Council
Minutes
Tuesday June 28, 2005 - 5:00 p.m.
Regular Meeting
Present: Mayor
Charles R. Worley, Presiding; Vice-Mayor R. Carl Mumpower; Councilwoman
Terry M. Bellamy; Councilman Jan B. Davis; Councilman Joseph C. Dunn;
Councilwoman Diana Hollis Jones; Councilman Brownie W. Newman; City
Manager Gary W. Jackson; City Attorney Robert W. Oast Jr.; and Deputy
City Clerk Phyllis Corns
Absent: None
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
Mayor Worley led
City Council in the Pledge of Allegiance.
INVOCATION
Mayor Worley gave
the invocation.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Councilman Newman
asked that Consent Agenda Item “I” be removed from the Consent Agenda
for discussion since it related to the Water Agreement. In addition, he
requested a discussion regarding the negotiations of the Water Agreement
be added under “Other Business.”
I. PROCLAMATIONS:
A.
CERTIFICATE OF APPRECIATION TO ROBERT L. CAMBY JR.
On behalf of City Council,
Councilman Davis, liaison to the WNC Regional Air Quality Agency, read
the certificate of appreciation to Robert L. Camby, Jr., Executive
Director of the Western North Carolina Regional Air Quality Agency, who
will be retiring after several years of service.
B.
PRESENTATION OF TELLY AWARDS
Mayor Worley said that the
Telly Awards were founded in 1979 and is the premier award honoring
outstanding cable television programs and commercials, as well as the
finest video and film productions. Award recipients represent the best
work of the most respected advertising agencies, production companies,
television stations, cable operators, and corporate video departments in
the world. With a 25-year history of recognizing creative excellence,
the Telly Awards is a widely known and highly respected international
competition. The 26th Annual Telly Awards received over 10,000 entries
from all 50 states and numerous countries. This was the first time the
City of Asheville submitted programming for judging, and as a
result, The Asheville Channel was recognized with two awards for the
programs, "Asheville City Limits: Fire Rescue", and "Asheville
City Limits: Sanitation and Recycling."
On behalf
of City Council, Mayor Worley congratulated Jeff Reble, Cable
Access Coordinator, Kelley Webb and Richard Grant for their work on
these productions.
II. CONSENT AGENDA:
Councilman Newman
asked that Consent Agenda Item “I” be removed from the Consent Agenda
for discussion since it related to the Water Agreement.
Councilwoman Bellamy asked
that Consent Agenda Item “J” be removed from the agenda for an
individual vote.
A.
APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF THE REGULAR MEETING HELD ON JUNE 14, 2005,
AND THE WORKSESSION HELD ON JUNE 21, 2005
B.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-127 - RESOLUTION ACCEPTING HOYLE LANE AND TREETOP ROAD
IN LAKESHORE HILLS SUBDIVISION AS CITY-MAINTAINED STREETS
Summary:
The consideration of a resolution to accept Hoyle Lane and Treetop Road
in Lakeshore Hills Subdivision as a City maintained streets.
Section
7-15-1(f)-4.a requires that streets dedicated for public uses be
accepted by resolution of City Council.
Hoyle Lane
and Treetop Road are developer constructed streets that have an average
paved width of 23 feet and a length of 0.14 and 0.10 miles respectively
for a total length of 0.24 miles. The City of Asheville staff inspected
the construction of these roadways and certified they were built in
accordance with City standards.
Following
City Council’s approval of this resolution, these streets will be added
to the official Powell Bill list. A two-year warranty, from the time of
Council acceptance, will be required by the developer to cover major
failures in the roadway.
City staff
recommends City Council adopt the resolution to accept Hoyle Lane and
Treetop Road in Lakeshore Hills Subdivision as a City maintained
streets.
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 152
C.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-128 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER
INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE N.C. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE FOR A
GRANT FROM THE U.S. DEPT. OF INTERIOR, NATIONAL PARK SERVICE, FOR
HAYWOOD ROAD NATIONAL REGISTER DISTRICT NOMINATIONS
Summary:
The consideration of a resolution & budget amendment to enter into an
agreement with the North Carolina State Historic Preservation Office (NCSHPO)
to accept a federal grant from the US Department of Interior, National
Park Service via the NCSHPO in the amount of $4,140 for the purpose of
the preparation of the West Haywood Road Commercial Historic District &
East Haywood Road Commercial Historic District National Register
Nominations and to receive the local match of $2,760 from SAW Ventures,
LLC.
The
project is to prepare two National Register nomination forms for the
West Haywood Road Commercial Historic District & East Haywood Road
Commercial Historic District. The proposed West Haywood Road District
includes approximately 27-28 properties on 3 ½ blocks running roughly
between Dunwell Avenue and Brevard Road to the east past Mildred Avenue
to the west. The proposed district was added to the North Carolina
Study List in February of 2005, as the Haywood Road Historic District.
The proposed East Haywood Road District includes approximately 12
properties on roughly two blocks and runs roughly between Michigan
Avenue to the east and Hanover Street to the west. It was added to the
North Carolina Study List in 1999 as the Haywood Road/ Westwood
Commercial Historic District. A consultant who meets the qualifications
outlined in 36 CFR 61 will be hired to prepare the nomination according
to the guidelines outlined in National Register Bulletin 16A. The
complete and final draft will be submitted to the NCSHPO no later than
August 31, 2006.
The total
cost for the project is $6,900. The grant is for $4,140. SAW Ventures,
LLC has agreed to provide the local match of $2,760. The City will not
be responsible for the local match, although the HRC would like to
reimburse Saw Ventures for a portion of the match, if possible. The
grant period is from 7/1/2005-8/31/2006.
Pros:
- If the
nomination is approved for listing on the National Register, no
obligations or restrictions will be placed on the property
- If listed on the
National Register privately owned buildings in the district will be
eligible for a 20% federal income investment tax credit and a 20%
state tax credit
- The local match
will be provided by the SAW Ventures, LLC
Cons:
- National
Register listing does not prevent demolition of structures or
inappropriate alterations.
This
architectural study will document the architectural and cultural history
of the Haywood Road Corridor, which is vital to understanding the
history of West Asheville. The preservation of this area further
acknowledges the importance of cultural and architectural heritage in
maintaining Asheville’s unique “Sense of Place”, which is identified as
a Focus Area in the City’s Strategic Operating Plan.
City staff
recommends that the City of Asheville enter into an agreement with the
State Historic Preservation Office and adopt a budget amendment to
receive grant funds and local matching funds from SAW Ventures, LLC, to
hire a consultant to complete the nomination report for the West Haywood
Road Commercial Historic District & East Haywood Road Commercial
Historic District National Register Nominations.
Planning &
Development Director Scott Shuford responded to some questions from
Councilman Davis regarding this grant.
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 154
D.
ORDINANCE NO. 3243- BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR GRANT FROM THE N.C. STATE
HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE FOR PREPARATION OF THE WEST HAYWOOD ROAD
COMMERCIAL HISTORIC DISTRICT AND EAST HAYWOOD ROAD COMMERCIAL HISTORIC
DISTRICT NATIONAL REGISTER NOMINATIONS
Summary: See Consent Agenda
Item “C” above.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE 126
E.
ORDINANCE NO. 3244 - BUDGET AMENDMENT FOR FEMA REIMBURSEMENTS
Summary:
The consideration of a budget amendment which adds FEMA reimbursements
to the Fiscal Year 2004-05 budget to replenish various departmental
budgets that incurred storm related expenses.
Several
departments incurred extraordinary expenses this year as a result of
major clean-up efforts that the City had to undertake after the impact
of hurricanes Ivan and Francis. Clean-up
expenses for major tropical storms or hurricanes are typically not
included in the City’s an annual budget since they generally do not
represent recurring annual expenses; as such, departments had to
redirect resources that were initially earmarked for the provision of
basic services to storm-related clean-up. The City has applied for and
received FEMA for reimbursements for most of these expenses. The
amendment will add $599,610 to the General Fund and $549,252 to Parks
Capital Project budgets to replenish various departmental operating line
items that were used to cover clean-up costs.
City staff
recommends the budget be amended to add revenue received from FEMA to
the Fiscal Year 2004-05 to cover the City’s storm-related clean-up
costs.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE 128
F.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-129 - RESOLUTION APPOINTING A CHAIR TO THE CIVIL
SERVICE BOARD
Summary:
The consideration of appointing the Chair to the Civil Service Board.
It is City
Council's responsibility to appoint a Chair to the Civil Service Board
annually.
At the
City Council’s worksession on June 21, 2005, it was the consensus of
City Council to appoint T. Clark Brown as Chair to the Civil Service
Board, to serve at the pleasure of City Council.
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 155
G.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-130 - RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE CIVIC
CENTER COMMISSION
Summary:
The term of Max Alexander, as a member of the Civic Center Commission,
will expire on June 30, 2005. In addition, Charlie Cole has resigned as
a member, thus leaving an unexpired term until June 30, 2006. At
the City Council worksession on June 21, 2005, the City Council
instructed the City Clerk to prepare the proper paperwork to reappoint
Max Alexander to serve an additional three year term, term to expire
June 30, 2008, or until his successor has been appointed.
Also at
the June 21, 2005, worksession, City Council instructed the City Clerk
to prepare the proper paperwork to appoint Jean Ann Taylor to fill the
unexpired term of Mr. Cole, term to expire June 30, 2006, or until her
successor has been appointed.
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 156
H.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-131 - RESOLUTION APPOINTING MEMBERS TO THE
ASHEVILLE-BUNCOMBE HISTORIC RESOURCES COMMISSION
Summary:
The terms of Diane Duermit and John Cram, as members on the
Asheville-Buncombe Historic Resources Commission, expire on July 1,
2005.
At City
Council’s worksession on June 19, 2005, the City Council instructed the
City Clerk to prepare the proper paperwork to reappoint Diane Duermit
and John Cram to each serve a three-year term respectively, terms to
expire July 1, 2008, or until their successors have been appointed.
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 157
I.
RESOLUTION ALLOW THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLY WITH THE
COVENANT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S WATER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS, SERIES
2001 FOR TERMINATION OF THE RESTATED AND AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL WATER
AGREEMENT
This item was
removed from the Consent Agenda for an individual discussion.
J.
RESOLUTION MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE POSSESSION OF MALT BEVERAGES AND/OR
UNFORTIFIED WINE AT THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE TENNIS TOURNAMENT PICNIC
RESOLUTION MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE POSSESSION OF MALT BEVERAGES AND/OR
UNFORTIFIED WINE AT THE CLUES, CARATS & GRAPES AMERICAN CANCER SOCIETY
EVENT
RESOLUTION MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE POSSESSION OF MALT BEVERAGES AND/OR
UNFORTIFIED WINE AT THE ASHEVILLE WELCOMES THE WORLD SISTER CITIES
EVENT
These items were removed from
the Consent Agenda for an individual vote.
Mayor Worley said
that members of Council have been previously furnished with a copy of
the resolutions and ordinances on the Consent Agenda and they would not
be read.
Councilwoman
Bellamy moved for the adoption of the Consent Agenda. This motion was
seconded by Vice-Mayor Mumpower and carried unanimously.
ITEMS REMOVED FROM THE
CONSENT AGENDA
RESOLUTION NO.
05-132 - RESOLUTION ALLOW THE EXECUTION OF DOCUMENTS NECESSARY TO COMPLY
WITH THE COVENANT REQUIREMENTS OF THE CITY’S WATER SYSTEM REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 2001 FOR TERMINATION OF THE RESTATED AND AMENDED SUPPLEMENTAL
WATER AGREEMENT
City
Attorney Oast said that this is the consideration of a resolution
allowing the execution of documents necessary to comply with the
covenant requirements of the City’s Water System Revenue Bonds, Series
2001 for termination of the Restated and Amended Supplemental Water
Agreement.
The City
Council has given notice of its intention to terminate the Restated and
Amended Supplemental Water Agreement effective June 30, 2005. The bond
documents for the Water System Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 contain a
covenant, which must be deleted in order to allow the termination of the
Water Agreement. There may also be other documents legally required to
allow the termination of the Water Agreement. The resolution allows for
the execution of the necessary documents to allow for the termination of
the Water Agreement.
PROS:
Ø
All
necessary documents will be executed to allow for termination of the
Water Agreement
CONS:
Ø
None noted.
City
staff recommends Council adopt the resolution allowing the execution of
documents necessary to comply with the covenant requirements of the
City’s Water System Revenue Bonds, Series 2001 for termination of the
Restated and Amended Supplemental Water Agreement.
Councilwoman
Bellamy moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 05-132. This motion
was seconded by Councilman Davis and carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 158
RESOLUTION NO.
05-133 - RESOLUTION MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE POSSESSION OF MALT
BEVERAGES AND/OR UNFORTIFIED WINE AT THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE TENNIS
TOURNAMENT PICNIC
RESOLUTION NO.
05-134 - RESOLUTION MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE POSSESSION OF MALT
BEVERAGES AND/OR UNFORTIFIED WINE AT THE CLUES, CARATS & GRAPES AMERICAN
CANCER SOCIETY EVENT
RESOLUTION NO.
05-135 - RESOLUTION MAKING PROVISIONS FOR THE POSSESSION OF MALT
BEVERAGES AND/OR UNFORTIFIED WINE AT THE ASHEVILLE WELCOMES THE WORLD
SISTER CITIES EVENT
Summary:
The consideration of resolutions making provisions for the possession
and consumption of malt beverages and/or unfortified wine at various
events.
The below
listed groups have requested through the Asheville Parks and Recreation
Department that City Council permit them to serve beer and/or
unfortified wine at their events and allow for consumption at these
events.
- Asheville
Welcomes the World, scheduled for July 5, 2005, in the grassy knoll
next to the Biltmore Building. This is an event to acknowledge
Asheville’s Sister Cities.
- City of
Asheville Tennis Tournament Picnic, scheduled for July 21 and 22,
2005, at Aston Park. This is a hospitality picnic for the spectators
and players.
- Clues, Carats
and Grapes, scheduled for September 22, 2005, in the grassy knoll next
to the Biltmore Building. This is a benefit for the American Cancer
Society.
City
staff recommends City Council approve these resolutions on behalf of the
applying organizations.
Councilman Newman moved for
the adoption of Resolution No. 05-133. This motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Jones and carried on a 6-1 vote, with Councilwoman Bellamy
voting “no.”
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 160
Councilman Newman moved for
the adoption of Resolution No. 05-134. This motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Jones and carried on a 6-1 vote, with Councilwoman Bellamy
voting “no.”
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 162
Councilman Newman moved for
the adoption of Resolution No. 05-135. This motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Jones and carried on a 6-1 vote, with Councilwoman Bellamy
voting “no.”
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 164
III. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REZONING OF 1451 SWEETEN CREEK ROAD FROM
RM-16 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
ORDINANCE NO. 3245 - ORDINANCE TO REZONE 1451 SWEETEN CREEK ROAD FROM
RM-16 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY HIGH DENSITY DISTRICT TO COMMERCIAL
INDUSTRIAL DISTRICT
Mayor Worley
opened the public hearing at 5:21 p.m.
Ms. Julia Cogburn,
Urban Planner, said this is the consideration of an ordinance to rezone
1451 Sweeten Creek Road from RM-16 Residential Multi-Family High Density
District to Commercial Industrial District. This public hearing was
advertised on June 10 and 17, 2005.
The
owners, Narrell E. and Billie S. Owenby, have petitioned the City for
rezoning property located on Sweeten Creek Road in South Asheville,
which presently contains a single-family residence. The property backs
up to Edgewood Road, a predominately residential street that intersects
with Rock Hill Road. Sweeten Creek runs through the back of this
property. As a result, a little over half of the property is in the
regulatory flood area. The immediate back portion of the property is in
the floodway.
The zoning
surrounding the site is varied. Zoning to the west is RS-8; to the
south RM-16; to the east RS-4; and to the north, CI.
The
property immediately south of this property is wooded and vacant.
Farther south there are a mix of residential uses. To the west, the
land use is predominately single-family residential as you cross
Edgewood Road although the Asheville Bit and Steel operation is located
to the northwest of the subject property across Edgewood Road. Land
uses to the north along Sweeten Creek Road are primarily commercial and
commercial/industrial in nature from this property to the intersection
of Sweeten Creek with I-40. To the east, across Sweeten Creek Road from
the subject property, the land use is predominately residential. The
Biltmore Church of God is located immediately northeast across Sweeten
Creek Road.
CI zoning
does not allow for single-family dwellings, so the existing structure
would become nonconforming with this rezoning. CI zoning does, however,
permit multi-family dwellings.
Sanitary sewer
and water are available to this property.
Pros
1.
The
property is in an appropriate area for commercial development and is
served by water and sewer. It is a level piece of property located
along a busy road just south of the intersection of this road with an
interstate highway.
2.
Sweeten Creek provides a natural delineation point for the transition
between commercial and residential development along Sweeten Creek Road
as just south of this lot is where two streams converge into the creek.
Cons
1.
This rezoning could be viewed by some as a continuation of strip
commercial development along Sweeten Creek Road.
2.
The
properties surrounding the subject property in every direction, except
to the north, are predominately developed for residential purposes.
The Planning and Development
staff recommended approval of this rezoning to the Asheville Planning
and Zoning Commission. At its meeting on April 6, 2005, the Planning
and Zoning Commission had a split vote of 3-3 on this petition. The
applicant has appealed to the Asheville City Council.
Ms. Cogburn
presented City Council with a copy of a petition which contained
approximately 35 signatures from members of the Stockwood Association
who are opposed to the proposed rezoning.
Mr. W. Louis
Bissette Jr., attorney representing the petitioner, presented City
Council with a petition which contained approximately 75 signatures of
people who support the rezoning to Commercial Industrial District. He
said that this property has been in Mr. Owenby’s family since around
1925. He showed City Council pictures of the property which showed the
close proximity of other Commercial Industrial uses. He felt the
rezoning would have a very mimimal impact on the Stockwood Subdivision.
He urged City Council to rezone the property and noted that with all the
restrictions on the property, they would not be able to get anywhere
near 16 residential units built. In addition, he felt residential would
not be attractive on the site due to the close proximity of other
industrial and commercial uses and the fact that it is on a major
thoroughfare.
Mrs. Hazel
Edwards, resident on Stockwood Road and owner of property adjoining the
subject property, did not oppose the rezoning.
The following
individuals spoke in opposition to the proposed rezoning for various
reasons, some being, but are not limited to: there will be a negative
impact on the residential quality and integrity of the Stockwood
community; the proposed property to be rezoned is kiddy-corner from the
only entrance to the Stockwood community; various uses can be built on
the property is the property is rezoned to Commercial Industrial; other
properties along Sweeten Creek Road are likely to request to be rezoned
Commercial Industrial as well; area residents bought their homes because
other residential property was around them; property values of the
residential homes will be reduced since they will be able to see
industrial from their homes; City Council should stop rezoning
residential property; if Council does want to rezone the property, they
should wait until the widening of Sweeten Creek Road is completed; and
more traffic will be added to Sweeten Creek Road if zoned Commercial
Industrial:
Mr. Douglas
Johnson, resident on Stockwood Road
Ms. Martie
Hillyer, resident on Stockwood Road
Mr. Kevin
Blanton, resident on Stockwood Road
Ms. Nancy Taylor,
resident on Stockwood Road
Mr. Paul McNeil,
resident on Stockwood Lane
Mr. Bissette
pointed out that for commercial zoning, they are required to have a
35-foot setback, which is a great deal more than the residential
required setback. He felt the setback would help buffer the building
from the road and from the neighborhood.
Mayor Worley
closed the public hearing at 5:50 p.m.
At the request of
Councilwoman Bellamy, Ms. Cogburn read the permitted uses allowed in the
Commercial Industrial District.
Mayor Worley said
that members of Council have previously received a copy of the ordinance
and it would not be read.
Councilman Davis
moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3245. This motion was seconded
by Vice-Mayor Mumpower.
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower felt this would be a limited intrusion on the neighborhood but
a reality of a growing city.
Councilwoman
Bellamy agreed that the Sweeten Creek Road area is changing, however,
this property is basically surrounded by residential. She felt that if
the property was brought to Council as a conditional use permit, then
Council could place restrictions on it. However, a straight rezoning
allows too many unknowns.
The motion made
by Councilman Davis and seconded by Vice-Mayor Mumpower carried on a 4-3
vote, with Mayor Worley, Vice-Mayor Mumpower, Councilman Davis and
Councilman Dunn voting “yes” and Councilwoman Bellamy, Councilwoman
Jones and Councilman Newman voting “no.”
Mayor Worley said
that due to the number of votes received in favor of this ordinance, it
would require a second reading, which will be held at the next formal
meeting on July 12, 2005. He said that there will be no public comment
allowed at the second reading.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE 133
B.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE ISSUANCE OF A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON KENILWORTH KNOLL, KNOWN AS THE BEAUCATCHER
CONDOMINIUMS, FOR A PROPOSED 106-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
ORDINANCE NO. 3246 - ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED ON KENILWORTH KNOLL, KNOWN AS THE BEAUCATCHER
CONDOMINIUMS, FOR A PROPOSED 106-UNIT CONDOMINIUM PROJECT
Oaths were
administered to anyone who anticipated speaking on this matter.
City Attorney
Oast reviewed with Council the conditional use district zoning process.
This process is the issuance of a conditional use permit, which is a
quasi-judicial site specific act. At this public hearing, all the
testimony needs to be sworn.
After hearing no questions about the procedure, Mayor Worley
opened the public hearing at 5:58 p.m.
All Council
members disclosed that they have visited the site and would consider
this issue with an open mind on all the matters before them without
pre-judgment and that they will make their decision based solely on what
is before Council at the hearing.
City Attorney Oast said that
as documentary evidence is submitted, he would be noting the entry of
that evidence into the record.
Urban Planner Kim
Hamel submitted into the record City Exhibit 1 (Affidavit of
Publication), City Exhibit 2 (Certification of Mailing of Notice to
Property Owners); and City Exhibit 3 (Staff Report).
Ms. Hamel said
that this is the consideration of the issuance of a conditional use
permit for property located on Kenilworth Knoll, known as the
Beaucatcher Condominiums, for a proposed 106-unit condominium project.
On April
29, 2005, the Kassinger Development Group and their representative
Gerald Green submitted a conceptual master plan for the construction of
a 106-unit condominium project proposed on approximately 5.2 acres off
of Kenilworth Knoll (Attachment to City Exhibit 3 – Aerial Map). The
project site involves two parcels; the former McGuffy’s Restaurant site
and the Visions Healthclub site, each zoned Highway Business. The
properties surrounding the site are all zoned Highway Business and
include the following uses: an assortment of retail, restaurant and
lodging facilities along the north and west sides of the property, a
high-density multi-family complex to the south and Interstate 240, to
the east.
The
conceptual master plan and development of the site will include
(Attachment to City Exhibit 3 – Site Plan):
·
Demolition of the McGuffy’s restaurant and Visions Healthclub
facilities;
·
A
14,400 square foot parking deck consisting of 48 spaces;
·
A
36, 210 square foot off-street surface parking area consisting of 116
spaces;
·
Sidewalks will be provided from the development to Tunnel Road;
·
Transit shelter will be provided at the existing bus stop located at
Tunnel Road and Kenilworth Knoll;
·
Construction of a 163, 600 square foot building, housing 106 condo
units;
o
74
– 2 bedroom units, and 32- 1 bedroom units
o
Building will consist of 4-stories at a height of 50-feet
The
elevations included in the plan submittal are for the front and rear
facades of the building (Attachments to City Exhibit 3 – East Elevation
and Rear Elevation Drawings). It illustrates craftsman style
architecture with details such as: porches, chimneys, gabled rooflines
with moderate to deep overhangs and double-hung windows. A list of
proposed building material includes: stonework, hardi-plank siding,
painted wood trim and cedar shake siding.
On May 16,
2005, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) approved the project subject
to the conditions outlined in the staff report and with the following
added conditions: (1) The applicant address right-of-way and property
discrepancy issues; (2) Sidewalk shall be installed along Kenilworth
Knoll Drive down to Tunnel Road; and (3) Pedestrian signals shall be
required at Kenilworth Knoll Drive and Tunnel Road.
The plans
have been revised to address several TRC conditions outlined in the TRC
Staff report including: setbacks, landscaping, open space and parking.
Additional comments will be addressed upon final submittal to the TRC,
should the project be approved by City Council.
On June 1,
2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission voted 7-0 in favor of approving
the project subject to conditions by the TRC, staff and the following
condition: The crosswalks required by the Technical Review Committee at
the corner of Tunnel Road and Kenilworth Knoll, shall be upgraded to
high-visibility type crossings. Markings may be ladder-style or
piano-key
style,
similar to City markings in the downtown area. Material shall be white
thermoplastic meeting N.C. Dept. of Transportation standards.
City Council must take formal action as set forth in section
7-9-9(c)(4) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and must find
that all seven standards for approval of conditional uses are met based
on the evidence and testimony received at the public hearing or
otherwise appearing in the record of this case (UDO 7-16-2(c)).
- That the
proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger
the public health or safety.
The proposed use of the
property is a multi-family residential project. Prior to the issuance
of any permits, the TRC will review the final detailed plans to insure
technical standards set forth in the UDO, the Standards and
Specifications Manual, the North Carolina Building Code and other
applicable laws and standards that protect the public health and safety,
are met.
- That the
proposed use or development of the land is reasonably compatible with
significant natural or topographic features on the site and within the
immediate vicinity of the site given the proposed site design and any
mitigation techniques or measures proposed by the applicant.
The project
site consists of two developed parcels that will be excavated in order
to construct the proposed development. Additional grading of the site
will occur along portions of the western side of the property where the
land begins to drop in elevation, excluding the steeper parts of the
bank. This is necessary to accommodate both the parking deck and
portions of the building that are proposed below grade. A single
retaining wall structure will only be necessary around the sidewalk
proposed on the northern end of the building. The required landscaping
in this area, however, will mask the height of the structure.
- That the
proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure
the value of adjoining or abutting property.
The
project site and the surrounding properties are all zoned Highway
Business district and consist of both low to high impact commercial uses
and high density residential uses. The building is being designed with
high-quality, long lasting building materials with enhanced
architectural features and is likely to have a positive affect on
adjoining and abutting properties. In addition, landscape buffers are
proposed around the perimeter of the site, which will assist in
mitigating any negative impacts the development may have on the
surrounding area.
- That the
proposed use or development or the land will be in harmony with the
scale, bulk, coverage, density, and character of the area or
neighborhood in which it is located.
The development will be compatible with the
immediate and surrounding area that is zoned Highway Business district
where a wide range of uses and a mixture of both small and large scaled
buildings exist. The site is not only being developed at a density below
what is permitted, but is also being developed in a manner that
preserves the steeper slopes on site. In addition to the perimeter
landscaping required for the project, both the parking deck and portions
of the residential building are proposed below grade in order to assist
in providing visual relief of the full scale and height of the
structures. Lastly, the proposed building is designed with enhanced
architectural features and long lasting building materials that is
likely to add character to the surrounding area.
- That the
proposed use or development of the land will generally conform to the
comprehensive plan, smart growth policies, sustainable economic
development strategic plan and other official plans adopted by the
City.
The project is supported by numerous goals
and strategies in the plan relating to infill development, smart growth
policies and transportation goals. The project utilizes the existing
zoning on the lot to create a sustainable high-density residential
development within the City Limits. The site is also located within
very close proximity of transit service, potential employment centers,
restaurants and shopping centers.
- That the
proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation
facilities, water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal,
and similar facilities.
A transit
stop currently exists along the north side of Kenilworth Knoll and
Tunnel Road.
Additionally, any development of the site would require technical
approval from all applicable departments including representatives of
the Water Resources, MSD, Engineering, Fire and Building Safety
Departments. The conceptual plans for the development have been
reviewed by the City’s TRC, which found that adequate services and
facilities are available for the proposed development.
- That the
proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a
traffic hazard.
The site is served by a traffic signal at
the intersection of Kenilworth Knoll and Tunnel Road. Comments received
from Engineering staff at the Technical Review Committee meeting did not
foresee any undue traffic congestion or hazards being created from this
development.
Pros
-
The site is
appropriately zoned for this type of development.
-
The project
supports numerous goals and strategies outlined in the City’s 2025
plan as it relates to smart growth, infill and sustainable
development, and transportation goals.
- The proposed
development will provide a high-quality infill site on several
properties, one of which has remained vacant for a period of time.
- The density
proposed for the development can be supported by the existing
infrastructure and is in close proximity to transit service, potential
employment centers and shopping venues, which makes the development
attractive and appropriate at this location.
-
The project will
provide housing for people with a range of incomes and needs.
Proposed pricing of the units range from $143,000k to $300,000.
Cons
·
It
is noted that staff did not find any “cons” with the proposed
development.
Based on the seven findings,
staff recommends approval of the conditional use permit with the
conditions outlined by the TRC and the following added conditions (1)
All site lighting shall be equipped with 90 degree cutoff features and
be directed away from adjoining properties and streets; (2) All existing
vegetation to be retained shall be clearly indicated and dimensioned on
the site plan; and (3) The crosswalks required by the Technical Review
Committee at the corner of Tunnel Road and Kenilworth Knoll, shall be
upgraded to high-visibility type crossings. Markings may be
ladder-style or piano-key style, similar to City markings in the
downtown area. Material shall be white thermoplastic meeting N.C. Dept.
of Transportation standards.
Upon inquiry of
Councilwoman Bellamy, City Attorney Oast said that City Council does not
have a role in the contractual issues between the operator of the health
club and the patrons.
Mr. Gerald Green,
representing the developer, spoke in support of the conditional use
permit. They hope to strengthen the residential core in that area.
This project will provide a wide-range of home ownership for people in
our community.
After rebuttal,
Mayor Worley closed the public hearing at 6:15 p.m.
Councilman Newman moved for
the adoption of Ordinance No. 3246, granting a conditional use permit
for property located on Kenilworth Knoll, known as the Beaucatcher
Condominiums, subject to the conditions outlined by the TRC and the
following added conditions: (1) All site lighting shall be equipped
with 90 degree cutoff features and be directed away from adjoining
properties and streets; (2) All existing vegetation to be retained
shall be clearly indicated and dimensioned on the site plan; and (3) The
crosswalks required by the Technical Review Committee at the corner of
Tunnel Road and Kenilworth Knoll, shall be upgraded to high-visibility
type crossings. Markings may be ladder-style or piano-key style,
similar to City markings in the downtown area. Material shall be white
thermoplastic meeting N.C. Dept. of Transportation standards. This
motion was seconded by Councilman Dunn and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE 135
C.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REZONING OF TWO LOTS ON HAYWOOD ROAD FROM
COMMUNITY BUSINESS II DISTRICT TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
ORDINANCE NO. 3247 - ORDINANCE TO REZONE TWO LOTS ON HAYWOOD ROAD FROM
COMMUNITY BUSINESS II DISTRICT TO CENTRAL BUSINESS DISTRICT
Mayor Worley
opened the public hearing at 6:20 p.m.
Mr. Alan Glines,
Urban Planner, said this is the consideration of an ordinance to rezone
two lots on Haywood Road from Community Business II District to Central
Business District. This public hearing was advertised on June 10 and
17, 2005.
The owners of 797
Haywood Road, Paul and Margaret Nichols, with a lease purchase option to
SAW Ventures Haywood LLC, were given a letter of violation regarding
grading activity without an approved permit on the two lots that are a
part of the rezoning request. This is related to renovation work being
done at 797 Haywood Road to excavate the basement of the existing
building.
This project and property
came to the attention of the Planning and Development staff because of
grading activity on the two parcels adjacent to the Nichols Furniture
building at 797 Haywood Road. The new owners of this building are SAW
Haywood Ventures, LLC who are renovating the building. They also have a
lease purchase agreement for the two adjacent parcels. The parcels
provided parking for Nichols Furniture when it operated there. In order
to use the basement of the former Nichols Building, the owners began to
excavate soil in order to lower the floor level. The soil material was
placed on these adjacent lots and the grading began. The Unified
Development Ordinance outlines that grading activities require a
permit.
After
meeting with staff, SAW Haywood Ventures decided to seek a rezoning for
the two parcels to provide consistent zoning for the properties that are
under their control. A rezoning to CBD will also provide some relief to
the landscape bufferyard requirements for the CBD parcels. This is
consistent with the historic pattern of development for the downtown
business section of the Haywood Road. Properties are often developed
parcel line to parcel line without a large landscape buffer area.
However, if a parking lot were developed, a minimum five foot wide
parking lot landscape strip would be required which includes a row of
trees interspersed with shrubs. Additional parking lot landscaping may
be required if internal parking lot aisles are provided.
Staff is
considering some rezoning action along the Haywood Road corridor. Based
on the high level of redevelopment activity along Haywood, staff is
interested in selecting a suitable zoning district. It seems clear that
the older development pattern with the building placed at the street
front with a commercial storefront would be a successful pattern for new
development along the corridor. A recent report produced by students
from UNC-Chapel Hill also recommended a consistent pattern for
commercial uses along the corridor. Zoning options considered by staff
for Haywood Road have included the Neighborhood Corridor District, Urban
Place District or a special district created for Haywood Road. The
study by staff for this area is just getting underway and we are not
ready to provide a complete recommendation for what zoning district will
be most suitable at this time.
The Central
Business District (CBD) is provided to reinforce the downtown as the
center of commerce for the region. It also allows a wide variety of
uses including office, retail, residential and commercial uses. It is
likely that parts of Haywood Road were zoned CBD because this was the
best fit for existing buildings and uses along the corridor. More of
the properties are conforming with the CBD zoning in place. Also the
Haywood Road corridor is historically the main commercial street for
west Asheville and provides a similar function that the central business
district does. Buildings are required to be set just behind the
sidewalk in the Central Business District zoning areas. There are also
some building development standards for new projects in this district.
The
Community Business II District (CBII) allows medium to high density
business and service uses serving several residential neighborhoods. CB
II is also expected to serve as a workplace for many residents in the
surrounding neighborhood and also be pedestrian and auto friendly. A
wide variety of office, retail and residential uses are allowed in the
CB II district. Although buildings can be placed anywhere on the lot,
locating the building to the front of the lot is encouraged and parking
is allowed to the side or rear of the building but not in front.
Pros
·
The rezoning
provides zoning consistency for this property and other adjoining
properties under the same ownership.
- The historic
development pattern is maintained and consistent with the surrounding
area.
- A zoning change
to CBD provides an efficient development pattern with some additional
development standards for new buildings.
Cons
§
The rezoning request
removes the requirement for the landscape bufferyard, which is based on
compatibility of uses.
The Planning and
Zoning Commission at their June 1, 2005, meeting voted 7-0 to recommend
approval of the rezoning request. City staff concurs with that
recommendation.
Mr. Austin
Walker, applicant, was pleased to see what is happening in west
Asheville and urged City Council to support his rezoning.
Councilwoman
Bellamy said that the subject lots are deeper than the surrounding ones
on Haywood Road and asked that as plans are developed, that they work
with City staff to ensure that the houses are shielded from excess
traffic and noise.
Mayor Worley
closed the public hearing at 6:22 p.m.
Mayor Worley said
that members of Council have previously received a copy of the ordinance
and it would not be read.
Councilman Dunn
moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3247. This motion was seconded
by Councilwoman Bellamy and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 - PAGE
D.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE REZONING OF FOUR LOTS ON CLINGMAN AVENUE
AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM RM-8 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY MEDIUM
DENSITY DISTRICT TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
ORDINANCE NO. 3248 - ORDINANCE TO REZONE FOUR LOTS ON CLINGMAN AVENUE
AND ADJOINING RIGHT-OF-WAY FROM RM-8 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY MEDIUM
DENSITY DISTRICT TO URBAN RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower moved to excuse Councilwoman Bellamy from participating in this
matter due to a conflict of interest. This motion was seconded by
Councilman Davis and carried unanimously.
Mayor Worley
opened the public hearing at 6:28 p.m.
Ms. Julia Cogburn,
Urban Planner, said this is the consideration of an ordinance to rezone
four lots on Clingman Avenue and adjoining right-of-way from RM-8
Residential Multi-Family Medium Density District to Urban Residential
District. This public hearing was advertised on June 10 and 17, 2005.
The
owners, Mountain Housing Opportunities, Inc., have requested the
rezoning of property located on the western side of Clingman Avenue
immediately south of the developing Prospect Terrace area. The
properties are currently vacant. The area proposed for rezoning abuts
Clingman Avenue. It is proposed that one property be split zoned so
that only the portion that abuts Clingman is rezoned to URD (leaving the
portion abutting Jefferson as RM8). A small creek runs through a deep
ravine in the property. Fill and piping will be necessary to develop
the site. An unopened right-of-way has been included in this rezoning.
MHO plans to petition to close this right-of-way in the future.
Zoning and
land use surrounding the site are predominately higher density
residential in nature. The zoning to the west is RM8; to the south RM8
with CI further down Clingman; to the east, the zoning is RM8 and to the
north the zoning is mostly RM16.
The
property immediately to the south of the subject properties is vacant.
The Silver Dollar Restaurant is on property further south along Clingman
as you approach the commercial/industrial section of the West End/Clingman
neighborhood at the river. Properties to the north, west and east are
predominately higher density single-family residential in character.
The RM8
District is intended to permit a full range of medium density
multi-family housing types including single-family detached and attached
residences.
The URD
District is established to complement existing residential neighborhoods
by providing an improved diversity of housing types, scale,
affordability and character in areas where they can best be served by
city services and infrastructure and is intended to be located on
significant transit corridors and/or high growth areas. It is designed
to provide new development and redevelopment opportunities that
encourage urban scaled residential structures that relate to the street
and character of Asheville’s urban areas. A density of 32 units per
acre is permitted.
Access to the
properties is off of Clingman Avenue and Owens Bell Road. Sanitary
sewer and water are available.
Pros
- The property is
an appropriate area for higher density residential development as it
is located in an area close to downtown with infrastructure to support
such development.
- The plans for
the West End/Clingman area promote higher density residential
development in the residential core of the neighborhood.
- Surrounding
development is predominately higher density residential in nature.
Cons
- Large ravine on
the property will make development difficult.
§
Non-residential
development allowed in the URD District as part of a mixed use
development may be considered by some to be inappropriate for this
residential area.
The
Planning and Development staff recommended approval of this rezoning to
the Asheville Planning and Zoning Commission. At its meeting on June 1,
2005, the Planning and Zoning Commission unanimously (6-0) voted to
recommend approval of this rezoning to City Council.
Mr. Mike Vance, representing Mountain Housing Opportunities,
urged City Council to support their rezoning request.
Mayor Worley
closed the public hearing at 6:30 p.m.
Mayor Worley said
that members of Council have previously received a copy of the ordinance
and it would not be read.
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3248. This motion was
seconded by Councilwoman Jones and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 - PAGE
E.
PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER THE CONDITIONAL USE ZONING OF PROPERTY
LOCATED AT 13 SUMMERLIN ROAD FROM RM-6 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY LOW
DENSITY DISTRICT TO INSTITUTIONAL/CONDITIONAL USE; AND THE ISSUANCE OF A
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR A PROPOSED 9,000 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING EXPANSION AND AN ADDITIONAL 24-SPACE SURFACE PARKING LOT
ORDINANCE NO. 3249 - ORDINANCE REZONING PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 SUMMERLIN
ROAD FROM RM-6 RESIDENTIAL MULTI-FAMILY LOW DENSITY DISTRICT TO
INSTITUTIONAL/CONDITIONAL USE
ORDINANCE NO. 3250 - ORDINANCE GRANTING A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 13 SUMMERLIN ROAD FOR A PROPOSED 9,000 SQUARE FOOT
BUILDING EXPANSION AND AN ADDITIONAL 24-SPACE SURFACE PARKING LOT
Oaths were
administered to anyone who anticipated speaking on this matter.
City Attorney
Oast reviewed with Council the conditional use district zoning process
by stating that this is a two-part process. It requires rezoning, which
is a legislative act, and the issuance of a conditional use permit,
which is a quasi-judicial site-specific act. Even though the public
hearing on those two items will be combined, all the testimony needs to
be sworn and two votes will need to be taken. The first vote will be to
grant the rezoning to the conditional use district category and the
second vote will be to issue the conditional use permit. If Council
runs into a situation that it votes to rezone, Council doesn’t have to
issue the conditional use permit on the same night.
After hearing no
questions about the procedure, Mayor Worley opened the public hearing at
6:36 p.m.
All Council
members disclosed that they have visited the site and would consider
this issue with an open mind on all the matters before them without
pre-judgment and that they will make their decision based solely on what
is before Council at the hearing.
City Attorney Oast said that
as documentary evidence is submitted, he would be noting the entry of
that evidence into the record.
Urban Planner
Shannon Tuch submitted into the record City Exhibit 1 (Affidavit of
Publication), City Exhibit 2 (Certification of Mailing of Notice to
Property Owners); and City Exhibit 3 (Staff Report).
Ms. Tuch
said that this is the consideration of a request to rezone property
located at 13 Summerlin Road from RM-6 Residential Multi-Family Low
Density District to Institutional/ Conditional Use, and a request to
issue a conditional use permit for a proposed 9,000 square foot building
expansion and an additional 24-space surface parking lot.
The owners
of the property, Clear Channel Communication, have requested the
conditional use zoning of property located in the City’s
extraterritorial jurisdiction area (ETJ) and unnamed neighborhood in
West Asheville, north of Patton Avenue (Attachment to City Exhibit 3 –
Location Map). The property is relatively large with a significant
natural woodland surrounding the developed portion of the site. The
existing building and parking area is accessed off of the dead-end of
Summerlin Drive where City maintenance ends at the edge of the property
(Attachment to City Exhibit 3 – Aerial Map). The property is surrounded
by a few different zoning districts with the majority of the adjacent
zoning being multi-family residential (RM-6 & RM-16); the property south
of the subject site is single family residentially zoned (RS-2). Also
located on the site are four communication broadcast towers scattered
throughout.
The
current use, radio broadcast studios and offices, is currently a
“grandfathered” non-conforming use due to the existing RM-6 zoning in
which business and office uses are not permitted. Non-conforming uses
are not allowed to expand and any consideration of expansion would
require a rezoning to a district that would allow the use as a
“permitted use”. The applicant is requesting a rezoning to the INST-CUZ
designation in order to allow for the expansion but to also ensure that
there will be limits on this, and any future development, in order to
secure some compatibility with the adjacent properties.
The
proposed Master Plan shows the existing 6,733 square foot building and
existing 39 space parking lot (Attachment to City Exhibit 3 – Site
Plan). Also shown on the Master Plan are two building and parking lot
expansions. The first expansion (Phase 1) is for 9,000 square feet and
an additional 24 parking spaces. The applicant is also seeking
conceptual approval for a second building expansion (Phase 2) of an
additional 5,200 square feet and 39 parking spaces (that would absorb
the previous 24 spaces). Phase 1 would result in the maximum amount of
parking permitted; Phase 2 would reduce the parking ratio to be within
the minimum and maximum amount of parking permitted for the entire
project area. Also associated with the project will be landscaping and
other site compliance required for the parking areas (City Exhibits 4
and 5 – Existing Parking Photos). The proposed project will result in a
medium impact use; when a medium impact use is adjacent to low or medium
density residential a 25’ Type ‘C’ landscape is required. This buffer
may be reduced by approximately 40% when a distance separation of over
100 linear feet exists. Due to this separation and the amount of
existing woodland that will remain, an alternative compliance that
preserves the existing woodland edge will be considered as an
alternative that is “equal to or better” than normal compliance. In
areas where the surrounding woodland does not meet the minimum standard,
additional plant material will be installed to meet the requirements of
Section 7-11-2 of the Unified Development Ordinance.
At their
May 16, 2005, meeting, the Technical Review Committee (TRC) met to
review the project and made a motion to approve the rezoning and
Conditional Use Permit request with the conditions outlined in staff’s
report. The majority of the revisions were minor revisions of
clarification.
At their
June 1, 2005, meeting, the City of Asheville Planning and Zoning
Commission reviewed the Conditional Use Rezoning and Master Plan
proposal and voted unanimously to recommend approval to the Asheville
City Council, stipulating that the applicant meet all outstanding TRC
conditions. In the intervening month the applicant has submitted a
revised Master Plan that does appear to address the majority of the TRC
comments, in addition to a formal letter of alternative compliance.
City Council must take formal action as set forth in section
7-9-9(c)(4) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO), and must find
that all seven standards for approval of conditional uses are met based
on the evidence and testimony received at the public hearing or
otherwise appearing in the record of this case (UDO 7-16-2(c)).
- That the
proposed use or development of the land will not materially endanger
the public health or safety.
The proposed
project has been reviewed by City staff and appears to meet all public
health and safety related requirements. The project must meet the
technical standards set forth in the UDO, the Standards and
Specifications Manual, the North Carolina Building Code and other
applicable laws and standards that protect the public health and safety.
- That the
proposed use or development of the land is reasonably compatible with
significant natural or topographic features on the site and within the
immediate vicinity of the site given the proposed site design and any
mitigation techniques or measures proposed by the applicant.
The proposed
building expansion will be located in the portion of the property where
topography is very mild and only a relatively small amount of site
disturbance is expected.
- That the
proposed use or development of the land will not substantially injure
the value of adjoining or abutting property.
The existing
use and proposed expansion are centrally located on the site with a
substantial distance and vegetative buffer in place. No new access
points for the project are proposed and it is anticipated that the
expansion will be barely detectable by adjacent properties.
- That the
proposed use or development of the land will be in harmony with the
scale, bulk, coverage,
density, and character of the area or neighborhood in which it is
located.
The proposed
expansion is considered to be small (one story; 15,200 square feet
total), relative to the size of the subject property (over 61 acres).
In addition, as a result of the proposal a significant vegetative buffer
will remain in place which will aid in preserving the character of the
residential areas by buffering them from the non-residential use.
- That the
proposed use or development of the land will generally conform to the
comprehensive plan, smart growth policies, sustainable economic
development strategic plan and other official plans adopted by the
City.
The
Asheville City Development Plan 2025 describes the need for the
city to move away from “smokestack” type industries while attacting
high-tech businesses. It also states that as a goal of the
Sustainable Economic Development Strategic Plan that effort must be
made to insure that Asheville’s urban planning, zoning, and permitting
processes, facilitate sustained and positive development (p. 200).
Approval of this project would allow for the expansion of a “smokeless”
high-tech business while the adoption of the associated masterplan would
help insure compatibility with the adjacent residential uses.
- That the
proposed use is appropriately located with respect to transportation
facilities, water supply, fire and police protection, waste disposal,
and similar facilities.
This
proposed development is within close proximity to transportation
facilities and other utilities appear adequate. The project area is
located near major road facilities, interstate connections and other
service centers on Patton & the New Leicester Highway. In addition,
the proposed project will only require a relatively small expansion to
the existing water and sewer service and preliminary review has not
revealed any problems with providing future service to the building
expansion.
- That the
proposed use will not cause undue traffic congestion or create a
traffic hazard.
Although the
proposed building expansion is 1 ½ times the size of the existing
building, the parking area is not being expanded to the same ratio. No
new access points for the project are being proposed and the use is not
expected to generate at significant amount of traffic. Lastly, the City
Traffic Engineer has reviewed the proposal and has not identified any
traffic hazards.
Pros
- Allows for the
expansion of a high-tech business.
- Retains a
significant distance and vegetative buffer to adjacent properties.
Cons
- Allows for the
expansion of a currently non-conforming use.
·
Reduces the potential
for the property to be redeveloped for a multi-family residential
development.
For the reasons outlined, City staff concurs with the
Planning and Zoning Commission and recommends approval of the zoning
change from RM-6 to Institutional/Conditional Use and approval of the
associated conditional use permit with detailed Master Plan.
Mr. Jeff Glasscock, architect representing Clear Channel,
urged City Council to support the conditional use zoning.
After hearing no
rebuttal, Mayor Worley closed the public hearing at 6:38 p.m.
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower moved to approve the conditional use rezoning for property
located at 13 Summerlin Road from RM-6 Residential Multi-Family Low
Density District to Institutional/Conditional Use. This motion was
seconded by Councilman Newman and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 - PAGE
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3250, to issue a conditional use
permit for property located at 13 Summerlin Road for a proposed 9,000
square foot building expansion and an additional 24-space surface
parking lot, subject to the applicant addressing all outstanding TRC
conditions before final zoning approval. This motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Bellamy and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE
IV. UNFINISHED BUSINESS:
A.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-136 -RESOLUTION AMENDING THE ANNEXATION SERVICES PLAN
Planning &
Development Director Scott Shuford said that this is the consideration
of a resolution amending the Annexation Services Plan for the Year 2005
Annexation Areas to reflect revisions to the revenue estimates.
In
adopting an annexation ordinance, the City has the authority to annex
all or some of an area proposed for annexation, as long as that area
qualifies for annexation. The City may also amend the services plan for
the proposed annexation area or areas, as long as the requirements for
providing service to the annexation areas continue to be met.
City staff
presented the Annexation Services Plan for the Ridgefield Business Park,
Ascot Point Village, Long Shoals Road, Airport Road, Two Town Square,
and Town Square East areas to City Council on April 26, 2005. The
report included a financing plan with estimates for revenues and
expenditures included. The City Council adopted the Plan on this date.
The staff
is now proposing that three pages of this plan be amended (those dealing
specifically with revenue estimates) for two reasons. The first is to
revise these revenue figures to reflect last minute changes to the
qualifications numbers (population and acreage) that we failed at final
publishing of the Plan to transfer to the revenue section of the plan.
Secondly, the Budget and Research Division has provided us with new
estimates for a few of the revenue figures, based on more current data.
These revisions/corrections result in a net increase to the revenue
estimate for these annexations of $53,550.00
As long as
the Annexation Services Plan does not show the annexation area as
qualifying under any additional statutory tests, no additional public
hearing is required for this amendment to the Plan.
City staff
recommends City Council adopt a resolution amending the Annexation
Services Plan to reflect revisions/corrections to the revenue
estimates.
Mayor Worley said
that members of Council have been previously furnished with a copy of
the resolution and it would not be read.
Councilwoman
Bellamy moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 05-136. This motion
was seconded by Councilwoman Jones and carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 166
B.
ORDINANCE NO. 3251 - ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE TO INCLUDE THE RIDGEFIELD BUSINESS PARK AREA
Mayor Worley said that the
public hearing on this matter was held on June 14, 2005.
Planning &
Development Director Scott Shuford said that this is the consideration
of adopting an ordinance to extend the corporate limits of the City of
Asheville to the Ridgefield Business Park area.
On April
12, 2005, City Council adopted Resolutions of Intent beginning the
annexation process for the following six areas: the Ridgefield Business
Park area, the Ascot Point Village area, the Long Shoals Road area, the
Airport Road area, Town Square East, and Two Town Square. The
Annexation Services Plan for all of these areas was approved on April
26, 2005, and the Plan was amended on June 28, 2005. A public
information meeting was held on May 31, 2005. Public hearings on each
of annexations were held by City Council on June 14, 2005. Adoption of
the annexation ordinances is the final step in the annexation process.
Mr.
Shuford said that a metes and bounds description is attached to the
ordinance. The annexation area does meet the requirements of General
Statutes. It is the intent of the City to extend City services outlined
in the Annexation Services Plan. On the effective date of the
annexation, the City will have funds in sufficient amount to finance all
capital expenditures. The effective date of this annexation is September
30, 2005.
Mr.
Shuford explained Council what is located on this site and what is
located in the surrounding area.
Staff
recommends adoption of annexation ordinance for the Ridgefield Business
Park area, with an effective date of September 30, 2005.
Mayor Worley said
that members of Council have previously been furnished with a copy of
the ordinance and it will not be read.
Councilwoman
Bellamy moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3251. This motion was
seconded by Councilwoman Jones and carried on a 6-1 vote, with
Vice-Mayor Mumpower voting “no.”
Councilman Dunn
said that he has voted against every annexation since being elected
because he did not feel that the City was addressing some major issues,
such as the water agreement, police presence, drug enforcement, and the
issue of an increased room tax. As long as those issues were not
addressed, he would not vote for annexation because we are not taking
care of things we should be taking care of. Hopefully with the budget
soon to be adopted, Council will be addressing some of those major
issues and he would start supporting annexation.
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower said there are strong arguments for annexation; however, he is
principally against the idea of forced annexation. In addition, he said
that we have a demonstrated willingness to annex manufacturing industry
and he is opposed to that. Finally, he thinks it’s unfair to annex
County residents and not be able to give them any lower rates to help
compensate for those added taxes.
Councilman Newman
felt that annexation is about fairness in taxation. While the
involuntary nature of the annexation process is not pleasing, it’s even
less fair to require the citizens and businesses who are located in the
City of Asheville to pay twice the level of taxation. The families and
businesses in the City of Asheville are paying for infrastructure and
services that are important to the City of Asheville but are also
important to all of Buncombe County and Western North Carolina. As the
areas around the City limits become just as urbanized and just as
developed as the areas across the street that are in the City limits,
then to require the people who live in the City to pay double of what
the others pay, is not fair.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE
C.
ORDINANCE NO. 3252 - ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE TO INCLUDE THE ASCOT POINT VILLAGE AREA
Mayor Worley said that the
public hearing on this matter was held on June 14, 2005.
Planning &
Development Director Scott Shuford said that this is the consideration
of adopting an ordinance to extend the corporate limits of the City of
Asheville to the Ascot Point Village area.
On April
12, 2005, City Council adopted Resolutions of Intent beginning the
annexation process for the following six areas: the Ridgefield Business
Park area, the Ascot Point Village area, the Long Shoals Road area, the
Airport Road area, Town Square East, and Two Town Square. The
Annexation Services Plan for all of these areas was approved on April
26, 2005, and the Plan was amended on June 28, 2005. A public
information meeting was held on May 31, 2005. Public hearings on each
of annexations were held by City Council on June 14, 2005. Adoption of
the annexation ordinances is the final step in the annexation process.
Mr.
Shuford said that a metes and bounds description is attached to the
ordinance. The annexation area does meet the requirements of General
Statutes. It is the intent of the City to extend City services outlined
in the Annexation Services Plan. On the effective date of the
annexation, the City will have funds in sufficient amount to finance all
capital expenditures. The effective date of this annexation is December
31, 2005.
Mr.
Shuford explained Council what is located on this site and what is
located in the surrounding area.
Staff
recommends adoption of annexation ordinance for the Ascot Point Village
area, with an effective date of December 31, 2005.
Mayor Worley said that members of Council have previously been furnished
with a copy of the ordinance and it will not be read.
Councilman Newman
moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3252. This motion was seconded
by Councilwoman Jones and carried on a 6-1 vote, with Vice-Mayor
Mumpower voting “no.”
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE
D.
ORDINANCE NO. 3253 - ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE TO INCLUDE THE LONG SHOALS ROAD AREA
Mayor Worley said that the
public hearing on this matter was held on June 14, 2005. .
Planning &
Development Director Scott Shuford said that this is the consideration
of adopting an ordinance to extend the corporate limits of the City of
Asheville to the Long Shoals Road area.
On April
12, 2005, City Council adopted Resolutions of Intent beginning the
annexation process for the following six areas: the Ridgefield Business
Park area, the Ascot Point Village area, the Long Shoals Road area, the
Airport Road area, Town Square East, and Two Town Square. The
Annexation Services Plan for all of these areas was approved on April
26, 2005, and the Plan was amended on June 28, 2005. A public
information meeting was held on May 31, 2005. Public hearings on each
of annexations were held by City Council on June 14, 2005. Adoption of
the annexation ordinances is the final step in the annexation process.
Mr.
Shuford said that a metes and bounds description is attached to the
ordinance. The annexation area does meet the requirements of General
Statutes. It is the intent of the City to extend City services outlined
in the Annexation Services Plan. On the effective date of the
annexation, the City will have funds in sufficient amount to finance all
capital expenditures. The effective date of this annexation is December
31, 2005.
Mr.
Shuford explained Council what is located on this site and what is
located in the surrounding area.
Staff
recommends adoption of annexation ordinance for the Long Shoals Road
area, with an effective date of December 31, 2005.
Mayor Worley said that
members of Council have previously been furnished with a copy of the
ordinance and it will not be read.
Councilman Davis
moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3253. This motion was seconded
by Councilwoman Jones and carried on a 6-1 vote, with Vice-Mayor
Mumpower voting “no.”
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE
E.
ORDINANCE NO. 3254 - ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE TO INCLUDE THE AIRPORT ROAD AREA
Mayor Worley said that the
public hearing on this matter was held on June 14, 2005.
Planning &
Development Director Scott Shuford said that this is the consideration
of adopting an ordinance to extend the corporate limits of the City of
Asheville to the Airport Road area.
On April
12, 2005, City Council adopted Resolutions of Intent beginning the
annexation process for the following six areas: the Ridgefield Business
Park area, the Ascot Point Village area, the Long Shoals Road area, the
Airport Road area, Town Square East, and Two Town Square. The
Annexation Services Plan for all of these areas was approved on April
26, 2005, and the Plan was amended on June 28, 2005. A public
information meeting was held on May 31, 2005. Public hearings on each
of annexations were held by City Council on June 14, 2005. Adoption of
the annexation ordinances is the final step in the annexation process.
Mr.
Shuford said that a metes and bounds description is attached to the
ordinance. The annexation area does meet the requirements of General
Statutes. It is the intent of the City to extend City services outlined
in the Annexation Services Plan. On the effective date of the
annexation, the City will have funds in sufficient amount to finance all
capital expenditures. The effective date of this annexation is December
31, 2005.
Mr.
Shuford explained Council what is located on this site and what is
located in the surrounding area.
Staff
recommends adoption of annexation ordinance for the Airport Road area,
with an effective date of December 31, 2005.
Mayor Worley said that members of Council have previously been furnished
with a copy of the ordinance and it will not be read.
Councilwoman
Jones moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3254. This motion was
seconded by Councilman Newman and carried on a 6-1 vote, with Vice-Mayor
Mumpower voting “no.”
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE
F.
ORDINANCE NO. 3255 - ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE TO INCLUDE TWO TOWN SQUARE
Mayor Worley said that the
public hearing on this matter was held on June 14, 2005.
Planning &
Development Director Scott Shuford said that this is the consideration
of adopting an ordinance to extend the corporate limits of the City of
Asheville to Two Town Square.
On April
12, 2005, City Council adopted Resolutions of Intent beginning the
annexation process for the following six areas: the Ridgefield Business
Park area, the Ascot Point Village area, the Long Shoals Road area, the
Airport Road area, Town Square East, and Two Town Square. The
Annexation Services Plan for all of these areas was approved on April
26, 2005, and the Plan was amended on June 28, 2005. A public
information meeting was held on May 31, 2005. Public hearings on each
of annexations were held by City Council on June 14, 2005. Adoption of
the annexation ordinances is the final step in the annexation process.
Mr.
Shuford said that a metes and bounds description is attached to the
ordinance. The annexation area does meet the requirements of General
Statutes. It is the intent of the City to extend City services outlined
in the Annexation Services Plan. On the effective date of the
annexation, the City will have funds in sufficient amount to finance all
capital expenditures. The effective date of this annexation is September
30, 2005.
Mr.
Shuford explained Council what is located on this site and what is
located in the surrounding area.
Staff
recommends adoption of annexation ordinance for Two Town Square, with an
effective date of September 30, 2005.
Mayor Worley said
that members of Council have previously been furnished with a copy of
the ordinance and it will not be read.
Councilman Newman
moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3255. This motion was seconded
by Councilwoman Jones and carried on a 6-1 vote, with Vice-Mayor
Mumpower voting “no.”
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE
G.
ORDINANCE NO. 3256 – ORDINANCE EXTENDING THE CORPORATE LIMITS OF THE
CITY OF ASHEVILLE TO INCLUDE TOWN SQUARE EAST
Mayor Worley said that the
public hearing on this matter was held on June 14, 2005.
Planning &
Development Director Scott Shuford said that this is the consideration
of adopting an ordinance to extend the corporate limits of the City of
Asheville to the Town Square East area.
On April
12, 2005, City Council adopted Resolutions of Intent beginning the
annexation process for the following six areas: the Ridgefield Business
Park area, the Ascot Point Village area, the Long Shoals Road area, the
Airport Road area, Town Square East, and Two Town Square. The
Annexation Services Plan for all of these areas was approved on April
26, 2005, and the Plan was amended on June 28, 2005. A public
information meeting was held on May 31, 2005. Public hearings on each
of annexations were held by City Council on June 14, 2005. Adoption of
the annexation ordinances is the final step in the annexation process.
Mr.
Shuford said that a metes and bounds description is attached to the
ordinance. The annexation area does meet the requirements of General
Statutes. It is the intent of the City to extend City services outlined
in the Annexation Services Plan. On the effective date of the
annexation, the City will have funds in sufficient amount to finance all
capital expenditures. The effective date of this annexation is September
30, 2005.
Mr.
Shuford explained Council what is located on this site and what is
located in the surrounding area.
Staff
recommends adoption of annexation ordinance for the Town Square East
area, with an effective date of September 30, 2005.
Mayor Worley said that members of Council have previously been furnished
with a copy of the ordinance and it will not be read.
Councilman Davis
moved for the adoption of Ordinance No. 3256. This motion was seconded
by Councilwoman Jones and carried on a 6-1 vote, with Vice-Mayor
Mumpower voting “no.”
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE
At 7:05 p.m., Mayor Worley announced a short recess.
H.
ORDINANCE NO. 3257 - ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE FISCAL YEAR 2005-06 ANNUAL
OPERATING BUDGET
Assistant
City Manager Jeff Richardson said that this represents the Fiscal Year
2005-06 Annual Operating Budget for City Council’s consideration before
adoption.
The Fiscal
Year 2005/2006 Annual Operating Budget was presented to City Council on
May 2, 2005. In accordance with the North Carolina Local Government
Budget and Fiscal Control Act, a summary of the Budget along with a
notice of the Public Hearing was published on June 3 and June 10, 2005.
The City Council conducted a public hearing on the budget on June 14,
2005.
The Fiscal
Year 2005/2006 Annual Operating Budget is balanced with an Ad Valorem
Tax rate of $0.53 per $100 of assessed valuation, which reflects no
increase over the current property tax rate. All essential City
programs and services are maintained.
The net
operating budget as currently presented to City Council is set at
$103,926,947, which includes a General Fund appropriation of
$74,392,126. This budget includes several changes that were made by
Council at the June 21 Council meeting. Those changes are summarized
below:
·
Council added a total of $672,710 to the budget to support various new
programs and initiatives. Those initiatives included $100,000 in annual
debt service payments to finance the replacement of the Civic Center
roof; $165,000 for repairs and renovations at the Reid Center and other
recreation centers; $115,000 for the widening of Yorkshire Street; and
$292,710 to hire five additional police officers, fund necessary
training and equipment expenses, and purchase 3 additional police cars.
·
In
addition, $55,000 has been added to the budget to cover the cost of an
additional Project Engineer position. This position was requested in
the Proposed Budget; however, no funds were included to cover its cost,
as funding was contingent upon Council approval of an increase to the
Plans Review fee for Water Line Extensions. Council subsequently
approved the fee increase; thus revenue and expenditures associated with
the Project Engineer have been added.
·
A
portion of the aforementioned new initiatives was funded by identifying
$245,813 in revenue adjustments. Specifically, $7,500 in revenue was
added by increasing Adult Athletic Fees; $35,000 by increasing
Co-sponsored group fees; $115,000 by transferring savings from the
Affording Housing Infrastructure Project to the General Fund; $36,000
from increased MPO matching support from other jurisdictions; and
$52,313 was added by adjusting sales tax revenue estimates.
·
The
remaining portion of the new initiatives was funded by reducing
expenditures by $426,897 in various areas of the budget. Specific
reductions are as follows:
|
Remove Pack Square Consultant Cost |
$12,500 |
|
Re-bid Recycling Contract |
$11,000 |
|
Reduce Free Transit Pass Budget |
$17,000 |
|
Eliminate 3 Vacant Telecommunicators |
$105,261 |
|
Eliminate Vacant GASB Accountant |
$40,000 |
|
Bring Minority Affairs In-House |
$50,000 |
|
Reduce Azalea Park |
$50,000 |
|
Reduce Memorial Stadium |
$50,000 |
|
Reduce Contingency |
$91,136 |
|
Total |
$426,897 |
·
Outside Agency funding is presented in accordance with the Outside
Agency Committee recommendations. Several changes were made to Outside
Agency appropriations for Fiscal Year 2005-06.
·
Various changes or increases to fees & charges are presented in
accordance with the Fees & Charges Committee recommendations. Specific
fees & charges recommendations are provided as a part of the annual
budget ordinance. Changes to the Affordable Housing Rebate program have
been made to make it consistent with the standards used for the
Affordable Housing Trust Fund Program.
Staff requests that Council
review the FY 2005/2006 Annual Operating Budget, including the changes
noted above, and make necessary recommendations or adjustments followed
by adoption of the Budget Ordinance.
Discussion
surrounded Councilman Newman’s proposed amendment to the stormwater
program. He suggested investing more funds into the Priority Capital
Projects ($50,000 increase) for infrastructure and reducing
education/outreach ($15,000 reduction), public participation ($5,000
reduction) and stormwater planning ($30,000 reduction).
City
Engineer Ball could support reducing the education/outreach and public
participation by $20,000 and putting that into Priority Capital
Projects, however, she explained the need for the existing $200,000 in
stormwater planning. She said that any savings will be folded into the
capital projects.
To address
Councilman Davis' concern about people who have gone the extra mile to
comply with stormwater regulations, Ms. Ball said there is the
opportunity for people to get up to a 60% credit. City Manager Jackson
said that since this is the first year of the stormwater mandated
program, staff would report back in 6 months to update Council on how
the policies and implementation of the program is proceeding.
Discussion
surrounded Councilman Newman’s proposed amendment to move forward with
the Police take-home car policy in light of the significant budget
reductions previously agreed to and with a modest reduction in the
municipal salary increase (3% average pay increase but not the 1%
cost-of-living). He explained four significant benefits: (1) creating
a significant "perk" for our law enforcement officers; (2) improving the
retention of good officers; (3) creation of a strong incentive for
officers to consider living in Asheville; and (4) it will free up
additional parking spaces in downtown. Discussion of Police moral and
vehicle maintenance surrounded this suggested amendment.
Discussion surrounded Councilman Newman’s proposed amendment regarding
the deletion of the 1% cost-of-living increase. He felt a 3% average
increase is a fair and positive increase, given the state employees are
expecting a 2.5% increase. He also felt that in light of the
uncertainty of the water agreement Council should be careful to limit
the expansion of government spending which will create permanently
recurring costs. Discussion surrounded this suggested amendment.
Councilwoman Bellamy supported the Police take-home car policy; however,
not at the expense of deleting the 1% cost-of-living increase for all
City employees. She suggested the amount for the take-home car policy
come out of Fund Balance.
Councilman
Newman moved to approve a 3% average increase and a .5% cost-of-living
increase for City employees and implement the 4-year lease program for
the Police take-home car policy. This motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor
Mumpower. Said motion failed on a 3-4 vote, with Vice-Mayor Mumpower,
Councilwoman Jones and Councilman Newman voting “yes” and Mayor Worley,
Councilwoman Bellamy, Councilman Davis and Councilman Dunn voting “no.”
Discussion surrounded other areas (Housing Trust Fund, Fund
Balance) to find the necessary funds to implement the 4-year lease
program for the Police take-home car policy.
City Manager Jackson said here is merit to the take-home car
policy if the cars stay within the City limits. However, he would not
recommend any cut of non-recurring funding for this policy direction.
He said that staff will update Council in 90 days on sales tax data, the
revenue picture and the overall budget position along with providing
some other options on how to implement this program.
Mayor Worley felt there is a majority support for the
take-home car policy, but the real concern is the budgetary
implications. After a short discussion, it was the consensus of Council
to support the Police take-home car policy and leave it up to City staff
to implement.
After a discussion initiated by Councilwoman Bellamy, it was
the consensus of City Council to co-sponsor the Parks & Recreation
events in the amount of $35,000.
Mayor Worley said
that members of Council have previously received a copy of the ordinance
and it would not be read.
Councilwoman Bellamy moved to adopt Ordinance No. 3257, with
the following changes (1) in the stormwater program budget, reducing the
education/outreach and public participation by $20,000 and reallocating
it into Priority Capital Projects; (2) implement the Police take-home
car policy; and (3) reinstate the $35,000 for the co-sponsor of Parks
and Recreation events. This motion was seconded by Vice-Mayor Mumpower
and carried unanimously.
ORDINANCE BOOK NO. 22 – PAGE
V. NEW BUSINESS:
A.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-137 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER
INTO A LEASE AGREEMENT WITH THE ASHEVILLE TOURISTS FOR THE USE OF
MCCORMICK FIELD
Parks &
Recreation Director Irby Brinson said that this is the consideration of
a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter in to a lease
agreement with the Asheville Tourists for the use of McCormick Field.
The
Asheville Tourists of the South Atlantic Baseball League have used
McCormick Field for many years and wish to continue this arrangement.
The use of the facility is governed by a lease agreement between the
Tourists and the owners of the facility.
With the
transfer of McCormick Field from Buncombe County to the City of
Asheville upon the termination of the 1981 Water Agreement, the current
lease agreement between the Asheville Tourists and Buncombe County is no
longer in effect. A new lease agreement has been negotiated between the
City of Asheville and the Asheville Tourists. The new lease agreement
will be effective July 1, 2005, for a period of nine years and eleven
months.
Pros:
- Allows for the
continued use of McCormick field by the Asheville Tourists for a
significant period of time.
- Allows for
cooperative efforts between the City and the Asheville Tourists to
encourage greater community use of the facility, especially in terms
of youth baseball.
Cons:
- Failure to enter
into the agreement would cause the Asheville Tourists to find another
facility for baseball, possibly away from Asheville.
This
action relates to City Council’s Strategic Operating Plan of improved
water system governance that better serves City of Asheville goals;
Objective A: Gain control of growth by disengaging from the
existing Water Agreement.
City staff
recommends that City Council authorize the City Manager to enter into a
lease agreement with the Asheville Tourists for the use of McCormick
Field.
Because of the
water agreement negotiations, Mr. Brinson said that City Council has not
had the opportunity to review this item at a worksession. He then
responded to various questions from Council regarding this lease, some
being, but are not limited to: maintenance of the facility; parking;
how long has the Asheville Tourists been in their current contact; what
is the lease amount and does that amount increase in future years; has
consideration been given to a shorter term than 9 years; and has the
City looked at what other cities do in terms of minor league baseball
franchises.
City Manager
Jackson suggested this matter be deferred until City Council has had an
opportunity to get more background information and review the terms of
the lease. Mr. Brinson explained that the lease will expire on July 1,
2005, depending the outcome of the water agreement termination.
Mayor Worley said
that members of City Council have been furnished with a copy of the
resolution and it would not be read.
Councilwoman
Bellamy moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 05-137. This motion
was seconded by Councilman Dunn and carried on a 6-1 vote, with
Vice-Mayor Mumpower voting “no.”
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 170
B.
RESOLUTION NO. 05-138 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR TO SIGN A
PROPERTY TAX COLLECTION AGREEMENT WITH BUNCOMBE COUNTY TO CONTINUE
COLLECTION OF THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE’S PROPERTY TAXES
Interim
Finance Director Ben Durant said that this is the consideration of a
resolution authorizing the Mayor to sign a property tax collection
agreement with Buncombe County to continue collection of the City of
Asheville’s property taxes.
As part of
the Restated and Amended Supplemental Water Agreement, Buncombe County
has collected and remitted property tax payments on behalf of the City
of Asheville. The property tax collection process is a long, involved
process which utilizes staff specifically trained in that function. If
the City Council decided to begin to collect City property taxes within
the City, it would require significant staff time and expense to prepare
for implementation of the collection process and to perform such a
process effectively. The proposed agreement would allow for
continuation of the current property tax collection process for the City
while the Council decided either to begin such a collection process
within the City or to negotiate a long-term agreement with the County or
some other service provider.
The
Buncombe County Board of Commissioners approved this on June 21, 2005.
PROS:
Ø
The
City’s property tax collection rate would remain high, as it mirrors the
collection rate of Buncombe County
Ø
The
proposed agreement continues until terminated on a year-to-year basis
and does not lock the City into a long-term agreement
Ø
The
proposed agreement would allow time for Council to decide to perform the
process in-house or for a more favorable agreement with the County to be
negotiated
CONS:
Ø
None noted.
City staff
recommends City Council authorize the Mayor to sign a property tax
collection agreement with Buncombe County to continue collection of the
City of Asheville’s property taxes.
Councilman
Dunn wondered how much it would cost for the City to begin collecting
the property taxes. Mr. Durant said that we could probably do it for
half of what the County is charging us; however, there are other issues
to be considered, one is the logistical sort out that would need to
occur and we just didn’t have an opportunity in this budget year to do
that. Next year when we renegotiate this contract, we will look for a
better rate.
Mayor Worley said
that members of City Council have been furnished with a copy of the
resolution and it would not be read.
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower moved for the adoption of Resolution No. 05-138. This motion
was seconded by Councilman Dunn and carried unanimously.
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 171
VI.
OTHER BUSINESS:
DISCUSSION
REGARDING NEGOTIATIONS OF THE WATER AGREEMENT
RESOLUTION NO.
05-139 – RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ASHEVILLE, NORTH CAROLINA, REGARDING
TERMINATION OF THE WATER AGREEMENT WITH BUNCOMBE COUNTY
Considerable discussion
surrounded Councilman Newman’s proposal if there is not an agreement
reached between the City and the County. He addressed some of the
following concerns: (1) concern customers who live outside the City
feel there may be some sudden and dramatic changes to their water bills
if there is no agreement is reached and the City resumes full management
and governance of the water system; (2) concern about different rates
for customers inside and outside Asheville; and (3) concern the current
water customers might be required to annex into Asheville as a condition
of continuing to receive water service. He suggested that if there is
no agreement reached between the City and County that the City Council
would agree for a period of at least 12 months to not institute any rate
deferential between customers inside the City and outside the City of
Asheville. In addition, the City would make it a policy that existing
water customers outside the City of Asheville would never be annexed
into the City of Asheville as a condition of continuing to receive water
service. These proposals would allow us some additional time to
continue to talk to the County Commissioners to see if there are some
ways that we can reach agreement about water policies into the future.
The final element of the
proposal, would be that even if we don’t reach an agreement this week
that we would communicate our willingness to impose these restrictions
on ourselves to provide reassurance to all parties and that we would
request that we establish a regular time for open public meetings with
our County Commissioners to continue to seek a final mutually acceptable
resolution to the water issues in our community. If, however, the State
of North Carolina passes either of the two anti-Asheville bills, this
agreement would be null and void because the City would be forced at
that point to defend the interests of the people of Asheville through
appropriate legal measures.
Mayor Worley
said that it never has been the City’s intent or policy and is not and
will not be our policy that existing water customers outside the City of
Asheville would have to be annexed into the City of Asheville as a
condition of continuing to receive water service.
Councilman Dunn
explained why he did not want to box ourselves into a 12 months of not
instituting any rate deferential between customers inside the City and
outside the City of Asheville.
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower explained why would be able to support the resolution for a
shorter period of time.
Councilman
Newman explained why he is proposing the 12-month period of refraining
from implementing any rate deferential, which is basically to give
opportunities for public negotiations between the City and the County.
Councilman
Newman moved to adopt Resolution No. 05-139 as follows: WHEREAS, the
Water Agreement between Asheville and Buncombe County will expire at
midnight on June 30, 2005; and WHEREAS, there are pending in the North
Carolina General Assembly two local acts affecting Asheville known as
Sullivan Act II and Sullivan Act III; and WHEREAS, Asheville and
Buncombe County have been negotiating over the issues surrounding the
termination of the Water Agreement, which negotiation has been severely
hampered by the pending legislation; and WHEREAS, there have been
misunderstandings about the intent of the City of Asheville with regard
to continued water service for water customers of the City of Asheville
system living outside the corporate limits of Asheville; and WHEREAS,
there is a desire on the part of the Asheville City Council to have
regular, periodic meetings with the Buncombe County Commissioners to
seek a resolution of the issues surrounding the termination of the Water
Agreement; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED BY THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY
OF
ASHEVILLE
THAT: (1) The City of Asheville does hereby agree not to charge or
attempt to charge a rate differential to water customers of the City of
Asheville system living outside the corporate limits of Asheville at any
time prior to July 1, 2006, provided that the pending legislation known
as Sullivan Act II and Sullivan Act III is not enacted into law; (2) The
City of Asheville further reaffirms that it has never been its intent,
is not its intent and will not be its policy in the future to require
any existing customer of the Asheville water system residing outside the
corporate limits of Asheville to annex into the City of Asheville as a
condition of continuing to receive water; and (3) The Asheville City
Council further requests that the Buncombe County Commissioners
establish a regular, periodic open meeting schedule with the Asheville
City Council for the purpose of seeking a resolution to the issues
surrounding the termination of the Water Agreement. This motion was
seconded by Councilwoman Bellamy.
Ms. Leslee
Kulba felt the City should not cave into Buncombe County. She didn’t
see where the County is negotiating with the City and the City should
re-think another strategy.
Councilwoman Jones felt that it is clear that the citizens care about
the water issue and they don’t want it to be resolved at all costs. She
spoke about the City’s commitment and willingness to continue this
meeting until later this evening to work on the water agreement.
The
motion made by Councilman Newman and seconded by Councilwoman Bellamy
carried on a 4-3 vote, with Mayor Worley, Councilwoman Bellamy,
Councilwoman Jones and Councilman Newman voting “yes” and Vice-Mayor
Mumpower, Councilman Davis and Councilman Dunn voting “no.”
RESOLUTION BOOK NO. 29 – PAGE 172
MISCELLANEOUS
Vice-Mayor Mumpower thanked Capital Fitness which donated fitness
equipment to the Fire Department.
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower spoke about the success of the For Our Kids event in Pisgah
View Apartments.
Vice-Mayor
Mumpower also applauded Jean McCloud for her work in litter clean-up.
CLAIMS
The following claims were received by the City of Asheville during the
period of May 27-June 9, 2005: Lori Becker (Streets), David Freeland
(Police), Duraline Imaging (Fire) and 29 Haywood Street (Parks &
Recreation).
The following
claims were received by the City during the period of June 10-23, 2005:
Christopher Hollifield (Police), Dan Zavoras (Water), Carol Haack
(Parking Garage), Abraham Adams (Police) and Franklin Fountain (Police).
These claims
have been referred to Asheville Claims Corporation for investigation.
VII.
INFORMAL DISCUSSION AND PUBLIC COMMENT:
CONTINUATION
OF REGULAR MEETING
At 9:30 p.m.,
Mayor Worley continued the regular meeting until Thursday, June 30,
2005, at 4:00 p.m., in the Council Chamber of the City Hall Building.
Thursday – June 30, 2005
- 4:00 p.m.
Continuation of Regular
Meeting
Present: Mayor
Charles R. Worley, Presiding; Councilwoman Terry M. Bellamy; Councilman
Jan B. Davis; Councilman Joseph C. Dunn; Councilwoman Diana Hollis
Jones; Councilman Brownie W. Newman; City Manager Gary W. Jackson; City
Attorney Robert W. Oast Jr.; and Deputy City Clerk Phyllis Corns
Absent:
Vice-Mayor R. Carl Mumpower
At 4:00 p.m.,
Mayor Worley reconvened the regular meeting.
Mayor Worley said
that City Council has worked very hard with the Buncombe County
Commissioners over the last year to negotiate an appropriate resolution
to the water agreement. Council has been absolutely dedicated to
advocating for the best interests of the City residents that we serve.
He recapped the reasoning and history of the termination process of the
water agreement. He then reported on his and City Attorney Oast’s
meeting with the General Assembly yesterday before the Senate Committee
on Local Government that was considering the Sullivan II and III bills.
We found that one of the bills had been substantially altered from what
we had previously seen. The altered bill made is very clear that water
could not be used in any manner or method to promote growth of the
City’s boundaries. It also said there would be no transfers of any
funds from the Water Fund to the General Fund. Actually, City Council
wanted the revenue from the assets of the water system to go back into
the water system to meet the needed maintenance requirements. We have
consistently talked about doing that, but we talked about doing a
phasing in period of five years. We approved our budget on June 28
including those funds ($1 Million) and now find that the legislature
took that away from us. He explained the terms of the resolution
Council passed Tuesday night to the Local Government Committee. He
asked the Committee to defer action on the bills, leave them in place,
and if we can’t come to an agreement, then the legislature would be free
to take whatever action they deem most appropriate with respect to the
bills. He stressed there was no need to rush through them right now.
The Committee, the Senate, and the House, however, quickly approved both
bills.
City Manager
Jackson said that we have a very well thought out transition plan and
have been communicating closely with the County for a smooth
transition. Interim Water Resources Director David Hanks spoke on how
the water system transfer will occur and Parks and Recreation Director
Irby Brinson spoke on how the recreation facilities transition will
occur.
City Manager
Jackson spoke about the transition of the maintenance of water lines in
the County. With the agreement termination those become a County
maintenance responsibility. It is his preference for all the operation
and maintenance of the water system to be a City responsibility and it
would be a better-managed system if all the operation and maintenance of
that system would be done in one place. The question is what would be
the fair compensation to the City for managing and operating those
assets, which are no longer a City responsibility. Those discussions
between him and the County Manager will continue.
City Manager
Jackson said that we basically have a $1.1 to $1.2 Million budget
question. Through City staff, he is developing a series of cost-cutting
alternatives that he will bring back to Council in 60-90 days. They
would like to have the time to evaluate not only the impact of this
legislative change and the timing of it, but also to re-evaluate our
revenue generation options and get direction from Council on potential
operating impact reductions, etc. In an interim period, he suggested
Council implement the budget as approved by Council on June 28, with the
exception that we implement what we can administratively, without
impacting services or making any policy changes, such as, postpone
hirings, postpone acquisition of equipment, entering into contracts
that are not time-sensitive
or mission critical. We will challenge ourselves to close this gap
administratively while we develop a very comprehensive budget amendment
package that Council might consider. Council has the ability today to
proceed under the budget document that Council approved on June 28 and
to weigh your alternatives for potential amendments in the future. That
is made possible because the City, under Council’s leadership, has
established a significant Fund Balance.
It was the
consensus of Council to have the City Manager bring back a proposed
budget balancing plan in 60-90 days. Each Council member
briefly commented on their perspective of the water agreement
negotiations. Mayor Worley responded to various questions
from the media.
Closed Session
At 4:58 p.m., Councilman
Newman moved to go into closed session in order to consult with an
attorney employed by the City about matters with respect to which the
attorney-client privilege between the City and its attorney must be
preserved, including lawsuits involving the following parties:
Gannett Pacific Corporation d/b/a Asheville Citizen-Times Publishing
Company, an Hawaii Corporation; Chesapeake Television, INC., d/b/a WLOS-TV,
a Maryland Corporation; City of Asheville; and County of Buncombe, and
to discuss potential litigation The statutory authorization is
contained in G.S. 143-318.11(a)(3). This motion was seconded by
Councilwoman Bellamy and carried unanimously.
At 6:10 p.m.,
Councilwoman Jones moved to come out of closed session. This motion was
seconded by Councilman Dunn and carried unanimously.
ADJOURNMENT:
Mayor Worley adjourned the meeting at 6:10 p.m.
_______________________________
____________________________
CITY CLERK
MAYOR
CITY CLERK
MAYOR |