Planning & Zoning Commission - Regular Meeting

Hello and welcome to the December 3rd, 2025 meeting of the Planning and Zoning Commission. I am your chair, Jeffrey Barton, and we'll begin with roll call. Thank you. Chair Barton, present. Commissioner Bell, present. Commissioner B present. Commissioner Cycle present. Commissioner Zeskea present. And Commissioner Faircloth present. We have a quorum. Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. And welcome Commissioner B to the Planning and Zoning Commission. Glad to have you and thank you for your service. Thank you.

Um we will begin with our land acknowledgement. As we are gathering today as the planning and zoning commission, the body tasked with reviewing and advising as we today as the planning and zoning commission. Hot mic. Test test sounds better.

So I guess with the new mics push to turn on. Is that so everybody has a push button on their mic? I guess we turn on and turn off when speaking. All right, no worries. 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, the United Gadua Band of Cherokee, and all of our indigenous neighbors, as well as the past and present marginalized community members as we seek to join in the healing of the indelible trauma that is embedded in this land. Thank you. Um, moving into the administrative portion of our meeting, as a reminder for our guests and and visitors, uh, Planning and Zoning Commission accepts public comment on items that are on our agenda. We receive public comment in advance of meetings through uh, email at pz commmissionersvillec.gov and in person at the meetings. Uh, we accept public comment which is limited to a maximum of three minutes per person or 10 minutes if speaking on behalf of a group. So for our public hearings, we will open public comment for those items. Um, next up we have the approval of minutes from the October 1st, 2025 meeting.

Do I any discussion or do I have a motion to approve?

I move to approve the minutes. Second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor say I.

I. Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Um as we move into the next item on our agenda, updates from committee liaison and workg groups. One um item in the minutes that we just adopted was um a definition of anti-displacement as presented by the anti-displacement work group. Um we all reviewed this at the last meeting and received a presentation from anti-displacement work group. Um provided some feedback to add environmental relocation in alignment with the affordable housing plan for the city of Asheville. And it was contemplated that we would come back and formally adopt this definition. it's not part of the UDO or an approved plan, but um can help guide and anchor our work through the anti-displacement lens in the future. So um with that, I guess I would ask for a motion to adopt this definition.

I'll make the motion. We have a motion. Do we have a second? I'll second. We have a motion and a second. Do we have any discussion from staff or feedback before we Yeah,

I saw some quizzical looks, so I just and I apologize for the quizzical looks because I wasn't at the last planning and zoning commission meeting, so I was just trying to catch up. Um I I think my question is around you as a body adopting uh a definition for which which purposes because we are working with city council members um and eventually with a legacy neighborhood uh coalition to have a joint discussion around what anti-displacement means. We do have definitions working definitions both in our affordable housing plan and missing middle study. And so as we are presenting as staff to say the housing um the HCD committee of council um we may be using a different definition. And so if we can just clarify uh the what the purpose of you all adopting a a separate potentially um a little bit different definition is that might be great for the public and for staff and I appreciate you doing this work. Thank you. Um any feedback from anti-disiplin?

Yes. So a couple of things. Um I think one we started the anti-displacement work group and the conversations around this before staff started having conversations um especially with HCD and city council. So it just took us a little longer to come up with a definition. I think timing now is really great where kind of all of these bodies are working on anti-displacement. So that's fantastic. Um, from my viewpoint, it would be good for us to have one for us as a commission to have an agreed upon definition so that when we are looking at projects, we know what we agree upon as far as what displacement is just so we can have the same language when we're discussing projects. The other thing is that uh in my opinion, it would be helpful to when you're going to HCD or city council or even in your internal definition uh conversations to have this definition as a comparison. It's not to say that you have to use our definition, but it's something that you know we are recommending. We think uh this is helpful and we want you to consider it in your conversations. That would those kind of would be my responses. My one last comment, thank you so much for that. Um my one last comment is I think staff would like to have a conversation at some point around um the usefulness and how to operationalize the the piece that says define census tract or within a city adopted neighborhood. An example I'll give you is we worked a lot with displacement this year on physical displacement along the rivers. None of those are census tracks or adopted neighborhoods. And so, um, just digging down deeper. We're excited to do that work with you.

Okay. That's great. I'd like to hop in here and I I understand that staff's working on and the city's working on their own definition of this, but I think there are people on this board who are doing some other stuff right now. And what I might suggest is even if we call this like a working definition or an interim definition, we can always change later to what the city is. But I think for people here to keep moving forward, we need at least some kind of baseline of like so if we call it just a working definition or something that doesn't bother me. I don't know if that bothers the rest of the commission.

Yeah. Yeah. I I would agree. I think by nature that it's not part of an adopted city plan. It's kind of just an affirmation of the work of anti-displacement work group. I think it it is a working definition. Um I think the goal of bringing it to the full commission for some level of adoption is to do exactly what we've talked about, establish that baseline shared understanding to help with the future conversations. So um yeah, I I appreciate staff's feedback and kind of look forward to kind of continuing the conversation. that clearly anti-displacement is a a critical and important lens when we talk about land use. So continuing to um have a shared understanding of what that means is useful to me.

I just wanted to comment that one thing that might be confusing is we're adopting the new rules of procedure tonight and most now under the new template most boards are not allowed to have even workg groups without staff agreeing and all of that. But I did check it with staff and say these work groups are working as work groups which we all understand to mean sort of unofficial not tasked by with anything in particular by the overall commission. And so the only thing that complicates it a little is when the overall commission is adopting I'd like work I think the working definition might be better. it it might start to get into that role of oh this is an official committee whereas we have a storm water work group which is gathering information and comes and reports generally on um either policies existing policies things you see that relate to storm water but you don't have a particular task and I don't think even displacement we know you're working with communities but there's still not a specific task so um I I think it's fine for you to continue with these work groups I haven't heard heard otherwise from um staff or any members of the council. But um that's one thing about making this perhaps a little less let you know a working definition so that when you're speaking about your displacement work, everybody has that common understanding. Okay.

I like the idea of of calling it a working definition. I am wondering if we could add a phrase at the end to um something like uh a defined region or I also had an issue with kind of the specificity of census tract or adopted city neighborhood. I feel like we need a third like and other region and other you know clearly defined area. Could we add something like that? I would make the friendly amendment to the motion to um add a third classification of other defined uh area. Yeah, I think that's a good suggestion. Would you accept that since it was your idea?

I would. Um commiter wave skaya, what are your thoughts on that? Yeah, I think that's fine with me. Okay, great. So, we have a amended motion and a second. Any further discussion or should we take a vote on adopting this? All those in favor, please say I. I. I.

Any opposed? So, the working definition of displacement has been adopted. Thank you. Um, next up we have some other committee leaison and workg group updates. Um, anti-displacement work group. Obviously the informal uh unsanctioned composition of it was um comprised of commissioners and commissioner Wheatley who is no longer on planning and zoning commission. So um just kind of putting that out there that the work continues and is still important. Um, anything you'd like to add, Commissioner Zvkia?

Um, a couple of comments. Uh, and I'll I guess I'll start off with a question. One is, are any commissioners interested in joining the anti-displacement group? and that can be you know followed up directly after the meeting since the commission doesn't seat a working group but consider an open call for volunteers to join the the work

and then another question I had maybe for legal is um can we invite non-commissioners to be on this informal working group.

I I don't really think so. I mean, it's supposed to be members of this commission that are just are reporting back to this commission. So, I mean, I guess you can talk to whoever in the community you you want to inform, but I wouldn't want others feeling that they are a member of this commission or or some official body. So, if you're able to in the work you do and I'm sure you are talking to neighborhoods and people um to get information um but and you can bring that back, but I would not call them a member of your working group if not. Yeah. Thank you.

Um so, I guess I'll just kind of close out with a comment to say obviously Commissioner Wheatley was on the anti-displacement work group and it was the two of us. Um, I am uh pretty disappointed in the process of the removal of Commissioner Wheatley and just how that all played out. I was surprised to find out after the fact that it happened. Um, and obviously I now don't have an anti-displacement workg groupoup partner. Um, so I just again want to kind of reiterate the call to have somebody on that workg group with me. Um, and I'll uh most likely also make some written comments around the process and how we have conversations in the future about um commissioners who may or may not be removed.

Appreciate that. Um and we we do have an item later in the agenda to talk about rules of procedure updates. And as a reminder, we all are appointed by city council and serve at the pleasure of city council. So correct. That's a Thank you, Commissioner Cycle for that clarification. There are members appointed by um the Bunkham County Commissioners. So we do have our friends representing Bunkham County serving alongside us. Um but point being, we are not a self-governing body. We are appointed and serve at the pleasure of those who appoint us. So we can have a deeper discussion and the rules of procedure around that but appreciate the comment.

Um I will say as far as getting someone else on to work with you I am happy to work with you on help. I will just caution that like I don't have a lot of spare time to bear. So if no one else will join you, I'm happy to help. But I don't know how many manh hours I can really dedicate to you on a month, but if no one else answers, give me a call.

All right. Thanks. I'll uh last item on committee leaison. Commissioner Wheatley was also serving as our liaison to multimodal uh transit transportation commission. Um so that is now an open liaison. we will put it on the agenda for our next meeting seeking volunteers to serve as that important connector with MMTC. So just wanted to note that for next meeting is that the only other board where we have a liazison we have um I'm blanking on the name

commissioner cycle is a liaison to a board that does not really meet consider appeals to storm water And as far as I know, those are the two kind of city sanctions liaison from planning and zoning commission. We can consult with the clerk's office if there are others out there, but those are the ones that I'm aware of that are kind of official. There are obviously some other unofficial u you know community liaison. The legacy neighborhoods coalition has requested some enhanced um liaison support from a planning and zoning commission member but all right. Anything else on work groups? So, we don't have an update from the storm water flood plane work group, but I do have a question for staff, and you may not be able to answer this now, but I'm just going to pose it. Are there any updates on the grant application to be able to do some largecale revisions to UDO components relating to flood plane, storm water, hazard stuff? Excuse me. All right, let me get the mic right so I don't cause massive feedback. Yes, we can give you some updates. I know that we are planning to give a more formal and thorough update on that in January um at a meeting of this body. Uh so what I can tell you now is we are working through the application process for uh community development block grant dis block grant disaster relief funds as well as hazard mitigation program grant funds to secure funding to begin work on

a uh limited technical update to the comprehensive plan and also a likely more intensive update to the development regulations of the city. um focused directly on resiliency and tangentally on resiliency as well. Um but that is moving forward. We have staff dedicated to that weekly right now. Um and we hope to have like I said a more formal and helpful update in January. Great. Thank you.

Thank you. Any other liaison committee workg groupoup updates? So, next up we have um the election of vice chair. As a reminder back to this was a continued item from our October 1st meeting. Um there were two nominations made for the vice chair um position, Commissioner Wheatley and Commissioner Bell. Um we have had a change in the composition of our membership. Um, and so I think it would behoove us to kind of reopen a call for nominations for vice chair. Um, and before we do that, I guess uh, Commissioner Bell, would you like to take uh a nomine accept a nomination or decline nomination? At this time, I'm going to decline the nomination with much appreciation and of your faith and my ability, but but not at this time.

Understood. Thank you. Um, so with that, I'll accept nominations for the vice chair. And I would like to nominate Commissioner Cycle to be the vice chair. Would you accept the nomination? Yes, I'd accept. Would anybody else like to make a nomination? Seeing none, we have an accepted nomination for vice chair. Um, all those in favor? I would I guess. Yeah. No, thank you. So, we have a second. I'd like to second a nomination.

All right. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I.

I. Any opposed? We now have a vice chair. Thank you, vice chair cycle. Uh thank you all for bearing with us through the administrative portion of the agenda. We will now move into our first uh public hearing item. Um first up, we have a request to reszone the property located at 13 Baldwin Street from neighborhood business NB to residential single family highdensity RS8. Properties pin is identified on the agenda. The property owner is the estate of Doris Wilson Page. The applicant contact is Mr. Peter Zeterholm. The planner coordinating review is Will Ponquist. Mr. Palquist.

Thank you, chair. Good evening, commissioners. Will Palmquist with Planning and Urban Design. I will be presenting this resoning request for the property at 13 Baldwin Street. Uh here is some quick facts on that. This is a straight reszoning request. So just changing the underlying uh base zoning district. There is no development proposed for this application. The property is about a quarter of an acre. Staff is not recommending approval. We'll get into the details and the analysis of that in this presentation. So here is another uh view of the location. Um kind of more zoomed out on the left and then more uh closer in on the right. You can see the property is vacant. It is at the corner of Fairview Road and Baldwin Street in the Oakley neighborhood. Um the staff report notes that there is a bus stop across the street and uh the Fairview Road is served by the um art bus route S1. So, here is the uh existing zoning on the left, the neighborhood business districts, and then the proposed uh zoning on the right, residential single family, highdensity RS8. Uh we'll get into some of those differences uh in this presentation shortly. Um you can see that um that property kind of sits in the middle of this relatively small pocket of neighborhood business zoning. Uh more commercial zoning to the to the east and north of the property. And then RS8 zoning um surrounds the the property kind of to the northwest and and south. So here is the breakdown of the main components of the neighborhood business district and the residential single family highdensity district. Um really the main difference here uh is the

allowed uses of the districts. So neighborhood business allows for a very limited number of commercial neighborhood serving uh business type uses. Uh the only residential uses it allows for is multifamily residential which is three or more units. Um so couldn't it couldn't be a standalone house or duplex on this location with the existing zoning. The RS8 does allow for single family detached as well as more variety of residential uses but does not allow for any um commercial uses at all in that district. There's some other finer grain details. Uh, neighborhood business does not require parking for residential uses in most of the commercial uses where the RS8 has the standard one space per uh, dwelling unit typically required. So, uh, going down into the analysis of the, uh, appropriateness of, uh, this resoning request. Uh first looking at the compatibility of the proposed zoning with the surrounding zoning districts. Uh as mentioned earlier the um I could get rid of this so actually can see the text but scared to click on it. Um sorry. Um so as mentioned earlier a majority of the neighborhood surrounding the site is zoned residential single family high density. You can see the purpose of that district outlined uh there on the slide. So um staff does find that in regards to the surrounding zoning districts um RSA would be compatible for the most part with the overall geography of the zoning of this area of the city. Looking uh more at the future land use

map as noted in the comprehensive plan, uh staff finds that this proposed zoning request of RS8 is is partially compatible with the comprehensive plan. Um the neighborhood center land use description talks about, you know, these small development corner store kind of uses within a neighborhood. Uh limited residential uses as a component of the commercial development. So, more of a mixeduse style development. It outlines some suggestions of what those uses could look like. Uh talks about restaurants and pubs, small retailer office, community type um uses and and that sort of thing. Um and noting that the RS8 district is cited as an appropriate zoning district within that um neighborhood center future land use category. Um but reading into that description more um is why staff finds that it's only really partially compatible with the comprehensive plan. Uh no uh real consideration for infrastructure as uh this resoning request is not considering a development proposal. And then looking a little bit more at the comprehensive plan and some specific uh themes, goals, and strategies. uh staff finds that, you know, this resoning um could uh be consistent with the goal to increase and diversify the housing supply by promoting zoning policies and encourage more housing. So, the RS8 does have uh a more variety of of types of residential uses allowed within it. Staff does find that a few uh goals and strategies would be inconsistent with this resoning. This includes increasing uh mixeduse development along transit corridors,re increasing and diversifying the housing supply by expanding areas that permit highdensity mixeduse development and celebrating the unique identity of neighborhoods through creative

placemaking supporting the development of locally focused neighborhood amenities including restaurants, pubs, and other neighborhood services which I think really ties into that uh future land use description from the prior slide. uh speaking to the um future vision of these types of areas of the city. So one pro of this rezoning identified by staff is that it would allow for the construction of single family detached houses which is not currently allowed under the existing zoning. And then the cons identified by this resoning include that it does not allow the proposed zoning does not allow for any neighborhood serving commercial uses that the current existing zoning does allow for by right. It also reduces the the size and the potential impact of this neighborhood business node within the neighborhood. Therefore, looking at the overall um kind of breakdown of of compatibility of these various elements uh for your consideration, staff does not recommend approval of the resoning request. This resoning is before you this evening. Uh it would go if a if a recommendation is given tonight, it would go before city council for final decision on a tentative date of January 13th. And staff has provided a couple different motions to consider and I'd be glad to answer any questions you might have.

Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. Um appreciate the presentation and the kind of analysis. We had some discussion of this in the premeating around kind of the history of the zoning designation. A couple of specific questions I had um there was sort of in staff's analysis mixed compliance with the future land use map designation. Could you talk a little bit more about that and whether if the zoning application were granted would a change in future land use map be required in order to build single family or not?

Sure. That's that's a great question. Um so so every future land use category, you know, h does have a list of zoning districts that could be compatible within it. Um in this case, the RS8 is listed as a potential district within that neighborhood cent's future land use category. So for that reason, um my my take on that is that a change in the future land use would not be required because it is listed as a as a potential district within that future land use. It's more when you kind of read into the description of the future land use and the types of uses it's proposing and the character it's describing is is how staff finds it to be not completely compatible with that future land use.

Got it. Thanks. So, um the development of single family would be permissible in the current future land use designation. It's just staff's analysis that it does not 100% meet the intent of the future land use designation. Is that fair? That's a good way to put it.

Great. Um, in looking at the current neighborhood business zoning designation, did could you talk a little bit more about staff's analysis as to the appropriateness of that and the context within kind of this part of Oakley and the surroundings? Um, particularly in the premeating, we talked a little bit about sort of the history of when neighborhood business was applied. So, um, regardless of that prior history, staff's current analysis is that neighborhood business would be the most appropriate. And could you talk a little bit about what analysis factored into that decision?

Sure. So, I wouldn't say that, you know, staff evaluated that neighborhood business is the the most appropriate district in this area, per se. Um we were just looking at really the change of zoning from neighborhood business to that RS8 district and thinking about the consequences and and ramifications of that. um looking at the comprehensive plan, um the future land use category of neighborhood center that it's under and then the goals and strategies of the comprehensive plan and really thinking about um you know how the future development and potential for other kinds of neighborhood serving businesses would be would be lost under this resoning. Um and it would make the the zoning less compatible with that future land use category. And then some of the goals in the plan that really speak to these, you know, inter interwoven smallcale uh mixeduse neighborhood commercial nodes that can serve a a local neighborhood and um and all and a lot of the emphasis on the comprehensive plan about that and that would that would be um not consistent with this change of zoning um and really would um I think foreclose on the opportunity to really strengthen this commercial commercial node. um if that was a future that wasn't really available under the future under the proposed zoning. So that was kind of staff's rationale um really really thinking about the compatibility of the comprehensive plan and the future land use category that you know speaks to those other kinds of uses being more more of a neighborhood center commercial center serving kind of hub.

Thank you. Um, you know, in reading the general description of neighborhood business, um, it does say it's established to reserve areas for lowintensity business activity. When it talks about the intent, it says to provide for the daily convenience and personal service needs of the surrounding residential neighborhood while minimizing conflicts with surrounding residential uses. then goes further to describe these areas as places where largecale large commercial operations are inappropriate. So I I understand staff's analysis. It does feel that the intent of neighborhood business would be to retain smallcale commercial activity for the advantage of the adjacent and surrounding residential areas. And um so you know I I kind of was thinking about that and and determining whether the goal of neighborhood business was to preclude the residential areas or to truly preclude the largescale commercial enterprises. In the case of this it's a 222 acre parcel. So we're not going to see a large scale commercial operation anyway. Um, but I guess my question in that is is is staff's feeling that it's important to retain property for a hypothetical smallcale commercial use in this area.

Sure. Um, so I guess whether it's hypothetical or not, um, I will say, you know, staff has done some internal analysis. Nothing super detailed, but really just kind of back of the napkin sketches a little maybe a little more sophisticated than that because we did want to try to understand if the site, you know, is is viable for um, a commercial use under the current zoning and and what that could look like. Um, neighbor business does limit the footprint of new buildings to 3,000 square feet. And with some of the recent amendments we made to allow for um some more square footage for residential uses on top of commercial, you could do four sto three stories on top of that ground floor uh commercial and and do a 12,000 foot building, which is not very large. It's keeping within the character of that neighborhood business district. um based on setbacks, some of the required landscape buffers, it's possible to place a building on that site and perhaps have a driveway with um some parking um which is not necessarily required under the zoning district. So there's the hypothetical of you know on paper would this could a potential building be cited on this site? I think the answer to that is yes. I think there are maybe some market realities that um exist out there that is not part of staff's analysis necessarily and we have not done a market study or consulted with developers on the site and that sort of thing of course um I think that's a that's a real um situation for sure. So whether it's yeah holding out for something that might not ever come or not. Um but we did do some analysis and it it is possible the zoning does not preclude development within the neighborhood business district on on this site as the parcel exists today. Um whether that's feasible or profitable for a developer to do it might be

another question. Um but that's is that's what I can say I think. Thank you. And last technical question for me. In the neighborhood business, there's a corner lot setback requirement, 15 ft. So, is this considered a corner lot? And was that applied in your analysis?

Yes. So, the 15t would apply off of Fair View Road in this case. Um, since the property uh it's a corner lot, it would it would likely front on Baldwin Street. That would be probably where the access would be from. That'd be considered the front. And then side corner lot would be on Fair View. You can reduce that front setback on Baldwin Street to zero feet if you have a pedestrian oriented building design and some other characteristics. So that helps that helps get the building a little bit closer to Baldwin. Gives you a little little bit more room to build. Um but the site is constrained by that 15 foot uh setback off of Fair View and then also the 20 foot wide landscape offer that's required for commercial zoning next to residential. Um even with those considerations again it's a it's a it's not a it's a it's a building size that is reasonable. It's not like a 10 foot wide building or anything. Maybe it's not an ideal geometry for whatever development or developer might come along, but seemed like a feasible shaped building for construction.

And the 15 ft would be from property line, which we have a pretty excessive right-of-way width at this stretch of Fairview that doesn't continue to the adjacent parcel. So that 15 feet is really, you know, say 30 feet for me roadway. Yes. Um that is uh that is true. So the right of way is quite wide. 15 feet is measured from the property line. Um we do not consider any kind of um you know relief to any of those standards that could be um pursued by a potential developer like going to the board of adjustment for a hardship um requesting alternative compliance for landscape buffer widths or even even a special use or sorry a conditional zoning application that could you know provide technical modifications to the zoning. Those are all avenues where um a potential hypothetical development could pursue in order to get either more buildable area or reduce requirements of the zoning and that sort of thing. So our our analysis was just based on as by right under the existing zoning.

Thank you. Um any other questions for staff before we allow the applicant to

Um yeah I got one question. I mean I got several comments but I'm going to wait till after public comment. Um, the one question I have though, um, you'll see where I'm going is is a hypothetical. So, is say the zoning is changed to a residential and someone does build a house there. Um, I'm thinking of like Louise's Kitchen in Black Mountain. There's several businesses around town that have been converted into a or residences in town that have been converted into a business later. Now, they they don't go through and do like a zoning change to be a business, do they? I I I know there's like ADA code and other stuff that has to be done to be a business and like business license. I understand that. But as far as zoning,

where I'm going with that is like say someone buys us, builds a house, that does that stop someone from opening up doggy daycare or doggy wash or whatever small business would be in that location? it it might in this case. Um, so anytime anyone's changing the use of an existing building from one use to another, you have to get a permit for a change of use and that goes through zoning review and that sort of thing. So that is a chance for for staff to review whether the proposed use is allowed in that existing zoning district.

So um the RS RS8 district um allows for a very limited number of um community amenities like parks and fire stations and that kind of thing. would not allow for any kind of eating and drinking establishment or um doggy daycare or any of those kinds of uses. So, for the record, I'm not trying to open a doggy daycare. That was just We need more of them. Yeah. The first thing that came to mind, but like I'm asking because I've done some of these conversions professionally. So, like I know there is a process to make a business out of a former residential structure. So, it would it would in this case most likely require a change in the zoning from what's sure if it was adopted as proposed.

Okay. Um, and always thank you, Will. I do appreciate um your work on stuff here. I got comments, but I'm going to wait till after public comment. Is it possible to show the plat the survey just so we can get a visual? I think it shows a lot. I don't have it readily available. I have to sift through my emails um to to get to it. Uh I can try to post it into the maybe if we move to um applicant discussion. I can post it into the public folder in the meantime though and we can pull it back up. Okay. Glad to do that. Thanks. Sure. Any other questions for staff before we invite the applicant to speak?

Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. Would the applicant like to present? Please introduce yourself uh into the mic. And

my name is Peter Zetter. I work for 2020 builders. Good evening, commissioners. Um, I'm here to request for zone for 13 Baldwin Street from neighborhood business to RS8 and that would allow for two single family homes to be built on the lot. This request is fully aligned with the character of the Oakley neighborhood and directly north of the parcel, the majority of Oakley is already zoned RS8 and the homes surrounding the site are single family in nature. The proposed used is not only compatible, it matches the already exists around it. Importantly, RS8 is explicitly listed as an appropriate zoning district within the neighborhood center future land use category that covers this property. That means the city's own term and long use vision recognizes that residential development is suitable here even inside a neighborhood center. While staff expressed concern about reducing the size of neighborhood business node, I'd like to highlight a practical reality. In this case, it's parcel's vacant. It's been vacant for a while. Because of its size, shape, and corner location, it is unlikely to support any meaningful commercial activity or mixeduse development. Meanwhile, the existing NB zone business parcels to the east and west are already fulfilling the intended commercial role of this area. Approving the resoning supports one of the city's most important policy goals, increasing and diversifying the house supply. Adding two single family homes helps move the needle in a small but very real way, especially in a neighborhood served by transit, walkable streets, and existing infrastructure. This resoning does not displace any current business. Apologies. Does not reduce economic activity and does not diminish the walkability or character of the Oakley neighborhood. In summary, this request is reasonable and in the public interest, compatible with surrounding development and consistent with the city comprehensive plan. Two new homes in this parcel will strengthen neighborhood fabric and

utilize the property in a way that fits naturally within Oakley itself. For these reasons, I respectfully ask for your support and approval of this resoning request. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Zeterholm. Any questions for the applicant? Can you speak to the ingress egress issues that you see? Um, yes, Commissioner Bell. Uh, we have found in our research that we can fit all required ingress and egress onto Baldwin Street with the road fage that is currently available on that edge will be two 18 foot wide by 18 foot wide pads

residential. But did you evaluate it for our commercial use at all? No ma'am. No. Okay. Thank you. Um I'm cur thank you um for what you said but I'm curious um you said two units there. So would your if approved your plan would be to subdivide this or you doing a single family and ADU or kind of how are you approaching this? It would be a subdivision and it would fit two on each of their own lots with their own ingress egress nothing shared.

Okay and as an important uh clarification for members of the commission and public uh what the application is for a straight resoning request. So our objective as a commission and with the intent of making a recommendation to council is to consider all the potential uses that would be available if the resoning request were granted. Um we can provide you know informal feedback on um stated goals of building single family residential but that's not the exclusive um act of reszoning the parcel to RS8. Thank you for clarifying that and I I understand that. I just

Yeah. No, it's there's obviously an intent to do something with the builder here and I was curious.

Understood. Yeah. A reszoning often precedes placing it into active development and you know what would be permissible under the the zoning request. So any other questions for the applicant? I'll just say uh yeah I appreciate the the kind of context and the uh statements around the objectives the suitability um I I am for one sympathetic to this request I I would agree that it's a very difficult and challenging parcel to envision some small-cale commercial development that's not um to say it couldn't be done but it is it has not been done and we could be possible is uh to expand the available uses. So I am sympathetic to the the request um and interested to hear further discussion from my colleagues on the commission.

Be seated. Thank you. Um any other deliberation before we open for public comment? Further questions or clarifications of staff? Hearing none, we will open for public comment at 5:55. Please introduce yourself and um individuals have three minutes to speak.

I am Charlotte. Good evening, commissioners. See, I'm the owner of the Century Old Family property, 17 Baldwin Street. I'm here requesting the crucial resoning of the adjacent 222 acre parcel at 13 Baldwin Street. I feel like it's incorrect. This request is about preserving my family's legacy. Our family's been there over a hundred years. I don't really particularly want anything commercial anyhow, but the markets already spoke. Nobody wants it that way anyhow. I need your approval to secure the future of my childhood home. Denial means I'll risk losing everything. I need to make critical immediate repairs on my home at 17 Baldwin. This land has never functioned as a business. It was always 17 Baldwin Street. And my proposal directly aligns with your body's recent push to eliminate mandatory single family obstacles. You've emphasized that the goal is to increase housing distency and provide more affordable options. I remember the planning director describing these efforts as a major milestone and a significant step towards taking a bite out of our affordable housing dilemma. My reasonzoning is a chance to execute that goal even though it's on a micro level. My chosen builder is 2020 builders and they're ready to deliver. They're building two small, highquality, two-bedroom, two-bath homes designed to be attainably priced for young couples and starter families. And it's exactly the missing middle housing that you're seeking. We don't need another store or a pub. We need safe places for families to live. We have a store right there. We've got the school, a elementary school right across the street. The business is simply impractical here. The lot's tiny.

There's not enough room. The traffic is already intense enough on Baldwin Street and Oakley Elementary School's directly across the street. Any commercial use would create a significant and dangerous conflict with school traffic. Two small residential homes are entirely compatible with the character of Baldwin Street. They create zero parking or traffic issues compared to a retail business or pub. Commissioners, your approval allows me to save my home. I feel like it corrects an error in the public record and most importantly provides two new units of muchneeded affordable housing consistent with the Bunkham County 2043 comprehensive plan. I urge you to please approve the resoning from NB to RS8. You'll be helping a lifelong resident and helping the entire Oakley community to continue to grow responsibly. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Do we have any other members of the public who wish to speak? Seeing none, we will close the public comment at 558. Uh further discussion, questions, deliberation, and did we get the plat? Yes, chair. The plat is now in the uh public folder uh for this reasoning request. Thank you. You can pull up on the big screen if you want.

Uh I I don't mind. starting off and sharing some of my thoughts. Um I understand the future land use map and um some long-term staff goals to kind of keep that um urban center kind of intact. Um you know this is kind of in between that anchor institution and some other businesses. Um, however, I feel like the reality of 222 acres, you know, just under 10,000 square ft. Then you take out the setbacks and you take out parking. I mean, we're talking about 6,000 usable square feet at best of a business, which really, you know, that's a small restaurant or a large coffee shop. I feel like it's my opinion that if there was that much economic desire for that there, it would have been taken already. So, it's my opinion that I'm sympathetic to the applicant and if there, you know, I know we're talking about a reasoning, but if there's obviously intent from a builder to act on that property in the near future, I I think it seems reasonable to me. Yeah, foot level looking at the future land use map it does make sense to be zoned NB right um in Oakley further down the street there's an NB uh zoning that is to me when I've been there you know it it acts as what it's intended to do Um and I do believe, you know, there there are are uses that have been stated uh in this NB that's acting as such. Um you know, with the school, the church, the grocery, all that being there, it is acting as a neighborhood center. So I am

sympathetic to it being zoned NB. Um but at the same time with its adjacency next to you know the RS8 uh CBI CB1 you know like I feel like this could fall in in multiple categories and uh in in a sense we want to make maintain a a long view the long vision but also market realities in the now. I think at from time to time should play in especially if you know we feel like this this parcel could be one zoning or another. So I am also sympathetic to the need for more housing and this being an opportunity to add more housing. So, I actually lived in this neighborhood for five years, and I still own a home down the street. And I would walk from my home along Fair View. This was kind of my daily walk. And I would literally turn around right at at the school at the fire station kind of right here. Because this point, you can see in the way that the right ofway is laid out, it's a transition zone from a highway and a really busy, very vehicular focused area to a neighborhood in a really small street. It like chokes down very rapidly and that can be quite a little traffic jam right there. Um, so as much as you know we want to promote more walkability, it is an awkward spot there and most of the businesses are very vehicular base. There's a dry cleaner or a laundromat um u a gas station

um other places with really big you know somewhat big parking lots. So, I see this the challenges of building on the site given the the size um just kind of the awkward location and that it would provide a lot more value as as housing. Thank you. Any other comments, further clarifications or questions for staff? I'm prepared to make a motion if there's no other question. Please, please.

Uh, I move to recommend approval of the reasonzoning request for the property located at 13 Baldwin Street from neighborhood business to residential single family high density RS8 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 promotes zoning policies to encourage more housing. I'll second. We have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? Motion passes.

Thank you. And and thank you to staff for your analysis. So, sorry. Let me pull the agenda back up. Next up, we have a request to reszone the property located at 137 Broad Street from Community Business One Conditional Zone, CB1CZ, to Community Business 1 CB. Uh, the property's pin is identified on the agenda. The property owner is Broad Properties LLC. The applicant contact is Mr. Gregory Palumbi, Planner Coordinating Review, as Will Palmquist. Mr. Palmquist. Thank you, chair. Good evening again. This is um also a street reser request for a property at 137 Broad Street, just north of downtown. You'll know its location as approximate to Taco Temple if you're as much of a fan as me. Um staff recommends approval of this resoning, and we'll get into the details of the request. Here you can see a closer in uh view of the site on on the right. uh fronts on Broad Street. Uh the former Fudrucker site is to the south where a um commercial expansion conditional zoning project was approved several years ago. some of the history of this zoning um which is community business one conditional zone is that the uh basically the project site is is two properties uh 137 highlighted in the red and then 135 to the west in 2015 the western property uh came under a conditional zoning to build a two-story building mixed use which it which it did um in 2020 20 that conditional zoning was modified to uh include the property to the east, the subject property there

that already had a building located on it to uh redevelop into a new three-story building and and make some adjustments to maybe some of the site features under the old conditional zoning and share driveway and and be a combined project at that point. Uh in in the intervening uh intervening years, uh that project did not go forward. Um that other building was constructed on the original conditional zoning. Uh but the property at 137 did not get redeveloped. Uh there is that existing uh building there located today. And the request by the applicant is to reszone the property back to the original community business one um so they can make use of the site under that zoning district um under all the uses allowed under that district. So um getting into the analysis of the compatibility of the resoning request. Uh you can see here a map of the surrounding zoning districts. Um you have some residential multifamily to the east and west. Um Charlotte Street is by and large CB1 here in this color. There's some CB2 to the south and then some office um in in the south as well. uh staff does find that this proposal is compatible with the surrounding zoning districts. Uh you can see the description of the CB1 district which talks about business centers, workplaces um with significant pedestrian uh population nearby. Looking at the future land use map, the future land use category of the site is a traditional corridor that talks about um a variety of land uses like commercial, office, and residential at a variety of scales. Kind of a resembles a main street with buildings located close to the street. Uh CB1 is cited as an appropriate zoning district within that future land use category. And for those reasons, uh, staff finds that, uh, the

zoning is compatible with the future land use map. There's no infrastructure analysis done as there is no new building or development proposed on the site. and staff finds that the proposed resoning meets uh goals in the city's comprehensive plan, including to encourage responsible growth by ensuring that new development has the appropriate infrastructure to support it and to facilitate real estate development that maximizes public benefit by establishing accessible and well-connected commercial nodes consistent with strategies outlined in the plan's growth areas. Uh the pro identified by this uh by staff for this resoning is that it would allow the existing building on the site to be occupied by a new use and provides greater flexibility for future uses of the property. There are no cons identified. For all those reasons, staff recommends approval of the resoning request. It is before you this evening with a tent tentative city council hearing date of January 13th. and I'm glad to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Palmquist. Any questions of staff? You um is a representative of the applicant here and do you wish to speak? Please uh introduce yourself in a minute. Greg Palumbi, I'm representing the owner. Um ultimately the the conditional zoning was based on a uh economics are a little bit different now in terms of construction materials mainly and so just want to go back to the use by right. Thank you. Any questions of the applicant?

If none as a reminder this is also a straight resoning request. So, we'll be contemplating the full range of uses that could be available under a new zoning designation of CB1. Um, but with that, if there's no questions, I'll entertain a motion or comment. Oh, yes. Thank you. Uh, I will open for public comment at 609. Seeing none, we will close public comment at 60 610.

Sorry, can I ask a quick question for staff? Is is there like for the conditional zonings is there a mechanism by which like they could automatically revert back to the original use? No, there really is not. Um there is stipulations in the conditional zoning that would um after a certain amount of time passes would allow uh the planning director to initiate a reszoning back to a base district. Um that would still have to go through this still formal process though. So, as far as I'm aware, there is no way to automatically revert back uh to the base districts.

And that mechanism can only happen if under a CZ, they never obtained a building permit, they never did anything on that CZ. But I have asked the question to be sure that splitting this parcel off from what the CZ was, all the CZ conditions for that can still be met. I think Will had mentioned some shared driveway, but that's all been it's been determined that that can be a standalone CZ meet those conditions.

Um, so I guess there's an existing building there now and by changing back to the zone, we're avoiding having to demolish that building, right? Well, it could be enabling. But the original the original CZ the plan was they were demolishing that building and putting something back. That's correct. That is exist. I mean, so now so now I don't know. I feel like there's a potential to save a building and just like not throw something else to the landfill, too. It's part of it, right?

Yeah. Yeah. I mean looking back at the original conditions there there was an affordable housing component that you know then is lost as we do straight reszone. Um any comments from staff about that or so? Yeah. And those um commitments were just based on the percentage of the units proposed. So that was um under the original development. And I believe those still have the affordable units in them, but since the new ones are never built, um that that would be a provision that would be, I guess, null and void at this point, and those units would never be realized.

Any other comments, questions? Anyone prepared to make a motion? I move to recommend approval of the reszoning request for the property located at 137 Broad Street from community business one conditional zone CB1 CZ to community business 1 CB1 and find that the request is reasonable 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 ensures the new development has the appropriate infrastructure to support it and two establishes accessible and well-connected commercial nodes consistent strategies outlined in the plan's growth areas.

We have a motion. Do we have a second? We have a motion and a second. Any further deliberation? All those in favor, please say I. I. Any opposed. Motion passes unanimously. Thank you and best of luck.

Next up, we have a zoning text amendment. A request to consider a proposed zoning text amendment to the unified development ordinance uh to amend section 7-7-7 related to waiting periods for resubmitt of a withdrawn or denied application for a zoning map amendment text amendment development application or request for development approval staff coordinating review Carly Dillingham. Miss Dillingham

commission um my name is Karly Dillingham. I'm an assistant city attorney here with the city's legal department and um I'm here to present this zoning text amendment that has become necessary in light of new legislation um that directly conflicts with part of our UDO which is um section 777 which currently imposes a 12-month waiting period for refiling approved or denied reszoning applications. I'll show you that exact language in a second. Um the new legislation actually prohibits any waiting periods from being imposed for withdrawn or denied development applications. So to the extent that our ordinance imposes a waiting period for denied resoning applications, it is uh no longer in compliance with state law. So this is the language from the new legislation. It's from um session law 202594, an act to provide regulatory relief to the citizens of North Carolina. Um the the exact language that we're we are concerned about is pasted there. Uh, it says, "A development regulation or unified development ordinance may not include waiting periods prohibiting a land owner, developer, or applicant from refiling a denied or withdrawn application for a zoning map amendment, text amendment, development application, or request for development approval. And as stated before, this does conflict with section 777 of our UDO. and the proposed amendment will bring us into compliance with this. So this is the proposed change. It is the very minimum um to comply with the new state law from a legal perspective. I am not kind of making any policy recommendations here. I'm simply trying to bring this into compliance with the new legislation. So, we are striking the language that states that when a

application for a zoning amendment has been approved or denied, we are striking the denial language that this 12-month waiting period will apply. It will still therefore apply in the event that there is an approved application. And then there is a general statement of compliance with the new legislation pasted at the end. That's the underlined language that directly mirrors that language from the new legislation from the last slide. There is a waiting period um waiver in section B of our ordinance. So again, this would only apply in the event that there is an approved application. Every UDO amendment does have to align with our comprehensive plan. And this does because the stated goal of the plan is to work with the legislature legislature as needed. So the pros are um obviously allowing for statutory compliance with new state law and also reducing the possibility of any confusion or inefficiency that could result from UDO inconsistency with state law. In the event that state law conflicts with our UDO, state law would would be the one to be applied. And um we don't want UDO sections that conflict with that because then we would have to be consulting state law all the time. So staff does recommend approval of the zoning text amendment request for the reasons stated. It is tentatively scheduled for the January 13th city council date. And this is the suggested motion to approve. And I'm happy to answer any questions.

Um, and really appreciate kind of the staff's proactive approach. This is a very recent new law and so bringing UDIO into compliance. Um, rather than waiting to be told to is is um is much appreciated. Um, appreciate the explanation on why and what. the the only question I'd have or um would like a little insight on is retaining the waiting period for approved applications and then even further um the waiver process and

yeah and I can go back to that language. It's a it's a very narrow um sort of scenario where this waiver would come into play. there would have to have been an approved zoning amendment and then that applicant coming back and trying to submit a new application because they've changed their mind even though they got approved. Um they would have to get a waiver granted by city council if they wanted to do that within the 12-month period. And again I from a you know the legal department's perspective we were trying to bring this into the minimum compliance with the new law. Um, I would defer to the planning department on kind of more policy oriented analysis of the utility of having a waiting period for approved applications, but this is all that needs to happen.

Comments from planning staff on the utility of retaining the approval waiting period. I I think that text is there now. Um so the approach is just a minimum change necessary to work. It's not changing a policy that's in place already, right? Um and direction here was just minimum ordinance change necessary to comply with state law without making a policy change if that makes sense.

Understood. And yet while we're looking under the hood, um it's hard to ignore, you know, potential I don't I don't think this is a significant deterrent. I actually wonder if an approved application has ever been hindered by the waiting period or even pursued a waiver in staff's memory. The only one I can recall from the last decade was a was not an approved. It was a denied application that came back on a council waiver. Correct. Yeah. Um so that spans about 12 years at least.

That's my question is yeah is is there true utility in retaining any portion of the section um and or while we are doing an update perhaps consider striking the whole thing. Yeah. If the commission did choose to take that route that would strike um 777 in its entirety. There would be no use for I'm curious what what was the law before now? So, was there was there anything there was no saying about waiting periods on waiting

period? Um, and then my follow-up question is if the law changed and the this went away back to what it originally was, then would we come back and add the denial language back in? And I guess I'm asking that because if we strike everything and then the law changes and then we have to put everything back in, that's a lot of back and forth, but I don't know the possibility of that if the legislature decided to allow waiting periods again. Um,

yeah, we we probably would have to put this back in if we chose. I know that the UDO is, you know, obviously undergoing a deep analysis right now. So if staff determined that the waiting period has been helpful in deterring um you know application after application from the same applicant then we would have to put it back in. I I guess one concern I have with retaining the approval language is it would be then advantageous to have been denied or withdraw your application if after the approval some modification or defect in the approval was found. And so that seems like a hindrance to having a good project that gained approval as opposed to having a sort of potential project that got denied. So I, you know, I I do worry, you know, the general assembly is clearly interested in um allowing property owners to pursue projects that council may not want to approve and give them some relief in a more timely fashion. So, I don't know why wouldn't we provide the same relief to someone who maybe discovered something about their site in the approval that needs to be changed or adjusted but then is subject to a complicated waiver process or 12-month weight lockout. Um, my only uh kind of counterargument, I don't really know if it stands true here because it seems like there's only been one incident in 12 years, but I will defend staff a little bit. They are asked to do a lot and don't necessarily are not like hiring new people and have tons of resources. So, like some of these things are also like buffers to give staff time to do their jobs. And so removing these time limits, you know, just takes away more kind of it opens them up to having to do more and more work, which and it's one project in 12

years. I don't think it's a deal here. But I'm always nervous when I'm taking away safeguards from staff's time. That's very limited. So I just want to voice that I care about y'all.

I was going to say I'm sure that was the rationale for putting it in for all of these types was to not immediately come back. In fact, when legal first looked at it, it's like, what developer is going to just have gone through this whole process and then immediately turn around and maybe turn in the same application? I guess you could, but it it was just the legislature. Again, there's probably one instance where they just said that's too long to wait, but to to your point and and maybe um M Z get your name wrong. Sus kaya uh suskaya that uh sometimes it's nice to have a placeholder in there in case something you do want it does tend to go back to a way that was probably more favorable to the city if I I'm sympathetic to that point but it does read is very odd to if you were to come in you didn't know all this background as a lot of us don't know the background for a lot of the things that happened 10 years ago and you have a waiting period for only approved projects. That reads very odd to me and does seem like it punishes projects that are positive projects that get approved that may want to come back and revisit something.

I think they'd have to come back though. Say it was a CZ. I think once you're approved there's no you are a CZ so the only way you come back is as an amendment. You have to because there's an amendment process too. So they'd have to come back I guess as a completely different kind of You're saying they wouldn't have to wait the 12 months. That's what I was wondering.

No, because that So if it was a conditional zoning, I think this would be right, Carly. If it's a conditional zoning that got approved and they wanted to, as you say, change, tweak something, they could come back for an amendment. It could be a minor amendment if it doesn't change the site plan or it might have be a major amendment if they really think that they, you know, it usually takes a while for somebody to say, "Oh, I don't think we can do what we thought we were going to do." But I think this is more they get approved and then they want to come back for a totally different application. But

I I think that what I can support what Janice is saying in practice, we doesn't usually happen within 12 months, but whenever someone comes back with a change or something to a council approved plan, it's treated as a conditional zoning amendment rather than a new application. Um like 95% of the time. So if that's really a distinction here, then that would be how we would continue. We just I don't think we ever had anybody come back that promptly. Uh so yeah, because it says zoning amendment and then reszoning application, it that that is different from amendment to conditional zoning

or conditional reszoning. So say but say in the case of a straight resoning if you know a potential use was contemplated and then a somebody that had a property under contract fell out and a new use was desired if that straight resoning was approved then that property owner would have to wait 12 months. Whereas if that application had been denied, they could just turn around and apply under it. So that's I think what Yeah. So I I I hear you on the conditional zoning. It it seems like this isn't a deterrent, but for a straight resoning, it could present a strange unevenness or, you know,

I don't know the legislaturator's um rationale in only including withdrawn and denied applications. I suspect they think, you know, applications are, for example, withdrawn all the time to correct things that are learned maybe when they go before boards. Um, and I don't the same maybe they thought the same grace should not be extended to approved applications, but I I don't know. just uh just curious as a hypothetical with this new legislation. I mean, could someone just come like every month submit resubmit the same application that's been denied?

Hypothetically, I'm just very curious. Does this apply to straight resoning and conditional resonings? Yeah, probably already said that

the and the applicability on text amendments is a little I I couldn't wrap my head around that because that is also included in this but that seems like it would so if you know a certain text amendment were approved but was later found to need some adjustment usually if a city is initiating but say it's I don't know that that one is maybe a little confusing and too abstract to understand the implications on. But any thoughts, immediate thoughts from staff on text amendments?

It's like a citizen-led text amendment. You know, in that case, um maybe it's more applicable, but again, it runs in the same logic of the if it's denied, it can come back, but if it's approved, it can't for a year. So it is kind of that same illogical situation, but there could be a entirely new text amendment that corrects a defect in an approved text amendment. Right. So, but it's it's the straight resonings that I'm kind of struggling with because it does feel like

that's an oddball to retain a waiting period for approval approved. I don't think this applies to text amendments because it's really weird the way it reads, but it says zoning amendment, but then it says no resoning application. So, a text amendment is not a reszoning application. Right.

Right. And it's um not a zoning classification. So, I think we are stuck with your the most likely scenario is the res the straight resoning that just wants to come back next month. We never imposed any waiting period on text amendments, but that language is inserted um straight from the legislation to say we are never imposing a waiting period just for clarity sake on that list of items which includes text amendment.

Understood. Thanks. I I would recommend striking 777. Are you prepared? I would agree with that. Yeah. Would you like to make a motion? I have different motion language on the slides. Yeah, we can amend it if you want to go to it. should open for public comment too if we haven't already.

Sure. Yeah, let's Why don't we open Let's uh open public comment at 6:31. Seeing no one raised to the mic, we will close public comment at 6:31. Um I I would agree. I think, you know, we've highlighted some compelling reasons to potentially just strike the whole section. Um we may need assistance word smithing a alternate motion on that but would it be an approval with the recommendation of removing the whole section so staff could move forward with either option at this point?

I mean we can test the vote. I I I think that it'd be nice to have a clear recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission and it um sounds I'd be prepared to support striking the the section. I move to recommend text amendment to strike section 777 of chapter 7 development of the city code of ordinance the UDO to eliminate waiting periods for re resubmitt or withdrawn and appro approved applications for zoning map amendment text amendment development application or request for development approval and find that the proposed amendments are reasonable in the public interest in that the amendments are consistent with the city's comprehensive plan and will bring the UDO in to compliance with the new changes to state law chapter 160D. We have a motion. One thing as an important clarification and potentially friendly amendment. I I don't know that I heard you say withdrawn or denied applications. You're added the approval, but I want to make sure

withdrawn or denied or approved applications. So, is that acceptable as a motion? I thought I maybe do So, we have a motion. Um, did that pass muster? What's that? Okay. Uh, do we have a second? Second. All those in favor, please say I. I.

I. Any opposed? Thank you. It passes unanimously. We have a recommendation from Planning and Zoning Commission. However, that may be carried to council. Appreciate staff's explanation and work on this. All right. And last, but certainly not least, we have uh consideration of amendments to the commissioner's rules of procedure. Um, is legal presenting this or are we kind of just discussing, deliberating?

I wasn't going to make a presentation. It's just with our new recovery boards, everybody's following this template. So, we I just took this template which are let me clarify with some new boards there are they don't have any rules at all. And so we wanted to the city wanted to have consistency of rules among the different bodies. Planning and zoning has had rules that significantly mirror what are the best recommended rules already. Plus your rules have some things that spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe spe specify when you do quas judicial procedures when you do legislative. So instead of adopting the whole template, I went in and took your rules as you've had them and then added in anything that was missing that is included in the template. Um probably the thing to highlight and you have the the marked up version is that um you know these are these are coming out of the city's these are need to we this board needs to comply with the city's Asheville city of Asheville's rules of boards and commissions and those were adopted by a resolution in June June 10th 2025 that's the template I'm talking about just these general guidance on on rules that each committee should have. And then when we get to the membership part, um I had to rearrange things a little bit because most of them start with membership and yours started with the officers. But I think the other significant thing to point out is under membership members or membership it talks there about the composition the membership and it has that language that

each person appointed to serve as a member of the board whose appointment was made by the Asheville city council shall serve at the pleasure of the city of the council. and that was an ordinance that was adopted October 14th, 2025. It had just not been clear that that was the case. Um, you would think that that would be clear, but the council felt it it should make it clear that that's that's the way it works. And when we say serve at the pleasure, that means could be removed for cause or no cause. Um and that's how for example the city attorney serves and as well as the uh city manager they serve by statute at the pleasure of council. So those I wouldn't say there's anything different. There is more contemplation in here of hybrid meetings. Technically, cities are really only supposed to have hybrid meetings in an emergency declared emergency situation, but after Helen, most cities in in North Carolina are continuing with this hybrid method. And after COVID as well, it was found that it really does help with participation. So, the city has decided we will continue to allow hybrid meetings, but there's some rules here that say if it is hybrid, we it has to people the public always has to be able to um hear what is said. The public doesn't actually under the statutes have a right to always comment. That is something that the this board has decided and other boards have decided to always allow. But um so we um so people can participate remotely except if it's quasi judicial um because then we have to have the consent of the parties to the quad quasi judicial matter and if they do

participate um remotely which this board really doesn't but usually you always meet in person but you could if there was necessary or one commissioner wanted to um we have to do a roll call vote. So that's something procedural that wasn't really there before because planning and zoning usually always met in person. And I wouldn't say there's anything else that um you know some boards didn't have conflict of interest. This board it's still there. You have always had ones that were um particular to planning boards. They're in the statutes. You can't have a direct, substantial, and readily identifiable financial impact on on the member when you're voting on a matter or you can't have a familiar close familial business or other associational relationship. I kept that because yours are very specific. And then there's the other general rules. Um um and now there's the part about subcommittees and workg groups which is for other boards you you really now we're the we're interested in making sure that that's very scaled back and if there is a subcommittee that it has to be council priorities have to be met by it and they have to have approval with the staff as well. But as I said, your working groups were have been approved um to continue um and so I'm sorry. Yeah, I wasn't really I was I did you have questions? Yes.

Do working groups have to be approved or just subcommittees?

Just subcommittees have to be approved. Well, the language from the template, let me see. It's under the chair because the chair has the ability to um to appoint subcommittees with the with the um consent of the board. But then there's this part that says any group or commission member tries to explain what a working group is. Any group of commission members less than a quorum can meet informally together to discuss commission business without complying with open meetings law requirements. And this is the heart of why we we really work on what's a subcommittee, what's a working group because if it rises to the level of subcommittee, you're supposed to be meeting, you're open to public meetings a lot, but the commission must not if if you are one of these, we don't use the word working group. You're not formal. You you must not vote. You, the commission, must not vote to form the group or vote to charge the group. I'm sorry, this is on page two. Or vote to charge the group with a specific purpose task that such actions would lead to the creation of a formal subcommittee which would be subject to open meetings law or requirements.

Did that answer your question? it it it it it basically is saying you can have these other things but don't that don't rise to the level of a subcommittee. So the the to kind of follow up on that because I was also trying to follow the language is any subcommittee or similar subset group of the full commission must obtain approval from staff leaison department director etc. Is the intention that that applies to working groups or not? because later it just when it talks about what a working group is, it just says it's that

we had you know so we had at one time 32 boards and commissions and each one had different ones. So for example I think it was the forestry commission they didn't use workforce they said we'll have task forces well that's not a subcommittee they would say and we'd say but how's it functioning but it's a task force so they're saying if if you have something that is voted to form by the commission and has a specific charge whether you call it a subcommittee or something else. That's what needs to have approval of the staff and city manager and city attorney's office. Does that make sense? Yeah.

Okay. and your work group since you're not officially formed, but you do report and you you go off on your own and and talk about whatever you want to talk about and come back and report. Those don't fall under this having to have official approval. Although the idea with forming these new committees was that there wouldn't be any of these subgroups. We would just stick with the commission. So that's why earlier I said we've already discussed the fact you have these formed work work groups and you can continue to have your work groups even though they're not subcommittees. I just wanted to clarify. Is there a waiting

confusing? Is there a waiting period if a request for a subcommittee is denied? Sorry, bad joke. Yes, one year. I got two other questions. Let's see how people on that topic. No, go for it. Yeah, I have questions. Yeah. All right. My two uh just curious item three. Section three, item F.

You scroll to it. Members of the commission may be disciplined or removed at the discretion of the appointing body. I understand that. I am just curious what does disciplined mean? Is that I'm suspended for a meeting? Is that a punitive fine? Is like what what does discipline mean other than removal obviously?

Let me find it. not able to vote or participate. I don't have to have a formal answer. I just want to know kind of roughly. No, it's a good it's a good question. How big is the stick? I mean, like what are you? It's a good question.

I'm still trying to find Where am I? Why am I not membership? members may be disciplined or removed at the discretion of the appointing body. So, um yeah, discipline may be a warning, you know. Um

I just where I'm going with this is I'm I'm fine to accept this, but I think it's fair if I'm agreeing to be disciplined. I I would like to know what that could be or roughly escalating levels like verbal warning then gag order then sit down with Janice. I don't know just some kind of there's not really a grievance process. I mean this is this is why this again this comes from the template that everybody's accepted. So this is language that wasn't here before that we pulled in because of that pleasure of counsel. And as I've explained, pleasure of counsel means no cause for cause, no or cause or no cause. And and I'm not trying to um

and no, I know that there's questions. This is stemming from currently what was going on last time, which you know, city council has my full support in their decisions, but um on this board feeling some of the members here, including myself, felt like the lack of transparency was frustrating. And so if there is a clear level of escalation of things, you know, it protects you as staff saying, "Hey, like, well, we did items A, B, and C. Now it's, you know, we are following procedures." I'm trying to voice that very politely, but that's my thoughts. I'll kind of walk away at this point.

I think that that now that this discussion is out there, you would know if you would have had a conversation with a staff or council member or somebody saying I viewed that as inappropriate or this or that. So I I would say that this didn't come without warning. It may seem like it but things

but we didn't have a we don't have a format and we won't be adopting a formal okay like three strikes or like you would if you're an employee and you have a grievance process. Okay. But I would say that it and I know you know the paper articles I I saw. Well, I'm not trying to it's just I'm trying to be careful and not go into that because that's not my business. I'm just trying to talk about but there people would someone would know if that was going.

Can I just follow up raised with them? So, if there's no interest in putting in a grievance policy or process in here, can we at least define discipline? I'll have to talk to the city attorney again that he's the one that came up with the template and I think wanted it to be broad um sort of saying what that would mean. Um, it unfortunately just goes to that could be for for any reason um or no reason, but I don't I hope you would have faith that that's not generally how it works. It's generally that there is a a reason. But yeah, and I don't think the I don't think the questions are around the reasoning. It's just having a formal discipline.

Exactly. It's just having a definition so that everybody's on the same page and especially when somebody comes on to the commission they know what they're agreeing to and if something happens then it's written down and again just to your point protects everyone

and I think you know to be a little more boring about it our commission is composed of you know five city council appointees as commissioner cycle had pointed out earlier and so the section saying that each person appointed by city council shall serve at the pleasure of council. Yet the disciplinary measures kind of apply commissionwide. So is there a process? Do our county appointees enjoy greater protection or it says the appointed body. So

for example, Commissioner Fairloth and myself could be disciplined by county commissioners. So is there but then I mean you know the complaint process would be by the city to the county you know I don't know it seems a little strange and we're a little bit unique as a board because we have hybrid composition um right well the resolution that was passed was by our city council and it does talk about appointed by the council but I would say that this would mean yes there would be a discussion with the county

county but I also it wouldn't happen in a vacuum. I'm sure the member would there would have been something raised without there being a formal process saying that outburst or this that or something else that was public decorum or interaction with the public it would have been raised and I don't think it would would come as this you know they probably would be whoever would be warned we're going to have a discussion with the appointing body and then you'd probably be able to have an opportunity to discuss that with the appointing body. But I can talk to I will talk to um again this is the language from the template that other boards are um all adopting. It was meant to be general, but I can see what we can say about discipline, but I would just it's it's probably broad.

Yeah. And I think it's I think it's fine to be broad. I'm not against the language. I just The only other thing I could think is and I don't know did you did you share the um the resolution? So again, I said there was one resolution that said here's the general rules guides guidance and it has a little bit more on what's decorum, what's ethics, it's what city council has to follow.

And so if if if that helps to look at um so I I think they adopted I think this attached to this are updated rules. I don't know. Well, if you could like just scroll down. I think there's here. And maybe if you could look at this to see if you feel like, okay, I see I see where something would fall into this might rise to the level of a reason to be spoken to.

Right. But you're you're describing rising to a level. So I I completely understand serving at the pleasure of a body, right? That makes complete sense to me. You know, city council, you know, interviews, will you please serve? Okay, I at no longer serve. That makes sense. Disciplining someone at the pleasure of a body doesn't make as much sense to me. Okay. You know what I mean? I I just I think disciplining would be a warning of these things. Well, that's what I'm saying. Like discipline to me, you're you're disciplining someone based on something, right? Not at the pleasure.

Okay. Well, I'll talk to Brad Brandham about it because that was his sort of I don't know whether it would be you can't, you know, don't do that again. That kind of thing or this was it may be staff or somebody saying, you know, or even the chair saying that's you're you're out of order. That doesn't happen very often, but um but even then but even then it sounds like there's cause, right? serving at you can serve at the pleasure meaning with or without cause that makes sense to me but being disciplined without cause doesn't make sense to me.

Well, this one doesn't have the language about serving at the pleasure. So, it's sort of it's one and the same. It's saying you can be removed. You can be removed or you can be disciplined. Yes, probably if you're disciplined there's cause. You can be removed for again any reason, but they're good questions. It's it's and I and I realize where they're coming from, too. So, um let me just see if there's something we can do to clarify that. But this is um I just I don't really know that there's

that you're that So, these rules have to be adopt. Everybody has to sign on to these template rules and this is what they are. So I guess we can we can have a comment that you wish that this was the discipline part was more clear, but I've yet to have a a board say we're not going to adopt those rules because they really are the city council's rules that everybody needs to follow. a template that was adopted through this process. Yeah. any other

maybe I'm just in jobs I've worked in situations I discipline financial work too I'm not suggesting that's what the city is doing but I don't like just leaving like you know is there a square jar for a dollar like you know what I'll drop it I think I think it's yeah this has been helpful feedback are there other questions about sections in the yeah proposal question about 3B term length. Um, it says, yeah, if you want to get to 3B there. Oh, it references the

says members may be eligible for reappointment after being off the commission for one year, but on the resolution passed under terms, it says unless otherwise provided, where does it say? Yeah. Uh number two, under terms, unless otherwise provided for by law, the length of service on all boards and commissions shall be limited to two full successive terms. I'm just curious about what is the one year in between terms mean?

So like if you serve two successive terms, then you take a year off, you can serve two more successive terms. No, it says all members shall serve uh it said maximum of two terms, but then it says one year in between basically is what it was was how I'm reading it. That's how I'm reading it as well. I was going to bring that up. I don't my guess is that wasn't the intent is that it's two terms and a year between. But it doesn't read that way. Members that have did their two terms but then that was it, but then they came back. So I I can clarify because it's it's not like forever because we've had commissioners that have

you know come back they usually it's more than they need a break more than a year break but um it would be at least that I think it just needs for the line all members shall serve three years serve three-year terms uh with with the allowance for two terms afterwards. You must wait a year or longer. Something like that. Maximum of two successive terms. It says all members shall serve a maximum of two terms, right? Is what B1 says. So maximum of two terms. Doesn't say successive,

right? I'm wondering should I think it's supposed to be successive terms and then let's see. Let me see if the was it added language about the being able to serve after one year or is that that's before B1. It's like the header. Yeah, it is added language. Strange. It's there. It is added.

Maybe the discipline is you have to serve extra terms. I think it could also be helpful in the sentence that says members may be eligible for reappointment after being off of the commission for one uh members may be eligible for reo reappointment after serving two three-year successive terms after taking a year off right like just making that more clear okay I can do that because I see that confusion because I know that's what it is. Serve a maximum.

We should really just say the first maximum of two successive terms and then say but may be el they may be eligible for reappointment after a year after completion of those. I'll work on that. I I agree with it's not clear. I was also wondering how B1 would apply if you step into a partially completed term.

It's I think in practice it's been two consecutive full terms and the initial partial term doesn't count towards that two term. But that should be that's a good point that should be clarified. It is clarified in the or in the procedures.

I thought we because your old language I thought filling unexpired terms is it's under it's under the Yeah, it's uh it's under the officers and duties. That's the chair and the vice chair. Okay. That's not two full successive terms plus any unexpired terms to members in the planning zing in the council resolution but that's all right that's not the way the template

let me make I'll I'll take it from these rules to clarify I'll do it the same place there thank you because we're con we're working on this template as we speak and that is confusing So take this from what's that section of the and this is just a technical question um for my own knowledge um between the three-year terms does it just roll over do you have to be reappointed to that second term yeah you have to be reappointed by council to serve another term

okay that that's why I think the language confused me in the in the change because it does say the word reappoint. Reappoint's not automatic. It is typically the member will express an interest in reappointment and then unless but council doesn't have to but I don't know how it applies to the county whether does the county the county reappointed. Yeah, I got they contacted me and asked if I was interested or not. I said yes and they had to revote to reappoint me. I didn't have to show up again.

I have a question on page one. Um at the end at the bottom there's some added language around adjourning the meeting. The chair can declare the recess and adjourn meetings unless an member objects. So I mean one question is does the chair have the power to adjourn a meeting at at any time even if the applicant doesn't agree or doesn't want that. And it's it's almost seems like there's just some missing information around how you know when we can adjourn and if there's a time limit or if there's you know a limit of things on the agenda that just seemed kind of thrown in there. Yeah. In meeting with some of these committees, the new committees, all of a sudden I was like, "Yeah, how do we usually adjourn? It's not a problem." But they were all voting to adjourn. And I'm like, you don't have to all vote to adjurnn. So that's talking about the final when the chair says we're adjourned. Then you don't all have to vote to say yes, we're adjourned. Maybe we do do that.

We do. But um but apparently somebody could say and this is probably from Robert's rules of order. I don't I don't I think we want to we want to keep talking about this and then then you'd have to vote to say whether you want to adjourn or not. But it's not really a matter of the the chair would not be able to adjourn during a public meeting to say I just don't want to. Is is that what you're saying something about? I mean, could the chair adjourn between items and say we're going to push this to the next meeting?

We probably do have to have to motion. So, if we're like really late into the night, like that one night we had, then you could ask to continue, but usually the applicant would have to agree to continue. It's not sort of a just a sole discretion of the chair, but yet the chair has to keep meetings um moving along and might have to set time limits. Certainly has the is able to set time limits.

Does the applicant have to agree to a continuence or is it just a that's just an action by the board? Right. I mean generally we seek concurrence with the applicant but is is that actually required?

We generally you'd have to you'd have to have a reason. I you that is one of the things you can always move to continue for more information. Um and often they don't like that. Um and then Well, well, that's when it's going to go up to city council, right? There's that one that you can reject it or you could approve it or you can move to continue. Um, and I think in that case, even if you move to continue, the applicant could still say, well, then I don't then we'll count that as a no vote, and I want to go go ahead to council. So, um, On the other hand, we even if the applicant wants to continue it, we can still vote on it.

Correct. As in the quasi judicial case that they kept trying to kick down the road month after month, we eventually just said we got to talk about this. Yeah. We we don't have to grant a request to continue if we're But you're saying do they have to agree to it? I think if they retain rights to advance to council without a recommendation from this body, why would they need to ascent to a continuence? Well, I think if it was quasi judicial, they'd have to

they'd have to agree. But um but no, pro probably not. Um you can you could continue it. Um but The only time I can think of when they don't want to continue is is they want to go on to council because you're doing a recommendation. So, it matter if the uh public hearing was already opened or not. Like the public hearing is open, they have to agree to a continuence, but if we don't get to their item and it's, you know, two in the morning, they want us to keep going, but no one everyone's falling asleep. We haven't gotten to the public hearing yet. Maybe then we could continue without their concern. continue because that's sort of the meeting, you know, the meeting has by that time

people aren't able to make good decisions. So that the chair is saying we're going to continue. I mean to a certain extent if they're represented by council that you know it it could impact their you know money that they're spending but I think you have the right to do that. Any other

I have heard of other boards. Maybe maybe it's Monome County. Someone told me this that their meetings are capped at six hours. Um I don't have that hard and fast evidence, but I have been told that that is that is a practice. So I would be very much in favor of that. I think our minds get a little frayed by the end when you get past six hours and it's not good for anyone. It's definitely not in the public good. But that that's just my opinion.

Yeah, I would agree. And maybe it can be sort of general guidance. There may need to be some flexibility where it's not like you get to 601 and the meeting's over. But um certainly we talked in the premeating about agenda management as a function of that. So that that's certainly something that but but I agree spelling that out. I mean in the general guidance there was a notion that public comment could be limited to 30 minutes. It wasn't like a hard and fast rule. We've generally gone with an hour. So that but that didn't end up in our new rules of procedure. So curious if that seemed relevant or not as well as I I would agree with kind of an overall time cap. I do appreciate

which section are we in where you so you would want to add a time cap because I'm trying to think I guess I can go into these because I know council has particular special rules about that. So under the chair reserves the right

or the um meeting structure section. There's kind of you know procedure and agenda. One thing I appreciate as a kind of something we were wrestling with earlier, there's a little bit of a caveat that's being proposed to allow for um exception to the chair restrictions. That seems wise, especially if there's potentially no one that meets that or only one person that meets that definition. Yeah, I added that in because I Yeah, that I thought there was the question about the vice chair, you know, having to meet those exact same rules and it just seemed like well it might even be difficult sometime for a chair to um meet those exact same rules. So, um yeah, just adding that in unless otherwise agreed.

Any other questions or comments? It it feels like this is headed for continuence and then review at our next meeting. So, Since you have so many questions, I can try to clarify these. I mean, every those boards that don't have any rules can I know that the requirement is to have it approved by January 1st, but since I'm combining your existing ones and you and you do cover all the usual things, I'll I'll work on clarifying what we've discussed and um because they're good points and I'll double check the rules because those might have better language than the template did

just one quick comment before I forget under attendance uh on page four uh the 12-month period I think it would be helpful to to define what 12-month period like are we looking at any 12-month period or are we looking January 1 to December 31 it could be related to your appointment right so just you know If there is guidance on that, it would be helpful to add it.

Good point. Um, and my my last little comment is in the section seven amendments, there's a provision that the commission shall review these rules of procedure annually. It seems like best practice, but typically there's a caveat that failure to do so does not nullify the rules. you know, um um we'll probably have to set up a meeting now because this is what all boards are supposed to do. So, we'll probably have to mark that as a timeual meeting to the annual meeting to

go over things and if and if um you know, maybe the template's going to be updated and then that would be a time to to update it. It's it's hard to imagine that they that they will need an update annually, but these rules again, this board has I think they're in a lot better shape than they were a long time ago and again specific to what a planning board does. But as you you see the difficulty of trying to write something so generally,

you guys are good. These are good questions of like but that's too general. We want to understand. So, um, but I that is something that I think we we at least will attempt to say, do we here's our day to review the rules or next month we're going to review does anybody have any, you know, edits to them, but now you can't make an amendment to the rules without it being approved by um by the city attorney. So, um shall we make a motion to continue? You can you can continue. I'll make I'll make these edits. I'll make a motion to continue this item to date certain January 7th, 2026. Second.

Have a motion, a second. All those in favor, please say I. I. I. Any opposed? All right. Item's been continued. And with that, we have concluded our formal agenda. Uh, I'll make a motion to adjurnn. Second. All those in favor? I. Our next meeting is January 7th, 2026 at 5:00 pm right here in this room. Happy New Year. See you all next year.