City Council regular meeting — July 28, 2020

Assistant Finance Director Tony McDowell said that this is the public hearing on the City of Asheville Fiscal Year 2020-21 Annual Operating Budget and inclusion of public input in City Council’s consideration of the budget. This public hearing was advertised on July 17, 2020. Background:

• The Fiscal Year (FY) 2020-21 Proposed Annual Operating Budget was presented to City Council on May 26, 2020. In accordance with the North Carolina Local Government Budget and Fiscal Control Act, a summary of the Proposed Budget along with a notice of the Public Hearing was published on May 29, 2020.
• Following presentation of the FY 2020-21 Proposed Budget, the City decided that adopting an interim budget would allow time to plan a public engagement process around reallocating resources to address equity, social disparity, and policing concerns voiced by the community.
• At its June 23, 2020, meeting, City Council adopted a one month interim budget pursuant to North Carolina General Statute §159-16, and the Public Hearing originally scheduled for June 9, 2020 was rescheduled for July 28, 2020. A notice for the second Public Hearing was published on July 17, 2020.
• Per NC General Statutes, the City cannot adopt the annual property tax rate with an interim budget. The property tax rate can only be adopted as part of the annual budget ordinance and must be adopted by August 1.
• The annual budget ordinance that staff has prepared for Council consideration includes adoption of the annual property tax rate and full annual budgets at the fund level. The Proposed Budget is balanced with an ad valorem tax rate of $0.4289 per $100 of assessed value, which is unchanged from the current rate.
• Per Council’s direction, each General and Enterprise Fund operating department will only receive funding in its budget for operations through the end of September with the remaining budget being held in reserve in a non-departmental account while the City Manager’s Office completes the community engagement process to determine investments in the Asheville Police Department, other City departments, and various community programs.
• At City Council’s September 22, 2020, meeting, the City Manager will present a budget amendment that will reflect input received during the public engagement effort and provide all departments with additional budget authority for the remainder of fiscal year 2020-21.
• The Proposed General Fund Budget includes four minor additions that were not part of the May 26, 2020

Proposed Budget:

• $49,225 in revenues and expenses associated with the purchase and disposition of property near Coxe Avenue and Federal Alley, which was approved at City Council’s June 9, 2020 meeting.
• $100,000 for short-term COVID-19 expenses that may occur prior to the end of September. The City expects to receive additional Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF) from Buncombe County to offset these expenses. Staff will return to Council with a budget amendment once the full amount of CRF funding is known.
• $50,000 in City Manager’s contingency for potential costs associated with the community engagement process currently underway.
• $7,000 in the Aston Park Tennis Center budget from funding provided by a United States Tennis Association (USTA) Facility Recovery Grant and a Southern Cares Facility Initiative Grant. Pro(s):
• Ensures City’s compliance with North Carolina General Statutes that require local governments to adopt a balanced budget ordinance and establish a property tax rate by August 1 of each year.
• The budget is balanced with no increase in the property tax rate or any City fees and all essential City services are continued.
• Provides the City Manager with time to conduct a public engagement process to gather community input on investments in the Asheville Police Department, other City departments, and various community programs.

Cons:

• Requires departments to operate with only three months of budget funding until the end of September.
• Staff will be required to bring a budget amendment to City Council in late September to fully fund departmental operations for the entire fiscal year.

Fiscal Impact:

• As noted above, the Proposed FY 2020-21 General Fund budget is balanced with an ad valorem tax rate of $0.4289 per $100 of assessed value, which is unchanged from the current rate.
• The Proposed General Fund budget includes a $1.6 million appropriation from fund balance. Based on current estimates, staff expects unassigned fund balance to be between 13% and 15% of expenses at the end of FY 2020-21. Mr. McDowell gave an overview of (1) where we have been and where we are going with the budget process; (2) details on the 3-month budget proposed for adoption in July 30; and (3) next steps after July 30 with community engagement and the budget. Key takeaways include (1) operating in a time of unprecedented financial, organizational, and community uncertainty; (2) per Council’s direction, the July 30 budget will provide departments with 3 months of funding to continue current operations; and (3) September 22 budget amendment based on community input will fund the remainder of FY 21. The financial update includes (1) COVID-19 continues to create major financial uncertainty; (2) fund balance will likely be needed to cover operating costs in both FY 20 and FY 21; and (3) continued federal and state financial assistance will be essential for maintaining operations. On June 9, Council postponed the budget public hearing; and on June 23 Council (1) approved an ordinance for interim budget appropriations from July 1, 2020 to July 31, 2020; and (2) directed staff to prepare an annual budget with 3 months of funding for departments. Regarding the interim budget per N.C. General Statutes, (1) the interim budget does not allow for any new spending or capital projects, nor does it authorize establishment of the FY 2020-21 property tax rate; (2) the property tax rate can only be adopted as part of the annual budget ordinance and must be adopted by August 1; and (3) there are no alternative provisions for adopting the tax rate with an interim budget. On July 28, Council will receive public comment on the annual budget; and on July 30, Council will adopt the annual budget with only 3 months of funding allocated to departments and programs. The 3-month budgets includes funding for departments to meet spending and contractual obligations through the end of September
• annual contracts for items such as transit service, recycling, and radio maintenance are fully budgeted. Other routine expenses are budgeted at 25%. Mr. McDowell then showed a slide showing the fund, 3-month and total budget for the General Fund and each enterprise fund. In July-September, there will be community engagement and input. On September 22, a budget amendment will be presented to Council to allocate funds to departments for the full fiscal year. In response to Councilman Kapoor, Mr. McDowell said that budget amendments can happen at any time during the year. He said that if Council cannot agree on a budget at the September 22 meeting, staff will have to amend the budget to provide the departments with more funding, which Council will have to approve and let staff know how many more additional months of funding. When Vice-Mayor Wisler asked what would happen if Council doesn’t have the majority vote in September to move the budget forward, will we have to stop operating and furlough employees? Mr. McDowell said that we have never operated in that kind of environment before and we would have to explore our options. Councilwoman Mayfield stressed that on July 30 we will be adopting a full year’s budget but only allocating 3 months of funds to departments. Mr. McDowell said that the balance of the budget will be sitting in the non-departmental account waiting to be allocated. If we vote on a month by month allocation, that might impact our bond rating and it would also create challenges for us with contracts. Mayor Manheimer said that our fiscal year starts on July 1 and we have a statutory obligation to adopt a tax rate by August 1. To be clear, we are talking about adoption of a full year’s budget, but only allocating the funds for the next 3 months. She is concerned that there is a community expectation that it will be possible to radically change what and how we are doing policing by September 22. She hears that the City Manager feels it may be possible to come up with some movement in that direction, but not cutting the Police Department without a plan in place. Other than the concerns expressed about the police budget, she doesn’t hear any concerns about not fully funding the other departments. Councilman Haynes said that during Council check-ins he informed the City Manager that unless the City’s hiring freeze was extended to the Police Department and that was made as part of the budget, he would not be supportive of the budget. In response to Councilwoman Mayfield, City Manager Campbell said that the Police Department is not included in the hiring freeze because we have critical positions that from a community safety standpoint, we need to make sure that positions are filled until we decide those positions are no longer needed. We are not adding to the position count. If there is a position that we feel is not essential in terms of providing community safety response time or addressing those kinds of things, when we will consider not filling those over the next 3 months until there has been community dialogue. Mayor Manheimer opened the public comment at 7:50 p.m. From advanced live call-ins, individuals spoke to Council on several items, including, but not limited to: defund the Asheville Police Department (APD) by at least 50%; demand at least 50% of the APD’s budget be invested in long-term safety strategies including supporting Black startups/business, eliminating the racial opportunity gap in Asheville City Schools; implement Police Department hiring freeze; disappointment in limiting public comment on the budget to 2 minutes; need for financial investments for reparations to Black community; sales tax revenue decline; more police does not mean a safer community; demilitarize the APD; ban the use of tear gas; and total support of Black Asheville demands. Mayor Manheimer said that City Council will need to recess this meeting until July 30 in order to adopt the budget. She explained that legislation that applies to virtual meetings does not allow Council to vote on public hearing items the same day as the actual hearing. Therefore, Council will recess the meeting for two days and then vote on the public hearing items, including the budget. When the items come back for vote on July 30, there will be no further public comment. Councilman Kapoor supported a full year allocation with support for taking a deep dive into looking at the Police budget. He felt that we will be putting ourselves and staff at an unnecessary risk to not allocate funding for an entire year when Council has the ability to amend the budget anytime they wish. He agrees that we will not be able to make significant operational cuts to the Police budget in three months and there are other big issues City Council is dealing with, some being reparations, removal of monuments, hotel moratorium, his replacement on City Council, etc. He felt if Council passes a full year’s budget, they will be able to focus on some of the other large issues facing Council, including the Police Department’s budget. Mayor Manheimer said we, as a Council, and City Manager Campbell have tried hard to figure out how to engage the community to meet the demands we are hearing. She didn’t want to drive the expectation that before the end of September we will defund the Police Department without having a plan for replacement services. She felt we should adopt the full year’s budget but continue to follow through with the process the City Manager has set out to engage the community to transform policing in Asheville. Then City Council can make the appropriate budget amendment, which may be a reduction in the Police budget or an increase in funding in other areas. Vice-Mayor Wisler also supported adopting the full year’s budget and supported reimagining public safety in Asheville. She believed that there are other agencies that can perform some of the duties or maybe some of the duties no one should be doing. As soon as we find areas that make sense to change we can amend the budget. She did not want to get to the end of September and not be able to have consensus on the budget. Councilman Haynes was concerned that we just held the budget public hearing on adopting the full year’s budget and allocating a three-month allocation with no additional public comment being accepted. Mayor Manheimer explained that the public hearing was on adoption of the full year’s budget. This is just the next layer down on how do we allocate the funding. Councilman Young heard the concerns of Council, but he didn’t share them. He believed we can press forward and tackle the challenges ahead of us. Councilwoman Smith felt this is a time we have to work in harmony and we will overcome our challenges. Councilwoman Mayfield said that we are committed to moving forward with change, but she was not sure how long it will take us to get there, since there will be a lot of community engagement and community partners to work with. She suggested an option that all departments receive their 12-month allocation except for the Police Department, which will only receive a 3-month allocation. In response to Councilwoman Mayfield’s option, Councilman Young felt that change in the process should include more public input. Councilman Kapoor did not support that option either, but for the reason he felt Council will be just kicking the can down the road. City Manager Campbell said that she will come back on July 30 with three budget options: (1) full year allocation to all City departments, except the Police Department who will only be allocated for 3 months; (2) all City departments be allocated 3 months; and (3) a full year funding for all City departments. In accordance with recent legislation amending North Carolina G.S. §166A-19.24(e), regarding public hearings conducted during remote meetings, written comments for this public hearing will be accepted for an additional 24 hours. Therefore,

Mayor Manheimer read the resolution.

Background:

• On September 24, 2019, City Council approved an interlocal agreement with Buncombe County in Resolution 19-214 to conduct feasibility site assessments and issue a joint solicitation for onsite renewable energy systems.
• This project was a joint venture between the City, Buncombe County, AB Tech, Asheville City Schools, and Buncombe County Schools, and will result in the installation of 7 MW of solar energy at 46 sites.
• The objective of this partnership with Buncombe County is to lead by example and prioritize highly visible sites as well as demonstrate fiscal responsibility through economies of scale.
• This project will see the installation of a combined total of 259 kW of solar photovoltaic energy on five (5) City-owned facilities:
• Burton Street Community Center
• Linwood Crump Shiloh Community Center
• Fire Station #10
• Fire Station #11
• Wall Street Parking Deck
• On April 8, 2020, Buncombe County advertised the project. The County received and opened bids on June 19, 2020. The names, bid amounts, and all alternates of the six (6) bids that were submitted are listed below:
• MB HAYNES Corporation DBA HAYNES Solar, Asheville, NC $ 788,835
• Eagle Solar and Light, Birmingham, AL $ 810,036
• Influent Energy, Kansas City, MO $ 901,429
• Helios Energy, Fairview, TN Note (1) $
• - 8M Solar, Cary, NC Note (2) $ 676,116
• Pine Gate Renewables, Asheville, NC $ 999,786 Note(1): The Helios Energy bid was determined to be non-responsive, and could not be accepted per County policy and general statutes. Their bid was non-responsive because the bid documents required a Bid Bond. Helios Energy did not include a bid bond and therefore could not be opened. Note(2): The 8M Solar bid was disqualified due to a violation of specific instructions given in the bid solicitation by contacting a contractor of the project to request information on the bid specifications.
• MB HAYNES Corporation DBA HAYNES Solar was the lowest responsive, responsible bidder.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• County staff performed outreach to minority and women owned businesses through solicitation processes which include posting on the State’s Interactive Purchasing System and requiring prime contractors to reach out to Minority & Women-Owned Business Enterprise (MWBE) service providers for subcontracted services. No MWBE firms submitted bids with this prime contractor and all work will be self performed by the prime contractor. Committee(s):
• Buncombe County Commission
• July 21, 2020
• Approved debt service in the amount of $10.3 million for solar installations at Buncombe County, AB Tech, Asheville City Schools, and Buncombe County Schools. Pro(s):
• Demonstrates visible and measurable progress towards the 100% renewable energy goal (Resolution 18-279) by offsetting 3% of building energy use with solar generated electricity
• Supports the 80% carbon reduction goal (Resolution 11-77) by avoiding an estimated 320 metric tons of carbon annually
• The City potentially will receive over $300,000 in rebates from Duke Energy Progress (pending availability)
• The City will save approximately $30,000 in avoided electricity costs annually Con(s):
• This project is being paid with funds from the Green Savings Account and will deplete most of the current account balance.

Fiscal Impact:

• The full budget for this project, including the contract and other associated costs, is estimated to be $956,181 and is included in the FY 2020-21 Annual Budget Ordinance in the General Capital Projects Fund. Funding for the project will come from the Green Savings Account. Renewable Energy projects identified through this process, and their savings, will be reported to the Budget Division annually.

Background:

• The City was approached by the Land Resources Manager of Riverlink with an offer to donate a 0.10 acre lot at the corner of Gash Farm Road and Azalea Road. The lot is improved with a gravel drive, trees and shrubs.
• The Real Estate Division consulted other City departments to determine whether or not the City would benefit from accepting this property.
• The Public Works Department indicated that the land could be used to improve the safety at that intersection and recommended that the City accept the donation. The intersection at Gash Farm and Azalea Road is difficult to navigate because it is at such a sharp angle. A mirror was installed recently by Transportation Department staff at that intersection to increase visibility.
• The lot size is smaller than the minimum size requirements per RS-2 (Residential Single-Family Low Density) zoning and is too small to be considered buildable. It appears that using the property for traffic safety improvements is the best use.
• This triangular shaped parcel has a tax assessed value of $900.00 and under Riverlink’s ownership, the property does not contribute to City tax revenues. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• This land could be used to improve a traffic intersection, thereby increasing public safety.
• The land is being donated at no cost to the City. Con(s):
• None.

Fiscal Impact:

• The donation of the land comes at no cost to the City. However, the cost of the improvements to the road is estimated to be approximately $250,000. These improvements are not budgeted at this time but Public Works wants the land to plan for future road improvements.

Background:

• The City has plans to construct a new sidewalk along NC 280 (Airport Road) from US 25 (Hendersonville Road) to the western end of Wal-Mart through the bond program.
• This sidewalk will tie into an existing sidewalk recently constructed by the NCDOT.
• The project includes pedestrian phasing and crosswalks at four signalized intersections (A traffic
• review and inspection agreement with the NCDOT for three of the signalized intersections was approved on July 23, 2019 via Resolution # 19-173).
• The subject action is needed because NCDOT recently installed a fourth signalized intersection within the project limits.
• The City has prepared the appropriate designs to add pedestrian phasing and will be furnishing and installing the equipment and crosswalks.
• The NCDOT will review the designs and inspect the work during the construction phase. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• A new section of sidewalk will be constructed that will provide an important pedestrian connection between Hendersonville Road and the airport.
• The pedestrian experience will be enhanced through signalized intersections with pedestrian phasing and crosswalks.
• The NCDOT will own and control the traffic signal (and associated equipment) and maintenance will be accomplished according to their current policies and procedures. Con(s):

None Fiscal Impact:

• The financial impact is estimated to be $5,000 and the City must submit payment upon partial execution of the agreement by the City. The funds are already included in the bond program budget.

Action(s) Requested: Authorization for City Manager’s execution of contract extensions with Red Roof Inn, Inc., Homeward Bound of Western North Carolina, and Axis Security. Background:

• On May 12, 2020, Council ratified the City Manager’s execution of agreements with Red Roof Inn, Inc., Homeward Bound of Western North Carolina, and Axis Security for operations of a COVID-19 motel-based non-congregate emergency homeless shelter for persons experiencing unsheltered homelessness and at significant risk of contracting COVID-19 because of age and/or underlying chronic health concerns.
• Sixty-four (64) people (couples, families occupying some rooms) are currently in shelter and will continue to achieve the public health objective of prevention of COVID-19 among the community’s unsheltered homeless population.
• The incidence of confirmed COVID-19 cases continues to rise, posing ongoing risk to people experiencing homelessness.
• To avoid any lapse in service to this population, it is necessary to execute the contract amendments prior to August 8th to continue the agreements.
• A transitional exit strategy for those in the shelter is currently being planned.
• The existing agreements with the vendors allow for extensions to continue operations but additional funding is necessary.
• The additional budget needed for these contracts is included in a separate budget amendment agenda item that is also on Council’s July 28th agenda. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Continues the successful operation of the existing expanded COVID-19 homeless shelter.
• Allows for additional time to effect housing placement for shelter occupants.
• Addresses public health and safety.
• Non-congregate motel shelter, essential operations, and security costs are eligible for FEMA reimbursement. Con(s):
• None.

Fiscal Impact:

• The additional contract funding requested as part of this Council action includes: $150,000 for Homeward Bound to operate the shelter and $366,048 for Red Roof Inn (includes allocation for month 3 of existing operations).
• The full budget for shelter operations through November 8, 2020, including expenses incurred while at the Harrah’s Cherokee Center (HCCA), is $1.6 million. Motion(s):
• Motion to adopt a resolution to authorize the City Manager’s execution of new services contracts with Homeward Bound of Western North Carolina, Red Roof Inn incorporated, and Axis Security for shelter rooms, essential operations, and security for up to 90 additional days commencing on August 8, 2020.

Summary: On June 9, 2020, by Resolution No. 20-116, City Council adopted a joint resolution with the Buncombe County Board of Commissioners to appoint a joint task force consisting of not more than 12 members whose appointments will be made in equal numbers by the two governing boards. The task force shall, within three months of all appointments being made, provide a report to the City Council and County Commissioners with a recommendation regarding the removal and/or repurposing of the Vance Monument. Once the report is presented, the task force shall perform such other duties as requested by the governing bodies. When no further action is requested, the task force shall dissolve. The following individuals applied for a City seat: Savannah Michelle Gibson, Dave Perkins, Curry First, James Greene, Richard E. Nantelle III, Ron Laboray, Elias Varn, Robert Stetson, David R. Hillier, Jessie Landl, Lawrence Gilliam, Ben Scales, Auburn Petty, Pepi Acebo, George Sieburg, Steven C. Rasmussen, David E. Bendel, Colgate Darden, Mark Mickey, Daniel Smith, Josh Carroll, William Scott Whitley, Ann Brown, David Taylor, Jim Samsel, Philip Hawkins, Kelsey Buckner, Ryan Sweeney, Christopher Keiser-Liontree, S. Antanette Mosley, Jim Tebay, Tisha Dickson, Alicia D. Nichols, Leslie McCullough Casse, Cecilia Smith, Edwin Williamson, Charlie Muehl, Hanna Zahory, Shirley Walker Whitesides, Floyd Dupree, Takira Rose, Evan Richardson, Dennis R. Campbell, Will Hall, Robbie Sweetser, Amy Gerald, Edie Weichert, Jennifer Borrell Bayer, Eleanor Ivy Campbell, Craig Armstrong, Courtley Garcia, Tim Keenan, Melanie B. Arrowood, Christopher “Kipper” Schauer, Chip Howell, George Stevens Jr., Joseph Shuler, Peggy Gardner, Laura Linneman, Michael Wiezman, John W. Ellis, Bernard V. Oliphant, Aryel Vance, Grady Wilson, David Avigdor, Joshua Clark, Roger Dean Sharpe, Fred Northup, Peter Billingsley, Lara Diblasio, Kate Pett, Julia Dorn, Lyndsey Crumbley, Pearson Ripley, Emily Dresback, Edward Martin, Gary Zahler, John T. Schlotterbeck, Dena Rappaport, William McBee, John Vigeland, James C. Drake, Rachel Dudasik, Robert F. Wilson, Betty Lawrence, Sharon Fahrer, Karen Marie Foster, Deborah Miles, Mary Monaghan, Vanessa Nowik, Jake Farrar, Harold Littleton, Mort Stein, Oralene Simmons, Carleton Collins, Marc Mullinax, Carol M. Anders, David Gwaltney, Michael McDonough, Samuel Lee Quick Jr., Andrew Fletcher, Natalie Kramer-Shaw, Noel Nickle, Kelly Prime, Ken Richards and Lary Holt. Mayor Manheimer explained the process used by City Council to arrive at these appointments. City Council was sent all applications and they in turn rated their top eight choices

• with the two lowest ranking individuals being alternates. After tallying, Antanette Mosley, Deborah Miles, Bernard Oliphant, Savannah Gibson, Oralene Simmons, and Shirley Whitesides were appointed as City appointments to the Vance Monument Task Force; and Lawrence Gilliam and Ben Scales being alternates. Mr. Ben Spencer was unhappy that City Council revised their meeting options to make people call in advance to have live call in. He also questioned how the rules of decorum were adopted by City Council. Ms. Ashley Cooper was pleased to see money toward solar initiatives and shelter operations but hoped to see funds moving into the Black community. And, she hoped that on any land issues there is strong attention on how it fits into reparations. Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have been previously furnished with a copy of the resolutions and ordinances on the Consent Agenda and they would not be read.

Mayor Manheimer said that this public hearing was held on July 14, 2020, and in accordance with recent legislation amending North Carolina G.S. § 166A-19.24(e), regarding public hearings conducted during remote meetings, written comments for this public hearing were accepted for an additional 24 hours. Hearing no more public comment, Mayor Manheimer closed the public hearing and said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the ordinance and it would not be read.

Principal Planner Shannon Tuch said that this is the consideration of an amendment to a previously approved conditional zoning at 137 Broad Street from Community Business I to Community Business I/Conditional Zone to include an adjacent parcel for the construction of a new mixed-use building. This public hearing was advertised on April 3 and 10, 2020. On April 14, 2020, City Council continued the public hearing until May 12, 2020. On May 12, 2020, City Council continued the public hearing until May 26, 2020. On May 26, 2020, City Council continued the public hearing until this date. same ownership.

• This two-story building has commercial (office) space on the ground level and three residential units above with surface parking behind the building.
• A right-of-way between the two properties was closed as a part of the development process.
• This application proposes to shift the internal lot line, resulting in the request being evaluated as an amendment to the previous ordinance to reflect that change and include the new development proposed.
• The development parcel is currently zoned CB-I, which allows a mix of uses and up to 40 dwelling units per acre when at least 20 percent of the dwelling units are designated affordable (or up to 20 dwelling units per acre with no affordable housing). The applicant is proposing four units (equals 40 units per acre), one of which will be designated as affordable.
• The four residential units are efficiency and one-bedroom configurations, ranging between approximately 460 to 600 square feet in size.
• The three-story structure does not exceed 40 feet in height per the UDO definition (48 feet to the peak of the roof) and contains approximately 2,200 square feet of office space on the second floor.
• The plan shows utilizing a 14-foot wide shared driveway between the two properties to provide access to the seven proposed parking spaces structured under the building at 137 and to the six surface spaces existing behind 135 Broad Street.
• Due to the proximity to downtown and per Section 7-11-2(c)(4) of the UDO, there is no off-street parking requirement for the residential units; the parking proposed meets the requirement for the office use.
• The sidewalk will be rebuilt to match the existing six foot, back-of-curb configuration that is in place along Broad Street (which requires a condition as this is not the City’s standard).
• Minimal landscaping is required for this project with just two street trees and parking deck screening required. Open space is not required due to the small size of the lot.
• The development parcel falls within the Charlotte Street Transition Overlay District (Section 7-9-10 of the UDO) which has specific design standards; the project appears to have the ability to comply with the applicable standards such as roof pitch, materials (brick and stucco) and residential-styled forms.
• The project includes the following conditions (and as otherwise noted in the B.1 Conditions):
• The applicant has offered to dedicate 25% of the residential units (one unit) as affordable at 80% area median income (AMI) for a period of 10 years.
• There will be shared access following the driveway as shown on plans.
• The sidewalk will follow the existing development pattern of six foot back-of-curb.
• The parking spaces will be allowed to be used by the residential units during off-business hours.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency:

• This proposal is consistent with the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan in that the development site is within the area designated as Traditional Corridor in the Future Land Use map, which anticipates a mix of uses at a variety of scales.
• Increasing the housing supply, especially in a walkable and transit-supportive location is a primary goal of the Resilient Economy section of the plan.
• Additionally, the inclusion of affordable housing is a goal of the plan in multiple areas.

Other Plan Considerations:

• The 2020 Bowen Regional Housing Needs Assessment notes that there is a very low vacancy rate in “non-conventional rental housing” (meaning four or less units within one building) resulting in a high demand for the type of housing proposed in this project; the need for housing for individuals and seniors seeking small units is projected to have the largest growth.
• The updated assessment still notes a high need for very affordable housing but also indicates a high need for moderate market rate housing, especially in these unit sizes.

Compatibility Analysis:

• The proposal for a mixed-use building is aligned with the existing zoning and other uses along the Charlotte Street corridor where there are both residential and commercial uses in a variety of structures in terms of height and massing and complies with applicable design standards in the Charlotte Street Overlay.
• Additionally, the Charlotte Street Road Diet and Spot Safety Improvement project is currently under construction with the goal of improving mobility and access to multiple modes of transportation.
• Parking is provided on-site for the office use and is visually integrated into the structure rather than a surface lot. The applicant agreed to a condition that will allow for residential use of the parking spaces during off-business hours.
• Because of the proximity to downtown, no off-street parking is technically required for residential uses in this location, however, the proposal does increase the residential density by 300% in an area that has higher densities already which can result in a greater demand for limited on-street parking.
• The proposed structure would be taller than any nearby building but at three stories and 40 feet (per UDO height definition), it will be within the height allowed in all surrounding zoning districts. Committee(s):
• Technical Review Committee (TRC)
• February 3, 2020
• approved with conditions
• Planning & Zoning Commission
• March 4, 2020
• recommended approval (6-0)

Staff Recommendation:

• Staff recommends approval of this project and finds that the mixed use development and higher residential density is compatible with the goals of the zoning district and the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan in numerous ways as noted in the report.
• The small size of the residential units is aligned with needs identified in the most recent Bowen report and the offer of an affordable unit is a benefit for the needs of the community. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 6:27 p.m. Ms. Ruth Smith was opposed to this conditional zoning as it will affect property values and increase traffic. Ms. Ashley Cooper and Mr. Ben Spencer felt that the City Council should think about reparations when making their decisions of new expansions or changes to neighborhoods. Ms. Kate Fisher, resident on Madison Avenue, said the same developer built 135 Broad was conditioned to put in residential units; however, they have not been rented. She asked that this project, if approved, be conditioned that the developer must rent the residential units. Mr. Mike Derrig, representing the owner, said that the developer will lease parking spaces to minimize any parking impact on the site. The building size and use of mixed-use is what the zoning ordinance allows. In response to Councilwoman Mayfield, City Attorney Branham said that with regard to zoning, the City is allowed to place zoning restrictions on the use of property, but not to control the ownership of the property. City Council can only preclude them from using the residential portion for commercial use but we force people to live in the residential portion. In response to Councilwoman Mayfield, Ms. Tuch said to the best of her knowledge, the City ever owned this parcel of land. She also noted that the Planning & Zoning Commission has scheduled at their September meeting some conversation regarding what does a reparation lens look like in terms of land rezonings, etc.. Mr. Derrig said that the owner of 135 Broad Street finished the interior of the residential units in January and had planned to show and rent those as furnished apartments. However, the pandemic started and the issue of showing the units was put on hold. The owner does plan to rent them as soon as he is comfortable in having the units shown. In accordance with recent legislation amending North Carolina G.S. § 166A-19.24(e), regarding public hearings conducted during remote meetings, written comments for this public hearing will be accepted for an additional 24 hours. Therefore,

Community Development Director Paul D’Angelo said that this is the consideration of a resolution authorizing submission of the Community Development Block Grant and HOME Investment Partnership Act funds Annual Action Plan for Fiscal Year 2020-21 to the U.S. Dept. of Housing & Urban Development. This public hearing was advertised on May 29 and June 5, 2020. Background:

• The City will have approximately $1,121,092 in CDBG funds and $1,378,014 in HOME funds available for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2020. Community Development Staff, in coordination with the Housing & Community Development (HCD) Committee, has made recommendations for the use of CDBG funds, which must be used in housing & community development programs within the City of Asheville. Partner Agencies & Programs that will be assisted, if approved
• - CARING for Children-Trinity Place Runaway and Homeless Youth Shelter
• Helpmate, Inc-Emergency Shelter for Domestic Violence Survivors
• Homeward Bound of Western North Carolina-AHOPE Coordinated Entry
• OnTrack Financial Education & Counseling-Financial Capabilities Program
• YWCA of Asheville and Western North Carolina-Empowerment Child Care
• Pisgah Legal Services-Homelessness Prevention Project
• Homeward Bound-Housing Services
• Asheville Area Habitat for Humanity-Home Repair-Low Income Homeowners
• Mountain Housing Opportunity
• Emergency Home Repair
• Mountain BizWorks-Opportunity Asheville
• Carolina Small Business Development Fund-Opportunity Asheville
• Eagle Market Streets Development Corporation IDA for Small Business
• The SPARC Foundation-Changing Together
• The Asheville Regional Housing Consortium Board has recommended uses for HOME funds, which must be used for housing programs within the four-county Consortium area (Buncombe, Henderson, Madison, and Transylvania counties). Partner Agencies & Programs and Builds that will be assisted, if approved
• - Community Housing Coalition Madison County-Rural Rehabilitation
• Workforce Homestead-Falling Waters
• WDT Development-The Villas at Swannanoa
• WDT Development-White Pine Villas
• Housing Authority of the City of Asheville-TBRA Resident Mobility
• Homeward Bound of Western North Carolina-TBRA Asheville
• Homeward Bound of Western North Carolina-TBRA Buncombe
• Eliada Homes-Homeless Services Program
• Funds are awarded based on HUD CDBG & HOME guidelines as well as the Priorities listed in the City’s 5 Year Consolidated Plan. A new 5 Year Consolidated Plan, that will include this 20/21 Action Plan, is expected to come before Council on August 28, 2020, for approval. Committee(s):
• Asheville Regional Housing Consortium Board
• May 26, 2020
• Housing & Community Development Committee
• July 21, 2020 Pro(s):
• Approval of the Annual Action Plan paves the way for HUD funding to be utilized by partners in the City of Asheville and the region, with funds to be used to create affordable housing, jobs and impact in our moderate and lower income communities. Con(s):
• It is not possible to fund all of the applications received, and many agencies funded will receive less than the amounts requested.

Fiscal Impact:

• The Action Plan is fully funded from federal CDBG & HOME entitlement grants, unused funds from previous completed projects, and estimated program income.
• Staff costs to administer the program are also fully paid from federal sources.
• The funded programs will provide new construction and other economic activity in the City and the region, creating and sustaining employment and impacting moderate and low income communities. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 6:59 p.m. Ms. Kim Roney spoke in support of these allocations. In accordance with recent legislation amending North Carolina G.S. § 166A-19.24(e), regarding public hearings conducted during remote meetings, written comments for this public hearing will be accepted for an additional 24 hours. Therefore,

Principal Planner Shannon Tuch said that this is the consideration of an ordinance to conditionally rezone property located at 61 Innovation Drive from Commercial Industrial District to Institutional District/Conditional Zone, along with a change in the Future Land Use Map from Industrial/Manufacturing to Employment/Anchor Institution Center. This public hearing was advertised on July 3 and 10, 2020. Project Location and Contacts:

• The project site consists of a single parcel located at 61 Innovation Drive (PIN 9627-01-2917)
• Owner / Petitioner: Franklin School of Innovation; Contact: Bryan Moffitt Summary of

Petition:

• The site is currently the location of the Franklin School of Innovation, which has been constructed in phases beginning with a Level I in 2015 (15-09144) and most recently reviewed and permitted as a Level II project in 2018 (18-01129 PZ).
• The third and final phase of construction is anticipated to be completed by 2025 and will total approximately 78,000 square feet of permanent building space, 140 parking spaces, and other facilities common to schools.
• The primary purpose of the conditional zoning request is to change the zoning classification in order to allow the use of temporary, factory fabricated classroom buildings on the subject site beyond the five year limit per Section 7-14-2(e)1 of the UDO (Unified Development Ordinance).
• Landscaping compliance was reviewed during the 2018 Level II review and included street trees along Sardis Road, parking lot landscaping and building impact landscaping as shown on plans. 2.17 acres of open space is provided on the site, exceeding the 15% requirement for the zoning district. Eight street trees were required and were initially provided; however, two trees were removed by Duke Energy for utility conflict as part of the widening of Sardis Road.
• Through this conditional zoning, the project is seeking a modification from the following zoning requirements (and further detailed in the exhibit B.1 conditions):
• Temporary factory fabricated school buildings will be permitted on the site.
• Six street trees (rather than eight as required) will be maintained in the location as shown on plans, behind the sidewalk approximately 20 feet from the street and outside of the utility easement.
• The applicant will voluntarily provide a greenway easement along the Hominy Creek at the rear of the site to help meet city adopted goals and plans (also detailed in the exhibit B.1 conditions).

Comprehensive Plan Consistency:

• This proposal is consistent with the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan in that the project provides sidewalks along Sardis Road as well as commits to the future greenway along the rear of the site, directly adding to goals throughout the Livable Built Environment section of the Plan to increase walkability and multi-modal transportation options.
• Supporting schools and educational institutions is highly recommended throughout the Plan, notably in the Resilient Economy section. Linking schools to greenways is specifically highlighted in several sections of the Plan.
• While the request does necessitate a change to the Future Land Use Map as it is currently categorized as Industrial / Manufacturing, the Preferred Growth Scenario Map identifies areas for the the Employment / Anchor Institution use in the Candler area, not far from this site, and it is the category that is most appropriate for a large parcel with an educational use.
• Additionally, the underlying Commercial Industrial (CI) zoning is stated as an appropriate zoning district for the Employment / Anchor Institution category (pp. 342-3).

Compatibility Analysis:

• Commercial Industrial zoning is adjacent on both sides and parcels across Sardis Road are zoned Industrial, however there are a variety of uses in the vicinity including commercial uses along Sardis Road and multi-family residential in multiple directions as well. The Enka Intermediate School (Buncombe County) is less than a mile away from this site. The nature of the area is mixed between residential, commercial and industrial. The school use was allowed in the underlying zoning and is considered to be compatible with the surrounding uses. Committee(s):
• Technical Review Committee (TRC)
• June 15, 2020
• approved with conditions
• Planning & Zoning Commission
• July 1, 2020
• recommended approval (7-0)

Staff Recommendation:

• Staff recommends approval of this request with the conditions and finds that the use of temporary buildings until full build-out is able to be achieved is acceptable. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 7:09 p.m., and received no comments. In accordance with recent legislation amending North Carolina G.S. §166A-19.24(e), regarding public hearings conducted during remote meetings, written comments for this public hearing will be accepted for an additional 24 hours. Therefore,