HomeMy WebLinkAboutA001 - Staff Report dated June 8, 2011 ITEM #: 5
DATE: 06-08-11
CITY OF AMES
DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND HOUSING
REPORT TO THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
CASE FILE NO: 11-11
DATE PREPARED: June 3, 20 11
MEETING DATE: June 8, 2011
REQUEST FOR A CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT FOR AN ALTERNATE METHOD OF
ELEVATING A RESIDENTIAL STRUCTURE IN THE FLOODWAY FRINGE OVERLAY
DISTRICT: Proposal to reduce the 18 foot distance for which the required elevation must
be extended beyond the perimeter of two residential buildings at 1407 South Grand
Avenue. A reduction of up to 12 feet is requested.
PROPERTY OWNER: Campus Crest Development, Charlotte, NC c/o Chris Russ
APPLICANT: Scott Renaud, FOX Engineering, Ames, Iowa
LOCATION: 1407 South Grand Avenue, south of Coldwater Golf Links and east of Ames
Christian School, on South 16t" Street. (South Grand Avenue yet to be constructed)
ZONING: "RH" (Residential High Density) and
"AE" — Floodway Fringe Overlay District—As determined on FEMA FIRM map
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
On March 28, 2011, A Minor Site Development Plan was approved for this project called
"The Grove," built by Campus Crest of Charlotte, North Carolina. Campus Crest is a
national student housing company. The overall project covers 13.17 acres and includes
housing and recreation for 587 students in 10 different buildings.The project complied with
city codes for the applicable zoning districts, RH and Floodway Fringe, therefore the site
plan was reviewed and approved by staff. A Flood Plain Development Permit and building
permits were therefore issued by staff. The project is under construction and buildings are
beginning to take shape with wood framing going up currently.
The approved plans included a retaining wall along the north property line that would allow
the required Base Flood Elevation + 3 feet to be met and exceeded for the full 18 foot
horizontal distance from the perimeter of buildings#2 and#4. (Seethe attached approved
grading plans) The request after the plans were approved is now to reduce the distance of
the required elevation by up to 12 feet. (See the attached revised grading plans) The
proposal is to border the area with approximately a 45 degree graded slope instead of a
keystone-style retaining wall. To install the slope instead of the retaining wall results in a
1
smaller level area around the north sides of those two buildings.
The purpose of the 18 foot extension of the required elevation is to allow residents
evacuation area as well as prevent flood water erosion damage to the building foundation.
Staff has conferred with the Iowa Department of Natural Resources to confirm that this is
the proper application process for the applicant to follow.
APPLICABLE CODE SUMMARY: Ames Municipal Code Chapter 9, Flood Plain Zoning
Regulations, of the Municipal Code:
9.1(2) PURPOSE OF FLOODPLAIN REGULATIONS:
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 floodplain area for the conveyance of flood flows so that flood
heights and velocities will not be increased by greater than one (1) foot.
(b) Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health, safety, or property in times
of flood or which cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities.
(c) Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including public utilities, which serve such
uses, be protected against flood damage at the time of initial construction or
substantial improvement.
(d) Protect individuals from buying lands, which are unsuited for intended purposes
because of flood hazard.
(e) Assure that eligibility is maintained for property owners in the community to
purchase flood insurance through the National Flood Insurance Program.
OTHER APPLICABLE CODES:
Section 9.5 Floodway Fringe Overlay District
(2) Performance Standards. All uses must be consistent with the need to minimize flood
damage and shall meet the following applicable performance standards.
(a) All structures shall
(i) be adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of
the structure,
(ii) be constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage,
and
(iii) be constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage.
2
(b) Residential buildings. All new or substantially improved residential structures shall
have the lowest floor, including basements, elevated a minimum of three(3)feet above
the base flood elevation level. Construction shall be upon compacted fill which shall, at
all points, be no lower than three (3) feet above the base flood elevation level and
extend at such elevation at least 18 feet beyond the limits of any structure erected
thereon.Alternate methods of elevating(such as piers)may be allowed,subject to
favorable consideration by the Zoning Board of Adjustment and issuance of a
Conditional Use Permit, where existing topography, street grades, or other factors
preclude elevating by fill. In such cases, the methods used must be adequate to
support the structure as well as withstand the various forces and hazards associated
with flooding. All new residential buildings shall be provided with a means of access
which will be passable by wheeled vehicles during the base flood elevation.
Staff Finding: Because an approved site plan that meets the 18 foot requirement has
been approved there is no apparent topography or street grade issues that would
preclude the 18 foot filled area to extend from the building perimeter.
and
Section 9.5 (2)(k)(ii):
New and substantially improved structures must be designed (or modified)and adequately
anchored to prevent flotation, collapse, or lateral movement of the structure resulting from
hydrodynamic and hydrostatic loads, including the effects of buoyancy.
Staff finding: The buildings have been designed by a professional engineer licensed to
practice in the state of Iowa, which is a requirement of the Flood Plain regulations.
Additionally, after the buildings are completed a professional engineer is required to certify
the buildings as flood proof prior to issuance of an occupancy permit for each building
within the Floodway Fringe.
Applicant's statements (See attached application for full statement)
Summary of statement #1: The applicant has stated that there is insufficient room to
provide the 18 foot buffer and use a preferred earthen slope in lieu of a retaining wall
without burden to the property owner. There is an existing sanitary sewer line just south of
these buildings.
Staff analysis: The applicant appears to now prefer an earthen slope instead of the
approved retaining wall which was shown to be completely on-site on the approved site
plan. In order to construct the retaining wall the applicant obtained an off-site temporary
construction easement for equipment and access during construction. The applicant could
have opted for a different site layout or taller buildings that would not be squeezed between
the property line and the sewer main. In addition to the statement on the application, the
applicant provided the following information to explain the burden statement that they
provided on the application:
3
"For aesthetic and maintenance reasons the golf course owner would
prefer a grass slope instead of a retaining wall. Pinging golf balls back off
the wall on to the course is not safe as the flight of the ball is less
predictable and the energy in the ball is retained. It is easier to maintain a
grass slope versus a wall. From an aesthetic view a grass slope is much
preferred over a retaining wall."
Summary of statement#2: The applicant has stated that the proposal exceeds National
Flood Insurance Program and State of Iowa requirements for development in the flood
plain.
Staff analysis: The Ames Flood Plain Ordinance mirrors the Iowa Administrative Code
Model Ordinance regarding the 18 foot requirement forresidential buildings. Therefore, the
proposal to reduce the distance would fall short of the Iowa Administrative Code. The City
of Ames is a participating agency in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), which
allows property owners to purchase flood insurance subsidized by the federal government.
The City must maintain good standing in the program by following its own ordinances and
regulations that have been adopted. All ordinances and regulations that have been
adopted were also reviewed by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources prior to
adoption. Therefore, not following the 18 foot requirement would not be exceeding the
NFIP as the applicant believes.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS
Performance Standards for the Floodway Fringe(Overlay) District(Section 9.5(2)(A-
D)).
Staff analysis: These performance standards are unlike criteria, in that they are codified as
if they are discussion points for the ZBA to consider in making a decision for any proposal
within the floodway or floodway fringe. Some are applicable and some are not.
FACTORS UPON WHICH THE DECISION OF THE BOARD SHALL BE BASED(Section
9.7 (3) (e) (2) (a.))
(1) The danger to life and property due to increased flood heights or velocities
caused by encroachments.
The construction of any building for human habitation poses a potential danger due
to an increase of occupancy in a given area. The applicant is proposing to maintain
the required 18 foot distance along the west, south and east sides of these two
buildings,which will be the primary access areas to sidewalks and driveways. During
a flood event, occupants will be exiting these buildings to the south, not the north.
Although occupants will be exiting to the south, having the required fill area along the
north may improve the resilience of the building to flood damage.
(2) The danger that materials maybe swept onto other lands or downstream to the
4
injury of others.
The request does not involve outdoor storage of items that could be swept away
therefore this is not applicable.
(3) The proposed water supply and sanitation systems and the ability of these
systems to prevent disease, contamination, and unsanitary conditions.
The utility systems are sealed underground and the building is elevated at least 3 feet
above the Base Flood Elevation, reducing the risk of compromising sanitary conditions.
Therefore this factor is not applicable unless the building was to be completely
compromised in a way that would open up utility connections to water infiltration.
(4) The susceptibility of the proposed facility and its contents to flood damage and
the effect of such damage to the individual owner.
The building is a considerable distance from the stream channel. Therefore the
likelihood of mechanical erosion from flood waters is lower than if the building were near
the channel. Although the likelihood of mechanical erosion is low, having the required 18
feet of fill area would lower the risk of damage even further.
(5) The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the
community.
The city has not conducted a market study to determine the need for additional
student housing therefore the importance of the apartment buildings to the
community is unknown.
(6) The requirements of the facility for a flood plain location.
The apartment complex is not required to be in a floodway fringe or flood plain,
therefore this is not applicable.
(7) The availability of alternative locations not subject to flooding for the proposed
use.
There is vacant land that is zoned RH that is not in the floodway fringe, however
residential development is permitted in this area as long as flood plain regulations are
followed. The relief requested is somewhat small in area compared to the overall
project area. This area of the city has base flood elevations determined;therefore the
ZBA is not being requested to authorize the overall project, only relief of one
requirement for a small area of the project. Therefore, this is not applicable.
(8) The compatibility of the proposed use with existing development and
development anticipated in the foreseeable future.
The proposed land use is allowed by the base zoning and is similar in scale to a new
5
apartment building to the west. There is vacant RH zoned land across the street that
could also be developed with apartments. There does not appear to be any
conflict with this project with the pattern of development in the area regarding flood
protection.
(9) The relationship of the proposed use to the comprehensive plan and flood
plain management program for the area.
The proposed use is consistent with the Future Land Use Map of the Land Use
Policy Plan. The model used to create the FEMA Flood Insurance Rate Map
determined that if all areas in the Floodway Fringe were completely developed then
the flood elevation would be raised no more than one foot. Therefore the study
anticipated potential development in this area.The approved site plans indicated that
the project could be built without relief from the 18 foot requirement; therefore the
approved plans can and should be implemented to support the overall flood
management program of the City.
(10) The safety of access to the property in times of flood for ordinary and
emergency vehicles.
The vehicle access areas to these buildings are elevated three feet above the Base
Flood Elevation, the same as the buildings. The request poses no conflict to the
approved vehicle routes on the approved site plan.
(11) The expected heights, velocity, duration, rate of rise, and sediment transport of
floodwater expected at the site.
Unknown.
(12) Such other factors, which are relevant to the purpose of the ordinance.
The applicant has already obtained an approved site plan that meets the Flood Plain
regulations, therefore to implement the plan would achieve the purpose of the
ordinance for protecting life and property.
CONCLUSIONS:
Although the relief requested from the 18 foot distance requirement appears to be a low
risk for increasing the damage to life and property,the applicant has an approved site plan
that meets the Municipal Code. The approved site plan included a retaining wall along the
north property line which would allow adequate space for the required 18 feet of elevated
area. The format of the 12 performance standards in the Flood Plain regulations is
somewhat more challenging than Variance criteria which are more specific and
measureable. However, staff has not found a compelling reason within the evidence
submitted to not implement the approved site plans. Furthermore, staff has not found any
evidence regarding issues that could preclude the required fill, as outlined in Section
9.5(2)(b).
6
Although the applicant states that the requirement places a burden on the adjacent
property owner, the burden appears to be the result of the building location on the subject
site. Moreover, the ZBA is not required to make a decision based upon burden. The
requirements of the Flood Plain ordinance appear to all relate solely to flood protection,
unlike Variance criteria which take into consideration more specific criteria, such as
hardship and public interest. However, if the ZBA believes that the term "other factors"
(noted in Section 9.5(2)(b) and Performance Standard #12, herein) takes into account
issues such as aesthetic perspectives from adjacent owners,then the ZBA can use such a
finding to support a decision of approval.
ALTERNATIVES:
1. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny the Conditional Use Permit based on
the staff's findings and conclusions.
2. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may deny this request for a Conditional Use Permit
based upon its own findings and conclusions.
3. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may table this request for a Conditional Use
Permit, and request additional information from the applicant or staff and
subsequently render a decision within a reasonable time period.
4. The Zoning Board of Adjustment may approve the Conditional Use Permit if it finds
and concludes that it complies with all applicable criteria and codes.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
The Department of Planning & Housing recommends that the Zoning Board of Adjustment
act in accordance with Alternative#1, which is to deny the Conditional Use Permit based
on the staff's findings and conclusions.
S:\PLAN_SHR\Council Boards Commissions\ZBA\Conditional Use in Floodway\1407 S.Grand Ave Cond Use Alt Method 06-08-11.doc
7
x F ,
H.
h
x
pp �
Subject
e4
y �1��'��Yi y`'i y� I •�� 1
Property
�y
i�
l
°
x ,
r
N Location Map Map Area(c /
1407 S. Grand Ave
2006 Aerial Imagery
0 130 260 520
Feet
Map Created June 3,2011
8