City Council regular meeting — February 23, 2021

Mayor Manheimer said that this public hearing was held on February 9, 2021, 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. After hearing additional written public comment, Mayor Manheimer closed the public hearing and said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the revised ordinance and it would not be read. Planning & Urban Design Director Todd Okolichany provided Council with a memo to update them on the revisions that Planning & Urban Design staff have made to the hotel development regulations following the public hearing on February 9, 2021. He reminded Council that the Planning and Urban Design staff presented proposed text and map amendments to the Asheville City Council regarding new hotel development regulations following a one and a half year study and public engagement process. Council had some additional concerns regarding the proposal. The following summarizes the revisions staff has made to the proposed regulations in order to address those concerns. The following changes have been made to the Public Benefits Table:

• Increased the overall required points for hotels by 40-60 points
• 22% to 40% increase for hotels in urban areas
• 33% to 150% increase for hotels in suburban areas
• Will result in more or higher level public benefits being required
• Further prioritized affordable housing and reparations options (Group 2)
• Revised Group 2 to only include affordable housing and reparations options
• 50% of required points must go toward either affordable housing or reparations
• Will ensure that hotel projects will have to either build affordable housing or contribute money toward affordable housing or reparations
• Removed points for lower monetary contributions toward affordable housing and reparations ($1,000 and $2,000 options removed)
• Will ensure that hotels contribute a higher amount to affordable housing or reparations
• For example, a large 100 room hotel in the downtown will have to contribute a minimum of $4,000 per room (or $400,000) in addition to other public benefits compared to a minimum of $1,500 per room (or $150,000) plus other benefits under staff’s previous proposal
• A $6,000/room option is still available and has been further incentivized
• Moved other equity-related benefits from Group 2 to Group 3
• Will ensure that affordable housing and reparations benefits are the top priorities
• Eliminates competition amongst these benefits
• Adjusted several other point allocations to incentivize equity-related benefits
• Examples include lowering B corp and non-equity related options The following changes have been made to the February 9 ordinance to address concerns about appointments to the

Joint Design Review Committee:

• The Asheville City Council will make the appointments, consisting of four members from the Downtown Commission and four members from the Asheville Area Riverfront Redevelopment Commission.
• The ninth member will still be appointed by the seated members of the Joint Design Review Committee.
• Under staff’s former proposal, the Downtown and Riverfront commissions would have made the appointments. At Councilwoman Wisler’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 near or beyond the maximum limit suggested by case law. In response to Councilwoman Wisler, City Attorney Branham said that under the law, City Council has the ability to accept or deny an application for a conditional zoning. As part of that authority, Council has the ability to impose certain site specific conditions (not things benefiting the community as a whole as seen in the public benefits table) which the developer must also voluntarily agree upon. In the past we have had hoteliers volunteer to provide some public benefits; however, we have very limited authority as a city to enforce such a donation if the developer does not follow-through with those public benefits. What staff is proposing as part of the hotel development regulations is a brand new incentive based program whereby a developer can voluntarily choose to utilize the public benefit options and by satisfying them, they have the option of going through a streamlined review process. The City will then be able to enforce the public benefit options the developer chose as a zoning violation. If they choose not to use the public benefits table option and proceed directly to City Council, and City Council tries to negotiate these general public benefits, those options will not be conditions to the project which the City can enforce. In response to Councilwoman Turner, City Attorney Branham said that he thinks that it would be viable for a developer to choose Group 2 and if it had to pay $400,000 in benefits, it could contribute $200,000 to affordable housing and $200,000 to the reparations fund. That could be an option for an amendment in the future. In response to Councilwoman Turner, Mr. Okolichany said that the process includes a staff presentation to the Downtown Commission or the Riverfront Redevelopment Commission. Staff would then take that feedback to the Design Review Committee. The community will have more opportunity for public input if a hotel is in one of those areas. Councilwoman Turner encouraged the community to continue to share input on these regulations because the regulations and map can be amended. She would like to revisit whether or not just affordable for-sale housing would be adequate or whether we needed to look at affordable for-rent housing; along with revisiting the lodging tax. When Mr. Okolichany said that staff is prepared to come back to Council in 6-months with an update, Vice-Mayor Smith suggested staff provide Council with a demonstration of what an application would look like from submission to approval. She felt that will give the community an opportunity to suggest some changes as well. Councilwoman Mosley noted that this will be our first official vote on establishing a reparations fund. In response to Councilwoman Roney, City Attorney Branham said that the design review board is an optional step being added in order to incorporate the desired architectural and design specific elements into projects. This would be utilized as part of the incentive based process whereby an applicant is willing to provide community benefits in lieu of going to Council. If, instead, the Council were part of this process he doubted that applicants would see the benefit of taking this path. Therefore, you may end up without much benefit. This is more of a practical consideration than a legal one. In addition, if projects have to go to Council in the end, the community benefits table elements are probably beyond what could be requested as part of the conditional rezoning process. He believed the majority, if not all of them, can only be granted voluntarily in exchange for the incentive being offered. This legal prohibition exists more in case law than any specific statutory or code reference. It's a body of law known as unconstitutional exactions. Councilwoman Roney said that from the starting point where Council was on February 9, 2021, on the public benefits table, she felt we need to value our community now by doubling the points across the board in the required total points. She requested a quarterly review at a minimum from the City Council Planning & Economic Development Committee (PED). And, with that quarterly review from the outcomes of our decisions tonight, she asked for an analysis and recommendation from that Committee. That recommendation might include whether or not Group 1 needs to be a required goal because what she is hearing from Black, Brown, and Indigious youth is that economic justice and reparations is intertwined with climate justice and getting in right relationship with the planet. We have not gotten to that conversation, but that is something we could bring up in quarterly reviews. That would give the community the opportunity to engage Council twice, at PED and at the full Council.

Mayor Manheimer said that this public hearing was held on February 9, 2021, 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. After hearing additional written public comment, Mayor Manheimer closed the public hearing and said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the revised ordinance and it would not be read. Planning & Urban Design Director Todd Okolichany provided Council with a memo to update them on the revisions that Planning & Urban Design staff have made to the hotel development regulations following the public hearing on February 9, 2021. He reminded Council that the Planning and Urban Design staff presented proposed text and map amendments to the Asheville City Council regarding new hotel development regulations following a one and a half year study and public engagement process. Council had some additional concerns regarding the proposal. The following summarizes the revisions staff has made to the proposed regulations in order to address those concerns. The following changes have been made to the Public Benefits Table:

• Increased the overall required points for hotels by 40-60 points
• 22% to 40% increase for hotels in urban areas
• 33% to 150% increase for hotels in suburban areas
• Will result in more or higher level public benefits being required
• Further prioritized affordable housing and reparations options (Group 2)
• Revised Group 2 to only include affordable housing and reparations options
• 50% of required points must go toward either affordable housing or reparations
• Will ensure that hotel projects will have to either build affordable housing or contribute money toward affordable housing or reparations
• Removed points for lower monetary contributions toward affordable housing and reparations ($1,000 and $2,000 options removed)
• Will ensure that hotels contribute a higher amount to affordable housing or reparations
• For example, a large 100 room hotel in the downtown will have to contribute a minimum of $4,000 per room (or $400,000) in addition to other public benefits compared to a minimum of $1,500 per room (or $150,000) plus other benefits under staff’s previous proposal
• A $6,000/room option is still available and has been further incentivized
• Moved other equity-related benefits from Group 2 to Group 3
• Will ensure that affordable housing and reparations benefits are the top priorities
• Eliminates competition amongst these benefits
• Adjusted several other point allocations to incentivize equity-related benefits
• Examples include lowering B corp and non-equity related options The following changes have been made to the February 9 ordinance to address concerns about appointments to the

Joint Design Review Committee:

• The Asheville City Council will make the appointments, consisting of four members from the Downtown Commission and four members from the Asheville Area Riverfront Redevelopment Commission.
• The ninth member will still be appointed by the seated members of the Joint Design Review Committee.
• Under staff’s former proposal, the Downtown and Riverfront commissions would have made the appointments. At Councilwoman Wisler’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 near or beyond the maximum limit suggested by case law. In response to Councilwoman Wisler, City Attorney Branham said that under the law, City Council has the ability to accept or deny an application for a conditional zoning. As part of that authority, Council has the ability to impose certain site specific conditions (not things benefiting the community as a whole as seen in the public benefits table) which the developer must also voluntarily agree upon. In the past we have had hoteliers volunteer to provide some public benefits; however, we have very limited authority as a city to enforce such a donation if the developer does not follow-through with those public benefits. What staff is proposing as part of the hotel development regulations is a brand new incentive based program whereby a developer can voluntarily choose to utilize the public benefit options and by satisfying them, they have the option of going through a streamlined review process. The City will then be able to enforce the public benefit options the developer chose as a zoning violation. If they choose not to use the public benefits table option and proceed directly to City Council, and City Council tries to negotiate these general public benefits, those options will not be conditions to the project which the City can enforce. In response to Councilwoman Turner, City Attorney Branham said that he thinks that it would be viable for a developer to choose Group 2 and if it had to pay $400,000 in benefits, it could contribute $200,000 to affordable housing and $200,000 to the reparations fund. That could be an option for an amendment in the future. In response to Councilwoman Turner, Mr. Okolichany said that the process includes a staff presentation to the Downtown Commission or the Riverfront Redevelopment Commission. Staff would then take that feedback to the Design Review Committee. The community will have more opportunity for public input if a hotel is in one of those areas. Councilwoman Turner encouraged the community to continue to share input on these regulations because the regulations and map can be amended. She would like to revisit whether or not just affordable for-sale housing would be adequate or whether we needed to look at affordable for-rent housing; along with revisiting the lodging tax. When Mr. Okolichany said that staff is prepared to come back to Council in 6-months with an update, Vice-Mayor Smith suggested staff provide Council with a demonstration of what an application would look like from submission to approval. She felt that will give the community an opportunity to suggest some changes as well. Councilwoman Mosley noted that this will be our first official vote on establishing a reparations fund. In response to Councilwoman Roney, City Attorney Branham said that the design review board is an optional step being added in order to incorporate the desired architectural and design specific elements into projects. This would be utilized as part of the incentive based process whereby an applicant is willing to provide community benefits in lieu of going to Council. If, instead, the Council were part of this process he doubted that applicants would see the benefit of taking this path. Therefore, you may end up without much benefit. This is more of a practical consideration than a legal one. In addition, if projects have to go to Council in the end, the community benefits table elements are probably beyond what could be requested as part of the conditional rezoning process. He believed the majority, if not all of them, can only be granted voluntarily in exchange for the incentive being offered. This legal prohibition exists more in case law than any specific statutory or code reference. It's a body of law known as unconstitutional exactions. Councilwoman Roney said that from the starting point where Council was on February 9, 2021, on the public benefits table, she felt we need to value our community now by doubling the points across the board in the required total points. She requested a quarterly review at a minimum from the City Council Planning & Economic Development Committee (PED). And, with that quarterly review from the outcomes of our decisions tonight, she asked for an analysis and recommendation from that Committee. That recommendation might include whether or not Group 1 needs to be a required goal because what she is hearing from Black, Brown, and Indigious youth is that economic justice and reparations is intertwined with climate justice and getting in right relationship with the planet. We have not gotten to that conversation, but that is something we could bring up in quarterly reviews. That would give the community the opportunity to engage Council twice, at PED and at the full Council.

Mayor Manheimer said that this public hearing was held on February 9, 2021, 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. After hearing additional written public comment, Mayor Manheimer closed the public hearing and said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the revised ordinance and it would not be read. Planning & Urban Design Director Todd Okolichany provided Council with a memo to update them on the revisions that Planning & Urban Design staff have made to the Hotel Overlay District Map following the public hearing on February 9, 2021. He reminded Council that the Planning and Urban Design staff presented proposed text and map amendments to the Asheville City Council regarding new hotel development regulations following a one and a half year study and public engagement process. Council had some additional concerns regarding the proposal. This memo summarizes the revisions staff has made to the proposed hotel overlay district map in order to address those concerns. The following changes have been made to the Hotel Overlay District Map:

• Removed properties where the proposed Hotel Overlay District overlapped with urban renewal program areas and removed any resulting non-contiguous parcels, including a small area on Depot Street.
• Removed the property located at 185 Clingman Avenue (The Grey Eagle Music Hall property). Councilwoman Roney appreciated some of the changes, such as excluding the single Depot Street property from the Hotel Overlay Map; however, to truly protect the Southside from expedited gentrification, we must ensure it’s not surrounded at every entrance with hotel use by right. She asked that Lyman Street, Coxe Avenue, and any properties adjacent to the Urban Renewal Program Area be removed from the Hotel Overlay Map. Councilwoman Turner said that she has not seen a map with Councilwoman Roney’s suggested changes and wondered if this is something we can circle back on for some map amendments.

Mayor Manheimer said that this public hearing was held on February 9, 2021, 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. After hearing additional written public comment, Mayor Manheimer closed the public hearing and said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the revised ordinance and it would not be read. Planning & Urban Design Director Todd Okolichany provided Council with a memo to update them on the revisions that Planning & Urban Design staff have made to the Hotel Overlay District Map following the public hearing on February 9, 2021. He reminded Council that the Planning and Urban Design staff presented proposed text and map amendments to the Asheville City Council regarding new hotel development regulations following a one and a half year study and public engagement process. Council had some additional concerns regarding the proposal. This memo summarizes the revisions staff has made to the proposed hotel overlay district map in order to address those concerns. The following changes have been made to the Hotel Overlay District Map:

• Removed properties where the proposed Hotel Overlay District overlapped with urban renewal program areas and removed any resulting non-contiguous parcels, including a small area on Depot Street.
• Removed the property located at 185 Clingman Avenue (The Grey Eagle Music Hall property). Councilwoman Roney appreciated some of the changes, such as excluding the single Depot Street property from the Hotel Overlay Map; however, to truly protect the Southside from expedited gentrification, we must ensure it’s not surrounded at every entrance with hotel use by right. She asked that Lyman Street, Coxe Avenue, and any properties adjacent to the Urban Renewal Program Area be removed from the Hotel Overlay Map. Councilwoman Turner said that she has not seen a map with Councilwoman Roney’s suggested changes and wondered if this is something we can circle back on for some map amendments.

Background:

• Balsam Gardens has leased 11+ acres of farmland from the City for six years to operate an organic farm.
• Balsam Gardens grows organic vegetables and sells to wholesale markets, local grocers, area restaurants and in local farmers markets.
• No retail or U-Pick operations are allowed to occur on this City property.
• This property is located to the rear of Azalea park and is adjacent to the City’s beneficial fill site.
• Balsam Gardens has and will continue to honor all stream buffers, conservation easements wetlands and proposed greenway paths that exist at this location.
• Balsam Gardens has participated in a public education program that allows students to tour a working organic farm.
• This agricultural use has had no impact on the recreational use of Azalea Park or the soccer facility.
• Only one year is being requested because the City intends to release a “Request for Proposals” to the community of organic farmers in the area.
• The City intends to advertise this opportunity to businesses who have been under-represented in the past, such as those owned by people of color, and align the lease with the City’s goals to advance racial equity. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Uses a unique City property to support local farming and food security in the Asheville area.
• Balsam Gardens employs 6 people year round and 30 seasonally.
• These workers make at least $13 per hour when the average rate is between $8 and $10 per hour.
• This is a small business that is 50% woman owned. Con(s):
• The land will be unavailable for City use during the term of the lease.
• Due to the floodplain, City use is limited.

Fiscal Impact:

• The City receives approximately $3,800 per year or $317 per month.
• This rental rate is based on research done to determine local fair market rate for farmland leases.

Background:

• Fire Station 13 referred to as the Broadway Public Safety Station (BPSS) and the Grant Center projects are in design and will soon be ready to bid.
• The projects will require specific equipment or systems to be procured with sole source or preferred alternates methods which the bid specifications identify brand names known.
• These methods are in the best interest of the City for the reasons identified below: Sole Source Requests
• These items are to be purchased by the department for installation outside of the construction contract.
• NCGS 143-129 (e) 6 allows for Purchases of apparatus, supplies, materials, or equipment when: (i) performance or price competition for a product are not available; (ii) a needed product is available from only one source of supply; or (iii) standardization or compatibility is the overriding consideration.
• Per this statue City Council must approve items requested for sole source purchase.
• Mach Alert Station Alerting (Fire Department) BPSS
• Mach Alert is the fire station alerting system utilized throughout every fire station to notify firefighters to respond to incidents.
• The system is integrated within the city’s radio system and dispatch center to create a single comprehensive notification system.
• Asheville Fire Department has been using Mach Alert fire station alerting since 2016.
• This request is to expand the current fire station alerting system to include Broadway Public Safety Station (BPSS).
• Changing vendors for fire station alerting system at BPSS would require replacement of the current systems located within each of the fire stations and include replacement of the network infrastructure at the dispatch center.
• Verkada Video Security Cameras (IT Department) BPSS and Grant Center
• Currently installed in a number of locations in City buildings.
• Saves money through providing cloud-based video storage with no annual subscription fees.
• In order to have all cameras across the City managed by the same system, we need to continue to deploy this equipment. Owner’s Preferred Alternates
• These items will be specified in the construction bid.
• Per NCGS 133-3, bid specifications are required to cite three or more examples of items of equal design or equivalent design.
• Preferred brand alternate: Specifications must identify the performance standards that support the preference.
• Performance standards for the preference must be approved in advance by the owner in an open meeting.
• Any alternate approved by the owner shall be approved only where: 1. Preferred alternate will provide cost savings, maintain or improve the functioning of any process or system affected by the preferred item or items, or both, and 2. Justification identifying these criteria is made available in writing to the public.
• Plymovent exhaust removal system (Fire Department) BPSS
• Currently installed in all City of Asheville Fire Stations.
• Required to maintain current operational standard.
• Vehicle hardware matches this system and standardization is necessary to utilize equipment flexibly between stations.
• Schlage Door Hardware (Facilities Maintenance Department) BPSS
• Currently installed in many City buildings.
• Required to assist with operations and maintenance for a consistent lock system under a master key system to work across City Buildings.
• Yale Lock Hardware (Parks Department) Grant Center
• Currently installed at the existing Grant Center.
• Required to maintain consistent operational standards between the existing Grant Center and the new building addition.
• Yale hardware was installed at this facility before standardizing on Schlage hardware.
• JCI HVAC controls (Parks Department) Grant Center
• Currently installed at the existing Grant Center.
• Required to maintain consistent operational standards between the existing Grant Center and the new building addition.
• SolarEdge Photovoltaic Array inverters & optimizers (Office of Sustainability) BPSS and Grant Center
• Currently installed at the ART Transit station, and in the process of being installed at 6 additional City buildings.
• It is required to provide consistency in reporting solar production.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• N/A Committee(s):
• NA Pro(s):
• Provides systems that will continue standardization or compatibility with existing City systems.
• This will result in cost savings through reduced operations and maintenance. Con(s):
• Sole source procurements may reduce competitive pricing.

Fiscal Impact:

• None at this time.

Assistant Transportation Director Jessica Morriss said that this is a public hearing to permanently close a portion of unopened right-of-way connecting east of Bellevue Road and west of Edgewood Road. This public hearing was advertised on January 29, February 5, 12 and 19, 2021. Background:

• City Council passed a resolution January 26, 2021 to set a public hearing for the proposed closure on February 23, 2021. City Council will vote on the proposed closure March 9, 2021.
• North Carolina General Statute § 160A-299 grants cities the authority to permanently close streets and alleys.
• Spano and Associates Asheville, LLC has petitioned for this closure and they own the property associated with the Edgewood Road South Subdivision project (19-08084PZ) that was approved with conditions by the Technical Review Committee on March 2, 2019.
• The unopened right-of-way formerly connected on the southern side of the unopened portion of Bellevue Road and presently does not connect to any other right-of-way.
• This closure would not impede any future transportation connections nor does it conflict with any utility access.
• The length of the proposed closure is approximately 350 feet and the width is 25 feet.
• Signs were placed at two locations along the right-of-way announcing the public hearing and potential closure. Committee(s):
• Multimodal Transportation Committee
• December 10, 2020
• approved unanimously. Pro(s):
• Promotes 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 opened the public hearing at 5:40 p.m. Mayor Manheimer announced that there were no advanced live call-ins for this public hearing item. 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,

Assistant Transportation Director Jessica Morriss said that this is a public hearing to permanently close an unopened right-of-way connecting to Biltmore Avenue, directly south of White Fawn Drive. This public hearing was advertised on January 29, February 5, 12 and 19, 2021. Background:

• City Council passed a resolution January 26, 2021 to set a public hearing for the proposed closure on February 23, 2021. City Council will vote on the proposed closure March 9, 2021.
• North Carolina General Statute § 160A-299 grants cities the authority to permanently close streets and alleys.
• Milan Asheville, LLC has petitioned for this closure and they own the property at 324 Biltmore Avenue (PIN # 9648-46-4336).
• This closure request is associated with the Residence Inn (FKA Extended Stay Hotel at Hospital Center) (18-05806PZ) that was approved by City Council on March 12, 2019,

Principal Planner Shannon Tuch said that this is the consideration of a public hearing to consider the voluntary annexation of .47 acres off of Oak Hill Circle and Moorecrest Road. This public hearing was advertised on February 12, 2021. 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.
• The property is currently vacant.
• The property is contiguous to the City of Asheville corporate limits, is described in the ordinance and petitioner’s Exhibit A, and qualifies for annexation by petition as set forth in the North Carolina General Statutes 160A-31 and NC General Assembly Session Law 2005-139.
• Resolution 21-29 was adopted on February 9, 2021 setting the public hearing for February 23, 2021.
• Pursuant to NCGS 160A-31, a public hearing must be held prior to adopting an ordinance for voluntary annexation.
• The petitioner has submitted a subdivision application for 12 lots, two of which are located in the subject area that are part of the voluntary annexation petition.
• This application has been suspended pending the outcome of this request.
• The City of Asheville is obligated to provide services to the 10 proposed lots within the City’s jurisdiction and, through this annexation, would extend those services to the additional two lots.
• If the City Council decides to proceed with this request, the effective date for annexation would be March 9, 2021.
• The annexation becomes effective immediately once an affirmative vote is reached.
• Should the annexation be approved, there is a 60 day transition period during which the city must assign a zoning designation to the property.
• A separate report recommending a zoning assignment of RM-16 has been submitted. 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; and (2) Supports a sustainable path to balanced budgets.

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. In response to Councilwoman Wisler, Ms. Tuch said that the developer wishes to annex his property in that he also owns a parcel to the east and he wants to do a subdivision on the property for 12 single family lots. The way the subdivision is designed, the last two lots would be located in Buncombe County so in order for them to receive the same services, he thought it best to have the entire parcel serviced by the same entity. In response to Councilwoman Roney regarding any traffic mitigation due to the increased density, Ms. Tuch said that when the development application is submitted, that triggers the City’s review from the Technical Review Committee. As the City is aware of the concerns, they have asked the City’s Transportation Director and Public Works Director any thoughts to offset or mitigate those concerns. Ms. Tuch responded to Councilwoman Turner when she asked the difference between an initial zoning and a rezoning. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 5:56 p.m. Mayor Manheimer announced that there were no advanced live call-ins for this public hearing item. 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 a public hearing to consider the initial zoning of .47 acres off of Oak Hill Circle and Moorecrest Road to RM-16 Residential Multi-Family High Density District and to assign the designation of Traditional Neighborhood on the City’s Future Land Use Map. This public hearing was advertised on February 12, 2021. Project Location and Contacts:

• The voluntary annexation petition includes a 0.47 acre portion of property located at 99999 Moorecrest Rd. (PIN 9629-80-7863) and is owned by Boomville Properties, LLC.
• Petitioner: Matthew Dyer. Summary of

Petition:

• The subject property is a 0.47 acre portion of a larger 1.33 acre parcel located off of Moorecrest Rd. in west Asheville.
• The majority of the parcel, approximately 0.86 acres, falls within the City’s jurisdiction and the property owner has petitioned the City to annex the remaining 0.47 acres (under a separate public hearing to be heard by Council on February 23, 2021).
• The petitioner has also submitted a subdivision application for 12 new single-family home lots with road and utility service that includes the subject property along with a 0.76 acre parcel directly adjacent to the east.
• This application is on hold pending the outcome of this annexation request.
• Having all of the property in one jurisdiction will allow for consistent road, sanitation and public safety service to the new lots/homes.
• The properties have frontage along, and are accessed primarily from Moorecrest Rd. but are also located at the terminus of Oak Hill Circle.
• The 0.86 portion of the property, along with the adjacent 0.76 acre parcel, are currently zoned RM-16 and carry the designation of Traditional Neighborhood as shown on the City’s Future Land Use map.
• The proposed initial zoning designation and Future Land Use map designation for the 0.47 acre piece would be consistent with these properties.
• The 0.47 acre property is currently zoned R-3 in Buncombe County, which is a residential zoning district that allows a range of housing types.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency:

• This proposal is consistent with the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan in that the Traditional Neighborhood future land use designation is assigned to more compact and walkable residential areas that provides a range of housing types at a moderate density (4-8 units/acre) with the RM-16 zoning district identified as an appropriate zoning found within Traditional Neighborhood areas.
• This rezoning supports opportunity for infill housing in a moderately dense and strategically located neighborhood, thus aligning with key goals in the Livable Built Environment Plan section.

Compatibility Analysis:

• The purpose of the RM-16 zoning is to provide a full range of high density housing types located near employment centers, shopping facilities, roads and other urban infrastructure.
• The proposed RM-16 and Traditional Neighborhood designations are consistent with the portion of the property already located in the City, along with other properties located to the west, east and south of the subject property.
• Properties to the north that are located in Buncombe County are zoned R-3 which, similar to RM-16, is a residential district that allows high density single or multi-family residential. Committee(s):
• The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed the request at their February 3, 2021 meeting and voted unanimously (6:0) to approve the request. Pro(s):
• Assigns a designation consistent with the surrounding zoning and uses.
• Supports consistency with the zoning of the parent parcel.
• Allows opportunity for higher density infill housing in a locationally efficient area. Con(s):
• None identified. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 5:57 p.m. Sarah Benoit, resident on Oak Hill Drive, said their neighborhood is not opposed to responsible building; however, Oak Hill Road has existing traffic problems and will look forward to hearing any mitigating measures for a positive project in the future. 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 said that the Government Committee met earlier and made several changes (which have been sent to City Council) to the Legislative Agenda. She said the bill filing deadline is February 25, and noted we have a legislative delegation that is eager to hear from Asheville. City Attorney Branham said that this is the consideration of adoption of the 2021 Legislative Agenda. Background:

• The 2021 legislative session of the North Carolina General Assembly commenced in January of this year.
• The deadline for filing local bills with the House drafting office is March 3rd, and the deadline for the Senate drafting office is February 25th.
• Historically, the City Council has adopted a legislative agenda to provide direction to our local delegation on those priorities for local or general legislation which the City wishes to pursue. Committee(s):
• Governance Pro(s):
• Provides direction to our local delegation on Council’s legislative priorities, and serves as a starting point for presentation of potential general and local acts which would benefit the City. Con(s):
• None.

Fiscal Impact:

• None. Mr. Branham responded to various questions/comments from City Council while he summarized the legislative priorities as follows: (1) Support budgetary measures that fully restore funding the SMAP for urban transit systems, and its companion rural program, Rural Operating Assistance Program (ROAP) and coordinate these efforts to the extent practical with other local municipalities; (2) Support legislation to provide authority for Asheville, or general legislation to empower cities throughout the State to conduct a local referendum on the institution of a municipality specific quarter cent sales tax to fund public transit; (3) Support legislation to provide local or general authority for the establishment of a civilian oversight board to review police use of force cases, and to provide recommendations to the Chief of Police regarding disciplinary action; (4) Support legislation to amend or reform Session Law 2015-128 to direct a more equitable distribution of funds collected, expand the allowable uses of the funds to benefit the community, and increase the spectrum of qualified Tourism Development Authority board membership to allow for broader and more representative community engagement. The City of Asheville would specifically request that allowances for membership be provided for community members working in the arts and entertainment industry, tourism based service workers, and those owning and operating short-term rental or homestay properties; (5) Support legislation to make clear authority for electronic meetings permanent and usable at the discretion of local governments; (6) Support a legislative amendment providing clear direction to public bodies that votes may be taken, if otherwise permitted by law, at the same remote meeting in which the relevant public hearing is conducted; and (7) Oppose legislation which would defund cities who make adjustments to their local law enforcement budgets, including but not limited to the currently pending Senate Bill 100. Mayor Manheimer said that the elected School Board is not on this legislative agenda because our legislators want an agenda that has unanimous support, and she didn’t think there is unanimous support from Council on that legislative item. Mr. Patrick Conant requested a more open and earlier process for the development of this legislative agenda in the future so that public comment can be considered and revisions made within the necessary timeframe. He also asked Council to vote on individual items as they emerge throughout the year. He also provided specific feedback on the Civilian Oversight Board, the occupancy tax and the authority for electronic meetings. Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have been previously furnished with a copy of the revised resolution and it would not be read.