Q & A

The following questions were sent in a Judd email on July 2nd, 2010 to Shannon Tuch (Assistant Planning Director) with Judy Daniel (Planning Director), Marsha Stickford (Neighborhood Coordinator), and the CAN listserv copied.  On July 7, James Judd, Mike Lewis, Robert Zieber, Shannon Tuch, Judy Daniel and Marsha Stickford met to discuss these questions and others.  On July 9, Shannon provided the written answers in blue italic font via an email to Judd.

1) At the June CAN meeting you stated that staff would remove the following sentence from section e.1, "Review levels will be determined by base densities and not include the bonuses added."  Can you please restate your level of commitment and reasoning for removing this sentence?  Will it be removed from the proposed code being presented to P&Z?  Has removal of this sentence been agreed to or discussed by any of the committees involved in the creation of this proposal?  This requirement was not to be "removed" but rather "revised".  It was recognized that, as written, some projects seeking a more modest bonus could be penalized over smaller sites seeking a higher bonus.  We're still working on the cap and it could be as simple as just saying any density project, up to a 50 units (or some other desired number) will be reviewed as a level 2 and not a CUP.  [Need to review new wording]

2) Can you provide a reference to the section in the UDO which defines review levels and requirements?  7-5-9(a-c)

3) In your staff report you stated that this “Use-by-right option will be an administrative review only replacing the existing Conditional Use Permit process”.  Will all or a portion of the Conditional Use process be removed from the UDO?  If not, why not.  Yes, the current CUP application process will be removed.  Projects that are unable to meet the sustainability bonus requirements will have to seek a conditional zoning.

4) What are the pros / cons for not having a separation requirement between developments with density bonuses under this USSR?   Generally stated, the benefit of a separation requirement is that it disperses a single form of development (or use) which helps to encourage diversity of housing types.  The negative is that a separation requirement inherently limits where density projects could go and opportunity/availability would be reduced.  [Can we begin with separation requirement and then evaluate removal at a later date?]

5) With respect to the "Residential Project Study" you provided which included five different sites for which staff evaluated how they would have been handled under the proposed ordinance, I have the following questions:

a) Can you provide more details of your evaluation such as the completed Appendix 7-x for each projects as well as any examples of additional documentation you would keep to support Appendix 7-x.  (I had requested this in an email one or two weeks ago but got no reply from city staff.)   I can provide these to you but they are simply the appendix filled out for each site - it doesn't offer much information if you don't review it along with all of the project details included in each project folder.  For me to provide that information to you (it is substantial) I would need you to file a public information request with the CM's office.  

b) Can you provide a real or hypothetical example of a quadriplex or triplex in a Residential Single (RS) district?  I am still unclear on how with a minimum of 5 units required in a development that a quad or tri would numerically be allowed in for instance a RS-1 or RS-2 district.  How do subdivisions factor in?   This has been a common question and to answer it, you need to understand some of the past conversations related to the recommendations produced in the Affordable Housing Plan for the City of Asheville (June 24, 2008).  This plan included several UDO related recommendations - three of the more prominent ones included:

      1) Density bonuses as a Use by right for affordable housing projects under 50 units.
      2) Creation of a Transit Corridor Overlay to promote density, sustainability, etc. on major corridors, and
      3) Allowing duplexes, triplexes, and quads as Use by right

This proposal is intended to follow through on recommendation #1 and, presumably, the ability to do smaller scale multi-family structures in residential areas would be addressed by #3, to be reviewed at a later date.  The current proposal is not intended to be available for small scale projects and is reserved for larger projects where a bonus is more effective.

So, what this means is that the project needs to have enough acreage to support enough units, where, if a bonus is applied, would result in a project that had at least 5 units.  As an example, if there is a 1 acre lot in an RS-4 district this lot would allow up to 4 units (4 separate single family homes) - if the merits of the particular proposal for this one acre provided a 100% bonus, the project could now support up to 8 units.  This would satisfy the pre-requisite of 5 units.  How the 8 units are realized is to be determined by the developer but would require more than 1 structure since they cannot build anything larger than a quad in a single family district.   [Note that 240% is largest possible bonus...so theoretically they could have up to 14 units/acre in an RS-4 district but practically that may be difficult to accomplish due to all of the minimum requirements on height, lot size, etc.]

c)  In your examples including site #1 it is not always clear what the original zoning was for the site.  Yes, I see what you mean.  I will correct and resend.  [See Residential Study version 2 attached].

d)  It appears that some of the sites selected were granted density bonuses in real life by some mechanism other than this proposed ordinance.  Under what existing code was this provided.  Site #1 and Site #2 are examples where I am assuming everything in "(...)" is how the site was actually used based upon existing code.   I have also tried to make this more clear in my revised version (see attached) - in most cases it was accomplished through a conditional zoning.   [See Residential Study version 2 attached]. 

6) I have a concern about the required longevity of affordable units and what happens if the owner chooses to stop providing affordable housing.  This was sparked by the evaluation criteria in Appendix 7-x giving 25 points to "Project includes specific plan to preserve long term affordability of units for 20 years ...".  For example, a developer's criteria states that 60-80% of rental units are affordable and then after a year of rentals this is dropped to 20% of rental units are affordable....how will the city ever know....is there an ongoing review process being instituted...will the city enforce by example no allowing occupation of the additional bonus units?

Thanks for identifying this - I had to go back to the Committee to recall the specific conversations about mandating or not mandating long-term affordability.  I have not yet heard back from all working group members but it appears as though this will be revised to require a period of affordability of 15 years and then offer bonus points for periods longer than 15 years.   [How will this be enforced and monitored?]

7) I have a concern with wording in section d.1 which appears to make Architectural and Design Requirements optional for actual implementation or upkeep including the following:

a) paragraph d. "The roof design and materials proposed for the structure..."
b) paragraph e.  "The siding and other exterior materials proposed for the structure..."
c) paragraph g.  "The front yard depth for the proposed structure..."

it would seem that one design could be proposed and another built…in some ways this might be similar to Staples where the store front was designed and approved with pedestrian features included but when it was built the stone wall and pedestrian height windows were gone.  It also not clear how future changes would be reviewed .  Not sure that's exactly what occurred with Staples but this is easy enough to fix through re-wording.  But it should also be noted that all projects are inspected prior to a CO being issued and if there is a change to the building that was not approved originally, then the CO would be withheld until the issue was corrected or resolved through other means, i.e. a conditional zoning.

8) Will this USSR be valid for all zoning districts?   Yes.

9) In section b, it states "Except as otherwise afforded through Appendix 7-X and subsection e below, all Sustainable Development projects shall meet the following minimum standards and those standards established elsewhere in the UDO".  I think that should be stated as follows unless you can provide an example where Appendix 7-X or subsection e do not require the minimum standards stated to be followed:  "All Sustainable Development projects shall meet the following minimum standards.  <list 4 min standards>  Additionally all Sustainable Development projects shall meet the standards established elsewhere in the UDO except as otherwise afforded through Appendix 7-X and subsection e below."   We can re-word this, no problem. 

10) Does section b,c, and d (requirements) of the USSR supersede section e (incentives).  Can this be clearly stated?  If not where are the conflicts?   There shouldn't be any conflicts but I will double check and re-word for more clarity if needed.  [Suggest re-word]

11) Throughout I would recommend you refer consistently to "one, two, three and four unit structures" as done in section c.2 and not as "one, two, three and four-family structures" as in section b.4   Agreed.

12) I am concerned that some terms are not adequately defined including the following (please point me to their definition in the UDO or explain how you plan to resolve):
 

a) "key pedestrian street" and "principal structure" in section c.1.a.   Key pedestrian streets are defined in the pedestrian thoroughfare plan which will be referenced.  I agree that Principal structure should be defined.

b) "adequately screened" in section c.1.b.  Why don't you define a type of Buffer as is done in c.1.c?  Because the preference was not to require a vegetated buffer due to space limitations.  I can revise to say "adequately screened to provide a minimum of 80% opacity year round" or something similar.  

c) "block" throughout.  Yes, we should define.

d) "physical hardship" in section d.1.g.  After reconsidering, I believe I should revise this to say "practical difficulty" instead.  This is difficult to define.  [Not acceptable?]

e) "difficult to access" in section c.1.b.  Is there stronger language that could provide clarity for staff?  Also difficult to define.  [Not acceptable?]

f) "pedestrian oriented design" in section e.4.   This is already defined in article 2 of the UDO.

13) Concerned that section c.1.b does not define a maximum number of parking spaces in excess of 2 nor is the number allowed in excess related to the number of spaces in the majority of properties on the block.  For instance, could you have ten spots in front of the house when the majority of houses along the block have only a parking area that would fit one vehicle and none have more than two spaces?   I will revise the language in this section to ensure that the parking areas are compatible with the parking areas on the block.  So, if everyone on the block has two parking spaces in front of the house, we will allow a density project to have something similar but not substantially larger.

14) In section c.2.b, it appears that anyone can park in a setback as long as they make something that appears to be a driveway (e.g. dirt, gravel or concrete pad) even if the driveway leads to no where that a vehicle could park without having a portion or all of the vehicle in the setback.  I would define a driveway as a vehicular access path which leads to a location where a vehicle can be parked outside of the setback.  The Courtland Ave FCH driveway whose only purpose was to allow parking in the setback would be an example of a fictitious driveway.  Can you help me understand staff's goal?   Simply stated, we want people to be able to park on a driveway even if that means parking in a setback.  Driveways are limited to 18' max feet per city standards.  Once out of the setback, they can be expanded to create a parking area provided they can satisfy the other requirements.  

15) With respect to section 2.1.d and 2.1.e, what type of design and materials for roofs and siding do you expect staff or neighbors to have a concern with.  When you judge "similarity" what will be your criteria?  Color, texture, size, angle?  An unintended consequence might be that new, more sustainable designs or materials might not be allowed simply because they are new or different as opposed to undesirable.  For example, vinyl siding is reportedly not great for the environment or health...so would cob or wood shingles be allowed on a 1970 era vinyl sided block?  Would a geo-dome house be allowed if all of the neighbors thought it was cool?  This was discussed with the working group and it was decided that a primary goal was to maintain character compatibility so this was an "intended" consequence.  If staff is directed to provide alternative design consideration, we can do this, possibly by review with the Planning & Zoning Commission.   [Judd has contacted SACEE (green/energy) chair to better understand satisfaction with consequence, no reply to date]

16)  Can you provide a drawing explaining section d.2.c. "On corner lots, buildings shall be located at the corner where the exposed corner side resembles the front of the building."  How can you put a building on a corner lot and not have the building located at the corner?  I did this for you in our meeting but have attached a small drawing. [Did not get drawing attachment. Will drawing be include in ordinance?]  Do both the corner and front have to look like the front?  Yes.

17) In section d.2.d regarding window placement you have not defined what constitutes a "primary facade" and then in section d.2.e, you have referred to only "the facade" which begs the question of whether this is the primary facade, secondary facade, both or something else.   Primary facade is described in the previous section as the facade facing the primary street.  I will revise to repeat the word primary elsewhere as needed.

18) In section d.2.f, you are striving towards requiring 50% of the length of the first floor incorporating windows, doors, and other openings in order to complement pedestrian scale activity.  The criterion is % length and not pedestrian value.  The latter is only explaining the purpose.  Would a metal industrial garage door spanning 50% of the length be allowed?  I would recommend that you provide a definition for pedestrian friendly doors (and maybe openings) as you did in section d.2.g for windows?   Yes, I will clarify to require pedestrian scale windows, doors and openings.  

19) In section e.2, you allow lot size and lot width to be reduced by 30% if within 300 feet of a public park.  I would recommend that the size of the park be stipulated in relation to the incentive size.  Concern would be that may get a large incentive in relation to a small pocket park.  Can you explain the general design goal / relation between lot size/width and offsite open space?   Simply that open space can be shared through the use of a public park (in close proximity) where some level of maintenance and longevity are ensured.  The CoA doesn't have too many pocket parks and those that are around are typically in built out neighborhoods already.     

20) Based on section e, why is allowing a 30% reduction in lot size, width, and setback and totally eliminating the open space requirement a good idea for developments with > 60% affordable units where they could also possibly have 240% of the density of the underlying zoning?  This seems to be “piling on” incentives and I am concerned how this would affect the neighbors and residents.  Would it be wiser to limit it to something like two out of four with respect to size, width, setback, or open space?   This would only be available for pedestrian oriented projects but, is a good point and a good idea (2 out of 4).  I will try to examine this more closely and may revise.  [Review final wording]

21) Can the 30% lot size and width reductions per section e.2 be added to the lot size and width requirements of section e.6?   Again, per my answer above, I will re-examine this.  

22) Could you confirm that per section e.5 and d.1.that the proposed home could be 15 feet higher than the highest on block in a single family (RS) district but only 10 feet higher in a multi-family or mixed use district.   Thanks for identifying this - I will revise to exclude RS districts for this additional 10 foot bonus because the intent in those districts was definitely to keep the homes in scale with the existing homes on the block.

23) Can one development fall under more than one USSR?  For a possibly poor example, the sustainable USSR and the family care home USSR.  If not, what section of UDO code disallows?   I will have to check with legal on this but would like to revise that any bonus projects would not be allowed to support other USSR's. [Follow up needed]

24) Regarding Appendix 7-x, Sustainability Bonus Evaluation Form:

a) Which criteria are related to affordable housing versus a green building project?  This appears to be necessary to know especially for Option 3 and 4 where a project is defined as either an affordable housing project or a green building project.   I think I explained this in our meeting but, basically, only the affordable housing projects have the menu.  Green projects were simplified to follow LEED classifications.  [Need to clarify the form...very confusing because some Affordable house criteria looks green]

b)  It would be helpful to have each criteria numbered.   Agreed.  Once more refined, we intend to have other (more qualified staff) revise the table to be more legible and organized.

c)  For employment centers what is the criteria for the option "Other centers considered with supporting data from the applicant."  Can it be a strip mall with three stores?   This was added at request of the working group.  I agree that we should identify some standard by which to evaluate data submitted.  An alternative would be to simply name the employment centers but when we started to do this the list became quite long.  

d)  The fourth and fifth criteria (% affordable for rental and sale unit) should both use the same source for affordable definition....they don't.  Can you share link to COA criteria and method by which criteria set and changed.   That's a typo - I will fix it.  Essentially it is the City of Asheville's definition but is managed and regulated by the Community Development Division.  See attached document.  [See Affordability Limits for document]

e) The note in header regarding "multi part items may earn points in one section only." is repeated in some of the multi part items but not all.  Why?   It should be, I will fix that.

f) Does determining what is "extensive new infrastructure" in the first criteria require excessive judgment by staff?   I don't believe so.  [Second opinion?]

g) What is the definition of providing affordable housing "off site"?   I don't quite understand this question.  It would have to meet the definition of affordability but would be built somewhere other than on the project property.  

h) Can a project which provide affordable housing "off site" or "provides a fee in lieu" be eligible for the fourth and fifth criteria (% affordable for rental and sale unit)?   Yes.   How will you clarify?   Clarify what?  Sorry, I don't' understand. If so why?     If not might consider removing 15 points for "Into the development" if that is considered double dipping with criteria 4 and 5.    This provides a project that is seeking a bonus, some flexibility in where or how it is provided.   I don't believe this would be "double dipping".  The points are weighted to provide a stronger incentive to include affordable housing in the development.  

i)  Are the fourth and fifth criteria (% affordable for rental and sale unit) based on number of units before bonus applied or after bonus applied.  Probably after bonus but should clarify.  After.  I can clarify.

j)  Should spell out HTF as Housing Trust Fund in criteria 7.   Sure.

k) Is there some rhyme or reasoning that went into balancing the number of points allotted per criteria versus the number of points required to obtain bonuses.  Trying to get a sense that it is something other than "everyone deserves a bonus".  Maybe another way to state would be “what is the lowest likely grouping of criteria that would result in a bonus?”   It entirely depends on the features of the project - Some criteria were determined to be more valuable than others and they were assigned a higher point value.  This is one of the reasons we tried testing the levels on a number of past projects to see how it would work. 

l) What are the criteria / definition for renewable energy on-site?  Could all clocks in the house be run on potato power?  I would recommend a minimum mW generation criteria or something related to overall power consumption.   Agreed.  I will add this. 

m) Should include general reference to brownfield definition unless contained in UDO.   Brownfields is defined by the state.  [Reference state ordinance?]

n) Is South Tunnel Road a well enough defined location?  Generally but now that I look at it more closely I could clarify to expand past Swannanoa River Road to include Wood Rd. up to River Hills Rd.  I'll fix that.

o) What documentation will be required and stored in the files to backup the evaluation form.  Would recommend that the form state the need to include documents in files as opposed to general promise of staff to document sufficiently.  Again, the form would be part of the file which would, collectively, include everything needed to evaluate the project including any additional information/data that may have to be provided by the applicant.

Shannon finished by thanking CAN for its "careful attention to this proposal - I Appreciate the extra review".