City Council regular meeting — May 25, 2021

Principal Planner Shannon Tuch said that this is the consideration of amending Unified Development Ordinance Articles III, V, VI and VII related to decision making, administrative and advisory bodies and related functions, in order to bring the City’s development code into alignment with recent state legislation. This public hearing was advertised on May 14 and 21, 2021. Background:

• 160D refers to a new chapter in the North Carolina General Statutes (NCGS) that reorganizes the land use regulatory laws of the State and came into effect through Session Law 2019-111 “AN ACT TO CLARIFY, CONSOLIDATE, AND REORGANIZE THE LAND-USE REGULATORY LAWS OF THE STATE.”, adopted July 11, 2019.
• The purpose of 160D is to clarify and reorganize the land use regulatory laws of the State and is the first major recodification and modernization of city and county development regulations since 1905.
• The new 160D also consolidates these laws into one chapter in order to provide a uniform set of statutes applicable to both cities and counties (formerly found in Chapter 160A for cities and Chapter 153 for counties).
• Per Session Law 2020-25, local governments are required to enact zoning text amendments that align with 160D by July 1, 2021.
• 160D is comprehensive; therefore, City staff are addressing these revisions in sections, expecting to complete all necessary revisions by the deadline.
• This zoning text amendment is the fourth in a series of amendments and seeks to align the City’s UDO (Chapter 7) with 160D.
• Summary of changes:
• Amendment to Article III to include 160D statutory references and clarify the requirements for PZC member appointments by the County as per NC Session Law 2013-30.
• Amendment to Article V includes a revision to section 7-5-20 notice procedures for public hearings. The revisions include separating the notice procedures for legislative and quasi-judicial hearings. 160D- 601 provides that the for public hearings on development approvals notice only needs to be mailed to abutting properties;
• Amendment to Article VI includes revisions to each section to provide clarity and bring the section into compliance with 160D terminology.
• Amendment to Article VII includes (a) the revision of language to 7-7-4 to bring in compliance with 160D-604 and include the current procedures being implemented with the Planning and Zoning Commission; (b) the revision to language in 7-7-5 to clarify City Council procedures for development approvals; (c) the removal to 7-7-6 as provided in a 2015 session law
• Additional, non-statutory related amendments to the Rules of Procedure have also been in order to clarify current procedures. Comprehensive Plan Consistency: This proposal best aligns with the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan theme of Responsible Regionalism that seeks to “improve Regional Collaboration, Coordination and Communication” by aligning the City’s development code with state statutes. Committee(s):
• The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment at their April 7, 2021 (public hearing) and May 5, 2021 (vote) meetings and voted unanimously (6:0) to approve the amendment. Ms. Tuch said that 160D is a chapter in the N.C. Gen. Statutes adopted as part of Session Law 2019-11 and which became effective on June 20, 2020. It replaces the existing 160A (municipal) and 153A (county) chapters. It’s purpose is to clarify, consolidate, and reorganize the land use laws of the state. This was done in collaboration between N.C. land use attorneys, the UNC-School of Government and the N.C. legislature. Local governments have until July 1, 2021, to make any necessary amendments to be in alignment with 160D. Staff will bring forward a series of amendments to modify the City of Asheville’s Unified Development Ordinance to be consistent with 160D. This is the fourth in a series of amendments and addresses the duties and responsibilities of various decision-making, administrative and advisory bodies. When Councilwoman Roney questioned the change in notice requirements, Ms. Tuch said that for quasi-judicial hearings, we will now only send notices to those property owners directly adjacent to the property. For legislative hearings, we will continue to go above and beyond the statutory requirement, and notify everyone within 200 feet of the subject property. For quasi-judicial hearings, we will default to the state law standard because it introduces a potential legal issue regarding standing. In these types of hearings, the ability to participate is limited to those who have standing and can mount an objection. Staff is working with the Department of Development Services on different ways people can sign up for notifications for their neighborhood which could include these type hearings. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 6:32 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,

Background:

• The City contracts with Curbside Management to provide recycling collection and processing services for City residents and City facilities.
• The current contract is set to expire June 30, 2021.
• Staff is recommending that the current contract be amended to extend the contract for an additional five years, to make minor modifications to the general contract language, and to adjust the base pricing.
• Starting in 2017, China, followed by other countries, stopped importing recyclable waste. With little recycling infrastructure present in the United States, processors had few to no options for recycling collected materials.
• Global recycling markets are still unstable, infrastructure development in the United States is slow, and the timing of overall market recovery is still unknown.
• For the past two years, Finance, Public Works, and Office of Sustainability staff have been closely monitoring the global recycling crisis and its impact on municipalities.
• Due to the crisis, resulting price spikes, and uncertainty around recovery, staff have observed municipalities cutting recycling programs and haulers/bidders proposing very high fees or declining to bid on recycling contracts.
• The Recycling Partnership’s 2020 State of Curbside Recycling Report finds that, for communities who charge residents the full cost of recycling service, the average fee is $4.39-$4.56 per month.
• Subscription service examples ranged from $5.30-$8.25 per month per household.
• For communities who subsidize the cost of recycling for residents, the average fee to residents is $6.05 per month.
• The COVID-19 pandemic has created additional unknowns about budgets and economic conditions, as well as placed additional burdens on staff capacity.
• Maintaining our current level of service at a known price allows for more accurate budget planning and continuity of service during this time.
• The current contractor, Curbside Management, will continue to provide the same recycling services at an affordable rate.
• Curbside Management’s thoughtful planning and foresight has enabled them to continue to offer recycling to the community during a time when other municipalities have made deep cuts or completely shut down their recycling programs.
• As both hauler and processor of recyclables, Curbside Management has a vested interest in helping the City improve recycling rates and reduce contamination.
• However, Curbside Management will increase the cost of providing this service.
• Factors contributing to the rate increase include, but are not limited to:
• low commodity value;
• increased insurance costs for recycling processors due to fire risk;
• increased labor costs;
• investment in equipment to stay viable in restricted national markets;
• bonding costs; and
• a lack of sustainable rate increases over the course of the 10 year contract due to low CPI rates.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• Curbside Management is a local business that provides a unique and specialized service to the City for both curbside collection and recyclable processing. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Ensures continuity of recycling collection services to City residents during uncertain times.
• Allows time for clear budget planning during a time of unstable market and economic conditions. Con(s):

None Fiscal Impact:

• The cost to the City for residential recycling increases from $3.15/month to $3.80/month. The solid waste fee to residents of $14/month for trash, recycling, and yard waste is not increasing at this time.
• Estimated total impact of $1.6 million annually, which is an annual increase of approximately $296,000 from the FY21 contract.

Background:

• The existing and traditional Network Video Recorder (NVR) equipment have reached the end of their useful lives and will be replaced with a cloud-based camera system.
• This project will replace fifty-five cameras with new cameras.
• This project will also add eight new cameras, one internal and the remaining seven to the exterior of the building, to expand coverage beyond the existing system.
• The bids for the three vendors were:
• Brooks Network Services
• Gibsonville, NC: $99,975.27;
• Brady Integrated Security
• Greensboro, NC: $155,984.00;
• Appalachian Network Services
• Fletcher, NC: $103,774.90
• The lowest responsive responsible bidder was Brooks Network Services, LLC.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• A Request for Proposals (298-ITMUNICAM21-2) was posted on March 26, 2021.
• Once posted, the Asheville Business Inclusion Office notified vendors of this opportunity in their email newsletter.
• Staff also reviewed the State’s IPS (Interactive Purchasing System) site for HUB (Historically Underutilized Businesses) vendors in our ten-county region and in North Carolina.
• Three bids were received, but no bids from MWBE businesses. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Replaces end-of-life security cameras and adds additional security for unserved areas.
• Provides tools for remote management and off-site storage of recordings for added resiliency and reduced ongoing recording infrastructure costs. Con(s):
• None noted.

Fiscal Impact:

• The awarded quote was for $99,975.27 which includes equipment, installation, and five-year term licenses for the cameras.
• Funding for this project is already included in the adopted General Capital Projects Fund and General Fund budgets.

Action: Adopt a budget amendment to accept a $16,000 donation from the Rotary Club of Asheville- Biltmore, the Rotary Club of Arden, and the Montford Neighborhood Association for bus stop improvements, and allocate the funds to the Transit Capital Fund. Background:

• The Transportation Department has been working with community organizations in the City to provide donations to install the city standard bus shelters along Asheville Rides Transit bus routes.
• The Rotary Club of Asheville-Biltmore and Rotary Club of Arden will provide $14,000 to purchase and install two bus shelters at bus stops on Hendersonville Road including the bus stop on Hendersonville Road at Gerber Road and on Hendersonville Road at Turtle Creek, serving the S3 and S6 bus lines.
• The Montford Neighborhood Association will provide $2,000 to replace an existing bus shelter and add a trash can located on Montford Avenue at Bulldog Drive, serving the N4 bus line.
• The City will provide the bus shelter.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• N/A Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• Provides funding for improved comfort for transit users at the three bus stop locations. Con(s):

None Fiscal Impact:

• Funds from the Rotary Clubs and Montford Neighborhood Association will be used as matching funds for the $1 million federal grant for bus stop improvements.

Background:

• The City has plans to construct a new fire station (#13) at 316 Broadway Street.
• The project includes fire preemption phasing at an existing signalized intersection.
• The City has prepared the appropriate design to add fire preemption phasing and will be furnishing and installing the appropriate equipment.
• The NCDOT will review the designs and inspect the work during the construction phase. Committee(s):
• None Pro(s):
• The fire preemption phasing will enable fire trucks to leave the station in a safe and efficient manner during emergencies.
• 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 fiscal impact is estimated to be $7,500 and the City must submit payment upon partial execution of the agreement by the City.
• The funds are included in the project budget for Fire Station #13.

Background:

• North Carolina General Statute §159-34 requires that local governments have its accounts audited each fiscal year and submit a copy of the audit report and financial statements to the Local Government Commission.
• Staff recommends retaining the services of PBMares, LLP to conduct an audit of the City's accounts for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2021.
• The estimated cost for fiscal year 2020-2021 audit includes a base fee of $100,640, which covers 900 hours of audit work; and a $125 per audit hourly fee for each hour over 900 hours up to a maximum total of 25% of the base fee ($25,160), for a maximum total fee of $125,800.
• The previous years’ fees, which only included base fees, were as follows:
• 2019-2020: $98,200
• 2018-2019: $95,760
• 2017-2018: $93,340
• Execution of this contract complies with the Audit Policy portion of City Council’s Financial Policies which states that the City “shall enter into multi-year agreements of not more than five years in duration through a series of single-year contracts as consistent with applicable legal requirements.”
• This will be the fourth consecutive year of contracting with the same auditors.
• In the previous three years, the City contracted with RSM US LLP to perform the City’s audit.
• This past year, RSM US LLP sold their North Carolina government practice to PBMares, LLP, and our multi-year agreement transferred to PBMares, LLP as part of that sale.

Vendor Outreach Efforts:

• No competitive bid process was conducted this year.

Council Goal:

Financially Resilient City Committee:

• No prior Committee approval.
• Final audit results are presented annually to the Audit Committee.

Pro:

• Contracting with PBMares, LLP aligns with City Council’s financial policy and will help ensure the timely and successful completion of the annual audit.

Con:

None Fiscal Impact:

• The maximum total fee amount of $125,800 for the annual audit is budgeted in the Internal Audit operating budget.

Background:

• City Council approved Juna Group Inc.’s Housing Trust Fund award for $1,100,000 on September 22, 2020, Resolution #20-169.
• The award was to develop eleven, for-sale, affordable homes at Alice Clement Lane.
• Since September, staff has worked closely with the developer to close on the loan.
• Conditions of the Housing Trust Fund policy were becoming difficult to meet and the loan was never closed on.
• The developer has since requested to return the Housing Trust Fund award citing the increased price for materials and labors which has made it no longer possible to build and sell to individuals and families at or below 100% Area Median Income (AMI) per the Housing Trust Fund guidelines and remain profitable. Committee(s):
• Housing and Community Development Committee (HCD) April 20, 2021
• Approval. Pro(s):
• While this development is no longer feasible, funds will be returned to the Housing Trust Fund balance for future use. Con(s):
• Increasing construction costs are making it difficult for all developers to add affordable housing units.

Fiscal Impact:

• The proposal and resolution will unallocate $1,100,000 awarded to the Juna Group and reallocate these funds back to the City’s Housing Trust Fund balance for future use and loans.

Principal Planner Shannon Tuch said that this is the consideration of rezoning property located at 99999 Glendale Avenue from RM-16 Residential Multi-Family High Density District to CI Commercial Industrial District and amend the Future Land Use Map from Traditional Neighborhood to Urban Corridor. This public hearing was advertised on May 14 and 21, 2021. Project Location and Contacts:

• The rezoning petition consists of a single parcel approximately 1.59 acres located at 99999 Glendale Ave. (PIN 9658-21-4847) and are owned by Glendale Avenue Qualified Opportunity Zone Business LLC.
• Petitioner: Todd Fowler Summary of

Petition:

• The subject property is currently zoned RM-16.
• There are no overlays or other special zoning designations assigned to this property.
• The 1.59 acre parcel is surrounded entirely by CI zoned properties and is an “island” of RM-16 zoning.
• The property is undeveloped.
• The property has frontage on Glendale Ave., a City maintained street.
• Secondary access can be secured via Springvale Ave. which is a privately maintained street that does not currently meet the City’s standard for street/road infrastructure.
• Improvements to this right-of-way may, or may not be required, depending on the future development.
• Adjacent parcels to the west provide access to McArthur Ln., another City maintained street.
• While the subject property is 1.59 acres the property owner owns six additional parcels on either side of the subject property, all zoned CI.
• When combined all seven parcels total approximately 4.39 acres and will be better positioned for redevelopment.
• The subject property and surrounding parcels are located in a Qualified Census Tract (Opportunity Zone) and is also classified as a Difficult Development Area (DDA).
• Asheville’s Opportunity Zones are mapped here.

Comprehensive Plan Consistency:

• This rezoning supports the opportunity for infill development that could include a mix of uses in a strategically located area, thus aligning with key goals in the Livable Built Environment Plan section.

Compatibility Analysis:

• The purpose of the RM-16 zoning district is, “to permit a full range of high density multi-family housing types along with limited institutional, public and commercial uses appropriate within high density residential areas. It is intended that this district be located near employment centers, shopping facilities, roads and other urban infrastructure capable of handling the demand generated by high density residential development.”
• There is little high density housing in the area with the nearest multi-family project approximately ⅓ of a mile from the subject property and somewhat isolated.
• Low-moderate density single-family housing is in closer proximity but separated by other CI zoned properties.
• The purpose of the CI zoning district is, “to provide areas for a wide range of commercial and industrial uses including: light manufacturing, wholesale, warehousing, services, retail sales, offices, and residential uses. The district is established where environmental conditions and urban infrastructure are adequate to support commercial and industrial development.”
• There is a moderate amount of infill, renovation and reinvestment in the commercial properties along Glendale Ave. and further into the adjacent River district area.
• The property is currently designated “Traditional Neighborhood” in the Future Land Use map of the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan, which describes an area focused on walkable areas with a mix of housing. This is likely due to the undeveloped nature of this and surrounding properties and the goal for more residential infill. Currently, neighborhood amenities such as sidewalks, parks, schools, community centers etc. are limited or do not exist.
• The proposed CI zoning allows housing as well as other non-residential uses; therefore, a rezoning would not preclude the opportunity to include housing with future development should the property owner choose to pursue it.
• The property is on the edge of the “Traditional Neighborhood” area and adjacent to other properties designated “Town Center” and “Urban Corridor” both of which contemplate a mix of uses.
• Should this rezoning be supported, staff would recommend a change in the Future Land Use Designation from “Traditional Neighborhood” to “Urban Corridor”. Committee(s):
• The Planning & Zoning Commission reviewed this proposed amendment at their April 7, 2021 (public hearing) and May 5, 2021 (vote) meetings and voted unanimously (6:0) to approve the amendment.

Fiscal Impact:

• There is no direct fiscal impact. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 6:22 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,

When Councilwoman Roney asked if it were possible to move the public hearing up earlier than September 28 if the motion passes, City Attorney Branham said that due to the summer schedule of Council meetings, it may be possible; however, the meetings will be very heavy.

Due to a conflict of interest,