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

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.