The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutA004 - Letter from Scott Renaud dated April 12, 2016 )FOX engineering %� f �;'�' ,u ,_•i'��r4; � �i q: ;.itt �Ic � ,�itE. �- � . . �';l_i(�In April 12, 2016 Mayor&City Council City of Ames 515 Clark Avenue Ames,Iowa 50010 RE: April 12,2016 Council Agenda Items 42,43 and 44 Zoning Text Amendments Related to the Environmentally Sensitive Area Overlay and Floodplain Zoning Amendments Honorable Mayor&City Council: I am opposed to the amendments proposed in Items 42,43 and 44 of tonight's council agenda. I believe this is a response to recent developments in the floodplain of the Stadium View project (formerly Riverside Manor) and the desire of the Council to dictate the use of the floodplain in Ames. Council has NOT worked with the development community or affected property owners to arrive at reasonable conditions in the floodplain. There has NOT been a public process to develop the amendments with the exception of Planning & Zoning Commission's public hearings. And when the Planning & Housing recommended denial of these amendments the Council proceeded to ram these amendments through rather than seek a more cooperative and participatory process. I find it ironic that Council asks the development community to dialog with neighbors concerning issues that marginally affect their property but have no compunction to not dialog with property owners who have real property rights vested in the current regulations. This results in unreasonable, inflexible and poor regulations that attempt to backdoor regulations to prohibit development in the floodplain. If the Council wants additional regulation, then I, and the rest of the development community, expect the Council to be honest about the issues that are concerning to Council. The LUPP's environmentally sensitive overlay has been unresolved for 20 years. This issue is not so pressing that a participatory process cannot be used and the real issues addressed directly instead of cloaked in concern for the environment or flooding. Some members of Council and Staff seem to be completely unaware of the requirements of the City's storm water ordinance 513. All of the concerns about the environmental aspects of use of the floodway are included in the requirements of ordinance 5B. The Council is adding the extra steps of Planning&Zoning and Council approval to what has been a professional interchange between the developer and Staff. There is nothing to be gained by adding these steps except to politicize the process and make projects more difficult and confrontational. The real issues that need to be discussed are allowing parking in the floodway and allowable uses in the floodway. I will deal with each individually and give you my input as a professional engineer who has worked in Ames for 30 years and has done extensive work with properties in the floodplain. Parking for Residential Purposes - Current regulations allow parking to be built in the floodway as an allowable use. The proposed regulations allow parking by adding the process of P &Z/Council approval. In addition, more restrictions are added that limit driveways, entrances, trails and sidewalks in the floodway. I believe the current regulations are sufficient. However, I do think there needs to be discussion on the number of parking spaces allowed in the floodway for a residential purpose. On one extreme 100%of the residential parking could be in the floodway (current regulation) and other the other extreme 0% of the residential parking be allowed in the floodway(proposed intent of the Council's regulation?). I believe there should be an allowable percentage of parking allowed in the floodway. Study of current developments indicate 15-20%of tenants of any high density residential development do not own or use a car. Therefore, most sites have 15-20%excess parking. I believe allowing 30-35%of the parking to be in the floodway to be a reasonable compromise between the Council's desire to limit use of the floodway versus the properties owners desire to fully develop his property. Driveways, trails, sidewalks, fire accesses, etc. should be an allowed use. Parking for Commercial Areas-The current code does not differentiate the use of the parking for residential or commercial/industrial purposes. Commercial parking use is different than residential. Cars are typically parked short term and can easily be relocated in the event of flooding. Commercial uses would tend to use floodway parking as "overflow" parking and/or employee parking as there would be some distance from the commercial building to the parking. The case could be made the City encourage commercial parking in the floodway to incentivize all parking in the floodplain to be done without filling and flood proof the building versus building up the site. The current Jimmy John's construction on S. Duff would be an example of that kind of development. There are several alternatives worth investigating if the City does not proceed with the current code revisions. Ordinance 58 Improvements-The code is ambiguous whether 5B requirements can be done in the floodway with only Staff or ZBA approval. Some aspects of 5B are referenced as "public" improvements (allowed by Staff) and other parts are private(require the ZBA process). I believe 5B improvements should be allowed by right in the floodway and require only Staff review and approval. The environmental concerns of developing in the floodway are addressed in 5B. The logical and best location for 5B stormwater improvements is to have them downstream of the site adjacent to the stream. Any environmental resources or issues can be addressed by 5B. The Norris Study of environmental resources has never been officially adopted by the City except by reference. That study was done so long ago (1980s) that any environmental resource is likely severely degraded or eliminated by erosion, deposition of sediments from floods, and invasive species of trees,shrubs and weeds. The City's proposed ordinance will have the unintended effect of not working in the floodway and preserving and protecting the environmental resource. Another troubling aspect of the proposed ordinance is the requirement that if one part of the floodway is touched, then the entire parcel/development is required to meet the requirements. I believe almost every project that is adjacent to a stream can fall into this category. Staff has indicated that only a small number of parcels will be affected. If this was the case, why do it (which I'll address below). If every project next to a stream"touches"the floodway,then every project adjacent to a stream will be in front of P&Z and Council. The number of parcels that these ordinances impacted are supposed to be small. Most of the parcels between S.3rd and Duff are not zoned and the Council could have the opportunity to address these concerns at the time of rezoning on an individual basis. The rezoning application has to address the environmental concerns of the parcel. I believe the Council is jeopardizing relations with property owners who have property in the floodway. The Council has goals to address the flooding,stream stabilization, and adding trails and parks as linear corridors along streams. Trails and park lands cannot be condemned so there is no process for the City to obtain properties without landowner compliance. There is little to gain with the ordinance change, but much that can be lost. From one viewpoint, passing this ordinance will torpedo any chance the City has for working in the stream areas for decades to come. I could argue that this is intentional with the purpose to prevent funds or improvements ever made to the stream corridors. ZFOXngineering Page 1 2 I will be unable to attend tonight's council meeting as I have another Council meeting to attend some distance from Ames. I do not believe it is acceptable to pass this ordinances now with the intent of fixing or refining the egregious aspects of the ordinances. Those fixes NEVER happen as the intent is not on good ordinances but the feel good aspect of passing an ordinance that assuages the mostly unreasonable concerns of the uniformed public and vilifies the development community for exercising their rights as property owners. Thank you for listening. Sincerely, FOX Engineering Associates, Inc. Scott Renaud, E. Principal cc: Diane Voss,City Clerk Kelly Diekmann&Charlie Kuester, Planning&Housing Department Steve Schainker,City Manager Dan Culhane,Ames Economic Development C:\Users\slr.FOXENG\Documents\Ames Info\2016 Chapter 9 rewrite\2016 04 12 Itr to Council.docx )iox engineering Page s