So, so the beginning sentence is something like you can do get pay a fee in Lou and then it goes to a it goes to a bunch of paragraphs. So this would just be there. All the other ones are reasons why. So it says the sidewalk. So this would be the removal of sidewalk requirements is mutually agreed upon as part of a conditional reasoning. That seems really straightforward. And to clarify that would be in addition to section 7-18. Correct. I I think we can present that in the way that we are with enabling. I think we can present it as a closure. So close us off just should we open any other questions of staff before? All right. Open public comment at 605. Anyone wish to speak on this

matter. See close public comment at 6:05. Um any more deliberation? I move to recommend approval of the proposed wording amendment to chapter 7 of the Asheville Code of Ordinances and find including the recommended language um in this meeting and find that the proposed amendments are reasonable, are in the public interest and are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan to meet the development needs of the community. And that the amendment will one, make streets more walkable, comfortable, and connected by eliminating gaps in the citywide sidewalk network, and two, enhance the safety of the public realm by constructing pedestrian facilities that enhance pedestrian safety. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. raise your hand. I any opposed? Motion carries unanimously. Um and if possible, I'd request that you kind of just share that in case the reporting is please share the language that stay. Um that concludes all the items on our agenda. I had a question of staff if I may. Um, I I may I I probably should know this, but I just wanted some uh clarity of where the um legacy neighborhood uh overlay stood that whole conversation.

I don't know if we have updates to share at this point. I just curious here's what I'll share. you know, we are working through the we the city not just not just planning the urban sense that we're working through the year one goals of the affordable housing plan. Um, a lot of those which this commission recommended approval of council adopted in March those were zoning tools that were to reduce regulatory barriers and things like that. There are a lot of things that are not zoning based and you all heard me say this before that go into displacement stability um that that are in that year one. So when you see coming soon uh council's going to hear about what work goals are things for the city that obviously it's going to include year one goals affordable housing. So those measures that are outside of regulatory control to help with stability and displacement are going to be moving forward as part of a project the city. Um and I know that tying that back to the beginning of the meeting um Barton you mentioned request for a presentation from our affordable housing committee that's on the offer as well and we also slashinsky our affordable housing officer who works with that commission directly um to get that going I think that we can shed a little more light on that presentation would be really helpful at our July meeting so we hear it before. Yeah. Um Sasha hasn't she

No. Um I need to double check the survey. I think we had a couple folks haven't responded yet. So if you haven't responded yet, please do. I'll check tomorrow and follow up and then we'll take the place out. Yes. All right. That concludes our business for the July June 4th planning design commission meeting. Our next meeting is July 2nd 5:00 in the new downstairs. July. Thanks. We are