Zoning Board of Adjustments Minutes - 12/15/2004MINUTES
ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
December 15, 2004
PRESENT:
Les Seipel, Acting Chairman
0 Members
Jose Garcia
0
Michael Latham
0 Alternate #2
James McNeil
0 Alternate #1
Dave Lilley
0 Alternate #4
Paul Stillson, Planner II 0 City Staff
Diane Parker 0
ABSENT:
Tom Cross 0
Steve Wood 0 Alternate #3
I. CALL TO ORDER
Acting Chairman Seipel called the meeting to order at 1:45 p.m.
II. APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Mr. Latham made a motion to approve the minutes of the September 15, 2004 Zoning
Board of Adjustment as submitted. Mr. Garcia seconded. The vote was unanimous in
favor.
III. REGULAR AGENDA
1. Case V 04-03
Request to Construct an Accessory Building Using Wet Flood -Proofing
Techniques
1604 Weeks
Applicant ..................... Lawrence "Wayne" Mansur
Requested action ........ Application for a variance to construct an accessory building at
1604 Weeks Street. If approved, the building will be built below
the required flood elevation but will incorporate approved wet
flood -proofing techniques.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 1
Purpose ....................... To allow for the construction of an accessory building to be
used only for parking and storage at a reduced elevation in
order to prevent a drainage problem on his lot.
Property ....................... 1604 Weeks, Lot 2, Block V, Park Place Addition
Zoning ......................... Single Family-2
COMMENTARY
The applicant's lot is located within the 100-year floodplain. He has requested approval
to construct a detached garage with a foundation built below the minimum floodplain
elevation. The floodplain regulations do have exceptions that allow parts of buildings to
be built below the floodplain. Exempted are certain areas of a building used only for
storage or parking of vehicles. The most familiar example would be a house with an
attached garage. The garage floor could be built below the required elevation, but the
living area would have to be built at the required elevation. In this example, the living
area would be considered the "lowest floor." The exception allows below flood -plain
areas in a building to be constructed with techniques called "wet flood -proofing."
However, when the whole building (or accessory building) is used for storage and/or the
parking of vehicles, the regulations are unclear if it can be built below floodplain
elevation. In conversations with the Federal Emergency Management Administration,
they have advised City staff that an accessory building (one not part of an elevated
structure) could be allowed. The conditions were that: (1) if the Board of Adjustment
issues a variance, and (2) the building is "wet flood -proofed." A wet flood -proofed
structure is designed to be resistant to water damage if flooded. Vents are installed to
allow the flow of water through the structure to reduce stress on the structure from
outside water. The residential areas in a building (everything that is not storage and
parking) cannot be wet flood -proofed.
The applicant's request is to be permitted to construct the garage at the same elevation
as his existing house. The existing house meets the elevation requirements. Because
the lot is lower where the building is planned, to meet requirements the building would
have to be raised to a point where dirt fill around the building would cause water to flow
towards his residence, and possibly cause flooding.
QUALIFYING
CRITERIA
State special circumstances peculiar to the land, structure or building that
necessitate such request.
Applicant's statement: "House is built a BFE [required Base Flood Elevation]. If
we build the detached garage of 1 foot above BFE the garage will look badly plus
it will dam up flood water and push flood water into the house which would be at
1 foot lower than the garage."
2. Demonstrate that the special conditions and circumstances are not a result
of the actions of the applicant.
Applicant's statement: "The land is naturally at its elevation."
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 2
3. State how literal interpretation of the provisions of this ordinance deprive
the applicant of the rights enjoyed by others in the district.
Applicant's statement: "To build the garage (detached garage) at 1 foot above
BFE prevents applicant from building a garage because to follow the literal
interpretation of the provision would create a hazard to the house."
4. State how granting the variance would not confer upon the applicant any
special privilege that is denied by the ordinance to land, structure, or
buildings in the district.
Applicant's statement: "Granting the variance does not create any negative effect
upon neighbors in the district. In fact granting the variance will enhance the
district with more value added. The portion of the garage building below 1 foot
above BFE will be flood resistant (water resistant)."
EVALUATION
CRITERIA
In evaluating a variance request, once it has been determined by the Board that the
request qualifies to be heard by the board, the Zoning Ordinance Section 7340 requires
that the following criteria be used:
a. The granting of the variance will not be contrary to the public interest.
Staff feels that the public interest would be served if the Board decides to grant a
variance based on a finding of a special condition or hardship.
b. Special conditions exist, other than financial hardship alone, whereby a
literal enforcement of the terms of the Ordinance will result in unnecessary
hardship to the owner of the land.
The topography of the lot and prior construction could be considered a special
condition.
C. The variance will not permit an activity upon the land, which is not allowed
by the terms of the Zoning Ordinance.
The property is zoned single-family, accessory residential development such as
garages are permitted in this zone.
d. The granting of the variance:
Is consistent with the intent of this Ordinance;
The intent of the Floodplain Ordinance is reduce flood losses. In
exchange for underwriting flood insurance in our community, FEMA
requires that the community take steps that will result in a reduction of
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 3
flood damage claims. If the recommended flood -proofing measures are
incorporated into this project, minimal flood damage should occur to the
structure. The contents may, however, be subject to damage.
Is in harmony therewith;
Staff feels that this development would be compatible with the existing
homes in the neighborhood.
Will not be injurious to the neighborhood;
This proposal should not be in conflict with adjacent uses.
Or detrimental to the public welfare.
Granting this variance should not harm the long-term economic
development of the City or affect the public in the long-term through
function, appearance or layout, in the long-term.
RECOMMENDATION
If the Board finds that special conditions or hardships exist, staff recommends approval
of this request to construct at the same elevation as the primary residence with the
following conditions:
1. The building is used only for storage and parking of vehicles (not habitable) and
not be modified for different use in the future.
2. No plumbing shall be installed within the building.
3. Building shall have a permanent foundation.
4. The structure shall be constructed of flood resistant materials and flood vents.
For additional guidance see Wet Floodproofing Requirements, NFIP Technical
Bulletin 7-93. All surfaces will be protected to a elevation one foot above the
BFE, An architect shall provide certification of such.
5. All utilities shall be elevated above BFE.
6. Applicant shall understand that there will be an increased risk of flood damage to
everything inside of the structure.
Consideration of Qualifying Criteria of the Variance:
Mr. Latham made a motion to approve the qualifying criteria; Mr. Garcia seconded. The
vote was unanimous in favor of proceeding to hear the evaluation criteria.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 4
Consideration of Evaluation Criteria of the Variance:
Mr. Stillson reviewed the special conditions with the Board and indicated they should be
considered as part of the motion. The applicant, Mr. Mansur, indicated he was aware
of these conditions. Acting Chairman Seipel inquired about flooding in that area after
the completion of the Holliday Creek project. Mr. Stillson stated the City is not provided
with documentation specifying which areas flood. Mr. Garcia questioned the direction
of the water flow. Mr. Mansur stated the water flows from the southeast to northwest
across the building. It was suggested that vents should be provided to continue to let
the water flow.
Mr. Mansur was complimentary to Mr. Stillson and staff regarding the protection of the
FEMA program and the suggestion of guidelines to minimize any losses for the property
owner.
Chairman Seipel called for the motion. Mr. Latham made a motion approving this
variance request to construct an accessory building at 1604 Weeks with the following
conditions:
1. Building is used for storage and the parking of vehicles only (not habitable),
and not be modified for different uses in the future.
2. No plumbing shall be installed within the building.
3. Building shall have a permanent foundation.
4. The structure shall be constructed of flood resistant materials and flood
vents. For additional guidance see Wet Floodproofing Requirements, NF/P
Technical Bulletin 7-93. All surfaces will be protected to an elevation one foot
above the BFE. An architect shall provide certification of such.
5. All utilities shall be elevated above BFE.
6. Applicant shall understand that there will be an increased risk of flood
damage to everything inside of the structure.
Mr. McNeil seconded the motion. The accessory building was unanimously approved.
IV. OTHER BUSINESS
Mr. Stillson noted there is one change in the Board of Adjustment Procedures that was
mailed with this month's agenda packet. Section 7320 D. A Narrative Statement
Demonstrating the Requested Variance Conforms to the Following Standards does not
apply to an administrative appeal. Mr. Stillson stated an administrative appeal would
pertain to a citizen questioning a City staff member's interpretation of an ordinance.
Mr. Stillson stated that this Board has vacancies and alternate staff members are
requested to sit on the Board to enable us to have a quorum.
Mr. McNeil inquired about changing the meetings to morning. Chairman Seipel
explained that this Board meets so infrequently and with the notice given to members of
forthcoming meetings, members should be able to rearrange their schedules.
Mr. Stillson stated that the membership of this Board is five members with a quorum
being four members. An approval requires an minimum vote of four. With alternates
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 5
sitting along with all regular members could make a difference in the outcome of a vote.
A change to a 75% majority might alleviate this situation.
IV. ADJOURN
The meeting was adjourned at 2:15 p.m.
Les Seipel, Chairman
Date
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT • PAGE 6