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

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.