[{"_1":2,"_87":-5,"_88":-5},"loaderData",{"_3":4,"_26":27},"root",{"_5":6,"_17":10,"_18":19,"_20":21,"_22":10,"_23":-5,"_24":-5,"_25":10},"user",{"_7":8,"_9":10,"_11":10,"_12":-5,"_13":-5,"_14":15,"_16":-5},"roles",[],"isAuthenticated",false,"isPremium","planName","subscriptionStatus","featureFlags",{},"insightsBudget","isDevelopmentHost","userPreferences",{},"recaptchaSiteKey","6LcvOJcUAAAAAHsB-gPGfGktcRlKpH7OTIU_dMTD","isImpersonating","impersonation","affiliateStatus","isFreedomPortal","routes/v2/article/layout",{"_28":29,"_30":31},"notFound",true,"relatedArticles",[32,75],{"_33":34,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":40,"_41":42,"_43":44,"_45":46,"_47":48,"_49":50,"_51":52,"_53":54,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":60,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":66,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},"mediaId",6282688,"mediaKeyId","2593101-8a86c64600527651d64fac8b51b7f1e9","parentId",2593101,"title","Asheville council approves citizen-led cottage and flag-lot UDO changes while excluding legacy parcels","audioSeconds",212,"startMs",1258000,"endMs",1470000,"viewUrl","/Search/View?dp=1&key=2593101-8a86c64600527651d64fac8b51b7f1e9&start=1258&end=1470","thumbnailUrl","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2593101-8a86c64600527651d64fac8b51b7f1e9/thumbnail_1258000.jpg","articleUrl","/articles/6282688/Asheville-City/Buncombe-County/North-Carolina/Asheville-council-approves-citizen-led-cottage-and-flag-lot-UDO-changes-while-excluding-legacy-parcels","mediaUrl","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6282688-f3afba28e3245bde24f2caaa1e36033b/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181839&Signature=GvKiPdvjDl4dtjyGXKi1m2Z3Cga4A0oOnAVA~XXEBaIhxQmBqP91jMgTENKB83~CTdjfSPsm7c-tMesM-UY4CtM5jlm8FO8f7hAov5f-cDlkLab-0Qf8qU4OflxKV76gzcQZX0PAfNaXzv0psoCz4zYeaNnpNM8JYJAira6PL82NF7wnPmCNKMJ4qUMZmrTnH8WEX6juwHwPE1RiQOL1mtQWOg95-7QmA6Ywi1Dv9TfFyucQqX5NFwbpIKNEJ-5S5OkaHzHP42TotXhA7MmyuYDTO9js~v3ivObFZTSJG322-4iNO-Kr~25aaNamPyR1~7pagfQNSRfSJMZa5zTusg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","author","Asheville City, NC","date","2025-03-12T11:54:46Z","article","The Asheville City Council on March 11 approved resident-led amendments to Chapter 7 of the city's Unified Development Ordinance to allow cottage developments and flag lots in most residential areas, while carving out specific parcels listed in a new Appendix 7F for further community engagement.

Council members said the change is intended to expand options for small-scale infill housing while pausing implementation in neighborhoods identified as legacy or particularly vulnerable to displacement. The ordinance amendments add a new Appendix 7F to the code; the appendix lists parcels that will be excluded from the new cottage and flag-lot rules so those neighborhoods' zoning remains unchanged while staff and neighborhood leaders work on protections and additional tools.

The measure on cottage developments drew extended staff and council discussion before a final vote. Chris Collins, assistant director of the city's Urban Planning and Urban Design Department, told the council the petitioner and staff are aligned on technical cottage and flag-lot standards but differ over the minimum number of units required to qualify as a cottage development. Collins said the resident petition asked for a two-unit minimum, while the city's missing middle housing study recommended a three-unit minimum because the cottage type is intended to create a small clustered community with shared open space. \"When you move into cottage development standards, you're no longer bound by density limitations of the district,\" Collins said, cautioning that a two-unit definition starts to look like a duplex and would have implications for other city rules.

Council members also cited recommendations from the Urban Forestry Commission and tree-canopy rules when debating the minimum-unit threshold. Staff noted that two-unit cottages or duplexes would not, under current rules, trigger the Tree Canopy Protection Ordinance (Article 19) and that changing that outcome would require separate amendments.

Multiple members of legacy and longtime neighborhoods urged council to protect historically Black and low-income neighborhoods from displacement during later implementation. Shaniqua Samuel, staff for the Shiloh Community Association, told council that rezoning and market pressure have already caused gentrification in historically Black neighborhoods and asked the council to \"carve us out\" and keep community plans in effect. Andrea Golden of the Emma community said her neighborhood has worked for years to build permanently affordable housing and requested that the city preserve local plans and local AMI considerations before applying corridor- or citywide rules.

Council discussed process and sequencing: several members said they favored allowing cottage and flag-lot rules citywide except for the parcels listed in Appendix 7F, which they described as a temporary pause, not a permanent downzoning (council and staff noted that state law restricts unilateral downzoning). Councilmember Roni (identified in the meeting transcript as making motions on these items) described the approach as a compromise to \"move forward with housing, protect the legacy neighborhoods, and then come back and do the beyond-zoning things that they may ask for.\"

Outcome and next steps: Council approved the resident-led cottage development amendment with the addition of Appendix 7F; the ordinance text clarifies that the changes will not apply to parcels listed in that appendix. Council then approved the parallel flag-lot amendment with the same Appendix 7F carve-out. Staff said they will work with neighborhood leaders in the excluded areas on an overlay and additional anti-displacement measures and return with more detailed proposals.

Public comment was strongly mixed. Several housing advocates and developers supported the changes as a way to expand infill housing: Jeremy Cohen, a local developer and Montford homeowner, urged the council that \"accelerating our new housing supply is the most actionable and direct solution\" and called the code changes a way to reduce barriers to production. Others raised caution about displacement risk, tree canopy, flood vulnerability and the loss of council negotiation leverage if too many projects skip conditional zoning review. Star Silvis, a professional engineer who served on a flood task force, warned council to \"be careful\" about raising review thresholds without completed displacement risk assessments and public-benefit requirements.

What the approvals do and do not do: The amendments change the UDO text to allow cottages and flag lots in areas identified by staff and the petitioner, but Appendix 7F lists parcels where those allowances are paused pending further neighborhood engagement. Council and staff repeatedly said that the appendix is a list of parcels to be excluded from the immediate change, not a permanent downzoning.

The council instructed staff to return with follow-up work: a more complete overlay proposal, a timeline for engagement in the excluded neighborhoods, and clarification on how the Tree Canopy Protection Ordinance might be applied if the two-unit cottage threshold is reconsidered.

Council reaction and caveats: Several council members said they supported the carve-out approach as a pragmatic compromise to allow infill housing while protecting neighborhoods with documented vulnerability. Staff and some public commenters urged additional studies and community-led solutions before extending the new rules into legacy areas.

Votes at a glance:
- Cottage development amendment (Chapter 7, addition of Appendix 7F; applicability excludes parcels listed in Appendix 7F): motion to approve carried (recorded by voice/raise-hand vote; individual tally not specified in the transcript).
- Flag-lot amendment (Chapter 7, addition of Appendix 7F; applicability excludes parcels listed in Appendix 7F): motion to approve carried (recorded by voice/raise-hand vote; individual tally not specified in the transcript).

Clarifying details:
- The resident petition proposed a 2-unit minimum to qualify as a cottage; staff and the missing middle study recommend a 3-unit minimum.
- Staff noted that two-unit cottages and duplexes currently fall outside Article 19 (Tree Canopy Protection Ordinance) and changing that would require a separate ordinance amendment.
- Appendix 7F is a list of parcels that the council designated to be excluded from the immediate ordinance changes; council directed staff to pursue further engagement with those neighborhood leaders.

Why this matters: Council members and residents said the change is intended to increase small-scale infill housing options near services and transit, while the appendix carve-out was meant to respect long-term residents' concerns about displacement. The council asked staff to return with more detailed engagement results and possible regulatory fixes that would protect tree canopy, manage flood risk, and account for neighborhood-level affordability measures.

Ending: City staff said they will work with neighborhood leaders in the excluded areas to draft overlay options and anti-displacement tools and return to council for future action. Councilmembers urged timely follow-up so that the carve-out does not become a permanent barrier to policy coordination.","mediaType","Video","parentTitle","City Council Meeting – March 11, 2025","oneSentenceSummary","The Asheville City Council on March 11 approved resident-led amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance to allow cottage developments and flag lots citywide while excluding parcels listed in a newly added Appendix 7F for additional neighborhood engagement.","taxTitle","Asheville City, Buncombe County, North Carolina","taxId",3915,"location","headline","","shortSummary",{"_33":76,"_35":36,"_37":38,"_39":77,"_41":78,"_43":79,"_45":80,"_47":81,"_49":82,"_51":83,"_53":84,"_55":56,"_57":58,"_59":85,"_61":62,"_63":64,"_65":86,"_67":68,"_69":70,"_71":68,"_72":73,"_74":73},6282683,"Council approves corridor-focused UDO changes: review thresholds, parking minima and building-size rules to encourage housing near transit",313,2506000,2819000,"/Search/View?dp=1&key=2593101-8a86c64600527651d64fac8b51b7f1e9&start=2506&end=2819","https://assets.pipeline.soar.com/2593101-8a86c64600527651d64fac8b51b7f1e9/thumbnail_2506000.jpg","/articles/6282683/Asheville-City/Buncombe-County/North-Carolina/Council-approves-corridor-focused-UDO-changes-review-thresholds-parking-minima-and-building-size-rules-to-encourage-housing-near-transit","https://secure.pipeline.soar.com/6282683-32918840809d91ad858dbdd29420a918/orig.mp4?Expires=1771181839&Signature=lXQuTEPBvsS5SPZa-QDD8eXvwJw3lJnqd9KObsHyDU~D6H5vTajJ1LqB1jHy0jDYjsZQVTWu8-icmXGGRoXxgnW4royNpxmlbCi8Ce8-Ks1yptou2JJtM~INM1pjDVSQNWtBrkxW0ceJvcheqe2Fh3cBZwWUaekZXoRc7FMEqe92CFrvaSsOzut7f2vQN8scB5QuryRKkVXkpJZUEOiIr2bAaagP0bK6y4b2mO0Uvpx9wYCkVCjRTPWn8nkbmCZ9YEzdIGEgFdHphUuG4013ZLCmkD98AspXT~1JRCaN2xkG0NPTihCF9GaY0xxtuU1SQWZCnGJ-6VNLLPyxT0skSg__&Key-Pair-Id=KUT5TJCACFTXG","The Asheville City Council on March 11 approved three related amendments to Chapter 7 of the Unified Development Ordinance intended to promote housing along transit-supportive corridors: (1) revised development-review thresholds and incentives tied to affordable units, (2) elimination of mandatory parking minimums in selected commercial districts, and (3) district-specific changes that allow larger building floor area for projects containing residential uses.

Chris Collins, the city's assistant director for Urban Planning and Urban Design, presented the package as a coordinated set of changes designed to reduce regulatory barriers and provide by-right capacity in targeted areas. Collins said the threshold change replaces a unit-count trigger (for example, \"50 units\") with gross floor-area thresholds so smaller units are not inadvertently penalized. He said the proposal sets a base by-right gross-floor-area (GFA) limit of 100,000 square feet for single-use residential projects and 150,000 square feet for mixed-use projects, with higher by-right ceilings available as developers commit to deeper affordability tiers.

Collins walked council through an incentive table based on affordability commitments. Under the framework discussed in the presentation and modified by council during debate, projects that offer higher percentages of affordable units at specified area-median-income (AMI) targets become eligible for larger by-right size thresholds. Staff's analysis of recent projects showed that roughly 25 projects had previously required council review for exceeding unit-count triggers; 21 of those included some affordable units. Collins gave examples from 2022 projects: The Avery (about 149,872 square feet, 187 units, committed 10% at 80% AMI); the Stoneyard (about 306,000 square feet, 263 units, pledged 5% at 80% AMI) and another project that committed 10% at 80% AMI for about 218 units.

Council amended staff's proposed thresholds during debate. The motion approved by council removed the staff's \"baseline\", eliminated a fourth, very-large tier, and set the working table as follows: Tier 1 (by-right) non-mixed use above 100,000 square feet and mixed use above 150,000 square feet with affordability at either 5% at 80% AMI or 3% at 60% AMI; Tier 2 above 150,000 (non-mixed) and 200,000 (mixed); Tier 3 above 200,000 (non-mixed) and 250,000 (mixed) with affordability targets of 15% at 80% AMI or 8% at 60% AMI. The final motion instructed staff to proceed, finding the amendments consistent with the comprehensive plan and the city's affordable housing goals.

On parking, Collins explained the proposal would eliminate minimum required parking in most developments within selected commercial and transit-supportive corridors and increase bicycle-parking ratios. The ordinance would keep parking maximums to avoid creating nonconforming situations. Staff reviewed recent local examples and found that many developers still provide parking even where minimums were removed, and that eliminating mandatory minima helps reduce development cost and increase buildable area.

The district-specific changes remove several density-by-unit limits and instead control building size by square footage for residential-including projects, a change staff said yields more and smaller units rather than fewer larger units. Collins emphasized the amendments would not change height limits, setbacks, or required landscape buffers.

Public comment included several housing advocates, developers and neighborhood representatives. Supporters argued the changes reduce costs, shorten approval timelines and enable infill housing close to transit. Jeremy Cohen, a developer, said \"accelerating our new housing supply is the most actionable and direct solution\" to affordability pressures. Representatives from Asheville For All, MountainTrue and other local groups urged council to pass the package and move quickly.

Opponents and some technical commenters urged caution. Star Silvis, a professional engineer and former flood task force member, warned against raising review thresholds without completing displacement risk assessments and a public-benefits framework. Several legacy-neighborhood speakers asked council to preserve local plans and insisted on neighborhood-specific protections; staff and council said the corridor amendments apply to commercial corridors and are distinct from the parcel carve-outs used in the cottage/flag-lot actions earlier in the meeting.

Legal and process notes: Council and staff discussed the constraints of new state legislation on zoning changes (Senate Bill 382). The city attorney and staff advised that certain actions that amount to downzoning are restricted; staff said voluntary incentive programs tied to by-right review generally remain permissible but may require careful drafting to avoid unintended legal limits.

Votes and outcomes: Council approved the thresholds amendment as modified (the revised tiers and affordability levels described above), approved the parking amendment eliminating minimums in selected corridor districts, and approved the district-specific building-size changes. The parking amendment passed with broad support; the district-specific amendment passed by a recorded vote of 4-3. Where the transcript recorded only hands/voice votes, individual roll-call tallies were not always included in the public audio transcript.

Next steps: Staff will publish the final ordinance language and maps for the corridors affected, adjust bicycle-parking tables, and return with implementing text and a plan to monitor outcomes. Council asked staff to coordinate the corridor changes with ongoing affordable-housing programs and funding streams so that by-right gains can be paired with subsidy where deeper affordability is required.

Clarifying details and examples from the debate:
- Staff analysis: 25 past level-3 residential reviews would have been affected by threshold changes; 21 of those projects included some affordable units.
- Example projects discussed: The Avery (~149,872 sq ft; 187 units; committed 10% at 80% AMI), Stoneyard (~306,000 sq ft; 263 units; pledged 5% at 80% AMI), and a Julian Scholes project (~218 units; committed 10% at 80% AMI).
- The approved tier table (as adopted by council) sets by-right GFA thresholds and affordability triggers (see article body for values).

Why this matters: Council's actions change how the city counts and reviews new residential projects along transit corridors. Staff and many supporters said the package will reduce costs and time for projects that add housing close to transit. Critics warned the changes will need careful monitoring to avoid displacement, loss of tree canopy, or increased flood risk in some corridor-adjacent areas.

Ending: Council asked staff to return with the ordinance text, maps, and monitoring metrics and to coordinate corridor changes with the city's affordable housing tools and funding sources. Several council members reiterated a desire to pair regulatory changes with targeted subsidies and neighborhood protections where needed.","The Asheville City Council adopted a package of three Unified Development Ordinance amendments intended to speed housing production along transit-supportive corridors by changing review thresholds, removing most parking minimums and allowing larger residential building sizes where residential uses are included.","actionData","errors"]

Article not found

Asheville council approves citizen-led cottage and flag-lot UDO changes while excluding legacy parcels

Council approves corridor-focused UDO changes: review thresholds, parking minima and building-size rules to encourage housing near transit