CITIZEN-TIMES.com

City’s lack of will to consistently enforce UDO forces neighborhood advocates into action

An important issue from last fall’s Asheville City Council and mayoral election was how well the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is being enforced. Every few months Asheville residents learn of development decisions that appear to conflict with standards set out in the UDO. Whether it was a promise to preserve a stand of trees next to the Campus Crest Apartments in Montford or a wayward loading dock on a residential street serving Greenlife Grocery, many residents are left to wonder who’s enforcing the UDO.

Growth and development are changing Asheville. And the question is no longer whether or not we have growth but instead, how we manage it in a way that doesn’t destroy the very qualities that make Asheville unique. Our primary tool for managing growth is the UDO, the comprehensive planning guide that sets development standards within Asheville city limits. If the UDO, which carries the force of law, is to be an effective tool, however, it must be enforced.

The apparent unwillingness of the Asheville Planning Department to enforce consistently the standards of the UDO will be the basis of a first-ever appeal by the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods (CAN). It is the intention of CAN to file three appeals to the Board of Adjustment (BOA) over recent Planning Department decisions. The basis of these appeals will be that planning staff did not follow their own rules prior to issuing permits or approvals.

CAN does not undertake this action lightly. Each appeal to the Board of Adjustment is $500, or $1,500 to submit three appeals. CAN believes it is time to return consistency and accountability to the planning process.

So which planning decisions are troubling to CAN? The first concerns approval of the Prudential Realty sign on the south side of I-240 just west of the Beaucatcher cut. UDO standards for this type of sign limit its height to 20 feet and size to a maximum of 50 square feet. Documents submitted by the sign owner to the planning department show the sign is 64 sqare feet in size. And an on-site measurement shows a height well in excess of 20 feet. Yet despite exceeding UDO standards, this sign was approved by planning staff. CAN intends to ask why these standards were ignored by planning staff, the very people charged with enforcing them.

CAN’s second appeal will concern the renovation of the Citizen’s Hardware store on Merrimon Avenue into a Walgreens drugstore. The UDO states that any renovation whose costs will exceed 50 percent of a property’s assessed value must be done to current building standards. The present tax assessment for the building is $894,300. By UDO standards, if the renovation exceeds $447,150, the developer must bring the entire site into compliance.

So what number did the builder cite to win planning staff approval? Nothing, actually. The builder left it blank and yet the project was still approved by planning staff.

When CAN pulled the building permit, the renovation cost is stated at more than $1 million, clearly well over a 50 percent renovation. What message do you think this sends to the development community? CAN believes this says our development standards are negotiable behind closed doors, no matter what the UDO says.

The third appeal has to do with the sign on the new Staples on lower Merrimon. UDO standards say a sign in this zoning district shall not be greater than 25 feet in height with a size not to exceed 125 square feet in area, about the size of four sheets of plywood. The sign on the south side of the building is more than 40 feet above ground level and all its signs exceed 125 square feet. As much public outcry as there has been over the design of this building, CAN wonders how planning staff could have approved a sign which does not conform to UDO standards.

Perhaps planning staff had good reasons for approving these projects which don’t conform to UDO standards. Approval would have required a variance from the requirements of the UDO and would have had to been approved by the Board of Adjustment. Information provided from city files show of no application to the BOA for a variance.

Hence, the CAN appeal to the Board of Adjustment to render an opinion on each of these three decisions. CAN intends to do what planning staff should have done; ask the BOA whether each of these deviations from the UDO are warranted.

Ultimately, it is up to the mayor and City Council to direct planning staff to adhere to the standards of the UDO. Not doing so creates an uneven playing field and opens the City of Asheville to charges of favoritism. If planning staff believe present UDO standards are inadequate or inappropriate they should recommend changes to City Council. In the meantime, our growing city needs a vigilant planning staff and consistent enforcement of our development standards.

Chris Pelly is president of CAN, the Coalition of Asheville Neighborhoods. He lives in Asheville and can be reached at: cpelly@buncombe.main.nc.us.