Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Land Use topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Council denies Caribou Road conditional rezoning after months‑long debate and hours of public comment
Summary
Council voted unanimously to deny a conditional rezoning for Caribou Commons (a proposed 100‑unit affordable housing development in Shiloh) after staff presentations, developer testimony and extensive resident opposition focused on traffic, emergency access, tree canopy loss and plan alignment; developers emphasized affordability commitments and service coordination.
The Asheville City Council voted to deny a conditional zoning request for a 100‑unit development dubbed Caribou Commons after a lengthy public hearing and robust neighborhood comment. Planning and urban design staff presented the petition and recommended approval with conditions; the Planning & Zoning Commission had split on a recommendation (3‑3).
Planning staff described the site as roughly 9.5 acres in the Shiloh neighborhood with difficult topography and limited frontage on Caribou Road; the developer proposed a mix of townhouse and multifamily buildings with at least some units leased at or below 80% of area median income for a minimum period (staff materials described an initial 20‑year condition while the developer, Penrose, discussed LIHTC financing that would average lower AMI bands and commit to longer affordability periods in practice). The developer said plans were revised to remove about 33 parking spaces, add a pedestrian connection to Ardmore Street and reduce encroachments into landscape buffers. Developer representatives said they would operate with resident services and community impact coordinators to link tenants to local supports.
Residents and neighborhood representatives testified in large numbers against the rezoning. Speakers repeatedly cited narrow residential roads (Caribou, Ardmore, Forest), emergency access concerns, pedestrian safety without continuous sidewalks, the project’s effect on existing tree canopy and neighborhood character, insufficient outreach and notice to longtime residents, and the cumulative impact with nearby projects (such as Laurelwood expansion). Several neighborhood speakers urged single‑family or lower‑density infill consistent with the Shiloh Community Plan. Others expressed support for affordable housing in principle but questioned the site choice and scale.
Council members debated staff findings and planning commission comments; concerns about infrastructure adequacy and preserving legacy neighborhood character were repeatedly raised. A council motion to deny the conditional rezoning was moved and seconded; the transcript records the vote as unanimous in favor of denial.
The denial means the applicant may revise the proposal, pursue alternative sites, or return with a different plan after additional community engagement. Council members and staff suggested future possibilities including exploring right‑of‑way improvements, revisiting street connections and working toward solutions that both increase housing supply and respect adopted neighborhood plans.
Provenance: discussion and public comment recorded May 12 (presentation began SEG 1556; motion and vote occurred at SEG 3700–SEG 3916).
