City Council regular meeting — January 27, 2026

Background: (DR-4827-NC), producing unprecedented impacts on the City’s infrastructure, economy, and housing. FEMA or other federal agencies, Congress may appropriate additional recovery funding through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Program. Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

Background: (DR-4827-NC), producing unprecedented impacts on the City’s infrastructure, economy, and housing. FEMA or other federal agencies, Congress may appropriate additional recovery funding through the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Community Development Block Grant-Disaster Recovery (CDBG-DR) Program. Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

Background: Vendor Outreach Efforts: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

the Helene Recovery Fund for Parks and Recreation Trust Fund (PARTF) 2025-2026 in the State of North Carolina, and authorizing the City Manager to accept funds if granted, and to execute all documents related to implementation and management of Helene Recovery funds for PARTF 2025-2026 North Carolina Grant Program. Background: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

Background: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

Background: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

Background: Vendor Outreach Efforts: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

Background: Vendor Outreach Efforts: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

Background: Vendor Outreach Efforts: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact:

Economic Development Division Manager Rachel Taylor said that this is the consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to enter into a performance-based economic development incentive grant agreement to support Project Vessel, in an amount not to exceed $35,000 over a three-year grant agreement. This public hearing was advertised on January 16, 2026. Background: Vendor Outreach Efforts: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): Fiscal Impact Ms. Taylor reviewed the following key takeaways for Project Vessel

• Creative manufacturing company specializing in home goods. Project supports an accelerated expansion to double production capacity by early 2026 (1) Total Investment: $2.5M in taxable investments; (2) Jobs and Wages: 40 jobs; Average wage: $54,080 ($26/hour); (3) Benefits: Healthcare, dental, 401K matching, and additional benefits; (4) Anticipated Timeline: 1 year for buildout; (5) Locations: The City is one of three locations being considered for this project; and (6) All incentives are paid as annual reimbursements for City taxes paid, upon completion of improvements and hiring workers. Regarding the City’s Incentive Program (1) Economic Development Policy (a) Resolution #97-175 (1997) established City of Asheville’s Economic Development Policy;
• Resolution #15-140 (2015) amended the policy to establish a Living Wage benchmark for jobs; and (b ) Designed to stimulate private sector investment, economic growth and job creation by offering grants consistent with the policy and availability of funds; and (c) Establishes a consistent manner for the City’s participation in the development of business activity which will have a significant and positive effect on the economic health of the community; (2) Partnership Model (a) The City partners with the Economic Development Coalition (EDC) to facilitate negotiations; and (b) State of North Carolina, Buncombe County, and the City of Asheville work together to leverage competitive incentive packages; and (3) Industrial Development and Business Development Grants (a) Based on company’s taxable investment, up to a maximum of 90% of taxable capital investment and 7 years; (b) Structured as a 5–7-year grant based on performance (hiring, upfit, construction, paying annual taxes); (c) Initial proposal reviewed in closed session, final approval is subject to a public hearing; and (d) Confidentiality aids our negotiations and competitiveness. About the project overview (1) The company is a creative manufacturer of ceramics and other home goods; (2) The company has grown steadily over the last decade, doubled its production capacity from last year, and employs 120 employees; (3) The proposed expansion aims to meet the following needs: (a) Streamline fulfillment and keep it in-house, retaining 10-15 jobs; and (b) Expand and streamline production operations to double capacity; (4) The company is discussing expanding and upfitting one of its local facilities; (5) The expansion allows the company to meet growing demand while working toward a 10 year vision for a larger campus to showcase production, tours, and goods; (6) The primary drivers of the decision include proximity to existing facilities and incentive support; (7) The company is also considering the following locations: Asheville, NC; Henderson County, NC; Greenville, South Carolina; and (8) Investment Timeframe: 1-3 years – includes decision, announcement, investments, and job creation. Project commitments include (1) Investment
• Total Investment: $2.5M (a) Property improvements: $500K; and (b) Business Personal Property, Machinery, and Equipment: $2M; (2) Jobs, Wages, and Benefits (a) Total new jobs: 40; (b) Average Wage: $54,080 or $26/hour
• General Labor: 30 positions; $23/hour ($47,840/annual); Warehouse: 5 positions; $23/hour ($47,080/annual); Supervisor: 3 positions; $35/hour ($72,800/annual); Engineering/Technical Positions: 2 positions; $67/hour ($140,000/annual); and (c) Benefits: Healthcare, dental, PTO, EAN, 401K matching, and additional benefits; and (3) Additional Commitments
• Commitment to the Inclusive Hiring Program and Operation Gateway. Staff recommends entering into a performance-based economic development incentive grant agreement to support Project Vessel, in an amount to not exceed $35,000 over a three-year agreement
• Per Economic Development Policy, incentives will be paid over a 1-3 year period, subject to the completion of improvements and hiring of workers as outlined in an Economic Development Agreement. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 11:27 a.m., and when no one spoke, she closed the public hearing at 11:27 a.m. Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the resolution and it would not be read.

Principal Planner Will Palmquist said that this is the consideration of an ordinance to rezone 22 Broad Street from RM-8 Residential Multi-Family Medium Density District to Community Business I District. This public hearing was advertised on January 16 and 23, 2026. Project Location and Contacts: Summary of Petition: Staff Recommendation: Comprehensive Plan Consistency: Compatibility Analysis: Committee(s): Pro(s): Con(s): UDO District Comparison UDO Provision Residential Multi-Family Medium Density (RM-8)

• Existing Community Business I (CBI)
• Proposed Allowed uses:
• Multi-Family
• Single-Family Detached
• Duplex
• Townhouse
• Accessory Dwelling Unit
• Cottage Development
• Limited public, institutional, and recreational uses
• Multi-Family
• Single-Family Detached
• Duplex
• Townhouse
• Accessory Dwelling Unit
• Limited public, institutional, and recreational uses
• Commercial, office, and retail uses Density: 2 units for first 4,000 SF lot area and an additional unit for each additional 1,000 SF of lot area None. Lot Size Minimum: Min. 4,000 s.f. None. Lot Width Minimum: Min. 40’ None. Building Height: Max. 40’ Max. 40’ Building Setbacks: Front: 15’, Side: 6’ min, Rear: 15’ min Front: 0’-15’, Side: 0’, Rear: 0’ Parking Standard (1 per unit typically) None required for residential uses and most commercial uses. Mr. Palmquist reviewed the existing and proposed zoning, the aerial imagery and the future land use map. He then provided the zoning district comparison of the two districts, along with the pros and cons. He then provided the compatibility analysis. He then explained how the project was consistent with the Living Asheville Comprehensive Plan. The Planning & Zoning Commission voted unanimously to approve the rezoning. He said that staff concurs with the Planning & Zoning Commission and recommends approval of the rezoning. Vice-Mayor Mosley opened the public hearing at 11:32 a.m., and when no one spoke, she closed the public hearing at 11:32 a.m. Vice-Mayor Mosley said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the ordinance and it would not be read.

Planning & Urban Design Director Stephanie Dahl Baum said that this is the consideration of an amendment to the Unified Development Ordinance to amend Section 7-14-1 that would allow existing nonconforming structures to be converted into Accessory Dwelling Units without Board of Adjustment review. This public hearing was advertised on October 17 and 24, 2025. On October 28, 2025, this public hearing was continued to this date. Background: Community Outreach and Feedback: Comprehensive Plan Consistency: Council Goal(s): Boards/Committees: anti-displacement strategy. Pros: Cons: Staff Recommendation: Ms. Dahl explained what an Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) is, along with the definition of nonconforming structures. The amendment summary is to allow owners of (existing yet) non-conforming structures the right to turn them into ADUs without having to first apply for and receive a variance at a quasi-judicial hearing at the City’s Board of Adjustment. ADUs are already a use by right in all residential zoning in the City; this amendment would equalize the process for all. Urban Planner Sam Starr-Baum explained the amendment context for housing. Amendment benefits include (1) remove barriers to our community’s use of existing neighborhood structures for new housing; (2) promote the creation of smaller units, which can be the most affordable units; (3) simplify the pathway for residential property owners with limited access to capital to create more wealth via home-ownership; (4) support existing residents being able to age in place, or take care of family and friends in need of a place to live; and (5) reduce the number of volunteer and staff hours spent hearing cases at the Board of Adjustment. Ms. Dahl then reviewed the various community concerns addressed by staff during the outreach. She said the Planning & Zoning Commission recommended adoption using Appendix 7F

• During Commission discussion on 10/01/25, there was some questions about whether or not it was appropriate for them to recommend adoption of this ordinance without having a specific anti-displacement strategy attached to it, and some confusion about whether or not Council wanted to see any proposed amendments at this time. The staff recommendation was adoption of the amendment “as is”
• Staff believes that removing barriers to using buildings that already exist as new housing is- as presented in the Comp Plan, The Missing Middle/Displacement Analysis Study, and the Affordable Housing Plan- one small way that the City can address the housing crisis and concerns about how we can keep existing residents here in Asheville. She explained the alternatives to Appendix 7F
• Appendix 7F was adopted by Council on March 11, 2025. It is a list of ~2,000 parcels that, when added to another ordinance, are left out/carved out from new regulations/changes to regulations.. The intention of Appendix 7F is to protect more vulnerable communities from any potential negative impacts due to rapid changes; but in practice staff believe its use and effectiveness are questionable; Staff presents three general reasons why 7F is a less-than-ideal zoning tool, and one reason why it is particularly problematic in this specific case; staff suggests a new path forward (a) The Subdivision Loophole: Because the restriction is attached to the parcel number, it is impermanent. If a property owner subdivides a lot, the property is technically no longer part of Appendix 7F; (b) Administrative Confusion: It complicates how property owners and staff understand what rules apply by imposing zoning-like restrictions via a text ordinance list rather than a map overlay; property owners have to to be expert-level UDO user to know how the ordinance works; (c) The Protection Paradox: "Protecting" these areas by limiting development rights may help some vulnerable homeowners by limiting the change; but it actively suppresses generational wealth building by limiting the utility of being a property owner, harming others; and (d) Legal Concerns: For this amendment especially, the City’s Legal team cautions that inclusion of the 7F exclusion would place the entire zoning amendment in legal jeopardy, and expose the City to numerous challenges from property owners within the 7F areas. A New Path: Instead of adopting this ordinance with Appendix 7F, staff seeks to work with the Planning and Zoning Commission and the community on alternatives to Appendix 7F that can be used as a stopgap or interim tool in advance of the planned UDO Update. Staff’s suggested motion is to recommend approval of the proposed text amendment to Chapter 7 of the Asheville Code of Ordinances and find that the proposed amendment is reasonable, in the public interest, consistent with the City's comprehensive plan and meet the development needs of the community in that the amendment will encourage responsible growth by: (1) standardizing and clarifying the process for all residential property owners to create backyard ADUs through by-right adaptive reuse; (2) using existing building inventory for infill development and aging in place; and (3) improving government efficiency. Mr. Starr-Baum responded to Councilwoman Ullman regarding the clarification of parking. In response to Vice-Mayor Mosley, Ms. Dahl said that Air B&B’s are part of a larger concern. We have clear regulations and enforcement. In response to Councilman Hess, City Attorney Branham said that the City does not allow any new short-term whole home rentals. We do have Code Enforcement staff. Mayor Manheimer opened the public hearing at 11:59 a.m. Two individuals spoke in support of the amendment, without the inclusion of Appendix 7-F. Mayor Manheimer closed the public hearing at 12:03.p.m. Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have previously received a copy of the ordinance and it would not be read.

Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have been previously furnished with a copy of the resolutions and ordinances on the Consent Agenda and they would not be read.

Community Development Analyst Kaylee Pulliam said that this is the consideration of a resolution authorizing the City Manager to execute all contracts, grants, and loan agreements, after approval by the City Attorney, with the designated agencies for the 2025-2026 HOME Investment Partnership program authorizing the City Manager to execute a contract with the selected HOME Subrecipients. Background: Committee(s): Pro(s) Con(s) Fiscal Impact: Ms. Pulliam said that the following are the key takeaways from their presentation: (1) The City of Asheville receives an annual allocation of HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME) funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as the designated Participating Jurisdiction (PJ) for the Asheville Regional Housing Consortium (ARHC); (2) HOME funds are invested across the consortium area, which comprises Buncombe County, Henderson County, Transylvania County, and Madison County; (3) In June 2025, the ARHC recommended and City Council approved the funding strategy for the 2025 HOME grant; (4) The City undertook an application process to select subrecipient partners to activate this funding on the consortium’s behalf; and (5) Staff are requesting approval and authorization to enter into funding agreements with the consortium’s recommended subrecipient partners. She then reviewed the FY 2025-26 HOME funding recommendations, stating that in June 2025, the ARHC and City Council approved the following program funding allocations for the 2025-26 HOME grant: Program Funding Allocation Tenant-Based Rental Assistance $300,000 Down Payment Assistance $400,000 Homeowner Rehabilitation (Repair) $587,602 She said the City undertook an application process to select subrecipient partners to activate this funding on the consortium’s behalf from November 10, 2025, to December 10, 2025. The ARHC Funding Committee convened on January 7, 2026 and made the following award recommendations which were approved unanimously by the Asheville Regional Housing Consortium on January 14, 2026. For Tenant based rental assistance

• $300,000 available: Organization Requested Amount Recommended Award Helpmate Inc. $170,000 $170,000 Housing Authority of the City of Asheville $75,000 $75,000 ARC of Buncombe County $50,000 $55,000 Total $300,000 Available for Future Awards $0 For Down payment assistance
• $400,000 available: Organization Requested Amount Recommended Award Henderson County Habitat for Humanity $200,000 $200,000 Total $200,000 Available for Future Awards $200,000 For Homeowner rehabilitation
• $587,602 available: Organization Requested Amount Recommended Award Community Housing Coalition of Madison County $197,250 $200,000 The Housing Assistance Corporation $204,000 $204,000 Total $404,000 Available for Future Awards $183,602 In summary: Tenant Based Rental Assistance
• Helpmate
• $170,000; Asheville Housing Housing Authority
• $75,000; and ARC of Buncombe County
• $55,000. Down Payment Assistance
• Henderson County Habitat for Humanity
• $200,000. Homeowner Rehabilitation
• Community Housing Coalition of Madison County
• $200,000; and Housing Assistance Corporation
• $204,000. He then went through the 2025-26 unallocated funds. Upon inquiry of Councilman Hess, Ms. Pulliam explained what Helpmate will use this money for. When Mayor Manheimer asked for public comments, none were received. Mayor Manheimer said that members of Council have been previously furnished with a copy of the resolution and it would not be read.