City planners propose ADU, home‑repair and data steps to limit displacement; committee asks staff for vulnerability analysis

Planning and housing staff on Sept. 16 presented a policy overview and data briefing on anti‑displacement strategies, proposed text amendments to the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) for accessory dwelling units (ADUs), and the city’s current investments in home‑repair partnerships.

Steph Muncedahl, the city’s planning and urban design director, opened with definitions used in the city’s affordable housing plan: physical displacement (loss of housing or eviction), economic displacement (households priced out), cultural/social displacement (residents feeling they no longer belong), and environmental displacement (loss due to a disaster). Muncedahl said the city intends to pair growth-encouraging policies with protections that help residents remain in place.

On ADUs, staff proposed increasing the maximum allowed ADU size from 800 square feet to 1,000 square feet to better accommodate families and align with building standards, and recommended removing a hurdle that required property owners with pre-existing nonconforming houses to seek a variance from the board of adjustment. Muncedahl said the change would make conversions of carriage houses, garages and similar structures easier for residents.

Sasha Vertinski, the city’s affordable housing director, described a home‑repair partnership called ARCHER (Asheville Regional Coalition for Home Repair) that includes Mountain Housing Opportunities, Habitat for Humanity, Community Action Opportunities, AVCLT and Poteat Law. She said the city allocated $1,465,000 of 2026 bond funds for the program and that $750,000 is already contracted with ARCHER for storm‑related repairs; staff also discussed an additional proposed allocation of $1,000,000 that is not final and remains subject to bond planning and council decisions.

Staff presented permit and project data (March 2021–Sept. 1, 2025): the city has approved 116 ADUs in that period (73 detached; 43 attached), nearly 6,000 multifamily units were approved in the past 4½ years but just under 25% show signs of moving forward with development, and single‑family permit activity has slowed in the last year. Muncedahl said the city will share an ArcGIS map viewer so council members and the public can zoom to parcel‑level detail.

Committee members and callers from legacy neighborhoods and community organizations asked staff to pair any added density with concrete protections — examples offered included targeted home repair and weatherization, property‑tax relief for qualifying long‑term owners, eviction diversion and tenant supports, and community land‑holding tools to preserve affordability. Legacy Neighborhoods Coalition asked staff to adopt the presentation’s displacement definitions consistently in reports and to create a practical displacement index or score for internal use; Habitat for Humanity urged investment in community‑based organizations that can guide local planning and neighborhood reinvestment.

Committee directions: members asked staff to return with a displacement‑vulnerability analysis framework that could be included in staff reports and to follow up on a Legacy Neighborhoods overlay proposal. Several members said they supported a staff note or flag in project reports that shows whether a proposed development lies within a high vulnerability area. Staff committed to sharing the GIS viewer and to developing options for how vulnerability information might be included in future project materials and UDO updates.

Ending: Staff said they will bring a UDO update roadmap to councils and Planning & Zoning in November, will share the map viewer and will follow up on the legacy‑neighborhood overlay request; committee members expressed continued interest in pairing housing production with stronger anti‑displacement measures.