HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Staff Report dated March 22, 2016 Item # 39
Staff Report
FOLLOW-UP TO APPROACHES TO DEVELOPMENT IN THE FLOOD
PLAIN AND ENVIRONMENTALLY SENSITIVE AREAS
March 22, 2016
BACKGROUND:
The purpose of this report is to apprise the City Council of steps that staff has taken
regarding proposed changes to flood plain development regulations within the floodway
at the direction of City Council from November 10, 2015. Staff has received
comments from the Planning and Zoning Commission and the public on potential
ordinance changes and now seeks further direction from City Council prior to
finalizing any particular approach to further regulating the floodway.
In November 2015, staff provided a report to the City Council with a number of
approaches to regulating certain developments and uses in the FEMA-regulated
Floodway. This was in response to direction of the City Council in March 2015, which
included the following item in the work plan of the Planning and Housing Department.
• Flood Plain and Environmentally Sensitive Overlay Areas: Add or clarify
development standards within the Floodway or natural Riparian Areas for site
disturbance and paving (Does not intend to alter the 3-foot fill requirement)
In that November report, staff presented three general options for the City Council to
consider. These options were to:
• Prohibit most development in the Floodway, including those with impervious
surfaces, such as parking areas and drive aisles.
• Allow those development uses in the Floodway, but as a Conditional Use Permit
approved by the ZBA rather than as a Permitted use.
• Apply the Environmentally Sensitive Area zoning overlay district to the Floodway
and require a plan to mitigate the impacts of development through a major site
development plan review process.
City Council directed staff to prepare a map amendment to designate the
Floodways as Environmentally Sensitive Overlay (O-E) along with text
amendments to the O-E Overlay and Flood Plain regulations to implement the
Major Site Development Plan requirements of the O-E Overlay.
As staff developed draft ordinances to address the broadest range of potential
uses and disturbances within the floodway, it became clear the three key changes
1
to the regulated activities within the floodway were adding discretionary review of
grading and fill; impervious surfaces for parking, loading, maneuvering; and
storm water treatment features. (Attachment A is the proposed classifications for
permitting) The Chapter 9 revisions also reclassified how certain parks and recreation
and Iowa State University projects would be treated administratively under the proposed
processes of administrative review versus discretionary review. Although not presented
in this report, the Iowa DNR has requested minor changes to Chapter 9 addressing
accessory structures and wet proofing as an alternative to elevating structures that are
unrelated to the City Council's direction.
Upon reclassification of the uses in Chapter 9, additional text changes are needed
within Chapter 29 to administer the discretionary review process of a Major Site
Development Plan. A use classified as "Development" that occurred in the Floodway
would require an environmental assessment report to accompany an application for a
Major Site Development Plan. The developer's plan would need to address, obviate, or
mitigate any negative impacts to the Floodway from the development. It is important to
note, that the proposed O-E Overlay does not apply to the Floodway Fringe if no
part of the development disturbs the Floodway with a Development use. However,
if a project has a development component within the Floodway and the Floodway
Fringe, then the whole project site is subject to the Major Site Development Plan
review process to assure there is comprehensive review of the development
proposal and the need to have activities within the Floodway.
The Major Site Development Plan process would rely upon existing approval criteria
within Chapter 29. The most relevant criteria for a Major Site Development Plan would
be criteria #1, 4, 5, and 11. (Attachment B includes Major Site Development Plan
Criteria)
Other Regulatory Requirements
The City's flood plain development permit standards and storm water management
requirements would remain in effect with the proposed changes. This means that
activities in the Floodway would still have to meet the essential requirement that an
activity results in a "no rise" in flood elevation. In regards to storm water, compliance
with the City's post-construction storm water ordinance (Chapter 513) still applies. These
standards apply to disturbances exceeding 1 acre or if development increases
impervious surface by 10,000 square feet or more. The two most relevant Chapter 5B
regulations to the Floodway are treatment of the first flush of rainfall and control of
retention and release rates in relation to 1, 5, 10 and 100-year storm events. The
Chapter 5B regulations also include provisions for requiring a setback buffer from a
waterway. Smaller order streams have a 100-foot buffer on both sides and larger order
waterways, Squaw Creek and the Skunk River, may have larger buffers dependent on a
site specific evaluation. The buffer is intended to preserve native vegetation and protect
a bank from disturbance by development.
Chapter 5B allows for storm water control features, e.g. detention ponds, to be located
within a Floodway, but likely outside of the buffer. This may seem counter intuitive, but
in many ways it fits the layout of the site and meets the storm design events of 1 year, 5
2
year, 10 year, and 100 year. Not all projects that abut the Floodway have located storm
water facilities in the Floodway, but it is an option that is available. Additionally, if
improvements are allowed in the Floodway, such as parking, the treatment of parking
areas would need to be located at or below the same elevation of the improvements.
While the performance standards of Chapter 5B are comprehensive, adding the O-E
overlay would add a broader application of criteria to development within the Floodway
beyond the quantitative storm water management measures and consider qualitative
issues as well.
Planning and Zoning Commission
Staff prepared complete draft ordinances for mapping of the O-E Overlay and changes
to Chapter 9 Flood Plain Zoning Regulations and Chapter 29 Zoning Ordinance. These
amendments were presented to the Planning and Zoning Commission on January 15t"
and February 17t". The Commission considered both sets of text amendments and
heard public comment on the proposed changes. Mr. Renaud of Fox Engineering spoke
on the topic and did not believe the changes that added a public hearing process were
necessary to reach environmental protection goals. He believed the majority of issues
were covered as part of the City's Chapter 5B storm water quality requirements. He
strongly objected to restricting placement of storm water treatment measures in the
Floodway and believed that parking could be dealt with through standards rather than a
public hearing process if it was even necessary.
The Commission reviewed the goals of the changes and specific language of what
would be regulated with maps of which areas would be affected. Commission members
expressed concerns about the unnecessary layer of review that the proposed process
would require and believed administrative approval was a more predictable process.
While environmental protection was a laudable goal and the proposed amendments
have the best of intentions, staff resources could be better spent. The Commission
voted 5-0 to deny the proposed amendments to the O-E Overlay text that would specify
a Major Site Development Plan was needed for activities within the Floodway. The
Commission voted 6-0 to approve only the amendments to Chapter 9 (flood plain
regulations) regarding accessory garages (this was a change that the Iowa Department
of Natural Resources is asking all local communities to make) and did not recommend
any additional changes to the Floodway list of uses of standards for activities within the
floodway.
The Commission, at its January meeting, had recommended approval (3-2-1) of the
map amendments to place the O-E overlay on the designated Floodway. However,
without the corresponding changes to the O-E text and the flood plain regulations text,
the map change would not be workable as there would be inconsistencies between the
Chapter 9 flood plain regulations and the Chapter 29 review process.
OPTIONS:
Staff originally was given direction to prepare a draft ordinance to map the O-E Overlay
to the City's FEMA designated floodways and to make corresponding text amendments
as needed to administer the Major Site Development Plan review process. Attachment
3
A describes the reclassification of uses as proposed by staff with the Development
category then subject to approval of a Major Site Development Plan. As staff prepared
more details on how to implement the Major Site Development Plan approach and
what uses and activities would be regulated, staff realized additional input from
Council is needed to craft the draft ordinance appropriately.
The key issues revolve around whether parking, storm water treatment facilities, and
grading should be subject to a discretionary review process compared to how they are
currently allowed subject to performance requirements of Chapter 9. Staff believes that
if these issues are not part of a discretionary review process, there would be no
clear benefit to establishing the O-E Overlay and Major Site Development Plan
process as compared to the current requirements of Chapter 9.
Option 1 Discretionary Review (Prior Direction)
If City Council wants to have a higher level of public review of development proposals
that directly affect the Floodway, it would direct staff to continue to draft an ordinance for
Major Site Development Plan review as described within this report. The Major Site
Development Plan process would follow its current criteria for project approval, but
include an application requirement to provide an environmental assessment report that
addresses the potential impacts of the proposed development. Additionally, if any part
of a project is within a Floodway, then the whole site would be subject to discretionary
review. If Council proceeds with this option the draft ordinance would be scheduled for a
public hearing in April.
Option 2 Prohibit Parking and Allow Storm Water and Gradin_g
Based upon comments during Planning Commission public hearing, changing
allowances for parking and maneuvering could be segregated from storm water and
grading activities. Storm water facilities indirectly affect the layout of a site as there are
a variety of options to meet requirements for both above ground and in ground
measures. From some perspectives, allowing for storm water facilities consistent with
Chapter 5B performance requirements is a technical issue that may not require higher
level of scrutiny from a public hearing process to determine it is compatible with the site
and surroundings. If such features are routinely determined to be consistent with City
objectives for environmental protection and site development, then a public hearing
process would likely be unnecessary.
Parking is categorized by staff as more of a development issue that can greatly
influence the layout and development of a site. The two most significant examples of
large parking improvements in the Floodway are the recent Stadium View apartment
project on 4th street and the Wal-Mart Super Center on South Duff. The Supercenter
project was approved prior to our current Chapter 5B requirements, while the Stadium
View project was approved under the provisions of Chapter 5B. The degree of
encroachment for parking was brought up during the Commission review as well as if
commercial versus residential parking was different in terms of potential hazards from
flooding.
4
If the issues are narrowed to parking, staff believes that it may be more beneficial to
specify a size limitation in the floodwa or to separate commercial and residential
p Y Y p
parking as different types of uses, which then could be permitted or prohibited. Staff
believes the narrower the scope of the revisions, then the fewer number of properties
that would be affected and it could justify focusing on objective standards over a
discretionary review approach. Examples of standards could be a 10 percent area
encroachment restriction within the Floodway, a square footage limitation of 10,000
square feet (parking for approximately 30 cars), or a greater buffer setback from the top
of bank of stream channel.
If Council prefers this option it would need to choose if it is interested in creating
objective standards for encroachments to be reviewed administratively only, or, if a
project exceeded an encroachment allowance, it would then be subject to a ZBA
Conditional Use Permit approval or through the described Major Site Development Plan
by City Council.
Option 3 No Changes
Direct staff to bring forward only those changes to Chapter 9 that the Iowa DNR seeks.
This option drops the proposed changes to the O-E text, does not map the O-E overlay
district, and make only changes to Chapter 9 concerning "wet flood proofing" that the
DNR seeks statewide.
STAFF COMMENTS:
Staff presented three options to the City Council in November and advocated the
Environmentally Sensitive Area Overlay rezoning and the major site development plan
approach as the most comprehensive approach for environmental protection. Staff
believed that the concerns identified by the City Council last March could best be
addressed through this approach.
If the Council is concerned primarily with parking in the floodway, then staff believes the
administrative approval approach with objective standards as described in Option 2 has
merit. This approach would still require any development to meet the grading permit
requirements, Chapter 5B requirements, and the performance standards of the Flood
Plain Regulations.
If the City Council prefers either of the three options noted above, the Council
should provide that direction to staff in order to prepare the necessary
ordinances.
5
Attachment A
Proposed Chapter 9 Reclassification of Uses
"Permitted Uses" are proposed to be approved through an administrative process by
staff.
"Development Uses" are proposed to require a Major Site Development Plan rather than
by the Conditional Use Permit approved by the ZBA.
Permitted Comment Gon&ilene4Development
Agricultural uses such as general farming,pasture,grazing,outdoor
plant nurseries,horticulture,viticulture,truck farming,forestry,sod
farming,and wild crop harvesting. Same
Amended and
moved to
a;rtpe� Development
Private and public recreational sues such as golf courses,tennis
courts,driving ranges,archery ranges,picnic grounds,boat launching
ramps,swimming areas,parks,wildlife and nature preserves,game
farms,fish hatcheries,shooting preserves,target ranges,trap and
skeet ranges,hunting and wildlife areas,hiking and horseback riding
trails and non-habitable structures accessory to them that meet the
applicable performance standards of the Floodway Overlay District
Performance Standards Amended
......... .............._.... .._............ .......... ......... .................. ..-......................................
.._..
Residential accessory uses such as lawns,gardens,Park+Ag SFeas and
play areas. Amended
Such other open-space uses similar in nature to the above uses. Same
Public infrastructure such as bridges;roads;trails;culverts;fill,
excavation or grading;channel changes,relocations or placement of
riprap or similar material;provided that any required permits from
the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or Army Corps of
Engineers have been approved.Such uses must also meet the
applicable provisions of the Floodway Overlay District Performance
Standards.This also includes any activity defined as maintenance
under the nationwide permit issued by the Army Corps of Engineers. Same
Removed
Transient commercial uses such as circuses,carnivals,flea markets,
Amended and similar transient amusement enterprises
Permanent commercial uses such as drive-in theaters,new and used
Amended car lots,roadside stands,stgns-anc#-E3i
--........--.....-- ......_.._—..._.........._... --- -
Borrow pits,storm water detention and retention areas,and
Amended '!extraction of sand,gravel,and other materials
.. ............ _
.................................................................. ............. _.........._.._........_._......_.........__............................................................................... __
........:........................................_.... ................................... ....._......-___.._...................................-.._.............._
Same Marinas,boat rentals,docks,piers,wharves
- -......— _ --
- Amended and
moved to
Permitted
Other uses similar in nature to uses described as permitted or listed
conditional uses,which are consistent with the performance
standards of Subsection(3)below and the general spirit and purpose
Same of this ordinance.
Amended and
moved to
Signs,billboards,utility transmission lines and pipelines Permitted
Amended and
moved to :Residential,commercial,and industrial vehicular accessory uses such
Development as loading areas,drive aisles,parking areas.
Government uses not subject to City zoning ordinances. New
Grading provided there is no change of surface topography of more
than one foot and no fill is introduced into the Floodway New
--- —--- ..—_....... ---...._._.—.—_...._..— -- -
Grading in which the surface topography may be increased greater
New than one foot.
6
Attachment B
Excerpt from Major Site Development Plan Criteria of Zoning Ordinance
(vii) City Council Decision. After the transmittal of the recommendation from the
Planning and Zoning Commission,the City Council shall consider the application at a public hearing conducted as part
of a regularly scheduled meeting. Notification ofthe public hearing shall be made by mail and posting, in accordance
with Sections 29.1500(41)(d)(1) and (ill) above, The City Council must approve, deny or modify the Major Site
Development Plan approval application within 60 days of the public hearing
(d) Design Standards. When acting upon an application for a major site plan approval,the City
Council shall rely upon generally accepted site planning criteria and design standards. These criteria and standards are
necessary to fulfill the intent of the Zoning Ordinance, the Land Use Policy Plan, and are the minimum necessary to
safe-tiard the public health,safety,aesthetics, and general welfare. These criteria and standards include:
(i) The design ofthe proposed development shall make adequate provisions for surface
and subsurface drainage to limit the rate of increased runoff of surface water to adjacent and down stream property;
(Ii) The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for
Connection to water,sanitary sewer, electrical and other utility lines within the capacity limits of those utility lines,
(iii) The design of the proposed development shall make adequate provision for fire
protection through building placement, acceptable location of flammable materials, and other measures to ensure fire
safety;
(iv) The design of the proposed development shall not increase the danger of erosion,
flooding,landslide,or other endangerment to adjoining and surrounding property;
(V) Natural topographic and landscape features ofthe site shall be incorporated into the
development design;
(vi) The design ofinterior vehicle and pedestrian circulation shall provide forconvenient
flow of vehicles and movement of pedestrians and shall prevent hazards to adjacent streets or property:
(vii) The design of outdoor parking areas,storage yards,trash and dumpster areas,and
other exterior features shall be adequately landscaped or screened to minimize potential nuisance and impairment to the
use of adjoining property;
(viii) The proposed development shall limit entrances and exits upon adjacent streets in
order to prevent congestion on adjacent and surrounding streets and in order to provide for safe and orderly vehicle
movement;
(ix) Exterior lighting shall relate to the scale and location of the development in order
to maintain adequate security,while preventing a nuisance or hardship to adjacent property or streets;
(X) The proposed development shall ensure that dust and other forms of air pollution,
noise disturbances,odor,glare,and other nuisances will be limited to acceptable levels as prescribed in other applicable
State and City regulations;and
(xi) Site coverage,building scale,setbacks,and open spaces shall be in proportion with
the development property and with existing and planned development and structures, in adjacent and surrounding
property.
7