[03:01] Speaker 1: Sticking around past your glory.
[03:04] Speaker 2: Sorry, I'll miss y'all. You would miss me.
[03:08] Speaker 1: Miss y'all.
[03:10] Speaker 3: Okay.
[03:11] Speaker 2: We're all here. Hello and welcome to the November 4th, 2026 meeting of the Asheville Planning and Zoning Commission. I'm your chair, Jeffrey Barton. As a reminder for those attending in person and our viewing public, we accept public comment on items on the agenda, and we actually won't have any public hearings today. We'll talk about that in a little bit, but we receive public comment in writing in advance of meetings, and we did receive a considerable amount of written public comment for this meeting on general matters that we might bring forward on a future item on our agenda today. So, um, yeah, I'll start by kicking it over to staff for roll call.
[04:04] Speaker 4: Yes, thank you, Chair Barton. Uh, Chair Barton?
[04:07] Speaker 2: Present.
[04:08] Speaker 4: Uh, Commissioner Anzelito?
[04:10] Speaker 1: Present.
[04:11] Speaker 4: Uh, Commissioner Seikel?
[04:14] Speaker 5: Present.
[04:14] Speaker 4: Commissioner Brawl?
[04:15] Speaker 6: Present.
[04:16] Speaker 4: Commissioner Faircloth?
[04:18] Speaker 2: Present.
[04:20] Speaker 4: And we will note that Commissioners Bell and Zuraszkaya are not present, though one may show up later. So we do have a quorum.
[04:28] Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Starbaum. Um, I will now read our land acknowledgment. As a reminder for those of us on the commission, please speak directly into the mics, and for the benefit of people tuning in online, Identify yourself when you speak during the meeting. Goes for you too, staff. Um, the Planning and Zoning Commission's land acknowledgment. As we are gathering today as the Planning and Zoning Commission, the body tasked with reviewing and advising on appropriate land use in the city of Asheville, it is fitting to acknowledge the storied history of this land. We occupy the land of the Cherokee people who have stewarded and been in relationship with these mountains and waterways from time immemorial. This land is occupied through violence, oppression, coercion, broken treaties, and forced relocation. Please join me in expressing respect and gratitude for the present-day Eastern Band of Cherokee, the Cherokee Nation, the United Gaduwa Band of Cherokee, and all of our indigenous neighbors, as well as the past and present marginalized community members, as we seek to join in the healing of this— the indelible trauma that is embedded in this land. Thank you. Uh, now before we go further, we have an item on our agenda, item number 6, where— in which the applicant has, uh, requested a continuance as of this afternoon. Um, so I wanted to recognize that. A representative of the applicant is here if you wish to say anything regarding your request for continuance.
[06:12] Speaker 7: Sure, my name is Jesse Swords. I'm a land use attorney with Allen, Stahl, and Kilbourne, and we represent Drury on that application.
[06:20] Speaker 1: Could you take a step closer to the microphone, please?
[06:23] Speaker 7: We are here to formally request that continuance, and as most of you know, I think we have made some substantive changes, you know, just this week in response to the staff report we received last week, and Um, we just have some more details to work out and work with staff between now and the December meeting, and we think that'll be useful, and it will give staff time to kind of digest and evaluate the changes we've proposed. And, you know, we hope to come back here with staff support, ideally. So that's, that's the reason we are requesting this continuance.
[07:03] Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Swords. Any further comment from staff? So we have a request for continuance of item number 6 on our agenda, which is a request to conditionally rezone a property located at 2 Hendersonville Road. Um, I'll make a motion to continue this item to date certain December 2nd, 2026.
[07:27] Speaker 5: Second.
[07:29] Speaker 2: I have a motion and a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[07:33] Speaker 6: Aye.
[07:34] Speaker 2: Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Um, next up we have approval of minutes of our October 7th, 2026 meeting. Any questions, comments on the minutes? Actually, was it the 7th? It's labeled as the 4th in our—
[07:59] Speaker 4: That is correct. That's the Costco one.
[08:01] Speaker 2: That's right. Okay.
[08:01] Speaker 4: Yeah.
[08:03] Speaker 2: I'll take a motion to approve the minutes.
[08:07] Speaker 6: Second.
[08:10] Speaker 2: Could you make the motion?
[08:12] Speaker 6: And then— Sorry, did you make the motion or—
[08:14] Speaker 2: I didn't.
[08:15] Speaker 6: Oh, I thought you said I make the motion to approve the minutes.
[08:17] Speaker 2: I'll take a motion.
[08:18] Speaker 6: I will happily make the motion to approve the October 7th meeting minutes.
[08:22] Speaker 4: I second.
[08:23] Speaker 2: And a second. All those in favor, please say aye.
[08:26] Speaker 1: Aye.
[08:27] Speaker 2: Any opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Onward to updates and reports. Any updates from committee liaisons and workgroups? Multimodal? Nothing? Still no multimodal meetings. Anything else from commissioners? All right, then I will kick it over to staff for— to highlight recent legislative and administrative actions.
[08:54] Speaker 4: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, just for the record, and I'm Sam Starbaum, Planner 3 and Planning and Zoning Commission liaison. There are a few things worth updating from City Council. Costco, which you all saw on the 7th, that went to council on the 13th. That was approved. The Tried Street conditional zoning, which was 18 townhomes and 5 single-family residences in Shiloh, also was approved at the 10/7 meeting. And then there was a substantive amendment to London Road, which which went at a different, uh, City Council meeting, was approved on a 4-3 vote. Will was the applicant on that one, so that is City Council action. There are just a few other things I would like to talk about. Uh, we had talked about the draft PZC report at 10/7, and we did get updates about prioritizing some of these policy recommendations. I just wanted to be clear that we are going to agendize this for December. I didn't want to agendize this in November and then have changes in the And then have to update that and then bring that to you all for the final vote count. So we will do that sort of as the last thing in December. So it is done, it is approved, and then it goes straight to council and the new council can have that in December. So that is the plan for the PZC report. There is one thing I also wanted to talk about. We had discussed this a little bit at the pre-meeting today. Various commissioners had asked for updates on the cities. anti-displacement work and sort of what is happening. The tool we have produced, which is based off of the Bates model, which is sort of the gold standard that comes out of Portland, is complete. We will bring that to you if you are okay with it. I will also agendize that for 12/2. You have a full meeting. There will likely be, uh, 2 very high-profile, um, conditional zonings. One of them we anticipate will have a lot of public comment, uh, and, and maybe a longer agenda item. But if you want to, I can bring that before you either. Yeah, I think that's fine. either in December or January to show you the tool, what this looks like, and how we also borrowed from Boston and the state of Colorado and sort of how they've implemented this and what this means for Asheville. And we can also then pull up other census tracts as examples to sort of look at how all of this is tabulated. So we are, we are prepared to agendize that if you'd like. Just, it's a matter of when.
[11:16] Speaker 8: In the, uh, in the agenda, would it— it would come before the legislative portion, right? So anybody there waiting to listen to some of the higher profile things would, would also be present for that correct presentation.
[11:33] Speaker 2: Does that influence your thoughts?
[11:38] Speaker 8: I mean, I'm fine with waiting until January. Okay. Personally, I don't.
[11:44] Speaker 4: Hilariously, as an example.
[11:45] Speaker 6: Are you able to send us information like over email or something about it or post it, you know, however it could be shared?
[11:53] Speaker 4: Yeah, I can do that.
[11:54] Speaker 6: Great.
[11:59] Speaker 2: Yeah. So I, I think the way to send— sharing where it's at now and then formally discussing it at a meeting in January sounds Good.
[12:08] Speaker 4: Excellent. And that is it out of me.
[12:13] Speaker 2: One question I had, uh, while we're on kind of legislative updates, sometimes we recap like council meetings, committee meetings during that section. There was a council retreat last week. I wasn't able to tune in or attend, but was there any discussion relevant to UDO update, land use regulation in general, or was it kind of More high-level strategic direction?
[12:38] Speaker 4: I'll let, uh, Planning and Urban Design Director Chris Collins answer that.
[12:42] Speaker 9: Hey, good evening. Chris Collins, Interim Director of Planning and Urban Design. The council retreat last week was focused on the strategic planning process. That is an initiative the city's undergoing right now with the help of the School of Government from UNC to create a 5-year strategic plan for the operations of the city. Um, so that was focused on that process, um, but not on the Comprehensive Plan update and UDO project, which I know those 2 things running concurrently, uh, has the potential for some confusion, but we are actively working to avoid that. Um, the following day was followed up by a city department director retreat on the same topic, so. We're working closely with that process. Um, try to answer any questions you have beyond that. But—
[13:33] Speaker 2: Would the— would one outcome of the strategic plan be to recalibrate council strategic priorities? Sometimes, you know, I know the last couple of years there's been priority placed on zoning updates and housing issues. So is that something that'll be kind of deeper in the strategic planning process?
[13:55] Speaker 9: Yes, so this will be, rather than kind of an annual strategic priority, it'll be looking at a broader 5-year period where that strategic plan would take the place of those strategic priorities, is my understanding. Yes. So, you know, for example, and completely hypothetical, part of the strategic plan could be conducting the comprehensive plan update and UDR rewrite. Right? It could inform the work the rest of the city is doing.
[14:28] Speaker 1: So.
[14:28] Speaker 6: Great.
[14:28] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[14:36] Speaker 5: So, um, yeah, uh, good evening. Will Palmquist here with Planning and Urban Design. Uh, this is an opportunity to provide an update on the comp plan UDO development regulations update. So, as you're probably aware, the city and the Opticos Design Incorporated company and their subconsultants are now officially under contract, which is really exciting because it's been a lot of work to get there. A lot of reviews and federal funding stipulations and whatnot. So, that's been a huge milestone for, for the project. And in relation to that, last week the consultants came to town for an internal kickoff meeting. So really just a chance to meet with city staff, leadership, tour the city. Um, that was a good opportunity for them to see places that, you know, you don't usually maybe take your friends and family when they visit, but it's the places that have development opportunity or were heavily impacted by Helene. Um, don't know what that is.
[15:37] Speaker 4: Someone screaming for captions.
[15:39] Speaker 1: Sorry about that. I think that might have been me. I'm in the meeting right now for captions, and someone just joined it.
[15:45] Speaker 5: Um, so, tour of the city, and then we had, um, some pretty high-level discussions with them at the staff level to discuss engagement strategies and higher-level policy approach considerations. So, this is really just kind of the initial chance for them to meet with staff and just put faces to names, uh, get a, get a lay of the land. And, um, really begin the, begin the process. Begin the process. So, really between now and the end of the year, um, we're gonna be working on some mainly housekeeping-related items to support the plan going forward. Uh, the most, probably the most important one besides the project name, uh, is the communications plan. So, on the next slide, we have a project schedule that's, that's pretty broad, but the communications plan is really going to drill down on these specific engagement points with the community, with you all, with council, with different focus groups that we're planning on identifying. So that'll drive the engagement component of the project. There's also the project name and branding and the project website to launch. We expect to have more public engagement, really the first real public engagement happening in the spring of next year. And one really important item I want to talk about a little bit tonight with you all is the concept of the Planning and Zoning Commission serving as the steering committee for the project. So, um, that's going to be a really impactful role that we want to solicit your, um, your help with, really to not just review, you know, draft code or draft comprehensive plan update information, but to serve as really, um, a guiding body to give feedback on the approach of the project, um, you know, outreach strategies, concepts that we have developed, um, even before we start, you know, putting pen to paper and having actual regulations. We're gonna be talking about, you know, different concepts for a UDO. You know, is it form-based? Is it more Euclidean? What's the Right balance. So the steering committee is that really that kind of a feedback mechanism. It's a chance to have those public public discussions around some things, so folks can kind of tune in and understand the granular discussions happening. If it happens during a during a full PNZ meeting, we're gonna have to think about maybe a different meeting cadence for that role. So I do apologize. It does mean. more meetings, but it could be like an additional meeting every— it might have to be every, every month, maybe every other month, if during times when the consultant is, you know, churning out information and we're not reviewing anything at that time. Um, so we can talk about like how to facilitate that. Um, not to bring up the thorny subject of working groups, but is there maybe a way to kind of have folks hone in on smaller sections? Something to consider. So we'll work closely with legal on different concepts. We're going to stay Obviously above board with all open meeting laws. Brenton loves subcommittees and work groups. He's—
[19:04] Speaker 2: We're doing a subcommittee or a work group?
[19:05] Speaker 5: I don't know. It could be—
[19:06] Speaker 1: can Janice please—
[19:08] Speaker 5: some combination of the 2? No, this is— this is— I'm shooting from the hip here, so I apologize to Janice. But anyway, um, just ideas we've been talking about just internally, and this is still a relatively new— newer concept, um, that we've discussed with city leadership and our consultants about this. It's, um, you know, Sometimes some of these projects, you, you could solicit the community for applications to a steering committee. You can use existing boards and commissions. We think you all are well-versed to serve in this role, given your connection to city council and the authority vested therein, and really your broad expertise in various matters that are going to relate to this project. So, um, that is, that is our hope that you're ready, willing, and able to serve in that function over the next 2+ years, um, for this project.
[20:01] Speaker 1: I have a question. Would it be— can you elaborate exactly what the role of the steering committee would be? Is it primarily— what level of engagement would it be? Is it primarily at the end of getting like a chunk of work where we kind of review it, or is it we're part of the ideation form?
[20:21] Speaker 5: Yeah, it would definitely be more, um, more at the beginning stages of the work. So, as the Planning and Zoning Commission, you will be reviewing, um, the various proposed sections of code and everything, of course, to make votes and recommendations to City Council. But as the steering committee, you all would be working with us and meeting with the, with the consultants directly when they come back to town. Um, the first quarter of next year, and the first quarter next year, um, to develop concepts and give input on higher-level direction. Uh, things related to, yeah, code approach, or, um, you know, uh, district typologies, zoning district geography, um, engagement strategies. So, um, Yeah, so you're kind of serving 2 roles. Your official role as Planning and Zoning Commission to review any text amendments, recommend the City Council for their consideration, and as a steering committee to give feedback and direction on the actual approach and substance of the project. But we want to start that conversation sooner rather than later because we want to make sure the first step— we'll look at the next slide a little bit in a minute— but the first step in the UDO process is that framework. So before we start, you know, getting in the code details, we need to kind of map out like what our approach is going to be, what's the skeleton of the UDO going to look like before we start building it out. And we want you all to be involved with that process, so we have you along for the way.
[21:54] Speaker 2: Thanks for that, Mr. Palmquist. This is Chair Barton, and just to kind of piggyback on Commissioner Anzelito's question, Um, yeah, we've been kind of hearing in several public meetings over the last several months, you know, the notion of Planning and Zoning Commission being a steering committee. I think the way you articulate it sounds wholly consistent with, you know, how this body functions to serve the city. Um, I, I would go even a little further, and we've been talking about UDO, but knowing that the first stage is comp plan update, um, you know, in the UDO, for all the planning nerds out there, Section 732, which, uh, subsection A enumerates the powers and duties of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Number 4 is to formulate and recommend to City Council the adoption or amendment of a comprehensive plan and other plans. So I think that formulation piece is really important. To this point, you know, we, we really— we've heard Dribs and drabs of the scope and have been kind of advised by staff that it's not a holistic overhaul of the Comp Plan. But I think understanding really, really well what that scope is so that we can properly formulate and advise on the Comp Plan update would be really beneficial.
[23:21] Speaker 5: Yeah, and that's a great point. And I'm kind of glossing over the comprehensive plan work, which, which is no small feat. Um, so you all would be the steering committee for that too. The steering committee for the entire project includes standard SSDM, standard specifications and details manual as well. Um, we can provide you more information. We have a— we have the scope, the finalized scope of work. It gets into a little more detail about what we're going to focus on on the comp plan. We can share that all with you either in the meantime or give a presentation about, um, about that scope in a little more detail, get you a little more best Uh, versed in that. Um, but yeah, that's, that's going to be an important consideration too. We can share more information, and we, we know what we're going to update. It's just a matter of, yeah, what it's going to be.
[24:03] Speaker 2: I think even, you know, aligning one of the next visits of Opticos to town with this meeting would be really helpful, or a special meeting just to hear directly on their project approach and allow this body to ask questions of the consultant would be great.
[24:22] Speaker 5: Yeah, definitely next trip they have planned, which is still a little bit TBD, but end of quarter 1, I believe, next year, we'll have them come to you all. And, um, we may be able to do a little bit of work in the meantime of that, in advance of that trip, depending on the exact schedule. But that's an opportunity for that direct dialogue with them too.
[24:40] Speaker 7: Great.
[24:41] Speaker 6: Maybe I missed this a little bit, but can you clarify exactly, like, what How the steering committee will engage, like in what format? Would that be at this— through this meeting? Would that be separately? Like, how would we be providing feedback?
[25:00] Speaker 5: Yeah, that's something we're going to need to discuss, um, and coordinate what works best for really everybody. And mostly you all, um, you're already, you know, volunteering a lot of your time already to serve in this capacity. So we want to be very, you know, uh, just careful with how much time we request of you all. I mean, there's a few different options, right? We'd have separate meetings. We could have meetings on, you know, the 3rd Wednesday of the month at 5 PM for the steering committee. We could— maybe this isn't preferable— we could start this meeting earlier and do a working meeting in the afternoon, which I know some folks aren't able to because of work commitments. Um, so, and then the timing of it, I don't, I don't know the exact timing. I don't know if it has to be every month. or less frequent, depending on where we are on the project schedule. Probably not at this meeting, given the work that you all do, this, and just, you know, not enough time in a night to do it all.
[25:52] Speaker 8: Is there a timeline for when you guys are thinking about having an engagement plan? Like, as far as engagement with the steering committee and with other key partners?
[26:05] Speaker 5: Yeah, and I can go to the next slide a little bit, which is a little intimidating. The consultants brought this on a big sheet of paper that now adorns my office. Uh, to remind me to stay on task with this project. Um, but this is, um, the overall really Gantt chart of the whole project. And you can see task 1 is the community engagement part. It goes throughout the duration of the project. The communications engagement and communications plan is right here. Um, one of those first 3 deliverables. I know it's hard to read it at this scale, but, um, That is slated between last month and then the end of December. So, we expect to have that communications engagement and— sorry, community engagement and communications plan drafted by the end of the year. And that would really lay out all the different engagement points, the steering committee's schedule for the most part, which we could flex as needed. But that will— that's part of the work between now and then is working with you all to figure out, and the consultants, What would they recommend for, for timing? They have some, um, some, some kind of drafts meetings on here for the, the M is steering committee, M1, 2, 3, and 4, 5 throughout the project, which is every couple months. Um, that's maybe something we could consider more having more frequent. I could see, um, I could see having maybe more meetings during, like, the concept development phases. And then if once the consultant kind of, kind of goes back to their offices and they're working on the code, maybe we don't have to meet every, you know, every month while they're working on draft code, unless there's a reason to. Um, there are different parts of this project and a lot of overlap, as you can see. Um, but that's something we got to kind of— this, this is a very preliminary project schedule. So just understand that this is like, Without a lot of staff input, this was just them kind of mapping out how they could get— how they think they could get all these tasks done in the 2+ years allocated for the project.
[28:11] Speaker 8: Well, and part of— if I'm understanding it correctly, part of that community engagement and communications plan is to more fine-tune this. This is just the general—
[28:22] Speaker 5: This is very broad and subject to change. That plan will build this.
[28:27] Speaker 2: Chart out even further.
[28:27] Speaker 8: And that's expected to come by the end of the year. So, uh, can we anticipate then being reached out to in the meantime between now, within the next month and a half of like our availabilities and whatnot?
[28:41] Speaker 5: Absolutely. Yep.
[28:42] Speaker 8: Understand, um, how that engagement would go. Another question I have is, um, so I'm, I'm imagining because in the case where all of us are meeting together, Because we are the Planning and Zoning Commission, that those meetings would be subject to meeting law.
[29:03] Speaker 5: Correct.
[29:03] Speaker 8: Um, and then, so, um, would we be able to— I know, as the Planning and Zoning, I don't think we can meet virtually, but as a steering committee, would we be able to be able to meet virtually?
[29:18] Speaker 5: My understanding is that you could.
[29:20] Speaker 6: Okay.
[29:21] Speaker 5: So that could be an option too.
[29:23] Speaker 1: So I could piggyback on that line of questioning. Um, would we need to have a quorum as well?
[29:29] Speaker 5: I don't think necessarily. They're not taking official action or voting on anything at these meetings. Um, so quorum would not be required to, uh, it's mainly maybe a discussion level, um, agenda, for lack of a better word.
[29:45] Speaker 2: But the meetings would be recorded and available? Yep.
[29:49] Speaker 5: Yep, there's no reason not to. So, um, probably minutes or not, maybe not, but we could, yeah, for posterity, keep the records for, for the recordings and treat them like, like they are a public meeting. They are, they are subject to open meeting laws.
[30:04] Speaker 2: Yeah, Commissioner Faircloth here. Uh, thanks, staff, for all this, and I'm sorry I'm gonna keep hammering you on the steering committee question, Will.
[30:14] Speaker 1: Um, I guess my question is, um, how does staff and/or the consultant feel if we were— if members of this board were to send stuff to them directly, or do we always have to go through staff to give any input to said consultant?
[30:31] Speaker 5: So that's a great question. Um, so typically chains of communication would kind of flow through staff. Sure. That doesn't mean you wouldn't interact with them at all. Like, they could, they could maybe join the steering committee meetings, especially if they're virtual. They will plan to meet with you all next time they're in town in person. Um, we'd probably want to— yeah, because, because the project, as you understand, has a budget and billable hours and all that kind of stuff, we have to kind of protect the, the project budget.
[31:06] Speaker 1: And I understand, I don't want you to blow up Your project hours on a bunch of silly questions over and over again. I get that.
[31:12] Speaker 5: But, um, so we just have to be kind of cognizant of that. It's the same kind of reason why we wouldn't really want, like, you know, the public just emailing the consultants directly. It should be facilitated through a process that— but, um, that doesn't mean you would not— that does not mean you would not interact with them directly anyway. Just, um, but we kind of— we would, as staff, would facilitate, um, maybe giving them feedback, getting information from them, sharing it out with you all, and be that kind of connective tissue between them and you all, if that makes sense.
[31:43] Speaker 1: Sounds like we need a subcommittee, Will.
[31:48] Speaker 9: Thanks.
[31:48] Speaker 5: Our working group.
[31:49] Speaker 6: Yeah, subcommittee is fine.
[31:51] Speaker 5: Subcommittee is good. So, yes, that's the other option is you kind of break out, um, break out folks into little, little smaller groups, um, that Don't require it if it's not a quorum. Maybe don't require as much depending on the nature of the work being done. Don't require all the same levels of notifications and recordings. That might be a chance for folks who are interested in different aspects of either the comp plan or code to focus on floodplain regulations or focus on housing code things. So that could be an effective way where folks could really drill down without having everyone be present at the same time. meeting all at the same time. So those are the kinds of concepts that we want to talk to you all about, the consultants about, and figure out the best approach as we final draft and then finalize this communications plan. And if I can mention briefly before I forget, on the last slide, there's a bullet there reminding us to talk a little bit about how the code, at least the UDO section, is going to be portioned out into sections for review. That's just an approach that we've kind of talked about at different levels and have solidified an approach around that I think is responsive to what we've been hearing from you all and maybe the community as well about kind of having the code review happen in like bite-sized chunks and details maybe still a little bit TBD at this moment, but the idea being that we can identify sections of code that come together for you all to work on and eventually review and even vote a recommendation for. Knowing that maybe that section of code is, you know, has been blessed by you all, we can put it back on the shelf, go back to the next section, work through that. And at the end of the process, we have 5, 6, 7, 8, sections of code that have all been reviewed by you. If things change, we can take it back off the shelf, bring it before you all, and that will get us to the final, um, the final approval step of the UDO. But we think that's a good way of, um, doing, doing the, the UDO code review in a little more iterative approach that doesn't feel so overwhelming either for you or the public or decision makers to kind of hone in on these topics. And then there's some kind of agreement or consensus or recommendation for approval associated with them, so we know we're on the right track, I guess. You know, it's not just getting all the code at once, having to vote on it all at once. We kind of have this more gradual level of support being built, and we're confident going forward that the project's moving ahead and there's support from you all for the work. the recommendation to, to council eventually. We don't know how many sections are going to be, what groupings make sense at this point, but that's something we're going to be working on, um, in the, in the meantime, in the, in the sooner rather than later, to, uh, bring to you all with an approach that we think would make sense based on how content shakes out with the proposed UDO framework.
[35:03] Speaker 2: Yeah, I really appreciate that. Um, just to address one other thing real quick, Commissioner Zajewski joined us at 5:35, just for meeting record. Um, but to revisit that approach, I, I really appreciate that staff is being responsive to thoughts shared by council, us, and, you know, a lot of our public comment that we received in advance of this meeting. I will say that review of discrete chunks and kind of building sort of overall momentum. It's still a— it appears to me, or it sounds like it's an all-in-one adoption strategy, which I, I still think should be on the table for further discussion given what other communities have seen. And so that may be a question if and when the consultant's able to attend one of these meetings, is just hear directly from them. how they've seen it play out in other UDO engagements, because it's still— even though we might be reviewing, we're the recommending body, all in one at the end adoption is a tremendous amount of eggs to put in one basket. Right.
[36:21] Speaker 7: Sure.
[36:21] Speaker 2: Any other thoughts on Steering committee. Thanks, Mr. Palmquist.
[36:33] Speaker 1: We're excited.
[36:33] Speaker 5: Yes, we are too. It was, uh, it was very exciting meeting the consultants in person, you know, getting the contract signed last month and actually have this, uh, this ball rolling. So we're all along for the ride now. So appreciate your, uh, your support and your, your commitment. Um, yeah, if Commissioner Zioska didn't hear, you're all going to be the steering committee for the project. So you'll have your work cut out for you, and thank you in advance.
[36:59] Speaker 10: Yeah, apologies for coming late. I had a vet emergency.
[37:05] Speaker 9: Oh no.
[37:05] Speaker 2: And just, yeah, one last thought on— I appreciate sort of fleshing out what the steering committee kind of means. And as we've kind of said, just to reiterate, nobody likes a backseat driver. So like being steering committee means kind of like invited up front, and I hope that that's something that plays out so that this body isn't just kind of reacting, responding, and providing course correction from the backseat.
[37:36] Speaker 5: Totally.
[37:37] Speaker 6: Yep.
[37:38] Speaker 5: Thank you.
[37:44] Speaker 2: So, next up, we have a report from Nancy Watford, uh, Stormwater Plan Review Supervisor, on stormwater flood and permitting processes. Ms. Watford.
[37:55] Speaker 3: Hi, good evening, uh, Commission. I'm Nancy Watford. I'm the Stormwater Plan Review Supervisor. I'm in Public Works, um, the Stormwater Division. I'm just going to talk a little bit about where our reviews plug in as it comes with y'all's process. So as y'all know, this is the This is the long process for conditional zoning, SUPs, and like our level 3 projects.
[38:26] Speaker 2: Could you speak?
[38:27] Speaker 6: Yep.
[38:27] Speaker 3: Yeah, you could speak into the microphone. Um, and so the initial submittal is always that conceptual submittal for those size projects, and those are the ones that typically come to you. So that's your— this is your typical process for you guys. And basically, grading, stormwater, and floodplain plug in in 2 different places. So we plug in from a conceptual point of view at that initial TRC meeting and the initial TRC staff report, and that is more from a big picture standpoint. And I'll get into what those details are. Then some projects that are not but are level 2, sometimes those will come to you if they're like downtown or something. That's when you'll see in more, a more detailed review, because the application and the submittals are typically more detailed. Applicants do have the option to do more of a conceptual and then do detailed engineering after, but mostly do the detailed engineering upfront for those more concise Um, and that's when you'll see more of the detailed, um, review in the TRC staff report. And then there is also an additional In the Weeds comment letter. So, um, for grading stormwater on the conceptual side, we're looking at what's the approximate, you know, land disturbance area, and then what Does that then mean in terms of what's going to be required in terms of stormwater requirements, additional erosion sediment control, um, open space incentives and storms in terms of stormwater requirements, um, floodplain regulations generally? What is their floodplain, like their protection strategy? Are they elevating on fill? Are they flood protecting? Are they dry floodproofing? Are they elevating on piers? You know, basic general, you know, is there any flood mitigation there? And also in this conceptual review, you'll see, look at kind of proactive management or mitigation, where are there any things of concern that may drive the design or a change in the design that they may need to look at? Or address through a condition or something like that, that's gonna— that this might affect it enough that if it goes and gets entitlement, it might have to come back because they may have to make such a different change, right? So that's like— I mean, the aquatic buffers, we just bring that up, and if there's any additional steps they have to go through, but if there's localized flooding, you know, is there mitigation options for them there? stormwater concerns about like our existing infrastructure, just highlighting things like that to them as to you may need to have do additional detention because our pipe is undersized or something of that nature. Um, and some that you'll see come soon. Um, and one with one of tonight's things was the floodplain concerns. And so sometimes you'll see where we're asking for additional things because we want to You know, what is your impact in that floodplain? But also, how are you planning on either doing mitigation, but also how are you planning to protect that structure? Right? Are you dry floodproofing, elevating on piers, or elevating on fill? Because, yeah. And then the detailed review is totally in the weeds. That's where I'm making sure we are— or my staff, we're making sure that you're meeting the UDO requirements, federal, state requirements, any other requirements that are laid about in the CUZ, in the conditional zonings, and that all of the accurate documentation is there. Because in the next couple of slides, I'll go through our 3 different sections of the UDO that we work from. All 3 of those sections from erosion control is governed by a different group than stormwater, and floodplain is governed by a different group, but all 3 of them get audited, and that is part of that accurate documentation, um, because if it's not accurate, we get dinged on it. So our stormwater ordinance is from our MS4 permit, which is Municipal Separate Storm sewer system permit. So it's your storm sewer system that we own and operate in the city's right-of-way, um, or city property, but also how we manage that as a whole program from the citywide. So it's external and internal. So it's from city operations and how we manage oil spills in our, you know, mechanical garage and other things like of that nature. Um, all the way down to what we require in terms of stormwater compliance from quality and quantity and quality control. Um, and then also that NCDQ stormwater construction, so construction management, materials management on construction sites. Um, so our ordinance. is driven by the requirements of our current MS4 permit, which is an EPA permit handed to NCDQ to operate with us. So NCDQ is our auditor at least once every 5 years in that one. Um, land disturbance is very similar to that, but it's a delegated erosion sediment control program from NCDQ, which, uh, it's Department of Environmental Quality. Um, they have an updated state model ordinance that is the base requirements that we have to meet. So that's the legal— strictly the legal minimums that we have to meet within our ordinance. And that means that it's required to meet the North Carolina— it's governed by the Sedimentation Pollution Control Act. And then changes to our ordinance have to go through NCDQ Um, Environmental Commission for approval prior to adoption. So they have one additional step. Uh, the MS4 also has that with— to make sure that we're in alignment. But those don't have anything about any higher standards. Like, we currently have some higher standards. We want to keep those. And then these guys are going to lead us through the other things that will inform us of other options and other things. and changes moving forward. And then the floodplain ordinance is because we're a National Flood Insurance Program participating community. They have a most recently updated model ordinance, which was in this spring. They updated the ordinance. They have both a riverine and a coastal ordinance. It basically is also the same where it has that minimum requirements to meet the FEMA Federal Code. It also has recommendations from the state and the Department of Public Safety as to what they would recommend in terms of higher standards. And then they also have some examples of some higher, it's more of a regulatory point of view from a higher standard, but other regulatory areas that you could potentially potentially look at, because North Carolina, after Tropical Storm Fred, our state mapping program, which is cooperative agreement with FEMA to do our state floodplain mapping, they have advisory mapping now that you can. And then they have tools or options in that model ordinance to adopt different regulatory areas instead of just the 1% floodplain. But I was just going to tell you about those so that y'all can entertain yourselves if you ever get insomnia. So, but that's— do y'all have questions for me?
[47:14] Speaker 6: A few. I want to make sure— hey, first off, thank you so much. I'm Very excited to learn more about this and better understand, and appreciate you bearing with me as I learn here. Um, so, I guess, to make sure I understand the 3 ordinances, one is combined into one ordinance currently.
[47:42] Speaker 3: Okay, so erosion sediment control and stormwater are currently one, one chapter, they're 712.1, uh, 2.
[47:52] Speaker 6: Okay.
[47:53] Speaker 3: Which is recommended by both agencies to—
[48:00] Speaker 6: I guess my, my question is ultimately, like, it's a very long chapter. If we regulate these at a local level, like, does that mean that the development would not need to get a state Permit? Not necessarily.
[48:17] Speaker 3: Okay, so we regulate them at the local level because the local level can have higher standards, right? Um, depending on— they may have to get— you have to abide by all 3. So you may, like, if you're culverting a stream, you have to get your local, state, and federal permits to culvert that stream.
[48:38] Speaker 5: Uh-huh.
[48:38] Speaker 3: If you're over an acre of disturbance, You— there's a process that we go through. We do the review, make sure it meets state code, and then they go and obtain coverage under what is called the NCG01, which is the construction stormwater permit that the state manages. They have to go get a certificate of coverage based on our approval from the state.
[49:03] Speaker 6: So it's like they delegate the review to you so that they don't have to review it. But we are essentially administering that permit. And then we do— does Asheville impose stricter standards with regards to these 3 areas than state standards? Yes.
[49:22] Speaker 10: Okay.
[49:24] Speaker 6: And then in regards to the floodplain, um, do you in the final TRC review Like, what is the standard that we hold development to with regards to being, like, above base flood elevation in, like, the 100-year and the 500-year floodplain? Right.
[49:49] Speaker 3: So 500-year, we don't— it's not a regulatory area at this point.
[49:52] Speaker 6: So we have no requirements for 500-year?
[49:56] Speaker 3: We advise them on—
[49:58] Speaker 10: Sure.
[50:00] Speaker 3: And that's what a lot of it is, kind of advisement now, because we also know that there's new maps and other things. So our regulatory requirement is for residential structures, so single-family homes, duplexes, they have to be elevated by federal code, but elevated, and then we have to 2 feet above base flood elevation. I think federal code is 2 feet above base flood elevation.
[50:25] Speaker 6: And that's the 100-year. Okay. Okay. And then do we have requirements? Oh, go ahead. Go ahead.
[50:37] Speaker 3: Commercial structures have other options. Commercial structures can be elevated, or they can be dry floodproofed for any occupiable area. So that means where people are working, like, The leasing office in 21 London would have to be floodproofed for an additional foot above its finished floor elevation as currently designed. Dry floodproof. So they'd have to build it. So basically, that interior of that office becomes opposite of a swimming pool. I understand.
[51:16] Speaker 6: I understand.
[51:17] Speaker 3: It means that water can't get in there. Yeah, it might leak a little, but it can't.
[51:23] Speaker 6: Understood. Okay. Okay.
[51:25] Speaker 3: That's what dry floodproofing is. Wet floodproofing means that water is intended to enter and exit. It has venting to do so, and you can do that in storage only, which are limited in size. And then also areas of parking access, parking and access. So, if you have a stairwell, you could actually dry proof the stairwell. Like an exit stairwell, you could dry flood— I mean, you could wet floodproof that if you wanted to. You could also dry floodproof it. That's just the options they have.
[51:57] Speaker 8: And currently for commercial, if you are choosing to raise, it's 1 foot above base flood. Is that correct? Or is it also 2?
[52:05] Speaker 3: It's 2. It's been 2 since 2010.
[52:10] Speaker 6: Is industrial treated any differently or no?
[52:16] Speaker 10: Okay.
[52:16] Speaker 3: We do have limitations on storage of chemicals and other things of that nature. And tanks, fuel tanks are no longer— like, new fuel tanks are no longer permissible. Replacement of existing and stuff are, but there's specific regulations around those. And then all hazardous chemicals, I think is how it said, I can't remember exactly the language, have to be stored outside or above the base flood elevation.
[52:54] Speaker 6: Okay.
[52:56] Speaker 8: Was London Road 1 foot above base flood?
[52:59] Speaker 3: Their finished floor was 1 foot above base flood elevation, so they would have to dry.
[53:02] Speaker 8: So they would. Okay, that's okay. That's where I got the confusion. I didn't think they were floodproofing.
[53:06] Speaker 6: And then I think the last one is, is In the final TRC, does your team review, like, emergency response or how that's dealt with? No.
[53:20] Speaker 10: No.
[53:21] Speaker 3: Um, in final TRC, we will tell them if it's required for a certain portion of their building. So, if you choose to dry floodproof your building, part of dry floodproofing, when you get to the building permit and closeout of the building, but they have a preliminary, before we issue their building permit, not their zoning permit, but their building permit, because I reviewed both sides of those at that point. I reviewed the building also. Um, so if it is dry floodproofed, part of that has to then have what we call a flood action plan. So it has maintenance requirements, long-term maintenance for your floodgates, or however you're floodproofing the building. And then also a flood action plan on who's responsible for enacting the installation of your floodproofing measures. And how does that happen?
[54:14] Speaker 8: Does this flood action plan also— sorry, Commissioner Seichel, does this flood action plan also include, like, operational emergency management type stuff during a flood?
[54:27] Speaker 3: No, that would be probably our fire code. Or other public safety codes.
[54:34] Speaker 8: So, I think that came up in our last meeting. Yeah.
[54:41] Speaker 3: I do know that some write it into their leases and other things of that nature as to tenants knowing that they're in a floodplain and other things. But, um, it's not something that we manage or track as part of Floodplain Administration. We have heard that there are some other things, either insurance requirements or that do factor into those decisions.
[55:09] Speaker 6: And if they did not, if they met the 2 feet above base flood elevation, a flood action plan would not be required. Is that correct?
[55:18] Speaker 3: If they weren't dry floodproofing, correct. Okay. Okay, and there's no new, no new habitable structures in the floodway. Council keeps talking about floodway. It's, it's a totally restricted area. Okay, you can have a picnic pavilion.
[55:43] Speaker 2: So I, I think I heard you say a minute ago— sorry, this Chair Barton. That there's new maps, but there's not a new, like, special flood hazard area delineation?
[55:57] Speaker 3: No, we have not gotten our preliminary maps yet. At the flood conference earlier this month, they had again said first quarter of next year, spring of next year. So we'll see if we get preliminary maps by then.
[56:13] Speaker 2: And then what's the process from there? So preliminary maps are issued, but they're not really a binding part of our ordinance yet, or?
[56:21] Speaker 3: They are not yet. But so you'll see in the, in the model ordinance, you can make that a thing, but they aren't yet. But since everybody knows that things are changing, they do ask, like in our pre-application meetings and other things, they ask, what do you think we should do? You know, and we always advise them that the state The state advises 4 feet above base flood elevation. I have them— I give them what information I have based on what watershed they're in and what flood studies that I've seen come through and what issues may be there, because we know that, like, the Swannanoa River Road corridor is a very sensitive floodplain, especially along the Swannanoa. Um, so more than— more so than the French Broad. Um, and so I advise them on what information that I do have. I can recommend that they go higher than they think they should, but regulatory-wise, it's 2 feet above base flow elevation.
[57:27] Speaker 2: Could you speak more to that? Just vulnerable floodplains. Is that because of the confluence and backup? The Because we have our main—
[57:38] Speaker 3: I don't know why—
[57:39] Speaker 2: reservoir upstream, or—
[57:40] Speaker 3: I don't know why the Swannanoa is like it is right there. It may be— it's— well, part of it is Sweeten Creek coming in, because the confluence of Sweeten Creek is about a foot and a half higher than the floodplain of the Swannanoa. Um, but also it's confined, it's restricted. Um, So we know that if you put much fill in the floodplain area there, not just the floodway, in the floodplain, we've had projects that have not been able to elevate on fill because they've had— because it's shown that they had impacts on other properties that they didn't want to cause. So they went with dry floodproofing instead. And a lot of structures are elevating higher than they are required currently.
[58:35] Speaker 2: So, thank you. This, this has all been really interesting.
[58:39] Speaker 1: Yeah, Commissioner Faircloth here. Thank you so much, Ms. Walford. Um, does help to learn more about it. I appreciate it. Um, I got a specific one and then 2 big picture ones. So we'll start with the specific one. Um, I actually, um, on my professional world, I work with 9 different municipalities I'm dealing with. Um, on the 1-acre disturbance thing, I've just found out today there's some other counties, municipalities around who have changed that down to half an acre. Is that something City of Asheville is playing with, or do you know anything about that?
[59:18] Speaker 3: So our disturbance area starts at 500 square feet.
[59:22] Speaker 1: Okay.
[59:23] Speaker 3: For needing a permit.
[59:25] Speaker 1: Okay.
[59:26] Speaker 2: Um, well, but at 10—
[59:28] Speaker 1: at 1 acre, it typically triggered the next—
[59:31] Speaker 3: At 10,000, that's a state requirement. That's the 1 acre is the state requirement for the NCG01 and also for stormwater and other things in other communities. Our stormwater is governed off of Your land disturbance, but also just as an urban area, it's 50% of your site. So you could be a quarter-acre site and have to do stormwater because your impervious area is 80% of your site.
[59:57] Speaker 1: Okay. Gotcha.
[60:02] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[60:02] Speaker 1: And then the second question is, um, I'm curious, what does any coordination or anything happen with the county?
[60:12] Speaker 2: stormwater people between you and them?
[60:17] Speaker 1: Y'all and them? I don't really have a goal to this question.
[60:22] Speaker 3: Rarely, um, we have had some instances where we have projects that cross over municipal boundaries, um, for stormwater, and these have been larger acre properties. So stormwater has been required. They'll do stormwater for City of Asheville and City of Asheville limits. They'll do stormwater for Buncombe County and Buncombe County. Um, and then Buncombe County will typically do the grading permit because they can enforce within the city limits. The city can't enforce outside the city limits. That's why they— and the state wants 1 single grading permit per project.
[61:00] Speaker 1: Gotcha. Okay. Um, then my last kind of question is, um, I know y'all are part of the TRC process and getting to us, so we see your comments on there. But I understand that when you're reviewing it, you're very much enforcing like the letter of the ordinance and the law. I mean, if—
[61:22] Speaker 4: open to suggestions—
[61:23] Speaker 1: if this board wanted to do more things for floodwater and stormwater, what might you recommend we could do from our seat? Or, or we should think about more, or is that a loaded question?
[61:37] Speaker 3: It depends on the project.
[61:40] Speaker 5: Okay, sure.
[61:41] Speaker 3: But a lot of it is like, what is the impact of the project? Like, if they're filling a big site right on, you know, in a big floodplain, what is that impact to the adjacent properties? Um, and have they considered mitigation for that? Um, what other mitigation options have you looked— have they looked at? Um, you'll see me, or you'll see the floodplain administrator or the stormwater administrator request certain things in that TRC, in that conceptual.
[62:13] Speaker 2: Mm-hmm.
[62:14] Speaker 3: If there's something that they need to look at from a design standpoint and consider that maybe Something that changes the design, or that, you know, could be more costly than they thought, or, you know, that sort of thing. It's just kind of— we're like, hey, here's a red flag. You might want to look into this. Or we know that there's localized flooding. Could you consider increasing your detention to the 25-year storm? or things like that. But you'll see them from us as recommendations or requests.
[62:57] Speaker 10: Sure.
[63:00] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[63:00] Speaker 3: Sure.
[63:01] Speaker 6: More questions? Sorry, this is Commissioner Bohl.
[63:09] Speaker 10: Um, the—
[63:11] Speaker 6: so what, what is the threshold for which you have to issue approval? You said it was just like 500 feet of disturbance or something. Is that what it was?
[63:22] Speaker 3: 500 feet of disturbance is where our grading— where you're— where someone is required to obtain a grading permit. Under 10,000 square feet, it's called a sketch plan. So anybody— like, there's no design professional required. At 10,000 square feet or more, a design professional is required to do the erosion sediment control plan.
[63:44] Speaker 6: Okay, but when, when is your— when do you, like, in what projects do you have to issue an approval?
[63:51] Speaker 3: When they meet the requirements of the code.
[63:54] Speaker 6: Okay.
[63:57] Speaker 3: And/or any other abiding things like the conditional zoning, or a lot of times there's not much in there for me.
[64:04] Speaker 6: So, but Um, and then the— I lost my train of thought on the other question. Yeah, that's okay. I forgot.
[64:26] Speaker 2: Well, thank you.
[64:31] Speaker 8: I have, I have one last question. This is Commissioner Seikel. Uh, uh, just piggybacking on Commissioner Faircloth about, um, you know, with the upcoming UDO rewrite and thinking about the code and standards. Is there room, um, for the city of Asheville, independent of state requirements, to govern how we look at pre and post impervious surface comparisons? Meaning, like, right now, if a site's encumbered by 90% impervious and they're going You know, down to 80, but let's say that 90% was— I just know I've been in other municipalities where they're like, if it was before 2007.
[65:18] Speaker 3: Yep. If it was before 2007.
[65:21] Speaker 8: Okay.
[65:22] Speaker 3: Um, but we can require them to look back to 2007 and say, that's the precondition. Um, if they didn't do anything, you know, but beyond that, um, The one, the one thing we— so, this is where it ties into zoning and UDF stuff, is that there is like an open space. You can provide incentives as means for that. So, like, in our open space ordinance, we have a stormwater incentive, which allows you to reduce the amount of open space for parcels or projects of certain sizes. They can reduce their amount of open space if they provide additional detention. It doesn't do anything for water quality because water quality is restricted by our state, right? But we can do it for detention, and it's through an incentive option is the way that one works. And other municipalities have managed it a couple of different ways.
[66:22] Speaker 2: Thank you.
[66:27] Speaker 6: Thank you. Another question. Sorry, are the updated maps coming from the state? And yes. Okay.
[66:36] Speaker 3: So the state has a cooperative agreement with FEMA to do all of our state mapping, which gives us floodplain administrators, people doing it, give it. So we have a flood risk information system. So you can go on a map and basically they have digitized our flood maps. So you can click on a structure and it gives you the base flood elevation. You have to click around on it to make sure you have the highest, because that's going to be the governing. But that's the, you know, and they have those, and then they built the advisory tool for other flood-type events. So it's looking at your 50-year event, your 2-year event, your 1,000-year event. And looking at more tributary type, not just that. That FEMA has a size kind of minimum that they, or maximum, that they will do the flood mapping to. So above and beyond that, you can still flood, you're not in a flood map, but those advisory maps are capturing some of that because they're looking at 2D modeling.
[67:46] Speaker 10: To follow up on that, This is Commissioner Zieske. Um, while we're waiting on the updated maps, what's our best tool to use right now?
[67:59] Speaker 3: Um, we can look at— I look at the advisory maps, but then also, um, recommending that 4 feet, or if we know, you know, they're in the Swannanoa and it's, you know, that they may want to look at 4 or 5 feet, because we've had projects that came through after 2004 before our 2000 Before our preliminary 2007 maps and our 2010 maps, one elevated higher than they were required to. And so they're now only about half a foot below current compliance, where one of them didn't choose to do that, and they're about 3 feet below current compliance. Because they were permitted between You know, the 2004 floods and our 2007 preliminary maps.
[68:51] Speaker 8: This is Commissioner Seichel. So you mentioned 4 feet, and because that's the state recommended, it's not the state required, but it's the state recommended. And so that's what you're saying, essentially, that's a good measuring stick.
[69:05] Speaker 10: Yeah.
[69:05] Speaker 6: Okay.
[69:06] Speaker 8: Thank you.
[69:06] Speaker 2: Um, so this is sort of maybe a theoretical question. Feel free not to answer it, but, um, Have you, in your professional experience looking at other municipalities where they've had mapping, you know, all the mapping I've seen, when there's updated maps, the special flood hazard area increases over time. Has there ever been a community that adopts enough resilience measures so that their flood zone decreases?
[69:37] Speaker 3: No, no, because FEMA will tell you that any property is at risk of flooding. But no, and it— with riverine systems, so between our 2007 maps and our 2010 maps, we did have areas that decreased, and then we had areas that increased. It's just the nature of a riverine system where you're going to have that. It's not resilience measures, like, based on development doesn't necessarily equate to changing the modeling of your floodplain. Flood mitigation projects help with that, which are large municipal projects. Like, I mean, every little bit helps, but—
[70:30] Speaker 2: Like the plan from, you know, 15 years ago to work with Warren Wilson's campus to create a major large-scale— that would be something that would mitigate.
[70:45] Speaker 6: Okay. Yeah.
[70:48] Speaker 2: Thank you so much. This has been, yeah, super interesting. Very helpful information.
[70:53] Speaker 3: Are you changing it or do I?
[70:58] Speaker 1: Can I slide off it?
[71:00] Speaker 5: Yes, I can.
[71:01] Speaker 6: Thank you. Thank you.
[71:02] Speaker 2: Next up on our agenda, as, uh, as staff has acutely alerted us, uh, it's Election Day again. Um, I, I'd argue that this is the election that everybody has been talking about around the country. So, uh, as a refresh in our— the Planning and Zoning Commission rules of procedure, we have annual officer elections in October. This year we didn't quite get it agendized in time, so it's on the November agenda. Um, just as a sort of preamble, it's been a pleasure to serve as your chair. Has been. Um, and, uh, no, truly, you know, working with staff on the important work we've done over the last 2 and a half years, um, galvanizing this commission and responding and adapting and everything after Helene, um, it's—
[72:10] Speaker 1: it—
[72:10] Speaker 2: I, I've learned so much. So thank you to my fellow commissioners, to staff, We're at a moment that we're embarking on something that's really long-term with the UDO rewrite. My term will expire in August, so I do not think it's in the best interest of the continuity of the work for me to continue on as chair. So with that in mind, um, I would like to make a nomination. The way we'll do this is anyone can be nominated. Self-nominations are okay. We'll do chair first, then vice chair. Um, I'm happy to help the next chair serving as vice chair, if nominated to do so for a period of time. But, um, I, I personally would like to nominate our vice chair, Jason Seichel, to serve as our next chair. But I'll open it up to other nominations, and nominees have to accept a nomination in order for us to vote on them.
[73:08] Speaker 8: I'd like to nominate Commissioner Burrell.
[73:14] Speaker 2: Um, so we have 2 nominees. Anybody else like to make a nomination? And then we'll ask for acceptance of those nominations.
[73:28] Speaker 4: We do have to be clear, do both nominees accept their nomination?
[73:32] Speaker 2: Right.
[73:32] Speaker 8: I'm waiting to hear. My response is dependent upon yours.
[73:39] Speaker 2: Count to 3 and you can both speak into the mic. No, um, I guess I should have asked.
[73:49] Speaker 6: Yeah.
[73:49] Speaker 8: Nomination.
[73:51] Speaker 2: Thank you. Commissioner Broll, do you accept or decline your nomination?
[73:56] Speaker 6: I guess I would decline then. Yeah, is that how that's supposed to work? Okay.
[74:04] Speaker 2: So, it can work that way.
[74:06] Speaker 4: As of right now, we have 1 nomination on the floor.
[74:09] Speaker 2: So, we, we have 1 nomination on the floor. Any last thoughts before I close nominations and we take a vote?
[74:15] Speaker 1: Just for a healthy reminder, the duties of chair are setting the meeting agenda of staff. Question mark.
[74:27] Speaker 4: Yes, adhering and, and running meetings. That is, um, there is a lot of sausage making that goes into this production that we put on, um, for everyone. So it's not just understanding these projects that, that you review, but also deadlines, timelines, what's coming in for the city, right? So this is this good example of the UDO. What else is there, um, in terms of projects on the horizon, coordinating with council. You do have a— each board and commission is assigned a council member. Uh, Councilwoman Ullman is currently yours, coordinating with her, and then any other needs that may exist for the Planning and Zoning Commission, but mostly, um, also responding to, uh, the public as necessary, and then deciding, um, things like public comment. Is it open? How do you do those things? And I'm sorry, Janice, did you have anything to add to that? You were—
[75:26] Speaker 10: No, you did a good job. I mean, you might want to hear from the chair of the biggest duties, but you've seen it, that controlling meetings, making final decisions regarding the board conduct and things like that. And that both the chair and vice chair, is it every 2 weeks? There's a, like, a pre-PCC check-in. Where you give input. So there's some time commitment outside of these meetings.
[75:57] Speaker 4: A good example would be this afternoon where there is some question over continuation on a particular item, how this would go and what horse trading went into that. So you, you, um, you may be pulled into discussions and other scheduling negotiations.
[76:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, I think that's a good overview. Also, just looking at our rules of procedure, the duties that are outlined for chair, Every recommendation that comes out of Planning and Zoning Commission has a signed recommendation form that staff prepares, the chair signs, that then gets sent on to City Council so that they can take up the full recommendation. So anytime, say, in a conditional zoning, when this body adds conditions or makes recommendations, you know, one thing that I have taken it upon myself to do is just to make sure that those are fully reflected in those recommendation forms that get sent to council. Um, but most importantly, declare recesses. So just checking in on everyone when we need a bathroom break is, yeah, yeah, best duty of the chair.
[76:59] Speaker 4: Snack cart selection is also of utmost importance to the city.
[77:02] Speaker 2: It's all about the perks.
[77:04] Speaker 8: Can you play a role in that?
[77:06] Speaker 2: No. Um, no, I mean, yeah, in all seriousness, uh, Staff is the engine that helps this democracy function. The chair is there, I think, to create order in the meetings and to ensure that it is a democratic body. We are appointed by council to serve the public. And so that is, you know, kind of the chair leads that effort.
[77:31] Speaker 5: Well said.
[77:32] Speaker 2: So we have a nominee.
[77:38] Speaker 8: I have a quick question. Does staff happen to know when my 2nd term would be up?
[77:43] Speaker 4: I can look that up for you.
[77:45] Speaker 8: I'm just thinking as far as alignment with getting through the UDO process.
[77:52] Speaker 1: Uh, and continuity.
[77:56] Speaker 8: That was your whole point, right? Continuity.
[77:57] Speaker 2: Continuity. There's also, I'll say, the clerk's office, especially since boards have kind of been more formalized recently. There's, there's a good chair, vice chair training that I think is recorded and just available in posterity to do, you know, look at things like meeting conduct.
[78:16] Speaker 4: And, um, so your first term ends February 16th, 2027.
[78:30] Speaker 5: Okay.
[78:31] Speaker 8: So, 3 years. Thank you.
[78:33] Speaker 2: Buckle up. I, I will say, if I'm allowed to just, uh, use the, the last minute of my mic as time as chair, this city and this commission is really well served by the strength of the current commission. Um, so it's— I think it's an exciting time moving forward. We'll be able to add new members with, like, some great bench strength already. So, um, yeah. So we have a nominee. Do I have a motion?
[79:06] Speaker 5: I'll make—
[79:07] Speaker 2: what's that?
[79:07] Speaker 5: A second? The motion? A second to the motion?
[79:11] Speaker 2: I don't think we've made a motion. We just have a nominee that's accepted. I'll make the motion to appoint Jason Seichel as the chair of the Planning and Zoning Commission. Do I have a second?
[79:24] Speaker 10: Second.
[79:24] Speaker 2: A motion and a second. All those in favor say aye.
[79:29] Speaker 1: Aye.
[79:29] Speaker 2: You can vote for yourself. Actually, I think you're— you have to vote for yourself.
[79:34] Speaker 10: Yeah.
[79:35] Speaker 2: Any— anyone opposed? Motion passes unanimously. Floor is yours to conduct the next election.
[79:45] Speaker 9: Yikes.
[79:46] Speaker 4: Okay.
[79:48] Speaker 3: You weren't kidding.
[79:50] Speaker 8: First, I just want to say I'm really excited about the UDO process, and I feel very invested in it. And I will take the role as chair very seriously during this process. And thank you for the vote of confidence. I guess next on the agenda is the appointment of a vice chair. Do we have any nominations? Any nominations for vice chair?
[80:22] Speaker 1: If there aren't, I'd like to nominate Commissioner Brawl.
[80:25] Speaker 6: I'll accept.
[80:27] Speaker 8: Awesome. So we have a nominee for vice chair. Do we have any other nominees? With none being brought forth, is there a— I'd like to make a motion, uh, for to appoint Commissioner Burrell for vice chair.
[80:46] Speaker 5: Is there a second?
[80:49] Speaker 8: All those in favor? Aye. All right, we have a chair and a vice chair. Congratulations. Uh, would you, would you mind finishing the meeting since you prepared for this meeting?
[81:05] Speaker 2: I don't know if I can. I think not.
[81:07] Speaker 4: Yeah, I think in the pre-meeting consent to this too, but yes, you legally can.
[81:12] Speaker 2: Yeah, sure. Yeah.
[81:13] Speaker 8: Thank you. Um, just to get us through the meeting and then I'll prep for the next one.
[81:19] Speaker 4: New chair shows great delegation powers.
[81:22] Speaker 2: Yeah, we're gonna— um, we just have one more item on the agenda. Um, so under other business, item 7, a formal discussion to consider proposals and potential changes relating to the RS-2 residential single-family low density zoning district, uh, planner coordinating review is Vadila Savica. Mr. Savica.
[81:44] Speaker 7: Good evening, commissioners. Vadila Savica. Um, 2 months ago, we presented to the Housing and Community Development Subcommittee of the City Council, uh, a similar presentation on RS-2 zoning and housing. And, um, after that, presentation, um, it was asked by, uh, the chair of that committee, um, uh, that we consider presenting this to the, uh, Planning and Zoning Commission. She said there seems to be a lot of interest in this from planning and zoning, speaking of RS-2 zoning and housing, and I would be interested in hearing their input. So we're here today to share similar ideas that we gave to them. Uh, just to get your informal feedback. I'm not sure why the image isn't working here, but it doesn't really matter. So we'll go on. Um, RS-2 parameters. Uh, this is the residential single-family, uh, lowest density district in the city. It's a misnomer because now we allow duplexes citywide. So it's not really single-family. The minimum lot size is 16,000 square feet. Um, you have some of the specs here. It's our lowest density residential zoning district. And, um, it is that way for a reason, which we'll talk through. This map shows the location of the RS-2 zoning districts. They're dark on the map. Um, There are about 1,200 parcels totaling over 1,800 acres. There are, um, there's a— most of the RS-2 is located in sort of the hilly areas in the city. So, um, we've titled these slides environmental constraints because RS-2 Um, has a lot of property in these different constrained areas. So the first ones have to do with the steep slope zones. Um, the majority of, of these parcels are in steep slope areas. This is an image and some analysis that we did first with, uh, when we were preparing for the HCD presentation. And this, what this data points to is any parcel that is, uh, intersects with the steep slope areas. So, if you're at all, uh, if your parcel has any percentage of property over 15%, we included it here. And so it's over 80%. Um, we then did some further analysis. Uh, uh, let me go back one here to identify just the parcels that we consider fully triggering the steep slope ordinance, which we understand, or the way we interpret the regulation is that at least half of the entire parcel is greater than 15% slope and over 2,220 feet in elevation. And so we don't have as many because here what we're showing is that these are much more in steep slopes than the last image, but you're still seeing that. 72% of the total acreage of RS-2 is triggering the steep slope ordinance. And I just included a little bit of information here for RS-4. Um, 31%, it's, it's, it's more than 2,000 lots in RS-4 is triggered by the steep slope ordinance. Uh, but there, there are, um, there's a lot more acreage in RS-4, so it's only, uh, 31% of the total acreage of RS-4 that's within that steep slope. In addition, there's another constraint, which is flood zones. Um, sometimes these overlap, and in this case, there are, uh, 300 acres of RS-2 properties that run up against some of the floodplains. And so, uh, you know, it doesn't mean that the whole property does, but, uh, it at least, uh, intersects with it. So, um, there's some reduction in, in, um, developable land, um, for those properties. And then finally, we are highlighting an environmental constraint, which is the Blue Ridge Parkway. Um, again, this standard doesn't significantly reduce development, but it keeps height down and ensures that, um, that properties that are built up against the Blue Ridge Parkway don't interfere with the views. And so, um, some of those properties are RS-2. And so when you add all those together, what you see, the big picture is what we're talking about here is RS-2 is quite heavily constrained as a residential zoning district by different environmental factors. And in fact, 81% of the total acres is, is in some way limited.
[86:52] Speaker 9: I have a question on this.
[86:55] Speaker 1: Go ahead, Commissioner Faircloth. And just so I'm clear, that's parcels developed and undeveloped, those numbers up there. Sorry, you didn't look at whether the parcel was developed or undeveloped. That's just any RS-2.
[87:08] Speaker 7: That's right.
[87:09] Speaker 4: That has a building, whether it has a house or not.
[87:11] Speaker 7: It's just, just looking at the parcels, simple parcel analysis.
[87:16] Speaker 1: Yes, and I, I was curious about— so when this presentation was given to HCD, uh, these numbers are different. Correct. So can you— can you— so, uh, I think it was like 74 parcels, like in the HCD presentation. So can you talk us through what was different about the analysis that's causing that number to change?
[87:37] Speaker 5: Sure.
[87:38] Speaker 7: So, um, Uh, you reached out to us to ask us some more information about, um, our analysis. And so we wanted to dig deeper to try to make sure that we were giving a more accurate representation of the analysis. And so, um, we created a new layer that actually pulls all the parcels that more accurately reflect those parcels that we would trigger, uh, as, as steep slope parcels, which means that those, those, those parcels that I showed you, uh, um, our number was more restrictive. So what, what we showed to HCD, it showed that— wait, did I get that backwards? No, for HCD, we showed a lot more parcels being included. And so, um, in this scenario, um, there aren't as many parcels that are triggered.
[88:45] Speaker 1: What was the reason for them being more restrictive? What was the difference?
[88:49] Speaker 7: Um, for the HCD presentation, the analysis wasn't as rigorous. It wasn't as, um, Uh, it didn't fully reflect the parcels that likely would be triggered by the steep slope ordinance because we were— I was just pulling parcels that intersected at all with the steep slope. But with this analysis, we are pulling only those parcels that have more than 50% of the area being 15% slope or more.
[89:24] Speaker 5: Okay.
[89:24] Speaker 1: Okay. And then I did have one other question. Uh, well, kind of the comparison between the 2 presentations. I also noticed that the, uh, I think on your first slide, the total number of RS-2 parcels that are zoned, that number is also different. I just wanted to get your gauge on, like, what the— so in the HCD presentation, there was about 1,800 parcels that were zoned RS-2, and then in this presentation, there's about 1,200. And can you walk me through, like, what the difference is between Um, I'm not sure.
[89:56] Speaker 7: I would have to look at that. I'm not sure if this was a misprint. Um, I'll take a look at that.
[90:02] Speaker 1: Sure. I printed it out, actually, if you want to take a look.
[90:05] Speaker 7: Well, I'm not, I'm not denying your, your statement, but let me, let me look at that because I, if the number is 200 or 600 parcels off, I'm not sure.
[90:15] Speaker 1: Okay.
[90:16] Speaker 6: Yeah.
[90:22] Speaker 7: So, in summary, um, the unconstrained, if we want to say parcels that don't intersect at all with any of these environmental constraints, we're showing 215 parcels. Uh, so a higher number than what we showed to HCD, which was 74 parcels. Correct. But the big picture is most of the parcels are constrained, and of These 215 parcels, almost, uh, almost 100 acres are these 2, these, these 2 locations that I'm highlighting that are a large cemetery and the nature center. So, uh, there, there isn't a lot of wiggle room to, uh, to maybe talk about parcels that are completely unconstrained from environmental factors. Um, the bigger picture, I think, Uh, when we, when we think about this general discussion and housing in RS-2 is, uh, you look at a map like this from our missing middle housing study that identifies the places where we really want to put housing, where there is infrastructure, where there's transit, more walkability, access to goods and services. Uh, you see these blue shades of blue and The darkest colors are the RS-2 properties. So they're not in the same locations. Can we put more housing there? Yes, of course we can, but it's not recommended. It's not the best practice for sort of the lowest hanging fruit because it's where we have constrained property. We don't want to add a lot more density there because these are, these are the steeper hills and, um, there's more more, if there's more erosion, it impacts the watershed and all of that. So, um, I think this image helps to, to just point to that very easily. Now, this is primarily what we showed to HCD. I'm going to show a little bit more because I know there's been some discussion in this group about lot sizes. And, and so here I'm just showing the residential lot standards, and I've, I've, I've circled RS-2 at 16,000 square feet. A lot of people see this and they think, wow, like, you know, we can really cut that up or make more properties for housing. And, um, yes, there's, there's a lot of wiggle room for, um, for changes to RS-2 and every other residential zoning district we have. So we completely agree with you in concept. And we are excited to change our zoning districts to make them more flexible. And to provide the more housing flexibility that we need. Um, to talk a little bit about this idea of lot sizes, I just wanted to share a couple slides from the Missing Middle Housing study that talks about recommendations, and they agree. They say, you know, um, you can remove or calibrate your minimum lot sizes differently, but they say if you do that, you really want to prioritize lot width standards. Instead of lot size, right? So this is where it very quickly gets complicated. They suggest if you're adjusting lot width standards for middle housing, here is your typical standard for lot widths. So here what you have on the top are different housing typologies, right? On the top left, you have a duplex, duplex side-by-side, duplex stack, cottage, Cottage Court, and the band that I've highlighted is the approximate minimum width that you need for these, these, these types of buildings. You need access. Sometimes you need driveways. And what you see is these widths are at— the smallest is 45 feet, which is higher than our minimum lot width for our smallest district. And here are more, more building typologies and their recommended lot widths. Um, so this is just to say that there are a lot— there are many different ways we can take approaches to improve our zoning for housing. If we are targeting middle housing, not only do we want to get the lot width right, but we need sort of incentives right so that people aren't just trying to build single-family housing. Because, um, you know, you can, you can change your lot width standards, but you're not going to get triplexes, right? People may still build to the lowest hanging, the easiest thing, which is single-family products. And so middle housing recommendations suggest sliding scale, um, um, sliding scale FARs. are, and that's beyond our conversation here. But the point is, it gets complicated very quickly. And so our sort of thinking moving forward is where we are today in our reality of we are just engaging now with our consultants that we've hired, and this process is going to take a couple of years, and we believe that it would be Risky and confusing to make any ad hoc changes to RS-2 or to any other zoning district that doesn't align with this process, because the public is going to be facing a lot of engagement, and we can't make a separate process that kind of makes one change and they're doing something else. So, so we need to align with, with that. process. And so what we're suggesting generally is let's, let's see how this process evolves, um, and let's work within this process so that we can align with the outcomes of the process and lower our risks of confusion and have a smoother public process. So with that, I'll open up to any questions and Yeah, thank you.
[96:24] Speaker 2: Thank you, Mr. Savicka. Um, there's a lot to unpack in here, and I appreciate kind of the robust presentation, you know, over and above what was presented at HCDA. It kind of helps, um, helps respond to like where we are in context. I, I do have a question, um, around the missing middle and lot width prevailing over minimum lot size. It's a, it's a really interesting argument. And I guess, um, not that it maps perfectly, but our lowest density districts would not be prioritized for the highest intensity missing middle typologies. Like, generally, right?
[97:08] Speaker 7: Right. Yeah, because I think they're suggesting that these, these areas that are That are— that should be prioritized for the middle housing that are closest to transit are, are not the lowest density. The darkest blue are closer to the core.
[97:24] Speaker 2: So, just looking at duplexes, which our city council affirmed as appropriate for any residential district in the city of Asheville, missing middle recommendations have lot width between 50 and 55 feet, or for stacked duplexes, 45 to 50 feet. So the other, you know, cottage court, um, and even, you know, small apartment complexes, those wouldn't really be appropriate for RS-2 or even RS-4 generally. I mean, there may be some areas that are called out for missing middle ready, but am I, am I kind of following?
[98:04] Speaker 7: Um, I'm not sure. I think, um, Generally, yes. Uh, you know, whether I think an argument could be made that in places like RS-2, if you want to see more housing, it would make more sense rather than allow for more grading and subdivision to simply allow more units. That way you're not negatively impacting the watershed, but you're saying if you're, you're allowed to grade this certain area, let's allow you to have a triplex there. That, that could be a logical, a logical response to allowing more housing and therefore maybe wanting to maintain the lot width that we're— that they're suggesting.
[98:46] Speaker 2: So, so even triplexes, 50 to 60 feet, um, whereas RS-2 currently is 80 feet minimum lot width. So I guess point being, RS-2 today is Probably overly generous lot width for the proposed missing middle typologies that would be appropriate in those areas. So, as you know, potentially a low-hanging fruit, like right-size the lot width, right-size, you know, decrease the minimum lot size to be appropriate for the missing middle typologies that council has affirmed in making duplexes legal everywhere. Um, that, that seems eminently doable. It's changing 2 numbers in a use district, right? Like, and I get— and that's, that's totally— I mean, it's ignoring the sort of environmental constraints for the moment, right?
[99:36] Speaker 7: It's ignoring those. It's ignoring, you know, what kind of a public process you're going to have at the same time that you're beginning a public process on a larger rewrite, you know. And, and, and so any, any zoning change that we take involves a lot of public process, a lot of discussion publicly with, with this board and with city council and the public to notify them so that they understand what's happening. So, it's— yes, it's a simple change, but a lot of text amendments are simple from the fact that we're just changing some words, but there's a lot in there and.
[100:14] Speaker 10: Thank you.
[100:15] Speaker 7: Um, even if, if we could pass that, would it really make that much of a difference to justify all that work? I think those are questions that are not as easy— easily answered.
[100:27] Speaker 2: Sure. Um, and then kind of looking at the more— the larger missing middle typologies that have designated larger lot width recommendations, um, just to be clear, because I do think There's public confusion around, um, even the broader UDO overhaul and what that would mean to residential lot standards. Changing those standards doesn't mean, like, an existing residential lot with a 40-foot lot width, that's 4,000 square feet if it's an RS-8, would be illegal. Like, what, what exists today continues to be allowed to exist. Even if the standards are changed.
[101:10] Speaker 7: Let me start by saying, I'm not suggesting that these are standards we're going to be taking actions to move forward.
[101:20] Speaker 2: This—
[101:21] Speaker 7: I'm just responding to a previous report that they made for reasonable lot widths. Should lot widths dictate? Now, um, So, so I feel like it's premature to speculate what zoning changes may occur because we don't know and we haven't gone through even analysis. We're very, very early, but regardless, any changes that happen to the zoning will not require properties to change in any way. If they don't comply, they would be nonconforming lots and they could exist. exist like they do today. And that's a regular part of zoning, uh, uh, the zoning world. We have lots of nonconformities.
[102:10] Speaker 2: I guess, yeah, to more clearly articulate my point, you know, we have a development pattern in our neighborhoods. Um, certainly we want to encourage and facilitate missing middle typologies. That was the whole kind of intention behind commissioning a missing middle housing report in the first place. But we also have built realities of, you know, existing neighborhoods with limited inventory for infill. So we're talking about facilitating these types, but not wholesale change of the built-out pattern of a neighborhood, right? Like, in any case, yes, we're, we're not—
[102:50] Speaker 7: we, you can't— I mean, we've We've inherited a typology that you're discussing, describing a certain pattern in different neighborhoods, in various neighborhoods, and that, that's not going to change except over time, incrementally, very slowly, if at all.
[103:05] Speaker 2: So, um, let me ask this. Is the missing middle housing initiative completed?
[103:13] Speaker 7: The, the report that we commissioned is complete. Completed a couple of years ago.
[103:21] Speaker 2: But is the, you know, is it as a project complete? I mean, you know, because we've adopted certain things from it and avoided others. And, you know, lately we've been hearing staff's very strong recommendation that those other things become part of UDO overall. But, I mean, I guess for a long time we were hearing both and. And we're not hearing that anymore. So I guess my question is, like, are we— is staff's position that we have completed all the work to implement the missing middle housing report?
[103:58] Speaker 7: We haven't. Jump in if you want to chime in.
[104:03] Speaker 9: Yeah, I think it's probably— I don't really have to— like, I will answer that, but clearly not all the work was done that we would like to have gotten done. Um, but some folks who are on this board now experienced the difficulty with making small changes to our ordinance, and at some point the opportunity presented itself for funding for— to rewrite our 30-year-old code. Um, and it was time to do so. So that being said, I do just want to Flip way back here. Okay, sorry, nobody's getting— the first thing you see on this slide is that Task 1, community engagement, is beginning now, um, on the planning for community engagement for this large project to engage our community on land use planning and zoning, right? Um, and that is an ongoing task for 30 months. In my experience, coming up on 14 years here with the city, we are not a city that is able to pass zoning changes to districts, to residential districts, without proper engagement of the community. Um, that is just how it's played out with every single thing we've taken through so far. Um, so I, I brought this back up to really highlight where we find that conflict point between launching on this very important, very expensive project and looking at things that would consume staff time and cause additional engagement with the community that is already being engaged on recovery projects, the comp plan update, unified development rewrite. And also now we'll be engaged on the city's 5-year strategic plan during this time. Um, and going back to those folks to talk about changing lot widths by 10 or 20 feet, which may sound like something we can accomplish easily, but again, 14 years here, I haven't seen an easy residential text amendment. Um, so I just want to make that super clear as we move forward. Uh, we have spoken with our consultant.
[106:29] Speaker 1: They—
[106:29] Speaker 9: Pretty much a static point to start from with this code to get going. Um, we have concerns, as Padilla highlighted, with the current downzoning prohibition to get zoning right for the next 30, 40, 50 years, however long it is before we touch it again. Uh, it's, it's really not a quick tactical move. It's looking at our Future land use, considering our comprehensive plan, it's making sure we are getting to the right point. And if the point we get with a quick, somewhat uncalculated move to try and increase housing puts us in a place where we can no longer go back past that mark because of the state's downzoning prohibition, that becomes an issue for us as we try and implement a new code as well. Um, so I know where we're, we're going with some of these questions. We definitely want to update you guys on that, but it is our strong opinion we have got to put all our resources into this unified development and comprehensive plan update at this time.
[107:28] Speaker 2: Yeah, I hear that. I appreciate that perspective. I would like to latch on to the notion of quick and uncalculated. You know, the missing middle housing report was a product of a lot of not just engagement, but expert guidance by staff, the same consultant team that's doing the UDO overhaul. Um, so, you know, I think completion of the recommendations, or at least a subset of the recommendations, is, is something, you know, that we've been hearing very recent council interest in. We got a lot of public interest, public Uh, comment, um, in advance of this meeting about— so, I feel that council needs to hear and direct whether we're doing both and, or we're deciding pencils down and lock ourselves up for 3 years on a really important project, because that's a major, major change. And actually, as part of the anti-displacement Um, an affordable housing project that was presented and got significant council buy-in because of the both-and approach. Um, we're not hearing that anymore, and there may be good reasons for that, but I, I think personally, just speaking for me, that would— that seems like a deviation from council direction and strategy that Was presented that anti-displacement affordable housing project had the initial missing middle touchpoint, which was duplex townhome, ADU, and parking, and then always had a notion of a further, which was described as kind of a more complex missing middle project. So what when did that when did that you know when did staff sort of move away from that, and at whose direction?
[109:34] Speaker 9: So our direction, uh, right now, as we understand it, um, sometimes wish it was clear as city staff, but our direction right now is, uh, to work on this Community Development Block Grant disaster relief funded project to update the comp plan and The unified—
[109:57] Speaker 2: that if that was presented.
[109:58] Speaker 9: What I can tell you is I feel like we as staff have been clear with that from day 1 when presenting this project, and it's been a while. It's taken a long time to get to this point. I wish it didn't. I'm with everybody on that. But we've been clear that the best way forward is to move forward with this larger project. Now, referencing missing middle housing study. It was a study. It was not adopted by city council. That does hold weight, right? And one thing we're trying to do with the comprehensive plan update is create a way to adopt these future studies and plans that happen so that they hold more weight. But when the study is not adopted, we in, in our field in the public sector aren't really given a mandate to enact that study at that point. There are great findings there, but one thing we struggle with on a daily basis in public sector urban planning is what is the directive, right? What is the current way the elected officials want us to go, and how is that getting transmitted down to us through the city management, right? So we look for things that are constants, right? If there's an adopted plan, we can assume we are to pursue what's in that plan. plan. Uh, when a study is not adopted, like the missing middle, like the affordable housing plan as well after it that did not get adopted, um, it's out there. It's amazing information. People are working towards it. But without a council adoption of these plans, it makes it harder to follow through with those, uh, and subsequently trying to take amendments through to try and enact things. And not being able to get those amendments done on the missing middle housing study. And then we hit Helene and opportunity to rewrite this code, and here we are now. So, we, we haven't felt that directive to enact the missing middle housing study. We personally understand it, right, as a planning department who wants to move the community forward and alleviate the, the housing crisis we've experienced here. Um, but at this point, you know, we haven't found that many wins in these small amendments moving forward, and we do have this project on the horizon.
[112:20] Speaker 2: So, I, I'm sort of living in an alternate reality because, um, I went back and rewatched all of the council touchpoints around UDO. comp plan rewrite, anti-displacement, affordable housing, and nowhere in there did I hear this very clear staff presentation that the UDO overhaul would be pencils down on everything else. In fact, I heard many times various council members urging a both-and approach. So I do think that's a question worth worth re-asking. And to the notion about the missing middle housing report not being an adopted plan, that actually came up at one of the meetings, and there was a council member who asked if it needed to go for adoption, and staff's response was, well, no, we can implement some of the things as part of the anti-displacement affordable housing project. Um, so this is— it's very confusing. I mean, I actually have, like, all the dates of those meetings. I don't I don't want to belabor the point now, but it's a— it's actually been a very recent change where staff is now saying we can't work on interim updates because all of our focus needs to be on UDO rewrite. That's a very recent— I mean, even as recently as September, in agenda briefings and committee meetings, council has been asking for interim updates. To the zoning ordinance. Do you disagree with that, or—
[113:56] Speaker 9: I have heard council ask for information on things like RS-2. I've heard, uh, conversations about lot widths. Uh, there have been no clear directions passed down to do any work on those. Um, so that's where we've been. Uh, I, I'm not sure which points you've written down. Uh, there, but we— I know that I've stood in this room several times and expressed the same direction that I'd like for us to be able to take to be effective at this large project that we won't have an opportunity to do again for quite some time. So.
[114:37] Speaker 2: I think we should go back to the anti-displacement affordable housing project, because when that was, um, brought forth March 19th at a council agenda briefing. Um, it was met with rave reviews, and the timeline included the initial, um, missing middle implementation, a 2nd council touchpoint in November. That was the secondary package that had been described, you know, non-specifically, but, um, a council member said, this is really impressive. Um, love the level of engagement and actionable items. Nothing really has to stop, which was the intention when LNC came forward a while ago. Another council member, you know, echoed that, said, I'm seeing 2 batches of regulatory changes, spring and winter. And staff kind of affirmed that and said, you know, ADU parking and duplex would be coming in the near term. Um, followed up in June, June 18th council agenda briefing. was a sort of reveal of the Comp Plan UDO process. Um, and, you know, then the focus was on adoption and modules. June 23rd, Policy Finance Infrastructure Committee work session, uh, further review of the ADA presentation, again reiterating kind of these 2 touchpoints. Um, And then, you know, where things changed, it seems, is after the council adoption of the anti-displacement resolution, when work really did kick into high gear with a consultant. But even after that, you know, we had an August 20th council agenda briefing where a majority of council was specifically requesting lot size minimum discussion. Um, You know, so I don't know. And then I just— it seems like there was a major and significant change away from the framework outlined in that anti-displacement affordable housing timeline at some point. And I don't feel that I heard council give directive to ignore this kind of nonspecific second batch of missing middle.
[116:56] Speaker 9: Amendments, and we also haven't gotten specific direction to pursue any amendments, quite honestly. And we have gotten specific direction to pursue this project. If we get specific direction to pursue amendments, we're happy to do it. We don't think it's for the best with this project and for our staff capacity, but we're certainly not going to ignore specific direction to do so. So, yeah.
[117:19] Speaker 10: I chime in with a question. So, In light of all of that, let's say we move forward with the UDO, do it comprehensively. Who is driving? And by who, I mean, is it us? Is it council? Is it staff? Is it the consultant? Who is driving, uh, to make sure that the items in the missing middle housing study are incorporated into the comp plan?
[117:48] Speaker 9: Let me think about the order of that. I think in a way everybody's driving that a little bit. Um, but obviously the consultant's going to bring us information. By luck, it's the same consultant, part of this, that worked on the missing middle housing study. So we have that going for us. But, um, as staff, we would be ensuring that those previously reinforced concepts are within the bigger work we're doing. Um, and then, as we discussed earlier with this group, or whatever form of this group is the steering committee, we would be looking for this group to additionally reinforce that as we work through the plan. So, yeah, absolutely.
[118:35] Speaker 7: Just one other thought. Keep in mind, when the missing middle housing study was written, they were not rewriting the UDO, so they were working within the current framework. Now everything is sort of on the table, so we shouldn't think of it necessarily as this is— we're bound by this study. Now that we have— can kind of let the reins go a little bit, you know, maybe all the zoning districts will collapse and change, right?
[119:03] Speaker 2: I think that's a great point. And I think that's a really easy early question of the consultants because they're the same team that delivered us Missing Middle Housing report. And I think the question is, is there any scenario in the future UDO where we have 8,000 square foot minimum lot sizes? I'd love to have an answer to that question because I, yeah, I don't see where that's a scenario in Asheville. I don't see a scenario where we have, uh, front setbacks that are 3.5 times the lowest density residential category in Buncombe County.
[119:38] Speaker 7: And they will probably agree with you. But the question is, where do we go?
[119:42] Speaker 2: So why not now? You know, I guess that's the thing. If we're talking about bringing ourselves into the future, these are— there has to be, in my mind, a conservative threshold that we could go to knowing that we're way out of step with planning best practice today.
[119:59] Speaker 9: I think, I think some of the concern comes in. In there around the downzoning provision, the fact that zoning districts might be changing and where those lines are supposed to be and kind of hemming in what that future canvas could look like right now. Um, I don't— I don't—
[120:18] Speaker 6: Area affect that?
[120:20] Speaker 9: Sorry, with lot width and lot area, potentially it could potentially, um, if we went, you know, it's kind of an abstract exercise right now. Where are we going to and where's it going? Like, what width are we going to? Um, it could potentially, depending on what lines get drawn, probably residential stays residential and commercial stays commercial. Um, but really what we're working in is an environment where things are going to be upzoned rather than downzoned for state reasons and also for growth and housing reasons, right? Um, so you could see some areas become more permissive. And have different building types kind of associated with them than are now. But again, I'm really getting hypothetical on that right now. We're just concerned about kind of boxing the process in possibly right now. Your point is taken, right? If there's like a lot width that— or a lot size that is like, okay, are we safe here? I get it. I get where you're coming from with that 100%. Let's just go ahead and go to it. I think the engagement we did with the ADA-related zoning amendments was successful because we did a lot of it. We paired it with the work that's being done on the anti-displacement risk assessment tool, which we talked about earlier tonight, uh, some changes to how the city communicates with legacy partners, um, and some changes to the notification process for developments. All that came together in good and close proximity, and it helped us get duplexes across the line and some minor changes to ADUs. The state took care of the parking, right? Um, you know, I, I'm not sure if that lightning will strike twice, but, um, it could. Duplexes is a big win. It gives us a theoretical double density on vacant lots in our districts, which is great. We'll see how far that's gone. We have had 3 duplex permits since it was passed. This is just aside, interesting information, but all 3 were in districts that permitted them prior to the amendment. So we haven't seen it yet, but I have faith.
[122:33] Speaker 2: And I, yeah, and I appreciate that. And I think there'll be something to track when this body recommended the duplex townhome attached around lot size. And I think The reasons— the reason around the urgency was, um, you know, the notion that if duplexes are permitted, but the lot sizes stay large, we're going to see, um, a development pattern that, you know, could be more robust, or, you know, it's, it's really only a half measure. You could get a lot more bang for the buck. Um, so we kind of adjusted the use table without the standard to really facilitate that in keeping with the missing middle housing report. So, from, from my read of tuning into council meetings and agenda briefings, they, they heard that and they, they've been asking for the follow-up. That's where I think this is, this confusion. Maybe it behooves us and us, you know, I don't know who that is, the royal us, to ask council what they've meant by that, because I, I've heard loud and clear that there's an appetite.
[123:40] Speaker 3: Thank you.
[123:40] Speaker 2: for an interim adjustment to lot width and lot size. And absent, you know, consultant guidance saying, whoa, whoa, whoa, this will really, really mess up the future UDO, I still think that's a train worth jumping on.
[123:57] Speaker 9: Yeah, and I will just— last thing I'll say, go back to the additional engagement that's going to be required in some neighborhoods if we go in and we say we're gonna double your theoretical density or something. Everybody in this room is probably for that. I have met neighbors that might not be right. And who's right and who's wrong is not the issue. It's taking the right steps to inform them and hear their opinions and let them be part of the process and the threats that may present to the engagement for this Archer project. So, again, that's the primary concern. Doing something we can't undo that we need to undo and over-engagement.
[124:38] Speaker 2: Is it, is it worth having the engagement and then pumping the brakes if there's significant concerns raised? I think it's why forestall future potentials out of fear of what the good people of Asheville may think of it. You know, I don't know. It just seems like we're sort of short-circuiting the potential for a conversation.
[125:01] Speaker 4: Yeah, if I may, yes and to everything, uh, Director Collins has said. We are coming out with a communications and engagement plan. You can see there in the Gantt chart that is something Will Pompkus talked about. When we're talking about engagement, it's not just for this. There would then be additional ones for the UDO, and, and over-engagement is a, is a concern, as we then have to go back and say, we did this once, we are going to do This further.
[125:26] Speaker 2: And that's why I think the beauty of the anti-displacement affordable housing project had limited targeted scope. You know, I think that going to the community with broad questions about our comp plan and development patterns and what we want to facilitate is a much different conversation than, um, do these standard— do these adjustments of these very specific standards that are recommended from this report that was commissioned and completed 3 years ago. Like, that's a much more narrow question. And in fact, you know, one of our fellow commissioners, Commissioner Anzalito, has prepared a, you know, draft zoning text amendment that hasn't seen the light of day, hasn't received public discourse because, you know, of these concerns. And I just, I think it's worth putting on the table, um, or at least seeking clarification from council about their directives or appetite for consideration.
[126:29] Speaker 10: I think that's another one of my follow-up questions. Is our goal tonight to make a recommendation to council, or we're just discussing?
[126:37] Speaker 4: This is something we talked about in the pre-meeting. Both Vidila and I went and rewatched the HCD, uh, Uh, what was said verbatim was to remand this matter to planning and zoning as a discussion topic. So no vote is required. Consensus is not even required. So it is, it is a matter for your consideration.
[127:01] Speaker 9: For us to have this discussion, um, and, you know, council clarity of direction is important to us. So we know where to dedicate our limited resources. resources, right? Um, so I'll leave it with that.
[127:18] Speaker 1: And yeah, some questions. Um, they're kind of pertaining to RS2. If we can go back to— go back to the presentation for a minute. Um, I think this conversation has been very illuminating. I think it's also kind of landed in an interesting place. Um, it seems like much of this environmental constraints analysis Uh, was expressing that RS-2 is not an ideal place to down, you know, to upzone because of the environmental constraints. Uh, but much of this conversation has kind of revolved around sequencing of the UDO. And then additionally, there's been other conversations about even, you know, allowing fourplexes or allowing missing middle housing types in RS-2, which seems somewhat contradictory to what this analysis produced, saying that, you know, this— we need to keep it low density in single-family homes so that to protect against environmental constraints. Uh, so, could I guess, can, can you speak to that? I'm a little confused about how those 2 ideas are working against each other.
[128:30] Speaker 9: Yeah, well, I don't see RS-2 as a goldmine of density and housing for the, the city. Um, but I do see it as an environmentally constrained area of the city for the most part. Now, um, I think there's a slide in here that touches on this. I thought it touched— where are we going? Back here. Well, just here. Like, I don't— from a planning perspective, from a good practice perspective, from moving forward I don't think a 16,000-square-foot lot minimum— and what are we looking at, 35-foot front setbacks, 80-foot widths— are necessarily the tool to protect us from slope erosion and environmental issues. But they do kind of artificially, as some keep the density down at this time in those areas till we figure out the right way to regulate. Now, as far as mentioning like fourplexes and stuff, The current ordinance actually has density bonuses for clustering units and allows those uses within RS-2 when that's done under a certain grading limitation. So that concept is already there. Like, if you're going to have more units in environmentally sensitive areas, clustering them together, the less grading, the better, right? So that's kind of where that concept comes from. That can be done in a way that is environmentally that is friendly to these environmentally sensitive areas and therefore friendly to the community. Um, I guess the bigger concern with getting density is the concept of having density in places served by infrastructure, essentially. Uh, first, before spreading out and letting the infrastructure catch up, and that's kind of captured by this middle housing ready centers and corridors map, which again doesn't touch a lot of these RS-2 areas. So.
[130:20] Speaker 1: Sorry, can you repeat that last sentence? You're going kind of fast. I missed it.
[130:23] Speaker 9: Uh, a lot of these environmentally constrained RS-2 areas do not match up with these infrastructure-ready areas is what I like to call them, because that's really what we're looking at here. It's transit-supportive corridors, it's walkable centers, things like that to support additional density. Um, and one of our philosophies of moving into this resiliency-focused project to rewrite the zoning is to put density in the right places in the city, right?
[130:51] Speaker 1: I guess that would be my confusion as well, because, you know, this is for middle housing, and then I feel like kind of the discussion that had happened at HCD revolved around allowing for just, like, you know, upzoning this to RS-4 and allowing more single-family housing. And so, Is there a comparable analysis that would look at, you know, this may not be a gold mine for density, but I think I'd run some preliminary numbers. I think you can potentially get, like, by subdividing stuff that's land that's outside of the steep slope area, you're able to get, like, over 1,000 different potential housing units, conservatively. But I I guess I'm kind of just, uh, just struggling. Yeah, sorry, I'm still struggling with how the— you know, we don't have necessarily the infrastructure for middle housing in some of these areas, but I don't quite see how that would be— there's a deficiency for single-family homes just on smaller lots.
[132:01] Speaker 9: Okay, is there a question? Sorry, I didn't—
[132:07] Speaker 1: It was more of a statement, kind of just in response to what you had said.
[132:11] Speaker 9: I didn't really have a response to that. Um, more single-family homes means more grading in environmentally sensitive areas, right? So it means more than the envelope of the home. It means, you know, typically in theory, when we're getting especially on these more expensive pieces of land and more expensive construction methods and Steep slopes, you're going to see driveways, you're going to see additional grading for garages, and grading is the key to keeping these environmentally sensitive areas secure, right? So that's why our ordinance, for instance, gives bonuses for uses and density when you cluster units. It's to reduce grading. So honestly, having a system by which you allow more units in a clustered fashion is Theoretically better for our environmentally sensitive sloped areas than additional single-family housing. So, um, that's, I guess that's my response.
[133:09] Speaker 6: Yeah. Can I ask, do you, do you think that the existing steep slope regulations are not sufficient to address that? I mean, I think my, my reaction a little bit to the, to the presentation is that I mean, with flooding, I think the answer is no, they're not sufficient. So, like, you know, that's one area that I think is concerning more, but the— with regard, like, if we have other regulations in place to, um, protect against steep slopes considerations, you know, changing lot width and lot size, you know, wouldn't necessarily It would still let those other regulations play out in order to protect those environmental constraints. Um, yeah, sure.
[134:02] Speaker 9: Like, like a lot of the tools in our current UDO, um, there is room for improvement in the steep slope ordinance as it is right now. I keep calling it the ordinance. That's what it was when it was passed way before I got here. Uh, the steep slope section, the 712.4. Um, so not knowing what form that takes, it's kind of a blunt instrument right now. Um, there's room for more precision in how we regulate such steep slopes. There's more room for more allowance of clustering and actually regulating maybe the placement of grading on certain sites and things like that. Um, And let me think through how to say this, but right now, nonconforming lots that came into being prior to that steep slope regulation enjoy the benefit of being able to be developed. Um, so if they were lots created prior to that steep slope adoption of what we have on the books now, um, so by extension, that same right is going to extend to lots created prior to what we bring in Um, that's courtesy of the state of North Carolina, right? So, if we create more lots now, it kind of handcuffs us on how we regulate steep slope development in those areas in the future by placing that density allowance already on those lots that may be created in the meantime. Now, that's the technical answer. Realistically, do I expect a great deal of lots to be created in the 2 years it takes to get the new code adopted? I don't. Um, so balance those things as you will. Yeah.
[135:48] Speaker 8: That just makes the point then, right? Like, uh, if you don't expect a lot of lots to be created— I just think that point that you just made is, is to me the biggest reason not to do this now, get rid of R2, is that The steep slope ordinance is insufficient, in my opinion. And I don't think in the long term that— I think environmental considerations should be governed by the overlay and not by the underlying zoning. I think they should be disentangled. I don't think the environmental argument for RS-2 being RS-2 because it's in environmentally constrained areas. Is a strong one, right? Right now, it's doubling. It's acting as an additional protection to a handicapped steep slope ordinance, propping it up. And if we remove it, which I think we eventually should disentangle them, but right now, you know, I was kind of on the fence, but. The point being made, if a ton of new lots, or if lots, if lots are being created between now and when we get the new UDO, we strengthen the steep slope. All those new lots that were created will not have to follow that.
[137:16] Speaker 9: That's, that's my current understanding of how the downzoning prohibition would work and how our ordinance is currently written. So.
[137:28] Speaker 6: So the downzoning provision would apply to grandfathering prior to adoption of ordinances. I thought it pertained more to restricting the number of uses. I think this is an important distinction.
[137:40] Speaker 9: Yeah, and it's, and it's something that's going to require a little more analysis to be, like, really precise on. But there were things in 2007, I think, when the steep slope and ridgetop ordinance were implemented that were impacted by state law, right? That required us to say specifically in the ordinance, any lot in existence prior to the date, right, is— has the right to develop outside of these ordinances, right? Um, because that is in our ordinance now, it is very likely that That will need to carry on. Now, I don't know.
[138:22] Speaker 6: Oftentimes you're subject, unless you started your development process, then you're grandfathered in the prior ordinance. But if you're saying that state law would essentially grandfather every existing parcel under its current zoning regulation or slope regulations, or whatever it may be prior to the adoption of the new Ordinance. I mean, that would almost negate the entire new ordinance on its face.
[138:50] Speaker 5: So, for steep slopes, not regards to all zoning, just regarding steep slope constraints.
[138:57] Speaker 6: Why is that?
[138:58] Speaker 5: Because of state law intersecting with, um, the steep slope ordinance is what I'm understanding.
[139:04] Speaker 9: Chris, that's my understanding. That's where I said this answer will need a little more precision to carry out all the way through. Like, we're going to need to do a little more research. Because this was before any of us were here at the city that this came through. But there was a state law that really directly intersected with how we can regulate steep slope and ridgetop zones, um, in regard to nonconforming parcels. And I'm not aware of it having gone away, but I can't cite statute to you right now. Um, but we can do some research, and that's an answer we can come back with.
[139:35] Speaker 6: But then there's also— Yeah, I would really appreciate a little a little bit maybe more legal understanding of, of that prior law and like the potential implications of the existing downzoning, the recent, more recent downzoning.
[139:50] Speaker 9: Yeah, and the downzoning prohibition is the other thing.
[139:53] Speaker 5: We—
[139:54] Speaker 9: I don't know, I can't tell you right now how it would work. I'd have to confer with Janice and Brad and everybody and, and see how that would play out. I do have a legitimate fear that it would carry forward what's in our ordinance now. But, um, and heck, that might be gone by the time we adopt this thing, but we're— we don't know, so we're having to plan for it not to be, right? So, but we can get back with more specific information on that.
[140:21] Speaker 10: Yeah, I thought you were focusing on the downzoning, which the idea is if you go in and, and upzone these and for some reason there are negative impacts, or you want to go back and say, oh, that didn't work exactly the way we hoped. And we've seen breaks on, you know, even with the legacy neighborhood, that, that sort of idea. There's certain areas that might want breaks. And who knows? We don't— I don't know. This discussion is being watched by people who are interested in opening up areas, but for people who have environmentally sensitive areas, They— that's a whole other population that might come into play here and say, wait a minute, you know, if you were to move forward with some kind of proposal, you're going to get other members of the public, I think, in these particular areas because of the environmental regulations. But I thought you were saying, uh, you cannot— We might not be able to go back. And that's what you were talking about when you called it nonconformity, but that would mean that we just— you couldn't go backwards, right?
[141:29] Speaker 9: And we don't have the right tool in place to regulate steep slopes right now.
[141:34] Speaker 6: Right?
[141:35] Speaker 9: So I know that that's probably going to change how we approach that. So there's a real concern in the steep slope zones for that. Um, honestly, I think starting in RS-2 might be the worst place to start. While it looks like an attractive place to start, because we have these big minimum lot widths and these big setbacks, like, maybe we can adjust one of those, but there's probably less risk in other zoning districts.
[142:00] Speaker 2: I would agree. And I think that, you know, I love Adela's slide saying, should RS-2 change? Yes, as should other districts. Um, and given recent council discussion around that. I think it's— I think we want to hear their appetite to hear an across-the-board change that can be, you know, well informed by the UDO process and designed in a way as to not imperil, you know, future work. Um, that, that I think is the central question is like, yeah, I know this started because HCD was contemplating RS-2, and, and I, to be clear, I understand That, like, the lot sizes, I'm guessing, although I haven't dug so deeply, um, preceded the steep slopes regulation. So the overly generous lot sizes, widths, gracious setbacks were actually a tool of exclusion and, um, designed in a way to entitle certain people to the mountain views while discouraging other people from availing themselves of it. So. So that may not be why it exists today, but it just sort of codified a protection against— then we, you know, included environmental regulation that now, you know, needs update and overhaul for sure. But using the tool of exclusion, I think if I kind of followed the reasoning behind getting it at HCD, that was central to it. You know, as an anti-displacement strategy, if we do nothing, we are further perpetuating the development pressures on the vulnerable areas that have seen a significant amount of development over the last few years for the next 3 years. That's what we're doing. And so pencils down means let's continue along the pressures that we've seen in the areas we've been seeing them. So, I guess my, my personal feedback to HCD and broader council is, um, maybe not RS-2, but certainly something, because if not, we are— we have done the anti-displacement resolution a disservice and sort of perpetuating the harms that we've been seeing.
[144:25] Speaker 1: I'd like to jump in on that. Last point, uh, with a data point that kind of informs that idea of, you know, this being a tool of exclusion. Um, I think it's worth noting and adding to the conversation that the average home size in RS-2 is about 5,000 square feet, and that the average taxable value for homes in that district are about $845,000. Um, and that is the average for RS-2. RS-4 is like $420,000. It's about half of the taxable value. And then the house size for RS-4 is also, you know, about 50%, or it's closer to— it's like 3,400 square feet. So I think it is worth noting that, like, while we're having this discussion, that, uh, there is an effect of the zoning district that is producing very large, very expensive houses. Um, it could be used. I would kind of argue against that. This is being the best tool, or that it's even working agnostically from the steep slope regulations. But I think the data points to that it's somewhat successfully producing very large, very expensive houses.
[145:36] Speaker 10: I say the same thing for anything that only allowed single-family housing. Before we had the allowance of a different kind of housing type. So, yes, it's lot size, but it's also that before, before that amendment, didn't we have single-family only zoning?
[146:00] Speaker 1: Well, I would, I would say the data doesn't necessarily support that, because if I'm just comparing RS-2 and RS-4, they have similar allowances and, like, use, but they're very different.
[146:10] Speaker 10: You're saying the housing Size is a lot. Yes, but yeah, I don't know what the average parcel size is in, in that RS-2 too. But if you—
[146:20] Speaker 2: I bet Commissioner Anzalito does.
[146:22] Speaker 1: It's an acre. It's an acre.
[146:23] Speaker 10: It's an acre. So it's large, large parcels and expensive land.
[146:28] Speaker 2: Yeah, the average lot size in RS-2.
[146:31] Speaker 9: Yeah, you said about an acre.
[146:33] Speaker 1: Yeah, about an acre.
[146:34] Speaker 6: That's interesting.
[146:37] Speaker 9: Um, questions?
[146:38] Speaker 8: They could be split now.
[146:42] Speaker 2: Maybe, although there's the— that's where the intersection with steep slopes probably plays out, as you have some, you know, some lots that would not be allowed.
[146:55] Speaker 7: And where the home is located.
[146:57] Speaker 2: Sorry, could you come up to the mic?
[146:59] Speaker 7: Where the home is located, if the home is in the center of That it can't be split. So it's just, it's a lot of nuance.
[147:06] Speaker 2: And that's another great point. Steep slopes also, in addition to sort of exacting tougher to meet standards, while not, you know, precluding development, one thing it does have is more flexibility on setbacks to resolve exactly that question of how can we accommodate lots that may be atypical and place the house in a Less environmentally risky.
[147:31] Speaker 8: That, to me, that's what makes the most sense.
[147:34] Speaker 2: Yeah. And that exists in very limited fashion already. And I think RS-4, maybe RS-2. Um, yeah, I think there's certainly room to expand that. It's really just the front setbacks in RS-2 can be reduced to 15 feet from 20— from 35 in designated steep slope zones to kind of encourage building closer to a roadway, limiting the disturbance in this environmentally sensitive area. So that, that exists. I mean, that's, and that's a good tool, um, allowing, you know, further reductions in those environmentally sensitive areas to side setbacks, rear setbacks. Those are really common sense measures to allow the environmental regulation to prevail.
[148:19] Speaker 7: I think that makes a lot of sense. And, and, you know, our consultants would agree with with a lot of that. I think the question is, is where do we go from there? I think your point was— made a lot of sense that we should see where this process goes and try to find a middle ground to bring something forward that doesn't risk having to pull something back or to have a conflict with this downzoning regulation.
[148:44] Speaker 2: Yeah, I wouldn't say see where the process goes. Um, I would say, put something out there for response.
[148:52] Speaker 6: Um, can you, can you clarify? Sorry, respectfully, can you, can you clarify what you are putting out there? Are you saying if you were to— I didn't totally— I missed a little bit of that in terms of the environmentally sensitive considerations that are already in place. But if we took RS-4 or RS-2 and reduced its minimum lot size, And its width down to, like, RS-8 numbers or RS-4 numbers. Is that what you were suggesting?
[149:23] Speaker 2: I think, um, you know, Commissioner Anzalito has, has put something out there that we could look at, but only if council provides direction and staff has bandwidth to evaluate an interim step, as has been contemplated since March.
[149:42] Speaker 6: Um, but clarify what, what that— are you willing to put numbers out there?
[149:46] Speaker 2: I could, but, you know, we're not really here to make recommendations. I, I mean, I think, yeah, across the board reductions in minimum lot size, across the board reductions in setbacks, and across the board reductions in lot width. Well, I guess not across the board, but for those most restrictive RS-2 and RS-4 to make those areas accommodate a greater level of infill than we're currently seeing. I think it's sort of the conceptual framework.
[150:17] Speaker 6: Are you, are you talking about just the RS districts or all of them?
[150:21] Speaker 2: No, I think RM-6, you know, has overly oversized numbers for where those districts are.
[150:29] Speaker 6: Um, I, I'm in agreement. I just, I think it's worthwhile and potentially for those that are You know, listening to this too, I think it's helpful in moving the conversation forward to put a little more of a fine point on what is potentially to be considered. Um, which I would, I would agree would be reduction in minimum lot size, lot width, and setback.
[150:57] Speaker 2: Yeah, I mean, I think, you know, front setbacks across the board. could be 15 feet instead of 35, like, easily. You know, that's even a greater front setback than the lowest density residential district in the county. Um, side setbacks could across the board be 6 feet. Rear setbacks could across the board be 15 feet. Those are, you know, what is it that's special about RS-2 and RS-4 that requires that additional buffer between I don't really see it. I don't understand. I think the lot widths could come down, um, you know, citywide. It seems like if you're in the city limits, there's no need for more than 4,000 square feet in your— on your lot. That's consistent with where we've seen a lot of municipalities that consider themselves urban. Uh, yeah, they've gone much lower than that, even 2,500. Square feet, but for Asheville, we're not, we're not going to see 4,000 square foot lots. I mean, keep in mind, we've got environmental constraints. We've got like— It's a minimum lot size in RS-2 is 16,000 square feet, and the average lot size is an acre. So, just reducing provides builder flexibility for Infill without dramatic changes overnight to the development pattern.
[152:21] Speaker 6: Yeah, right. I think, I think it's very important to keep in mind that these are minimum standards. And when they're, you know, in what can be considered excessively large, then it's essentially over, you know, it's, it's preventing flexibility.
[152:43] Speaker 3: Um.
[152:47] Speaker 6: I think just, just to add a couple of comments, I think, I think the, the sort of equity component that you raised was, was important, and I do want to express, um, my sort of support of that concept that you raised in terms of, you know, making sure that we're not concentrating, um, additional development in areas that You know, are more vulnerable to displacement. I think there's changes needed across the board in order to ensure that we're allowing for housing development, housing, additional housing units to occur across the city in every zoning district. And I do think this isn't necessarily where we're going to be putting, you know, missing middle housing as much, but we do. And I do think these incremental changes could just be, you know, not changing the use regulations so that it would be to allow for additional parcels to be created and additional single-family, you know, or potentially duplexes currently under the regulations to be built, um, without— and, and as I understand it, under the downzoning consideration that, like, over-regulating, like, not changing the restrictions on use, I would hope would get around that concern if we were just to be changing the lot standards in terms of width and size and setback. Um, but I'd like to get a little more clarity on that. Um, I do, I do want to be really cognizant of the, like, engagement and staff time consideration. I mean, I think the staff time piece is one that, like, we really need to solve for, and I'm very sensitive to that. And, like, I know that you all are really spread thin and taking on an enormous new project here. Um, Um, but I think that it sounds to me like maybe we need more explicit prioritization, um, you know, in regards to that, either from, um, council or city manager, whoever that, that may be. Um, so I think that's something that sort of I'd like to just like vocalize, that being for the— for that leadership to, to be more explicit.
[155:01] Speaker 10: Thank you.
[155:01] Speaker 6: explicit around that, I think, would be really helpful from a staff time perspective. And on the engagement question, I think, you know, I'd just like to, to, to emphasize what Commissioner Barton said previously, that, like, there was a lot of engagement that went into the missing middle housing study. Um, you know, and I think that it obviously is, you know, necessitates additional engagement considerations to impose and change lot standards. But it does also feel to me like that is sort of— and can naturally dovetail with what is happening in the UDO rewrite process. And given the timeline that you put up earlier, like, it looks like we're going to be in the comp plan phase of that for quite some time in the future. And so, like, if we are able to make these— You know, do some engagement around this now and piggyback on the engagement in the study like that, we would be not necessarily, you know, I think you used the term over-engaging or confusing, you know, folks that we're engaging with because we would really just be in the first stages. We wouldn't be in the like sort of technical rewrite phase of this UDO update based on the timeline you were just putting out there, if I understand correctly. But I also don't know that over-engagement is something that is all that concerning. I mean, I think folks in Asheville are very engaged and want to be engaged and would appreciate more information than less in a lot of ways, even if that is, you know, talking about a lot of nerdy housing and zoning considerations on a variety of fronts. I think we should give people the opportunity to parse through that and Uh, yeah, I mean, I think there's a staff time consideration there and a prioritization question for sure. Um, but I don't think— I tend to not think that, you know, asking too many questions about too many ways to improve our city is something that we should shy away from. Um. Yeah, so I think, you know, I, I really appreciate this work. I do think I'm very supportive of additional incremental changes. I have a lot of concerns that we're going to get to the end of the UDO rewrite process, and it's not going to be adopted, or that there is some version of it that will be adopted in a way that is not, you know, I'm not saying I think that's going to happen, but I think it's a possible outcome. Um, and I don't, I don't want us to sit on our hands, you know, for, um, the entirety of the time, uh, that we move forward. Um, you know, and, and I think there's— if we have, you know, the interest in, uh, support from council to make additional amendments, I think I would be very supportive of moving forward with those.
[158:09] Speaker 2: And just to put a fine— sorry, I wanted to clarify, like, yeah, I guess I'm expressing dissatisfaction as like one person, but my goal would be to invite that deeper conversation to fine-tune what the specifics are. We can't— to not even have that conversation seems to miss an opportunity to, to your point, kind of improve our city and make these interim adjustments. So, you know, I don't know what the number is. I think there's a lot more information that needs to go into it, but I think it's— you're right, getting clarity on council appetite and directive, um, and allowance for us to engage in that conversation.
[158:52] Speaker 10: I wanted to add a little bit to Commissioner Burles, your point around engagement. I would argue that engagement without clarity can be confusing and harmful.
[159:14] Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
[159:15] Speaker 10: And so I think that is maybe a little bit of this, like, through line that There's confusion on our commission, there's confusion on staff side, there might be confusion in the community. Um, what I've seen as far as pushback from community is because something happens and there's a lack of clarity, right?
[159:36] Speaker 3: Mm-hmm.
[159:37] Speaker 10: So all of a sudden there's a change that's happening and there wasn't communication around how or why or when. Um, and so I would just offer that we continue to, to your point, also, you know, encourage council and staff to have more clarity and be more clear with the community as far as things that we're moving forward, whatever that may be. Um, I would also go back to kind of where we started this discussion and say that in my opinion, some of that lack of clarity does come from the plans not being adopted. And So I would just vocalize that council approving or adopting those plans would be helpful because it does provide more clear direction on where to go.
[160:24] Speaker 3: Thanks.
[160:30] Speaker 1: Were you about to say something? I would like to— I'm obviously in support of doing incremental changes. I think, uh, the phrasing of a housing crisis was invoked earlier, and I think that it's You know, I personally feel that it's incumbent upon us to act like it's a crisis. I don't care about this topic because it is like fashionable or culturally convenient. I personally, my rent went up like five hundred bucks when I moved here, and and if the city is very expensive for me to live in, I'm sure it's out of control for most people. I went into. Christian Staple's point earlier about, you know, if there are other regulations like the steep slope regulation that do need to be reformed, it's— I mean, we can't— I feel like there is also like a time immediacy to making reforms to things. Like, we can't just wait until— and hope like a storm or something, you know, is held off until we finish the UDO rewrite. I think there are— And so that's generally my thinking behind the flight was kind of pushing me for advocating for these changes. Um, on that note, I did want to talk— I wanted to return to the idea of disentangling the, uh, zoning and the steep slope regulations. Um, I would like— I think I would make the argument that they are already somewhat disentangled, the— or mostly disentangled. Most of the land in the steep slope zone is actually zoned for RS-4. And then it's RS-2, and then there's about 2,000 acres that are zoned for multifamily development, 400 of which is RM-16. Uh, and so I think, again, my concluding thought here is just that the idea that RS-2, to me, is producing any sort of environmental protection, uh, does not make a lot of sense. Because I think that our steep slope regulations, and there are, you know, the other environmental protections that we have that are regulating how you use land when you're in an area that's environmentally sensitive, I think should be doing that work. And I think that should just be divorced, uh, from zoning. And I think in a lot of ways it kind of already is. And so I would be interested in if there are reforms that need to be done to any of those regulations that are environmentally sensitive, like, let's do that. But at the same time, let's walk and chew gum, and I would be interested in making reforms to RS-2 or lot sizes in general.
[163:13] Speaker 2: Mr.
[163:21] Speaker 1: Faircloth, um, thanks everybody for a very good debate on this and coming very prepared. I think I want to take a kind of a step back real quick. I just got 2 questions kind of globally at this, and I want to make sure I'm clear. So staff is saying that it's not just lot size changes to RS-2 and RS-4 They do not support going forward with zoning text amendments.
[163:53] Speaker 2: It's any zoning text amendments.
[163:56] Speaker 5: We can reiterate a little bit of this, and I've been trying to think of a good way to kind of phrase it is this UDO project is so huge and all-encompassing and such a critical thing for our community. Um, so we've, you know, Obviously allocate a lot of money towards it and pick the best firm that has a great public engagement consultant on it.
[164:22] Speaker 1: Agreed.
[164:23] Speaker 5: Um, and you can see on the, on the time, time slide we had up earlier, the 30 months of continual engagement to be incredibly intentional and strategic of how we engage as a community, how we engage them early, get them kind of bought into the initial concepts we're going to be proposing. So when we start talking about lot sizes, and lot widths and those kinds of things. They're, they're educated and they're informed and they're active in the process. And, um, in a way that will guarantee the most success for the project and the kinds of changes we want to see in the UDO and in the final version ultimately. Um, so to take kind of a side process that's a little more— that's quicker and more, uh, and maybe less deliberate or intentional, or doesn't have as much time built in to get people, you know, up to speed or brought along with the process, could actually, in our mind, imperil this, this project. And, um, you know, there's concerns this project won't happen potentially or get adopted, but, um, we've, we've charted a course that we're confident will get adopted. And we've heard from leaders in the community and council and folks that they're excited for this project, and we're excited to deliver that. And we're just concerned with sidetracked projects that could potentially, because it builds, it could sow distrust or opposition to the project, even though that's not the intent.
[165:54] Speaker 1: Sure, I get the reasoning, but I guess that kind of leads on to my second question. And, um, you keep saying it's— I keep hearing it's staff's recommendation or staff's suggestion, but it's not really a recommendation. It's really a staff's— like, if we wanted to go against your recommendation, how would we do so?
[166:22] Speaker 9: You know, we can't.
[166:23] Speaker 10: We can't.
[166:24] Speaker 9: Like, if we have clear direction via the city manager from council, supposedly, like, if that's how it goes, that this is what needs to happen. To us, it's such a critical point. We really want to have that clear direction that this is the thing we want to see before we invest the time and risk some of the— put some of the risks out there that we would be putting out there for this larger project. We're not ever going to say, hey, we don't have time to do it, or we're not going to do it if we have clear direction to move on something. So I hope that answers it kind of. So yeah, it does.
[167:02] Speaker 1: Um, and I guess I'll end by saying I still believe everyone in this room has a very similar big picture goal. I think we're just very all upset about how to get there, but I still believe everyone sitting here roughly is wanting the same thing for the city. And we're extremely all extremely frustrated on how to get there.
[167:22] Speaker 2: I, I would— I agree. I Do very strongly disagree with the notion that council's approval of the UDO project was also an endorsement of pausing. In fact, and I'll go back to my timeline, August 20th council agenda briefing, we had a council member saying, do not pause progress until the UDO is done, find interim updates outside of the UDO, the larger UDO update process. We had another council member saying support putting lot size reductions on a PED agenda. We had another council member saying, um, chiming in to say HCD will be looking at it at RS-2. Um, we had another council member saying, don't want to delay progress while working on UDO update. And then a further saying, I echo support for that too. So, I'm sorry, council has spoken on this. If they need to reaffirm that direction. Let's ask them. But they have very clearly said, as recently as August 20th, we do not want to pause interim updates while working on the overall picture. So wherever staff got the directive to focus on UDO overhaul without the interim updates, I'm not sure. It's a meeting that I couldn't tune into because it wasn't on YouTube. Thank you.
[168:48] Speaker 1: To that point, I mean, would it be beneficial? I know this was just a discussion point for us in this meeting, but like, is it possible that we motion or give it to ask council to give a directive to kind of settle this in some fashion? Or is it just an informal, we hope they see this meeting and then they can—
[169:15] Speaker 4: If I may, um, Commissioner Barton, sorry, I almost, uh, called you chair just out of habit. So there is, uh, Commissioner Brawl had expressed, or Vice Chair Brawl had, um, asked for some prioritization clarity. Uh, it is something that you're seeking from council. Well, again, something that, uh, Videla has, and that I— he and I noted from HCD is from Councilwoman Mosley. She had stated, you know, I would be interested in hearing their input. So it seems that, that what should come from this discussion is making a connection for greater communication. So I think that that is something that can absolutely be done where we can find ways to get direction from council. And council wanted to hear from you. Message received. I think all the points are made. We can stay here well past eight belaboring these points, or we can get this information to council and we can get that council direction. New council, new mayor. So so respectfully, I'm not sure that that's necessarily true today. So we can get that new information to you, especially now that we do have the contract. And we will, of course. You know, one of the things you had asked for in October seventh is a. clear timeline and how you'll stay involved. Asked, answered, and delivered. That is all here. We can get more from council on that.
[170:32] Speaker 2: So procedurally, to follow up on Commissioner Anzalito's question, um, totally believe that, yes, we've had an endless discussion on this, and staff will seek answers to these. Um, does— do we need to— I guess by making a motion, we would— it would really just codify it in our minutes, but it's not an action item per se, correct? But it does— it would bring clarity in the minutes that this was a request of the full body to— or whoever supports such a motion. Yeah.
[171:14] Speaker 10: And can I just elaborate on that? I'm curious if whether it's a motion or just a discussion point, Um, our council liaison could be the one to liaise, right?
[171:29] Speaker 1: Correct.
[171:30] Speaker 10: Um, so I would encourage adding that into a recommendation or motion if we make one. Yeah, I'm not sure if it's a motion because it's not an action, but I guess you could summarize the, the information that you I don't know if you call it a motion, but say this is the information that we would— to summarize— that we would like to be brought up to. And when we say this was a request from one council member and you're getting the feedback, um, but then it didn't go— even that HCD one, I don't think, went up to council to say, HCD, you know, is that okay? So it's come here from HCD, and then that could go back to your recommendations could be however you want. If you, if you think of summarizing is the same as a motion, then just say our, our summary of this discussion, our feedback is this, and then that gets taken to, uh, the councilwoman who asked for it. And then there needs to be a decision of how that then gets up to the full council.
[172:34] Speaker 4: I also know the guy who does the action minutes for these meetings. We can also include verbatim whatever your recommendation is. So it is preserved for the record.
[172:42] Speaker 2: Appreciate that. Yeah, I mean, I, I do think some sort of formal motion request, I'd be supportive. I don't know that I have language prepared, but Commissioner Anzelito or anyone else, is this request just to get direction? I would say. I'm sorry to interrupt.
[173:05] Speaker 8: No, go ahead. I think, you know, where I'm going.
[173:07] Speaker 2: Yeah, I think it's to clarify whether there's an appetite for interim changes, period. Um, whether the missing middle housing report should be seen as a source of a source material document to guide interim changes. And then specifically, I think an appetite around across the board consideration of lot size with setback. You know, those are kind of the things that we talked about, but—
[173:44] Speaker 8: Yeah, yeah, I don't know. I don't know if I'm good with the first 2 points. Um, I think understanding clarity on, on interim changes, um, is important, and the middle housing study as a source document, that makes a lot of sense to me. Um, I don't— I think that starts the discussion. Um, I don't know if we need, or I don't know if I would be supportive of including specifics on, on what that discussion is just yet anyway.
[174:26] Speaker 1: Okay, well, uh, I mentioned that we— that I think I'm getting this right, uh, I mentioned that council would provide clarity, uh, on the appetite for interim zoning text amendment changes between now and the UDO adoption and completion. And then that those based on the missing middle housing report.
[174:59] Speaker 8: We have a motion and a second. All those in favor?
[175:13] Speaker 2: I know I need a second, but, you know, we don't— this isn't really an agenda item. We do have people that weighed in and have sat through this torturous discussion. I mean, it's chair's discretion to open a public comment. I don't know if that provides any further value. Totally up to you.
[175:30] Speaker 8: No.
[175:31] Speaker 2: Okay.
[175:32] Speaker 8: Not at this time. Thank you. All those in favor? Aye. Any opposed? All right, unanimous support for the motion.
[175:41] Speaker 2: Thank you for indulging us in this, uh, chaotic discussion and, and, and my— the end of my tenure as chair on a fun discussion.
[176:04] Speaker 8: Going out with fire.
[176:05] Speaker 1: I would just like to be the first to congratulate you on your promotion to chair of this esteemed body.
[176:14] Speaker 8: No, thank you.
[176:16] Speaker 2: Absolutely.
[176:16] Speaker 8: And thank you for, for your nomination and, and your leadership for, for as long as it's— I mean, it's been almost my full term right after Kim. So, thank you.
[176:30] Speaker 4: And staff would like to echo that relationships are so much more important than the issues, because there's always new issues. There's always new problems. We are communicating constantly, and knowing that you are accessible, communicative, and easy to work with has made staff's life so much easier in putting on this production. So, thank you.
[176:49] Speaker 2: Well, let's adjourn and have a group hug. There's not, you know, it's always listed that way, but there's no general public comment. And I guess it's sort of up to the chair, you know, whether we—
[177:05] Speaker 3: I'm sorry, I saw it on there.
[177:07] Speaker 10: I'm like, well, I guess they're going to get to say something.
[177:09] Speaker 4: No, that's how to provide it.
[177:10] Speaker 2: Open to public comment?
[177:13] Speaker 1: Chair already said no.
[177:15] Speaker 2: But just to acknowledge, we did get a lot of written feedback and appreciate the public engagement. Do you want to adjourn us?
[177:24] Speaker 8: Adjourn.
[177:25] Speaker 2: Thank you.