Council to continue vote on floodplain zoning amendments after staff briefing; freeboard, historic exemptions remain under discussion

City planning staff presented proposed updates to Chapter 7 (Flood Damage Prevention) of the Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) at the Jan. 14 council meeting and asked council to consider technical amendments intended to align the city's rules with state building code and National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) requirements.

Staff emphasized that most changes are technical clarifications to remove ambiguity and to ensure the city retains good standing with NFIP and the Community Rating System, which provides policyholders with reduced flood-insurance premiums. The proposed changes clarify the "look-back" period used to calculate substantial damage/substantial improvement and preserve the existing one-year look-back practice rather than a five-year calculation that had appeared unclear in prior language.

A possible substantive area is the freeboard requirement. Staff recommended retaining the current 2-foot freeboard (building elevation at least two feet above the base flood elevation) for new construction and for structures substantially damaged or substantially improved. The city has historically required 2 feet for residential and commercial buildings; state guidance also suggests a 2-foot minimum (though FEMA guidance sometimes recommends more). Staff warned that reducing the local freeboard below 2 feet would likely reduce the city's Community Rating System class and lower the percentage discount on flood insurance for residents.

Staff also recommended preserving the current variance pathway for historic properties, rather than moving historic-structure exemptions to an administrative staff decision, because historic designation determinations involve subjective judgment that state law generally treats as a quasi-judicial decision. That means some property owners seeking historic exemptions will need to apply to the Board of Adjustment for a variance.

Several business and property owners in the River Arts District and Biltmore Village testified during the public hearing, asking for clarity about how the 50% substantial-damage threshold would be calculated, whether tax-assessed pre-disaster values or independent appraisals would be used, and whether the variance process could be streamlined. Staff said tax-assessed pre-disaster values are the default but owners may provide an independent appraisal or detailed cost estimates to support an appeal.

Because staff and council agreed that property owners and staff would benefit from one more stakeholder meeting (a planned meeting had been canceled due to weather), council voted to continue the item to the Jan. 28 meeting to allow stakeholder discussion and final legal checks. Staff reiterated that these amendments aim to reduce ambiguity and maintain flood-insurance and federal-assistance eligibility, not to impose unforeseeable new restrictions on property owners.

Why it matters: UDO floodplain language affects whether property owners must elevate or remove structures after storm damage; it also affects participation in NFIP and potential access to federal disaster assistance and insurance discounts.

What happens next: The council continued the public hearing and will take up the proposed UDO amendments on Jan. 28 after the postponed stakeholder meeting and further staff follow-up.