Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

How are

Press the button to speak. All right. Thank you. Hello and welcome to the September 3rd meeting of the Asheville Planning and Zoning Commission. Um I am your chair, Jeffrey Barton, and I'd like to welcome you. Uh we've had considerable interest in this meeting, which is why our we've relocated to an alternate location here at Harris Cherokee. So, thank you for joining us. We'll begin our meeting with a roll call. Mr. Palmquist.

Great. Uh, thank you, chair. And I will give roll call and I'll ask folks just to kind of raise their hands and say hello to the audience so it's uh know who's who. Chair Barton present. And for everyone, there's a button on your mic to activate it. Turn the red light. With a mouth with stuff coming out. Yeah. Uh, Commissioner Bell present. Commissioner Wheatley present. Commissioner Cycle present. And Commissioner Fairclaw present. We have a quorum. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. Um, as we did at our August meeting, we honor the life and legacy of our former vice chair, Byron Grryer, whose passing on July 1st continues to be felt by those who knew and loved him. In recognition of his life of service, we acknowledge his enduring presence and lasting legacy at today's meeting as signified by his name plate and um candle. So, please uh join me in acknowledging and honoring Byron's legacy. We'll also begin our proceedings with um the land acknowledgement for the planning and zoning commission. As we are gathering today as the planning and zoning commission, the body tasked with reviewing and advising on appropriate land use in the city of Asheville, it is fitting to acknowledge the storied history of this land. We occupy the land of the Cherokee people who have stewarded and been in relationship with these mountains and waterways from time immemorial. 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, and the United GDUA Band of Cherokee, and all of our indigenous neighbors, as well as the past and present marginalized community members as we seek to join in the healing of the indelible trauma that is embedded in this land. Next up, we have approval of the August 6th, 2025 meeting minutes. Any questions from commissioners on the minutes?

I move to approve the August 6, 2025 meeting minutes. Second. All those in favor, please say I. Raise your hand, too. I I any opposed?

Motion carries unanimously. Um I will note thank you to staff for the u completeness of the minutes. Really a good record of our meeting. Um on today's agenda, we have three items entailing a public hearing. Items four, five, and six on the agenda. Items four and six are legislative public hearings, meaning anyone from the public wishing to speak on these items is provided the opportunity during a public comment period that will be opened after the presentations by city staff and the applicants as well as initial questions from commissioners. Uh we will hear public comment only on items listed on the agenda. Um and we've also received a considerable amount of written public comments submitted in advance of our meeting. Each comment submitted in advance, including pictures and videos, um are carefully reviewed by commissioners in advance to aid in our preparation for today's meeting. For in-person public comment, we had a signup sheet as you entered. Hopefully, everybody who wishes to speak was able to sign up. Um when the item comes up, we will call people in order, ask you to introduce yourself, and speak clearly into the mic. Um individuals will be given up to three minutes to make their comments. And if speaking on behalf of a group no of no less than three individuals, you may speak for up to 10 minutes. I as the chair will also reserve the right to limit the total duration of public comment. So I encourage you to refrain from repetitive comments that can be duplicative um or unnecessary or irrelevant. I also will note that um we may take an extended break after the first two public hearings just to kind of give everyone an opportunity to get a bite to eat. So, at that time, if we're, you know, not at 6:00 by the end of the second item, we're going to take a 30 to 40 minute recess. Um, item five on our agenda is a special use permit application. And for this

item, the planning and zoning commission will be acting as a quasi judicial body in accordance with the North Carolina General Statutes and the City of Asheville's Unified Development Ordinance. it will follow a different procedure than the other two items and I'll provide further explanation when we get to that item. So, um before we move on, we do have report back from liaison and workg groups. Any report back to the full commission from the anti-displacement work group? Commissioner Wheatley? Uh the anti-displacement work group uh really has just taken the time to allow everyone to reflect on the suggested definition from last meeting. Um a few folks have reached out uh just for clarification on part of that definition and we look forward to maybe an agenda item within the next month or two to discuss it in an open format for public input as well.

Thank you. Um, and any update from our other work group? We don't have an update at this time, but we hope to next next month.

Great. Um, I'll also just mention for commissioners and the listening public that council is making progress towards constituting its four recovery boards. So, um, please stay engaged in that process. Um there's an application window that if it's not open now will be soon for um members of planning and zoning commission or other advisory boards to engage in the four recovery board. So more to come on that and with that we'll conclude the administrative section of our agenda and move into our first legislative public hearing item four on your agenda. Uh first up we have a request to amend the conditional zoning for properties located at 1617 Hendersonville Road for the purposes of amending the site plan and project conditions. The main parcel is identified with a pin printed on the agenda. There are additional 27 parcels as also indicated on the agenda. The property owner is Deerfield Episcopal Retirement Community Incorporated. The applicant's contact is Mr. Chris Day in the planner coordinating review is Will Palmquist. Mr. Palmquist.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, commission. Will Palmquist with Planning and Urban Design. I'll be presenting this conditional zoning amendment request for the property at 1617 Hendersonville Road project known as the Deerfield Retirement Expansion. Um, this was presented to you at our last meeting, so I'll try to give a a more abbreviated form of the presentation. uh it was continued at the applicant's request and we'll go over some of those um site plan changes that were made in the interim since the last meeting here. So just some highle notes here you can see the uh project site with the red dot in South Asheville not far and off of Hendersonville Road. It is the site of the Deerfield uh retirement community which has been in existence since about 1955. uh that's located on the northern um part of the site with the expansion being proposed on the southern half of the site. Currently zoned commercial expansion conditional zone I'll talk a little bit about what that means and the previous conditional zoning that's attached to the property and the um overall site it's actually 125 acres and I'll talk a little bit about the properties that make up that site. So here's a close-in view of the site. Um so as as mentioned it's one large 120 acre property and then 27 smaller properties comp comprising 5 acres. Uh the existing facility located in the northern portion with the majority of the expansion proposed in the southern portion of the site uh south of Salisbury Drive along with some other um building additions uh to existing buildings on site. So the existing zoning is commercial expansion conditional zone. Uh this site received a conditional zoning in 2021 for the purposes of expanding the facility. Um essentially uh this is coming back before planning and zoning commission and ultimately city council

to amend that conditional zoning to uh kind of change the configuration and layout of the buildings as proposed. The previous um conditional zoning was for approximately 833,000 square feet of new building construction whereas this amendment is just a little bit less at 822,000 square feet. So this slide uh provided by the applicant shows that previously approved conditional zoning on the left side of the screen with the new proposal in the center. The image on the right shows the overlay of the uh new um proposed in in the red buildings and then the old version in the blue. So you can see some of the uh different arrangement of the buildings and then some of the new um additions to existing buildings and and these changes are really is what requiring the project to come back through to amend their conditional zoning before they uh can get any permits to to build this expansion. So here is the uh new site plan. I'm going to walk through some of the aspects of it. Uh as mentioned the overall total construction is 822,300 square ft. Along with that is proposed uh 333 surface parking spaces and 69 structured parking spaces approximately. The project is proposing and and will comply uh with the required elements of the unified development ordinance such as required landscaping elements like uh street trees for instance, a property buffer 30t wide planted uh where the property is adjacent to residentially zoned property, tree canopy preservation requirements and open space requirements.

So just walking through the uh site plan a little bit. Um item A is a healthc care center a health center addition on an existing building. Um that's approximately 21,000 or 22,000 square ft. Uh item H is a new fivestory independent living building with 69 units and that's approximately 191,000 square feet. addition to the building known as the the Blue Ridge room addition at the community center. That's item G. Um that totals approximately 9,000 square ft. Um additions to Hayden Hall. Um item E here, those three additions total approximately 48,000 square feet. The uh eastern edition will be six stories to match the existing height of the Hayden Hall building. Uh the southern edition, three stories in height and the western edition at one story. Uh in addition to that is a new outdoor center. Um item K here, approximately 10,000 square ft. And then item I are these structures proposed along the southern portion of the site. Uh these are known as um hybrid homes and um each of these are um each of these have 16 independent living apartments and those are approximately 46,000 square feet per building totaling 550,000 square ft. So that is that is the majority of the new construction is proposed um really in in these hybrid home buildings and then the remainder composed of the other new building um construction and additions.

So here are some um highlights of the project conditions that are associated with the project. Uh these can be found in the exhibit E um document for the most part. The first one um because this project is being reviewed as a conceptual master plan um there is some allowance for some flexibility in the overall site plan going forward. Uh this includes that uh individual building sizes and number of proposed units for really each building and then the overall project is allowed to vary up to 10% um up or down based on the final plan configuration. Tallest new buildings will not exceed 65 feet in height. Uh the operation of the grounds maintenance building that was previously part of the site plan will be located off campus and is no longer part of the site plan. A new sidewalk will be built along Hendersonville Road where the project fronts along that roadway. It will be designed to city standards in coordination with NC DOT. And then there are also other uh improvements to the site including internal sidewalks, walking surfaces, and pedestrian connections. Uh those would range between five and eight feet in width. So, in addition to the exhibit E uh project conditions, the applicant did submit uh what we're calling exhibit E1 and also a cross-section drawings of the uh area of the site to the southeast. Uh the applicants are working closely with the community and the neighborhood in that area uh and reaching agreement on the design and operation of that area of the site. This is where the grounds building was previously proposed. It will now be used mostly for uh storage of vehicles. Those conditions outline a number of um agreements and uh details of how that

area will operate. This includes limits on the number of spaces and vehicles to be parked. Details on the covered golf cart parking design, specifications on site lighting, the provision for an 8- foot tall privacy fence that is shown in the red line surrounding this parking area, uh provisions for a temporary construction screening, and then details on the dumpster and trash compactor location. So in regards to the project's overall uh compatibility um regarding its compatibility with surrounding uh zoning districts uh staff finds that um this is compatible with the surrounding uh zoning districts. It is it is a kind of commercial designation but the majority of the uses prescribed within the conditional zoning are residential. So staff finds that to be compatible with the surrounding uh single family and multifamily zoning in the area as well as some of the commercial zoning shown in red that is uh nearby the site as well. Staff also finds that the project is compatible with the future land use designation of residential neighborhood which in part is proposed that over time residential neighborhoods can benefit from having more housing diversity such as accessory apartments, duplexes, and other types of smallcale infill housing. regarding the project's uh support and being served by infrastructure. Staff finds that the project uh is is compliant and is is met with either um existing or future infrastructure. Uh regarding the transportation network, uh the project does already have a roadway network in place to uh serve not only the existing Deerfield facility, but the

expansion area as well. There are three separate roadways that connect to the Deerfield community that connect to Hendersonville Road. The project has received a letter of commitment from the water service uh from the water department, meaning that there is water availability to serve the number of units and uses proposed at the location as well as a wastewater allocation um issuance. that preliminary grants uh enough capacity for the sewer network to handle the proposed new development. There are uh conceptual storm water plans submitted by the applicant included in these drawings and then a detailed review um to meet all technical requirements of the storm water um requirements will be done at a final uh technical review step. Then finally, uh staff finds that the project is also uh compatible with the city of Asheville's comprehensive plan, Living Asheville, in that it meets a number of goals in the plan. Uh these include uh making streets more walkable, connected, and comfortable by um sorry, these are a little bit out of order. um making them more walkable, comfortable, and connected by uh filling gaps in the citywide sidewalk network. Increasing and diversifying the housing supply by ensuring a diverse mix of housing to accommodate a broad range of age groups, lifestyle choices, and affordability levels, and to increase access to opportunities for all by realizing goals for an agefriendly community. Therefore, staff recommends approval of the proposed conditional zoning amendment and I'd be glad to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. Um, just a couple of quick clarification questions. Um, you mentioned that this is a conceptual conditional zoning site plan and so therefore has discretion to vary by 10%. Is that written into our ordinance or is that kind of a subjective standard that we're applying?

That is not um yes um good question. That is not uh necessarily a uh standard that's written into our UDO. Um that is a condition that was um suggested by the applicant to allow them some flexibility as they move through the overall design process and has been incorporated in the project conditions and if it's uh deemed uh appropriate it could be accepted as part of the conditional zoning allowing for that.

Thank you. What what is the typical standard? I think you know there is an understanding of some variability based on built conditions but is it it's like substantially comply with the approved plan. So how how is that normally applied when there is not an explicit condition?

Sure. Um so typically our our zoning code allows for the minor amendment of conditional zonings as long as they meet a few different criteria. uh those typically involve um changes that don't um don't increase the impact of the development or change the overall operations of it. So that could be things like you know if you're moving the entrance to a different roadway or uh changing the use into a more impactful use maybe those would be considered not in alignment with that minor amendment. And then the final one is uh no changes proposed to the overall uh density of the development. Typically we have allowed projects to decrease the overall number of units by a small amount and and still receive a minor modification um but but do not allow for projects to increase the number of units or substantially increase the amount of commercial area or that sort of thing. So, it's it's a little bit subjective uh the way it's written, but it does allow for a little bit of flexibility, but enough safeguards to know that basically what's gets approved by city council uh ends up being um for the most part what's what ends up being built at the end of the day.

Thank you. Um, one other question just to clarify the exhibit E1 that was provided is that is the plan to incorporate that completely within project conditions instead of just by reference before it heads to council. It's a little kind of unusual to have these tandem conditions lists, but

yeah, I I think that's probably going to be the best path forward. um there since they were received relatively recently, there wasn't a lot of time to incorporate them and as kind of an as kind of an addendum very specific on that subject of the southeast parking area. Um I felt like it was okay to have them separate and maybe it's a little more clear that way, but I will get with legal staff to figure out the best way forward, which I I think would just be incorporating them in the um exhibit E project conditions and having everything contained within that.

Great. Um, one question to clarify. The last item in the E1, it says the landscape buffer plantings shall include provision of the plantings on the Ramble Common Property per Landmark Landscapes proposal dated August 27th um, 2025. Could you elaborate that a little bit? I didn't see in the landscape plans where that was provided for, what kind of special provisions there were on that item.

Sure. And I I might actually defer to the applicant on exactly the the nature of that condition. Um the required landscape buffer would be on the subject properties site. So, um, if I can flip back to the, um, property map, it's a little hard to tell, but, um, the red line being the property boundary, there is an area, um, between that red line and the right of way for the road that is a buffer of land that's owned by the Ramble Association. And I know they've been in some discussion about what kind of plantings could happen in that area. Um, we would still require the 30- foot wide buffer to happen on the subject properties. um on on the subject's property um within that off that red line. So on the interior of the site. So I I'm I'm going to actually defer to the applicant about exactly what's being proposed in that um section of of land owned by the Ramble if that's okay just for clarity.

Sure. We'll we'll revisit that. Is jurisdictionally is that city of Asheville or not city of Asheville? And can we impose conditions that are not in city of Asheville jurisdiction? That is a great question. Uh the the property does appear to be outside the city limits. So the city limits follows the Deerfield property um verbatim. So that section of land is outside city limits from um from what I can tell regarding conditions put on that land. I believe um you know I I believe it's uh defensible to have conditions associated with the project within city limits that are technically outside the city boundary as long as they have a nexus to the subject project and are directly related to maybe the impacts of the project. So um if there's any uh clarifying information um from from you Janice on that but I believe that is kind of the um criteria that we use to evaluate the efficacy of those kinds of conditions.

Correct. Okay. Thanks. Thank you. Other questions for staff at this point before we invite the applicant up.

Um thank you Mr. Palmquist. I had one question or just kind of education thing for myself. The exhibit E had several different like very specific conditions put on there as far as like electric vehic electric golf carts and such and such heights for certain vehicles. Uh, one of the public comments I saw was about, you know, how substantial these commitments are. I mean, I guess what my question to you is like um these project conditions once they're in place like that is the rule and like what is the recourse if say someone who's who enforces it? Say they start using gas powered golf carts or whatever on these conditions like what happens like you know do they call the police? Do they call you like you know what's just curious?

Sure. Yeah, absolutely. So yeah, our um our enforcement of the zoning in the city, it's largely complaint driven. So yes, staff does not have the resources to to drive around and inspect um all these properties, you know, um at the same time, of course. So we rely on residents to let us know if there are perceived or uh any concerns regarding uh the adherence to the zoning code. So that applies just like it would for any other zoning district. If someone was building a a building too high or too close to a property line, they'd be in violation of the zoning. And in this case, if this conditional zoning were to be adopted, if any of those conditions were not uh followed to the letter of the project conditions document, they would be in violation of the city of Asheville zoning code. So, we would send out a uh zoning uh enforcement officer. they would uh investigate the situation and if it was found that whatever was happening on the site was not in line with the um exhibit E project conditions for this conditional zoning uh they would likely uh issue a notice of violation which would um provide steps to remedy the situation or seek relief to legitimize um whatever operations going on. Um but yeah, that that is the method um that we rely on for the most part and would would be how this would probably be enforced as well.

Gotcha. And the follow-up question to that is like if years down the road this does get built and they decide they do want to add one of these things, they'd have to go through like another CZ process to get that condition removed. It's not like they can just have a community meeting and suddenly decide we're going to start using 10 foot tall dumpsters or whatever the specific Okay.

Yes. That's absolutely correct. Yeah. Anything written into that project condition document is um is essentially law if it becomes adopted by city council and gets attached to that conditional zoning. So, uh staff does not have the ability to change it or wave it or anything like that and it has to go back through the legislative process through city council if any of those um any of those details need want to be changed at all. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Pquist. Mhm.

I had just a quick question around staff's thought on the 10% kind of variance in project size. Um what what what was the process to work through whether or not you feel like that's an appropriate variance in the project development?

Sure. Um, so from staff's perspective, I don't know if we have a a metric. We don't really have a standard metric, so we didn't really have anything to evaluate it against. Um, it was the number the applicant proposed that they felt would give them enough um I guess flexibility if needed down the road where they could, you know, tweak uh the size of some of these buildings where they wouldn't have to come back to amend the conditional zoning. Um staff felt that that was reasonable given the the scope of this project. Um the project might be built in phases. So it could take you know a number of years potentially uh for this expansion to get built out and a lot of things can can change in that amount of time of course uh yet 10% staff felt was not so uh such a high number that it would significantly change the the nature of any of the given uses. So, it was enough of a commitment uh that would ensure that what's being proposed is what ends up being built, but provides just a little bit of wiggle room for the project to shift um if needed down the road at all. And to clarify to build on that, the uh the specific language of the condition allows for variability variability in the building size and number of proposed units by 10% but not say the location of impervious surfaces or you know they could not kind of deviate where they're shown on the site plan. That's correct. The the site elements would have to be largely uh within largely where they're shown on the site plan. there can be um subtle shifts and that's not a quantifiable number um but it the final plan cannot deviate greatly from that which they've presented today.

So would would shifting uh is it possible to pull the the plan up? Yeah. for example, uh shifting one of the the buildings on the bottom, you know, just kind of like just to the the bottom left of I it's pretty close to that wetland area if that were to shift and and and encumber the the wetland, would that be considered substantial enough change?

I think it would depend on the degree that it shifted. Um if if the location is generally where it's shown on on this site plan, um it would be considered to be in compliance, um if it was moved like I don't know. I I think it's hard it's hard to give a number and I'm not going to

let's say if moved 30 30 feet to the to the east. Yeah, I think that would be significant enough to um to raise some concerns with staff about that uh consistency with the presumably adopted site plan. I think maybe you know shifts around five or 10 feet or the design of the building slightly kind of moving around some of those you know edges a little bit would be would be acceptable. Um 30 feet sounds like probably a little too much. It's kind of those things you don't really know it till you see it kind of kind of deal. Um, but yeah, that's that's kind of that's that is kind of the the buffer that we're working with though when it comes to these conceptions. Feel like we're kind of just probing to see what that threshold is for the planning staff.

Um, and just try to understand it better, you know, because there's like 30 feet in a in a field that has no wetlands that's flat means nothing really, but 30 feet on a steep slope can mean a lot of things. So,

right. And if there were, you know, the the if the project ran in any other um issues like with um the the control of streams or aquatic buffers or that kind of thing, then of course it wouldn't be able to locate there and it would have to meet has to meet the storm water requirements and um if it if it was um in a steep slope area and all of a sudden it was exceeding the aotment for uh the grade or that kind of thing, then there are some kind of guard rails around some of those more environmentally sensitive areas. Um but yeah, your point is well taken. So it is it is definitely kind of taken in context um with with the site. Um so it is kind of a you know it is a little bit subjective. Um but you know staff tries to keep to um really the the nature of the project of the approval even the discussions that happen at planning and zoning commission and city council we take under consideration as well. It's kind of like the sub subtext to the to the ordinance that might get adopted where if there was a lot of discussion about the wetland next to letter I and and that was a big concern for commissioners then you know staff would would pick up on that and if there's any movement of the buildings towards that feature we'd be we'd be very concerned if that was an element that you know planning zoning commission or city council had concerns with. So that's that's a little bit of the thought process behind it too.

I appreciate that. and

I appreciate that. Thank you. And and just for clarity for everyone watching, I just realized there's two eyes. I was talking to the about the eye on the east. Any other questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? This is one annoying detail question, but in project condition, sorry, Mr. Palmquist, um the in exhibit E condition 17, signage for the project will be limited to that which is normally permitted in the highway business district. Um why highway business? So, um, so yeah, our our our sign regulation, so I guess the background is that, um, these these, uh, expansion districts that were created about 10 or so years ago to facilitate level three projects such as this one, um, they were not added to the provisions of the the section of our sign code. So either for conditional zonings, we work with the project to stipulate the specific number, location, and details of the signage. So sometimes the condition reads like there's only one ground mounted sign and it's x by x feet and that kind of thing. That's one way to handle it. In this case given the fact that um the project is at the conceptual stage um and given the the large scale of it tying it to a zoning district that you know is nearby the project and has similar um I guess scale consideration. It's um felt like an appropriate proxy to allow them to um have signage down the road. U and based on some standards without having to specify the exact details at this stage.

Thank you. Makes sense. All right. Uh we will now call up the applicant if you wish to speak or present on this.

And please state your name into the mic. bit of a different arrangement than I'm used to. Um, thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the commission. My name is Bob O. I'm I'm with the Asheville Law Firm of Garwood and Bissit and uh and and I I represent the Deerfield Episcopal Retirement Community and this application to amend the conditional zoning ordinance that covers his property. It covers it campus located at 1617 Henville Road in South Asheville. Um uh here with me tonight are are Chris Day and Warren Sug from Civil Design Concepts, the project engineers, Miss Libby Bush, who is the uh who's the president and and chief executive officer of Deerfield. Um Robert Chandler, the uh uh the chief chief finance officer for Deerfield, and Keith Einman, the chief operating officer, and and Miss Bush and and Mr. Day plan to speak. the others are here for information if we need them. Um, I want to thank staff and uh and especially Will Palmquist for the work that they've done on this project. It's a big project as it was back in 2021 when the conditional zoning was approved. Uh, Mr. Palmquist has covered the application and the vital statistic well, I'm not going to go over those but but I I do want to point out as he pointed out that this plan is revised from the one that was before you previously. Uh and the main change is that the the grounds maintenance building which is on which was on the southeast part of the property is uh is has been moved to an off-campus location. We'll provide more detail about that in a minute. Um also made some other adjustments to the to to the site plan and uh and some of the other features of the some of the other features of the the project. I want to point out a couple of things. Uh, one is that Deerfield is a is a is a as an entity as a continuing care

retirement community licensed by the state of North Carolina. It's been on this property since 1955 celebrating its 70th anniversary this year. Uh, before the 2021 conditional zoning, uh, there there was a special use permit from 2008, part of what we used to know as conditional use zoning. Don't do that anymore. I know the staff is glad of that, but uh and it was uh and and that was uh and and that that included a sight specific plan. Before that, we think it was covered by a process the city of Asheville used called uh called site plan review. But the point is this property has long been subject to various special zoning approvals that govern how it can be developed and used and and this is the latest. Um, this amendment, and I want to emphasize that it is an amendment, invol involves some reallocation of housing types, some internal rearrangement of buildings and facilities, but no new uses, no increase in density, and and no increase in external effects. In fact, some of the features of the of the previous approval are going away. notably the water feature and uh and and and and some of the other facilities. The Deerfield Deerfield project team, including Deerfield leadership and some of the design professionals uh have met on multiple occasions over many months in person, by phone or video connection uh with with neighbors in group in groups or one-on-one before and after the required neighborhood meeting. Out of this meeting have come some important out of these meetings have come some some important changes and adjustments. Some of the highlights are, and as I mentioned earlier, the uh uh and this is the most substantial of the changes, is that the grounds building has been relocated to an off-campus site. Um we were only able to confirm that like the day before the last scheduled planning commission meeting. Um and and so I appreciate you all letting us have the time to revise the plans to bring back to you on that. Um, and if the public comments that have been posted on the on on the planning

and zoning commission's website are any indication, that's good news for everybody and uh and and and uh and and and and addresses what we think of the chief concerns. Uh there have also been some changes made to the buffer. Uh there are three levels of protection that apply to this property. One is the the restrictive covenant that was that was put in place when the property was acquired back in 2004. Uh, a second one is the is is the the the general city uh zoning regulations for buffering and landscaping. And a third one is the is this is the what we call the supplemental conditions that will apply to this if uh if if uh if if the if the app if it's approved as we as we've asked. Um, so this pro the the uh the surrounding neighborhood enjoys a level of protection that uh that is uh uh far and away uh uh uh more than than than than the city regulations alone would would provide for. Other changes have been made to the lighting uh lighting requirements and parking area. All of this and more will be covered by the design professionals when uh when when they start when when it's their time to uh uh to address you all. But I want to emphasize that these will be conditions and this I think responds to one of the questions that came up. Um these will these will be conditions on this approval. We have to sign them. The city signs them. The mayor signs them. They get recorded in the Baltimore County register of deeds office. So it's you we uh if it becomes inconvenient at some point down the road to uh to install a bush somewhere or uh or or or um or make some other changes. We can't just change our minds. we've got to come back to you all or go or go through the legislative process again to make those changes. But these this is some folks have said they wanted these conditions in writing. You've got them and uh and and and and that's and we're once they get signed as Mr. Palm has pointed out, they become like it like any other ordinance of the city and uh and and and and subject to

enforcement if they're if if if they're violated. One of the planning and zoning commission's chief duties, and this is covered in the statutes, is uh is is to review proposed zoning amendments uh and and consider whether and to what extent they are consistent with the comprehensive plan and make a recommendation to council on that basis. This proposed conditional zoning amendment is uh is is consistent with with the living Asheville plan, the 2017 comprehensive plan. Uh as as Mr. Palmus has just pointed out he's covered some of the important features, but I want to add to what he said and and somewhere in your material should be a letter from me dated June June 27th which covers some of this stuff. But again, I'll hit the highlights of that. Uh we think that this this project promotes the strategies promotes one of the council strategies to allow seniors to age in place. That's what a continuing care retirement community does. Uh Deerfield has a range of housing opportunities, housing options and services that do exactly that from independent living all all the way up to skilled nursing facilities. Um secondly, the form of development here is what we think the city encourages. It's you all are probably familiar with the illustration in the comprehensive plan about the less of this and more of this. Uh we we we think this this is an illustration of exactly what that we think this this accomplishes exactly what that illustration suggests particularly with with respect to anchor institutions and town centers and we think that this project Deerfield itself would qualify as either one of those uh deerfield sustainability work which is described in detail in that same letter or described in detail in a summary that's attached to that same June 27th letter is is very much in line with the city's goals as outlined in the sustain sustainability master plan. Uh Deerfield really lives this stuff. They put another way, they walk the walk on this. Um and finally, but not least in

importance is is a discussion of of community benefit, which is important in any conditional zoning consideration. In your materials and also post on the web page are are documents that that that cover the the the greater community well-being. uh and and I'm not going to cover that in detail, but what you'll see there are substantial contributions uh to affordable housing and homeless relief services. And these are not just financial contributions. The uh the res residents at Deerfield are engaged in the community. They work with these uh they work with these partners and uh that the residents and staff out there do and and Ms. Miss Bush will cover more about that later on. Um and but but speaking only of the financial contributions, it comes to some $4 million over the course of the last five years. This expansion, if it's approved, will enable Deerfield to continue its mission, the same one it's been fulfilling for the last 70 years, and to continue the uh the good work that it does in the community. Uh so and unless there are any questions of me, I'd like to call on Chris Day of of Civil Design Concepts to uh to walk you through some of the details of the project. Whereas I'd like to say, it's time for me to start stop talk and let the people who really know what they're talking about take over. So, but if you have any questions, I'll be glad to try and answer them now or later. Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Chris Day with Civil Design Concepts in Asheville and I appreciate the opportunity to be here on uh to help Deerfield with this expansion project. I also want to thank Will and staff who've helped us navigate this amendment process for such a large

project. And um Will mentioned over 800,000 square ft of gross floor area. It is a big project and our schematic drawing set alone is approximately 200 pages. That's not even the detailed permit drawings that are yet to come. For that purpose, we went back to the 2021 approved master plan and the items that were reviewed and approved at that time. And we kind of use that as our basis to try and simplify what was being presented to say here's what's changing, here's what the uses that are not changing, and here's an updated master plan pan master plan to reflect. um trying to keep it simple as um how do I navigate this? Oh, thank you Will for your combination skills here for this slide. but it does a really good job of showing that the the primary aspect of the internal changes to the site was the elimination of one of the two multi-story buildings. And in place of that um that second multi-story building, we're proposing additions that you see in red on that center slide, the center and the right slide on the northern Hayden building. and we've proposed proposed those on the internal side of the property. Um the continuation that occurred last month um from the removal of the the removal of the grounds building and the continuation it gave us an opportunity to update the drawings to actually reflect the removal of that grounds building. It also allowed us to provide additional detail based upon conversations that we've been having with the community regarding the buffer plantings and even some of the

conversations we heard here from this commission before the continuation occurred. um we submitted a cover letter with the revised drawings um to kind of outline some of those, but I'll touch on the fact that the water feature that is um illustrated in the approved site plan on the the right um while it looks really pretty, it was um not a good design in regards to impacts to sensitive jurisdictional streams and wetlands. Um, and it was really more of a, as I just recalled, as I just referred to it as a a water feature. Um, there was some questions about built upon area with these changes. The new um proposed imperous area is about 1 acre less than the um than what was shown on the 21. So, we have less impervious built-upon surfaces with this amendment. And we also have less environmental impacts. We really feel like we have all but eliminated the environmental impacts on the um on the south side of the site. And as Mr. Cycle said, um I'll be happy when we get to that point to add a condition that says any modifications um would be uh necessitated that they do not create um environmental further environmental impacts. Deerfield is a unique client. Um it's rare that I've had a project that has engaged and involved the community to the level that we have. Um that has happened with this one to date. Since the last eight months, we've had somewhere in the neighborhood of about 30 in-person Zoom one- on-one phone call um meetings and conversations with the

neighbors. Um, it's also rare that we go to quite the level of detail that you see in the submitted um, plans for the southeast area. But for this project and the evolution of the conversation and where we are today, it necessitated that. We've added cross-sections. We've added more specifics about bunt buffer plantings as well as locations of a privacy fence in that area. When Builtmore Farms sold the Southwoods area to Deerfield, it was done so with deed restrictions. If you notice on the plan, the Deerfield property doesn't even start until approximately 50 feet inside of Racket Club Road. So, there's a 50-ft buffer of uh Ramble HOA property. And then the deed restrictions went further to say that the next 35 ft internal to the site, we wouldn't cut down any trees. We would leave all of those existing trees and then put further restrictions on the height and size of buildings onto that. Um I think there was a lot of forethought in doing that because we knew that this was when Deerfield looked to do bought the property and look to do the expansion there wanted to be sensitivity to the community. um those surveyed trees, those trees that we're preserving in that buffer area on our side of the property on the Deerfield side, we have enough existing trees out there to meet the type B buffer in accordance with the UDO. However, the storm hit many areas hard and it hit some of the areas at Deerfield hard. And while we have trees that are there that still have really

great canopies, they're lacking a little bit when you're down at the ground level and some of the understory area. So the plans that were submitted, they really go in and they've identified the critical root zone and they go in and they're proposing supplemental plantings to try and fill those gaps. Um furthermore, um the city standards, the UDO give specifications on caliper and size of trees for deciduous and evergreen trees. The project proposes um and basically all of the line items to increase um and the the submitted drawings show an increase in size and caliber than the requirement from the ordinance. There was a question that um Mr. Barton, Chair Barton brought up asking about the condition on the ramble. I'll speak to that in a minute when I get to it. But high level, um we furthermore evaluated looked at that 50 foot area between Racket Club Road and the Deerfield property. Um it has a lot of vegetation that is um that was installed and maintained by the built uh the Ramble HOA. We identified areas to supplement and add additional plantings on that on the the Ramble property as well as part of our conversations with the neighbors. Mr. Ost made reference. Some of the additional um project conditions that have been submitted include residential style lighting in this southeast area that meet dark sky requirements, which is the also the city ordinance, as well as I'm trying to provide additional information of um some foot candle um

data sheets to show that we're complying with the ordinance of keeping um all light for no light from spilling over one of those meetings I made reference. We had an in-person meeting with a little more than 60 folks um at uh at Deerfield with the Ramble neighbors there. And the overwhelming comment and concern was the grounds building and the grounds building location. As we wrapped up that night, Libby, the uh president and CEO of Deerfield, stood up in front of everybody and said, "We commit to evaluating where else we could put this grounds building instead of on the southeast portion of the site." And then they task civil design concepts as well as the land planning and architects. And we really we spent considerable time trying to find an alternative location. we could not find a suitable location and so then the decision was ultimately made to remove the grounds building from the property. Um Deerfield's been in existence for 70 years. I'm not sure how long they've had a grounds building on site. I know they've had one there at least 20 years. But moving forward, as part of our conditions, we are stating that that grounds building function will will be removed and and be located offsite. you ask also um I appreciate the time and effort that the neighbors um specifically Mr. Nicolay that you'll meet shortly um has spent engaging in conversations and conveying concerns. Um you'll see that while we always have project E or exhibit E project conditions and those are rather standard, we knew that there was still this kind of detailed area on the southeast that um that were kind of

coming in all the way till the uh the finish line or or to the last moment to try and and and work out. And so that's where we ended up with the E1. completely understand as we move forward if that gets combined into one big group of conditions. But that's kind of how it got seg it got segmented on on our side in terms of trying to get the the information to you guys as fast as possible. You know, as we removed the grounds building, I thought that it was this was going to get easy that the project would and um that that all everybody would be um excited about it. But I realized through lots of conversations that there's still um concerns about well if the grounds building's not there, we still want to understand what's happening there. And while it's really easy for me as a civil engineer to draw lines on a paper and show a parking lot, what I've struggled with or found very challenging is how to use words to describe what happens in a parking lot and what doesn't happen in a parking lot. And so I feel like through um a lot of effort that we are there are very close to being there. Um and so I would like to those are what live in the E1. We submitted the latest version on Friday. As of this morning I have slightly modified ones that I'd like to read out loud. Um will is it easier to show it on the screen for me just to simply read it? Red line. The red line version. Perfect.

So, the document that's up on the screen here and we I've got a hard copy and we and and um these have been submitted to to will and um any conditions that may come out of this meeting today. We'll also add to these, but these are the the latest and greatest. And I wanted to show the the redline version. This is red line from what is publicly available on the city's website today. So minor item here and can you zoom in before you start reading them? Thank you. Um yes I think hold on.

All right. NA we removed the reference to numbers of axles and height of vehicles and just made reference that the we're putting 135 vehicles and standard vehic standard size vehicle. Got to change that to standard size vehicle spaces and three shuttle buses and up to 32 golf carts. We also agreed to remove the word equivalent as it relates to um site lighting. Right now we are we we do intend to use Duke Energy um to provide lighting. They have a residential category of lighting and so we have given the specifications associated with that residential style lighting and uh with a mounted with a pole height of 12 feet. Um and so That's our commitment. And then we're I made reference. So I um I made reference that we spent time looking at the looking at the project site from the Ramble property. Um looking at where they have existing trees and vegetation that are buffering the site as well as where there's some some gaps out there. Um at that point we created a drawing that was really like a basis of design and intent um that was provided to uh Landmark Landscapes who currently installs and maintains the plantings on that side of the property. Um Landmark came back with some recommendations and some changes and a price. Um at the end of the day um I spoke to Landmark

and their process is going to be to identify where any um underground utilities are and species. Basically, they what what we're proposing in this modified condition is to fund those improvements that Landmark will do and then let Landmark with their experience of installing and maintaining plant material on the Ramble side have the authority to dictate where those planting what those plantings are, where they go, and how best to meet the goal of providing additional buffering for the project. The last item was really an item that um I appreciate um all of Mr. time I've spent with Mr. Nicollay as well as um the concerns we heard from a lot of the neighbors really just trying to clarify what the intent is for the southeast parking area. Um and so I I'll read it into the public record. The southeast parking area is designated exclusively for parking vehicles belonging to Deerfield residents, visitors, employees, healthcare providers, and other authorized care providers. It may temporarily serve as parking for up to 135 personal vehicles of construction workers during the expansion project for up to 30 months. The area cannot be used at any time for storing staging equipment, construction materials. I'm going to strike trailers. I had meant to remove that. We we had some conversation on that. So, um, trash, used appliances, equipment, or any other purpose. The parking area will be used in a consistent manner as all other existing and proposed parking areas on Deerfield campus and will be maintained a clean and orderly manner. That last sentence is the way I kind of sum it up in my head. That's our goal. It's 135 parking spaces. Our intent is to use it

just like any other parking space on Deerfield's campus. What we are trying to clarify and make sure and give the comfort to the neighbors is what we're not going to use it for is back of the house storage of materials, junk, trash. It is it is it's a parking lot and intended to be used like a parking lot. So with that, I will turn it over to Libby and I remain available for questions. Well, how do I go back?

Thank you.

Thank you, Chris. As Chris said, I'm Libby Bush. I'm the president and CEO at Deerfield. I want to add my thanks and appreciation to the city staff, to the team. Thank you, Will, as well as all the commissioners. On behalf of Deerfield, we appreciate your consideration of this entire project and also the opportunity to hear a bit more about us, which I'm going to do in just a few minutes, and our thinking for the future as we celebrate, you've heard it a couple of times today for sure. As we celebrate our 70th year of service to older adults, our valued staff members, and the greater community, we anticipate the next chapter to continue to fulfill our mission. And what that is is to enrich the lives of those who live and work at Deerfield and commit to be a leader in aging services. Our expansion project has evolved over not just a few months as you all have heard. It's been a matter of years and it really has come forward in a thoughtful intentional way with a goal of being mindful of needs truly both on our campus and off of our campus. These plans include this latest expansion and a long history of growth. You've heard it today many times. We started in 1955. This is not the first expansion that Deerfield has completed. Those of you who have been on our campus recently, and if you haven't, please come. It's not what it was. So, this is the latest expansion, as you know, from its original beginnings to today. Our project team includes internal and

external subject matter experts like Chris and Bob who work alongside Deerfield leadership every day. Yeah, on most days I think we would agree it's multiple times a day for sure. The plan is for our project to expand our mission and bring more residences to our campus. This is something important to address because as of today we have more than 1600 households, individuals who want to live at Deerfield. Included in these plans will be new amenities and offerings for our current and our future residents. These plans are based within four strategic pillars. One is to be a lifestyle and well-being leader for our current residents who total just about 650 and for our future residents. One is to be a employer of choice for our valued team members who total just about 350 and for any team members yet to come to us. We also have a pillar that is to be dedicated to our mission. That pillar is all about serving and providing service to our greater community. The final pillar, which is really the foundation of everything, those three pillars and everything else, is to remain financially strong. We have to do that so we can continue our focus on resident, employee, and greater community well-being. At its core, Deerfield is a community of actionoriented, community-minded older adults who bring exceptional expertise,

experiences, passion, and a collective energy for work that happens on our campus as well as off our campus. from delivering meals on wheels each week across Bunkham County to building and funding Habitat for Humanity homes, partnering with local schools on literacy programs, as well as providing countless hours and financial resources towards a variety of local organizations. our residents and so many of our staff and our board members invest in making our campus and larger community better. This project should serve to solidify and grow this impact. Finally, I'm going to finish with the hope, the fervent hope that after the communication, engagement, and adjustments that we have made to this project, after extensive feedback, including the grounds building, that we have shown our commitment to not only our campus, but also to our greater community. I appreciate the time again. I appreciate very much the consideration and I and we are available for questions andor comments. Thank you.

Thank you for the presentation and uh information. Um thank you for for what you do to serve Asheville and the the needs for continuing care communities. Um who from the applicant team will be I guess we can direct questions to any of you but could Yeah, Mr. Why don't you stand up? Most of our questions are probably civil engineering related. Um, this this might be more of a question for staff, but with Mr. 's input. So, these new modifications, late breaking modifications to the E1 exhibit, um, understanding that staff hasn't really had a time to fully digest, but procedurally conditions are a mutual agreement between an applicant and the city. So, did you see anything that was caused for concern or anything that you'd like to weigh in on on in the latest revision?

I I did not necessarily. Um I think it's um irrelevant and could be included with with any motion that that gets made. Yeah, thank you for that. Um and thank you for the clarification on the offsite landscape buffer, you know, providing a little more detail on how that would work. just to kind of put a fine point on it. Um the intention is a monetary contribution and the actual execution of the work would be done by the Ramble Homeowners Association.

Correct. It it felt like for a lot of the reasons that you brought up earlier, this is um off property. It's outside of even the city limits. It just it seemed cleaner to make, you know, we we ended up with a basis of design. take that monetary amount and make it a donation towards those goals. Um, and make that the condition of the project. It is that an enforcable condition from the city's perspective. I know we've been a little squirly about financial contributions and conditional zonings of the past. So, um,

I'm completely open to the word smithing and improvement of taking that ideology and and making it however it needs to to to meet what our our goals and what our commitments are to the neighbors. The the intent and commitment, I think, is really clear based on your presentation. It's it's really more the mechanics of how that gets accomplished.

Um, Janice, you can press the button. There you go. I I do think it's enforceable. This is a little different when we've had monetary contributions coming to the city's say for example affordable housing fund. Uh we have said that's not a condition that we can put in. But this has to do with an agreement between this neighborhood group and I I would assume you're going to have a contract and the condition will be enforced because well we'll have to they'll have to submit to the city that they have reached this agreement or have received the funds and that's the completion of your agreement or in terms of improving the landscaping but because I think it is related to landscape improvements that help with the buffer and help with the neighboring communities u acceptance of this project that that is enforcable and not outside of the bounds of what you can approve.

Thank you for that. Um any other questions of the applicant? Well, just to follow that up. So it's enforcable that the monetary contribution will be made. Is but since the Ramble's not on city property, is it enforcable that that funds be used for landscaping?

Well, the the city's not going to be going in to be sure that the the landscape was done. And I have to assume that the the the contribution was based on plans. It sounded like the ramble was already has a landscape plan or where they wanted to enhance it and then you just came to an agreement. So, um, the agreement will probably say the ramble is going to use these funds for this and I I think then we would just have to accept the agreement as proof and once they've received the funds that they will carry through with that. And I could see um very similar to the vast majority of these conditions that you know before we're allowed to get any certificate of occupancy on any of these buildings, Deerfield will have to provide proof to the city of Asheville that those funds were provided to Builtmore um to Builtmore Farm or to to the Ramble HOA. And so, um, I think there was a question about enforcement earlier and and as the civil engineer who's always scrambling at the 11th hour when people are trying to move into a space, that is the ultimate leverage that we see that, you know, the the city has a lot of great folks who go out and are looking to make sure that every tree that we said were going to be was going to be there is there before we can actually um use the spaces that we're constructing. So, um that's the first line of enforcement. Um you know, in terms of way down the road if something that doesn't address something changing to gas, but today they use electric. They've been using electric and they don't have any plans to change from electric golf carts on that item either.

Would you mind going back to the um marked up E1 Yes.

Yeah. Can you scroll up to the striking of the word equivalent? So, you know, I from designer to designer, um, you know, oftentimes or equivalent or approved equal, something to that effect is used in our documents, uh, because of procurement issues and and whatnot. and and I'm a little concerned by striking that if if for some reason this particular fixture is not able to be procured like what does that mean if that's now in a condition?

So that's a great question. Um and that's exactly the catalyst for why it was originally in the document. um the the wording um seemed to cause concern among some of the neighbors. I felt as a design professional that whether the word was there or not if Duke Energy decides to change their open monosel LED fixture to the whatever um fixture. But it's that's why we went further to give specifications on what that that um identified item was so that it gave staff a reasonable um the the reasonable standards there, the specs there to say that that this meets the intent of what's being approved. So you feel comfortable with striking that word in that we're not going to come back before us here just because the light model changes.

It's probably more of a staff question. I have faith that staff wouldn't come back for that, but um you know that that is why we usually add it. But it was um that's why we added the additional specifications there. It does say maximum. So that that kind of helps us set the cap. So if it was 300, you know, 3,900 lumens.

I would also be okay. I I had contemplated saying something about how you know the um alternative would follow would be in the same category. You know Duke has different categories of the lights that they provide. They have the commercial, they have the residential and whatever else. And so keeping it in the while Duke very well may decide to not provide the open monosel, they will provide something similar. We just don't know what that's called at this point. Okay. Okay. So that's E for why it says EG, right? For example, that particular model, but it has to meet the following specifications. That was our goal of providing that. All right. Thank you.

Um, three questions. One of them, sorry to go back to the the money thing with the landscaping contractor. Um, but we can't name like a I guess the specific name of the contractors in It just seems a slippery slope to be like the landscaping contractor or the ramble and not just leave it at

Are we allowed to do that? I had you can see here I I struck the specific contractor name and and basically at the end of the day it is the it is the organization that currently maintains the Ramble landscape and it is who we have coordinated with and and are open to to their um expertise in managing and maintaining the goal that we've presented there. say, but that money is still being set aside. That money is being set aside. Deerfield's still doing that directly with the landscape contractor. We can't really involve another HOA who's not on this property. Like

I I I'll once again leave that up to the legal side, but our I was trying to simplify it by saying, "All right, here's the price and we will donate that to the Ramble for for this use." And and that is what the conversations have been with both the Rambles HOA leadership as well as the current landscape contractor who installs and maintains the landscaping on the Ramble property.

Okay. Um sorry to belabor that point. I just think it is a little there's a lot of Okay. Thank you. Uh we might want to clarify that it the money gets paid to the Ramble HOA property for that. Is that what you were concerned that we're not paying the contractor directly? We're paying the HOA so they can use it for their landscape

contract. I don't personally like care. I don't own stakes in the landscaping company or anything, but like as a setting a condition for a city ordinance, we can't just or can we just say x money goes to this private entity who's not the land owner? That's why it probably is better to say to the payments being made to the Bramble HOA for the purpose of um landscaping. Correct. And the condition they're a landscaping plan. they'll work with their contractor. So, we we might have to change the the wording a little bit. Okay. Does that help? Okay.

Um my second question was the uh the buffers the landscape buffers referenced in here the like 30 ft that's measured from the center line of the road or is that from the edge of the like where is that buffer measurement start from? So the land the type the landscape buffer basically if you start outside of the property at Racket Club Road you come in approximately 50 ft to the Deerfield property line

and then from that Deerfield property line inward it is there's a 35 foot area where we are um not putting

um we're not doing any we're not we're not doing any any grading. We are proposing to place an 8-ft privacy fence um in accordance with conversations we've had with the neighbors um right at that 30 to 35 ft area on the inside with all of the plantings on the the ramble side of that 8ft privacy fence. Um, we are I I say in the 30 to 35 ft because I want to put it the the grade drops off and I want to put it in the most appropriate place to get the most using the topo to get the most um effect from from that installation.

Okay. And then clarify, Commissioner Fairloth, the required city landscaping buffer is from the property line in 30 ft.

Okay. Um, I just know some of those property lines are like in the road itself. Um, so like part of that buffer is like a hardscape surface from the city's property is the point I'm trying to get out here. in this area of concern. I I don't think while that happens in a lot of projects, I'm not sure in in the the the area of the what we're calling the the south woods the where the the primary expansion is occurring. Um those property lines are are internal or are set back off of the road.

Okay. Thank you. Um then my final kind of question is um I know many uh HOAs have rules on like construction hours during a project. Um this might be a question for Miss Libby Bush or something, but does the Deerfield have certain restrictions for what times or days construction can occur? Um, I know this is a short-term question, not a long-term thing, but if there is concern about disturbing the neighbors, is it like It is a good question. And um let me let me confirm that it's not one of the um it is something that we've been focused on and I'll just need to confirm with with Deerfield on that and follow up.

Thank you Keith and Deerfield. uh CO we have discussed uh hours of construction they will be within the city ordinance of noise uh there there will be some times that we do some concrete pores in the middle night but we'll get the ex uh exact permission through the city but yes we do plan to follow the uh city uh noise ordinance.

Okay, thank you. Can you speak to the green storm water features that might be present on the site or what the storm water features are? I know in the originally approved concept design, green elements was an important part of the project and part of why staff recommended it and being in alignment with the comp plan and I know some of that has changed. So if you can give us some thoughts on that. Thanks. Yeah, good question. Thank you. Um, one of the items that uh that we like about the project and and the the changes that have occurred were to be able to take um these and I apologize my proposed storm water control measures and the wetlands look very similar on this exhibit that you see up here, but these um we have identified jurisdictional wetlands and streams um in this in these south woods. And while the previous plan um it was really highlighting a lot of how there was going to be walking trails and things um green items in nature, we are still proposing to to keep large areas of of woods in here um undeveloped areas so that these walking trails can go through there. similar down on in these in these corridors, those areas, we're trying to limit the amount of disturbance so that we can preserve not only the trees we've talked about on the exterior of the property, but also on the interior for the um enjoyment of the residents. What we're looking to do with storm water is really a combination of more localized um storm water ponds as well as bio retention cells that you see up closer

to the building um some of the buildings here and then also supplementing that as uh as necessary with subsurface detention to make sure that we with like infiltration type devices to make sure that we're meeting the city of Asheville's storm water ordinances. So is it just by retention and the underground infiltration or any other? We have we have actually um pond we have above ground ponds surface with our permanent pool ponds bio retention um as well as um subsurface um I think we may have a few infiltration type trenches but by and large those other features are the the primary method for maintaining and managing the storm water on site.

Okay. Thank you. Mhm. I was just going to follow up with that. I I I appreciate you sharing that. Um I based on the drawings, that's kind of where I felt like you guys were going. I didn't see and I don't know if it was just because the planting plan was focused on the buffer, but I didn't see any planting in any of those. So if they were buy retention, are they intended to be planted or just grassed or

the the um we're the landscape architects are working on those details right now. um where they're located and uh the depth, we're able to get a minimum of 4 feet on those. So, they would be suitable to be able to plant trees and shrubs in there and and not and not just be grass. So, um that is something that that we have the opportunity to do with these. Thank you.

Any other comments, questions for the applicant? Hi, I just um we haven't spoken about it much um but we've really focused kind of the way the residential is um impacted to the southeast of the site. But um a couple of great points were brought up tonight that you know Deerfield is an employment center um also within our comp plan. It's a It's actually an urban center as well. Um and it's on a transit corridor. Um so I'm wondering if you studied the Hendersonville Road um corridor uh I guess study out from the no and their recommendations as it pertains to the entrance to the facility overall. So, um that's a great question and I appreciate the um the work and efforts that have been done into that. All of we have not proposed any modifications or changes to the access points um that we currently have out there. So, we besides um sidewalk improvements along Hendersonville Road, there's there's no proposed modifications or or changes to the existing drive. So, while I appreciate the efforts that had been put into that that study, um it with everything occurring internal to the project, it it wasn't something that um that was included in in ours.

Um does does this development look like it's going to maybe increase employment like the number of employees for the overall facility? It definitely there's definitely an increase in the number of employees as we go to the expansion. I I do not know the the number. Um I do know that from the more nerdy civil engineer side, we did have the traffic um for the the programming. We did have the the traffic analyzed and it was a decrease in trips per day from the 21 approved plans and it stayed below the city's threshold for increased traffic. as it relates to increased jobs. I'll defer that over to uh to Libby.

And so I I think what I heard is that the revised amendment is less traffic impact than the 2021 approved plan, but this project itself, the one before us, will likely impact traffic on Hendersonville Road as it is currently. So I'll say yes to the first statement. Yes, this is slightly less than the 21. I'll say that the increase in traffic, the increase in trips per day for this project was analyzed and it stays below the city's threshold for studying and doing a traffic impact analysis. So um in that regard, it's a low amount. It's less than 100 peak hour trips and um in the types of projects on Hendersonville Road that is a it did not trigger the need for a more detailed study.

It's roughly 1,600 units. No. Um this 16 the six I'll let I'll let Libby clarify her 1600 statement. Thank you for the clarification question. 1,600 referred to households on our wait list. Okay, so over 1,600 households on our wait list. We are anticipating, if approved, 165 new units. Okay, excellent. Yeah.

Um, so I guess once again I'm just kind of, you know, if you pull up the sidewalks into the total development, which we're talking 800,000 square feet, that's significant by the city of Asheville's um, standard of development. Um, there's not even sidewalks coming out of your development heading south down Hendersonville Road. So, do we know about how employees get to work for this facility?

So, I'll add that one of the conditions that's listed in there is the project does add sidewalks on Hendersonville Road. So, there's a bus stop um that Deerfield put in with a previous project um a number of years ago just north of the entrance. And the project um one of well we don't see it in this the the primary focus of the expansion is is what you see on the screen the yeah it there are the the expansion is occurring primarily over here but part of the improvements and that are referenced in the conditions and on the submitted plans show new sidewalks along Henderson Mill Road. Could we pull up those submitted plans and just have a quick look at that? And

and I to kind of uh piggyback on Commissioner Wheatley's question, it the submitted drawings don't show existing internal sidewalks. There are there is an existing sidewalk off of Lambeath Drive that pulls you into the site from Hendersonville Road. It's not clear on the plans if we pull them up that that actually exists because it's not being changed. But my guess is what will be built on Hendersonville Road ties into that existing sidewalk along Lambbeath that brings you internal to the site. Will I'm not sure where to find the drawings.

Let me clarify a couple points on your question. We're looking at at full buildout an additional 75 employees. Uh we do have a bus stop right at the front of our location at the entrance. Um, we do have a uh ride share program with the city of Asheville where they get free brush strips. Uh, our employees do currently right now. We we we uh plan to continue with that program too. Um, so and along we are going to add the sidewalk along the north side and south side of Hendersonville Road. Excellent. I've got them pulled up here too. I can see it. And then can you clarify if there's can you clarify sidewalk connections today is that on Lambbeath?

Yeah. Yeah. We uh we have an entire loop that you could walk the entire campus now sidewalk wise. We plan to continue that in the new uh expanded area to have sidewalks throughout especially for our residents to walk and hiking trails also.

Excellent. Thank you. with the the relocation or you know removing the grounds maintenance building from the property. Does that mean the grounds maintenance program is no longer going to be done by Deerfield and is there a loss of jobs associ associated with that? We will continue to have Deerfield uh in-house uh employees with the uh landscaping uh duties. The warehouse is within three miles of of Deerfield campus. So, we'll be transporting back and forth each day the equipment so they can work on campus. We do not anticipate a loss of employees. It's a rockstar group like all groups at Deerfield. Thank you for asking that.

Any other questions for the applicant before we open up public comment? Thank you for the thorough explanation, the updates, and the u willingness to engage in kind of um public discourse to shape the conditions for the project. I I want to add to that, Chris. I just want to say it's an incredible difficult position. I think uh being in the middle as the designer and um a lot of conditions to work through and I just want to share with everybody that I uh think you navigated that uh very well and I wanted to share my gratitude.

Well, I appreciate that, Commissioner Cycle, but I also have to say that it's been with some very engaged neighbors and a lot of effort. So, it's it's it's not been on me. It's it's it's really there's been a a lot of Deerfield's team, as Libby said, there have been many many many many multiple meetings, quick meetings, um and uh lots of conversations. So, it's a it's an evolution that that projects of this size take.

Thank you. And in that spirit, um we will uh open for public comment. Many people signed up under this item. The way that I'll um sort of administer it is I'll call the person signed up as well as the next person so they know they're next on deck. Given the late nature of the revisions, if you are satisfied and no longer have a desire to comment, maybe just stand up, say I'm good, and we'll move on to the next person on the list. Um you're still welcome to uh participate in public comment if you like. Although I will mention as I did before that I'll reserve the right to uh cap public comment at an hour if we are starting to hear kind of repetitive themes. So use your time wisely. If you're speaking on behalf of a group please make sure those people identify themselves before they yield their time. And with that I will open the public hearing um at 4:40. Uh, first signed up on our list is Derek Allen and next is John Nicolay. So, Derek, Derek and I are going to switch spots.

Who's our timekeeper here? Do I need to We've got it covered. Great.

So, please state your name. Say if you're speaking on behalf of just yourself or a group and have those people. Can I make this full screen? Okay. All right.

Okay. My name is Jesse Swords. I'm an attorney with Allen Stalin Kilbornne. And I would ask the folks who were yielding to me to raise their hands, including Mar Hayes and two folks back there. So, we have been involved in this project for a few months now. Um early on we submitted a letter to uh the city uh basically over what we saw as a lack of detail in the initially submitted plans. And what had us spooked uh this is an example from the previous approval back in 2021. We had uh this nice uh cartoon site plan. Uh, and as you can see, by the time we got to final TRC, there was uh there were some details added, including uh a bunch of parking spaces that, you know, are just simply not indicated by the actual approved site plan. So, we were concerned with that lack of detail. Um we submitted a letter uh and the the main point of it is that under the UDO the CZ application process requires review of development plans and that is uh a defined term in the UDO and the obvious function there is is so that y'all have enough information to to evaluate this project um and its compliance with the UDO. Uh that's why with most projects we see much more detailed plans, many more plans uh than we have here. Although uh Friday of last week there there were some details added. So we we had sent the letter. We got this response back from Mr. Palmquist um that the project is being reviewed as a conceptual master plan and not a development plan. and we have therefore not required all the plans and drawings typically required for level three

conditional zoning application as detailed in the submission checklist. Um, we submitted an appeal of that determination because, um, I guess simply put, uh, the city doesn't have authority to review conditional zonings as a conceptual master plan under under its own UDO. So, this appeal is an appeal of the city's review process and that has been submitted timely to the board of adjustment. Um, I I won't cover the main points in detail, but essentially, you know, staff doesn't have authority to vary the application requirements. Um there's no authority under the UDO to review CZs as conceptual master plans as opposed to more detailed development plans. Our appeal includes uh a request to the board of adjustment that uh essentially the final decision be stayed um pending the board of adjustments resolution of this appeal. So, this is something that the UDO allows us to do. Um, and we obviously this is not a final decision, but the city hasn't even put us on a board of adjustment agenda yet. And um, so certainly the board of adjustment has not heard our our request uh to stay this matter. So, here's another example of uh lack of detail being problematic. This is the initial submittal in 2025. I highlighted grounds building over there and it's um J on this drawing. So that that's all the application said. Uh but turns out this is what Deerfield meant when it when it said grounds

building. 3200 foot a square foot grounds building plus a,200t opensided heavy equipment storage shed, you know, open-sided pole barn. uh open-sided covered parking, trash compactor, backup generator, 300 plus gallon above ground fuel tank, till dumpster, large outdoor bays for mulch and gravel, etc. Um, so none of that is is shown, certainly not in detail on what was initially submitted. Here's another example. This is a version of the landscape plan that was sent uh circulated to the neighbors and to ask law in June. And I'll just scroll down to to show you the current version of this before this board. And as so as you can see uh detail has actually been omitted. Detail that Deerfield has clearly because it's on this drawing has been omitted. And instead of showing the building pad grading. Oh,

while you're pulling that back up, Mr. Swords, sorry to interrupt you. Um, understanding that this body is not the one that will make an adjudication of your appeal, do you have information that's relevant to our consideration other than to just note for the record that your position is that it's an invalid application? Uh, Just note for the record, you know, this is an advisory vote. City council will be the final decision. Uh, you know, we we're asking for consideration of the BOA before the final decision is made. Um, so again, we have this, you know, lack of detail, um, kind of hiding the real impacts. the the what has actually been submitted just shows you know the the buildings on top of the existing topo as opposed to the grading shown by this example that was circulated to us. So this brings me to the landscape condition. Um this is obviously tiny and illeible, but this is the detail um Deerfield went into when they submitted, you know, proposed landscaping to the Deerfield neighbor group and to us. Um, the way it was explained to me, um, there are holes in the deerfield side of the buffer to preserve these existing trees and there are supplemental plantings kind of filling in those holes on the deerfield side, but also what they proposed for the ramble side was integrated into that whole plan. So, some of the supplemental plantings are on the deerfield side. Obviously, this this condition has been changed, but as of this morning, this is what it was. Um, we've asked for the a copy of the proposal and um they won't send it to us. Uh, we don't know if it includes everything that was proposed on the on the earlier landscape plan. Um, we're not too concerned about the logistics of

who the money goes to and things like that. We want to do it however makes sense. So, I'm confident we can work that out. Kind of to address a question from earlier. I also want to talk about the uh the 10% condition uh under 160d3b uh the development density uh whether up or down is not something that's allowed to be addressed at the staff level. Um so you know if Deerfield wants 10% more I I think they they have to ask for it here. Um based on the numbers uh we we just heard of 822,300 ft square feet of gross floor area. The 10% condition would allow them to go over 900,000 9004 94,530 is 10% more. So, uh, we had also earlier agreed, um, with Deerfield's council to strike that and replace it with minor modification to the approved site plan shall be allowed as provided in UDO section 778 C6. Um, but it it popped back up as as you can see and as we've discussed. Finally, we've had some inconsistencies. this um the the dumpster enclosure um was kind of sold to the neighbors group as being 165 ft from Racket Club Road um as early as June 11th that was repeated numerous times. I found an email from August 1st 165 ft. But as you can see this this cross-section profile uh doesn't measure the distance parallel I mean perpendicular to Racket Club Road. So 165 ft is not the real distance. It's actually 130 ft. This is just an example

of what some of the neighbors see as inconsistencies and um kind of obfiscations, you know, that come out of this lack of detail. Finally, I want to address compatibility. The future land use map has this entire area, and you're not as familiar as I am, but uh this is where Deerfield is. This is all residential neighborhood on the future land use map. And there's a long description of it, but the the excerpt is commercial uses will be inappropriate in a residential neighborhood with the exception of uses compatible within a residential context, including home stays, bed and breakfast, and appropriately designed neighborhood centers. Now, obviously, this is, you know, already in a CZ, but uh I want to address the parking that remains where the where the grounds facility was taken out because this is residential neighborhood on the future land use map. Um neither parking decks nor parking lots are an allowed use in any residential zone. Uh which to me indicates compatibility. Um, we proposed a condition that would keep it uh to a not commercial in character.

Thank you, Mr. Next up, we have John Nicollay. And then following um Julie Jensen, I believe Mr. Nichol is representing a group of two or more folks. M Mr. Nicollay, can you identify the two folks or ask for them to raise their hands who your There are there are a few people out there who I think were yielding me a little bit of time. Thank you. And don't panic. I won't actually take that much time. Thank you.

Uh Jeffrey, you you good? Okay. Thank you. Um uh good afternoon and um commission and staff to you. Thank you. Hats off to you for your commitment to our community and your work. Special thanks to those of you who took time out of what I learned is personal time to actually come out and look at the site and see it from our neighbors front yards. Uh that would that meant a lot to us and uh speaks well to Asheville. Thank you. Thank you for that. Um my name is John Nicolay. Uh I am co-chair of a group at the Ramble that came together around this matter. My wife and I live at 33 Croin Court which is in 400 ft of the property line with Deerfield. Uh we have a number of people here uh from the Ramble. Uh maybe if just a quick quick show of hands and we had a number of people here about a month ago. Some of those unfortunately now due to the week that it is are out of town, things like that. Other people who are going to speak and be here but uh they are here in spirit and and we appreciate the support that we've had. uh from the from the neighborhood. Uh I'm retired from 43 years in the construction industry. For the last decade of that career, I ran a business unit on a national scale that built continuing care retirement communities just like Deerfield. Uh so I have a little bit of knowledge of the process. Every day is a learning experience, but I have a little bit of knowledge. uh and if there's any one thing that I learned in being around dozens of projects like this over that period of time is there is a fundamental basis of how successful projects work. That fundamental basis is trust and integrity. I'd like to come back to that. What brings us here at this time is, I suspect, a good example of why

communities must have zoning laws and zoning commissions. We c Why can't seemingly good people with good intentions live up to the doing the right thing? Why are you even necessary? But unfortunately, here we are. To be clear, as residents of the Ramble, we are not here objecting to Deerfield's right to expand their business. We are not here to complain about their plans to build 300 whatever new new apartments at a cost of several hundred million investment. What we are here for is the blue is us. There are people in the room who live in those houses. The yellow are the hybrid buildings of which they'll eventually be 12. Great product. Understand it, know it, good idea. But that red X is where the grounds building, may it rest in peace, was I just wanted this to be up here just to highlight why we objected at having something like this in our front yards. literally in the front yards of people who are sitting near here. I say literally, it was 120 ft from their front doors. While it appears that Deerfield has agreed to relocate the facility, we understand that, and now be replaced by 135 vehicle parking lot, their planned action will still have a negative impact on our property values. It will still likely cause some people to move. I can speak for people in this room. It will still negatively negatively affect the marketing of our homes by extended time on market. And it is not at all in

keeping with the character of the Ramble community. We live by choice in a quiet, peaceful, environmentally responsible, wellplanned community. We resent Deerfield's prolonged indifference to our legitimate concerns. So allow me a brief history. We initiated discussions with Deerfield eight months ago to understand what they plan to do. This maintenance facility quickly caught our attention along with their proposed use Jared along with their proposed use of Racket Club Road as a temporary construction entrance for two and a half years. That proposal still exists. It's a conversation maybe for another time. Beginning with the first meeting and there were many more. We were told how they wanted to be a good neighbor. For months we met and talked and expressed concern. For months we saw more and more objectionable use of this area come our way. And we expressed more concerns. And for months we were told they still wanted to be good neighbors. Finally they asked us what we wanted. We told them. We gave them the detailed actions that would have addressed our concerns. But they rebuffed it. They weren't interested. They weren't interested in talking about it, let alone doing something. So, at what point does a responsibly intelligent person lose the ability to trust? When is apparent that the person across the table confuses words with actions? When is it apparent that the person across the table can't make decisions or won't make decisions? So, it was not until the days before your August 6th meeting that Deerfield vaguely indicated they were considering relocating the maintenance facility offampus. At that point, our attention turned to getting assurance around what was

actually departing the site across the street from us and if it was going to be a parking lot, assurance as to how the parking lot would be used. Chris Day made reference to this uh in in his remarks uh and and I had a full head of hair when Chris Day and I first met. So it has taken us a month and the simple has been made complex but it would appear as of today we have made progress on this subject. Time will tell and the only acceptable answer will be the documentation ultimately coming out of city council with the mayor's signature. So that E1 Jeffrey is an very important document to us. It it really captures our concerns and the and the solution to those concerns. So it's important that that be embedded in your output. I presume you understand that the Ramble is following or this this effort within the Ramble is following two tracks. I'm speaking hopefully on behalf of 274 Ramble households, some of whom here today, but also I think as you have figured out, Mark and Robin Hayes, our good friends and good neighbors, have also retained Jesse and Derek in pursuit of their specific interest, as any neighbor in the Ramble had a right to do and still does. I believe Chris Day can attest to the fact that the communication between us and the haze is frequent and free flowing and certainly no source of confusion uh on our end. One final comment. Deerfield is in a business that requires immense trust on the part of their elderly customers. Incoming residents of the new hybrid apartments will be paying Deerfield a

significant non-refundable entry fee. That is essentially in return for a promise to provide those people care for the remainder of their lives. That is trust. And no, this does not certainly check the box for affordable housing. There are 28 families in the Ramble who are on Deerfield's waiting list to eventually move there. We're 20 28 of us part of that list of 1600. But I can tell you that there are several families in the Ramble who now currently have no interest in moving to Deerfield because of this experience. I will remind Deerfield that trust and integrity matter. Thanks for your time. Thank you, Mr. Nicolay. So, next up, uh, we have Julie Jensen. Before we get to Julie, I'm skipping over Marty Benson. Want to make sure you were one of the people seating your time to Jesse Swords. Marty,

okay, but you don't want to speak right now.

Okay, so we'll go to Julie Jensen and then next up, Robin Hayes. I'm Julie Jensen and I am actually going to let Robin talk first because my entire comments are based on what she has to say. Good evening. I'm Robin Hayes and I do need extra time. So, I'm looking for two people who will see their time to me.

And as a reminder, if you've yielded your time once, that's it. So, if you haven't, you can yield your time now. You good? Okay.

Thank you. Um, so again, my name is Robin Hayes. My husband Mark and I live at 234 Racket Club Road. I do have prepared comments. I'm probably not going to get into them too much because I'd like to address sort of on the fly some of the things that I've heard tonight in terms of some of Deerfield's presentations, some of the changes that we've heard and I'm still confused and I still have questions and it particularly surrounds the issue about parking and how much parking Deerfield needs. Um, based on the submissions that Deerfield has made to date and their their statements from this evening, I heard Mr. Einman say that there will be 75 new employees. I heard Miss Bush say that there will be 165 new units based on some of the questions the commission has asked. Um, when I add what was submitted, there are 192 new units in the hybrid buildings. There are 69 new units in the apartment building. That's 261 units. If you allow the 10% variance that Deerfield has requested, that could be almost 300 units. Um the the parking still confuses me because in their original submission from 2021, Deerfield asked for 346 spaces. In early August of 2025, just last month, in advance of the commission's meeting,

Deerfield asked for 226 spaces. And in the letter that they just submitted this past Friday before the three three day weekend, I think the clock in time was 4 453 on that letter. The number of parking spaces that they requested was 402. 75 new employees, 402 new surface, new parking spaces. How many do they need? What is driving the need for their parking? I've had no or heard no explanation about an actual physical need based on employees staffing. 75 employees is what Mr. Einman said. He's their chief operating off officer. He would know. All of the other the hybrid buildings will all have garages and driveways for parking. So, where do these numbers come from? They've asked for 135 spaces in their new parking surface area. When the exhibit was up earlier and I looked at the footprint of a parking lot that they're proposing, it took up the footprint of approximately four of their hybrid buildings. This is a large parking lot. When it was a grounds building, they were showing 100 parking spaces. We had originally asked that they stick with a 100 parking spaces, which we felt was a generous give. They've changed it to expand it to as much as imperous surface as they can. Again, without any explanation other than we just want to try to get as much parking as we need. There was a comment made during the course of negotiations in trying to work this out where one of

the Deerfield members said, "I'm not sure why everyone's so upset. This parking lot is so far away from everything. It's going to be very lightly used. Then why do you need it?" We still have not heard an explanation about why it's needed. And yet on Friday when they put their submission in, they were still looking for the right to put in not uh vehicles that had three axles and were over 9 ft were up to 9 ft tall. That allows box trucks as panel trucks. They're going to be visible over the 8ft fence. They finally backed off that today. But I think it's hugely important that any restriction, if you consider moving forward with a vote to have this go to council, that you should limit this to two axle passenger vehicles that do not exceed a height of 7 feet. We researched the 7 foot height limit. We looked at the Ford F-450s. We looked at Hummers. We looked at the biggest personal passenger vehicles we could find. They are all under seven feet. Why do you need a nine foot pastor? Anything? And if they don't agree to it, we don't want to have this is our chance to talk to you to tell you what our expectation is. And we we cannot allow the 10% variance because 135 spaces is going to have another 13 spaces. Where do they go? The height can be changed. We get no public input at all at TRC. And I have to say that when TRC reviewed this project originally in May of 2022, it unilaterally with the applicant's request eliminated the two-story parking deck that was done as an administrative process. We are concerned. We have to be as specific as possible to get this done right. This is our chance. And I do want to say very briefly, I don't want to

dwell on this. We do admire um Deerfield's uh mission. They're a good organization. They do good things. People in the Ramble do those same good things. Um but I do want to share in uh the planning department's presentation, they were talking about how this met housing goals, comprehensive plan goals, about affordability and aging in place and those sorts of things. I want to share with you just for you to look at what Deerfeld has published is their admission fees, their entrance fees, and their monthly maintenance cost for these units. Um the the most affordable apartment starts at $575,000. The most expensive entrance fee for 90% refundable is over $2.7 million. The most affordable hybrid home, the entrance fee is $979,000. The most expensive entrance fee is $2.4 million. I don't think this is what your comprehensive plan means when it talks about access to housing and the support in terms of comprehensive plan. Um, so again, I'm going to sort of avoid the uh the prepared remarks because I do want to thank you all for the time that you've taken to come and look at the site from the Ramble perspective and your time this evening and in the evenings before. Um, I also want to thank specifically Chris Day because he has worked very hard to to try to be an intermediary in terms of working with the neighbors and making himself available to do that. and we very much appreciate those efforts that he's done. So, I'm happy to answer any questions that you have, but I would like to pass out. Um,

if you could share any information with staff also just so they have since I'm sort of off script at this point. Um, a quick clarification about the landscape. Um, our HOA has declined to be actively involved in this. they have uh basically said that they would prefer to have the monies go directly to its landscape contractor which happens to be landmark at this point because if it goes to the HOA directly then there are income tax uh implications because of its nonprofit status if it's if it takes that contribution directly. So if there is and there should be some tweaking of that language, it should certainly be to the HOA or its design to allow it to be able to designate that the landscape contractor be paid directly so that it doesn't have to to deal with uh income tax implications. Um, I do feel again very strongly that the 10% variance that Deerfield has requested, you've asked those the really good questions. I think it would set an unprecedented um, uh, standard that you would impose not just for Deerfield but other developers who might be coming to you. And again, because this is our chance, that 10% could change things dramatically in terms of the impact, potential impact on our Ramber neighbors adjacent. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you.

So, next up, we'll come back to Julie Jensen and then next would be Todd Donatelli, unless you have already yielded your time. I'm Julie Jensen. I live at 236 Racket Club Road. And Robin spoke a on the fly on a lot of things that I wanted to say. I'm a tax lawyer by profession. And I was going to say that's why our HOA doesn't want it to come to us. It really does have an impact on uh not for-profit organizations to accept money like that. Um particularly when they're not really taxexempt. But I guess the thing that has been the most important to me is not only has this been frustrating, which everyone has said, but it's really confusing to come today and Robin did an incredible job speaking on the fly. Uh it's very hard for us to put all this together and think about it. And I too would like to thank everyone for coming and giving your time. It's it's it is very important to us and this is our one chance to give our side of the development. Thanks.

Thank you. Next up we have Todd Donatelli.

All right. So then next we have Adah Nicolay and then Carla Dixs. Um, thank you. Hello, my name is Aida Nicole and I live at 33 Croin Court. In my prior life, not unlike you, I have spent many evenings in elected chambers. For over 30 years, I was in government relations covering city, state, and federal issues. First to Will and the staff, thank you for your time. In addition, I would also like to thank the commissioners, especially for taking the time to tour our property. It was very generous for you to do that in the July heat. Thank you very much. And review it from from our perspective. Also, as a former chair of the Charlotte Meckllinberg Cal Council on Aging, I never dreamed I would stand before you and remotely oppose a senior living a senior a senior living project. When we moved into the Ramble, we knew that Deerfield was across the fence and many laughed that when we were ready, we would just jump the fence. I can assure you, no one is laughing now. um especially when we were talking about the industrial facility that was going to be across um across into the front yards of our neighbors. So when we moved into the Ramble, we were impressed and found out that Jack Ceil had made a tremendous effort in developing the Ramble to save trees, create walking trails, to maintain a sense of natural beauty. Before Hela, it was sacriiggious to ask if we could cut down a tree. We knew Deerfield would be expanding and as my husband told you he built CCRC's across the country and they said we'd be a good neighbor and they reminded us of that during the excruciating delay delay

tactics and eight months of negotiations. John asked them in January he said please don't make us come to the public forums. He said we can work this out. Eight months later this is where we are. When we thought of Deerfield, we thought of a aging caring community. And I think it is while Deerfield but though while Deerfield is a nonprofit CCRC, the status, this is to um follow up with Robin's notation, the status under a fed federal lucr lucrative but legal tax loophole allows their residents an exemption from paying real estate taxes on their dwellings as an entry fee model. In addition, they also benefit from other tax exemptions. Uh the expansion has already been um has already been discussed and their their expansion project encompasses about $250 million about $250 million. So um um the development, not unlike the ramble, is not an endeavor that is lacking the funds to do the right thing by its neighbors. And not until the continuence from this body last month did Deerfield get serious about removing the maintenance facility from the premises. And not until this meeting did they get serious about other conditions. So now I sort of feel like I'm living in a Joanie Mitchell song. We now have a new amenity across from our neighbors. Yes, you guessed it. Pave paradise and put up a parking lot that has expanded from 100 spaces to 135. And Dear Fer wants to know, why are we asking for every eye to be dotted and every tea to be crossed? Ironically, we never oppose the

Thank you. You're at the residential expansion. Thank you very much. And thank you again for all your time and effort.

So, we have Carla Dixs and then next up, Monica Schwabbach. Hi, my name is Carla Dixs. Uh, my husband Claude and I bought our home in the Ramble neighborhood back in 2020. We have two boys, Robert, age 12, and Thomas, age 14. And we live at Two Cleft Court, which is right here. So, as you can see, it it directly is right across the street from us, from our family. Um and um this has been extremely concerning for me um and our family and all the families that live near us. This is a parking lot that they're now proposing. Um and it'll greatly affect us. We love our neighborhood. It's peaceful. It's quiet. It's safe. We were so excited to move on our street and be a neighborhood that was filled with homes, parks, trees, trails, sidewalks, not parking lots, not maintenance sheds, not um buses and bus stops. And um we want it um it's a safe place right now for our kids. Uh they ride their bikes, they play basketball in the driveway, they play soccer in the yard. If this is passed by you today, Deerfield is proposing to put 135 parking spaces right outside of our home. Um, I worry for our family, for my kids, they that are playing across from this future space that's been so unsure even up until today of what it's going to actually look like. Um, and this is not what we signed up for in moving to a residential area. Today, we ask for you all to please think about the impact this will have on all of us. Help us to preserve our neighborhood with homes, making it a safe, quiet place for our families. Thank you so much for your time and listening to all of us that live in our neighborhood. Thank you.

Thank you. We got Monica Schwabach next and then Gary Buckold. Monica and then uh so if Gary yields then we'll go to looks like Josie Fessia. Please introduce yourself at the mic. And uh are you just speaking on behalf of yourself or do you have other people yielding their time to you?

Uh just on behalf of myself, but if someone had an extra minute left over, I think I can stay within three, but I may slap over a little bit. Thank you. Did I I think I saw two hands to yield time. Do we have Okay, you you you've got up to 10 minutes, but please be mindful as we approach 540. We're going to conclude public comment.

My name is Monica Schwabach. Um uh and actually I live in the Ramble at 27 Hellet Court and I'm here to share my concerns uh about the proposed Deerfield development and its potential impact on Dingle Creek watershed. My primary concern is that the development may not include sufficient safeguards for the stream, the wetland and the watershed as a whole. Um, the increase in imperous surfaces with the development could worsen flooding issues as Dingo Creek is already prone to high flows during storm events. And I have a photo of that that you'll see attached to my notes. Um, also temporary erosion during con or temporary erosion control during construction may be inadequate and I'll talk about that in a moment. So my view is that retaining rainwater on site for as long as possible is very important. Um, I believe from what I've read that the the developer is required to install storm water catchment basins capable of holding at least one inch of rainwater from a given site depending on its size. However, this minimum may not be enough because our region experiences periods such as we just have seen where we have many days in a row with one or more inch of rain at a time. Dingo. So, this can exacerbate

the problem of only maintaining one inch worth of rainwater through the catchment system when you've got one, two, three, five, seven inches of rain coming down in a week. Dingo Creek is an example of the problem with this scenario. Additional storm water runoff from the Deerfield development could cause Dingle Creek to overflow and increase flooding downstream. I urge Deerfield to adopt enhanced water conservation measures to retain more rainfall on site than just the minimum. Potential measures include contouring the disturbed land to create gentle swailes. And I have a photo of that. So I just have those two photos, but an example of what that would look like adjacent to a parking lot and adjacent to it's also adjacent to a sidewalk. Um, another potential measure includes uh incorporating temporary pools along streamside buffers to catch more water, adding structures in diversion ditches and beside buildings to slow water down during heavy rains. um installing rain gardens adjacent to buildings and planting native wetland species along and within the buffers. These strategies are relatively easy to implement during site grading and would also add to the beauty of Deerfield. Some thoughts on imperous surface.

So beyond storm water controls, the commission might consider the proposed imperous surface area or acreage. It's important to ensure the impervious area is limited to the amount that is truly necessary. For example, does the project genuinely require as many parking spaces as proposed? Every additional parking spot increases runoff, reducing soil absorption that benefits the local e ecosystem. The proposed amount of imperous surface area may be too much and certainly an additional 10% would have to be scrutinized. Limiting the surf impervious surface area to what is absolutely needed will promote rainwater retention on site, slow the release of rainwater into the watershed and mitigate downstream impacts. Lastly, I want to comment on erosion control during site development. Given the significant acreage to be disturbed, erosion control is vital for protecting the watershed. Effective measures include or effective measures during site development include placing soil and dirt stockpiles far away from the stream and wetland areas, using measures beyond simple silt fencing. in pro problem areas which we all can tell where the problem areas are going to be. So let's proactively implement

measures there and also possibly phasing the project to limit ground disturbance in in any particular area at any given point in time. By incorporating extra controls early in the project, we will help safeguard the watershed and prevent prevent future issues. So in summary, Helen brought over 18 inches of rain last year causing major flooding and damage locally. It reminded us all land in our watershed is connected and actions occurring on one site affect everywhere else. The commission and developer should include stronger watershed protection measures as conditions in their plans, thereby demonstrating a shared commitment to our community's well-being.

Thank you. Thank you. And feel free to circulate imagery that you've that you've brought. Um, next up we have Josie Fono, and I apologize if I'm mispronouncing the name. Please correct me at the mic. Followed by Mark Noyakowski.

Hi. Um, I just want to add my gratitude to um to all of you. I think I've seen some of you in the neighborhood when I'm out walking my dogs with John or Robin surveying how it looks from our side, from the ramble side. Um, so yes, my name's Josie Fona. I live at 242 Racket Club Road. My family and I moved here from Miami two years ago with our 10-year-old daughter, two dogs, and a cat. And we live So 242 is right here. where the facility was going to be put. Now, we're here to talk about a parking lot. We are so grateful to live here in Asheville and in the Ramall and we want to help maintain the character of our wonderful neighborhood. When we moved as newcomers, we were unaware of Deerfield's plans to expand. Um, so now we're here to talk about the parking lot for over 130 vehicles. It's just 100 ft away from our home and it's being designed to accommodate large three-axxle vehicles up to 9 ft tall. We're not just talking about commuter cars. They want to include large trucks, tractor trailers, buses, heavy duty RVs, golf, 30 golf carts, and we're deeply concerned that this will be used for commercial, light, and light industrial equipment, bringing a host of problems right to our front door. Our concerns are focused on three main issues: noise, environmental pollution, and storm water runoff. First, let's talk about noise. We are afraid of the constant sound of idling engines and backup alarms. A standard backup alarm on a large truck is between 97 and 112 dB. According to standard guidelines, the noise limit in residential neighborhoods

is between 60 and 65 dB. So, the noise from these vehicles would be an immediate violation of residential noise limits. Second, the risk of pollution is very real. Idling vehicles produce exhaust fumes creating air pollution right next to our homes. Like I said, where I walk the dogs, where our children play outside. Um, the smell of gasoline and diesel would become a part of our daily lives. Finally, we are worried about the impact of all that asphalt on our environment. This large parking lot will create significant storm water runoff carrying oil and gasoline into Dingle Creek. What will this mean for our local ecosystem? We urge you well, who knows? There's it I'm also very confused like everybody else because the plans are changing so constantly and so late in the game like the email that came on Friday almost at 5:00 PM before a long weekend. So, I don't know what to ask for. I wish Deerfield would uh reconsider planning their uh building their planned and approved two-story parking deck that was adjacent to Hendersonville Road, which is farther from our homes and Dingle Creek. I don't know if that's a possibility. That would be really great. And um yeah, thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next up, we have U Mark Noyakowski followed by Barbara Maloney. We are

okay. Um, are you Mark? Are you Mark? Okay. So, Barbara Maloney followed by Lisa Klene. Okay. Uh, Lisa Klene followed by John Weaver. All right. Hey, we're getting through this. John Weaver, that was that you? Okay. Um, you're Lisa Klein. All right, you're up next. We have uh Well, Jesse Swords already went so I think we might be Oh, so Derek bringing up Okay, I think you might be our last public commenter that we have signed up for Deerfield. So,

I think

after Lisa, we'll get to you. I think we'll be within the hour. So, please Hello planning commission members. I'm Lisa Klein of the Rambo community and we have over 1,600 residents including families with children and seniors who choose our neighborhood specifically for residential character. We're here tonight because that character faces a direct threat from Deerfield's proposed industrial operations just feet from our residential border. This expansion proposal violates basic principles of compatible land use planning, industrial operations, including service, maintenance areas, loading zones, and any potential utility infrastructure and/or construction, maintenance, equipment, parking, bus, golf, and mass parking lots have no place immediately adjacent to established residential neighborhoods. Our community has experienced concerning patterns in our dealings with Deerfield. There's been a lack of transparent communication about expansion plans, refusal to provide written commitments for verbal agreements, inconsistent and deceiving statements about the scope and the nature of the proposed operations. Denial of reasonable access for Ramble community infrastructure repairs following Hurricane Helen, specifically our fencing that was damaged. These actions demonstrate a pattern of disregard for neighboring residents who they expect to bear the direct impact of noise, smell, light, and visual pollution. While Deerfield seeks to protect themselves from the very undesirable operational facilities they wish to divert from their front yard onto ours. For an organization claiming religious

nonprofit status with a community service mission, Deerfield's approach to neighborhood relations contradicts their stated values. their refusal to engage transparently with affected residents, provide written commitments, or consider our community's concerns seriously implies they are not fulfilling their nonprofit obligations to serve the broader community and are instead prioritizing institutional interests over community welfare. We're not opposing development. We're asking for responsible development that respects existing residential communities, specifically ideally relocate their operational employee parking and operational facilities to Hendersonville Road existing commercial corridor. We urge you to protect established residential communities by requiring Deerfield to relocate their industrial operations to commercial zones along Hendersonville Road andor off campus. Good planning protects existing neighborhoods while allowing responsible growth.

Thank you.

So, I believe we had one more person identify themselves for public comment. Please state your name into the mic. Uh, good afternoon or almost evening. My name is Mike Jones. I live at 51 Howlet Court and I'm speaking on behalf of myself. Uh, good fences make good neighbors, but I believe good agreements make even better neighbors. This is what our future sounds like. 150 ft away from the waste boat truck that's just finished doing its dumpster. This is what a backup alarm sounds like at 150 ft away.

So, that's not a really pleasant thing. And I'm I'm not happy over the fact that that's what their future is going to sound like uh for my neighbors that live uh in proximity to where this uh parking lot's going to be. Uh now, uh we live in a very quiet, peaceful neighborhood. I do want to recognize that Deerfield's commitment to move uh this semi-industrial facility to some other location uh is a major compromise on their behalf. So, I thank you for that. Um, however, uh, the parking lot could be a reasonable compromise, but only if it's used for passenger vehicles for workers and staff, not for commercial industrial use outside of uh, of what people use to get to work. Uh, given their presentation, I can't fathom why Deerfield would object to having the supplemental instructions uh, contain a uh, something that says very specifically what this parking lot would be used for. uh but I do do think it needs to be in those instructions because unfortunately as we know uh people in organizations change leaders of organizations change Libby hopefully not anytime soon uh but uh but we also know when leadership changes uh at a whim of a single individual what was true before uh truth can often change as well and so uh I would like to ask you uh because we want to live in harmony with our neighbors uh that should you recommend to the city council approval of Deerfield's revised plan for development, uh you include the recommendation that the conditions in the supplemental agreement include that their parking lot will only be used for a specific approved purpose and that is to park a limited number of um spaces for passenger vehicles that are two axle uh for their workers and staff to get to

work. Not trailers. Nobody drives a trailer to work. Uh not uh vehicles that are oversized and so forth, but but commuting vehicles that people use to be able to park in that space. So, thank you for your attention uh and for giving me the opportunity to express that. Thanks. Thank you.

We're at 5:38, two minutes before the allotted uh hour. Does anybody wish to to round us out? And if not, I will close public comment at 5:38. Thank you for your uh participation, collaboration. It's clear that it's been a frustrating process for you all. Uh but showing up and participating in the process uh gives kind of insight on what's going on in the neighborhood, what the concerns are, and and helps us ask intelligent questions. So appreciate your engagement and also appreciate your uh willingness to engage in a process that is very um foreign to a lot of people who have not who don't show up here once a month like those of us up uh at the table. So u just checking in with my fellow commissioners before we kind of ask follow-up questions uh of staff and have deliberation. Do we need to have a brief comfort break?

Just really quick would be appreciated. Yes. Um, all right. We'll take a five minute recess and return here at 5:44.

All right. Shall we resume? We're ready to resume. Please take your seats. Um, I'll open with a few kind of comments, observations, but would love to hear kind of thoughts, follow up, and questions from fellow commissioners. Um, if needed, we'll have the applicant return. For members of the public who both spoke or who are kind of uh awaiting uh deliberation, we may not address every single point that was raised by public comment specifically. um the the standard that we're seeking to achieve is making a recommendation and whether what's being proposed is um in the in the public interest and consistent with the city's comprehensive plan. So you may not hear specific acknowledgement or question or reiteration of your comment. Um they are all heard. They are all process. So appreciate you showing up. Um, with that I I did want to open by following up on a couple of things to clarify. One is in regards to particular concern around this condition that both we asked some questions about and then we heard from the public around the 10% allowance for variation. We can explore that further with the applicant and staff. But just to clarify as written in the project conditions, it applies to the number of units or the size of buildings. it does not apply to say the imperous areas in general or the site um features. So the the wiggle room that is provided in the currently written condition is just number of units and um building area. One thing that has struck me though and it came up in the comments that we heard

is um lack of specificity around the number of units that's being proposed and shown in the plan. So that's something that I would like to follow up with with the applicant. Another was around um why the need for number of parking spaces and that might be where we start. Uh in the staff report there is analysis that this complies with what is the allowable range provided in the UDO. But um Mr. Mr. Ponquist, could you speak more specifically to that to what range or and what analysis staff provided to determine that this is in the acceptable range? The 10% allowance, uh, number of parking spaces. Oh,

because it doesn't specifically give a number in the staff report. So, just kind of curious what what assessment was done on what's being shown. So, um I think at this stage of the game staff didn't do a like thorough um analysis of the parking requirements, but understanding that um the overall site will have to stay within meet the minimum and the stay within the maximum of the parking requirements um for the overall site. So, we'd have to consider, I think, in more detail all the existing parking on site and and the uses contains um on the existing facility and factor that all together to be sure that the the site in total has the required minimum for the entire existing and plan development and and does not exceed the the maximum.

So, is that something that would happen at final TRC or Yeah, that that is that would be when um we would delve into those numbers more deeply. It seemed like based on what they're proposing in in this expansion that what the additional parking they're providing would meet the minimum without exceeding the maximum, but we haven't analyzed like the existing conditions as much and put it all together necessarily, but that would happen at the the final technical review whenever they submitted for that stage of the projects. So the standard under the approval is that it will comply with the UDO parking requirements relative to minimum and maximum.

That is correct. And and do you know off the the top of your head uh what the minimum requirement is for this type of unit?

It's going to depend on the number of bedrooms um and and then there's other uh requirements like based on square footage for the other um associated uses like the nursing and facility um kind of care uses of the site. So that'll be a separate calculation as well. It's going to be kind of a formula based on the details of the the buildings themselves. So not necessarily usually it's like minimum one per one unit max two for one and a minimum two per unit like larger units. Thank you. So, um, aside from the number of parking spaces, just to follow up on a lot of the comments we heard around the potential uses of parking lot. Um, you know, just a sort of general comment and a potential question is I understand and hear from members of the public that there's um concern about what types of vehicles could be parked here, what types of uses have do we have? you know, we we don't have standards within the UDO that impose restrictions um in on a normal basis. This is a conditional zoning. So, there's opportunity to further refine and explore, but we don't have say a differentiation between a surface parking lot for passenger vehicles versus other types of vehicles that we could use to justify.

No, I think I think what you said is accurate. I think the uses within parking lots are kind of limited to how they're designed and the typical parking space size and if they if it's a loading zone then it's going to be designed as a loading zone. If it's a parking lot then it's generally going to be designed as one and operate as such and you won't be able to you know have you know like shuttle buses in a in a normal parking lot if it's only striped for standard vehicles. So I think it's kind of more dictated by the design but not not very prescriptive as far as the types of vehicles at all. Could part of the reason for that be that you know we are here applying land use regulation. There is certainly some use regulation relative to uses of buildings and other use standards, but predominantly, you know, the the zoning ordinance is about the physical built environment. Um, and the application of the parking standards would be more about how they're configured so that they can um interface safely with adjacent roads, be landscaped, uh, buffering them from other uses, that type of thing. but not specifically like what can be done within them.

Um yeah, I think I hear what you're saying. Um there's definitely some overlap when it comes to parking with um you know the zoning having the minimum requirements um and then landscaping and then our standards um specifications and detail manual kind of going over the nuts and bolts of how you design a parking lot and um so yeah, it's where kind of traffic engineering meets land use and then there's a lot of you know overlap with that. Uh I think in this case um for the conditional zoning ma matter I think it's um you know appropriate to consider kind of those guard rails on the on the use of those um areas if that's you know an area where there's agreement with um the commission and the applicant on. So I think that's in this setting a reasonable consideration.

Thank you for that. Any other questions or clarifications of staff? Well, regarding uh the the parking, from what I was hearing from public comment is, you know, just based on the process, they're just a little nervous in the applicant acting in good faith, you know, removing the grounds building, but possibly using the parking for commercial activity, storing materials and whatnot. And I believe that's a lot of the reason behind these extended conditions and related to the use of the parking lot along kind of following that thread. Um you know maybe staff could clarify um say we have our recommendation it goes forward to city council. say in this realm there's an approval of the master plan and there's intent by the owner of the property to um phase the development of construction. Um it as soon as entitlement happens though they could grade and put a parking lot there without any additional new housing units. No it that parking lot does not require a demand to be built. And so the entitlement of the land and the master plan as it's being used does not dictate that any component of the property itself be developed first. Uh is that correct?

Right. So um they would have to get final like technical approval still and meet you know grading storm water regulations and stuff but yeah they could they could phase it in a in a manner that they deemed appropriate and then when it came time to issue uh certificates of occupancy either in a permanent or temporary basis they'd either have to build what they were proposing to build or bond anything that they didn't build at that phase outside of the actual buildings themselves. Yeah, I guess that kind of speaks to some of the public's concern that, you know, um the parking lot, if for whatever reason the parking is a priority over other, um you know, programming for the master develop master plan, uh you could see why that could be a concern for the neighbors that that would become the most prominent component of the next phase of development, especially um you know, if being used for any construction purposes. Um, so I I guess it just speaks to the validity of it. Um, wondering outside of cost why the parking deck may have been if if anyone had any information conveyed to him outside of cost, why the parking deck closer to Hendersonville Road would have been removed from the previous master plan. I've heard from the applicant it was a lot of a cost driven decision, but they could elaborate on that if they wanted to.

And to commissioner cycles sort of point about what we heard from public comment around use, I think the question for me is, you know, always what's the role of zoning and land use regulation? we have, you know, a variety of other nuisance regulations, noise ordinance and other ways to kind of control or safeguard um against impacts. And so my question around this is, you know, how prescriptive do we get on the availability to use a physical built thing, especially at when it's shown to be, you know, a parking lot. Um and and I think you know given that that E1 conditions do get very prescriptive um and provide some commitment although we heard maybe not quite all the way. So we can revisit that with the applicant. Any other source? I have a couple of questions I'd like to follow up with the applicant but if there's anything else first. Yeah, just before we follow up with the applicant, I just wanted to um uh follow up with some of the public comment that I heard related to storm water erosion control. Um, you know, I think the storm water design is something that I I do and I don't know that everybody, you know, everyone who who's on this board knows that, but not everybody sitting in in in the public seats tonight. Um, and it's something very near to dear in my heart to my heart and especially after Helen, you know, everybody's kind of a little bit more aware of storm water. Um and that's somewhat of a s silver lining I think to the storm is that um more and more people are paying attention to to how runoff in watersheds impact they they're not restricted to political

boundaries. Um to that point, something that a lot of people may not be aware of is that the city of Asheville, uh like many other municipalities have a storm water ordinance. Um and as part of that um there are very strict standards and so I'm just is just trying to want to make sure the public and you know specifically speaking to I know Monica came up and spoke I believe it was Monica who passed out this form. Um and in the city city of Asheville ordinance um all developers of anything you know larger than 1 acre are required to to hold back up to the 10-year storm event. Um which in this case in this location is 4.63 in. So it is significantly more than the 1 in um uh that was um was the concern and I I would definitely be very concerned with holding back only one inch but um it is it will be a requirement um and I believe strongly in CDC's engineering skills to uh provide storm water measures that will meet those standards and those features those storm water features will have to be inspected. every single year to make sure they meet those standards. Um, and so I do want to assure uh that the general public that we do in the city of Ashawa have very strong standards and and um reporting process. So even during the erosion control which is has to be permitted and inspected, if anybody in the Ramble does see any runoff uh any sediment leaving the site, please report that um because it is required to stay on site. There cannot be a single

drop of sediment that is allowed to leave that site past below a 10ear event. So I just wanted to make sure that the public was aware. I know we have a lot more people than normal. uh that the city does have very strict uh permitting standards. I appreciate that note. Um any other thoughts or preliminary questions before we reinvite the applicant?

Um I had one thought. Um maybe it's a small change, but if Miss Bush indicated roughly 75 new employees plus on here. The 32 golf carts and three shuttle buses, that's 105 parking spaces, not 135. Would the applicant be willing to shrink that parking lot to 105 spaces based on the map? Everyone's said, "Let's get rid of some of the fluff room there." So, would the applicant like to return to the mic to engage in a couple of question answer? Can we get an overall number of parking spaces included in the this new project, not just that strip that we're focused on?

So, I'll make that was number two. I'll make it number one now for the my topics to to bring up. Um as uh one item to clarify that adds context to that. Um Miss Bush stood up here and made reference to 165 new um units or new resident or yeah residential units in the hybrids. That's actually the in the first six buildings. What's proposed on the plan is for the 12 buildings. So she was making reference in her mind what's currently being marketed and pushed. And so that's where those that's where that number comes from. I'll go on to say that on the submitted plans we are showing the the numbers that I I had in the development data box and that that Will made reference to where we've got the 135 parking. Let me Is there a How do I get to those? There's 135 parking spaces down in the souththeast corner. There's parking by the IIL IIL building. There's parking inside. There's a And then there is just little areas where parking is being modified and updated across the site. It's very Miss Miss Hayes made reference to how confusing it is and and even for myself whose office is working on the details. It's very confusing. So pro exhibit E condition number seven, we specifically just put a statement in there to say this project proposes to meet the city's ordinance for both minimum and maximum parking. We are not asking to put any more parking out here than would be allowed by the code. And um and we are making sure that we're

putting enough parking as the code requires for the um the variable of uses whether it be employees, number of beds, number of residents and so forth. So right now what the plans show in front of you is uh I think 300 something like 402 as Miss Hay said. I will say that I apologize an earlier submitt had said 226. That was an error in the plans from the um something where the land planner was looking at a different area. Civil design concepts holistically looked at it. That's where the 402 number came from. But to clarify, we are not looking to make any variances and want to live into the condition of number seven exhibit E. I'd like to add context to a few of the other things I heard and and if I and then speak up if there's other things that I missed. Um I think maybe Mr. Wheatley, you brought up a good point in regards to timing. Um, I will say in the E1 conditions, the the latest exhibit, we do have some timing specified as it relates to the privacy 8ft privacy fence. And that would be basically items F and G. um before any site clearing or grading that the six- foot tall temporary construction fence with a mesh privacy screen will be installed in the approximate location of the permanent privacy vinyl fence. And then in G, we go on to say that by quarter 4 of 2026 that the plantings of the buffer and that privacy fence will be installed.

So, our goal with that statement is that is the first basically the the some of the first activity that's going on on site so that those buffer plantings that privacy fence for this neighborhood are in place and can start growing at that point while the project continues on under construction for another year, year and a half. Um, other things that I heard, we talked about the parking. The I did hear about a request to modify how the pavement was distributed. No issue with that whatsoever. Um, the 10%, there's been a lot of conversation about the 10%. We are um to clarify and we can clarify the those the um conditions. We are not asking for any increase going. We're not asking for any increase in density with that number. The ordinance or the UDO actually provides some guidance for making small changes. Our goal was to add some parameters around that as it related to reducing or changing things with that 10% number. We are not looking to increase any density or that 10% does not go up from anything that we've proposed

for uh to clarify that real quick. You're saying that um you would accept a as part of the conditions that up to a 10% reduction in project size not not 10% variance or modification regarding the density is that really what we're trying we're trying to say we're and and maybe I'll let this Yeah, I can pull up the condition itself what it explicitly says but basically restricting that variation to a reduction in size.

We are not seeking to add any any additional units to uh to the project but we do we would like to retain the ability if needed to to shift units from one building to another or to shift a building on the ground by a certain number of feet. We just want to we but but if if the concern is that that that we're going to add 10% 10% more units that that then we're happy to address that and say no we're not but we would like we would like to for the

yeah and for that we'll defer to the minor modification language that's that's in the code as Mr. Swords pointed out and uh and and and but it's not our intention to to increase the overall density of the project. We can't do that. Well, okay. It just on E4 it says proposed building size and number of proposed units. I I I know and we'll we're willing to change that. Okay.

So So I I've been trying to listen and write at the same time. I don't have but but maybe a way to say it is is that we'd like to retain the ability uh to to to modify dimensional requirements by up to 10% but uh but not to increase the number of units building dimensions

building dimensions. Yes. So yeah, well and potentially, you know, just a suggestion for my fellow commissioners rather than wordsmith this. You know, what we're hearing is what's written doesn't reflect the intent. And there'll be a need to continually collaborate with staff before this goes to council to clarify that it will not be an increase in units just provide a little bit of flexibility to distribution and may need to state a maximum number within the condition as it heads to council but I don't know that I mean we can spend the time now it just may not be germanine to this

and we're happy to do that I I think the intent was never to uh to give ourselves attitude to add 10% additional units but it was it it was it found its way into the conditions but to be clear just you know um the you are requesting something other than minor modification as allowed in the UDO you're not sure if that's sufficient to cover because it's a large campus well we're just trying to add some definition to what minor modification means and uh and and 10% is is a is is a threshold that you find a lot of other orders including Bunkham counties and uh and so that was that was kind of a reference point for that.

Okay. Part of the struggle may come from 10% on 820,000 square feet is different than 10% on a thousand square foot home. You know this is the order of magnitude is is probably more the concern than the percentage as a number. what I would work a stab on that.

Okay. Yeah. I think what I would advocate for is stating a maximum total built area and and then whatever the variance is, but the MAC total maximum would hold and the variance would just allow distribution among that total maximum. But I sort of trust and defer to staff to handle that negotiation before it goes to council. Yeah, I mean that could be a condition this evening that gets added to motion to add a cap that maximum number of units.

Could could you clarify the number of So, we've clarified the number of parking spaces. It's in the development data box. Um number of units that are included in the campus expansion. I I know we clarified the number of parking spaces, but I think there was a specific ask for 105 versus 135 specifically. in the um that kind of southeast parking.

So if I can talk about the 133 versus the 105 with the math in sections A, E, and K, we will be losing parking spaces. So to function as operation, both staff and residents, that's where that number is required that I need to operate that business. But I'm losing that whole area right now at K is parking spaces and so is spaces around E and A. So that's where the the math doesn't add up. But I've got to have that number to function. And so to be clear, you're don't accept a condition of less than

with all due respect, we're asking to to stay at 135 at at this stage. The other things that I heard um I appreciate Oh, there was a question about did see sorry

as far as the number of units. Thank you Chris. You said it well. We are showing 12 hybrid homes here. We are planning and asking and bringing before you to clear that entire area, that's the 30 acres of the South Woods for future buildout of 12 Canterary Homes. 165 is 96 Canterbury homes that we are selling right now for this project. For future development, we're planning on six additional Canterbury homes, which would be the 96 that Robin mentioned earlier. in the apartment building which is we have currently planned for 69 units. So the 69 plus the 96 in the in the six Canterbury homes get us gets us to that 165. The future development is the additional six

96. So 261 is the total buildout net new unit for the independent living units. Yes. And um could you remind me your current uh unit count right now on campus? So we have 379 independent living, 62 assisted living, and 62 skilled nursing.

Thank you. Thank you, Libby. And your comment actually segueed perfectly into what I wanted to ask. There was a concern from um Miss Shawach regarding clearing large amounts of area at one time. And while we are proposing to um move forward with this plan and and be prepared to create the infrastructure available for those um for all 12 of these buildings that are shown here to go forward, that'll be done in accordance with City of Asheville's um oversight and requirements for grading and erosion control, which does um incentivize and push us to limit the amounts of disturbed acreage that are open and not stabilized at any any point. I appreciate um Commissioner Cycle making reference to the ordinances and I do think maybe the 1 inch is a confusion that is the water quality but in regards to flooding we are hold we will be required by the city ordinance to hold back the 2-year the 10year and we actually have to evaluate the 50-year storm and make sure that it can safely pass through the site. The um one minor item that I wanted to point out, we did submit a um whole series of crosssections all the way down that whole parking area. And while Mr. Swords pointed out in his zoomedin version how the cross-section was not perpendicular to Racket Club Road. If you look at the document in its whole, all of the crosssections are consistent with the proposed 135 parking and being perpendicular there. So that was our

reference point and we maintain that consistent reference point on the document. Um and then finally, I think that uh Mr. Jones comment really kind of echoed what has been the sticking point here is just the concern over what's being proposed out there. Um I feel like the last condition in E1 that we brought up here today where we really go in and we specify you know it is not our intention for this to be a construction staging area for this to be a area for used appliances to sit or for the back of the house trash. This is intended to function as a parking lot vehicles of personal vehicles like people who come visitors who come to the site. I did want to specifically I do not want to exclude tra the word trailers from being in that area. Just like at the Ramble, the current landscape contractor rolls up. They have their landscaping equipment on a trailer and they service the Ramble property and the neighbors. We need the ability to service this area because our grounds building has moved off site. We need So, when we speak of trailers, we're speaking of the same type of trailers that are currently servicing the Ramble in this area. And so that's the that's the only stipulation in those uh in that area that I wanted to kind of is a little gray, but I wanted to clarify. Chair Barton, are there other items that you have noted for me to speak on?

There was a comment around the because we there's new language around the um landscaping funds and how they will flow um to potentially the HOA or its design. Is that something that's acceptable to the applicant? And same question. So, yes, we we we have no no concern over that. No issue with that.

Okay. Any other questions for the applicant? appreciate the followup and kind of specificity and you know I think that um for the ramble neighbors who have been engaged in this kind of long conversation we hear the frustration um you know us sort of seeing it through the the public hearing process um we're seeing a lot of or at least I I won't speak from um my colleagues here but I'm seeing a lot of specific responsiveness and engagement on something that is incredibly complicated due to the fact that it is a campus expansion. To Commissioner Wheatley's point, this is not a thousand square foot building. This is a very complicated endeavor. So, just really sort of recognize that it is complicated and cumbersome to engage in. Um, and that may have sewn some distrust, but what I'm seeing is a real um sort of specificity in a way that we don't typically see in the uh conditional zoning process. So really appreciate you kind of clarifying tonight even though it's been a long road for uh the Ramble neighbors.

Agreed. Thank you. I would like to just spend another minute if we can on the intersection at Salisbury and Racket Court or Racket Club Road. Um, I went ahead and just had a quick look and it looks like there are sidewalks kind of leading along Rocket Club Road to where it intersects currently. And I was just wondering if it doesn't appear that sidewalks are being indicated or included on the plans currently.

Yeah. Yeah. There there will be sidewalks in that area for sure. We do, like you said, from Salisbury Drive to Racket Club Drive there is sidewalks and we'll continue to as we develop to to install them. Yeah. Just don't know if that's not as well developed as up by Hendersonville Road or if I'm not looking on the right plan sheet, but on so I don't know if we want to include that on the conditions like for instance L406 doesn't appear to show any kind of sidewalk. Are you talking about the It's not showing existing sidewalk.

Uh, no. It's It's like where that entrance to the ramble comes in. It splits to the west and heads into the southern side of the site as a new development. Um

yeah, these are concept, you know, these are still at a conceptual stage and so with it being such a large project um and a large set of plans. There are some detail that things like that are not all in there. It is our goal that this is an entirely walkable community. Even the site plan we're looking at right now, there are in the the current working plans, there are um pathways and trails all behind these um hybrid homes and so forth. That is something um that we'll take note of and as uh as the project moves forward, I can um provide clarity at the the next step um with the design team.

Yeah. How does that entrance to the facility work? It looks like it's just crosswalks right now. No gates, anything like that. Yeah, currently it is an entrance from Racket Club Drive to Salisbury right there, but there is sidewalks that go through it. That's that's how it's being used. It's currently a gate. Yeah. It's currently that's not dayto-day traffic. Correct. Yeah. Go ahead. Yeah. Currently, right now, it's it's an area where we're not letting um we do have a gate there currently right now just in place. We had some security issues on campus. So, but that's where we do plan to have the entrance of of the u the I the eye Canterbury homes in the future.

Okay. And so that'll be gated or not gated? No. What we plan to do is similar to what we have on Valley Springs is an arm um that's activated and it's up during the during the day and at night close where you can touch a button and and access security to let that arm through. We did um submit that through the city with through Shannon Tuck uh three four years ago to have that system in place and our plan is on that drive once construction is complete to have that arm in place also in that system. Okay. So is that a condition you're willing to include at this point since it's not your drawings are at the development stage? Yes.

In terms of the pedestrian connectivity. Yeah, that's right. Yes.

Yes. That's a that's a really great point to city staff. That portion of Racket Club Road kind of dips in and out of city limits. So, who has the jurisdiction to provide for a crossing from the south side of Racket Club Road to the north side that then would connect to the sidewalks in on Salsbury? might be something the city and the county has to coordinate. Um it's probably the best practice for that.

So in terms of adding a condition that you know we can add an aspirational condition but potentially differential to city transportation. The condition that I thought I heard was was internal that we were ensuring that from that entryway coming in that we were providing um sidewalk connectivity. Um if uh if Commissioner Wheatley was referring to the private section of road externally, that's something that um I it would necessitate more. We could have aspirational goals to it, but it's not something that um it would necessitate. It's not a city road at that section. And so while there's access there, I would have to we'd have to understand the if we have the legal right to make off-site improvements.

You're saying where Salisbury connects to Racket Club Road, that's a private road. And so you're talking about internal sidewalks beyond the future gate that you're I was talking about internal sidewalks around K where was what I understood you were referring to. Um, as it relates to coming out onto Racket Club Road, there's a section of Racket Club Road there that is privately owned before you get to the city owned portion. I believe Racket Club Road does have a sidewalk on the south side of the roadway. Looks like

that's right on it's like on the north side it's an apartment complex and kind of just continuous curb cuts. On the south side, there's a sidewalk along Racket Club. But basically on the diagram that you're looking at, I'm more focused on where the blue line comes down and interfaces with Salsbury at Racket. All right. In this area, we completely That's what I understood you to speak speaking of. We will we are we welcome the condition to ensure that we have pedestrian connectivity along this section into the project. Okay.

Sounds like it's an easy one because it might already be there. Um, and then I just want to follow back and ask, um, you're not interested in entertaining structured parking to replace that parking that's being removed at buildings A and E in the future. You'd like to maintain that all as surface parking on the southeast.

Yeah, we just some history. We did um consider cost of the parking structure which is substantial with cost per space and then also aesthetics that we were concerned. We had a lot of feedback from Deerfield residents about a parking structure on campus uh both at the entrance uh and in a proposed area at the community center. So we did research it but had a lot of feedback from our current residents and and cost was the big issue too. It's a lot easier to buffer a surface parking lot than a parking structure as well. So, that was part of our goals here and and really part of the whole goals that you see in these conditions in terms of additional privacy fencing, preservation of canopy, and supplementing on both sides of the property line with additional landscaping. Any other questions, clarifications for the applicant?

Thank you. Any further deliberations? We've heard a proposal for an added condition around adding a sidewalk along Salisbury. Um, anything else? as well as clarifying the new language that was the new language that was proposed tonight to allow for the Ramble HOA or its designate to receive the funds for off-site landscaping buffer and and then amending or striking the the 10% or

just clarifying oh yeah clarifying the maximum units and 82 22,300 square feet as the max that can't be exceeded. Could you say that number again? 822, 300 300.

I think that's what we were hearing is that is an acceptable maximum total square footage um with the allowance to redistribute within some parameters as worked out between the city and the applicant. Is that acceptable to any further? I know it's going to be kind of wonky. We're not going to have a specific condition, but we will have a maximum on units, right? building square footage and then provide for a mechanism for the city and applicant to collaborate on a reasonable um redistribution wiggle room

between to be clarified between now and city council with that 10% being the main max number. also be inclusive of the exhibit as amended. Yeah. Specifically to items A, E, I, and the new item J.

Any further clarifications or requests for added conditions? Um, for exhibit E1, I do appreciate that the applicant has made some very specific conditions in here trying to explicitly limit what that parking lot can be used for. Um, that is unusual to be that specific, but I appreciate it in this scenario. A clarification is the staff. I mean, I know you're the three of you aren't necessarily the code enforcement, but that does fall under your department. I mean, it's something that specific going to be something staff is prepared to like follow through with or like have the capability to truly.

Um, yes, that's handled by our development services department and they are fast with enforcing the the UDO. Um, I think it's I mean it's true that when it comes to these conditions, conditional zonings, we do want to be careful that they are practical and are able to be tracked or monitored in some form or fashion. Um, you know, these moments might be a little bit trickier, but I don't think they're outside the realm of being enforced.

Sure. I mean, and I'm I'm really just trying to protect our city staff's time here because I I I try to avoid being in favor of very oneoff changes, but in this case, it seems like um they are trying to put in writing what they're committing to, and I appreciate that. So, I just want to make sure our city staff with that, but sounds like you are. Sounds like the applicant's very adamant that they want to these agreements, too.

I appreciate that clarification, Commissioner Faircloth, because I think there's a danger of sort of setting a precedent that we're going to be so prescriptive on surface parking lots, and that's not what this is. This is kind of a one-off um clarifying the intent and making it clear that the commitments are binding, that the applicant's willing to engage in. There's no further questions or clarifications. Um a clarification for me. Are we um aside from the the changes that you discussed just recently um would we be moving on a motion for E.1 as in the public documents or the re revised one that was presented to us? I think the revis you know we would be clarifying that the revisions as presented by the applicant with further modification to allow for the receipt of funds to be the HOA or its design. Is it possible to see that again or Yeah. A minor amendment here. Um get rid of the equivalent the lighting. And then these are like the really main uh changes.

There was a Just sorry the back at the top there was a strike related to the axles. Is that correct? Now it says 135 vehicles in standard size vehicle spaces. Um construct the no more than three axles no taller than provision. the desire from some members of the public was a two axle 7 foot maximum height restriction. That's not what we're seeing. So I think what the question for us is, you know, as written, is it acceptable to just strike the three axle and um go with the intent that it's passenger?

And I think it's addressed a little further here in J.

Yep. Parking of personal vehicles belonging to Deerfield residents, visitors, employees. And there's one typo there. Standard size standard size. So really the main difference is the limitation as presented here is on the space of the the size of the vehicle space not the vehicle itself that's going to occupy the space. there's no, you know, restriction on the size of the vehicle occupying this.

Uh I feel like that's somewhat addressed in Jay. Yeah. Yeah.

I'm prepared to entertain a motion if anyone is ready to take this on. I I feel like you've documented the conditions there, didn't you?

Sure. I'm happy to make that motion. Um, I'll move to recommend approval of the conditional zoning amendment request for the property located at 1617 Hendersonville Road zoned commercial expansion conditional zone and find that the request is reasonable is in the public interest is consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and meets the development needs of the community and that the request one prioritizes greater densities of development overall throughout the city as appropriate. Two, ensures a diverse mix of housing to accommodate a broad range of age age groups, lifestyle choices, and affordability levels. and three realizes goals for an age-friendly community with the modifications to the project E1 conditions as presented with the additional clarification that funds for buffer landscaping as provided under item I can be modified to the H the Ramble HOA or its design. Um and a modification of project condition number four in exhibit E to state a maximum total building square footage of 822,300 square feet and a maximum uh total unit count new unit count of 261 with a further allowance for modification as u negotiated by city staff and the applicant between now and city council and the additional condition of a sidewalk connection along Salisbury Road to the extent of the subject property.

Do I have a second? Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Nay.

The motion passes 4 to one. Thank you everybody. Uh, I know it's been a long slog, but really appreciate the engagement of the public and the applicant and best of luck. Pausing for a moment here just to check in. U, we are headed for a very, very long meeting tonight. Um, we will likely take a an extended recess. Any desire to do it now or plow through the next item before we take an extended 40m minute recess? I'm down to keep going, but

now I second now. Let's take a 40m minute recess at 6:40. We'll return at 7:20. Thank you all.

request for a special use permit for a concealed telecommunications tower at 3 South Tunnel Road. Uh the property is identified as PIN 9658-13-5696 in the Bunkham County tax record. Property owner is Asheville Mall Capital Holding LLC. The applicant contact is Mr. Michael Sandifer in the planner coordinating review as Will Palmquist. Before I bring Mr. Palmquist to the microphone where he is already, um I've got to just sort of script that I'll go through to to uh elaborate how the quasi judicial evidentiary hearing will proceed. So, um, as a quasi judicial proceeding, the planning and zoning commission is not setting policy, nor are we soliciting public opinion on the desiraability of an application. I will acknowledge that we did receive um some written public comment in advance of this hearing, but because this is a quasi judicial matter, that comment received prior to the hearing cannot be considered as a basis for the planning and zoning commission's decision. We will only be using uh evidence as presented within this hearing as the basis for our decision. The Planning and Zoning Commission hears and considers evidence presented and applies the standards set forth in the Unified Development Ordinance Section 7162C7, seven standards for special use permits. The planning and zoning commission must make its decision upon competent material and substantial evidence to determine the facts of the hearing. The planning and zoning commission will use judgment and discretion to apply the standards contained in the relevant section of city code to the facts. The commissioners in voting for an item will not have a fixed opinion not susceptible to change, have a conflict of interest which is defined as having a close

familial, business or other associational relationship with an affected person or a financial interest in the outcome of the matter or have an have engaged in exparte communication regarding the application. So before we proceed any further, is any member of the commission unable to meet these standards for voting on this item? Seeing none, we will accept all commissioners as um eligible to vote on this item. So the rules for speaking um on this item are that we will be conducting this as an open um public hearing but participation is limited to interested parties who wish to provide comment or testimony regarding the proposal. The commission is not required to listen to evidence that is unduly repetitious or information that is irrelevant or immaterial. So, if you will be speaking as a witness, please focus on the facts and how they relate to the relevant standards contained in our ordinance, not personal preference or opinion. Witnesses must swear or affirm their testimony. So, at this time, I'll administer the oath for all individuals who intend to provide witness testimony. So, if you wish to provide witness testimony, please stand, identify yourselves, and um raise your right hand. Do you affirm or swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

Yes. This is for the special use permit hearing regarding the telecommunications tower. Hawk Creek will proceed in a legislative hearing later. Thank you. You may be seated. Um, so now I'll turn it over to the planner coordinating review, Mr. Palmquist.

Thank you, Chair. Good evening, commission. Will Palmquist with Planning and Urban Design. I will be presenting uh this request for a special use permit for a concealed telecommunication tower at the property at South Tunnel Road. Just some quick facts on the site and what's proposed. This is the uh the back of the existing Asheville Mall location. It's zoned urban place. What's being proposed is a 135 foot tall concealed telecommunication facility. So here you can see the aerial imagery of the site. Um different different kind of views. Um the outline of the property is a little little strange on the on the right. It's a it's a kind of a weird geography, but that is the the property um on which uh this telecommunication tower is proposed. It's about 41 acres in total. You can see on the red dot and then the little call out on the right map um that the the telecommunication tower is proposed in um the southern portion of the parking lot. So the ex existing zoning is urban place uh up district. Talk a little bit about what that means in a second. So, uh, concealed telecommunication towers are a use allowed in the urban place zoning district through the issuance of a special use permit. Um, our UDO defines telecommunication towers and support structures as shown there. They are reviewed against the seven standards um by which all special use permit applications are reviewed and I have those at the end of the presentation as well to refer to. In addition to those um standards by which the special use permit is reviewed against, there are other specific requirements relating to uh concealed telecommunication towers. Uh these

include things like the sighting of them, the design, operations, requirements for uh insurance, maintenance, collocation, screening, fencing, etc. The staff report provided has kind of run down through the list of all those um requirements and and how the um how the application for the special for the for the telecommunication tower has met or plans to meet those requirements. And then um as uh Chair Barton enumerated, the planning and zoning commission um per the amended UDO adopted in January of 2024 makes the final decision on special use permits in a quasi judicial hearing and can also provide technical modifications to requirements and standards um that I just previously mentioned. So, here are a couple of the site plan drawings provided by the applicant showing the location of the uh proposed what's called the lease area where the facility would be located. You can see the um parking deck and outline of the mall buildings here. And then uh this other zoom in zoomed in view of the facility shows the actual location of the pole. And then the related whoops related um infrastructure that would and like um utility cabinets and so forth uh that would support the um antenna that would be installed on that pole. These drawings show a couple different views of what the uh tower is proposed to uh look like. Uh it's what is called a monopine uh telecommunication tower to mimic the look of a pine tree um as as prescribed um or as intended to meet in in um one of the requirements of the concealed um telecommunication tower uh

requirements in the special use permit section. You can also see the top down view of the array of antenna that that would be installed. Um essentially the applicant would be managing this location and then um and then uh leasing out the space on the tower to um sublesses in this case Verizon Wireless specifically. So the applicant is requesting a technical modification to one of the standards for concealed telecommunication towers and that is regarding the overall height of the tower which is limited to 100 ft in the UDO uh whereas the proposed tower height is 135 ft. There's also a a condition associated with this tower as it relates to the tree canopy preservation standards that would apply to the site, which basically states that um since the um regulation of trees is currently limited through the um state statute regarding hurricane Helen recovery to within 10 ft of property lines only. Uh this condition would require the um the whole the whole site basically the entire mall property to provide a 10-ft wide buffer along um the subject's property boundary to preserve those trees and that would um fulfill the requirements of the tree canopy preservation ordinance as it relates to the restrictions of the hurricane Helen recovery bill. If any new development um came along in the future outside of once once that special provision in the bill expires, that would trigger um tree canopy preservation compliance as typically administered for um for the entire site based on our UDO.

Here are the seven uh special use standards by which all special use permits are evaluated. I won't read them, but they're here for reference to consider, and I'm glad to answer any questions you have. Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. Any initial questions for staff?

Could you um talk a little bit about the uh technical modification being requested for height? Um and we can seek justification from the applicant but um from staff's perspective the height limitation as provided in the UDO is that based on kind of outdated telecommunication needs or is there a special circumstance that justifies the additional height at this location?

Yeah, I couldn't speak to whether that is a best practice provision or or not to be honest. Um it's it's what our limitations are. The existing height limits are just in our UDO for telecommunication towers either concealed or not. I believe the applicant um has presented information to the fact that a higher height for the antenna is required to um get the type of um wireless signal distribution that would be um beneficial and and make sense based on um factors like the topography of the area and that sort of thing. Um so that is the rationale that they are providing that I'm sure they can speak more to. Um but other than that I can't necessarily add any more um justification on that myself.

Thank you.

I had I had a question um maybe it's of staff, maybe it's of legal um under special use standards. Sorry embedded in here. Uh special use standards. See, additional special use standards concealed telecommunication support structure. So that's D4 C. The applicant for special use permit for concealed telecommutation support structure shall bear the burden of demonstrating by substantial evidence in a written record that a bonafide need exists. What is a bonafide need? like how would we determine I guess that the that there's a bonafide need for this particular tower.

The applicant's probably best to um to address that. I these standards that we have had have probably been in here since 1997

and in the past um I I know that other applicants have have explained what bonafide need is by saying well they have to be able to say that there's not another tower that's within the vicinity and that's all explained in your staff report. So, this one is far enough from another tower. Um, there's no other tower in the vicinity that could accommodate this kind of uh technology, but I would leave it to the engineers to try to explain what need is in terms of technology. Okay. Thank you.

Any other questions for staff? Hearing none, we'll invite the applicant before the applicant. Okay. So um of people who took the oath to uh provide witness testimony in this matter is anyone asserting standing which is sort of a a special classification that is used in quasi judicial hearings which we can enumerate if if necessary but is anybody asserting standing on this matter? See two,

three. Um, I guess first question for the applicant is do would you do you do you would do you need to hear the basis for standing in order to either accept or object to the I would need for them to assert their basis for standing. Okay. And it's you know and of course according to the law it's not just proximity but you have to show special damages. That's right. So, uh, would the, um, do you want me to explain it to them a little more? Sure. And I don't know where are you going to do the voardier or do you need me to do it or I I'm just I'm going to just explain. Okay.

Because we don't do quasi judicial all that often. And I just want the people who have said that they'd like to speak to understand that even if you're not recognized as having standing doesn't mean that you can't speak and have your testimony considered. Standing just gives you certain rights to object to to the presentation, object to things that are being said or to cross-examine. So, but to have special standing as the applicant stated, it's not just that you are a neighbor neighboring property. You have to show that this project will impact your property in a way that it will not impact the general public. So, one example might be if you if there was a project and the road was right at the entrance to your house, you might be able to say there was a greater traffic impact or you'd seen, you know, accidents right at your step, whereas your other neighbors were not as much or other general public were not as much impacted. So, with that, I don't know if that helped at all. You can decide to to state how you think you have special damages because of this project or you can not try to claim standing um and then just be called to speak by this this board has chosen to listen to other witnesses and your testimony as well. What you have to say will be counted the same. you just won't have the procedural objections and you won't have the automatic right to appeal and then the applicant's attorney will also be able to question you as to whether you really do have standing or not.

Did that help? So is there is there after that u robust legal explanation is there still an assertion of standing on this or just a desire to provide witness testimony? Michael, yeah, we'll start with that one. Witness testimony. So

we're not we're not hearing any members of the public here to assert standing on this matter. So applicant can proceed with your presentation. How do I go back? Just need to go back here. Let me start off with some procedural things. The one for Michael. Um, will, where was that? The far right.

I got it. Thank you. Um, my name is Tom Johnson. I'm an attorney with Williams Mullen at 301 Fagatville Street, Sweet 1700 in Raleigh, North Carolina. Here on behalf of the applicant, Vogue Towers. Um, I want to start off by asking that the application, the associated documents that have been submitted in this case, the staff report um, be admitted into evidence uh, in support of our application for a special use permit. So granted,

okay. And then also I do want to clarify that we agree with the condition that was proposed with respect to the tree canopy. So we do accept that condition. Um, and I also want to clarify that based upon the staff report, what Mr. Palmquist came up here and testified about, um, as far as the standards that we have to meet with respect to towers in the ordinance, the staff report said we met all of those standards. Um, so I was going to proceed to just focus on the seven special use permit standards and not all. I mean, it's pretty long and it would be lengthy to go through all of it, but basically we met everything but the height, which is a technical modification we've requested, which we will go through. Um and we will go through the seven standards of the special use permit if this board is good with that.

That's acceptable. Okay. And we will go through too the need for the tower and I have an radio frequency engineer from Verizon to address that. So I do want to did want to clarify that since that question's come up. So I am now going to have um Michael Sander who submitted the application with Vogue Towers to come up and just introduce it and then we will come back with some of our other witnesses.

Good evening. My name is Michael Sanifer. Uh I represent Vogue Towers and act as a project manager with their developments of sites. Uh, okay. Um, I will go as quick as I can. Appreciate everything y'all do and bless your heart for today. Um, quick introduction. I'll keep it as short and brief as possible. Uh, so Vogue Towers as as Will had mentioned uh is proposing a new mult what we call a multi-provider wireless communications facility. Multi-provider means for all the carriers. In this particular instance, the co-licant is Verizon Wireless, but there will be space both on the tower and on the ground for a T-Mobile or an AT&T. Uh, essentially, if you can imagine taking a shopping center and turning it up, you know, basically these companies that are tower companies can lease out space just like you would in suites. So, uh, and also to clarify, this is a 130 foot monopine structure. For the purpose of setbacks and various things, we include the 5ft lightning rod. So that's where the 135 comes from. That includes a lightning rod, but the actual structure itself is we're asking for is just 130 ft. Uh all this will be located within a fence and secure compound. Um I've mentioned Verizon is co-licant in this, but again it will be open for any wireless provider and space is available. Uh in addition to that, Vogue Towers makes their towers uh available to local first responders and EMAs. So if there's a need in this particular area for police or fire, um they always work with them as well, rent free. Um once the site is complete, uh it will be unmanned, meaning no one there, a technician that stops by maybe uh once every four to six weeks to check on it, but most everything's operated remote. U because it is unmanned, there's no increase in traffic. It'll sit back there and secured. Um, and I there was a discussion during the break about a monopine in particular. Uh, if

you've seen some of these maybe older than say seven years, you know, they often look like a bottle scrubber or something not as appealing. The technology has changed quite a bit. Uh, as well as you're now able to design these um based on density. They have them uh something called BPF or it's branches per foot. And so you can design one of these with a 3.5 branches per foot or four branches per foot. So it's a much denser tree. They look a lot better. And I think we included a photo. I thought I included the one of maybe uh over in Gatlinburg. Yeah, I think of that application in the package. I think in the packet with those attachments, it's included in that. Yeah.

Yep. Um uh just some quick stats just to give context to the growing need for wireless. Uh Americans use more than 100 trillion megabytes of data in 2023. Enough for every household to watch the first season of House of the Dragon every day for an entire year. Uh it's a 36% increase in usage from 2022 and more than all of the data used from 2010 to 18 combined. Uh and they say that we in 2023 had 67,000 text or short messages per second. Uh there's 558 million wireless connections in the US or 1.6 for every American. Uh right now approximately 80% of 911 calls are generated from a wireless device. Uh and that is out of roughly 240 million E91 calls per year. Uh 76% of adults live in a wireless only household. Uh as you would have guessed for the younger generations that number is much higher uh as far as not having land line. And then 80% of consumers consider wireless indispensable. Uh brief information on the uh site itself. Will already went over some of these things. Uh it's in the the UP zoning. Uh we're requesting special use permit. Uh the compliance with the ordinance. We're proposing we're asking for the 130 feet, which I'll show you some photo simulations to get a reference of what that is versus 100 feet. Um the one other item is from the landscaping because we're taking over parking spaces. Um you kind of see some up here. The fact that it branch goes out into

the parking. We were proposing a wooden privacy fence rather than tearing up more parking uh for the landscaping itself. Uh so that is one also uh a minor change. Uh as I mentioned before, it's designed for multiple providers. Uh we uh had TRC approval with conditions on July 17th. We hosted uh the neighborhood meeting uh which I see some folks here from that. Um and I will say this uh I know the folks are against it, but it was the nicest group of people that I've ever had the pleasure of talking to regarding one of these. So the conversation was very pleasant. uh approximate location. You saw the top down view both on the aerial and the site plan. I was trying to give a little context. Um you'll see in the site plan we're proposing to remove the that last uh light pole. Was trying to draw in here approximately where it is with all the trailers parked here. It's kind of hard to draw it out, but it's that back corner of the parking lot that would be the southwest corner uh past what uh where uh I think it's J C Penney used to be. Uh and just west of the parking deck. Uh here's a couple of uh picked out a few photo simulations from what we submitted in the package. Um you can see the after of from location number one and you see just the top of and this is at 130 ft by the way. See the top just right there. Um and I picked another one. This is from down below Lowe's. It does show there because everything's going downhill. So you do see far more of it there versus everywhere else. Um, as far as some of the questions regarding that, uh, the request for the the additional height, uh, as Tom mentioned, we'll have we've

got RF that can speak to the technical parameters of it. This is also from a compliance with the ordinance. There's also the the factor of designing this for multiple carers and collocation. You'll see that if I go back up, you know, it's barely visible. And there were some of these uh vantage points that you couldn't see it at even 130. If at 100 ft um you essentially are just ruling out no one else would need it, be able to use it because it can't see over the trees. So that's another portion of it was to be able to have where this could be available for collocation and someone would actually use it. Um, in addition what we've shown on the plan, there's a um a radius or a circle around everything that we talked when we met last summer and started this project when um not only meeting the setbacks for what it is, especially going to the residential property, we also incorporate an engineer fall zone which is basically at a 50% um the circle on the plan shows 70 ft just to be uh conservative. Essentially, what a fall zone is is the bottom portion of a tower, in this case, say 50%. Is overdesigned. So, if you've ever had an an umbrella shaft or a golf club shaft get that kink, that's what it is. And that's what these look like here. Um when they're designed essentially to fall over on themselves or crumple at a designated point. So, I'm happy uh we've got other folks here to help. and then I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Do I hit escape? Okay.

Thank you, Michael. I do want to clarify a little more. explain a little more about you've got on this slide currently rev um those are wind and ice loading standards that are used in the design of towers those are const those are being modified over the years based upon wind and ice data in a given location so these towers are designed to comply especially up here because you would have wind and ice at the same time they're designed to accommodate for that and actually are are tech are technically built to overaccommodate for that by some safety factor, but it it's specific to the location where they are. And so here it may be more stringent with the wind and ice loading, you know, on the coast. As you get closer to the coast, you know, there's more of a wind loading issue as you get in between. And in fact, some of these standards have been reduced because they found that hurricanes when they would come in and hit land, the wind goes down really, really fast. they weaken really really fast when they hit it wind wise. Now I know flooding wise we know that's not the case. They will it will rain but the wind really dies down and um so those standards have been adjusted over the years to accommodate for those things. So I did want to clarify that that that's what Rev H means. That's what that's all about. Um, I'm going to skip through some of these slides because they're a little duplicative of what Michael did and what uh Will did when he was up here. But I first want to get up have um Sam who's with Verizon. He's a radio frequency engineer, RF engineer. his job is to go around and design the system to to be able to serve Verizon's customers. And so I want to come have have him come up and talk about this, but this map here

shows why there's the need. Basically, um existing coverage is on the left, the proposed coverage is on the right, but in this area, and I'll have him explain it, but in this area, there is basic coverage. The issue is more capacity. And what capacity is is the more people that use a given tower, you have to have more towers to accommodate that traffic. Just like if you have a sewer line and it gets full, you've got to put in a bigger sewer line. In this case, you need another tower. This is a very heavily commercial area. It's um you've got the interstate coming through there. Two, you know, 240 coming through there. Um, so you need that extra capacity. So, let me have Sam come up, speak to his qualifications, and he can share a little bit, and I'm going to kind of walk him through um describing to you the need for the tower and what that means.

Sam, you state your name, address, and qualifications. Sure. Good evening. My name is Sam Camil. I'm a senior RF engineer with Verizon Wireless and my office is in Charlotte and I am the uh engineer in charge of the technical design for the Ashville market. So this site is under my responsibility. Okay. And what led to to having the requirements for this site? Can I um I'm just trying to figure out how to get you guys both on the mic so we can everybody can hear. Is it okay if Yeah, you can you can I I know we I just realized Yeah, I know. So that's that's what I thought when I said, but I can't think of another open one. So

it's on that one's a little different for some reason. Different. I think I think it's a green. Do you hear me on here now? Yes. Okay. Go ahead, Sam. Tell about what came about so far as the need for this site.

Right. So in the area that you see on the on the left side there. Okay. This is the existing coverage from the several cell sites that around in the area. So you have good signal, people have good signal there. But there is a time which is right now that happened that the performance of the speed for example is very slow. For example, when do you watch a YouTube or you do something that has to do with data? Okay, it's very very slow. And the reason for this is that the sites around in the area are taking too much traffic more than they're supposed to uh to handle. So this is the need right now is to have an extra site that can do something called offload. Offload means take some of the traffic that is being served right now and have it dedicated to that new site. And this is where the picture here on the right that site that new site will be able to serve that area or have uh users from this area being directed to that new site. So it will in in in effect it will relieve the other sites and in doing so the obvious conclusion is it will have the the the users will experience better speed you know better per performance. So that's that is this is in a nutshell the goal of this site um I can y

oh and and that's fine I mean and so what happens if you didn't have the additional capacity or or take care of that what would what would the customer experience be? Yeah, very simple. The customer will experience very slow speed, very uh slow download, very slow upload just like you know you you experience when you are uh uh surfing the internet at a certain time in the day and you have all these people surfing at the same time your speed is going to be lower. This is this is the the the obvious thing in in a simple think of it like like for example if there's uh 20 people uh going to the bank and there's only one teller serving these 20 people the obvious solution is you want to open another teller just next window. So you can have 10 people going to the existing teller and 10 people going to the next teller. So you are offloading by 50%. And this is what we want to do here is that we want to relieve some of the burden on the other sites by doing a new site in this particular area to serve this particular uh users in this in this area.

And in terms of the height, I know we've asked for a technical modification because it's a difference between for Verizon's purposes 100t and 130 ft, right?

Why the need for the 130 feet over of 100 feet where this is located? Yeah, there's there's a couple of reasons. Okay, there there's a lot of reasons, but just the the the mains ones are when you are at a at a higher height, okay, you are able to clear the clutter and the terrain. And I'm not talking about clearing the clutter by just being over the clutter. No, you we have to clear the clutter by a certain distance because signal wise, we you know, there's a lot of calculations that go into this, but there has to be a certain distance even above the clutter. So, it's not like 1 ft or 2 ft. we we have to have enough distance for the signal to uh uh to to clear it so it can function or can arrive at the users in the strength that it is intended to. This is one reason. Uh another reason you know was the new technologies for example if you know like 5G and all that the these these technologies they use uh specific signals that are very sus susceptible to interference. So any any lowering in height will affect the performance of this uh new technology because of the way the signal is uh uh you know uh made or the or the or the characteristics of that signal. So so because of these new technologies the height is very important uh to uh to to make sure we're able to to to send that signal clearly to the users in this uh uh group.

And and obviously I guess you're trying to really cover there's a lot of commercial area around the mall and uprect up on Tunnel Road. Yeah. Yeah. So, you're trying to get good signal to those in customers that are there. You saw the picture earlier, I think, um, that Michael showed that showed that there was parking deck back there where the tower is and it's on the lower end of the mall behind J. C. Penney. So, are those the kind of obstructions that you were talking about or clutter that would cause issues?

Yeah, the the these areas have high high usage like people like in the mall, right? this this this is high usage area. So we're talking about two things here. We're talking about the high where the where the areas that have a lot of users and at the same time we're talking about the the the clutter and the uh and and what we want to overcome from getting a higher height the clutter and terrain and and and buildings and all that. So so two two things. Yes. Okay. And then um maybe this example would help. I know often I know I've been in a store before and I'm wanting to kind of use my app in the store and I have trouble. What? Describe the difference between if I'm in building versus outside and what that means.

Right. So in building means inside the building and any building is made or or is built with different materials. So for example you have building that is made with wood, building that is made with brick build. Okay different materials right. So the dense the material is the uh more difficult for the signal to go inside. So in building when you are in building in a in a dense building okay you might not be able to receive a good signal and we have all experienced this like basement of some some many areas right so that's that's the inbuild when you go outside okay your signal is stronger because the signal does not need to penetrate inside a dense wall or a or an area that uh that uh decreases uh the the levels. So that's that's the difference between inbuilding and outside. When you have a higher height, we'll be able to point the antenna more more we have more flexibility was pointing the antenna to to direct it in a certain area to certain users to certain uh uh buildings to be able to focus on penetrating these buildings when you have a higher height as opposed to lower heights.

Okay, thank you for that. And there um there was one another question about any additional structures nearby and I think there is a the ordinance requires you look within a quarter mile for any electrical poles or transmission lines and there was one that was looked at for this site. Why was that not used?

Right. We looked at that uh the ground elevation I think was uh was like 50 ft lower than the ground elevation for this one. So what what I mean is you know how the the terrain you know like this this this one is on a higher elevation the other the other pole talking about you know 025 is is a lot lower. So even if something build it it will not uh uh reach uh to this area. And the second point is it's a quarter mile away. We need something in that particular area like like going back to the example of the teller. need to have the teller open next window, not in a uh in a different building because the traffic is right there. Right.

Um I don't have any questions right now, but I don't know if the board wants to question. I I have a question. Engineer right now. Go ahead. Yeah. So, so the what was listed in the application for bonafide use was basically what you're describing, which is um I lost my page. Uh purposeful purposefully provide as much redundant coverage, right? Um because of the amount of traffic. Um, are there were there are there available spaces on the other polls that aren't being used that could provide this redundancy?

The let clarify what polls whatever you know this we obviously have signal coverage here in the pre the other the existing towers the existing towers. Yes.

Okay. Yeah. Yeah. That's actually the existing towers are used to the max. That's that's exactly why we want to do this because if there was something else that we could do to the existing towers would have done and we did and uh for example I can give you just a little bit technical you know if we want to uh add more redundancy to the existing tower we would add different type of frequencies for example okay so we can do that and we have done all of that so there is nothing left at the existing towers that could be done and have not done so now the the the solution is we need a redundant or an extra or a new location with its own independent radios that will offload the existing towers.

Thank you. Sure. You're welcome. Any other questions? Okay. Thank you, Sam.

Actually, I did. I was just on mute. Um, I was wondering did you produce this pre and p uh post uh did you produce a post image for the 100 ft elevation that's included in our UDO? uh for the for the 100 foot we did yes we did produce both and we looked at specifically when when when we did this we looked at the amount of offload that we would get between the 100 ft and the one 130 uh uh foot. So the area uh uh you know is is reduced but what's more important is how much the the new site at 100 ft can offload and I what I mean by offload is you know is is how many users can go to the new site. So we discovered that by going from 100 to 130 uh that the difference could be between 20 if I remember 27% to 43 or 44% more offload than the 100 ft. So 130 have more offload more users can go to the site instead of the the the lower height if

Yeah. Does that make sense? Does that answer your question? It does it follow. Did you study it at 200 feet? I'm sorry. Did you Did you study the pole at 200 feet? We didn't because we know that we will never be able to do 200 f feet. So, we're just focusing on what what we can do and what we can. Of course, if we do 200 feet, no problem. We can, you know, so I think the idea was a compromise to go Yeah. You know, obviously you could go to 200 and it'd be better, but we're trying to keep it as close to 100 as we could and still meet the objective.

Exactly. We were calculating how how much distance above the clutter we really need, okay, to to be able to provide the coverage and or the capacity anyway. So, so that calculation, you know, we we we are able to make it was 130 ft. So, um given the anal analysis of the area and the investigation of other existing poles and infrastructure, um this particular parcel is close to 41 acres. Was there any consideration of alternate locations within this parcel? For example, you know, building attached. Does this have to be a freestanding tower or can it be building attached?

I I'd like to Michael would have to address that because the RF engineers don't get involved in the site selection part. They give guidance on various ones, but I can have Michael Sander come back up and speak to that. So for the I guess for the RF engineers perspective, um the capac the added capacity, could it be accomplished through building attachment versus freestanding? Does that impact any of the transmission um performance? Can you please explain what you mean by building attachment? Like I think he's talking about a rooftop versus a pole and how much equipment that a rooftop can ac accommodate versus a pole and how much height you can get,

right? It so it all depends on the height, right? So if so technically speaking if we have a rooftop in the same location at the same height we we we we can do the uh you know the the RF uh will work. It's not it's not an issue of like the specific type of of building. Okay. It's it's more about the height and the and and the ability to install the antennas that we want to install at at different location. So as simple as that. Okay. Thank you for that. And I would like to ask the same question of Michael. Is there any other question though of RF engineer before Michael comes up and speaks to location?

All right, Michael, if you could come back up. Okay, thank you.

Thank you, Sam. Uh so the location uh typically 99% of all the sites uh when wireless is done is are leased and so you're you have to go in and work with a property owner and you have to do you know it's their property you have to do what they want. The back corner here uh was specific to the mall owner which I also have to say was the mall owner at the time. It's I think recently sold as of Marchish or so. Um but this that was specific to the property which is pretty typical even out on a farmland or something. It's you go to the back corner. You know that's a pretty typical scenario for um using someone's property. So when you approach a property owner, do you ask um do do you provide a location that is advantageous or just ask for a certain amount of square footage and access under your lease agreement?

Uh both. So typically in this world, you have to find people that say yes. You know, a lot of the phone calls and mail mailers and things uh knocking on doors go unanswered. Sometimes people just aren't interested. Um but then then once you get to a yes are um you work out something typically walking a site try to look at the ordinance in advance and say okay I can't go right there on the property line you know to meet setbacks I've got to be 100t off here would this would this be acceptable um so it's a combination of what they're wanting as as much as as combination of that mixed with can we make it work here um and so the sites I typically walk uh It's mostly a pretty good conversation and they understand once I explain the zoning requirements for a tower that hey I've got to be 100t off here. Is that okay? And then I'll I'll keep as tight as I can but I can't go all the way to your line. I don't know if that answered

partially. Um was this specific property owner asked about a building mounted um antenna versus a freestanding tower? Uh no. Will and I talked about that last summer, but there's nothing on this property that's more than maybe four stories. So, it doesn't get close to uh meeting the coverage objective for this site. So, we didn't talk with the mall owner specifically about a rooftop just because it's there's nothing that gets remotely close. Building wasn't suitable for a rooftop.

Uh that back parking deck is only one level up. It's uh 23 feet to the top of the uh the rail, the concrete wall of the parking deck. Uh the top of the light fixture is 54 or 56 feet. You know those um so there's a light fixture on the back side of the parking deck that's up on the um edge of the parking deck. So that even combined is roughly you know half the height we needed. The building the mall itself is I can't remember the height but maybe around four stories max at the biggest at the tallest location. So, it just wasn't an option. Thank you.

And I know Michael was speaking to this, but let me also show I mean, this is showing the power pole and where we had to look at, you know, it was there on the edge of the of the U quarter mile, but it's also down by the river. So, obviously the river is lower and that's where the 50 feet lower came from. Uh Will showed this earlier and showed the location. This is what Michael was just talking about. There's the parking deck. The site is just almost straight ahead where these lighter colored trees are. And you've got the light pole on top of the parking deck. So that was the height that he was speaking to about the height of the deck, the rail of the deck, and the um pole that was nearby. Um that was shown earlier. Let me show some more of the photo simulations. I know Michael showed some. I wanted to show some others and just give you some more perspective. He showed the ones that probably showed it as much as any of them, but um this is the location one that Michael showed and showed that is barely above the trees. This second one is across Lake Kennaworth off Sheridan Road. Um and again, it's a pretty similar situation so far as you can just barely see it above. I mean, it's almost hard to to even distinguish it here because you can't see it. Um, this is a photo location three, which is a Glendale Avenue and Swanoa River Road. You can't see it. This location four is the one Michael showed earlier from Lowe's and you can see it better there just because of the elevation. But again, the monopine helps it blend in with the existing tree cover that's there. This is not visible. This is from Tunnel Road and the mall entrance at Belk. So, it's on that Belulk entrance to the

mall. You can't see it from there. And this is from down on Swanoa River Road um south. You can barely see it above the trees. The the businesses I noted there were there's a Dark City Molds and a Asheville Heating and Cooling is down there. Um and and you really can barely see it above the trees again from this location. So it gives you a better idea of of how this is concealed and how especially in this area elevation perspective uh makes a big difference into whe as to whether uh the tower is visible or not. And the other thing I will say is I came in to Asheville and I came in on 240 and I look I could see the mall over and see where it was going to be and the thing that stood out to me is there ton of light poles on that parking lot and that mall property. I mean there existing tall structures already there. Um which is another reason that helps this blend in as being a tall structure and and additional infrastructure you're adding. Plus, there is an advantage to being where on this property that the mall owner wanted it because it is down where there's a buffer of existing trees that we've agreed by condition to keep in place that helps a monopine blend in with that. So, it was a combination of those factors that makes this a good location. It's a commercial property and not a residential property. And that segus into my next witness, which is Michael. Well, before we

I'm sorry. Before we go there, were any of these um proposed photo renderings done on White Pines Drive or Eastshore Drive? The residential area behind here? This the one that's behind it is right here. Wait a minute. This one? That's the This White Pine Drive. That's White Pine Drive. Okay. Thank you.

Yeah, sure. Sorry about that. I didn't mean to skip forward. if if anybody has any questions at this point. Okay. Next, I'm going to have Michael Burkowitz come up. He is an appraiser and I'll have him speak to his name, address, and qualifications and share. He did an impact study. I am going to hand out hand out copies of his report for the record, but he's also going to go through his report and explain it.

Good evening. My name is Michael Burkowitz. My address is 1100 Sundance Drive, Concord, North Carolina. I've been a certified general appraiser in North Carolina for over 20 years. I was asked to perform an impact study of the proposed tower on the Asheville Mall site. Uh, okay. Certainly um I'm a North Carolina certified general appraiser have been for over 20 years have done work in this area all over the state. Uh what I was asked to do was to perform an impact study of the proposed t

first if I can tender Michael is an expert appraiser testifies impact of the You need to question him more about his qualifications. It's the board's decision to um to decide to accept him as an expert. It's a procedural thing. If you have more questions, you can ask.

I have no questions on the qualifications of this proposed expert. say his specific list of qualif his his specific list of qualifications are in the report I just handed to you as well. Thank you. You may proceed.

Uh the first step in the impact study that I performed was to look at towers in the Asheville area and the surrounding the proposed development. Those are listed on page 20 of the ones that I was able to find and look at their visual impact in the surrounding developments. What I did see was a consistency with respect to the placement of towers in the Asheville area near major thoroughares, uh, industrial areas, commercial areas, things of that nature to be able to try to minimize the impact of of a proposed tower. What I did during that research, there was one which was on 43 Seminal Street, which was had residential properties behind a commercial property that also had a tower. The unique piece of this was that the property that was uh had the highest level of visibility uh sold for of the tower and then there was another property at the culde-sac which had a little trail that led to the commercial parking lot adjacent to it. The property that was adjacent to the parking sold for less than the property with the sale of a visual impact of a cell tower. That is called a matched pair in which you're trying to despite attempts to adjust it and look at it, there still was a variance which I attributed to the adjacent location to a commercial parking lot. So after inspecting the Asheville Mall site, I did the research to be able to determine is there already an external influence on property values of adjacent or abuing properties. And as shown in the in the report, I looked at back sales for the last five years, broke them down by market se the conditions. So somewhere in 2020 during the pandemic, then there was the explosion after and recognizing market trends within the Asheville market,

segregated them accordingly in order to try to isolate the impact of the existing improvements that are there at the Asheville Mall. Uh based upon that analysis, there is still for the properties adjacent to the mall, there is an adverse impact or an external influence on property values for those properties already. So what is there? There is lighting, potential for noise, the parking, all of those factors. So now what you look at is that given that there is an existing external influence proven by the data then I say well what would the influence of this tower be? This tower makes no traffic makes no noise and the other factors supersede it. So when I based upon the market data that the market data in Asheville says that there would that the incremental increase whatever it may be from the visual impact of this monopine tower compared to a regional mall a failing regional mall. Well, it is empty. You know, you have empty and I've I've worked on regional malls all over this state and it is it is a blight and until such time the most significant external factor on property values for the neighborhood behind and that entire area will be what eventually happens to that mall. Could it be a high-rise? Could it be a bunch of things? Could be a whole you have a very liberal zoning designation there. So there could be other items that impact those surrounding values. Not to mention that when I drove through there and I drove down White Pine Drive and drove around the around the mall and around the other streets, Sheridan, I

think Waverly and a couple others. Just looking at that, that is a beautiful little neighborhood. Older homes, some built in the 20s and the 50s, you know. I think that there are some that have been subdivided and some newer houses that have been built in there. But the fact of the matter is is that the Asheville Mall poses an external influence on property values of those adjacent or abued properties and that the incremental increase of developing a 130 foot monopine tower in the corner of the parking lot will not substantially injure the value of adjacent or abiding properties. I'd be happy to answer any questions. Um, in your report you distinguish between tower types, monopole and lattice. This monopine, is that considered a subtype of monopole? It well, yeah, there were no monopines. So, but a monopine is actually, and I've done these in other counties in the mountains. Those are typically used. I know they've been used in cities and they look like terrible things. As Michael was saying, they look like toilet brushes or something like that. But because of the topography, it actually reduces the visual footprint of the tower because of your change in elevations and your background. So if you're looking up at the tower and the background is trees, it looks less. You actually see less. Same thing with looking down. When you're looking into a tree canopy, it just sticks above it a little bit as opposed to a pole, you know, with equipment which is much more intrusive. So in your expert opinion of the various pole types, the monopine would have the least impact on surrounding property values,

especially given the tree existing tree canopy.

Any other questions for this witness? Thank you for your time. At this point, I was going to summarize why we meet the requirements for the technical modification and how we meet the seven standards of the special use permit unless you want me to reserve that until after others have spoken and I can summarize at the end and I'll I'll leave that up to you board procedurally. Why don't you walk through it now?

Okay. Um there actually two technical modifications. I missed one earlier. Michael reminded me reminded me of that when he spoke to the landscaping. Um the first is we're putting a fence and not putting landscaping in the parking lot. We're not going to dig up more pavement but actually do a privacy fence around the compound. Um we would ask for that technical modification given the location where it is. It makes sense. uh based upon the view and I can go back. Basically what we're looking at here, it would blend in as well. And if you try to put shrubs to shelter the tower from the rest of the parking lot, it really doesn't make sense in this circumstance. Second, in terms of the tower height, um the RF engineer from Verizon very specifically addressed why they looked at 100 ft versus 130 ft and it was a significant difference in terms of the ability to have the strength of signal to cover this commercial area as well as major transportation corridor and to offload the traffic that's necessary in order to be able to maintain the ser or maintain and improve the service in this area. both uh data and voice. And we would ask that you allow that additional height given the location at the lower end of the parking lot and given the existing improvements around it and given the analysis of the uh RF engineer in terms of needing that additional height and that it made a significant difference between 130 ft and 100 ft. Plus, on top of that, Michael Sanderford testified that with the requirement that there be additional carriers on this tower to maximize the use of the tower, um, you need that additional height in order for those other carriers to be able to get over some of the obstructions. So, to make it realistic that other carriers might come forward

and uh, be interested in using this tower as the ordinance encourages. I think it requires one additional carrier, but obviously we want to maximize it with more than that. In terms of the special use permit factors, uh the use, the first factor is the proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger the public health or safety. As Michael testified, it enhances the public health and safety because 80 80% plus of calls to 911 are from wireless. Uh we depend on our phones for a lot of things, applications, maybe health related applications that we need to work. Um you know, that's listed in the report as well. Um but also to be able to when you dial 911, whether you're in building or outside, you're able to get 911 and you're able to get the emergency services you need. these this type of infrastructure is critical to that especially since um most folks don't have landline phones anymore. Second factor is the proposed use is reasonably of or development of the land is reasonably compatible with significant natural or topographic features on the site. That comes down to what was stated earlier what the chair asked about and asked Mr. Burkowitz about and that is we're doing a a monopine here to blend in with the background. We showed the photo sims that showed how it blends in with the background even for those on the adjoining subdivision. And Mr. Bur Burkowitz's testimony as an expert is that it helps it blend in u better especially given the tree canopy at this location and the condition that we're not disturbing the existing tree canopy within 10 ft of the property line as a condition. The proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure the value of adjoining or abuing property.

Mr. Burkowitz gave his expert opinion to that effect plus his report which I will formally do request that it be admitted into evidence as well as you'd already qualified him as an expert. The proposed use of the land development or land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk, coverage, density, character of the area or neighborhood in which it's located. First of all, North Carolina law is that if the ordinance allows a tower as a special use in this district, it's presumed to be in harmony. In other words, the council's given the direction that towers are okay in this district. Therefore, the presumption is in our favor that it's in harmony. But beyond that, Michael Burkowitz clearly with his testimony is this is in harmony with this commercial property and the surrounding trees that that the Monopine will blend in with. It's in harmony with that area and consistent with as he testified other towers in the Asheville area that typically are on commercial or industrial related properties or on major thorough affairs. The proposed use of development of the land will generally conform to the comprehensive plan, smart growth plans, strategic plan. It's mentioned in the staff report. The staff response is this is town center. This is important infrastructure for the town center area and the comprehensive plan recognizes a need for all types of infrastructure, the tower included, which provides that communication infrastructure necessary to support uh the development that the comprehensive plan anticipates to occur in the town center uh district. The proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation facilities, water supply, fire, police, waste disposal, and other similar facilities. In this case, the the impact or the need

for those various facilities is very limited. Site just needs power and fiber optic cable. It doesn't need water, sewer, or any of those other u requirements that other types of development may require. Police and fire response. It's on a major corridor next to a major mall that has ease ease of access to the local um transportation network so fire and police can get in there very easily. There's plenty of width, plenty of area to do that. Plus, the technical review committee has gone over this which would include fire and public safety and it's been approved. Um the final factor, the proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a traffic hazard. Michael Sander testified to this clearly. There will be no traffic of any consequence. Uh maybe a vehicle, maintenance vehicle coming every four to six weeks. We all know everything's remote now, including working. So, the remote access to the site um is all that is really needed. Site visits aren't necessary unless something unusual happens or to do a a regular check of the site to make sure everything's okay. So based upon that, based upon the staff report that we met all of the conditions, based upon the evidence we've presented with respect to the technical modifications, we ask that you approve the special use permit with the two technical modifications that we requested. If you have any other questions of me or my other witnesses, certainly we're available to answer those. And I would like to reserve time if anyone else speaks to be able to address anything that's raised in in those statements. Thank you. Any other questions?

I just wanted to follow up with Miss Ashley about a comment that you made about presumed harmony. Is that this was that statement correct from the perspective of city legal? That is correct. It is an allowed use, but it's a special you have special conditions to make it even more compatible. So that's Yes. Thank you.

Any other questions? Yeah, I have questions of of I guess staff now in the UDO. Um, so what's proposed here is a mono pine, so it's supposed to mimic the tree, you know, as we discussed. Is that a requirement or could this poll just simply be naked? It is a requirement that the poll has clothes on. Um, so I believe it's under uh 7162D4. [Music] Uh, shoot.

I I just I might be in the minority, but I I I know in this particular area about 80% of the canopy is deciduous. and in our location. I know there's been a lot of talk about how these structures blend in better in western North Carolina, but I don't necessarily agree with that statement. So, in many areas,

so it doesn't require monopine specifically. It requires that um the uh facility be considered either a work of public art or on developed parcels that the structure appears integral or complements the design of buildings or complex buildings or that the overall location design and configuration is appropriate to the particular proposed location. So that third caveat is uh where staff was finding that the monopine was um meeting that requirement that the the design and configuration is appropriate for that proposed location given the tree canopy nearby and so forth.

I just I just you know all those before and after photos of proposed locations. I bet you in a lot of those if it was just a skinny pole you wouldn't even notice it especially in the winter. I don't think we have any other mono pines. Are you saying that we have we this is I believe this is the first one that's designed to look like a pine tree.

Sure. I will say we did we did the monopine as Will said in consultation with staff and given where it was on the mall property that there was tree canopy but and I will say this and I'm sure my client would agree. I mean if you're fine with it being a regular monopole we're not going to object because there's it's a substantially bigger investment to make it a monopine but you know I'll leave that to the board. Yeah sure I may be in the minority. I just and I can't say that in

some given circumstances I would agree with you in this one it works as well as it would work almost anywhere as far as a monopine is concerned. There's some monopines that are in locations that look terrible. I mean I admittedly so but in this situation it was a little bit different because as we measured the prevailing canopy it was somewhere and those mature trees were somewhere in the 50 to 70 foot range and then obviously given elevation changes it helps it blend blend in. Would it make a difference that you see the top and it's got greenery on it versus you see the top and it's just a pole. I mean, that's in the eyes of the beholder, but we went down that path, you know, with again working with staff to come up with that. Could you say because of the light poles that the monopole blends in better? Maybe you could. I wouldn't argue against that, but I leave that to the board to make that decision. I really do. I mean, we're we've proposed a monopine. I'm not going to object if you make it a monopole.

I hear you. I'm just I'm for everybody else's benefit. I think a lot of these what we're doing here is looking at it with canopy in the summer, spring, in the winter, you're going to be looking at something that sticks out in my opinion.

Yeah. and and it's not as much. I agree with what you're saying, but it's not as much when if it's over a deciduous tree because there are limbs and you'll see greenery above it and it wouldn't be unlike the mixed foliage you have here which you have the the pines and you then you have the the deciduous trees. Um it still does help in that regard. Um, but again, I'd leave it to the board as far as how you feel about it and whether you'd rather just stick with a regular monopole in this situation and we would not object.

Question for city staff on this procedurally since all the evidence submitted has been monopine and we haven't really I I mean personally I agree with you commissioner cycle. Um, but would it need to be continued in order to submit, resubmit it? Because, you know, we haven't had evidence submitted as a plain pole.

Yeah, it might it might change the nature of the application. It would have to consider um the the use and if it's permitted in the urban place district. So, um so telecommunication towers or or monopoles by themselves are not a permitted use in urban place. concealed telecommunication towers are permitted by an SUP. So that kind of changes the nature of the use and there's obviously different criteria for the concealed tower. And I think really the the crux of the matter is that what it says the planning and zoning commission shall not approve the special use application for a concealed telecommunication structure unless it finds that one, two, or three. it's a work of public art, it's integral to the buildings or complex of buildings on the same parcel or that the overall location, design and configuration is appropriate to the particular proposed location. So, I think it has to meet one of those three criteria in some way to distinguish it as a um concealed uh facility and not just a regular old monopole which is not a permitted use in urban place district. So, it doesn't doesn't have to be a monopine per se, but it would have to meet one of those three criteria to be considered a concealed uh structure and then be a permitted use in the district.

And I can't really argue with what Will said in terms of the way the ordinance is currently written. I would encourage you to consider changing that, but as of now, that's what we're dealing with. Um, add it to the list. And I've had that happen before at other hearings where in the end the board asks council to in the future, can you change it? But at at this point, it's what we're working with. And it does say concealed. And I could argue maybe a monopole in that location is concealed. But if it says specifically a monopole is not allowed, that becomes the difficult factor.

Yeah, I don't want to I don't want to belabor it. I just know that one's what 56 feet up in the air. like let's add a bunch of branch synthetic branches on that and see how it looks. Well, the truth of the matter is that we're putting the monopine closer to the trees because we're actually removing one larger tree and a couple of smaller trees but leaving the rest of that canopy per the condition we worked out with staff. Just in that spirit real quick, are we going to discuss the technical modification or can we not do that during the special use hearing as far as whether the 130 ft versus 100 ft as defined within the UDO?

I think the in this case the burden is on the applicant to justify the modification and it's up to us to decide whether it's a reasonable request. Is that fair? So, I guess my to just be really clear, my question would be is it voting yes or no on 130 ft only, or can the applicant um remove the technical modification and say that they would keep the poll at 100 ft?

Their request is the modification. So it's not quite like a conditional zoning where you can sort of bargain about the condition. That's their request. And if you feel that they've demonstrated the need for that and then that's what the commission would. So it's a special use permit with a technical modification and that's what we're we'll vote on. Not just special use permit, but that also with the technical mod,

but the special use permit you you can you could you could add conditions to it and then they can ask for this this modification and the and then you're you're looking at the standards. Does does the fact that it's increased to that height, does it somehow not allow them to meet the standards as written, the seven standards?

But our position would be the RF engineer testified that there was a large percentage of difference between 100 ft and 130 ft and there's not been any record, you know, any evidence to the contrary. And so that's what we would rely on is we have an RF engineer who designs the sites in the Asheville area and is familiar with this area and looked at it at 100 ft versus 130 and there was a significant difference percentage-wise in the coverage which he testified to.

So it's I think it's a good point Commissioner Wheatley though, right? Like so the burden of proof the evidence the sentella evidence for standard use permit but this is then a modification. Does that modification require the same level of burden of evidence? The burden is as proposed have they showed that they tended to show that they ma met these standards as the overall application. Don't think of it as an additional the this is the request for the special use permit and it has this 135 ft and the fence in instead of landscape

and I would say consider it as and your attorney can cur or not. It's a special use permit for the tower, but then in addition there are two technical modifications you need to approve similar to conditions, but whether we met the burden on our technical modifications and but to me it's the same burden um essentially that we have to meet and our position is we met that we you know by the RF engineer testifying that we can't meet the object coverage objectives of this site and it's in the there's written evidence in the record to a written report can't meet the coverage objectives without this being at 130 ft, 135 with a lightning rod. And that's what we're relying on as an additional technical modification. So, it is kind of an additional decision you have to make on top of the special use permit. I did want to note on the the second modification that was brought up regarding the fence. It does state in that um standard that requires the um shrub screening that it does say except where a design of a non-vegetative screening better reflects and complements the architectural character of the surrounding neighborhood.

Okay. So the staff level that's a staff level decision then right basically. Yeah. Um so in that case the wooden privacy fence okay staff felt that was would be considered in in that realm. So if the yeah so the commission could could could consider that too but the staff level we felt that that met the um requirement for the screening. So it wouldn't really be kind of backtrack a little bit on that and say I think the staff level decision on that is what carries the day. So it's still down to the one technical modification to 135 ft. It would still be the same. If we've met our burden, then we've met our burden unless there's evidence to the contrary.

Shall we uh open public comment or any further questions for the applicant? Right. At 8:42, we will open public comment on this matter. As a reminder, um you anyone who wishes to provide witness testimony can be taken into consideration. Um however, we ask that you limit your testimony to specific and factual impacts. Um opinion of impact is is not really under consideration under the special use permit process. So, we do have a few people signed up uh for public comment on this matter. Um, we'll start with Philip Hawkins if you're still here.

Are we timing public comment?

Since there's only a few, we'll just kind of move through. Um, please state your name and um, uh, whether you affirm that you were sworn in at the beginning of this matter. My name is Philip Hawkins and yes, I was sworn in. I'm an Asheville native. Live on White Pine Drive. We've been there since before the Asheville Mall was built. Uh I have no problem with a monopine. Uh I have no problem with increasing the area covered. The problem I have has to do with item number one on your special use standards in part says proposed use or development will not materially endanger the public health or safety. Now I've heard an awful lot of talk about how this monopine tower will blend in with the background. It looks like the trees. That's good. Uh the coverage looks good. The problem that I have is when I research this, and mind you, I'm not an experienced electrical engineer. However, I have dealt with 45 years in the aerospace business designing things uh and also being part of search and rescue methods and also when I was young helping to build a radio station. I understand the things that you're talking about when you're talking about coverage. Okay. But when I researched this,

uh, I became a little concerned, not so much for me because I'm a considerable distance away from this tower, but I'm concerned for the neighbors I have who live almost right next to it. Uh when I researched this, I wrote a letter which should be in your records and the references to that letter. At the bottom of the letter, I had five references that cover things like uh article actually a website physicians for safe technology. If I may, I object to any speaking. I hear what he's saying and I think he's going down the road when he speaks about physicians. The health and safety of radio frequency is not a factor this board can consider pursuant to um 160D 932 of the North Carolina general statutes. U because this is a licensed a facility licensed by the uh FCC and operates within the parameters of the FCC requirements. It's deemed safe and therefore that's not an issue that this board is to consider. Well, may I disagree with you completely, sir?

Hold on just one second. Um, while I consult City Legal, does city legal concur with the um opinion expressed by the applicant's attorney? I I'll read it if you'd like for me to. Yes, if you could just go ahead and read the 160D.

Yeah. This is at the end of 160D 932 of the North Carolina General Statutes. It says for purposes of this part, meaning the approval of of towers, public safety includes without limitation federal, state, and local safety regulations, but does not include requirements related to radio frequency emissions of wireless facilities. So it specifically says it health and safety does not include um uh any issues related to radio frequency emissions of wireless facilities.

That is correct. And I think um you might want to remind the board what safety standards you have met. I know there was the NEPA study and different and FAA. So if you you remind the board and this is part this was part of the record that will reviewed and and went through that I didn't go through but this is a federally licensed facility as a result it has to go through a NEPA review process a national environmental policy act just like any other uh federal or even state development which is a state NEPA so we have to go through and look at impacts on Native American tribes or or environmental issues I mean it's a whole long list impact on historic properties. And so we have to go through all of that and and submit a report that passes and meets the requirements of NEPA. But in addition to that, this is a federally licensed facility licensed by the FCC and we have to operate within the parameters of the FCC requirements. Um, in this case under the FCC rules, the type of operator that's at this location and and Sam could come up here and speak to it, but because it's such a low power facility, it is deemed um compliant. They don't have to do any additional compliance. Verizon doesn't because it's such a low power facility. Um, you know, I can't remember the wattage of this one, but like I've heard the equivalent. A lot of these facilities are 60 watt facilities. Like a 60 watt light bulb, it's very, very low. So sir if you if you could rephrase and just in your own your own personal knowledge perhaps how this would but again it can't be as he

it can't be on that issue though it can't be on yeah if there are other issues that's that he wants to raise that's fine but not that one agree so in other words you're not willing to accept references from reputable international organiz organizations that disagree with what this under this applicable statute. Yeah, we're we can't

and it's regrettably I know you've sat through a very long um hearing today to provide this testimony, but um that particular piece of testimony uh under the state statutes is not admissible as um meeting the first criteria of special use standards. So when some of the uh neighbors that I have develop health issues that relate to this. No sir, not yet. There's nobody they can sue like the city or the developer. Is that correct? Yeah, I think that under it's we're just following kind of the the guidance under state statutes on what's admissible.

Okay. Well, perhaps the guidance under state statutes needs to consider international scientific evidence, some of which is right here. Um, I can see where this is going. So, u, thank you for your time.

Thank you. And I would suggest that those of you on this committee begin to use the internet to find out a little bit about the health issues related to something that's 400 ft away from homes especially since internationally it's a,00 to600 ft that's recommended. Thank you for your time.

Thank you. Next we have Ellen Aldridge. Hi there. Uh my name is Ellen Aldrich. I live at 298 White Pine. Um our home was not shown in that photo that was shown of White Pine Drive. that is further up. All of the discussion about it not being seen. I have pictures of my backyard from last night. Some of this tree coverage doesn't exist anymore since the hurricane. This is going to be behind my house. In addition to all the trailers, in addition to all the stuff that was going on back there during Helen, which we understand Helen was necessary to have the cleanup, we still have a Walgreens trailer behind us with a blue light that shines in my living room. I've uploaded it to the Asheville app. I have photos of it here. I'm happy to show you all. Nobody is discussing the fact that this monopine is going to help people. It's going to impact us on a daily basis. We're going to see this in our backyard. And nobody in this horseshoe, not the attorneys, not the people for Tower, not the people for Verizon would say they wanted in their backyard. We don't dispute that this is a necessary thing to have more cell coverage. God knows we could have used it during the storm. You couldn't get out in our backyard. We had to drive up to Cookout. But we also know what's going on on Tunnel Road. The homelessness situation is running rampant. People tap into the power boxes at Cookout and IHOP. And you think they're not going to try to jump whatever fence is put up around this to tap into some sort of power. People spin

tires every night in this mall parking lot. Nobody does anything about it. We call the police because we have to. So, we're burdening the police with noise disturbances going on in a derelict property, which I think even the attorney said is the mall property. And nobody here has been discussing the neighbors that it's actually behind. We've heard about you can't see it from Tonal Road. You can't see it from Swanoa River Road. You can't see it from that particular photo on White Pine Drive. If you come behind my house on my back deck, which I'll show you all the photo, you will see it. You will see it behind Devon's home. It is right behind us. It's convenient that the photos shown aren't showing you what's actually there. We're upset. We feel like the city does not care. We feel like the commission does not care. What it seems like everyone cares about is putting up a new cell tower. Yay. Make more money for Verizon. Yay. Lease out uh mall property so they get money from a ground lease. You're going to lease it out to other cell phone providers so they're going to get money, too. How about the rest of us who are working people here in Asheville? We're not the Ramble. We're not Deerfield. We are normal working people who are about to have a gigantic 135 ft if you all approve that behind us. We're not saying don't put a tower up. We're saying don't put it behind us. Put it on the freaking parking deck that's already there. It's already behind us. You don't have to put another structure right in our backyard. Look to somewhere else on Tunnel Road. It's a commercial corridor. I know this is the ideal spot for it, but there has to be another option. There's not only one option. People earlier today were talking about trust and integrity. We feel like you do not care about this

neighborhood. Kennallorth Forest is like the redheaded stepchild. We constantly constantly go up against things like this with the city. Why does it not matter? We don't have legal representation here with us. We didn't have money to bring attorneys with us to speak on our behalf. It doesn't mean that what we have to say doesn't matter. We are going to be impacted by this. It's going to be behind us. Whether it's an eyesore or any other reason we can't speak of, we do not want it behind us. And we feel like that should matter. We pay taxes. Maybe we should stop paying taxes. I mean, will that matter to the city? Probably. Probably. So, why can't this get postponed, moved somewhere else? You can't tell me in good conscience that this is the only viable spot in the entire area of East Asheville that would work for this cell tower. It may be the best spot. It doesn't mean there's not a second best spot. And there's no reason the second best spot if it's not behind people's homes should work. Put it somewhere else. I mean, I had all these other things that I was going to come up here and talk about, but since uh it seems like a lot of them won't be allowed to be spoken, I wanted to at least say the things I wanted to say. I want you all to hear that we're upset. The mall does not communicate with the neighbors. Like I said, these are old pictures. So many of these trees fell on my deck, my retaining wall after Helen. The mall did nothing. I understand the mall has been sold. They just chocked it up to a natural disaster. None of the trees have been replaced. All the trees that are being overridden with vines are still a problem. I called the mall and told them about this years ago. I told them in

early September. And now, while this should crush and crumble correctly, what if it doesn't? What if it falls on our home? That's a real problem. Michael explained it during the neighborhood meeting. It's designed to crumble. Well, you know what? A lot of these things during Helen were designed to withstand things they didn't stand. What if it fails and falls on us? Our homeowners insurance is going to have to figure that out because the mall, Verizon, nobody's going to bear responsibility. They're going to say it was an act of God. It's an act of nature. We're telling you today to please care. Just pick a different place. Pick a different spot. That's really, I think, the nutshell of what I have to say. Okay. Um, I want to allow my neighbor Devon to speak because it's also behind her. But I do encourage you all to come to White Pine Drive. Come to the end. This uh back area of the parking lot, as the attorney was saying, is kind of like, oh, does it matter? Oh, it matters when it's what's in your backyard. We have the misfortune, I suppose, to live behind a commercial property. Our neighborhood was built in the 40s. The mall came along in 73. It's 2025 and we're still here and it's like it doesn't matter. This is a chance for people to make it matter. Move the pine. Put the monopine somewhere else.

Thank you. Thank you. And uh I I appreciate and understand the passion and concern. I hope, you know, if I may, you know, outside of the parameters of the special use permit process, none of the process is um is is really a reflective of the lack of caring. It's just a very specific and narrow process for review and consideration of this type of feature. So without having to pay attention

there are very specific impacts and the burden is actually on the applicant to demonstrate that and so it is our job as the planning and zoning commission to ensure that they have met uh those standards. So understand and I guess I one thing I would ask is there was mention of photos that I don't think have been admitted into evidence. if you would like to admit those into evidence um that needs to be sort of formally done because otherwise you know it can't be considered as a factor in our

review but I don't know if I would and and that I just because legally I have to object to largely that entire testimony because it was not relevant. What's happening with the mall is not relevant to what we've requested here. Um the relevant standard is substantial adverse impact. There's and that has to be brought forward by an expert which no expert has been brought brought forward to speak to that other than our expert that said the impact of the mall is much more significant than this tower will be and it will the tower addition of the tower will not create a substantial adverse impact. So I'm just objecting to the testimony as well. I understand the passion. I'm not saying that. It's just as you, Mr. Chair, said it's not part of this process. This is a quasi judicial process with specific rules that have to be followed. Um although I appreciate the passion, that did not meet the standards to rebut any testimony or any evidence that we've presented

in the

in in the neighborhood meeting. Um, is it required staff? Is it required in the neighborhood meeting that an explanation of the quasi judicial process be given to to the neighbors? I guess like I I feel like as you've expressed in the past, often times the public it's confusing. the process is confusing and and and they may come unprepared to these meetings with, you know, their their ability to be able to pull forth expert testimony. I'm just curious if it's a if it's something that is explained during the neighborhood meeting process.

Um, so we do have an a guide for neighborhood meetings for developers to follow. Um there are some requirements around that. Typically involves the focus on what's being proposed. Usually there's a mention of the mechanism for you know the review process from the um applicant. So I don't know if there's a specific requirement I'm trying to pull it up about like explaining the the developer is really not required to explain like the process in detail or or that sort of thing. that's where um staff kind of comes in and that's more our our role if there's questions about how does the process work, how does the public interact with it and that sort of thing. But I I you know

I mean is it incumbent upon uh I guess the public then to reach out to staff and ask about the process or is it something that potentially be city staff could be more proactive about is you know I'm just thinking

when we when we get give the notice we say what kind of proceeding it is. So just like it shows up on the agenda, it's not legislative, it's quasi judicial. We do have some we we're working on materials that might be, you know, a citizens user guide to quasi judicial, but basically if they don't say, well, what does that mean? How is that different than maybe the legislative one they heard before? It's it's in it because you can't discuss a lot of the the substance outside of this hearing. Everything that's presented is how you have to base your decision. It is um it is a difficult process for the public to understand. But it is noticed as a quasi judicial procedure and it would be incumbent on the people who get noticed to say what does that mean? How do I present?

I know. But could in the future could we like I mean is it possible to be like quasi judicial 101? What is it? We are we are working on a on a brochure but again I you know I I don't know if we'd send that along with every maybe we could send a brochure. We don't get these very often. We maybe get one special use permit a year here. No. And I get it. And then I just think if um

if if I was in this homeowner's position, right, and I didn't know to come with my own appraiser, you know, and I came here, I'd be pissed, too. I' I'd have been like, well, I would have brought my appraiser with me. We do and I think the chairs recognize the frustration but we also do our best to try to say if we just as we do there are other quasi judicial procedures in the city say for historic resources commission and the best we can do is walk through and then try to ask them to please stick to the facts and take those facts and talk about the the standards and yes in this case the public health is very spec specific specific on this particular kind of use and you're prohibited from the statute for for hearing that. Um, and that actually would probably also have to be more of a testimony about, you know, couldn't just say, well, I think it's going to impact my health. It's it's just the the the process that we are we have to follow in this or you have to follow in this. I understand what you're saying.

We do have a couple more people signed up for public comment. Uh, next is Norah Daniel.

I'm sorry, sir. You had your moment for public comment. Um, next up is Devin Hilgenamp. Do you have could you

So yeah, I haven't really received any information about the legalities. ities of the quasi judicial hearing. Um, so probably everything I say will be objected too, but I just wanted to start by asking if you lived right here or right here, how would you literally not 20 yard away from where I so that was my opening and I had something a little bit more formal prepared as well. Good evening. I had afternoon earlier 6 hours ago but good evening commissioners. My name is Devon Hillamp and I live at 302 White Pine Drive in Kennallorth Forest neighborhood. I'm here representing myself and my fiance. We are firsttime home buyers and our house is the closest residence to the proposed Monopine Tower behind the Asheville Mall. This proposed tower would stand to be 130 ft tall with the typical tree line as you mentioned not pines facuous trees closer to 60 feet tall. That means the tower would extend roughly 65 to 75 ft above the tower above the trees on the tree line that neighbors the backline of my property. Towering over what is now a private and serene space in our backyard. These so-called concealed telecommunication towers will undoubtedly be cons will not be concealed in this location. Make no mistake, while the technology may have improved, the design of these monopine

towers are a total eyesore and not at all aesthetically pleasing. Instead, the structure will stand dramatically in our neighborhood, becoming an intrusive feature that dominates the landscape and sits directly between the neighborhood and the beautiful mountain views that we can currently enjoy, mostly during the wintertime, which as you pointed out is going to make the monopine even more of an eyesore. As new homeowners, this is deeply concerning. Our home is not just where we live, it's also our biggest investment. And while I didn't bring an official appraiser here with me today, the visibility of such a tower so close to our property could significantly diminish its value. Maybe not in the eyes of, you know, the appraiser that came because it's not substantial because it's already on a commercial property, but it will diminish the values regardless and in turn jeopardize our financial future. Beyond the physical impact of the tower itself, I want to stress that the relationship between the Asheville Mall, both previous and current owners, has already been strained. Like my neighbor Ellen discussed, we have to call the AP.

I mean, I don't mind saying some things speak for a very long time. Well, but this is irrelevant. We are not the mall. We don't operate the mall. We have nothing to do with the mall. and what is being proposed the issues on the fence line. I I object to anything that's irrelevant to this procedure.

It's a procedure as if you're in court. So, it's not the same as saying, "Well, you had more time than I had more time." So, he can object. The board can decide if they'd like you to finish. But try to address the standards. Um that how you're Yes. what you're saying applies to the standards. You've mentioned some.

Yeah. And I I mean in general I would object to the testimony in general because any addressing of the standards is not expert testimony regarding property values. So I have to state that for the record that that that's the case. So largely this testimony is not relevant, but I leave it to the board so far as how far they want to go with it. And the reason I objected is because it was going down the road of the how the mall is operated, which is has nothing at all to do with our request.

Okay. I mean, I can skip the mall thing. While this area does have some commercial businesses, the residents are plenty. And in this context, I feel we are being overlooked. Additionally, I failed to see how being close to the interstate contributes meaningfully to a need for increased internet usage as well as the validity of connectivity issues inside of nearby businesses. I work remotely from home along with my fiance and neither of us have any issues uh with our connectivity and we also stream on a constant basis. We have no complaints. If they can prove that there is a bonafide need for such a tower in this very specific location, then let's hear it. But I'm confident that it could be placed somewhere else in the general area without directly impacting residential homes, not even 20 ft away. As I already said, our neighborhood is beautiful, as mentioned by the appraiser, and it was barely shown. As Ellen mentioned, that picture of our neighborhood is very, very, very far back. I go on a walk that takes me 40 minutes to come to go all the way through the whole time. My house is literally a stones throw from this tower. The photo simulation shown in those examples is not what it would look like to sit in my backyard or in the front of the street where we live. So imagine yourself sitting here with a 135 ft tall tower right there. For these reasons, I respectfully ask that the mall and the city consider the impact that this tower would have on nearby residents and work to identify appropriate a more appropriate location or at least find an appropriate modification as a compromise, one that provides needed service without unfairly burdening the families who live closest to it. Thank you for your time and

consideration. Thank you and understand your objection, but if you would like to, you know, just reiterate the objection for the record. May I make an objection? Um, no sir. I'm sorry. You were afforded the opportunity. Nowhere in the

on the on the agenda it's labeled as a quasi judicial public hearing. Um if the if the staff would like to address how notice is made for quasi judicial matters.

Sure. Um so um there are special requirements in the SUP section for um telecommunication towers and concealed telecommunication towers that the applicant mail notice to surrounding property owners within a quarter mile of the application the hearing date and location. Um so that was done I think I I think they actually did it twice because they had the original time and location on there the first go around and then resent it with the updated information. um that was found to meet the requirements of um of that provision. What was what was sent out? Uh I can pull up a copy. I think it's part of the uh application packet if we wanted to look at it, but um so might it may not have said the specific words quasi judicial um but it met the requirements of what was required to be sent out and part of that information packet. And then of course we have our agenda on the website that as you all know says the different hearing types and that sort of thing. So that's maybe what he's referring to.

Thank you. Um well I think there's one more person signed up for public comment. Uh Sharon Summerall Hi, my name is Sharon Summer. I have not been sworn in. Is that necessary? Yes. Um, if you could raise your right hand, do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth? Yes. Thank you.

Um, I uh manage a property across the street, which is the Asheville Market, and um um I handle leasing from Tesla, and we graffitied a lot. and they come over and I have a Tesla number and they come over within hours and they fix the graffiti if I don't get it. So, I have a uh an objection to the city's standard for just the fence. Um I deal with a lot of graffiti at that shopping center and I also was on the urban forestry commission. So, you're never going to hear me say it's okay not to put plants up. But what should be done is unless the mall and has been said their lacks about their upkeep has a direct line to whomever is dealing with the leasing, those leasing people that will hand it over to their maintenance person is going to be out there every day spray painting graffiti. And it's going to be much easier maintenance-wise for the owners of that are leasing it. And uh the Asheville uh mall is to have plants in front of this fence. And uh they will get some graffiti behind it like I do with my shrubs, but you can't see it around the greenery. And so the maintenance on this and um it's just, you know, when I moved here uh many years ago, I was heard we were called Trashville. And I've hated that. I run a really tight shopping center. It's really neat. It's really clean. And I've had a lot of discussions with the mall. And I think just having this fence without having any greenery around it is just going to create to that image of more Trashville as opposed to making it what it should look like. So thank you.

Thank you. Any question to the relevance of that? I mean I don't have any question. I mean staff had already made the decision about being able to do the privacy fence. So that's not really relevant to what we're doing tonight. This is staff level decision.

So question for staff that is not a technical modification that's being sought, but is it this board's role to make a determination of whether that is an administrative matter that staff can do or something within the purview of adherence to the seven standards. So yeah, staff has concluded that the um fence meets that requirement u based on the other non um other other option for that screening. So that's not a technical modification. So I don't think that specifically is something the commission has to weigh and you all are tasked with weighing the application against the seven seven standards more broadly. Um, can it be something that is factored by this board or is that sort of it's it's already that decision has already been made and it's not within our authority as the decision-making body to

if there's like a preference for vegetative screening or or revisiting just the the notion that that was an acceptable neighborhood compatibility. I I guess what what who who is the body that would um object to that determination by staff if not us? Um you so typically like administrative appeal for staff decision is is one avenue to sort out decisions that are made at the staff level um handled by the board of adjustment. I don't know if um I believe what I said was accurate, Janice, but

it's what the what is the applicant requesting. So, if the applicants requested the fence and that's your preferred what what do you want perhaps for security, whatever, then that's the application you need to consider against the standards and not really say, well, we'd rather have this than that. Unless you do feel that for some reason a landscaping is somehow impacts the compatibility but the landscaping would be on the side facing the mall.

Yeah. the land where we it's landscaped on the side facing the property line and we agreed to the condition that we can't disturb the tree canopy within the 10 feet of the property line and it will be the same as against the um

the adjoining neighbors the vegetation that there we're not disturbing or the only part of the compound that you know where we're not putting vegetation is facing parking spots and so that's why we chose and It's not an option of having a fence or not. The fence has to be there for security reasons. And just putting some bushes in the parking lot along the fence doesn't make a lot of sense in this circumstance. It's the first thing that comes to mind is a um dumpster enclosure or something like that in a mall. I mean, it's going to be have a similar appearance to what a trash compactor or a dumpster enclosure would look like. um and we're meeting, you know, standards similar to that and it would not have landscaping as a result of that.

So, so I guess the relevant question for this board is under standard number four um meeting the character of the area of the neighborhood, does the proposal as proposed and accepted by staff with a privacy fence and no landscaping meet that standard? really the question is has the advocate shown a tendency that they meet the standard correct not that you think that the standard could be better met by something. So that's why it's not really

and and our position would be we've worked with staff for months on this site and that was the determination that staff made that we relied upon in coming forward to the hearing was that a privacy fence was acceptable. Um, and give an example from the last individual who spoke. Um, there would be nothing that would prevent somebody who's doing graffiti from coming out there and destroying the landscaping. I mean, we're we're not talking anything that's significant, the type of landscape buffering that you're looking at putting there. So, certainly that could very be easily be destroyed if somebody was intent on creating a problem. That's why we felt like the fence would be more appropriate because it's easier to maintain than um than having the shrubbery in a parking lot with the heat and keeping it watered and that sort of thing for the limited benefit that it provides.

And the property owner will be responsible for having to clean it if that does happen. Yeah, that's right. And you know, if if you know, if something does happen, there are signs on the site with the number to call. If there's a problem, we'll be out there to fix it. That's incumbent on us. So, um, you that will be there and it will be there for the for the anyone, including the public, to look at the fence and call that number. No problem with that at all.

Thanks. Um, is there anyone else? There's nobody else signed up for public comment. Anybody else wishing to speak on this matter? Seeing no one race to the mic. Um we will close public comment at 9:23. Um if I could just have a a human moment, understand the the frustration. We ourselves are frustrated by the process and the limitations and the narrow scope of our ability to engage in in meaningful dialogue and review. I think it's the nature of this type of um permit process. So um understand and I'm sympathetic to the concerns we've heard tonight. Our role and our duty is to um look at whether what has been proposed and the evidence that's been provided and is admissible um meets the seven standards as outlined. So, um, any kind of followup question or comment from fellow commissioners?

Yeah, to the point of the loss of trees and the buffer around the edge of the property, are there any new requirements for the density of the trees? Just remind me kind of you talked about preserving those trees, but can you plant more if they have fallen in some areas? I will would have to speak to the tree canopy preservation ordinance and the condition we put in there and if they're naturally destroyed. I'm not aware it's a preservation ordinance, not a planting ordinance as I understand it, but will you can correct me if I'm wrong. So, under the current um under the current recovery helium recovery act, um we're only allowed to basically regulate trees within 10 ft of property lines. So, um that condition that's been agreed to by the applicant is um a way is is really the only way to ensure compliance with our tree canopy preservation ordinance that that meets that state law for the temporary uh restriction. Uh and that includes the preservation of the existing trees. Um but

I guess a related question will and I I don't know the answer to this. If one of those trees, if another storm comes through and one's destroyed, does a tree canopy preservation ordinance require it to be replaced? Typically, that's the way it's administered. Um, so in this case, uh, I don't I think we still have to figure out the size and the scope of the requirement would determine the way it's calculated. So whether it's a canopy measurement or per tree survey, um if it's a canopy requirement, we not might not have a survey of every single tree on the site. Um

yeah, so I I'll just chime in on that. So with your tree canopy protection areas, what we've done is limited your compliance ability to what the uh state statute allows us to do right now, right? Which is that 10 ft from the property line. Correct. But those areas would be treated as tree canopy protection areas under section 719. So that is by designating those areas as tree canopy protection areas you are uh committing to you know preserving those areas in perpetuity and the ordinance does call that out as replacing any trees that do come down in those areas.

And so that's a clarification. So we've agreed to that. Um but going forward at some point the Helen provisions in the state statute will go away and so they'll be that'll revert to the ordinance itself and there will be more requirements for future development not this development but for the mall going forward. Any redevelopment there would have to meet a greater standard than that. We just agreed that as of this day, the snapshot based upon and I worked with city legal on this as well based upon where things stand with respect to the lean helen statute. We only have to preserve within 10 ft and we're agreeing to that as a condition of this and saying in that condition that for any future development that would change you know once the helen statute goes away. So preserving asis, what's there to do?

Preserving as is or replacing it as was just explained if it's destroyed. Okay. And that burden is on the operator, the leaser of this. It's on the property owner. It's on the mall owners. It's not on us.

So that's something we know that is a condition that the mall owners are are going to have to accept um going forward, which they have to anyway. Honestly, we're doing the condition right now of this approval, but we know that basically that condition is just a statement of the way of the ordinance and the current condition of the state statute. So, that won't change. The mall redevelops, they've got to deal with this ordinance going forward. And Will and I had specific conversations about that.

Thanks. So more so just for my head to wrap around this um if and when the mall redevelops after the Helen state statute the developer of this area is going to have to meet UDO requirements probably type B buffer requirements for vegetation. Correct. Correct. Yeah. There'd be a whole host of um requirements from 7-Eleven regarding landscaping, parking, that sort of thing as well as as well as the full uh tree canopy preservation ordinance. Right.

So, we recognize that and I know this is getting long. I you know, all I can do is summarize is that first of all, I don't know that I did this and I want to make sure that my RF engineer was tendered as an expert. I don't know that I did that, but I want to make sure for the record that he was tendered as an expert. He's admitted as an expert retro retroactively. Thank you.

Um, you know, in this this is strictly quasi judicial. So, we meet our burden and we made our burden and there was no evidence to the contrary that can stand up. And if you just indulge me a minute, I'll give you an example. And this is probably one of the basic cases with respect to standing. um involves a neighborhood in Raleigh where it's a traditional historic neighborhood. One of the neighbors decided to put in a very modern contemporary house. The other neighbors, including the neighbor next door, hated it. She was going to go outside every day and see this house that was inconsistent with the rest of the neighborhood. The court said, you know, you may look at it, but you don't have standing to complain against that. That's not sufficient a sufficient complaint. So that's where we are here tonight. What we heard from the public was not legally relevant to this case. It's not sufficient. May not like it, may not like to see it, but we met our burden so far as the specific standards, seven standards in the ordinance. Um, that's what we have to do. It's not always the easiest thing to do. I I get that as a board, but that's the way this process is set up that we meet our legal requirements and we're entitled to the relief that we've requested. So, I appreciate your consideration and your decision in doing this. Uh ask for your approval of the special use permit based upon the evidence presented. I'm glad to answer any further questions as my experts say they can as well.

I have a question for Miss Ashley. um underneath the special use standards which is paragraph C, paragraph D um is included as an additional special use standards. Um underneath that paragraph of course you roll down to the um telecoms section where it specifically has additional inclusions for a special use permit as related to telecoms. Are those to be considered as part of our governance and our consideration when deliberating on um a suggested motion?

Yes. And the applicant and the the report addresses those additional standards that they have been addressed or the staff's opinion on whether they've been addressed and the applicant's application also addressed those additional standards. That was what I said at the beginning. Um I said there were numerous standards that we have to meet and we uh presented that with our application and staff concurred that we met all of those other than the technical modification that we're requesting. Excellent. Um would the chair like to entertain a motion?

Um I'd have one comment real quick before a motion. Um for number four, proposed use of development of land will be in harmony with the scale, bulk coverage, and density. I'm struggling to see how the scale is in harmony and I mean even I know we pro you provided p pictures which I appreciate and the proposed but I do feel like there wasn't any from that section of white pines drive so I feel like we haven't that was at state

to be clear um I would like to point out that our up zoning has very clear height requirements included in it especially as it pertains to a budding residential districts. So, I would agree with you and I'm prepared to make a motion. Okay.

But I I would remind you that the presumption is the height standards are different. The height standards for towers are different. Uh these are not the height st standards of the UP district. That that does not apply. The specific ordinance on towers applies. Um, but also the presumption is this is in harmony and there's not been any evidence presented to the contrary um that this is not in harmony uh with I'd like to be clear. I'm not discussing harmony.

Oh, I wasn't I wasn't saying that. I just that question was asked uh by the gentleman here and I'm saying that what it means is being a presumption. We've proven our case by this being in the district. So there's not been nothing presented to the contrary that's competent material and substantial to rebut that. Do you have follow-up questions on that? Because again the standard is not that they absolutely proved it. They tended to show that it was not what that it was compatible with and I did go back to the impact

and and and also that it's permitted it's a permitted use with these special conditions. It's a permitted use that shall not exceed 100 ft that abuts. So what is it about the 100 ft that you think then violates the standard that's zoned up and abuts an RS district and our UDO clearly states the requirements associated with that. Does somebody have to state all of that to know it or can we internalize and understand the UDO as it's laid out?

So the question would be if it's the exceeding the feet number of feet has the applicant sh demonstrated that even with that uh additional feet that it still meets or tends to show that they've met these standards. I'm asking, we have motions here, recommended motions. Do we need to state above and beyond that motion what our justification is for our motion? If you don't feel that they meet the standards, you would need to specify that.

Yeah, we specify a paragraph, but not the totality of all our arguments to counter their legal position. I I would agree with that that if we are making a motion to deny, it's incumbent upon us to list the specific standards that have not been met. And if one of them is have not demonstrated sufficient um uh justification for deviation from the 100 feet allowed in in the urban place. that that is a reason, you know, that is a reason.

Yeah. I don't think we've seen bonafide evidence that there's a specific need for a tower greater than 100 ft based on the fact that you get more and better service the higher you go. Otherwise, the tower should be a,000 ft. So that I don't I didn't see any specific evidence. Is there specific evidence that the extra 27% of service is needed over whatever would be provided at 100% or at 100 feet.

The testimony of the RF engineer in terms of um the increase in service which you just stated that's the burden we met. That's what we're required to show is that the need is there to have the add additional height and it increases the coverage by 27%. uh that and that's separate and apart though, keep in mind from the special use permit provisions. That's a technical modification we're asking for, but that's a separate item akin to a variance, but it's not really a variance. It's a technical modification.

So, you would accept 100 ft. I'm not saying I would accept 100 feet because the testimony and the evidence that we presented from the RF engineer was that it made a significant difference if the towers at 130 ft 135 ft versus 100 ft. So a question for staff would be is it I it if there is the ability to demonstrate evidence based on you know the the technical engineering need for height why would we have a height limitation stated clearly in the UDO if if you know because otherwise there is no purpose for a height limitation if the meeting the standard is justification by an engineer who and say I will have greater coverage with greater height. I

I mean I could rephrase it as a question to the RF engineer. Well, here's what is demand going to be met? What is the current demand and how is it not met with a 100 foot tower and how is it being met with a 135 ft tower? That's my question for the RF engineer. Okay, I'll have him come up here and speak to it. But it deals with uh some of it deals with elevation, terrain, and things that interfere. I will have him come and speak to that though. Come on. Um Sam, if you could speak to that.

Before we have the engineer provide an answer, do we need further staff guidance on um what you know what the burden is and whose burden it is to justify the height which deviates from the height standard in the UDO? Yeah. I want to understand like what where where is this separation between the special use permit and this modification? Are they attached?

It it's really I mean Ashley you can say I mean Janice you can say I would say it's a separate item. It's like um if we were requesting a reduction in setback or something like that, it's a separate part, but I I want to hear from you and see if you agree or not.

I see them as so intertwined. Again, we've we've talked about these standards have not been updated since 1997. So the height at that time may have been something that was in keeping w with what a standard was. But um so I see it as this is the application and then even though there is this modification which it's technically not part of the special standards this I would apply the special standards to say that the the special use standards to say does it raising it do they have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that they have to have that

um You're saying we don't we don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. No, no, no. But if you want to this question of height, if it's not if we don't use these special use standards, which is that additional height with that additional height, did they still tend to prove that these standards were met? That's how

and all the standards dealt all the proof that we've done dealt with 135 foot monopine, including the appraisers testimony and everything else. it all dealt with, you know, dealt with the impact of a tower at that height. So, all of that I agree, all of the evidence pointed to that. I'll let Sam come back up here and speak specifically again, but my concern is I don't want and I've run into this problem before and I don't without competing expert testimony that the height's not necessary. My position would be the board can't be their own expert to say otherwise. There's no evidence to the contrary, but I'll have Sam come up and speak.

So, could I could I ask a followup on that real quick? So, is the legal position that the board could not deny um any height if there is only one expert that provides testimony as to its necessity?

I'm not saying any height, but it's with respect to this height that he's requested and testified to. I mean, he he had as much as admitted in his testimony, well, yeah, you could go to 200, but the the choice was made, what is the height we need to get the service that's required. So, he could have said, we could have said 200 and 200 199 foot tower does not have to be lit. So, that doesn't change, but he said we stuck with 130 and that I'm just repeating what he said earlier, but go ahead Sam and speak. And there you might want to think about a variance standard which would be is this the minimum necessary to achieve what is trying to be achieved. That would be a that's a standard a variance standard

and and at the same time be consistent with the spirit of the the code but comprehensive plan. Go ahead.

So as far as the height need to make that very clear. Okay, it's not about the coverage. It's not about additional coverage because you know it's not the area of the coverage does not increase. It's if you remember the the slide that we had before, it's the one existing area that has a lot of users that is causing all the sites around the area to be congested. Okay, the sites around the area cannot handle any more traffic without loss of quality of service. And again that means very low speed you know uh very low upload and download people who are using any applications is very very slow that's that's the bottom line that's that's congestion at its most yes

do you have a specific unit of measure which you use for congestion

absolutely so this is exactly what I mentioned before so the offload is the the what we what we are aiming for so for example when we uh uh if I you know if if you want me to go a little bit technical I can do that. So yes. Okay. Sure. So there's something called uh bits per second. All right. Like the speed if you do if you open an app like a speed test or something. Okay. You can you can easily see right you you all have that right? You can see the difference of one location. You can have 1 megabits per second download and 0.005 upload. And if you have done this multiple times you can see how long maybe it it you know it takes to do this. and you can go to a very good location that you can instantly you know uh download for example like 100 megabits per second and and then upload for example like 20 megabits per that's the goal the goal is to fix this right now all the sites in the area all the

I'm asking specifically what are the megabytes per second there what's the congestion what's the difference between megabytes per second projected at 100 feet in the air and what's projected at 135 feet and what is the bonafide need for that in our community? Okay. So the the the right now as existing right now you know it's low throughput in in the area. Okay. So to your question if we put a site at a at 100 ft that's that's what you're trying to get at what's

I'm asking for the specific numbers. I'm not asking for a theoretical. I'm asking for the studied numbers to show the bonafide need and the way the demand's going to be met.

So what what happens is when you when you are at at 100 ft the signal itself the signal strength is going to be a lot lower to provide a good quality service. So a good a good quality what we're trying to to aim for is something let's say maybe 50 60 70 100 megabits per second and we can achieve that at 130. If you go lower, the higher frequencies which is the C band which is at 3.7 GHz is going to suffer suffer a lot because the higher the frequency is as as you lower down the the uh the the the antennas you're is not going to provide anywhere near that because it's lower okay on on the higher frequencies. So that's what what we're aiming for is is at the highest frequencies which is 5G okay to to get the best throughput possible the best speed possible the best megabits per second that's possible. So that's in in a you know in in a nutshell you know or s simply put at a higher uh uh radius uh sorry at higher right center at 130t we will be able to achieve the desired megabits per second that we need at 100 foot radius we will not be able to achieve that because who determines the desired megabit who determines the desired megabits per second how is that number

achieved So two things right? So one is the user experience right? So for example it depends on what the user uses in in this location. It's there's a lot a lot of factors that are involved in this. So say say for example okay you are you you are uh using email. Okay you do not need a lot of capacit but if you are downloading for example a a gigabyte video or something then you you need that. So, so what we look at is what type of usage the users have in these areas and based on this we determine okay what uh should be the the the proper throughput for for these users in this area. So for examp and it all depends on the region it all depends on the type of users their their uh what applications they use. So, so all this determines not not every single user has the same need, right? But in in these areas, okay, in in an area as dense as where it's located right now, we have there's a lot of need for higher uh throughput. Does does that make sense? I'm just saying is this determination is this Verizon making this determination a specific are you is there a threshold a specific threshold that the Verizon is seeking Verizon cares about the user experience right that's that's that's the point all right so if we have if we look in our uh um uh in our measuring tools And we found that users are uh have very very slow uh uh download and slow application, slow data. We see that in our uh in our charts, right? So we h this and this goes back to this gentleman's question is like how do you measure

this? We look at the charts and we look at like there's like 100 users that are 1 megabits per second for example. Okay, that's not acceptable. Okay, and and we see what is the reason. The reason is because all the sites that are serving this user cannot provide anymore. Is there something that we can do to these sites? We have done the max and you know there's a question asked about this. So what what what is the only other option is to build it okay to build to build a new site and to build it properly. So you're saying Verizon anal is constantly analyzing how much usage there is at at this location

daily and and and see and that's what's led you to say we need more capacity here because these users are not getting the throughput they need because it this particular location you're seeing in your data in your computers that are associated with the site that the throughput is too low based upon the demand in the area. Exactly. So it's very area specific. So this area you're looking at you're seeing um that degradation. Now how what's the difference between 100 and 130 ft? So say you were at 100 ft. Would that solve the problem? What will happen is when you are lower okay and you are very close to the clutter or even touching the clutter

the higher frequencies which is 5G and I mentioned that 5G if you heard about Cband and 5G and all like 5G ultra wideband for

in all all that right you know I can go technical as much as you want but I just trying to keep it you know those specific frequencies are very susceptible to to to to any interferences from terrain from clutter from the lower you go, okay, you will not be able to provide a good signal to the people that you're trying to serve in that area. So you the people will not have the the throughput that we need. So it it it's they have to have good signal. In order to have good signal, you have to have uh proper propagation, okay, from from a decent height. And if they do not have that good signal, they will not uh uh be able to have that speed. So signal is one thing by the way. And the quality of the signal is something else. You can have strong signal. Okay. But the but but to answer your question maybe this is another way to answer the question. Maybe at 100 ft you have you know some strong signal but it will not be the same quality be it will be a lot of interference because when you are down to the clutter your signal uh jump you know hits hits the trees hits the buildings hits you know before it arrives to the user instead of being higher and having a direct line of sight to the user.

So let me give you for an example maybe this will make it easier. So, if I look on my phone and I've got 5G ultra wideband and I say I have four bars or whatever, but my phone's still not responding with respect to data even though I've got four bars. Y it's because you're having trouble with the throughput that the strength of even though the signal may show four bars the quality of the signal is not as good.

That that that is exactly correct. The the quality is is one thing that's why we needed the height and also the number of users in this area at that particular time. You might have very good signal, you know, four or five bars on your phone and you're trying to download us your speed.net speed net or you try to watch your YouTube or or something like and you find it very very slow. Okay, it's because you have a lot of users at this particular time that trying to do the same thing as you. But if you have dedicated site near you and you're able to forward all the traffic to that site, then you'll have the

maybe like I have an example from personal experience, but some one of the folks that spoke said something about Helen and there being issues with that and getting getting service during Helen. Um I want you to explain this to me maybe. Several years ago, there was an earthquake in Richmond, Virginia. I was in Raleigh. The building shook. I couldn't get a call out. Yeah. Why would that be? So there is something called down link and uplink. Down link is a signal that you receive from the uh from the cell site. Right. Right. If you cannot receive a very strong signal from the cell site, your phone will not be able to transmit back to the site. So what was happening is so many people were trying to use their phone that you couldn't get a strong signal.

Yes. That's one get a busy signal. That's one reason, right? The other reason is that during an emerging event like you mentioned everybody is trying to call out at the same exact time and this this is the thing here the same exact time is an issue and this site okay will solve that issue when there is time where people have to call at the same time for a certain reason right and that was my point there's there's a really you you plan for for peaks and valleys and you're trying to plan for a peak when a lot of people may be using it at once.

Yeah, we call this like sim how how many how it's called simultaneous users. How many simultaneous users can a site handle? This is one of the measures that we we all kind of um nerdy on this planning and zoning, right? And so you're speaking a lot in generalities and I think what Commissioner Wheatley is saying is we want specific evidence that shows a bonafide need based on a certain standard. So what threshold is being met um our city attorney legal has some

so it's so there is some special law for telecommunications that is not even in the planning statutes but it does say that cities are are prohibited from um asking about the business needs of a provider now but cities can regulate cell towers and it gets intertwine by saying that there's a distinction that what you really you can ask about the height of the tower, but what you really would want to know is whether the proposed tower height is necessary to provide the applicant's designated service. They're designating the service that they need for their business needs. You're not able to question what those needs are. and and it does get very we probably needed to update the bonafide section, but so I understand that that's complicated, but as Chair Barton and and Commissioner Wheatly have pointed out, our standards do say 100 ft for some reason. But I I do see in the law that that's a bit inconsistent because if they're saying their business needs require something that's higher than 100 ft, you just again are want are are trying to determine if that's your your issue with it is that

to be clear ours our standard specifically states that 100 feet is the max. Our standard also states that we can allow for any condition within the special use. So to me, it just simply is clear that they're asking for a condition of 135 ft. It's not a condition. It's a technical modification under your ordinance. That's different. You can technically modify any of the standards.

And so to Miss Ashley's point, here's a here's a theoretical way to ask the question. If um if this board were to deny a 130 foot telecom telecommunications tower despite their applicant team having expert testimony testifying to the fact that the height is required to serve their stated needs. Mhm. Would we be exposing the city to potential legal challenge under state

potentially under the that the statute um that says you cannot ask about the business needs which goes to tell me prove to me it's bonafideed or not which is 16A 40050 to 400.53. It's actually it's 160D. It's a te It's the wireless telecommunications act. Oh, I'm sorry. Yeah, because it's changed. I mean, that's the older version. It did. It did change. This is an old I I I as we started to discuss this bonafide thing, it's come back to me that there have been times that applicants have said, you know, that's kind of outdated, but it it just hasn't come to this. So, you can continue to to to

to question this, but I also want to and I've already explained the burden, and I just want to say it one more time. Sue the burden of proving these they have met or tended to show they've met these standards is first on the applicant to produce competent material and substantial evidence that tends to show but not prove and this is from a recent case law that they meet these standards. Now once the applicant has produced evidence the burden shifts to opponents which are not typically the board they are people who have spoken opponents of the proposal. If no evidence and evidence competent material factual evidence is presented from opponents to counter the applicant's evidence, then the applicant is entitled to the permit and the government lacks authority to deny it. That is from the dismiss case that I I advised you to read the article about. Yeah.

Yeah. I agree 100% with all that and and I I they're entitled to the SUP. I think what's in question here is what's beyond the SUP. Okay. I I know that's a complicated part of it. And is is our height limitation in the UDO indefensible under state law under the Telecommunications Act? Well, I mean, the applicant hasn't made that argument, but I I'm just

I would and I would make it. And it goes even further to say whether it's a cap and we've chosen to present the testimony because you want to know and understand, but it goes even further to say it's not even relevant whether it's a capacity or coverage site. That that's not really under state law part of the decision- making. I can give you a real an example that always comes to mind with me. Um, if somebody if somebody decided to put a McDonald's right there and you don't you think it's going to tank it, it's going to do terrible. It's not going to make it. That's a business decision that the applicant makes. Same here. This is the business decision that Verizon needs the coverage at 130 ft. Whether you agree or disagree with that business decision is not a zoning decision. That's part of the process. Now, I agree that it's a technical modification we're asking for, but we've prevent presented the evidence from competent material and substantial evidence from an expert that the additional height is needed at this location because of the various factors including ground clutter which includes the mall buildings, it includes trees, it includes any he said any of that clutter that gets in the way of the signal creates the problem. So, we presented that and there's no substantial material and competent evidence to the contrary that's been presented to this board

and it has to be presented to this board from someone which it it hasn't been.

Miss Ashley, um, is it what could you lay out to us here the difference between a technical modification and a condition and why it seems that it's being asserted that a technical modification essentially has to be accepted? a technical modification. I I don't know if it matters if you call it a a condition or a technical modification. The question is as proposed whether it is higher than what would normally be is is allowed by right or not. you roll that into the well the special use standards that we've described does does even with that additional height have they tended to show that those those standards have been met and then also that additional that I found which says you you know why are you questioning the height because you think that the height impacts one of those standards or is it more to this business need bonafide ified need which is

you know that you don't need it to be so high. Yeah. I guess I guess what I'm asking is we're continually using this word technical modification which I can't find in our UDO under special use. So technical modification is included in the staff report and included in this conversation for some reason but not included in our UDO while condition is. Additionally we do use technical modification is in our UDO under special use. So it doesn't

but the only other thing if it's not a technical modification it's a variance and it's not a variance because that has to go through a variance process. So even when we talk about a conditional zoning for example we never say we're asking for a variance from this standard. We say it's a technical modification. So so it's not a technical term. It's just a a No, it is a technical we we talk about modifications in our UDO within the special use portion of our UDO. We don't talk about technical modifications unless you can help me find it. Okay. You're saying that conditions are

under the special use permit. Conditions are allowed. Technical modifications are not addressed. Okay. So when I'm saying it's a condition, that's because I have no other word inside our UDO. Okay.

Okay. So within our UDO, it clearly states the technical or the telecom communication tower cannot go above 100 ft. Cannot, shall not. Okay. It also says any condition can be made to include for height. So without the word technical modification, it sounds like they're asking for a condition which is not required by the special use permit and doesn't sound seem to fall under the claim that's being made that we have to provide the modification because of the special use permit process.

I have a reason to deny the modification condition, technical modification, whatever you want to call it. And I that's why I'm saying think of it in terms of what is what is the the mod condition change the modification how does that impact your view of how these standards now perhaps the applicant has not shown that they well it's no longer in harmony right special use is provided per this particular district and this in harmony centilla of evidence again we go through but I mean right we're presuming harmony

because it's a special use allowed but within this p particular district but this district has a height limit

but but there can be a condition and if they show that adding that additional height again uh if that additional height if that does not meet because they added it is the reason that you feel that they have not met tended to show that they met all of the standards then it would be grounds for denial but also keeping in terms the burden it's not for the board to be making the argument it is for opponents to make the argument and we have not had that information but you can present

and I want to go back to the height limit it's in the telecommunic it's in your telecommunications ordinance your tower ordinance, not the district height limit. And Will, does it I mean I assume the ordinance allows the technical modifications in the telecommunications ordinance. Does it not? Isn't that where that came from? Can you repeat that please? Huh? Can you repeat the question? Yeah. The the technical modification allowance for that. Is that in the telecommunications ordinance or is it otherwise in the UDA? Believe it's located otherwise. So, it's not it wouldn't be in the special use section. It' just be there's an ability to modify to make technical modifications. Correct.

It's my understanding. U have it not don't have the correct citation right in front of me, but that's how we've administered it. Okay. Previously. So, it's not if you looked at the special use section, you're probably not going to see it because it allows with otherwise in the ordinance to allows for a technical modification just like the fence part that staff could do. There was, you know, the landscaping could be eliminated and the fence done. That's a technical modification as well. No. Well, it's determined that that was something the staff could do, but the this is different. It's a modification,

right? And this board is used to looking at modifications as part of a conditional zoning, which is just asking for something that's not specified in the ordinance. So, um I'm not sure how more clear I can make it. If there's

would it be fair to say that under the state statute around the fulfilling the harmony requirement um the presumption is that harmony is met if the use is allowed subject to the criteria under which the use is allowed? like I I guess is that extra 35 ft relevant in making a harmony determination because it is not a you know it says it's additional right it's beyond and I think that's where you have to determine if it is that relevant that they haven't been able to meet their burden because of that additional

well I do also point to our appraisers testimony that spoke specific specifically to that type of thing as well. So it's not just we are not just relying on that but the appraiser would speak to the sub criteria number three will not substantially injure the value of adjoining our budding property. I'm talking about fulfillment of special use standard number four that the proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the scale bulk coverage density and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is located.

Right. But he did he did speak to his personal examination of the site and it still comes relevant because he was evaluating 135 foot tower right and making his determination on that. And he also said in the site he also pointed to factors of the mall and the surrounding area uh about how there was height there were you know the light poles the deck the parking deck and the big buildings and and the mall and how it fits in with that. That was my point. Understood. We've talked around this for a long time. Is anyone have any last questions or is anyone prepared to make a motion?

I just quickly want to follow through with the logic that I'm hearing, right? We're not allowed to question for business practice and I get that. So, like if the if the applicant came forward and said, "We want 199 ft. We know it's above the 100 feet. Following this logic, it would we would be in the same place that we are now. You would be looking for testimony from opponents who said, "Well, I could live with 100 feet, but 135 ft is really impacting I I would say that that's would be what you focus on that differential."

So, it's not our determination. We're weighing

kind of evidence that's come forward although as as the applicants even said it is a slightly different standard because it's a condition or it's something different than what's specified in the special use standard. So I I suppose if you if in this case if you feel that there's enough either evidence or your own understanding of compatibility that makes that that that additional feat does not make it should not make it compatible with the neighborhood. then you're just going to have to explain that if if that is part of the motion with all the other standards in mind that have been met. But that's the one thing. Would anybody like to make a motion?

No one's jumping out of their seat on this one. Um, we do need to take action. Um, so we must have I'd like to ask a question of city legal real quick.

Okay. So, you've said it and I just or I feel like I've heard it and I want to make sure that I'm hearing what you're saying, which is that um with the exception of the technical modification, it's only our concern to listen to two sides of the story and make a judgment based on those two sides, the evidence presented from either side. The only gray area in this case is the what I will call a condition because that's what it's called underneath the specific section of the UDO. Um, in that case, they're asking for a modification, and it appears all of staff's report points in the direction of aligning with the surrounding area and zoning districts. At that point, is it our board's commission's job at all to make any decision between I guess you know the applicant and staff and you know no expert witnesses on the other side

on the condition. I do think that you can try to articulate why that additional why you would not be able to support that requested modification or condition not based on these special use permit standards. Although I I do think they're they're good guidance um because Since quasi judicial I still think there should be some standard or what is it? It's not the same as legislative where you say yeah I just don't think that's compatible. I think you need to be more specific similar to a variance standard which is is the least modified modification necessary to accomplish you know what the applicant wants. Um have they proven a hardship that that's another possible standard. and is it in the spirit of the overall um comprehensive plan? Those are those are do those are standards that are used in quasi judicial procedures for variances if that helps at all. I just don't think I've quite heard the articulation why that difference in height makes it so in in if that's the direction you're going in that it just does not make it compatible with the neighborhood. So if if you I think you tried to get at that with data but it was seemed to be going more down the line of why do you need this much? But if that is how much they need to accomplish, then the question is does that high difference? Um could you be supportive of that or or not?

Do I have a motion? Well, despite major dissatisfaction in our abilities as a board to enforce clear stipulations in the UDO, um I do find that the only evidence that has been provided um supports approval and I do not find grounds of denial. So, I will say based on the competent material and substantial evidence presented at the hearing, I move to approve the special use permit for the Vogue Telecommunication Tower at 3 South Tunnel Road because the proposal meets the seven special use standards outlined in section 7162C of the City of Asheville Unified Development Ordinance. There are additional standards required that as Mr. Wheatley asked about and those also have been addressed in the application

including the additional standards for telecom for telecommunication towers that have been addressed in the application as admitted evidence. Thank you. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any oppose? The motion carries unanimously. Best of luck. It is 10:16 and we have

everybody attorney Michael um just wanted to check in with staff. We do have one more item on the agenda. Are we going to get kicked out of the building or have concerts here? They can No, I did let uh facility staff know that this was running much longer than we were expecting. Uh and the applicants have said that they have shortened their presentation. Mine will be brief as well. So um we will still have time for public comment and we're good to continue. Need from the commission for like just a five. Yeah. Quick five. We'll come back at 10:22.

There were no more signins after John, right? Yeah.

Well, that's true. Chris, we got a lot instructure. Yeah, I'm I know we've had subdivision lines. We're not even exactly what the units look like or anything. So, it's becoming more adversarial when a conditional zoning is supposed to make people feel more comfortable gets finally built when you don't want anything.

All right, team. Um with apologies for making everyone stick around this long. We had we did not anticipate this being so excruciating, but appreciate um everyone everyone's stamina and uh especially the commission for staying engaged. Really appreciate it. So with that, we'll tee up the last item on the agenda. Um which I need to pull up. We're back into legislative public hearing land. So, for all of you who were um really tortured by the quasi judicial process that's behind us, um item six on our agenda is a request to amend the conditional zoning for property located at 767 Newha Creek Road for the purposes of amending the site plan and project conditions. Parcel is identified as pin 9659-93-9458 in the Bunkham County tax record. Property owner is the estate of Margaret B. King. The applicant contact is Mr. Warren Sugg planner coordinating review is Sam Starbomb. Mr. Starbomb.

Yes. Thank you, Commissioner. And in the interest of time, I will be brief and then I will be seated. So, this will be a truncated presentation. As you had said, what we have before us is a conditional zoning amendment. I will get into what that means a little bit later, but as as with this presentation with all my other presentations, we will still start with a location map. Where are we for this? We are of course in Hawk Creek. that is generally understood to to be culturally and geographically. Uh starting starting west at the 240 tunnel interchange, moving east to Gross Methodist Church, moving north all the way to the Blue Ridge Parkway. That includes the Happy Valley registered neighborhood and that includes the Hog Creek neighborhood. Not all of that is within the city. There is some county jurisdiction as you move further north by Sunly Estates. But of course uh cultural identity does not jive well with very neat uh jurisdictional boundary lines. So you can see that on the left where where Haw Creek is. On the right you see the 27 acre parcel which is bisected by New Hawk Creek Road. You have immediately to the south the Charlie Bulman uh ball fields. You also have the Evergreen School. To the north you have Sleepy Hollow Road and the entrance to that Happy Valley registered neighborhood which is one of the newest neighborhoods and that's where we are. Let's talk about the zoning for a second because I think this is crucially important. Hawk Creek is known to be predominantly RS4 which is residential single family medium density district. What this parcel is is residential expansion. This is already conditionally zoned on July 23rd of 2024 when ordinance 5094 was passed. This was reszoned. So what we are looking at today is not in measurement to RS4 standards. This is in measurement to what the conditional zoning and residential expansion standards are. This is as I had mentioned an area where there is

predominantly RS4. But it is worth noting also that you can see from this slide that there are parcels of higher density zoning districts. You do have RM6, you have institutional, and moving further south near the entrance, you do have RM16. Sorry to interrupt the point of clarification back on that last slide. Is it commercial expansion, CZ or residential expansion?

Residential. Sorry, they get slurred after 10:00. So, please know that I mean residential expansion. So, as I had said, we are looking at this compared to residential expansion standards, not RS4. This does comply in all areas with the exception of the town homes. That does require technical modifications of course for for the lot geometry of the lot size minimum just for the town home lots that is below the the 3500 ft minimum and then there does need to be a technical modification for the town homes they don't have side setbacks because they are in fact town homes and I had mentioned 5094 earlier I think what is what is crucial for this presentation to to keep things clear for the board for staff and for the community is to talk about what it was like what happened where we are now what what council had passed what what planning and zoning had originally seen on March 20th 2024 and and what we have before us today. So this is what was approved. This is what is permitted and entitled. This was approved by council under the ordinance. They did receive all the appropriate zoning permits in May of this year, May of 2025. So what we have shown is we have 4.8 acres of tree canopy preservation on the east. We have more on the west. We're at about 20% tree canopy preservation here. We do have a connector for a greenway which does move all the way north to connect to Sleepy Hollow. Most importantly, and what is notable about what council passed is the entrances off of Sleepy Hollow. And what we have here are 84 units. So you have 49 single family homes and then you have to the west you have those 35 town homes. Again, this does have that greenway and it does have all of the conditions that planning and zoning asked for on March 20th. Here is what you had seen. This has only 17% tree canopy preservation. It does have the type E property buffer. This does not have any connection moving south through the ballparks and it does not have the greenway going north to Sleepy Hollow.

It only connects through to New Hawk Creek Road. There are notably two bridges here. You have the bridge for the greenway and then you also have the bridge for the access from New Hawk Creek. What you saw was also a higher density. There were more units at that time. what you had seen was 95. So it was 60 town homes and then those or sorry 60 single family residences in the 35 town homes. So you also in addition to that site plan approved these six conditions looking at that connected uh multi-use path across the ball fields no clear cutting I know particular to commissioner cycle is important to preserve the top soil and then just education programs for home buyers and and providing public access for the greenway as well as uh NC dot approval for for a crosswalk to get to the greenway safely across New Hawk Road. And that brings us to today. So, this will look very similar to what you saw on on 320, but the reason why this is through as a conditional zoning amendment is that this is substantially different from what was uh approved at council. So, the big change here is that the greenway does not extend either to New Hawk Creek Road or to Sleepy Hollow. The the access does look the same as what you saw, but again, the access was off of Sleepy Hollow for council. So, really the updates we're looking at here are are for the bridge. The unit count stays the same. This is at 84 and the tree canopy is preserved. All other conditions, the six conditions you had asked for are still present. This is what we're looking at today. And I wanted to talk about how this meets compatibility with surrounding zoning and then as well the the future land use. This is uh this is 3.1 units of density per acre. What what you'll find in this area and also in the residential neighborhood future land use designation is is this area envisions smaller developments with single family residences and and and some duplexes,

some town homes, some subordinate structures. And this is exactly what is proposed. This is um this is not the perfect development, but this does meet what is envisioned for the residential neighborhood, which again is looking at 3 to five uh dwelling units per acre. It will have limited access points into and around the development and sidewalks located within these residential neighborhoods and connecting to major corridors are a priority which the applicant has worked with uh HCCA to get conditions to meet this in a way that that identifies and and meets the goals of both the existing zoning again the existing zoning being residential expansion and for the future land use of residential neighborhood. And I I I will be quick and delicate through here as well. I I did want to spend some time on infrastructure because that was a a huge focal point of public input. Staff has determined that this meets the compliance standards for transportation as they exist. Now, it does also have that water letter of commitment and and then sewer. There is that wastewater allocation. Storm water I'm going to get into just a little bit, but know that a detailed storm water review as mentioned by Jason earlier when it came to def um Deerfield that is also relevant here. They will have to comply with the storm water ordinance which looks at the two and 10-year detention. There will be a storm tech which we'll talk about here soon, but that is um they are anticipated to to meet all storm water standards which are are stringent. But I did want to spend a little bit of time talking about the flood study and and sort of what this is like in the wake of Helen. You have not seen this since Helen. There are a couple things that are relevant and and don't shoot the messenger. I am not responsible for this. I am only communicating information from Nancy Watford who is is a uh storm water expert at works for development services and can speak much more intelligently about this. But I want to be clear that H&H which is

hydraologic and hydraulic modeling will be required for any bridges in the floodway of New Hawk Creek. That is not something that has to meet the same standards. It is actually more exacting. What they have to do is they have to meet the 100redyear uh flood plane and storm standards. They have to model one foot of rise in flood waters and and if developments filled the flood plane area to that line. So in addition for for the requirements of storm water for the residences, anything in the flood plane, floodway has to meet that. That's going to include those bridges and and retaining walls, greenway elements, things like that. And then there was also a a development question about uh storm tech in the flood plane. I want to be clear that a a storm tech is allowed in the flood plane. And just the same, they have drown and cleanout requirements. If they are in that flood plane, which is proposed, they have to be able to pass that same 100red-year flood event safely. So, so staff does hear these concerns and takes them very seriously. This is something that uh will have to happen. And I want to be clear procedurally, this is something the H&H study isn't necessarily something that planning and zoning looks at. This is done by by technical engineering experts and then is submitted to Nancy Watford and Derek Wayne Scott, the flood plane administrator. the the applicants will not be able to get grading uh as storm water and other work permits until this is met and passed. So, so please know that the city hears public comment and and we take flooding very seriously. So, this is also hot off the presses. I I I had mentioned the connector through 719 New Hawk Creek which is generally understood to be the ball fields. This is a condition that was worked out uh last year when you last saw this on on March 20th, 2024. We we finally have development plan sheets. This is what this looks like. We are 80% there. This is not 100% perfect. Warren Slug can speak about it. There there are still some questions about NC DOT right away further south

where exactly that starts and ends and then also what the NC DOT will require for you know it's quite a hill so you have to have railing but also what does that look like as it interplays with a retaining wall. So that is a matter of infrastructure that staff also considers because it is a matter of connectivity. This does connect that city project which terminates at Bell Road all the way through the development. And that that brings us to the comprehensive plan review. I said this last year to you. I said this to council last year. I'll say this to you again and I'll say it to council again. This isn't a perfect development. Staff is not saying this is a perfect development. This is a good development that meets the goals of the comp plan. When you consider a preponderance of evidence, this does make streets more walkable, comfortable, and connected through having connectivity through the internal site, having the greenway, and particularly with a condition of adding the ball field sidewalk through 719, which connects Bell Road all the way through just short of Sleepy Hollow. It would be more connected and and more aligned with with the comprehensive plan if it continued through either to Sleepy Hollow or to New Hawk Creek. currently just terminates short. It would be great if there were even more connectivity, but it does make streets more walkable, comfortable, and connected. It does increase and diversify the housing supply. I included that in last year's staff reported as there uh this year as well. And does bring out that greenway network. So, for that reason, uh and the the consideration of all the other things, staff does recommend approval of this required reviews. Here's where we are. We don't have a city council date yet. We wanted to see how this shook out uh before we scheduled anything and uh city council is is now cancelled for September 28th. So, we're looking at maybe uh October 14th, but that will be communicated to to Haw Creek once we hear more. And with that, I will leave that on my suggested motion and would be happy to answer any questions that you

may have. Thank you, Mr. Starbomb. that was a an efficient presentation uh covering the historical um path that this development's taken previously. Um any immediate questions for staff? Uh just just to be clear, if you want to go back to Yeah, that slide right there. Um essentially we have an approved plan. We have approved CZ. Yeah. We're looking for a modification to that. And it's these red ellipsed areas. Correct. Essentially, that are the change.

Yes. And then also with the project condition that the applicant seeks to retain the existing development rights and then also the So there will be two site plans with the conditional zoning amendment. That which is already existing. the the council approved a titled one with access from Sleepy Hollow and then also this so that way as as the the applicant the developer is looking to preserve both options moving forward. Okay. Yeah. As they navigate financing and entitlements and things that the city are not party to some options may be more viable. Again we are not party to that but that is why the applicant seeks that condition. And that's condition number four in the exhibit E.

So my question is about the flood study and kind of procedural and we'll see if you can answer this question. So because the flood study is going to be required and we won't have the new maps and the new FEMA flood plane boundaries until 2026 if that um usually it would be on um the engineer to go out there and survey and do this modeling themselves create the model from scratch because it's so different. What I'm hearing, and I do this work myself, is that FEMA is not accepting um those, you know, those models. And so my question is, will it prolong this project? They can't really do the flood study until we have the new boundaries. Is that what you're saying?

No, that's not what I'm saying at all. They can continue and still do an H&H study. I want to be clear, too, that we have gone ahead. We have approved a development and zoning permits in flood plane and flood way and other components of Asheville. We are hoping those preliminary maps that that the state is doing for FEMA will be ready for 2026. That is not at all a a guarantee, but those are two separate things uh the mapping program and then also H&H modeling. Um H&H can continue while the maps are being processed. I mean the we coordinate we being North Carolina we coordinate and do the mapping process for FEMA there is always a process of mapping it is they are always mapping in you know they go in certain sections and quadrants so so we cannot withhold development because because of the mapping process is ongoing because it is always ongoing and I would also let um you know I think that there's a question about a building moratorum that that Janice would have to answer. You know, there are reasons where if you feel that you need to continue because you don't have enough information, that's one thing. But I don't think we can continue because we are waiting on on other programs.

I would agree with that. Yeah. Right. So, the H&H modeling is happening, but is is is We don't have anybody from Stormwater here, do we? Nope. Um, are new cross-sections being required to be surveyed as part of the modeling? Uh, that's a great question for Warren Sug. Okay.

So, just to be clear there, you know, the reservation of rights to pursue two different options um is a project condition. The site plan provided is the entrance off of New Hawk Creek Road. In the say in the ordinance as it goes to council, will there be kind of option A, option B or how, you know, how is the prior approved plan memorialized?

Yes. So again, this is is entitled and approved under uh 5094 and then when they went through that final TRC process earlier this year, just as there is a site plan for exhibit D which is referenced, there will be and we're going to have to work with uh Janice and Derek and and a whole host of people on this. But my hunch, my suspicion is that there will be a D1 and a D2 memorializing this is this is the existing approved zoning stamped plan which is the underlying conditional zoning and then this is from the amendment both both options both site plans referenced herein are retained.

Does that make sense for city legal or is there any problematic I'm not I mean this one is is as you said that's already permitted. So what what are you saying? So what would go to council is either they they don't approve the amendments which would mean the original No, I I'm saying that because the applicant is seeking to have under condition four to have both options retained as rights. Okay. They there would be an eitheror situation and so we would present site both site plans to council and the amended ordinance for this amendment.

But then the conditions would allow them to do either at their discretion and the discussion will be around whether that is or even in this commission if that's an alternate that you you want to allow either or. Yeah. And we can work this out with legal between now and council. I I guess they'll probably have the same question before this board, right?

I guess the question is, you know, so we've memorialized the specific location or council did when approving this plan to Sleepy Hollow. The exhibit E um draft project conditions is sort of a a written summary of connection to Sleepy Hollow Drive without kind of being tied to a specific plan. And so if the new plan, which is the one that we previously reviewed connecting to New Hawk Creek Road, is approved, how do we memorialize the specific lo, you know, tie-in to Sleepy Hollow Drive without it being attached in in a site plan?

I I think there's a way we can attach that in a site plan. Um, and that is again a question for Janice. I think there is a way where we can memorialize both options. Okay. I think I think yeah just procedurally for a conditional zoning you know does this open the gates for applicants to pursue eight options when they're pursuing a conditional zoning. You know like I want to because typically it's a very specific site plan with specific conditions. This is a unique case and I want to make sure we're not opening Pandora's box for endless variation that applicants are going to pursue in the future.

Could you turn on your mic, please? And along that train of thought, I mean there is there's a time limit on these things. So the initial amendment had that I'm assuming what was a fiveyear kind of limit on there. So now this amendment will be another fiveyear clock separate from that or does the original one like does that time clock start over again? Staff can answer that. That is one of the conditions that the the time clock would start over again from the approved of the new amendment. So that's when council passes a CZ amendment that is also recorded as an ordinance. It would start from the time of that

recordation report. But you know that is a condition that you always have discretion over. What's required is at least two years but regularly people have been asking for five years because it is more difficult to develop. So any other specific questions for staff before we invite the applicant?

Thank you Mr. Would the applicant like to good late evening uh staff uh members of this commission and and neighbors that have come out uh and folks on the project team. My name is Derek Allen. I'm with Alan Stalin Kilborn. I'm a zoning attorney here in Asheville. Uh our project team uh consists of the applicant, um Warren Sugg, who's our engineer, u but also Kevin Jackson, who is the developer on this project. And um I wanted to address just a couple of things to kind of put us back in the right spot. Uh I know that uh Sam's uh truncated presentation ended with um recommending approval of the project, and I wanted to remind us all the project's already approved. The project's approved. that's been through TRC. What we are talking about is providing an alternate uh access point um onto New Hall Creek Road. And that's an alternate and that looks at uh section 4 uh number four under the conditions and it would consist of two different site plans. The one that's already approved and has gone through TRC and the one that accompanied this amendment uh which exits onto New Hawk Creek Road. uh the rest of the conditions and there are 23 of them that were the result of uh numerous meetings with uh neighbors over uh a number of months uh and with dozens of human beings uh individually and as number of groups uh this commission in this same room I'm looking at some of these faces and I can remember the exact conditions uh that each of you pushed on the development team to add in and we put those things in the top soil condition uh the increased tree canopy uh losing that row of homes in the back those are neighbor requests Those are all in. And so when the 60 single family homes on

the right side of the road looking at the plan came through last year, those are now 49. We're not trying to add back in the 11 to get this second uh entrance piece. Uh we're literally just asking that uh this uncertainty about how to access this property get be resolved. Um people have asked uh things about uh the uh flood studies that have to happen. Those have to happen whether this amendment gets approved or not. They have to happen. That's going to happen. That's part of the process. We know that uh Andy Bick is on that. He's going to be doing our H&H uh and that process is a standalone process from this. We have to do it anyway. Uh people have asked uh why is alternate access needed. Uh very simply, uh there's no hide the ball here. Uh lenders have asked for an insurable interest uh in terms of accessing the ingress egress in order to get the project financed and moving. Right now, that's what needs to happen. Um, we could still go either way on those on the uh the entrances as it's get built out, but right now we need to get moving. Uh, the Bowen report came out this past week. I know it went to city council. Over the next 5 years, we need 11,000 housing units. That's five years, and that's only in Asheville. Over 5,000 of those units need to be single family homes. Uh, 6,000 of those units need to be multifamily. Here we have the the town home project on one side and we have the single family on the other. uh we need to move these things now. Uh and that's why we're trying to move this project along. Uh this gives us the flexibility to get going right now immediately and that's what we're asking for in this simple amendment. Uh the amendment carries with it some changes to the site plan. I would ask Warren Sugg, our engineer, to come up to go over those. Uh and then we can move along as quickly as we can. Thank you. I'm happy to answer questions at any time. Good evening, Warren success.

Um, you guys have been here for a long time. So, uh, I will make it very brief. Uh, as mentioned, the the main change here is just the access point. Um, with that, there are a couple conditions that just need some clarification. So, if we have this access onto uh Newh Hall Creek Road, then the uh the sidewalk that was going uh greenway and sidewalk that was going along Sleepy Hollow would now uh be going along that uh that bridge section. It would still connect down into the area that we were talking about going across the Ballfield area. Um, we also would have street trees that would be required along that section of uh of Newh Hall River Drive. And because there are wetlands there, there's the flood plane floodway and all that, we've got a conditioner there. We would prefer to put those street trees along the greenway path that's along our frontage, which we think's a better place for them. Um, so that's in there as well. Um, and the only other thing that I want to make sure we touch on is, um, yeah, any questions you guys have? So at as everyone has been made aware, it is not prohibited in the UDO to have a subsurface storm water facility within the flood plane. However, it is um usually not recommended. Um, what reassurances does the engineering team have for the the neighborhood that this facility will be engineered to make sure you know the there aren't maintenance headaches for the for the HOA uh when it comes time to have their yearly inspections done?

Yeah, it's a great question. So, uh, here locally, we've we've been lucky enough to do a lot of below ground infiltration devices over the last decade or so. So, we've got pretty good experience with not only that design, but seeing it installed, seeing where those um areas where it could be improved. I would say the contractors locally are very very familiar with belowground um storm chambers for infiltration, being able to wrap those appropriately with um the filter fabric. uh we have inspectors uh as part of our firm who will go out and do those inspections while it's going in, but also yearly uh as well. And yeah, I understand your question about being down in the flood uh plane area. Um it's it is it's where the water wants to infiltrate and go back to. Um it's also the area where we've got our greenway and it kind of makes the most sense to be the least impactful to get back to if you had to get to it again. Um so it it it's a great spot for it. We've got the one on the west side which is the town home and that's um unchanged. And then the one on the east side is unchanged. It was always shown before under that greenway and still shown in that same spot.

Have Have you done um have you done your uh soil testing there yet? Yeah. So we've gone through the whole We've got all permits in hand for the original approval. So that's right. Okay. We've done all that. Um so you're two feet above ordinary high water, right? Okay. And is it um is there a backflow pre on the outfall? Uh I will check. I don't I don't know. I didn't uh we had another PM in the office who did the construction drawing. I don't know if there's a backflow pre in there or like a check valve um duck valve kind of thing on it, but we'll I'll check on that. Yeah, I just know, you know, obviously po post Helene everyone's

right, you know, we want we want our systems to be successful and so um it is trick it is trickier to have a system in a flood plane um because you're having runoff from those homes, the streets which are higher, but water may be backing up from the stream. You still want to be able to provide that storage. So having backflow prevention and stuff like that are right really important.

Couple questions kind of in that same vein. So one question is the the downstream culvert on Haw Creek which is Bell Road. Do you know if that is undersized, does that create a tail water condition where you're having water back up and influence how much capacity this bridge will be?

Right. So that would be the culvert down below the uh ball fields. Um I don't know the exact size of that. That's outside of the the survey boundary, so I'm not sure what that size is. Does does anybody on the commission do you happen to know what the size is? Yeah, I don't know. Um, we'll check into it. We We obviously have to hold back to the, you know, the pre-post uh and and do the quality and quantity, but we'll we'll look into that size.

Okay. Yeah, I I know you'll have to look at that in the um the H&H study. The other question, so I kind of struggled to see the grading. I know it was on some of the plans, but it's just really tied in there. So just for all of us to understand if the the main bridge that we're talking about on the west were to become flooded and at capacity and then water is also going to be going through the bridge to the east which is conveying the wetland. So you've got two culverts fully flowing. What would happen next? Would the water just over top the road and continue or would it um would the grading make it so that it backs up and floods these proposed homes?

So, the proposed homes are up u up a bit higher and even the bridge the intention there will be to have that um probably at least a couple feet above base flood elevation. It was actually one of the conversations we'd had with um Andrew Bick was he started to ask um okay, you know, what's the bridge abutments going to be? What's the span? what how much above base flood elevation. So, he's going to be studying those things. I think um our attorney spoke to that a little bit. He he's the expert. I'm I'm not, but I'm definitely going to feed him whatever information he needs to to produce that. And the idea is to have that bridge up where it's um you know, it would have to be a very very significant event hopefully one in forever. And and to follow up my question that was deferred for when you came up here. Do you do you happen to know if if Andrew Bick is is requesting or needing new cross-sections surveyed?

I don't for the study. I Yeah, I don't know yet what he's going to need there. He's kind of evaluating the older models that were in that area, which I think are are fairly old. Um, so he'll be giving us, you know, whatever he whatever he needs and if he needs new survey information, we'll certainly get the surveyor who's already a part of the project to to go get those and whatever he needs for his modeling. And I and I just for clarity, I I think um uh Commissioner Bell mentioned two bridges and is it two bridges or that's a wall in the wetland, correct?

Yeah, the the the wetland area is not a bridge. That is a retaining wall on both sides. There would be a culvert there to still convey that water through, but it's not technically a bridge, but it is hydraologically connected. Correct. Okay. Yeah. So, we would have a culvert there that would allow that passage of water, but the actual bridge, and that could be confusing for the neighbors as well. The bridge is only the portion that's about 90 foot span right there at New Hawk Creek Road. And that bridge is open chamber underneath, not coververted pipe.

Correct. So you will have an abupment on one side outside of the flood plane or floodway. You'll have another abutment on the other side very close to the road but outside the floodway and then it would be a a span the whole direction the whole area.

Question for staff. I'm struggling to recall the prior project, but in some cases there's been a requirement for an evacuation plan if the roadway is within flood plane. In this case, the roadways are all out of flood plane. So that that is not required or to the best of my knowledge that is correct. Any other questions for the applicant? Thank you.

Um, we will open for public comment at 10:58. Um, with sincere appreciation and admiration for you all who have stuck it out this long. Um, I do have a list. I'll go down and u, this is legislative public hearing again. So you have three minutes to speak as an individual. 10 if you're representing a group. Um please be mindful of time. Um I will exercise chair discretion to limit public comment if we are hearing rep repetitious comments. Um we have received a significant amount of written public comment in advance as well as coordination between city staff and neighbors. So appreciate all of that submitted that has informed our ability to understand the the parameters with this project. Um first signed up for public comment I have Derek Allen is with the applicant. So uh Christy Schutter is Christie still here. And then next up we have Emily Oldenberg. So bear with me. I I'm not used to presenting at 11 p.m. But what I want to say is my name is Christy Slater and um I am opposed to this bridge. I'm concerned about storm water runoff and I'm concerned about flooding. And I'll tell you why. What you haven't seen, but you probably have seen at one point is picture of this. That's the property. So, what we're talking about is a property that is not very well not developed much at all. It's only got four houses on it. And now you're going to put 84 houses on it. You're going to have a lot of imperous surfaces. You're going to have a lot of uh runoff. You're talking about Ha

Creek. Ha Creek is not a flat community. It's a cove. um it's bordered by three ridges and the water goes down. So, we're very concerned about the storm water system and the storm water system being in the flood plane. Part of the reason that I'm so concerned is because I have seen bridge damage before. That's um a bridge that is downstream of this property. This was after Helen and it opened up. Uh the city was pretty quick on repairing it and it opened up again in June when the recycling truck went by and the city came and repaired it. It's much more fortified, but we're talking some serious water can come down this creek and cause damage. Um the next one that I want to show you is I want to show you flooding. And this is a property downstream of this development. And I am not going to try and be disingenuous. So part of this property is in the flood plane and that's true. But part of this property is not. The part up here is not flood plane. This is the first time it reached the house. And so I am very concerned about storm water runoff retaining walls and all that could all that can follow with that. Thank you. And oh, I need to make one more point. It's not just about me. Um, it's about everybody downstream in Hawk Creek. It's not just my property and it's also about all of you contributed to to paying for that bridge. So, we have to have smart build, smart building so that we have, you know, have good structures. Um, yes, we need more homes, but we need smart development. And I don't think this is

smart development. Thank you.

Thank you, Emily Oldenberg. And then next up, David Russell. My goodness, are you exhausted? I can't believe you have to do this. I'm so sorry. Uh, thank you for your service. I'm I'm learning today. Um, I am a Hog Creek resident. I am up from this project and so I'm here. First of all, thank you for taking the time to help our community develop and I I have concerned about the proposed reasonzoning originally for dense development on a flood plane with a bridge in an area already stressed by erosion and instability below the Blue Ridge Parkway that failed above Maple Drive after Helen. Speaking of evacuations, we we had to um after Helen. So, I wanted to speak to the UDO. Planning and zoning is currently operating under rules designed more than 30 years ago in 1990 for zoning that was overruled and approved for this development by city council. These rules uh may have once been adequate, but they no longer reflect the realities we face today. As we reflect on the first anniversary of Hurricane Helen, sorry, we um we cannot forget the lessons we've learned. Our community has moved forward, but moving forward should not mean forgetting. It should mean applying what we've seen and what we know so that our planning protects people, property, and the land itself. We still have not received adequate repair on our roads, our dilapidated ballpark, erosion issues, and power structure. There are power lines hanging on trees still. Now, I know that's due. That's not you. What we need now is not just adherence to antiquated codes, but responsible stewardship. We need assurance and hope that hydrarology, erosion, traffic, road safety, sewer capacity, power reliability, and water supply will all be considered with the full weight of

today's knowledge, not yesterday's guidelines. Please, the decision before you is more than a zoning change. It's a statement about whether we are willing to learn from the past and act responsibly for the future. Additionally, I wanted to highlight a couple pieces on the community that had been mentioned previously around the school, Evergreen Community Charter. That is actually a lottery system with a year'slong waiting list. If you're familiar with that school, the pool is 10 years deep for enrollment at that pool and we have a dilapidated ballpark. East Asheville is struggling. Um, I also wanted to attend to a couple other things. Ultimately, Bunkham County and Asheville City, as you mentioned, are part of Park Creek. And I don't know about the liability or the responsibility, but I feel like you have an opportunity and leadership, even if you're exhausted, to help us be responsible with this development. The developers trying to develop. The engineers are following the rules. The rules are antiquated, right? So, can we take what we learned from Helen and make responsible decisions? Thank you so much for all the service you're giving us.

Thank you. We have David Russell. Then next up, Janet Tubs.

Sorry, could you please speak into the mic?

Oh, yeah, sure. I want to talk about the bridge. My name is David Russell. I live on Bell Road. want to talk the bridge which didn't really get mentioned until quite the very end. The entire presentation didn't come up till Mr. Schu brought it up. We have a 95 ft bridge which if I understand from contact with the city, we need a another 300 foot of burm to connect that to get out. So what I have is this is 320 ft. That's on Saturday morning after Katrina not the Trina and this is last week. This is 95 ft here. This is 320 still in the flood zone and it was flooded way up beyond that. We have this as well. This is the view looking south from Sleepy Hollow. That's 185 ft directly across. This would be the 95 ft mark at the bridge site. This would be the 320 foot mark at the bridge site. This is the kind of water that was going through there took out the bridge. going on here is 300 foot of burm with retaining walls with 4 foot pipes going through it. This is all going to back up. It backs up now. It backs up without a hurricane coming through. The retaining uh water would be completely inundated and overwhelmed. Most these storms are three days that fills up then it's

underneath the flood water. The that a farmer built. It's about 12 foot across. It's a good 8 ft deep and it ties in to Hog Creek. It takes all the water coming off that part of the land, puts it right into Hog Creek, so he could have two fields or at least a field and a half. The Haw Creek, as I understand, was that those those two left turns or that left turn and then the right turn was done some years back to move to move the creek to make the ball field. That's hearsay. I'm not 100% sure, but what I am sure about is that that farmers area ties right into that. That's a lot of water. Thank you very much.

Thank you. We have Janet Tubs followed by Chris Py.

Hi, my name is Janet Tubs. I live in Happy Valley on Bell Road. Um the project uh is not, as someone said, it's not a good project. We all kind of agree to that. Uh we've we've met in in our neighborhood and we're all here staying late at night to to kind of tell you how much we don't like it. But what we really don't like on this amendment is is this bridge bridge over a wetland. Um I think it's just bad bad form. um imperous surfaces, water flow, people downstream. It's it's just a recipe for disaster. Thank you very much.

Thank you, Chris Py, followed by Amy Shelton.

Good evening. I salute you all for working so late. Thank you very much. Um, my name is Chris Py and I serve as president of the Haw Creek Community Association. When this proposal came before you last year, it included the bridge entrance before you again today. At that time, among other in issues with this project were concerns about the bridge entrance and its impact on storm water flooding. The photos we've seen here today show how things how bad things can become, and that's even without a bridge crossing the the that area. The reality of the Helen experience clarifies exactly how bad the flooding was last September and the design under consideration. A bridge that is largely an earthn burm will only worsen this by hindering storm water flow. Instead, city council approved a plan with a subdivision entrance at the bottom of Sleepy Hollow Drive. This entrance would be located above the creek, thereby negating the need for any bridge. When Mr. Jackson met with Haw Creek residents on July 9th of this year. He said, quote, "Our attorneys are of the legal opinion we have the legal right ofway to the Sleepy Hollow entrance. However, our lender has asked us to pursue a bridge option. So just to clarify, you're not being asked to support this bridge because it is the right public policy choice and certainly not because it is right the right environmental choice, but rather because the project funders want some financial security that their investment will pay off. Think about that for a second. The residents of Haw Creek are being asked to accept diminished safety and security so Mr. Jackson's financial backers can enhance theirs. Even though according to him the original subdivision entrance remains a viable option. I respectfully request you oppose this design amendment and require the developer to respect and follow the plan he agreed to last year. Thank you.

Thank you. Have Amy Shelton followed by Chris Fleming. catch my breath a minute from walking up here. Um, my name is Amy Shelton. I want to start by thanking you all for your public service. Um, you guys have dealt with a lot of tough issues tonight and uh, I appreciate all your consideration. Um, I've been a resident of New Hawk Creek Road for the last two and a half years after purchasing my first home. Um, I'm also a member of the Haw Creek Community Association and I want to encourage this commission to consider a responsible way to approve and support uh this amendment. Um, as recently as two weeks ago or at the last city council, the mayor for at least a second time, if not a third or fourth, um, raised the concern that conditional resoning measures are being passed, but the result in issues with financing or other issues have resulted in a failure to build. This developer has shown resilience and continued interest to find a way to deliver more housing for Asheville. I hope that the PNZ commission, sorry, my phone went dark. I hope that the PNZ commission recognizes this effort and does not stand in the way or delay a development that aligns with the city's comprehensive plan and responds to the recent Bowen report that calls for building over 11,000 housing units. This is single family housing, 49. Um this is nowhere near close to meeting that Bowen reports uh ask the pictures that you see I I was there for Helen the water and storm water runoff is is real and is serious. So

that's why I say responsibly approve. Um I am no expert in storm water um needs, but I want to encourage the commission to lean on the technical experts for them to decide um how uh these developments need to be built in a way that is responsible. Um we cannot allow Helen to freeze the development of new housing in Asheville. There's going to be no way that we can meet any affordable housing, much less just an increase in supply of housing in Asheville if we allow Helen to stop all development for the next year or two years. Um, I had other comments that the city of Asheville public works uh storm water department has done an amazing job. They have been in Haw Creek in a number of different areas repairing culverts and bridges and roads as others have demonstrated. They have not waited for flood updated flood maps and reports to decide how to improve these systems. So I want to trust in those experts and I know that's asking a lot of our neighbors. I want to trust in those experts to be the ones to figure out a way to make this possible so that we can increase the housing supply in Asheville. Thank you all.

Thank you. Next up, we have Chris Fleming followed by Lee Esi left. And then next up, Don Decker. Thank you for being concise with comments. It's helping us allow everybody to be heard. So, I really appreciate it so far.

Thank you for hanging in there. I too will try to be very brief. Um, we were here a year ago. Some of you may remember this project just for transparency. I did not like the project then. I think it's very problematic and there are all kinds of issues and there's a lot of opposition in our neighborhood to this project. And now we have a sort of revisit. Um, and now things have changed a bit because of Helen. uh having been there and seen that um just to reiterate we have a new experience and my request is or my question is how can we proceed without that flood study? How can how can a decision be made without that information? Um in good conscience, how can we continue to approve this project without knowing the impact? You know, it is Haw Creek. The actual name is Haw Creek Valley because we're in a valley because all the water comes down and into the creek. And so I live about a quarter mile upstream and my neighbor who is next to me who lives on the creek during Helen uh she had water on both sides and under her house and she has a video of her in the house while the house is shaking and at her spot there the creek is about 8 in deep. So I uh am trying to imagine what it's like um in the next event with all this ground paved and all the runoff and all the folks downstream. Um what is that what happens to them downstream? So um I I and this is just on a typical day also as someone pointed out it doesn't have to be a tropical storm for us to have a lot of wet in Haw Creek uh where or valley with a creek running through it. So my request is is there any way to to wait on this until we get that study to see what the actual impact is of uh of this new situation. Thank you.

Thank you Don Decker followed by David Lancaster. We have about six more. I too will be very brief. Um the someone mentioned that uh the city in the state was doing a great job uh rebuilding the road. Hall Creek Valley has essentially one main road from Tunnel Road up to Sondley and then there's a second second uh Old Hall Creek Road which parallels it to an extent water all runs down. Roads were badly damaged. If you go up in the valley or down in the valley there are bridges that were barely repaired. barely passable. Some of them were repaired uh have been temporarily patched. And New Hawk Creek Road itself, the embankment is undermined. And there have been in some cases two or three relications of asphalt just to keep the road level. If you go in now and drive through, you will see deep dips. You'll see guard rails laying to, you know, leaning to the side and you will see a road a roaded that is absolutely not going to be able to handle more traffic or especially that level of construction traffic. So, the infrastructure has not been repaired. It's not in good shape and we're just exacerbating the problem on top of the uncertainty of what happens in the flood plane. This is not a good situation. It's not

good for the people that are there now and it's not going to be good for the people that move into the development. We need to resolve these problems before we go assuming that a design submitted flood plane control mitigation effort is going to work. There's there's no way. It could just as well not work as it could work. So, who's going to be responsible if it doesn't work? That's all I have to say. Thank you.

Thank you. David Lancaster followed by Stephen Schaw.

Thank you. I appreciate it, sir. Stephen Schul followed by Dan Brown. I'm Steve Schol and I live in Sonley. Uh, one thing that has not been mentioned tonight is that the reason why the council approved version of the entrance road is where it is was because of a negotiation. There was tremendous blowback from the community about the original entrance road that was proposed, which is what we're back to again tonight. So keep in mind if this option is denied, it doesn't mean the project fails to go forward. It just means they stick with the deal that they made last summer. Now I want to point out some things that have not been excuse me that have not been mentioned and I'm if it's okay I'm going to use my pointer. So notice this little here has got looks like retaining walls on each side and that's going to block part of that farmer's trench that was mentioned a few minutes ago

that there is a crosswalk there. So someone who's coming down this trail comes to the entrance road which is going to be elevated above the surface level where the where the uh where the nature trail is located. So they have to get up to the road. There's some hash marks for a cross mark. So they cross the road. Then they have to go back down to ground level and continue on the the nature trail and eventually connect with Pullman Park sidewalk. Those seem to me pretty awkward transitions and I haven't heard any indication of how that's going to be handled. Uh we know that that road is going to be elevated. It's going to be sitting on a burm. Is it going to be four feet, six feet, eight feet? We don't know at this point but whatever is it is going to be somebody's going to have to climb that first climb up cross and then climb down. Then you have a similar problem right here because the idea is for people coming down out of the town homes are supposed to be able to cross New Hawk Creek Road and pick up the nature trail there. That was the intention. Well, it just so happens that there's about a seven foot drop off at H Hall Creek Road right there. Haw Creek Road is built on an embankment. And so again, there's no indication of how you going to accomplish that. How are you going to accomplish those transitions? Thank you for your time. And I know it's late and I think everybody would like to go home.

Thank you.

That's what I like, finding common ground. Uh Dan Brown. All right. Then next we have Tom Lodge. And then finally John Applebee. Yes. I'm I'm Tom Lodge. I'm a resident of Trappers Run in Hawk Creek. I've been here uh nearly eight years. Uh I am uh as a resident alarmed at the density of the project uh uh as being incompatibility incompatible in appearance with what is existing. But uh in particular, the traffic that it would generate would increase the use of uh of the only road that we have in that area. And uh I'm concerned particularly about wildfire evacuation and an adequate study has not been done in that respect. Uh as a profession I am an ecologist. Uh I have worked with storm water engineers my entire career uh looking at wetland impacts uh uh and looking at the numbers that storm water people give me. So, I'm accustomed to looking at residential developments and I'm concerned particularly on the east side of this project where the storm water system is is to be located in the flood plane. Um, it looks like it would work fine uh for a normal rainfall, but for a heavy rainfall that causes flooding in the flood plane, the system will not work. it would the system would actually be in competition with water coming down Haw Creek and therefore exacerbating the potential flooding of people downstream

from the system. So I have to wave my arms around in generalizations. The important thing is that an H&H modeling study needs to be done and that decisions really can't be made on this project until that's complete. Thank you. Thank you. Last up, John Applebee.

Good evening everybody. Uh, I was first, but now I'm last. I have to go three hours of coaching soccer and now I'm back for this. there. Um, hey, I wanted to uh just rewind a little bit um because I noticed there was a critical detail missing in Sam's presentation. You know, one of the key criteria of approval going forward for this project was access one sleepy hollow drive. Uh I believe it was a condition of moving on to construction. It's what you communicate to me in email. Um but that was not mentioned in any presentation. So the reason we're back here is because Mr. Jackson doesn't believe he can get access via one Sleepy Hollow Drive because there's covenants there that are completely ignored all the time. And so that's why we're here throwing spaghetti against a wall with a bridge proposal that frankly is just ludicrous. It's not a bridge. It is a quarter of a bridge and three quarters of a dam. So we're essentially damning the flood plane and forcing the water to go through this narrow gap of 90 feet. And if you notice, the stream does an S-curve. So all the water flows to that S. It doesn't flow neatly through there. It's going to go over the top of that dam, which is what it basically is. The water during Helen crested the Sleepy Hollow Bridge, went over the top of it. And so naturally, it's just going to flow down and go over the top of this dam. And that is going to be catastrophic for all the people that are downstream from here. And you guys are going to sit here and approve a project without a flood study or really understanding the the the size and the scale of what has got to go across this flood plane. It is massive. It's 400 ft of dam. That's what you guys are thinking about doing. Um let's talk about the greenway because that's been lorded at a great, you know, negotiation that the HCA did and it's me been mentioned again. We're going to treeine

the the greenway. The greenway is in the flood plane. It is going to last as long as it is till the next rainstorm and it's going to be completely disappear. There will be no greenway. It's if you look at the photograph here, it's before you get to the 185 ft. It's like 120 130 feet in is where the greenway is. It's ridiculous. It's not going to last. I mean, that that'll be great when you've cut the ribbon, then it'll be gone for the next storm. Um, I want to ask you guys a question. I don't know if you can actually respond because I don't know how this works. Um, but I submitted a video of uh one of the neighbors took a video of Helen at just at the height of the storm. They're pretty brave of them to go out there in their car and take a video. And if you see that video, there's no way you can sit there and think, I can approve this bridge. There is a wall of water going from Sleepy Hollow on the way down. It is massive. These photos don't do that justice. This is I took the photos here about two hours after the storm. So, this is after them all all of it's gone through and we walked along uh Newh Hall Creek and took these photos and that's what the that was the remnants of the storm. That wasn't at the height of the storm.

Thank you.

So, I urge you to watch the video if you've not seen it and please do that before you vote. All right, that uh concludes our public comment. I will close public comment at 11:29. Um any questions, clarifications from the commission. To me, what I heard is the majority the bridge is the concern because that's what we're voting on, right? And that's that's the majority of the comments and the majority of the concern seems to be around flooding um and and ask for a uh modeling H&H modeling. But what I heard from staff, thank you Sam, at the beginning was that a model, H&H modeling has to occur. Is that correct?

That is correct. The applicant cannot pull grading storm water and flood permits which come after final TRC unless they have an approved engineer stamped and passed H&H study. So what what the the residents are asking for has to be done. Yes,

I think that's a good point. You know, just as a reminder um for the public where we are in the process is planning and zoning commission is required for conditional zonings to provide a recommendation to city council who ultimately is the decision maker on approval of the zoning. And then then if that approval is achieved, the next step would be a final TRC where the technical conditions are met. And that's that's the that's when this H&H study would be done. So the notion that it is a precondition for approval of by planning and zoning commission or even city council is just sort of out of sequence.

Correct. So from the opposite end of that, you know, the issue is that there is existing zoning that exists all throughout the city that may or may not comply with H&H modeling requirements and maybe in areas where it actually can't get permitted based on the technical requirements of the city, but it doesn't come before planning and zoning commission for a reasonzoning. In this case, the projects come before us and we're looking at the land use. We're not necessarily looking at all the technical details of the parameters. Um, so for instance, like steep slope ordinance, there are a lot of single family homes that are in steep slope ordinance areas where a ho a home can't actually be built. those those lots exist. Theoretically, a home could be built there, but if you go to pull permits, it may not be possible based on what you want to do, whether that's square footage, setbacks, lot sizes. Um, in this case, it sounds like the developer may be coming here early based on what people the information folks would like to have, but they're also getting that approval at risk that the H&H model may not even allow them to continue. Yeah, I I I you know I I would tend to heir on a lot of these residents gut feelings that this may not pass a flood model, but that's yet to be seen and that is to come, right? There is a flood model that has to come and that flood model may show