Council pauses rezoning request for 99999 Trade Street after title and right‑of‑way questions

The Asheville City Council on June 24 heard a presentation on a straight rezoning request for a quarter‑acre property at 99999 Trade Street in the River Arts District and agreed to continue the case to a July 29 meeting after questions about a mapped alley and whether it is a public right‑of‑way were raised.

Planning staff presented the rezoning request as a straight map change with no project plans attached. Will Pompquist of Planning and Urban Design said the applicant seeks to change the parcel from River Arts District — Neighborhood Transition (RAD NT) to Residential Multifamily Medium Density (RM 8). "This request is to rezone the property to residential multifamily medium density RM 8," Pompquist said, noting the site is about a quarter acre and that the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended approval unanimously.

The matter drew one nearby property owner to the podium. Boone Guyton said he owns a lot adjacent to the north and raised concerns about an apparent alley or right‑of‑way between his lot and the rezoning parcel: "Is that real? I mean, it's in all the maps... they all assured me it exists and it'll continue." The applicant's attorney, Bo Carpenter, said his client believes the tract to be part of the deeded property but that he had not completed a title search.

Council members pressed staff and the applicant about whether the mapped alley is a public alley or a private tract. Pompquist said staff had not completed a public‑works or title review and described the feature as possibly a "paper alley" — a mapped alley that appears on plats but that may never have been opened or accepted by the city. He emphasized that the city's preliminary review had not verified whether adjoining parties hold easements or other rights that would affect development.

An initial motion to approve the rezoning failed for lack of a second. Later in the discussion council member raised concern about reduced sidewalk requirements under the requested zone and the site's proximity to high‑frequency transit, and the council voted unanimously to continue the public hearing to July 29 to allow additional research and to give the applicant an opportunity to address title/right‑of‑way issues.

Next steps: the council will revisit the rezoning request at its July 29 meeting after staff and the applicant provide clarifying information about the mapped alley/right‑of‑way and ownership records.

The rezoning would affect allowed uses and form‑based requirements: staff noted RAD NT allows some limited commercial uses, taller maximum heights (up to four stories/55 feet in some settings) and no minimum parking for many residential uses, while RM 8 allows single‑ and two‑family dwellings, typically requires one parking space per unit, and would reduce the maximum height adjacent to RS or RM zones to three stories/45 feet. Those technical differences were central to council members’ questions about sidewalks, parking and neighborhood compatibility.

Council made no final zoning change at the June 24 hearing; the item will return for action after the requested follow‑up.