HomeMy WebLinkAboutA002 - Council Action Formd ated May 26, 1992 ITEM #:
DATE: 5 6 92
COUNCIL ACTION FORM
SUBJECT:
Motion to Set June 1, 1992 as the Date of Public Hearing to Consider an
Amendment of the Municipal Code by Repealing Chapter 9 as it Now Exists
and Enacting a New Chapter 9 for the Purpose of Establishing Floodplain
Zoning District Regulations.
ACTION FORM SUMMARY: This is a proposal to amend Chapter 9, Flood
Plain Regulations, of the Municipal Code to adopt ordinance amendments
required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and to
adopt ordinance amendments that clarify the current regulations for
nonconforming uses.
City staff and the Planning and Zoning Commission recommend approval
of the proposed amendments to Chapter 9.
BACKGROUND:
On September 10, 1991, a representative of the Federal Emergency Man-
agement Agency made an inspection of our permitting procedures in
conjunction with the Federal Flood Plain Program. A letter was received,
dated October 1, 1991, outlining four specific items that must be ad-
dressed. These four (4) items are as follows:
1. A copy of the ordinance amendment adding the "substantial damage"
definition and revising the "substantial improvement" definition
within 180 days from the date of this letter.
2. The after-the-fact map revision request on College Creek within 180
days from the date of this letter.
3. Evidence of the removal of the fill at 511 South Maple within 90 days
from the date of this letter.
4. Copies of the seven elevation certificates within 90 days from the
date of this letter.
In addition, staff has amended Section 9.8, Nonconforming Uses, to clarify
the existing regulations. Regulations for nonconforming uses have been
separated into two categories:
1. Regulations for nonconforming uses in the floodway; and,
2
2. Regulations for nonconforming uses in the floodway fringe.
ANALYSIS:
Changes Required by FEMA.
Items No. 2 and No. 4 have been satisfactorily addressed and Item No. 3
has been granted an extended period of time for compliance due to weath-
er. Item No. 1 is the only item remaining.
Item No. 1 requires the amendment of our ordinance to include verbiage to
more clearly define "substantial damage" and "substantial improvement."
FEMA desires this clarification due to misinterpretation of the statute
nationally. This will not affect the current administration of the code, as
we are now complying with the current federal interpretation. However,
FEMA is requiring that the ordinance in each community reflect this new
wording.
The new wording, as required by FEMA, reads as follows, in the proposed
ordinance:
Sec. 9.10. DEFINITIONS.
Unless specifically defined below, words or phrases used in
this ordinance shall be interpreted so as to give them the meaning
they have in common usage and to give this ordinance its most
reasonable application.
(14) Substantial Damage. Means damage of any origin sustained by
a structure whereby the cost of restoring the structure to its
before damaged condition would equal or exceed 50% of the
market value of the structure before the damage occurred.
(15) Substantial Improvement. Means any reconstruction, rehabili-
tation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost
of which equals or exceeds 50% of the market value of the
structure before the "start of construction" of the improve-
ment. This term includes structures which have incurred
"substantial damage" regardless of the actual repair work
performed. The terms do not, however, include either (1)
any project for improvement of a structure to correct existing
violations of state or local health, sanitary, or safety code
specifications which have been identified by the local code
enforcement office and which are the minimum necessary to
assure safe living conditions or (2) any alteration will not
preclude the structure's continued designation as a "historic
structure"."
Further, during FEMA's visit, they indicated that it is not clear that the
City of Ames has a more restrictive floodway, one-tenth foot ( .1') versus
one-foot (1'). FEMA representatives suggested the ordinance clearly
reflect this fact. Attached is a copy of the proposed ordinance which
3
staff believes meets the requirements identified by FEMA. Excerpts from
the proposed ordinance that address this clarification are as follows:
(3) Purpose. It is the purpose of this ordinance to promote the
public health, safety, and general welfare by minimizing those
flood losses described in Section 9.1(2) with provisions
designed to:
(a) Reserve sufficient flood plain area for the conveyance of
flood flows so that flood heights and velocities will not
be increased by greater than one-tenth (.1) foot.
Sec. 9.2. GENERAL PROVISIONS.
(2) Establishment of Official Flood Plain Zoning Map. The Flood
Boundary Map prepared as part of the Flood Insurance Study
for the City of Ames, Iowa, in 1980, and the one-tenth (.1)
foot Floodway Alternative Map both adopted by ordinance
number 2745 on January 22, 1980, are hereby adopted by
reference and declared to be the official Flood Plain Zoning
map. The flood profiles and all explanatory material contained
with the Flood Insurance study and the Flood Insurance Rate
maps are also declared to be a part of the ordinance.
Sec. 9.3. ESTABLISHMENT OF ZONING DISTRICTS.
The flood plain areas within the jurisdiction of this ordinance
are hereby divided into the following districts:
(1) Floodway (Overlay) District - The Floodway District shall be
consistent with the boundaries of the floodway as shown on the
.1 foot Floodway Alternative Map.
Amendments to Section 9.8, Nonconforming Uses, proposed by City staff to
clarify existing regulations.
A comparison of existing and proposed text for Section 9.8, Nonconforming
Uses, follows:
Proposed Text:
(1) In the Floodway. When located in the Floodway, a structure, or the
use of a structure, or the use of land, which was lawful before
January 1, 1981, but is not in conformity with the provisions of this
ordinance may be continued subject to the following conditions:
(2) In the Floodway Fringe. When located in the Floodway fringe, a
structure or the use of land which was lawful before January 1,
1981, but is not in conformity with the provisions of this ordinance,
may be continued subject to the following conditions:
4
Existing Text:
A structure, or the use of a structure, or the use of land, which was
lawful before the passage or amendment of this ordinance but which is not
in conformity with the provisions of these regulations may be continued
subject to the following conditions:
Explanation: The proposed text more clearly described the exact date
used in determining if a structure, use of a structure, or use of the land
may be continued.
Proposed Text:
In the Floodway
(a) No use shall be expanded or enlarged to cover more lot area, or
changed to another use, unless that use is a permitted use.
Existing Text:
(1) No such use shall be expanded, changed, enlarged, or altered in a
way which increases its nonconformity.
Explanation: The proposed text clarifies the intent of this condition in the
ordinance.
Proposed Text:
In The Floodway.
(b) If any nonconforming use or structure incurs substantial damage of
any origin or by any means, including floods, it shall not be
reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this
ordinance.
(c) If any nonconforming use or structure incurs damage, but not to the
extent of substantial damage, from any origin or by any means, it
may be restored to the condition in which it existed as a noncon-
forming use of structure prior to damage.
In The Floodway Fringe.
(a) If any nonconforming use or structure incurs substantial damage of
any origin or by any means, including floods, it shall not be
reconstructed except in conformity with the provisions of this
ordinance.
(b) If any nonconforming use or structure incurs damage, but not to the
extent of substantial damage, of any origin or by any means, it may
be restored to the condition in which it existed as a nonconforming
use or structure prior to damage.
5
Existing Text:
If any nonconforming use or structure is destroyed by any means, includ-
ing floods, to an extent of 50 percent or more of its value prior to
destruction, it shall not be reconstructed except in conformity with the
provisions of this ordinance.
Explanation: The proposed text uses the terms "substantial damage"
instead of "50 percent or more of its value prior to destruction". Sub-
stantial Damage is defined as:
Damage of any origin sustained by a structure whereby the cost of
restoring the structure to its condition before the damage occurred
would equal or exceed 50% of the market value of the structure
before the damage occurred.
This definition clarifies that the "50V is based on market value.
Proposed Text:
In The Floodway:
(d) A nonconforming structure may be remodeled without conforming to
current requirements for elevation so long as the cumulative value of
all remodeling work does not exceed 50% of the structure's market
value as of January 1, 1981. If the cumulative value exceeds 50% of
the structure's value, it may not be remodeled.
In The Floodway Fringe:
(c) A nonconforming structure may be remodeled or enlarged without
conforming to current requirements for elevation so long as the
cumulative value of all work does not exceed 50% of the structure's
market value as of January 1, 1981. If the cumulative value of work
does exceed 50% of the structure's value, the structure must be
elevated to one foot above the base flood elevation.
Existing Text:
(2) No structural alteration, addition, or repair to any nonconforming
structure over the life of the structure shall exceed 50 percent of
its value at the time of its becoming a nonconforming use, unless the
structure is permanently changed to a conforming use.
Explanation: The proposed text clarifies that 50 percent of the structure's
value means "market value as of January 1, 1981".
Proposed Text:
In The Floodway.
(e) If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve (12) consecutive
months, any future use of the buildings or premises shall conform to
this ordinance.
6
Existing Text:
(3) If such use is discontinued for 12 consecutive months, any future
use of the building premises shall conform to this ordinance. The
assessor shall notify the Zoning Administrator in writing of instances
of nonconforming uses which have been discontinued for 12 months.
Explanation: Notification by the assessor has been deleted.
Proposed Text:
None.
Existing Text:
(5) Uses or adjuncts thereof which are or become nuisances shall not be
entitled to continue as nonconforming uses.
(6) Except as provided in 9.8(5) above, any use which has been permit-
ted as a Conditional Use or Variance shall be considered a conform-
ing use.
Explanation: These provisions are not included as part of the proposed
ordinance.
In addition, the City Attorney has made the following suggestions for
changes in the ordinance language to reflect current practice:
*1. Sec. 9.7(1) was changed so that it now provides that the City
Manager designates the zoning administrator for purposes of this
ordinance, as is consistent with other City ordinance administrative
official appointments.
*2. Sec. 9.7(3)(d) has been changed so that the unnecessary hardship
language used in the introductory paragraph of that section is now
carried consistently throughout the subsections which follow, since
the intent was to have one set of standards apply to variances.
*3. Sec. 9.7(3)(e) has been changed to require that the ZBA publish
notice of their hearings. The language providing for notice to
interested parties has been discarded since identification of who
those people are may be possible. This subsection is also now
consistent with the notice requirements under Chapter 29 for ZBA
cases under the zoning code.
*Note: Refer to the attached copy of the proposed ordinance for the
changes described above.
Action Taken by the Planning and Zoning Commission.
On February 5, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of amendments to Chapter 9, Floodplain Zoning District Regula-
tions, as required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA).
7
On May 20, 1992, the Planning and Zoning Commission recommended
approval of amendments to Section 9.8, Nonconforming Uses, to clarify the
existing regulations.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The City Council can approve of the amendment to the Municipal
Code by repealing Chapter 9 as it now exists and enact a new
Chapter 9 for the purpose of establishing flood plain zoning district
regulations, and set June 1, 1992 as the date of public hearing.
2. The City Council can deny approval of the amendment to the Munici-
pal Code by repealing Chapter 9 as it now exists and enact a new
Chapter 9 for the purpose of establishing flood plain zoning district
regulations, and set June 1, 1992 as the date of public hearing.
3. The City Council can refer this request back to City staff for
further information.
MANAGER'S RECOMMENDED ACTION:
It is the recommendation of the City Manager that the City Council adopt
Alternative #1. This will approve of the amendment to the _Municipal Code
by repealing Chapter 9 as it now exists and adopt a new Chapter 9 as
proposed by City staff and recommended for approval by the Planning and
Zoning Commission, and set June 1, 1992 as the date of public hearing.
Attachment
h\bpo\caf\flood.526