City Council regular meeting — February 9, 2021

WxPROOFING, INC. FOR THE HARRAH’S CHEROKEE CENTER

• ASHEVILLE WINDOW REPLACEMENT AND CONCRETE REPAIRS PROJECT

Background:

• Original exterior envelope components of the 1972 Harrah’s Cherokee Center
• Asheville are in need of update and improvement.
• The concrete walls leak.
• Existing windows are single pane, difficult to maintain, and not energy efficient or code compliant.
• Exterior improvements will include replacement of the windows and concrete restoration.
• Bid Alternates 1, 2, and 6 Replace doors, install Fall Protection and provide Retrofit windows.
• A Request for Bids (RFP) was first advertised on November 19, 2020. Two Formal bids were received on January 7, 2021 and not opened because three bids are required to open on the first bid date.
• A RFP was re-advertised on January 13, 2021.
• Construction Schedule: March 1, 2021
• September 1, 2021.
• Five bids were received and formally opened on January 28, 2021.
• The resulting bids (including bid alternates 1, 2 & 6) are listed below: Contractor Location Amount
• Midwest Maintenance, Inc. Piqua, OH $ 1,021,381*
• WxProofing, LLC Greensboro, NC $ 1,079,805
• Carolina Cornerstone Const., Inc. Asheville, NC $ 1,238,070*
• Strickland Waterproofing Co., Inc. Charlotte, NC $ 1,311,150*
• S & S Building & Dev., LLC Greensboro, NC $ 1,439,560* The apparent low bidder, Midwest Maintenance, Inc., did not list the electrical contractor on the Bid Form as required by NCGS 143-128(d), and was deemed non-responsive. All other bids were deemed non-responsive for the same reason, except for WxProofing, LLC.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• Staff performed outreach to minority and women-owned businesses through solicitation processes which included 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.
• Virtual Pre-Bid Meeting and Asheville Business Inclusion recordings were available on the City Purchasing website.
• Site Visits were held for contractors. Interested Contractor and subcontractor contact information was shared via an Addendum.
• One Historically Underutilized Business (HUB) business submitted a bid with the prime contractor, WxProofing, LLC.
• Frederico Jaramillo, Charlotte, a Latino-owned business will perform approximately 10% of the contract for concrete, coatings, and sealant repairs. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• The building walls and windows will be leak free. Windows will meet current energy code.
• Windows will be easier and safer to maintain.
• The building concrete will be cleaned and aesthetically improved.
• Construction between March
• September 2021 will have lower impact on revenue than construction at another time because ticket sales for events are limited due to public gathering restrictions. Con(s):
• Construction schedule may be impacted by material and labor slowdowns due to pandemic.

Fiscal Impact:

• Funding for this contract will come from previously approved budgets within the Harrah’s Cherokee Center
• Asheville Capital Improvement Program.

Background:

• The property owner, Boomville Properties, LLC, has petitioned the City of Asheville for the annexation of 0.47 acres located at 99999 Moorecrest Road and identified in the Buncombe County tax records as PIN 9629-80-7863.
• Pursuant to NCGS 160A-31 such petitions must be investigated by the City Clerk for sufficiency in accordance with state law.
• This investigation has been completed and the Certificate of Sufficiency accompanies this petition request.
• The next step in this process is for the Asheville City Council to fix the date for the public hearing on this matter.
• Should the City Council decide to proceed with this request the public hearing on the annexation and initial zoning would be held on February 23, 2021, with the vote tentatively scheduled for March 9, 2021.
• The annexation becomes effective immediately once an affirmative vote is reached. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Provides for the orderly growth of the City and the tax base through the acceptance of appropriate areas into the corporate limits where owners desire annexation. Con(s):
• None.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency:

• This proposal is consistent with the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan in that it: (1) Supports residential infill in areas that can support orderly growth consistent with surrounding neighborhoods (pp. 345-347); and (2) Supports a sustainable path to balanced budgets (pp. 240-242).

Fiscal Impact:

• This request includes the voluntary annexation of 0.47 acres of property into the City which will provide new property tax revenue with minimal increase to services.
• Two single-family lots are planned for the property that, if approved, would generate approximately $3,100 in city property tax based on the sale price proposed by the owner/developer.
• City service departments did not identify any service concerns and supported the inclusion of the two parcels with the rest of the development noting that service to the rest of the development would be required.

Background:

• N.C. Gen. Stat. § 160A-299 grants cities the authority to permanently close streets and alleys.
• Meinch Construction, Inc. has petitioned to close this right-of-way. They are the owners of 99999 Trade St, PIN # 9638-98-2756. Joining this petition are Butler and Celeste Wiltse. They are the owners of 28 Trade St., PIN # 9638-98-3860.
• This closure allows maximum land use potential for further development complying with Living Asheville
• A Comprehensive Plan for our Future.
• This closure allows for the development of 99999 Trade St by providing more room for construction by adjusting the property lines.
• The right-of-way is needed to provide the required screening in the back of the property for 4 residential units that will front on Roberts Street.
• This potential closing was initiated on December 8, 2020; however, due to a discrepancy in the property description, this potential closing must start over again. Committee(s):
• Multimodal Transportation Committee
• October 28, 2020: Supported closing the right-of-way by unanimous vote. Pro(s):
• The closure would allow for more efficient use of the existing adjacent properties.
• Meets Council’s goals to promote sustainable high density infill growth that makes efficient use of existing resources. Con(s):
• None.

Fiscal Impact:

• There will be no fiscal impact related to this closure.

Mayor Manheimer announced that the two public hearings on the hotel development standards and the hotel overlay district will be combined into one presentation from Director of Planning & Urban Design Todd Okolichany. This public hearing was advertised on January 29 and February 5, 2021. At Mayor Manheimer’s request, City Attorney Branham spoke on the legal limitations of banning hotels as a permitted land use and with continuing the hotel moratorium. In summary, the City lacks the legal authority to ban hotels outright and that moratoriums must be temporary in nature, noting that we have extended our one-year moratorium beyond what most case law allows us to do. Mr. Okolichany said the the key takeaways are that (1) hotels can’t be “banned” out right; (2) development impacts can be managed; and (3) new innovative tools to regulate hotel development approvals include (a) Hotel Overlay District; (b) development and operational standards; (c) public benefits; and (d) design review and design guidelines. Project goals include (1) improve predictability and transparency in the hotel development review process (i.e. incentive-based process); (2) establish where hotels are appropriate in the City; (3) leverage hotel development to achieve community benefits and limit impacts of new hotels; and (4) enhance the design of hotels. He then reviewed the hotel development study timeline, which started in September of 2019, up until February 23

• when the moratorium expires and City Council reviews new hotel regulations. What we heard from (1) Hotel Overlay District (a) overlay area too large; (b) consider urban renewal program areas; and (c) concern about short-term vacation rentals; (2) public benefits table (a) add options to build affordable housing, support MWBE and finance reparations; and (c) prioritize Council and community priorities; and (3) design review process
• need continued involvement from Downtown and Riverfront commissions. The following are revisions based on community engagement (1) reduce the extent of areas suitable for hotel development; (2) adjusted public benefits table, including more options; (3) prioritized reparations, affordable housing and living wages; (4) updated hotel definitions; and (5) revised design review process to ensure participation from Downtown and Riverfront commissions. Future Council considerations include (1) Hotel Overlay District
• urban renewal program areas; (2) public benefits table
• does it capture Council and community priorities; and (3) design review process
• Council vs. Commission appointees. He reviewed the key elements for the proposed regulations to include (1) Hotel Overlay District and Development Standards (a) creates consistent and transparent process; (b) incentivizes community benefits with option of staff level review; (c) requires Council review for larger projects; and (d) limits hotels to appropriate areas; (2) public benefits (a) mitigates development impacts; and (b) achieves Council and community goals; and (3) revised design review process (a) enhances hotel design; and (b) establishes more efficient process. Regarding the Hotel Overlay District and Development Standards, he reviewed the development review process flow chart. Hotel Overlay District goals include (1) limit the geographic extent of hotels to appropriate locations; (2) protect neighborhoods vulnerable to gentrification; (3) preserve neighborhood livability and quality of life; (4) encourage historic preservation and adaptive reuse; and (5) protect viewshed corridors into the downtown. He then reviewed the Hotel Overlay District map, which District A allows all hotels; and District B allows only small hotels with 7-25 guest rooms. The hotel overlay represents less than 8% of the total area of the City. He then reviewed the Hotel Overlay & Urban Renewal preliminary review map. Regarding public benefit goals, (1) improve transparency and predictability in the review process; (2) address community needs and help implement Council goals (a) reparations; (b) affordable housing; (c) living wages; (d) displacement; and (e) sustainability, green building; (3) mitigate development impacts; and (4) create a straightforward, effective process. He explained the public benefits table that (1) is flexible, pointed based system; (2) is tiered based on size and location (a) Central Business District, River Arts District, Biltmore Village; and (b) suburban areas; and (3) has new options for reparations and MWBE. Regarding the revised design review process goals, (1) improve building design as recommended by ULI and Living Asheville; (2) strengthen, formalize and streamline the design review process; (3) building capacity for future updates to design guidelines; (4) diversify design review committee membership; and (5) continue to support Downtown and Riverfront Commission involvement. The staff’s recommendation on the design review process is to combine two existing design review committees into one
• the Asheville Area Riverfront Redevelopment Commission Subcommittee and the Downtown Commission Subcommittee to be a Joint Design Review Committee. Four members would be appointed by each Commission and one at-large member. In summary, on February 5, 2021, the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended approval of the hotel development regulations and the Hotel Overlay District Map. Today, City Council will hold their public hearings; and on February 23, City Council will vote on the hotel development regulations and the Hotel Overlay District map. Also the hotel development moratorium will expire on February 23, 2021. “From Staff Report
• Background on

Hotel Development Regulations:

• The Asheville City Council adopted a one year moratorium on hotel development on September 24, 2019, temporarily suspending the processing of new hotel development applications so the City could study community impacts of hotel development and create a more effective development review process.
• The moratorium was extended on September 22, 2020, and is set to expire on February 23, 2021.
• The City contracted with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to undertake a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) planning process that included:
• community engagement opportunities,
• a briefing report (prepared by City staff) of hotel development impacts and
• trends and a final written report and presentation by ULI to the community in early 2020.
• Key short-term recommendations identified in the ULI report included the following:
• Improve predictability and transparency in the hotel development review process
• Establish where hotels are appropriate in the City
• Leverage hotel development to achieve community benefits and limit impacts of new hotels
• Enhance the design of hotels
• Engagement with the community, City boards and commissions and City Council occurred throughout the planning process and included the following:
• An in-person community input meeting that included 120+ participants;
• An online survey with educational video that resulted in more 3,000 comments by nearly 1,200 community members;
• Meetings with small focus groups;
• Several meetings with City boards and commissions; and,
• Two City Council work sessions on October 13 and October 27, 2020.
• Based on the findings of the ULI report, feedback from the community, City boards and commissions and City Council, and continuing staff analysis over the past year City staff proposes wording amendments to Articles II, III V, VIII, IX, and XVII of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) to establish new standards for hotel development (see separate City staff report on the Hotel Overlay District).
• The three primary components of the proposed amendments are: 1. A new Hotel Overlay District that prescribes where new hotels may be permitted by-right and that includes new hotel development requirements designed to offset impacts and meet key community goals; 2. A strong incentive to incorporate high priority public benefits, such as contributions to a reparations fund and affordable housing; support for Minorityand Women-Owned Business Enterprises; and options for living wages and green building elements; and, 3. A revised design review process that promotes (or preserves) quality architecture and building design, and enhanced placemaking.
• The proposal allows for a staff level review option provided the project is within a new Hotel Overlay District, all development requirements are met, public benefits (such as affordable housing or living wages) are provided, the project receives a positive recommendation from the design review committee and the project is under Council review thresholds, such as hotel with 115 or less rooms, buildings 100 feet high or less and mixed-use hotel buildings where the non-hotel use is 100,000 square feet or less. The new development review process is as follows:
• Other components of the amendment include:
• Inclusion of additional hotel development standards related to customer drop-off areas, building fenestration, ground floor activation, access requirements and other standards;
• Consolidation and simplification of conditional zoning expansion districts;
• Updates to the definitions for large and small hotels, establishing a new threshold for large hotels at 36 or more guest rooms;
• Updates to the definition of an extended stay hotel and a new definition for a guest room; and,
• A revised design review process that combines the Downtown Commission and Asheville Area Riverfront Design Review Subcommittees into one joint Design Review Committee. Council has expressed interest in possibly appointing some members to the Committee.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency:

• This proposal aligns with a number of themes within the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan including ‘A Livable Built Environment’, ‘Harmony with the Natural Environment’ and a ‘Resilient Economy. The following goals are applicable to this zoning amendment:
• Encourage Responsible Growth
• Promote Great Architecture & Urban Design to Enhance Placemaking
• Increase and Diversify Housing Supply, develop a comprehensive study of lodging facilities and their impact, and develop new policies
• Promote the Development and Availability of Affordable Housing and Workforce Housing
• Implement Green Building Programs Committee(s):
• On 8/13/20 the Asheville Area Riverfront Redevelopment Commission (AARRC) was updated on the hotel development regulations and reviewed the proposal for a combined design review board.
• Discussion centered around the membership of such a board. AARRC members wanted clarity on this issue before voting (see minutes for more detail).
• At their meeting on 9/21/20 the commission voted to remove the creation of a new design review board from the proposal, due to concerns about the outdated current guidelines.
• The AARRC was consulted at their meeting on 11/18/20 and weighed in on the design review committee membership and also provided guidance on the Hotel District Overlay Map.
• The AARRC chair provided additional comments to staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the 2/3/21 public hearing, outlining concerns and recommendations pertaining to the design review process.
• On 8/14/20 the Downtown Commission was updated on the hotel development proposal.
• They voted to recommend that consideration of the hotel development regulations be delayed until such a time that a number of other related tasks could be completed (see minutes for more detail).
• The Commission was briefed again at their meeting on 11/13/20 and also provided guidance on the Hotel Overlay Map.
• Council’s Planning and Economic Development Committee reviewed and commented on the proposal at their meeting on 1/11/21
• On 9/2/20 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Hotel Development Regulations and Hotel Overlay District, but continued the hearing for further discussion and public engagement.
• There was additional discussion on 9/23/20 and 11/4/20 and the hearing was subsequently continued.
• At their meeting on 2/3/21, City staff presented some revisions to the proposed ordinance based on additional public engagement and Council review (see Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation).
• There was discussion regarding the possible conflict of the hotel overlay with urban renewal areas.
• On 2/5/21 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the hotel development wording amendments (5-1). Pro(s):
• Limits the opportunity for new hotel development in contextually appropriate areas where suitable infrastructure exists to support the development.
• Includes standards designed to mitigate the impacts of hotels.
• Includes standards and a review process to promote quality architecture and building design, and enhance placemaking.
• Provides a strong incentive to incorporate high priority public benefits and City Council goals (i.e. reparations, affordable housing, living wage, green building, contracting with MWBE, historic preservation, etc.) into a new hotel project.
• Consolidates existing design review processes, establishing a more efficient and organized process.
• Provides a by-right alternative to a rezoning via conditional zoning for hotel development, offering greater certainty, transparency and continuity in the development review process.
• Responds to recommendations by the Urban Land Institute to enhance predictability and transparency in the hotel development review process, establish appropriate areas for new hotels based on several criteria, incentivize community benefits and enhance the design of hotels. Con(s):
• May inflate the value of some properties located within the overlay.

Fiscal Impact:

• A small increase in advertising and related costs associated with an increase in design review applications is expected. Fees for design review are expected to largely offset these costs.

Staff Recommendation:

• Staff recommends approval of the proposed zoning text amendment establishing new development standards and review processes for hotel development because it:
• aligns with numerous goals of the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan,
• aligns with the recommendations of the ULI TAP planning process and community desires to limit the impacts of hotel development and incorporate public benefits into new development, and
• supports Council goals related to reparations, affordable housing, sustainability and equity.” In response to Mayor Manheimer, Mr. Okolichany said that we can amend the hotel overlay map to remove the areas identified as urban renewal areas. In response to Councilwoman Turner, Mr. Okolichany explained how the Office of Equity & Inclusion participated in the public benefits table. We tried to capture benefits that related to some of our equity needs in the community, such as affordable housing and a reparations fund. But, we also have a number of other benefits in that table related to other community needs, such as structured public parking or integrating green building into the design of a building. He thought Council’s consideration might be whether we should have all these options or not. We added in the table to require that at least 50% of all the public benefits come from the group that has the equity-related benefits. In addition, the Office of Equity & Inclusion tries to build capacity within each department to use the racial equity toolkit as a tool in analyzing our drafting proposals. Planning staff did go through the racial equity toolkit questions to help in forming how we would develop and draft the boundaries of our overlay district map, our neighborhood vulnerability map, and the public benefits table. Councilwoman Roney said she has heard from so many people about the saturation of the hotel industry and the extraction of our natural resources, our human resources and our taxes. She feels the way the benefits table is currently weighted the public benefits and the removal of Council’s decision makes it easier for developers to build more hotels. We don’t need a way to make it easier for developers to build more hotels. She felt we need a clear benefits package that makes it possible to heal the damage that has already been done to our people and our ecosystem. If we go back to conditional zoning for hotels, historically that has meant more hotels. Before she votes against this process, she wanted to give value to what a supportive vote might look like. Regarding the maps, she thanked staff for removing the property that houses the Grey Eagle, but we can’t say we are going to protect neighborhoods vulnerable to gentrification and then surround the historic southside. She would like to reduce the cultural impact of the maps to exclude all of Depot Street, all of Ralph Street, South Coxe and Asheland Avenue and any lots that create a donut hole. Regarding the benefits, she applauded Councilwoman Mosley’s suggestion to suggest reparations as part of the benefits table. We need environmental justice solutions and economic justice solutions and funds to build deeply affordable housing. She suggested taking the top points from those categories and making that the new minimum. This is the time to set a high standard and she doubted if the minimum of 500 points is enough. But, just 180 points with multiple ways to get to a one-and-done, is not enough. This is not the time to devalue our community. We need to protect the southside with the reduced map boundaries, and to raise the points for community values. Councilwoman Turner said this has been a long process, starting back in 2016. Last year there were a couple of things happening in the community that lined up really well. The Tourism Management Investment Plan that the Conventions & Visitors Bureau took on talked about 10 years of funding. The General Assembly became interested in discussing the room tax change. That would have gone to the General Assembly in July of 2020, the Tourism Management Investment Plan was targeted to wrap up in August or September, 2020, and the moratorium would have expired in September of 2020. They lined up well, but didn’t come to fruition. She felt that we should deal with the hotel issue before the lodging tax has been addressed. She was also concerned about the design review process. It’s important to note that both design review boards of the Downtown Commission and the Riverfront Redevelopment Commission voiced and voted against these changes. She reached out to them and feels there is a multifaceted reason why. One of which is the incomplete nature of their existing guidelines. We are creating an overlay district which is a map being overlaid on other maps. But some of those areas already have overlay districts and their own set of guidelines. In some of the areas, Riverfront and Downtown in particular, you will have to come into compliance with these design guidelines, but you also have to be in compliance with the Downtown guidelines or the Riverfront guidelines. Those documents are very outdated. What we are doing is allowing two bodies that are partially appointed by City Council (6 out of 9 of the Downtown Commission and 5 out of 15 of the Riverfront Redevelopment Commission) to appoint other people to review these new hotels under incomplete guidelines and new hotel guidelines. We can do better. Again, the new design review board which will be reviewing new hotels will not be directly appointed by City Council. There is also a component of the guidelines that she would like to see added. When we are looking at allowing some of these hotels by right, she wanted us to look at a way to design the buildings that encourages easier convertibility to other uses, in this case longer-term housing, i.e., kitchenettes or larger bathrooms. She was not opposed to going back to what we were doing with conditional zonings while continuing to work on this process. Some community members feel they have not had ample opportunity to work on this. Despite us being hard at it, there is a disconnect during COVID times. She felt there is more work to do. Mayor Manheimer said that Council will not vote on these items until February 23. She believed that some of this feedback by Council will be incorporated into the ordinances for consideration on February 23. It was the consensus of Council to remove the properties on Asheland Avenue, Depot Street, Coxe Avenue and some on Ralph Street in the hotel overlay district map. Mayor Manheimer said that Council has the opportunity to amend the public benefits table, if adopted. She was supportive of increasing the amounts as well. In her experience, Asheville has had a strong enough market that hoteliers have been willing to reach a high threshold to be able to participate in Asheville. Our idea though the public benefits table is to hold people who want to participate in Asheville’s economy to be better community partners. She would be open to suggestions but if there is a way to make the bar higher, she would support that change. Vice-Mayor Smith explained her thoughts on if size is the best way to determine a hotel type. She wondered if there is a way to look at the percentage of revenue the hotel is projected to receive, to maybe trigger another point system. Mr. Okolichany responded to Councilwoman Turner’s questions regarding a design standard to get ground floor activation and the ULI’s recommendation about a potential committee that would meet regularly to talk about the impact of hotels. Councilwoman Wisler was not opposed to the concept of increasing the level of public benefits; however, she felt that the new hotels would be very high end in order to afford to pay the public benefits. Existing hotels that didn’t contribute to public benefits will raise their average room rate, thus making the per room rate more expensive for people who are not tourists, but must visit Asheville for other reasons, i.e., visiting people in the hospital or aging parents, etc. Councilwoman Roney said there hasn’t been a lot of discussion about the negative points in the public benefits table. Displacement can get a developer into a hole before they even start accumulating benefit points. B Corp Certification at 180 points is the fullness of the highest value required. And, also the 200 points for 80% AMI should be cut in half. That shouldn’t be the highest benefit and certainly should not compete with the other items in Group 2. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 6:49 p.m. From advanced live call-ins, 10 individuals spoke against the hotel development regulations, for several reasons, some being, but are not limited to: we don’t need anymore hotels; keep the existing process of conditional zonings for any new hotels; hotels should build free parking lots for employees who work in Asheville; hotels should contribute to the tree canopy; hotels should be required to open up an entire floor for cold shelters in time of crisis; hotels should pay a true living wage; this process removes public oversight from the process; public benefits table is not enough; green building, living wages and hiring MWBE should be required; reject these standards and come back with a plan for public oversight and a better deal for the City; equity and inclusion has not had a significant role in drafting this ordinance; hotels should be required to go through an equity analysis; if the conditional zoning process is restated, Council should just vote no on all hotels; 80% of rooms should be donated to houseless people to live in; when you add more hotel rooms, the rates will go down; and suspend the room tax until a new allocation is agreed upon by the General Assembly. 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,

Director of Planning & Urban Design Todd Okolichany said that this is the consideration of an ordinance to apply a new Hotel Overlay District to certain properties within the City of Asheville corporate limits. This public hearing was advertised on January 29 and February 5, 2021. “From Staff Report on Hotel Overlay District

• Project Location and

Contacts:

• This is a City-initiated zoning action led by the Department of Planning and Urban Design. Summary of

Petition:

• The Asheville City Council adopted a one year moratorium on hotel development on September 24, 2019, temporarily suspending the processing of new hotel development applications so the City could study community impacts of hotel development and create a more effective development review process.
• The moratorium was extended on September 22, 2020, and is set to expire on February 23, 2021.
• The City contracted with the Urban Land Institute (ULI) to undertake a Technical Assistance Panel (TAP) planning process that included
• community engagement opportunities;
• a briefing report (prepared by City staff) of hotel development impacts and trends; and
• a final written report and presentation by ULI to the community in early 2020.
• Key short-term recommendations identified in the ULI report included the following:
• Improve predictability and transparency in the hotel development review process
• Establish where hotels are appropriate in the City
• Leverage hotel development to achieve community benefits and limit impacts of new hotels
• Enhance the design of hotels
• The addition of the Hotel Overlay District is necessary to support and effectuate the proposed new standards for hotel development (proposed in concert with this overlay).
• The Hotel Overlay District is mapped with two zones “A” and “B”, identified as follows (for more details see separate City staff report on proposed amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance):
• Zone ”A” allows all hotels, both small and large, including lodging establishments of 7 or more guest rooms, including extended stay hotels.
• Zone “B” allows only small hotels, defined as those containing 7-35 guest rooms, including extended stay hotels.
• The Asheville City Council held work sessions on October 13 and October 27 to review the proposed regulations and Hotel Overlay District Map and provide guidance to staff.
• As a result of these work sessions and other input received from the community, City staff has made the following changes to the Hotel Overlay District map:
• Removed the Asheville Mall from the Hotel Overlay District until new zoning amendments are adopted.
• Removed the River Ridge Shopping Center.
• Removed the area east of South Charlotte Street between Woodfin and College Streets from the Hotel Overlay District.
• Expanded the area for small hotels to include the west side of Coxe Avenue in the South Slope area.
• Planning staff has also evaluated the preliminary findings of mapping Urban Renewal program areas in the City, including possible overlaps with the Hotel Overlay District. Staff will present this information to Council at the public hearing on 2/9/21.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency:

• This proposal aligns with a number of themes within the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan including ‘A Livable Built Environment’, ‘Harmony with the Natural Environment’ and a ‘Resilient Economy. The following goals are applicable to this zoning amendment:
• Encourage Responsible Growth
• Promote Great Architecture & Urban Design to Enhance Placemaking
• Increase and Diversify Housing Supply, develop a comprehensive study of lodging facilities and their impact, and develop new policies
• Promote the Development and Availability of Affordable Housing and Workforce Housing
• Implement Green Building Programs
• The proposed Hotel Overlay District also aligns with the land use categories outlined in the comprehensive plan as part of the Living Asheville Future Land Use Map.

Compatibility Analysis:

• The proposed boundaries of the Hotel Overlay District were delineated based on the contextual appropriateness of the identified properties for new hotel development.
• Compatibility is ensured by locating the overlay away from residential areas, neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement and by further limiting it to areas where road, transit and other infrastructure is sufficient to support the hotel use.
• The overlay also helps to protect historic areas by limiting the number of rooms in sensitive historic district locations and protects viewshed corridors. Committee(s):
• On 8/13/20 the Asheville Area Riverfront Redevelopment Commission (AARRC) was updated on the hotel development regulations and reviewed the proposal for a combined design review board.
• Discussion centered around the membership of such a board. AARRC members wanted clarity on this issue before voting (see minutes for more detail).
• At their meeting on 9/21/20 the commission voted to remove the creation of a new design review board from the proposal, due to concerns about the outdated current guidelines.
• The AARRC was consulted at their meeting on 11/18/20 and weighed in on the design review committee membership and also provided guidance on the Hotel District Overlay Map.
• The AARRC chair provided additional comments to staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission prior to the 2/3/21 public hearing, outlining concerns and recommendations pertaining to the design review process.
• On 8/14/20 the Downtown Commission was updated on the hotel development proposal.
• They voted to recommend that consideration of the hotel development regulations be delayed until such a time that a number of other related tasks could be completed (see minutes for more detail).
• The Commission was briefed again at their meeting on 11/13/20 and also provided guidance on the Hotel Overlay Map.
• Council’s Planning and Economic Development Committee reviewed and commented on the proposal at their meeting on 1/11/21
• On 9/2/20 the Planning and Zoning Commission held a public hearing on the proposed Hotel Development Regulations and Hotel Overlay District, but continued the hearing for further discussion and public engagement.
• There was additional discussion on 9/23/20 and 11/4/20 and the hearing was subsequently continued.
• At their meeting on 2/3/21, City staff presented some revisions to the proposed ordinance based on additional public engagement and Council review (see Planning and Zoning Commission recommendation).
• There was discussion regarding the possible conflict of the hotel overlay with urban renewal areas.
• On 2/5/21 the Planning and Zoning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Hotel Overlay District map amendments (5-1), with the condition that the property located at 185 Clingman Ave. (Grey Eagle property) is removed from the overlay district. Pro(s):
• Reintroduces hotels as a permitted use in appropriate areas.
• Provides the necessary zoning/regulatory framework to guide hotel development.
• Limits the opportunity for new hotel development in contextually appropriate areas where suitable infrastructure exists to support the development.
• Preserves neighborhood livability and quality of life.
• Protects neighborhoods that are vulnerable to displacement.
• Encourages historic preservation and adaptive reuse.
• Protects viewshed corridors.
• Responds to recommendations by the Urban Land Institute to enhance predictability and transparency in the hotel development review process, establish appropriate areas for new hotels based on several criteria, incentivize community benefits and enhance the design of hotels. Con(s):
• May inflate the value of some properties located within the overlay.

Fiscal Impact:

• There is no direct fiscal impact.” Councilwoman Roney pointed out that the proposed hotel overlay district map does not reflect areas of other lodging uses, i.e., short-term rentals, homestay permits, etc. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 7:24 p.m. From advanced live call-ins, 3 individuals spoke against the hotel overlay district, for several reasons, some being, but are not limited to: confusion of the entire process including the Planning & Zoning Commission not allowing public comments; and need to see the in depth study of tourism development in Asheville before making any decisions. Dee Williams appreciated the areas of the urban renewal map being removed from the overlay district and suggested we rebrand reparations to community reinvestment. 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,

Vice-Mayor Smith, Chair of the Boards & Commissions Committee, said that this is the consideration of appointing a member to the Audit Committee. Scott Farkas (Certified Public Accountant), has resigned, thus leaving an unexpired term until May 1, 2023. The following individuals applied for the vacancy: Travis Keever (County resident; however, works in the City of Asheville) and Susan Darnell Hutchison. On January 12, 2021, the Audit Committee Board chair recommended appointing Travis Keever (County resident). However, the Boards & Commissions Committee recommended re-advertising. On February 9, 2021, it was the consensus of the Boards & Commissions Committee to appoint Susan Darnell Hutchison.

Vice-Mayor Smith, Chair of the Boards & Commissions Committee, said that this is the consideration of appointing Alternate members to the Board of Adjustment. There currently exists an Alternate seat, formerly filled by Suzanne Godsey who has been appointed as a Regular member, and whose term expired on January 21, 2021. In addition, due to a discrepancy between the Unified Development Ordinance and Session Laws, City Council should appoint another Alternate member. (Buncombe County now appoints only one Regular and one Alternate member

• not two Alternate members). The following individual applied for the vacancies: Christopher Fundanish. The Boards & Commissions Committee recommended appointing Christopher Fundash as an Alternate to the Board of Adjustment and re-advertising for the other Alternate seat.

Vice-Mayor Smith, Chair of the Boards & Commissions Committee, said that this is the consideration of appointing a member to the Civic Center Commission. Kimberly Hunter resigned as a member of the Civic Center Commission, thus leaving an unexpired term until June 30, 2021. It was the consensus of the Boards & Commissions Committee to appoint Sandy Aldridge, Josh Batenhorst, Tim Collins, Mitchell Eaton and Crissa Renquate Sinkovic. The Civic Center Commission and staff recommend appointing Crissa Renquate Sinkovic, and the Boards & Commissions Committee concurred with the recommendation.

Vice-Mayor Smith, Chair of the Boards & Commissions Committee, said that this is the consideration of appointing a member to the Firemen’s Relief Fund. Barbara Whitehorn has resigned from the Board, thus leaving a vacancy. It was the consensus of the Boards & Commissions Committee to appoint Interim Finance Director Tony McDowell as a member of the Finance Department to fill Barbara Whitehorn’s seat.

Vice-Mayor Smith, Chair of the Boards & Commissions Committee, said that this is the consideration of appointing a member to the Asheville Area Riverfront Redevelopment Commission. The term of Carleton Collins expired on January 1, 2021. The following individuals approved for the vacancy: Timothy Bramley, Douglas Buchalter, Brian Loftus, Daniel Ratner, Ben Williamson and Christopher Fundanish. The Chair of the Riverfront Redevelopment Commission recommended appointing Tim Bramley or Ben Williamson. The Boards & Commissions Committee recommended appointing Ben Williamson.