Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout07-15-2010 Planning and Zoning Commission PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION Monday, July 12, 2010 - 6:00 PM Informal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Lobby Conference Room 410 E. Washington Street Thursday, July 15, 2010 - 7:00 PM Formal Meeting Iowa City City Hall Emma J. Harvat Hall 410 E. Washington Street AGENDA: A. Call to Order B. Public Discussion of Any Item Not on the Agenda C. Code Amendment Items: 1. Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain and associated changes located in 14-9F Definitions, 14-48- 2 Variances and 14-88-5 Administrative Approval Procedures (Floodplain Development Permit). 2. Discussion of amendments to the Zoning Code, Section 14-38-1 Historic District Overlay Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section 14- 28-6, Multifamily Site Development Standards to correspond with amendments to the Historic Preservation Handbook that are intended to streamline and clarify the review process. D. Consideration of Meeting Minutes: June 14 and June 17, 2010 E. Other: 1. Presentation on City of Iowa City Flood Recovery Efforts 2. Election of Officers F. Adjournment Upcoming Planning & Zoning Commission Meetings Informal Formal ~~ CITY OF IOWA CITY MEMO TO: Planning and Zoning Commission FROM: Julie Tallman, Development Regulations Spec' DATE: 9 July 2010 RE: Proposed Floodplain Ordinance Amendments Thank you for your careful attention to the proposed changes, and your thoughtful questions. The purpose of this memo is to return to the discussion we began in June, confirm that your requested changes have been made and clarify the administrative options available to us in permitting "substantial improvements" to existing structures in the floodplain - specifically, lateral additions to existing residential buildings. Corrections/Chanqes 1. Throughout the four related chapters (Variances; Administrative Procedures; Floodplain Management Standards; and Definitions), inconsistent references have been cleaned up, largely omitting the use of the phrase "100-year flood". 2. Definitions still include "1 OO-year flood event" and "500-year flood event", though I have conflicting notes from our June meeting. I have a note that the definition of the 500-year flood event should be added; another note that the definition of 1 OO-year flood event should be omitted; a note that the definition of the 1 OO-year flood event should be kept and the 500-year flood event is not necessary. . . During the work session Monday, we can reach a decision on how to make a clear transition from statistical references to the more overarching concept of "flood hazard area". 3. Administrative language within "Definitions" has been moved to the administrative section "Floodplain Management Standards". Answers to Specific Questions 1. What happens to flood insurance premiums when there are changes in a mapped floodplain? a. First of all, it's important to remember that Iowa City's ordinance amendments, if adopted, will not change the mandatory flood insurance requirement for structures in the 1 % flood hazard area. There will not be a subsequent flood insurance requirement for structures in the 0.2% flood hazard area. b. Let's use Parkview Terrace (Normandy Drive) as an example. A home is built in 2001 with its lowest floor one foot above the 1985 mapped flood elevation. Flood insurance premiums are based on the structure's compliance with minimum elevation requirements. After 2002, the flood elevation for the Iowa River goes up a foot and the home is no lonqer in compliance with the elevation requirement. Premiums for the home owner do not change until 1 ) the home is sold and a new insurance policy is issued; or 2) the 1992 homeowner decides to refinance or switches lenders. Essentially, the 2001 homeowner maintains the grandfathered premium as long as s/he owns the home and doesn't make changes to the terms of her/his loan. 2. What happens if a home is damaged to 50% or more by a non-flood event, and has to be elevated to one foot above the flood hazard elevation, as that elevation is defined by the City of Iowa City? a. Homeowners' insurance varies from carrier to carrier, obviously. Using State Farm as an example, there is an automatic coverage built in to homeowners' policies for "Building Ordinance and Law". For a $250,000 policy, 10% ($25,000) is available for costs associated with elevating a substantially-damaged home in order to comply with local ordinances. 3. Do the proposed changes reflect the purpose of the ordinance as enumerated in 14-5J-1? a. 14-5J-1 states that the purposes of the floodplain article are 1) to protect and preserve the rights and privileges and property of Iowa City and its residents and to protect, preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience of its residents by minimizing flood losses; 2) reserve sufficient floodplain area for the conveyance of flood flows so that flood heights and velocities will not be increased substantially; 3) restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood or that cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities; 4) require that uses vulnerable to floods, including public utilities that serve such uses, be protected against flood damage; and 5) maintain eligibility for property owners to purchase flood insurance through the national flood insurance program. b. The proposed amendments are an improvement over the existing language in that they extend protection to those structures in the 0.2% flood hazard area while preserving the rights of Iowa City residents who currently live in a flood hazard area to remain in their homes, under guidelines that are designed to increase the degree of flood protection when significant investment is made in existing structures. The purpose language goes so far as to allow the City to prohibit uses that pose dangers to health and safety in times of flood, and the amendments include prohibitions against locating vulnerable populations or uses that increase the risk to emergency personnel during a flood evacuation. Finally, the amendments not only preserve Iowa City's eligibility to offer flood insurance to its residents, inasmuch as they surpass minimum standards set by FEMA, they will be a key factor in securing discounted flood insurance premiums for structures in Iowa City. 4. What have other communities done? Is Iowa City the only Iowa community to propose regulating in the 0.2% floodplain? a. As noted during our meeting, Cedar Falls amended their zoning ordinance and adopted the new elevation standard of one foot above the 0.2% flood elevation. I thought you would be interested in some of the other changes in their ordinance: 1) Subdivision plats are disallowed in any portion of the 500-yr floodplain. This means that only "existing lots" (those in existence on Jan 1, 2010) can be built upon or rebuilt. 2) FEMA Letters of Map Revision (LOMR), typically involving fill or other land altering activities, are not allowed. Letters of Map Amendment (LaMA) are still permitted, which are simply map corrections. 3) Fill is limited to three feet in height at anyone site and no more than 1/3 of any single parcel can be filled. If more than three feet of fill is required to achieve required building elevation, the structure must be elevated upon piers or raised foundation. Fill is only allowed underneath the elevated structure, the driveway providing access, and must extend out 18' from the structure's foundation. Filling also requires mitigation by removing an equal volume of fill from a comparable elevation within the 0.2% flood hazard area. 4) Detached accessory structures larger than 576 sq ft (basically a two-stall garage) must be elevated. Smaller accessory structures may be exempt from the elevation requirement if fitted with openings. 5) Nonconforming structures that are damaged to less than 50% of fair market value may be reconstructed. A nonconforming structure that is damaged to 50% or more must be elevated to one foot above the 0.2% flood hazard elevation. 5. At Parkview Terrace and Idyllwild, if the homes had been constructed with the finished floor one foot above the 0.2% flood hazard elevation, how many homes would have been damaged? a. The best answer to this question is a qualified one; first of all, there would still have been damage in garages and if we want to imagine the best possible outcome we have to assume that all mechanical and utility equipment was also elevated to one foot above the 0.2% flood elevation, all crawl spaces were fitted with flood openings, etc. 2 .,_~",_~_.__,~~~__.._..~_e_"_'_~"-~___'"'_"_'''_''~''_'-___.~"".",* - b. Here is what we know about the flood elevations: at its crest, the flood in June 2008 reached 655.8 at Parkview Terrace, and 655.2 at Idyllwild. The 0.2% flood elevation at Parkview ranges from 655.5 to 656 and at Idyllwild it ranges from 655-655.25 (Source: Flood Profiles Iowa River). Again, assuming that garages would be built at-grade and utility and mechanical equipment elevated at the same height as the first finished floor, the water would not have gotten inside the finished floors of either subdivision. 6. Are there forecasted impacts of Coralville's levee plan? a. I spoke with Bill Cappuccio at IDNR. My assumption was that the levee would be constructed in the floodway, and subject to "no-rise certification" which requires a licensed engineer to certify that proposed construction will not create any increase, however small, in the flood elevation. Bill informed me that the levee is NOT in the floodway and therefore the "no-rise certification" is not required. b. The delineation of floodplains and floodways uses a formula that allows for no more than a one-foot increase in flood elevation, with development on both sides of the channel occurring along the length of the floodway. There is a built-in assumption, therefore, that there will be an increase in the flood elevation once a floodplain is fully developed to the outside edge of the floodway. Substantial Improvements 1. Again, substantial improvements are repairs and improvements that either a) increase the original (1977) floor area by 25% or more; or b) have a value of 50% or more of the structure's assessed value. 2. Substantial improvements require that the "lowest floor" be elevated to one foot above the flood hazard elevation. Customary practice has been that the "lowest floor" subject to the elevation requirement is the floor of the substantially-improved portion of the structure. a. For substantial improvements that are vertical (for example, a second-story addition), the existing lowest floor is subject to the elevation requirement. i. For homes with a basement, then. a second-story addition will likely require that the basement be filled in. ii. For homes built slab-on-grade, if the lowest floor is not already one foot above the flood hazard elevation, the home will have to be elevated. b. For substantial improvements that are lateral (for example, an addition to the front, side, or rear of the house) only the lowest floor of the lateral addition is subject to the elevation requirement, assuming that no repairs or improvements are proposed to the existing structure AND the wall between the existing structure and the addition is maintained. There may be a doorway constructed between the addition and the existing structure. 3. The decision we face is whether to continue with customary practice or adopt a new practice of requiring that even with lateral additions, substantial improvements will require elevation of the existing lowest floor whenever the existing lowest floor is less than one foot above the flood hazard elevation. 4. In a review of floodplain development permits between 2000 and 2008. there were 20 applications for "substantial improvements" (total applications were 288). Most of the applications (14) were for post-flood damages after June 2008. The remaining six were applications for lateral additions to residential structures. I reviewed these six cases as if we have adopted the practice of requiring the existing floor to be elevated in all cases. a. Two of the six would have required existing basements to be filled to top of grade. i. Of these two, one (1326 College) abandoned the project. The other (703 Normandy) was demolished after the 2008 flood. b. Four of the six already had the lowest floor elevated so there would have been no change in application of the ordinance. i. Of these four, 451 Rundell was originally built over a crawl space; 821 Eastmoor was slab-on-grade and was demolished after the 2008 flood; 703_4th Ave. and 711_4th Ave. were built slab-on-grade. 3 l ~ Article J. Floodplain Management Standards 14-5J-l Pur ose The purpose of this Article is to protect and preserve the rights and privileges and property of Iowa City and its residents and to protect, preserve and improve the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience of its residents by minimizing flood losses. The provisions of this Article are designed to: A. Reserve sufficient Floodplain area for the conveyance of flood flows so that flood heights and velocities will not be increased substantially. B. Restrict or prohibit uses that are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood or that cause excessive increases in flood heights or velocities, C. Require that uses vulnerable to floods, including public utilities that serve such uses, be protected against flood damage, D. Assure that eligibility is maintained for property owners to purchase flood insurance through the national flood insurance program. 14-5J-2 A licabilit and Inter retation A. Application of Provisions The regulations within this article apply to all lands and uses that Aave significant flood Aazards. The identified in the "Johnson County, Iowa, .ilD.9JDc::qrp()r.a!~d_ ~re_a~ .. { Deleted: And Flood Insurance Rate Map", dated February 16, 2007... , sAall be used to identify such flood hazard ar-cas. All ar-cas sAo'lm thcreon located within the boundaries of tAC 100 'fear flood event arc considered to Aa'v'e significant flood Aazards. 'NAcre unccrtainty cxists with respect te the pFCcise location of tAe 100 'j'ear flood boundary, the location will bc dctcrFAincd on the basis of tAC 100 year flood elevation at the particular site in question. It shall be the responsibility of the property owner to OBtain t1ge accurate €lfOund elevation inf-orFAation for cOFAparison with tAe 100 year flood elevation, The "Johnson County, Iowa and Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Study", as amended, is hereby adopted by reference and is made a part of this article for the purpose of administering floodplain management regulations, Where 100 'tear flood data has not becn pr-ovided in the flood insurance study, the Iowa DepartFAeAt of Naturill Resour<:es or its assi€lnee shall be contacted to COFAputc such data, or tAe city engineer sRall cOFApute SUCA data. B. Minimum Requirements The provisions of this Article are considered minimum requirements and will be liberally construed in favor of the governing body and will not be deemed a limitation or repeal of any other powers granted by State statutes, C. Abrogation and Greater Restrictions It is not intended by this Article to repeal, abrogate or impair any existing easements, covenants or deed restrictions, However, where this Article imposes 1 .~ greater restrictions, the provisions of this Article shall prevail. Where more specific provisions herein conflict with other provisions of this Title, this Article shall prevail. 14-5J-3 Le al Authorit and Findin s of Fact A. Legal Authority Chapter 455B, Code of Iowa, as amended, gives cities authority to adopt regulations governing development and redevelopment within flood hazard areas, including designation of flood hazard maps. B. Legislative Findings 1. The flood hazard areas of Iowa City are subject to periodic inundation which can result in loss of life and property, health and safety hazards, disruption of commerce and governmental services, extraordinary public expenditures for flood protection and relief and impairment of the tax base, all of which adversely affect the peace, safety, health, welfare, comfort and convenience of its residents. 2. These flood losses, hazards, and related adverse effects are caused by the occupancy of flood hazard areas by uses vulnerable to flood damages. Such uses create hazardous conditions as a result of being inadequately elevated or otherwise protected from flooding and the cumulative effect of obstructions on the Floodplain causing increases in flood heights and velocities. 3. This Article relies upon engineering methodology for analyzing flood hazards, which is consistent with the standards established by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assiqnee. 14-5J-4 Com liance with Provisions; Nonconforming Situations A. Except as provided in subsection B, below, no structure or land shall hereafter be used and no structure shall be located, enlarged, converted or structurally altered without full compliance with the terms of this Article. B. If a structure that is not in compliance with the provisions of this Article lawfully existed prior to May 2, 1977 and has existed continuously without abandonment since that time, then improvements may be made to the structure, notwithstanding the provisions of this Article, provided such improvements do not constitute a substantial improvement as defined in Article 14-9F, of this Title, Floodplain Management Definitions. However, structures, uses, or development that are nonconforming with regard to other provisions of this Title must comply with the applicable regulations contained in Article 14-4E, Nonconforming Situations. 14-5J-5 Enforcement A. Enforcement Official Designated The Building Official shall administer and enforce the provisions of this Article. B. Duties and Responsibilities Duties and responsibilities of the Building Official include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: 1. Record and maintain a record of the elevation (in relation to National Geodetic Vertical Datum) of, the lowest floor of all new or substantially improved buildings or the elevation to which new or substantially improved structures have been f1oodproofed. 2. Notify adjacent communities or counties and the Iowa Department of Natural Resources, or its successor assiqnee, prior to any proposed alteration or relocation of a watercourse. 3. Keep a record of all permits, appeals, variances and other such transactions and correspondence pertaining to the administration of this Article. 14-5J-6 Flood lain Develo ment Permit A. Permit Required A Floodplain Development Permit, issued by the Building Official, must be obtained prior to initiation of any development on a parcel of land within tAC 100 '(car Floodplain a flood hazard area according to the applicable review and approval procedures contained in Article 14-8B, Administrative Approval Procedures. B. Compliance Floodplain Development Permits based on approved plans and applications authorize only the use, arrangement, and construction set forth in such approved plans and applications. Prior to use or occupancy of any structure, the applicant will be required to submit certification by a professional engineer or land surveyor, registered in the State, that the finished fill, building floor elevations, flood proofing or other flood protection measures were accomplished in compliance with the provisions of this Article. Any use, arrangement or construction not in compliance with the uses authorized will be deemed a violation of this Article. 14-5J-7 General Floodplain Management Standards All properties subject to the regulations of this Article must comply with the following applicable performance standards. A. General Construction Requirements All structures shall be: 1. adequately anchored to prevent flotation, collapse or lateral movement of the structure; and 2. constructed with materials and utility equipment resistant to flood damage; and 3. constructed by methods and practices that minimize flood damage. __'."~"_0~ ,__,_>._~._______W.______~'~_".m~,,__~,_._~._.~.._~,~_.e-.."" B. Class I Critical Facilities 1. Class I Critical Facilities mav not be located within a flood hazard area. 2. Class I Critical Facilities must be located with a means of vehicular access that will remain oassable durino occurrence of the 0.2% flood event. C. Residential Buildings 1. All new or substantially improved residential structures must have the lowest floor, including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot above the .we- yeaf flood hazard elevation. 2. Where existing topography, street grades, or other factors preclude elevating by fill, alternate methods of elevating, such as piers, may be allowed, subject to approval of a s13ccial cl<cc13tion by thc Board of Adj\;lstlTlcnt bv the Buildino Official. In such a case. a licensed orofessional shall certify that the methods used will be adequate to suooort the structure as well as withstand the various forces and hazards associated with floodino. In such a case, con'/incing c'/idcncc ITIUst be 13r.cscntcd to thc Board of AcijustlTlcnt that thc mctAods uscd will bc adcqLlatc to sUP130rt tAc structur.c as well as withstand tAC 'Iarieus feFCCS and AazaFds associat-cd "...ith flooaing. D. Nonresidential Buildings 1. All new or substantially improved nonresidential buildings must have the first floor, including basement, elevated a minimum of one foot above the.we- yeaf flood hazard elevation or, together with attendant utility and sanitary systems, be flood proofed to such a level. 2. When flood proofing is utilized, a professional engineer registered in the State shall certify that the f1oodproofing methods used are adequate to withstand the flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact and uplift forces and other factors associated with the 100 ycar flood hazard eteffi, and that the structure below the 100 year flood hazard elevation is watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water. Such certification must also indicate the specific elevation, in relation to National Geodetic Vertical Datum, to which any structures are floodproofed. A record of this certification will be retained in the office of the Building Official. E. All New and Substantially Improved Structures 1. Fully enclosed areas below the "lowest floor" that are subject to flooding shall be designed to automatically equalize hydrostatic flood forces on exterior walls by allowing for the entry and exit of flood waters. Designs for meeting this requirement must either be certified by a registered professional engineer to meet or exceed the following minimum approval criteria: a. There must be a minimum of 2 openings having a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subject to flooding. The ooeninos shall not be located on the same wall. b. The ooeninos shall be located on exterior walls such that the 1 % flood elevation. or shallow flood elevation. is above the bottom of the ooenina. and in all cases the bottom of all ooeninas shall be no hiaher than one foot above orade. c. Openings shall may be eql:lipped ',vith scr-cens, louvers, valves or otAer coverings or ck';ices, provided tAe openings permit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. 2. 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. 3. New and substantially improved structures must be constructed with electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing and air-conditioning equipment and other service facilities elevated or floodDroofed to one foot above the flood hazard elevation. that are desi€jned and located so as to prevent ',\later from ent-cring or ac-cumulating .....ithin tl'le components during conditions of flooding. F. Manufactured Housing Manufactured housing, including those placed in existing manufactured housing parks, planned developments, or subdivisions, must be: 1. Anchored to resist flotation, collapse or lateral movement. 2. Elevated on a permanent foundation such that the lowest floor of the structure is a minimum of one foot above the 100 year flood hazard elevation. G. Utility and Sanitary Systems 1. All new or replacement on-site sewage waste disposal systems must be located or designed to avoid impairment to the system or contamination from the system during flooding. 2. New or replacement water supply systems must be designed to minimize or eliminate infiltration of floodwaters into the system. Water supply facilities must be provided with a level of protection equal to or greater than one foot above the 100 year flood hazard elevation. 3. Utilities, such as gas or electrical systems, must be located and constructed to minimize or eliminate flood damage to the system and the risk associated with such flood damage or impaired systems. H. Storage of Flammable, Explosive or Injurious Materials Storage of materials and equipment that are flammable, explosive or injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited unless elevated a minimum of one foot above the 100 yeJr flood hazard elevation. Other material and equipment must either be similarly elevated or: 1. not be subject to major flood damage and be anchored to prevent movement due to flood waters or; 2. be readily removable from the area within the time available after flood warning. I. Flood Control Structural Works Flood control structural works, including but not limited to levees and flood walls, must provide, at a minimum, protection from a 0.2% 100 year flood event with a minimum of 3 feet of design freeboard and must provide for adequate interior drainage. In addition, flood control structural works must be approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assianee. J. Inhibiting Floodways and Drainage Facilities No use shall affect the capacity or conveyance of the channel or floodway of any tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch or other drainage facility or system. K. Subdivisions Subdivisions and Planned Developments, including manufactured housing parks, must be designed to minimize flood damage and must have adequate drainage provided to reduce exposure to flood damage, and must meet the applicable performance standards established by the City Engineer. Any subdivision, planned development, or manufactured housing park intended for residential development must provide all lots with a means of vehicular access that will remain passable during occurrence of the .WP. 'iC_ar ,1 % fl99d everlt~ _._. _ _ _. _ __ - - _.- L. Residential Accessory Structures The exemption of detached garages, sheds and similar structures from the .we- yeaf flood elevation requirements may result in increased premium rates for insurance coverage of the structure and contents; however, said detached garages, sheds and similar accessory type structures are exempt from the 100 year flood elevation requirements when all of the following conditions exist: 1. The structure is not used for human habitation; 2. The structure is designed so as to have low flood damage potential. 3. The structure is constructed and placed on the building site so as to offer minimum resistance to the flow of flood waters. 4. The structure is firmly anchored to prevent flotation, which may result in damage to other structures. 5. The service facilities for the structure, such as electrical and heating equipment, are elevated or flood proofed to at least one foot above the .we- yeaf flood hazard elevation. 6. There shall be a minimum of 2 ooeninas havina a total net area of not less than one square inch for every square foot of enclosed area subiect to floodina. The ooeninas shall not be located on the same wall. 7. The ooeninQs shall be located on exterior walls such that the 1% flood elevation. or shallow flood elevation, is above the bottom of the ooenina, and in all cases the bottom of all ooeninas shall be no hiaher than one foot above arade. 8. Ooeninas shall oermit the automatic entry and exit of floodwaters. 14-5J-8 S ecial Floodwa Provisions In addition to the general Floodplain standards listed above, uses within the floodway must meet the following applicable standards. Formatted: Strikethrough Formatted: Underline I A. No use is permitted in the floodway that would increase the 100 YCJr 1% flood hazard elevation, unless approved by the Iowa Department of Naturar Resources or 1ts successor assiqnee. All uses within the floodway must: 1. Be consistent with the need to minimize flood damage; and 2. Use construction methods and practices that will minimize flood damage; and 3. Use construction materials and utility equipment that are resistant to flood damage. No use is permitted that would affect the capacity or conveyance of the channel or floodway or any tributary to the main stream, drainage ditch or any other drainage facility or system. Structures, buildings and sanitary and utility systems, if permitted, must meet the applicable general Floodplain management standards and must be constructed eF and aligned to present the minimum pOSSible resistance to flood flows. Buildings, if permitted, must have low flood damage potential and must not be used for human habitation. Storage of materials or equipment that are buoyant, flammable, explosive or injurious to human, animal or plant life is prohibited. Storage of other material may be allowed if readily removable from the floodway within the time available after flood warning. Watercourse alterations or relocations, including channel changes and modifications, must be designed to maintain the flood-carrying capacity within the altered or relocated portion. In addition, such alterations or relocations must be approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assiqnee. Any fill or stream bank erosion control projects allowed in the floodway must have some beneficial purpose and will be limited to the minimum amount necessary. PiDelines that cross rivers or streams must be buried in the streambed and banks or otherwise sufficientlv Drotected to Drevent rUDture due to channel degradation and meandering or due to action of flood flows. Where f100dwav data has been Drovided in the flood insurance studY. such data shall be used to define the f100dwav limits. Where no f100dwav data has been Drovided. the Iowa DeDartment of Natural Resources or its sweeesssr assignee shall be contacted to Drovide a f100dwav delineation. Where "oodwav data is not available. it shall be the resDonsibilitv of the Dermittee to Droduce engineered data delineating the f1oodwav. B. c. D. E. F. G. H. I. J. 14-5J-9 Variances The Board of Adjustment may authorize, upon request, in specific cases, such variances from the terms of this Article that will not be contrary to the public interest where, owing to special conditions, a literal enforcement of the provisions of this Article will result in unnecessary and undue hardship. To ensure that the spirit of the ordinance is , Formatted: Striketh rough Formatted: Underline Formatted: Underline "--~"---- l!~~~;tt;,~-u~d;ii~-~--------J { Formatted: Underline . _,_,~_",__""",",.~'_'M'_~"'__~_"'_'_"__~"_'_'_"'''__..-~._.- observed and substantial justice done, no variance to the strict application of any provision of this Article shall be granted by the Board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following approval criteria are met. In addition, the applicant must meet all the provisions and general approval criteria for variances as stated in Article 14-4B, Minor Modifications, Variances, Special Exceptions, and Provisional Uses. exceot 14-4B- 2a4. A. Approval Criteria 1. No variance shall be granted for any development within the floodway that would result in any increase in flood elevation .dUfiA!ij the ()tel:lrreA€C ef'tAC 109 ','ear fleed e'.cAt, unless approved by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assiqnee. 2. Variances shall only be granted upon a showing of good and sufficient cause, and a determination that the granting of the variance will not result in increased flood elevation, additional threats to public safety, extraordinary publiC expense, create nuisances or cause fraud on or victimization of the public. 3. Variances shall only be granted upon a determination that the variance is the minimum necessary, considering the flood hazard, to afford relief. 4. In cases where the variance involves a lower level of flood protection for buildings than what is ordinarily required by this Article, the applicant shall be notified, in writing, over the signature of the Building Official, that the issuance of a variance will likely result in increased premium rates for flood insurance. 5. All variances granted shall have the concurrence or approval of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its successor assiqnee. B. Factors for Consideration When considering applications for variances, the Board of Adjustment will consider all relevant factors specified in other sections of this Article in addition to the following factors: 1. The danger to life and property due to increased flood elevation or velocities caused by encroachments. 2. The danger that materials may be swept on to other land or downstream to the injury of others. 3. The importance of the services provided by the proposed facility to the community. and the risk of losinq said services durinq a flood event. 4. The risk assumed bv emerqencv oersonnel if it is necessary to evacuate the use/structure durinq a flood event. 5. Such other factors that are relevant to the purposes of this Article. C. Conditions of Approval Upon consideration of the factors and approval criteria listed above, the Board of Adjustment may attach such conditions and safeguards to the granting of a ~atted: Strikethrough, Highlight) variance as it deems necessary to fulfill the purposes and intent of the provisions of this Article. 14-5J-10 Amendments The regulations and standards set forth in this Article may, from time to time, be amended, supplemented, changed or repealed. No amendment, supplement, change or modification shall be undertaken without prior approval of the Iowa Department of Natural Resources or its Sl:Icccsser assianee. 14-5J-11 Warning and Disclaimer of Liabilit The degree of flood protection required by this Article is considered reasonable for regulatory purposes and is based on engineering and scientific methods of study. Larger floods may occur on rare occasions. Flood heights may be increased by human-made or natural causes, such as ice jams and bridge openings restricted by debris. This Article does not imply that areas outside the regulated areas, includiflg flood "'azara ffiaps, or th~t uscs pcrA'littcd wit"'iA t"'c rcgl:llatcd arc;;)s will be free from flooding or flood damages. This Article does not implv that uses permitted within the reaulated areas will be free from floodina or flood damaaes. This Article shall not create liability on the part of Iowa City or any officer or employee thereof for any flood damages that result from reliance on this Article or any administrative decision lawfully made hereunder. Article F. Floodplain Management Definitions As used in Article 14-5J, Floodplain Management Standards, the following definitions shall apply. The General Definitions contained in Article A of this Chapter shall apply to all terms used in Article 14-5J that are not defined below. .100-YEARFLOODEVENT:A flood, the magnitude of which hasa one percent chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year or which, on the average, will be equaled or exceeded at least once every 100 years. .500-YEAR FLOOD EVENT: A flood, the maqnitude of which has a two-tenths percent chance of beinq eaualed or exceeded in any aiven year or which, on the averaqe, will be equaled or exceeded at least once every 500 years... 1% ANNUAL FLOOD EVENT: The oredicted level of floodina with a one oercent (1 %) chance of beina eaualed or exceeded in anv aiven vear (formerlv known as the 100-Year flood event). 0.2% ANNUAL FLOOD EVENT: The oredicted level of floodina with a two-tenths (0.2%) chance of beina eaualed or exceeded in anv qiven vear (formerlY known as the SOD-year flood event). BASEMENT: Any enclosed area of a building that has its floor or lowest level below ground level (subgrade) on all sides (see definition of Lowest Floor). CLASS 1 CRITICAL FACILITIES: Facilities that must remain accessible durinq the 0.2% flood event because thev are the base of oDerations for emergency resDOnders, are Darticularlv difficult to evacuate durinG a flood event, or facilities that Drovide services essential to the life. health, and safety of the community. Class 1 Critical Facilities include oolice and fire stations. emerqencv medical centers, communication centers, hosoitals. iails. nursina homes, and other residential uses for oersons with limited mobilitv and/or deoendencv uoon life-sustainina medical eauioment. CRITICAL FACILITIES: Structures that store oublic records: museums and libraries: schools: and other buildinas that store rare and/or valuable items and information that sustain the history and oublic records of a community. These structures are not exoected to remain accessible or functionina durina a flood event. thouah in manv instances their functions must resume as soon as oossible after a flood event. Critical Facilities also include oublic insfrastructure such as water distribution and wastewater treatment facilities. which are exoected to remain functionina durina a flood event althouah they may be temoorarilv inaccessible or accessible only bv watercraft durina a flood event. DEVELOPMENT: Any human made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including, but not limited to, the placement of manufactured housing, buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, streambank erosion control measures, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations. ~rmatted: Not Strikethrough J -----..----.---------.-- -( Formatted: Underline, Not Hi9hli9~ ( Formatted: Underline . J Formatted: Underline, Not Strikethrough FLOOD: A general and temporary condition of partial or complete inundation of normally dry land areas resulting from the overflow of streams or rivers or from the unusual and rapid runoff of surface waters from any source. FLOOD CONTROL STRUCTURAL WORKS: Barriers or storaae areas constructed to control floodwater. modify or re-direct a channel. FLOOD ELEVATION: The elevation which floodwaters would reach at a particular site during the occurrence of a specific frequency flood. For instance, the :we- year flood elevation is tt:1e elevation of floodwat-crs related to tt:1e eccurrence of a 100 year flood event. 1% flood elevation is the elevation of floodwaters with a 1% likelihood of occurrina in anv qlven vear. The 0.2% flood elevation is the elevation of floodwaters with a 0.2% likelihood of occurrinq in anv qiven vear. In areas of shallow floodina. there is a 1% or qreater annual chance of floodinq to an elevation specified on the Flood Insurance Rate Map. FLOOD HAZARD AREA: Land that is shaded and identified as "AE". "X" or "AH" on the Flood Insurance Rate MaD. FLOOD HAZARD ELEVATION: The elevation of the 0.2% flood as Drofiled in the Flood Insurance Studv for Johnson County. Iowa. In areas of shallow floodinG. the elevation of the flood as illustrated on the Flood Insurance Rate MaD. FLOOD INSURANCE RATE MAP: The official map prepared as part of (but published separately from) the flood insurance study which delineates both the flood hazard areas and the risk premium zones applicable to the community. FLOOD INSURANCE STUDY: A study initiated, funded and published by the federal insurance administration for the purpose of evaluating, in detail, the existence and severity of flood hazards, providing the city with the necessary information for adopting a Floodplain management program and establishing actuarial flood insurance rates. FLOODPLAIN: Any land area susceptible to being inundated by water as a result of a specific frequency flood. For instance, the 100 yeJr FloodplaiA in the areJ of land susceptible to being inundated by a 100 year flood C'lent. For instance. the 1% floodplain is the area of land that. in anv aiven vear. has a 1 % likelihood of floodina. The 0.2% floodplain is the area of land that. in any qiven Year. has a 0.2% likelihood of floodinq. In areas of shallow f1oodina. there is a 1% or qreater annual chance of floodinq to a specified elevation. but a clearly defined channel does not exist. and the path of floodina is unpredictable. FLOODPLAIN MANAGEMENT: An overall program of corrective and preventive measures for reducing flood damages and for promoting the wise use of Floodplains, including, but not limited to, emergency preparedness plans, flood control works, floodproofing and Floodplain management regulations. FLOODPROOFING: Any combination of structural and nonstructural additions, changes or adjustments to structures, including utility and sanitary facilities, which will reduce or eliminate flood damage to such structures. _____~..~_...,,,~,_~~....~,~_,,_.~___m_______~...__~_~__~..,>" - . FLOODWAY: The channel of a river or stream and those portions of the Floodplains adjoining the channel which are reasonably required to carry and discharge floodwaters so that confinement of floodwaters to the floodway area will not result in substantially higher flood elevation. FLOODWAY FRINGE: Those portions of the Floodplain, other than the floodway, which can be filled, leveed or otherwise obstructed without causing substantially higher flood elevations. LOWEST FLOOR: The floor of the lowest enclosed area in a building, including a basement, except when all the following criteria are met: . The enclosed area is designed to flood to equalize hydrostatic pressure during floods with walls or openings that satisfy the provisions of 14-5J-70 of this Title; and . The enclosed area is unfinished (not carpeted, drywalled, etc.) and used solely for low damage potential uses, such as building access, parking or storage; and . Machinery and service facilities (e.g. hot water heater, furnace, electrical service) contained in the enclosed area are located at least one foot above the 100 year flood hazard elevation; and . The aFea floor is not below grade on all sides. MANUFACTURED HOUSING: Any structure designed for residential use which is wholly or in substantial part, made, fabricated, formed or assembled in manufacturing facilities for installation or assembly and installation on a building site. For the purposes of Article 14-5J, Floodplain Management, manufactured housing includes factory built homes, mobile homes, manufactured homes and modular homes and also includes park trailers, travel trailers and other similar vehicles placed on a site for greater than 180 consecutive days. MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARK: A parcel or contiguous parcels of land divided into two or more manufactured housing lots for rent or sale. NEW CONSTRUCTION OF NEW BUILDINGS, MANUFACTURED HOUSING PARKS: Those structures or development that began construction after January 1, 1978. Mav 2. 1977. SHALLOW FLOOD HAZARD AREA: Areas of sDecial flood hazards havinq shallow water deDths and/or unDredictable flow Daths between one (1) and three (3) feet. and with water surface elevations determined. STRUCTURE: Anything constructed or installed on the ground or attached to the ground, including, but not limited to buildings, factories, sheds, cabins, manufactured housing, storage tanks and similar. SUBSTANTIAL DAMAGE: Oamaae of anv oriain sustained bva structure where the cost of restorina the structure to its ore-damaaed condition would eaual or exceed 50 oercent of the assessed or market value as established bvan aooraisal oaid for at the owners exoense, whichever is areater ~ _ _ _ - ~ed:, SUBSTANTIAL IMPROVEMENT: Any improvement to a structure that satisfies either of the following criteria: . Any repair, reconstruction or improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds fifty percent of the assessed or market value as established bv an appraisal paid for at the owner's expense, whichever is qreater, of the structure either before the improvement or repair is started or, if the structure has been damaged and is being restored, before the damage occurred. For the purposes of this definition, substantial improvement is considered to occur when the first alteration of any wall, ceiling, floor or other structural part of the building commences, whether or not that alteration affects the external dimensions of the structure. The term does not, however, include any project for improvement of a structure to comply with existing state or local health, sanitary or safety code specifications which are solely necessary to assure safe conditions for the existing use. . Any addition which increases the original floor area of a building by 25 percent or more. All additions constructed after JURe 5, 1985 Mav 2, 1977 shall be added to any proposed addition in determining whether the total increase in original floor space would exceed 25 percent. 14.88.5: FLOODPLAIN DEVELOPMENT PERMIT: A. Permit Required: A floodplain development permit issued by the building official shall be secured prior to initiation of any development on a tract of land within a flood hazard area. the 100 year floodplain. B. Submittal Requirements: /\pplication for a 1100dplain Elovolopment permit~ 130 modo on forms supplied by tho builEling official and shall include Jhe. buildinq official may require the following information: 1. Description of the work to be covered by the permit. 2. Description of the land on which the proposed work is to be done (Le., lot, block, tract, street address or similar description) that will readily identify and locate the work to be done. 3. Indication of the use or occupancy for which the proposed work is intended. t. Elevation of the ,1 00 vO:Jr flood ovent flood hazard event. 5. Elevation in relation to national geodetic vertical datum of the lowest floor, including basement, of buildings or of the level to which a building is to be floodproofed. 6. For buildings being improved or rebuilt, the estimated cost of improvements and market value of the building prior to the improvements. 7. Certification by a rogisterod engineer of the effect the proposed de'/elopment '.viII havo on tho floodplain pursuant to tho roquiromonts of chaptor 5. articlo J, "Floodplain Managemont StanElards", of this title. This cortificotion roquiromont may 130 "...aivod by the city en€lineer in those instances where the city engineer can mako an adoquate dotormination of tho offect of tho proposes devolopmont. ^" stream bank erosion control measures involving less than five hundred (500) linoar foot along tho channel and not extending more than throe feot (3') into the stroam channel are oxompt from the cortificotion requiroment. S. 7. Such other information as the building official deems reasonably necessary for the purpose of determining compliance with the requirements of chapter S. article 4, "Floodplain Management Standards", of this title. C. Approval Procedure: The building official shall, within a reasonable time, make a determination as to whether the proposed floodplain development meets the applicable standards of chapter 5. article J, "Floodplain Management Standards", of this title, and shall approve or disapprove, in writing, the application. For disapprovals, the applicant will be informed, in writing, of the specific reasons why the application was disapproved. The building official shall not issue permits for variances, except as approved by the board of l Deleted: 8 Formatted: Strikethrough _..J . Deleted: mav be issued uoon receipt of . Formatted: Underline .' Formatted: Strikethrough . Formatted: Underline adjustment according to the approval criteria for such variances set forth in chapter 5. article J of this title. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) 14-48-2: VARIANCES: The board of adjustment is empowered to grant variances from the provisions of this title that will not be contrary to the public interest when, owing to unique circumstances or conditions, a literal interpretation of this title would deprive the applicant of rights commonly enjoyed by other properties in the zoning district under the terms of this title and would impose unnecessary and undue hardship on the applicant. To ensure that the spirit of this title is observed and substantial justice done, no variance to the strict application of any provision of this title shall be granted by the board unless the applicant demonstrates that all of the following approval criteria are met. The procedures for obtaining a variance are set forth in chapter 8. article C, "Board Of Adjustment Approval Procedures", of this title. A. Approval Criteria: 1. The proposed variance will not threaten neighborhood integrity, nor have a substantially adverse effect on the use or value of other properties in the area adjacent to the property included in the variance; and 2. The proposed variance will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of this title and will not contravene the objectives of the comprehensive plan, as amended; and 3. The property in question cannot yield a reasonable return if required to comply with the requirements and standards specified in this title; and 4. The owner's situation is unique or peculiar to the property in question, and the situation is not shared with other landowners in the area nor due to general conditions in the neighborhood, except when a variance from a floodplain manaoement standard is requested per 14-5J-9; and 5. The hardship is not of the landowner's or applicant's own making or that of a predecessor in title. B. Use Variance Prohibited: Under no circumstance may the board grant a variance that would allow a land use, other than those specifically allowed in the zoning district in which the subject property is located. C. Burden Of Proof: The applicant bears the burden of proof and must support each of the approval criteria by a preponderance of the evidence. D. Precedents: The granting of a variance is not grounds for granting other variances for the same or differing properties. (Ord. 05-4186, 12-15-2005) City of Iowa City MEMORANDUM Date: July 15, 2010 To: Planning and Zoning Commission From: Christina Kuecker, Associate Planner RE: Zoning Code Amendments - Historic Preservation Handbook Background The Historic Preservation Plan is an element of the Comprehensive Plan that contains the goals and objective to help promote the preservation of Iowa City's historic resources. Goal 2, Objective 7 is to "Make changes in the design review process to improve efficiency and add predictability." This objective goes on to outline several ways to make these changes. Over the past two years, the Historic Preservation Commission (HPC) has worked to rewrite the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook (Handbook) to incorporate the changes outlined in the Historic Preservation Plan. Historic Preservation Handbook rewrite The HPC and Staff have worked through all portions of the Handbook; adding clarification and flexibility. The Handbook not only contains the Historic Preservation Guidelines that the HPC uses when reviewing projects, but the Handbook contains information for any historic property owner on best practices and information about historic preservation in Iowa City. The HPC voted unanimously to recommend approval of the new Handbook on May 13. Prior to the meeting on May 13, the HPC sent letters to all property owners in Historic or Conservation Districts and of Local Landmarks inviting them to review and comment on the new Handbook. It would be quite onerous to go point by point through the Handbook outlining the changes, but I attached a summary by Handbook section as to what was changed. The complete handbook can be found at www.icQov.orQ/historicpreservation. Some of the changes in the Handbook will require amendments to the zoning code, and therefore the Planning and Zoning Commission is being asked to review these code amendments. These include the changes made to Section 2.0 Historic Review. Based on the HP Plan, the HPC and staff reworked the levels of review in order to expedite the process for most projects that require Historic Review. The levels of review include Certificates of No Material Effect, Minor Review, Intermediate Review, and Major Review Certificates of No Material Effect (CNME) This level of review remains unchanged and applies to projects that do not alter the appearance of significant architectural features. Projects consisting of repair or replacement with like materials are issued CNMEs. CNMEs are reviewed by the Preservation Planner and the HPC Chair. July 8, 2010 Page 2 Minor Review A minor review previously applied only to projects that met the guidelines and were on non-contributing and non-historic properties in Conservation Districts. These were reviewed by the Preservation Planner and were restricted to certain types of projects, such as rear decks, new garages or outbuildings, demolition of non-historic outbuildings or features, and minor alterations. The new Handbook allows the use of the minor review process for the most routine project types that have in the past garnered Commission approval. The HPC will vote and approve of designs and materials for items that can be applied in most situations, such as handrail designs, certain types of window replacements, and deck construction. After the HPC has pre-approved an item, the Preservation Planner can then approved similar projects through Minor Review. At any time, the Preservation Planner or the applicant can forward a project to Intermediate or Major Review. Intermediate Review Previously an Intermediate Review was limited to contributing properties in Conservation Districts. These were reviewed by the Preservation Planner and HPC Chair and were restricted to certain types of projects, such as rear decks, new garages or outbuildings, demolition of non-historic outbuildings or features, and minor alterations. The new Handbook allows for intermediate review for all projects, except those involving landmark properties and contributing properties in historic districts, that do not qualify for a Minor Review or CNME. The Intermediate review is conducted by the Preservation Planner and the HPC Chair and must comply with the Guidelines and require no exceptions to the Guidelines At any time, the Preservation Planner, HPC Chair, or the applicant can forward a project to Major Review. Major Review Major review encompasses everything else. Under the previous handbook, most projects that did not qualify for a CNME were reviewed by the entire HPC as a major review. This meant that some minor projects in scope that met all the guidelines were being delayed until the next HPC meeting. By expanding the types of projects that can go through either minor or intermediate review, the HPC hopes to streamline the Historic Review process and provide for expedited review of most projects. Zoning Code Amendments The Handbook is adopted by City Council as a resolution; however, there are some zoning code amendments that need to be made in order to implement the changes proposed in the Handbook. In Section 14-3B-1, Historic District Overlay Zone, a map of the Northside Historic District needs to be added. July 8, 2010 Page 3 In Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review, the language needs to be amended to reflect the new levels of Minor, Intermediate, and Major Review. Staff has changed to wording to reference the Handbook. Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship, was changed to reflect the true process of applying for a Certificate of Economic Hardship. Currently there is no application to fill out and if a property owner was interested in applying for this, they need to submit a letter. Lastly, while analyzing the Multifamily Site Development Standards for inclusion in the Handbook, the possibly complicated nature of setback averaging was discussed. This was confirmed by the Staff Design Review Committee. Currently new multifamily structures in the Central Planning District must not deviate more than 5 feet from the average setback of existing principle buildings on the same frontage and can not be built closer to the street than the closest principle building. This standard is to ensure that new construction maintains a compatible setback to the existing fabric of the street. Staff believes that the same objective would be met by limiting the averaging to the four nearest lots of the same frontage. This would make sure that new construction maintains the existing fabric of the surrounding structures, without the requirement to measure every building along a multi-block frontage. Section 14-28-61-1, Front Setbacks has been changed to give the option of measuring the entire frontage, or the four closest lots along the same frontage if more than 6 lots are present. Staff Recommendation Staff recommends approval of the code amendments to Section 14-38-1 Historic District Overlay Zone; Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review; Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship; and Section 14-28-6, Multifamily Site Development Standards as shown in the attached pages. Attachments: Draft code amendment language Summary of the changes to the Historic Preservation Handbook Approved by: ~ Robert Miklo, SeFnior Planner, Department of Planning and Community Development Staff recommends that section 14-36-1 Historic District Overlay Zone of the Zoning Code be amended by adding to paragraph 1 of subsection 14-36-10 a map of the Northside Historic District, as adopted by the City Council June 6, 2009. This proposed addition is noted below: g. Northside Historic District BROWN 5T 1 ~ l ,-~~: i' I; I Iii I ~ ~I' ...., . I I 1a:5'[I,[1i II I ..J' ~ '. !.....~""" Z".' I. I.. Vi 111 r <("'1'1',. I I Ii:> ' RONAL.DS ST I', I ; III \',11 I ,\ I::[r I i tLl I I t'JI [",] [ ] LD :I! ' o :;) en :;) Cl ] JJ l- V> Z o V) Z J: o "^", Staff also recommends amending Section 14-8E-2, Historic Review, as follows: 14-8E-2 Historic Review A. Submittal Requirements 1. Applications for Historic Review must be filed with the Department of Planning and Community Development on application forms provided by the City. 2. Supporting materials must be submitted as specified on the application form. B. Levels of Historic Review 1. Minor Review a. A minor review will be conducted for applicJtions that meet the following criteria: if the chanqe proposed in the application is of a type specificallv defined and listed as eligible for Minor Review in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. as amended (1) The ;:Ipplic;:ltion is for ;:I specific chJnge or changes to the exterior of ;:I noncontributing property loc;:lted in ;:I Conser\';:Ition District; ;:Ind (2) The proposed ch;:lnge is of ;:I type specifically defined ;:Ind listed ;:1$ eligible f-or ~1inor Re'v'iew in the IO'v'v'a City Historic Preserv;:ltion H;:Indbool<, ;:1$ Jmended. b. Applications for minor review will be reviewed by a designated Commission member or designated staff to the Commission. Applications will be approved upon finding that the proposed change to the property will have no material effect on the historic character of the property or the Historic or Conservation District. Decisions may be appealed to and reviewed by the Historic Preservation Commission, if so requested by the applicant. If there is evidence that the proposed change may have a material effect on the historic character of the property or Historic or Conservation District, the application for minor review will be deferred and will be forwarded for major review by the Historic Preservation Commission. c. A written report of the minor reviews processed shall be made to the Commission at the next scheduled Commission meeting. 2. Intermediate Review a. An intermediate review will be conducted f-or applicatiGAs th;:lt meet the following criteri;:l: if the chanqe proposed in the application is of a type specifically defined and listed as eligible for Intermediate Review in the Iowa City Historic Preservation Handbook. as amended. (1) The ;:Ipplic;:ltion is for J specific ch;:lnge or changes to the exterior of a contributing property loc;:lted in u Conservation District; ;:Ind (2) The proposed change is of a type specifically defined and listed ;:1$ eligible for Intermedi;:lte Review in the Iow;:I City Historic Preserv;:ltion H;:Indbool(, ;:IS ;:Imended. b. Applications for intermediate review will be reviewed jointly by the designated Commission staff and the Historic Preservation Commission Chair or the Chair's designee. Decisions may be appealed to the Historic Preservation Commission, if so requested by the applicant. If the designated Commission staff or the Historic Preservation Commission Chair determines that an application warrants review by the full Commission, said application will be forwarded for major review. c. A written report of the intermediate reviews processed shall be made to the Commission at the next scheduled Commission meeting. 3. Major Review a. A major review will be conducted for applications that meet one or more of the following criteria: (1) The ~pplication is for ~ change or changes to ~ property loc~ted in ~ Historic District; or (2) The ~pplication is for ~ change or changes to a property that has been designated a Historic L~ndmarl(; or (1) The application is for a specific change or changes to the e>rterior of a I3roperty located in a Conserv'ation District that does not qualify for minor or intermediate review; or (2) The application is for minor or intermediate review and has been recommended for major review by the designated Commission staff or the Historic Preservation Commission Chair; or (3) An appeal of a decision regarding a minor or intermediate review. b. Applications for Major review~ will be reviewed conducted by the Historic Preservation Commission. Applications that are denied may be appealed to the City Council if the property is a Historic Landmark or a property located within a Historic District; or appealed to the Board of Adjustment if the property is located within a Conservation District. C. Approval Procedure Applications for Historic Review will be reviewed for compliance with the applicable approval criteria for historic review as set forth in Article 14-3B, Historic District and Conservation District Overlay. Historic Review will result in one of the following outcomes: 1. If the proposed material change to the property will have no effect on any architecturally significant feature or there will be no change in appearance to a Landmark or property located within a Historic or Conservation District, a Certificate of No Material Effect will be issued, signed by the Chair of the Historic Preservation Commission or designee and be transmitted along with the application to the Building Official and the City Clerk. 2. If the application is approved or approved with modifications acceptable to the applicant, a Certificate of Appropriateness will be issued, signed by the Chairperson or designee and be transmitted along with the application to the Building Official and the City Clerk. 3. If the application is disapproved, the Commission will issue a written decision setting forth the factual basis for the decision and the vote of each member participating therein. The decision will be issued, signed by the Chairperson or designee and be transmitted along with the application to the Building Official and the City Clerk. D. Appeals Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Commission regarding an application for historic review in a historic district or for a historic landmark, may appeal the action to the City Council. Any person aggrieved by any decision of the Commission regarding an application for historic review in a Conservation District may appeal the action to the Board of Adjustment. Procedures for such appeals is set forth below. 1. Any appeal submitted by the applicant must be in writing and must be filed with the City Clerk no later than 10 business days after the filing of the above- mentioned decision. An appeal submitted by an aggrieved party, other than the applicant, must be in writing and must be filed with the City Clerk no later than 10 business days after construction work pursuant to an approved Certificate of Appropriateness, Certificate of No Material Effect, or Certificate of Economic Hardship is observable from adjacent properties or the public right-of-way or 10 business days after an alleged violation of this Article is similarly observable. 2. The City Council or Board of Adjustment, as applicable, shall, within a reasonable time, hold a publiC hearing on the appeal, give the public notice as required by State law, as well as provide written notice to the applicant and to the appellant, if different from the applicant, and decide the appeal within a reasonable time. 3. In deciding such appeal, the City Councilor the Board of Adjustment, as applicable, shall consider whether the Commission has exercised its powers and followed the guidelines established according to this Title, and whether the Commission's action was patently arbitrary or capricious. 4. In exercising the above-mentioned powers the City Councilor the Board of Adjustment, as applicable, may in conformity with the provisions of this Article or ordinances adopted pursuant thereto, affirm, or upon finding error, reverse or modify, wholly or partly, the order, requirement, decision or determination appealed from and may make such order, requirement, decision or determination as ought to be made, and to that end shall have all the powers of the Historic Preservation Commission. Staff also recommends amending Section 14-8E-3, Certificate of Economic Hardship, as follows: 14-8E-3 Certificate of Economic Hardship A. Initiation of Review After receiving written notification from the Commission of the disapproval of a Certificate of Appropriateness, the owner of record may apply for a Certificate of Economic Hardship. B. Submittal Requirements 1. Applications for a Certificate of Economic Hardship must be filed with the Department of Planning and Community Development on applicJtion forms provided by the City. 2. The aDDlication shall consist of a letter and supporting materials must be submitted JS specified on the Jpplic~tion f'0rm. In the ~pplication, the O'Nner ffH::tSt that provide evidence ~ the approval criteria for a certificate of economic hardship as set forth in Article 14-3B, Historic District and Conservation District Overlay, are met. 3. The owner must in good faith consult with the Historic Preservation Commission, local preservation groups and interested parties in a diligent effort to seek an alternative that will result in preservation of the property. Documentation of such effort must be presented to the Commission. C. Approval Procedures 1. The Historic Preservation Commission will hold a public hearing on the application for the Certificate of Economic Hardship within sixty (60) days following receipt of a complete application and all information requested by the Commission. 2. The public hearing will result either in approval or denial of the application for a Certificate of Economic Hardship. The Commission will issue a written decision setting forth the factual basis for the decision and vote of each member participating therein. The written decision will be issued, signed by the Chairperson or designee and be transmitted along with the application to the Building Official and the City Clerk. If the Commission finds that unreasonable economic hardship exists, a Certificate of Economic Hardship will be issued, specifying the material changes that are authorized thereto. 3. For the purpose of developing alternative solutions to the economic hardship, the Historic Preservation Commission may consult with profeSSional architects, engineers, contractors, realtors, appraisers or other consultants that have expertise in the rehabilitation, repair, maintenance and value of historic properties. If the Commission chooses to use said consultation, the Commission may delay issuing any certificate for a period of 90 days. Staff also recommends amending 14-28-61-1. Front Setbacks, as follows: 14- 28-61 -1. Front Setbacks The front setback for new buildings must not deviate more than 5 feet from the average setback of existing principal buildings along the same frontage. Alternatively. for frontages that contain more than six lots. the averaqe may be calculated based on the principal building setbacks on the four closest lots along the same frontaqe to the lot containinq the new building. However. in no instance shall a new building mJY not be located closer to the street than the existing principal building that is closest to the street along the same frontage. This setback standard supersedes the setback standards of the base zone. Summary of changes to the Historic Preservation Handbook The complete handbook may be found online at www.icQov.orQ/historicpreservation Section 1.0: Historic Preservation and Conservation in Iowa City This section gives the basic background of Historic Preservation in Iowa City and remains largely unchanged. It was expanded to more clearly outline the role of the H PC Section 2.0: Historic Review Section 2.0 discusses the process of historic review by the HPC for properties located in a Historic or Conservation District and Local Landmarks. Based on the HP Plan, the HPC and staff reworked the levels of review in order to expedite the process for most projects that require Historic Review. The levels of review include Certificates of No Material Effect, Minor Review, Intermediate Review, and Major Review Certificates of No Material Effect (CNME) This level of review remains unchanged and applies to projects that do not alter the appearance of significant architectural features. Projects consisting of repair or replacement with like materials are issued CNMEs. CNMEs are reviewed by the Preservation Planner and the HPC Chair. Minor Review A minor review previously applied only to projects that met the guidelines and were on non-contributing and non-historic properties in Conservation Districts. These were reviewed by the Preservation Planner and were restricted to certain types of projects, such as rear decks, new garages or outbuildings, demolition of non-historic outbuildings or features, and minor alterations. The new Handbook allows the use of the minor review process for the most routine project types that have in the past garnered Commission approval. The HPC will vote and approve of designs and materials for items that can be applied in most situations, such as handrail designs, certain types of window replacements, and deck construction. After the HPC has pre-approved an item, the Preservation Planner can then approved similar projects through Minor Review. At any time, the Preservation Planner or the applicant can forward a project to Intermediate or Major Review. Intermediate Review Previously an Intermediate Review was limited to contributing properties in Conservation Districts. These were reviewed by the Preservation Planner and HPC Chair and were restricted to certain types of projects, such as rear decks, new garages or outbuildings, demolition of non-historic outbuildings or features, and minor alterations. The new Handbook allows for intermediate review for all projects, except those involving landmark properties and contributing properties in historic districts, that do not qualify for a Minor Review or CNME. The Intermediate review is conducted by the Preservation Planner and the HPC Chair and must comply with the Guidelines and require no exceptions to the Guidelines At any time, the Preservation Planner, HPC Chair, or the applicant can forward a project to Major Review. Major Review Major review encompasses everything else. Under the previous handbook, most projects that did not qualify for a CNME were reviewed by the entire HPC as a major review. This meant that some minor projects in scope that met all the guidelines were being delayed until the next HPC meeting. By expanding the types of projects that can go through either minor or intermediate review, the HPC hopes to streamline the Historic Review process and provide for expedited review of most projects. Certificate of Economic Hardship The addition of this section brings the wording from the zoning code into the Handbook, as many property owners of historic properties only consult the Handbook for Historic Preservation related issues. Section 3.0: About the Guidelines for Historic Preservation This section outlines the basis for the Guidelines stated in sections 4.0-9.0. The portion regarding exceptions to the guidelines was expanded to give flexibility to the HPC and property owners to consider alternate ideas and projects that were not anticipated when the guidelines are written or when unusual situations are present. Under the previous Handbook, the HPC had very little leeway to consider anything that was in conflict with the guidelines. Section 4.0: Guidelines for Alteration This section contains the guidelines used for review of alterations to the exterior of properties within Historic or Conservation Districts or designated as a Local Landmark. Each subsection was edited to make the guidelines easier to read, add in discussions and materials that the HPC has considered since the previous adoption of the Handbook, and add illustrations to clarify the guidelines. Cross- references were added, with the knowledge that many people only look at the pages pertaining to their project. There are some sections and recommendations that are not regulated by the HPC, such as the paint and energy efficiency sections, but were included as a resource to historic property owners for reference of best practices. Section 5.0: Guidelines for Additions This section contains the guidelines used for review of additions to the exterior of properties within Historic or Conservation Districts or designated as a Local Landmark. Each subsection was edited to make the guidelines easier to read, add in discussions that the HPC has considered since the previous adoption of the Handbook, and add illustrations to clarify the guidelines. Cross-references were added, with the knowledge that many people only look at the pages pertaining to their project. Section 6.0: Guidelines for New Construction This section contains the guidelines used for review of new construction on properties within Historic or Conservation Districts or designated as a Local Landmark. Each subsection was edited to make the guidelines easier to read, add in discussions and materials that the HPC has considered since the previous adoption of the Handbook, and add illustrations to clarify the guidelines. Section 7.0: Guidelines for Demolition This section contains the guidelines used for review of demolition of structures or architectural features on properties within Historic or Conservation Districts or designated as a Local Landmark. The guidelines were edited to make them easier to read. Prevention of Demolition by Neglect The addition of this section brings the wording from the zoning code into the Handbook, as many property owners of historic properties only consult the Handbook for Historic Preservation related issues. Section 8.0: Neighborhood District Guidelines This section remains essentially unchanged, but does incorporate cross referencing of other applicable sections Section 9.0: Design Guidelines for Multi-Family Buildings (formerly Section 10) This section was completely rewritten to change the design standards for Historic and Conservation Districts to be the same as the Central Planning District design standards of the Zoning Code. The Multi-Family design guidelines currently in the handbook reflect the design guidelines of the earlier version of the Zoning Code. When the Zoning Code was rewritten, the handbook was never updated. These changes were made to bring the multi-family design guidelines into agreement with the current version of the zoning code. Section 10.0: The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation (formerly Section 9) This section remains unchanged. The guidelines in Sections 4.0-7.0 are based on The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. If there are issues that are not addressed in these guidelines, then the HPC will use The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for Rehabilitation. These are nationally recognized guidelines used for historic preservation across the country. Section 11.0: Title 14: Iowa City Zoning Code (new section) The addition of this section brings the elements from the zoning code regarding Historic Preservation into the Handbook, as many property owners of historic properties only consult the Handbook for Historic Preservation related issues. Section 12.0: Residential Architectural Styles of Iowa City (formerly section 11) This section remains unchanged and describes the common architectural styles of Iowa City. Section 13.0: Landmark Properties and Districts (formerly Section 12) This section lists the Landmark properties and the Districts. It gives dates of adoption, addresses, and some basic information. Section 14.0: Historic and Conservation Districts Description and History (new section) This section was added to the Handbook as a resource to people wanting to know more about the districts and what makes each district unique and worthy of preserving. Section 15.0: Historic and Conservation Districts (formerly section 13) Section 15 is a map of the Historic and Conservation Districts in Iowa City. It remains largely unchanged, except for the addition of the Northside Historic District. Section 16.0: Longfellow Neighborhood Districts (formerly section 14) Section 16 includes maps of the Longfellow Neighborhood Districts (Governor- Lucas Street Conservation District, Summit Street Historic District, Clark Street Conservation District, Longfellow Historic District, and Dearborn Street Conservation District). The maps remain largely unchanged, except to account for the demolition of 415 S Governor St and the reclassification of 1121 Seymour Ave and 747 Grant St to contributing from non-contributing because of alterations that have happened to the homes. Section 17.0: College Hill Neighborhood Districts (formerly section 15) Section 17 includes maps of the College Hill Neighborhood Districts (College Green Historic District, East College Street Historic District, and College Hill Conservation District). The maps remain largely unchanged, except to account for the reclassification from contributing to non-historic of 828 Washington St because of the post-tornado construction and the reclassification of 714 College St from non-contributing to contributing because of the significant restoration that has happened to the home. Section 18.0: Woodlawn Neighborhood District (formerly section 16) Section 18 includes a map of the Woodlawn Historic District. The maps remain unchanged. Section 19.0: Northside Neighborhood Districts (formerly section 17) Section 19 includes maps of the Northside Neighborhood Districts (Northside Historic District and Brown Street Historic District). The Brown Street Historic District map remains unchanged. The Northside Historic District map is an addition to the Handbook following the adoption of the district in June 2009 Section A.O: Appendices This section remains largely unchanged and includes definitions and architectural terms, as well as a list of Historic Preservation Documents and research that has been done. MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 14,2010 - 6:00 PM -INFORMAL LOBBY CONFERENCE ROOM, CITY HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Charlie Eastham, Wally Plahutnik, Michelle Payne, MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Busard, Tim Weitzel STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Julie Tallman OTHERS PRESENT: None CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order at 6:00 p.m. by Chairperson Ann Freerks. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CODE AMENDMENT ITEMS: Discussion of an amendment to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain. Tallman explained that the maps used by the City delineate the 100-year and 500-year floodplains. Freerks asked if the terms 100-year and 500-year floodplain are terms used nationally, or if the percentages are used instead. Tallman said the overall floodplain is the flood hazard area, whether it is a 100-year or 500-year level. She said the difference in height between those two elevations can be significant, as much as three or four feet. She said that the impact, of course, varies greatly because of terrain. Tallman said these maps are generally accurate. Payne asked how accurate they would be once Coralville built their floodwall. She noted that water will have to go somewhere, and asked if any studies had been done to see where that water would go. Miklo said that the University is studying that and the City's engineers are following that closely. Payne said that it is basic common sense that the water will have to go somewhere else. Payne said that even the Park Road Bridge will affect the water level because it will change the rate of flow. Miklo said that his understanding is that elevating the Park Road Bridge will actually reduce upstream flooding. Payne said that may be correct but then flooding will be increased downstream because it will be getting there faster. Tallman noted that there will still be a fairly constant volume of water. Miklo said it would probably be better to have the City Engineer address those questions. Payne said her only concern was that the maps may not be accurate once the flood mitigation changes are made. Greenwood Hektoen noted that as the maps are amended then it is likely the ordinance would also be amended to reference the most recent version of the flood map. Eastham asked what maps staff used to originate the ordinance. Freerks suggested that could be discussed after Tallman's presentation or at the Thursday night meeting. Tallman noted that it was not just the Iowa River that was a source of flooding and would be affected by Coralville's planned flood wall, but there are also five or six local streams that could have significant height differences as a result. Planning and Zoning Commission June 14, 2010 - Informal Page 2 of 6 Tallman said that generally the ordinance takes away the distinction between the 1 % annual chance and the .2% annual chance of a flood event, and recognizes them both as flood hazard areas with properties that need to be protected. Tallman said that commercial buildings have many more options available in terms of flood proofing. Tallman said that with residential buildings the requirement is to have the floor elevated. Tallman said that there are two measurements currently used to determine if grandfathered features can remain in place: 1) improvements or value of repair are 50% or less of the pre- damage assessment; and 2) if the original floor area is increased by no more than 24%. Tallman said that this ordinance does specifically address the risk to emergency responders that results from having to rescue and evacuate residents of floodplains. She said that "critical facilities" were also addressed in this ordinance, uses such as jails, nursing homes, group home facilities or hospitals that should not be evacuated. Tallman said critical facilities will not be allowed to be located in a floodplain. Payne asked if this included emergency shelters as a lot of schools serve as emergency shelters. Tallman said it would not be a wise idea to have an emergency shelter in a floodplain. Eastham asked if a municipality can regulate the location of a school. Tallman said she believed it was already done to an extent when subdivisions are created. Eastham asked if there would be public facilities that are not subject to this ordinance. Freerks asked Tallman how staff settled on 25% of the floor area as a standard for grandfathering in. Tallman said that as far as she knows it has been in Iowa City's floodplain regulations since 1977. She said that staff did spend some time considering whether that percentage should be increased. She said the larger question is how much investment does the City want a homeowner to put into a property that is more vulnerable to damage and loss. Tallman said that in her experience she cannot think of any that were denied. Payne asked if it was the case that the entire home must be brought up to current code if the structure was increased by more than 25%. Tallman said it depends on the design of the addition. Payne said the wording is not clear then, because the wording makes it sound as though it is cut and dry. Eastham asked if staff had considered different regulations for different floodplains, Le., floodplains from local creeks and tributaries and floodplains for the Iowa River. Tallman said it was considered, but that the consensus was that it would make the floodplain regulations unnecessarily complex. Greenwood Hektoen said that water damage is water damage regardless of whether it comes from a creek or a river. Miklo noted that local creeks are more susceptible to flash floods that occur with no warning. Tallman said the bulk of the changes take place in the definition and language changes. Tallman said that the language for a variance was changed to allow for an exemption from one of the general standards. She said that references were changed from 1 % and .2% flood level to "flood hazard area," which encompasses both areas. A definition of "shallow flooding" was added at IDNR's request. Tallman said that language was added to allow property owners to provide the City with a market appraisal rather than a county assessment; something the City had been doing anyway. Tallman said that Parkview Terrace was a good example of an area that was assessed at a lower rate than the market value had been prior to the floods. Eastham said he would like to see consistency in terminology throughout the ordinance for the elevation of a 1 DO-year flood event. Tallman said that because federal insurance requirements remain tied to the 1 DO-year flood event, all references to that term cannot be done away with. Payne said she too had found many such references in the ordinance. Miklo suggested they point out specific references to Tallman at the end of the meeting. Planning and Zoning Commission June 14, 2010 - Informal Page 3 of 6 Koppes noted that certain City wells are located in the floodplain and asked how this ordinance pertained to them. Tallman said that Public Works can access them by boat even in a flood event, so they are not a concern. Eastham asked if Tallman could explain where in the floodplain this ordinance would allow development. Tallman explained that the new regulations would not prohibit development anywhere; rather it would put design standards in place for properties built in floodplains. Miklo explained that the property owner would have to elevate. Eastham asked if ldyllwild would have been allowed to be developed if these standards had been in place at the time. Miklo said that ldyllwild would have been allowed to develop; however, it would have been built to a higher elevation. Miklo said that a lot of undeveloped land in the Iowa River is publicly owned, either by the University or the City. Greenwood Hektoen said that because of this, the impact of flooding on residential homes was somewhat decreased, as opposed to the experience of Cedar Rapids which has a lot of housing along the river. Miklo said that there may be areas that are brought into Iowa City in the future through annexation that these regulations would apply to. Miklo said that the expense of raising a development like ldyllwild up to the elevation required by this ordinance may have discouraged the development of the property or at least left more green space and resulted in more clustering. Payne noted that Parkview Church, which is in the 1 OO-year floodplain, had asked for a variance when she was on the Board of Adjustment. She said these regulations would require them to build to the 500-year flood level, which could require them to build 5-feet higher than originally planned. Miklo said they would also have the option of finding a different location, which is part of what the requirements are intended to encourage. Tallman noted that because Parkview Church is not a residential structure, they would also have the option of flood-proofing their building. Payne asked if people can get around the 25% requirement by adding on a little at a time. Tallman said she supposed it would be possible to do that. Tallman said that the records go back to 1977 to determine original floor space. Payne asked how many acres of privately held land would end up in the .2% area, as opposed to what had been in the 1 %. Tallman said she did not know. She said staff had tried to quantify that but had a problem doing so because the maps vary in their accuracy. Eastham said that his understanding is that determining the flood elevation for a given area is not difficult, rather it is determining the land elevation of a given property owner that can be problematic. Tallman said that was correct. Miklo noted that it can be reviewed on a case by case basis through surveying if there is any question about a specific property. Freerks said she felt that it was important to make property owners that could be affected by these changes aware of the ordinance under consideration. Miklo said that efforts had been made to get the word out through the press and through neighborhood associations. Freerks said she thought it would be good to answer questions now rather than have angry homeowners denied permits down the road. Eastham said he would like to discuss the flood hazard elevations found in the definitions. Eastham said that it is his understanding that FEMA has not been diligent in updating their flood maps. He asked if it was possible to include flood maps developed by the University, which have been demonstrated to be much more accurate, rather than relying solely on the FEMA maps. Tallman said that one of the difficult things about this is that you have an insurance industry that will use only maps, not profiles, and a lending industry that fears being fined if they do not go through private floodplain delineators. Tallman said that the City can use the flood profiles, which are more accurate, but other entities will still be using the FEMA maps. Planning and Zoning Commission June 14, 2010 -Informal Page 4 of 6 Eastham said he had a question about condominium ownership and how that would work in relation to this ordinance. Tallman explained that it is likely that condominiums could be affected by this ordinance if one unit is destroyed by fire, for example. However, she also noted that that could also be a prime instance where a variance could be in order. Miklo noted that the idea behind the ordinance is to discourage reconstruction at the same elevation if a structure is in a floodplain. Eastham said that condominiums are problematic for him in relation to this ordinance. Tallman said that the threshold of value versus expense would come into play. Tallman said that ldyllwild is an interesting example because the way the buildings were constructed two of the four units in the building would have been compliant with this ordinance and two would not have been. Eastham asked if these provisions would apply to vacant lots in a partially built out development. Tallman said they would. Payne asked why there was a change in date in the section referencing manufactured homes. Tallman said that for consistency's sake all start-dates were changed to May 2, 1977. Payne asked why a special exception was taken away from the Board of Adjustment and given to the Building Official. Tallman said that she did not know why the task had been given to the Board of Adjustment because it is an issue that requires structural engineering expertise. She said that structural engineering is not at all outside of the Building Official's purview, but might be beyond the scope of the Board. Greenwood Hektoen said that that particular exception was rather cut and dry and did not leave much room for discretion. Payne suggested that the wording for the .2% flood elevation and the term flood hazard area should be consistent throughout unless there was a specific purpose for the deviation. Tallman said it might have had something to do with the fact that that section had language about subdivisions. Tallman said that it may have been that it would have been too difficult to design all vehicular access to the .2% level. Eastham asked whether the streets should be at the 1 % flood elevation or the .2% elevation. Payne noted that the roads almost have to be built up above the .2% flood level in order to offer adequate police and fire protection. Tallman said she did not disagree, but that it does become a practical problem. She said that discussions with Public Works did not support requirements for all streets in a subdivision to be above the .2% flood level. She said that instead they wished to focus on facilities where it may be more difficult to rescue people such as nursing homes, jails, and hospitals. Miklo said that roadways can withstand flood damage more so than a dwelling or a commercial operation. He said that if a roadway loses access it is a temporary situation with damage that is more easily repaired. Payne said she was thinking of the Peninsula, which had to be evacuated because it could not be accessed. Miklo said that will definitely be the kind of thing that is taken into consideration in the future during the subdivision design and approval process. Eastham said he believed all of the streets in ldyllwild were below the 1 DO-year plus one-foot elevation. Miklo said he believed that the street elevation requirement was something that came about after 1993. Tallman said that after the first six or eight buildings in the Idyllwild development were built a new flood map came out and the 1 DO-year flood elevation went up an entire foot along the Iowa River. Eastham said that was a good introduction to his next point. He said that after he read the ordinance and had given it some consideration he asked himself what the actual benefit was to allowing residential development in an identifiable flood hazard area. He said the City was heavily criticized by the public for ever having allowed residential development in Parkview Terrace and Idyllwild. He said that some of that criticism is justified in that there has been a lot of public money spent on flood preparation, flood recovery, and flood mitigation for those properties. He said that not even counting the repairs to public infrastructure, millions of public dollars have been spent on those developments. Eastham said that flood elevations are a Planning and Zoning Commission June 14, 2010 -Informal Page 5 of 6 guessing game and he does not see the long-term benefit to the community of continuing that game for residential development. He said commercial development has its own set of risks and benefits. Eastham said the benefits of residential development in those areas simply do not outweigh the risks. Payne asked if Eastham's view was that residential development should be prohibited in the floodplain altogether. Eastham said he was considering putting forth the suggestion that the Commission ask staff to put together an ordinance preventing residential development beneath the 500-year plus one-foot elevation along the Iowa River. Eastham noted that preventing new development does not necessarily affect current residents. Weitzel asked if Eastham would have the same thoughts if the development had been built high enough to begin with. Eastham said that his exact point is that there is no way of knowing what is high enough; it is a guessing game. Plahutnik asked what specifically Eastham was asking staff to look at. Miklo said his understanding is that Eastham is asking for an ordinance prohibiting residential development in the flood hazard area. Miklo said that staff could certainly come up with a list of pros and cons for doing so. Plahutnik said that future flooding is not a question of if but when. Greenwood Hektoen said that if there is a majority of the Commission that wants staff to examine that possibility it can be discussed on Thursday. She said that short of a majority giving staff that direction, then the current proposal should be considered. Miklo suggested having a public hearing on Thursday night and discussing it then, as the ordinance will obviously not be voted on that night. Eastham asked if municipalities could require homeowners to purchase flood insurance. Tallman said that state banking laws make it illegal to do so. She said that there has been some discussion at the state level of changing the law to make that possible. Payne said that the new ordinance may make it so that some homeowners do not have to purchase flood insurance because they are out of the 1 DO-year flood elevation but do have to build to the 500-year flood level. Miklo said that while it may not make complete sense to the person building the home, future owners will likely be happy that they were required to build to that level. Tallman said that education is certainly something that will help clarify confusion. Miklo said that something that should not be lost sight of is the future annexation and zoning of land in a floodplain. He said careful consideration should go into zoning, perhaps down-zoning and requiring low densities for any housing. Payne pointed out that water features often add value to a home. Tallman said she feels there is a difference between a single family homeowner who wants a view of the river and has the historical knowledge of what can happen there, and the person who comes into a low-lying area and brings in a lot of fill and eventually forgets that the river is even there. Payne noted that Idyllwild did not flood in 1993. OTHER: None. ADJOURNMENT: The meeting was adjourned at 7:25 p.m. z Q U) U) :Ec :E~ 00 00 C)w z~ -wo ZO~ OZo N<(N CC ZZ <(w C)1- ~~ Z z :3 a. C) z i= W W :E ...J <2: :E D:: o LI- 0 w w ~ - >< >< >< - >< X 0 0 (g >< >< >< >< >< >< x it; II') w ~ >< >< >< - >< >< >< ~ 0 ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< w ~ - 0 CIO W ~ - >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 M :! >< >< >< >< >< >< >< N ~ ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< x ~ en :EW ..- ..- ('f) C\l 0 0 ('f) D::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - wo.. L() L() L() L() L() L() L() ...>< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ::r:: >- ... <2: :J W W ...J :) D:: CD ...J ...J ::r:: <2: z ~ ...J ~ W en ::r:: z ::r:: :E 0 0 <2: :J ~ ':i i= .., W C ~ en en ::E z J ~ W ... W D:: ::r:: D:: W :) ~ W <2: ... W 0.. Z ::r:: ::E en ~ W 0.. ~ <2: W <2: :) D:: 0 ...J Z CD W LI- ~ 0.. 0.. 3: C) z i= W W :E ...J <2: :E D:: o Ll- Z ~ w W "r"'" - >< >< >< >< >< - U5 0 0 I"'- W W "r"'" - >< >< >< >< >< - - 0 0 II') M >< >< >< >< >< >< w it; - 0 N W "r"'" >< >< >< >< - >< >< ~ 0 en w w ~ >< >< >< >< - >< - M 0 0 "r"'" >< >< >< >< >< >< w - - N 0 en ::EW ..- ..- ('f) C\l 0 0 ('f) D::~ ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - wo.. L() L() L() L() L() L() L() ...>< 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ::r:: >- - ... W ...J <2: ...J W :) D:: CD ...J ..J ::r:: <2: z ~ ...J <2: W 3: en ::r:: z ::r:: :E 0 0 <2: :J ~ ':i i= .., w c :f en en :E z J ~ W ... W D:: ::r:: D:: w :) ~ W <2: ... W 0.. Z ::r:: :E en en w 0.. ~ <2: W <2: :) <2: D:: 0 ...J Z CD W LI- ~ 0.. 0.. 3: E ::l .... o ::l "'CO Q) 0 ~ Z .... () -- Q) >< g>.o W:;:;E :;::'Q)Q) C:Q)""" c......Q)E..:: Q) c: (/) Cll (/)~9o...... Q).o.....Z 0 d: <x: II II Z II II w~ II XOOZI ;;..: W :::.:::: MINUTES PLANNING AND ZONING COMMISSION JUNE 17, 2010 -7:00 PM - FORMAL CITY HALL, EMMA J. HARVAT HALL PRELIMINARY MEMBERS PRESENT: Charlie Eastham, Ann Freerks, Elizabeth Koppes, Michelle Payne, Wally Plahutnik, Tim Weitzel MEMBERS ABSENT: Josh Busard STAFF PRESENT: Bob Miklo, Sara Greenwood Hektoen, Julie Tallman OTHERS PRESENT: None RECOMMENDATIONS TO CITY COUNCIL: None. CALL TO ORDER: The meeting was called to order by Chairperson Ann Freerks at 7:00 p.m. PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF ANY ITEM NOT ON THE AGENDA: None. CODE AMENDMENT ITEM: Discussion of amendments to Title 14: Zoning Code, Article J. Floodplain Management Standards to regulate the 100 and 500 year floodplain. Miklo noted that there were several questions that had come up at the informal meeting, and that staff would try to answer most of them; he said that some would need to be followed-up on in the next discussion session. Miklo said that staff does not anticipate that the Commission will vote on this matter at this evening's meeting. He said the purpose of this meeting is to take public comments and get some reaction to the proposed amendment. Tallman stated that many comments and suggestions made by Commissioners at the informal meeting have been incorporated into the ordinance. In particular, language with varied references to different types of floods and flood levels has been adjusted. She said she had spoken with the Airport Manager about his concerns regarding the shallow nature of Willow Creek's flood patterns. Staff noted that there is no definition for "addition" in the guidance provided by the Iowa Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). She said that one of the most important things that staff uncovered after the work session was that she had been operating under the fundamental assumption that lateral additions to residential structures need not require elevation of the entire structure. The current practice in applying floodplain regulations to substantial improvements (and lateral additions specifically) has been to require that a lateral addition must be elevated to one foot above the flood hazard elevation. The existing structure has been exempt from the elevation standard as long as the common wall is retained and there are not significant improvements made to the existing structure. She said that this needs to be Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 2 of 12 taken back for staff discussion, because several staff members feel that perhaps even a lateral addition should require the structure to be elevated or flood-proofed to the level required by the new ordinance. She said that staff needed to sort that out. She said she was going through the last ten years of floodplain permits to get an idea of what kinds of improvements were being made and when they were taking place. She said she had come across some that were fairly small, like the addition of a screened in porch, but had been considered substantial improvements. She said she wanted to look more closely at those to get an idea of what some of the impacts might be if a more strict interpretation was applied. Tallman said she had spoken with Tom Bockenstedt who had concerns about Idyllwild and the peculiarities of a condominium regime, and the potential impact of new regulations in terms of building styles and appearances on a development that is already 75% built out. Tallman said that the condominium issue itself presents challenges to staff in terms of how to approach it with floodplain regulations. Tallman asked if any Commissioners had come up with new questions in the time they had had to think about the issue. Koppes said that she had a question that occurred to her as a result of the recent flash flooding that had occurred in Iowa City. She asked if the areas that had been flash flooded were all indicated as flood zones on the most recent flood maps. Tallman said that she doubted that they were, and that in fact she knew that Sandusky, Boyrum, and Olde Town Village all experienced flash flooding and were not highlighted on the floodplain maps. She said that foundations had collapsed all over town, one on Spring Street, one on Davenport Street, due to the sheer volume of water from the event. She said problems arose all over town that had nothing to do with whether or not the structure was in a floodplain. Koppes said that it seemed that none of the new regulations addressed these flash flooding issues, and that it seemed as though it was appropriate that they should not. Tallman agreed that the regulations should not address that type of flash flooding event. She said that these ordinances are related to floodplains for mapped bodies of water. Freerks noted that it would be helpful to include illustrations in the document. Tallman agreed. Freerks asked if the floodplain standards had taken into account standards of reimbursement and damage levels that insurance companies use. She proposed a scenario in which a small home located in a floodplain was damaged by fire at a 51 % level. She said according to the regulations the structure would need to be elevated in order to be rebuilt, but that might not be in line with what the insurance company would be willing to pay for. Freerks said these are important issues to take into consideration. Tallman said it was important to note that if these changes were adopted into code, there would be a difference between the City of Iowa City's administration of floodplain regulations and the insurance necessary. The insurance requirement is still fixed to the 100-year floodplain, Tallman said; that would not change. Tallman said that if people do not comply fully with the City's standards, then they do wind up paying higher insurance premiums. She said that this also can happen simply as a result of change in ownership. Freerks said she simply wanted staff and the Commission to consider this issue as discussions continued. Tallman said she would consult a local insurance agent she knew of who was very well-versed in flood issues. Eastham said his understanding of Freerks' question was whether a homeowner's insurance would cover the additional cost of elevating a structure as required by the City's floodplain regulations if the home was damaged in a non- flood event such as fire or tornado. Tallman said that was a very good question. Freerks said she did not want to enact regulations that left someone in a situation where they could not live in their home, could not pay to get the necessary elevation done, and could not get their insurance to cover those costs because they were in the 500-year floodplain. Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 3 of 12 Plahutnik acknowledged that some changes needed to made to the City's floodplain ordinance. Plahutnik said that at some point in the process, the Commissioners had been asked what the goals were that they had in mind for the changes to the floodplain ordinance. He said that for him, the primary goal was to inhibit or dis-incentivize building in a floodplain. He said that it is a simple issue: it is a floodplain, therefore, you should not build there. He said that the worst-case scenario to this view is that the city winds up with a lot of green space in the middle of the city along its prettiest feature, which seems like a positive to him. Plahutnik said that if the City is trying to dis-incentivize building in a floodplain, or even attempting to reduce the amount of current housing in a floodplain (as was done with the buy-out program), then pretty Draconian measures are called for. Plahutnik said that it might help direct discussion if staff could simply tell the Commission what their goals were when they began drafting the ordinance changes. Tallman said that this discussion occurred briefly after the 1993 flood event, but did not last very long. After the 2008 floods, when the State was considering much different floodplain regulations, staff began discussing this issue again. She said that staff was updated regularly on the language that was being proposed at the state level, and many of those ideas and recommendations are incorporated into the document before the Commission. Tallman said that at the state level they were told over and over again by a gentleman on the Water Resources Bureau of the IDNR that he had been entrusted with this effort because the State cannot afford to bail communities out anymore. She said that this is a pretty pragmatic and compelling reason for change. Tallman said that the idea of living in a community that could not help people the way Iowa City had been able to help people who lived on Normandy Drive is a pretty terrifying one. She said that there are countless real life stories from the floods of retired individuals of modest means who had only their homes as assets, and now cannot live in them or repair them. She said that predictive models can, to an extent, help communities try to avoid those situations in the future. Payne asked if Tallman would agree with Plahutnik that the idea behind the proposed amendment should be to discourage or de-incentivize building in a floodplain. Tallman said she believed the language addressed eliminating and reducing unnecessary risks. Freerks referred to 14-5-J-1, saying that it contained language outlining the purpose of the ordinance. Miklo said that as the ordinance is written the main goal is to ensure that buildings built in floodplains are elevated or flood-proofed. Miklo said the cost of elevating buildings may discourage development, but the ordinance itself does not prohibit building in the floodplain, except in the instance of critical facilities, Greenwood Hektoen said that one way of thinking of the ordinance was as encouraging more responsible development in the floodplain. Tallman said that Idyllwild is a really good example of a development where someone was readily aware that the property was in a floodplain and all the risks that were associated with that, but chose nonetheless to develop the property and actively worked to have the floodplain designation removed. Tallman said the perception of risk decreases over time. She said that property owners who knowingly accept and prepare for the risks of living in a floodplain, such as those who built their homes eight feet above the ground, should not be deprived of their right to live along the river. It is those homebuyers and residents who are not aware of the risks who should be protected. Miklo said the improvement that occurs with this ordinance is that building elevation would have to be to the 500-year flood level, rather than the 100-year level, which would have made the Idyllwild situation much better in the 2008 floods. Payne said that it appears to her that all of the homes that were bought-out on Normandy Drive were in the 100-year flood level. However, that entire area is in the 500-year flood level. She asked if enacting this ordinance meant that the City would wind up buying the rest of the homes in that area if another flood like the 2008 flood occurred. Miklo said he believed the City is Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 4 of 12 currently buying out some houses in the 500-year floodplain on Normandy. Miklo noted that the City is not required to buy homeowners out, and this ordinance would not change that. Payne said she had not thought the City was required to buy-out flooded homeowners; however, the City is buying them out nonetheless. Greenwood Hektoen said that any buy-out is contingent on what funding source and its requirements. Payne asked if it was typical for those kinds of grants to include the 500-year floodplain. Tallman said the CDBG grants included the 500-year floodplain. Miklo said that he did not believe that FEMA grants included the 500-year floodplain; he said it was the state that brought in extra funding for the 500-year level. Tallman said FEMA will only buy structures in the 1 OO-year floodplain. She said that had became another interesting tale after the flood. She said that there were many homes that had been certified as being elevated out of the floodplain that had been found by the Public Works Department after the floods to be eligible for the buyout because of an area of compression around their foundations. Tallman said the system is a kind of artificial one; when an inch of land can make all the difference on whether or not a flooded homeowner can be bought out or not, that is a great difference made in a life by a very small difference in measurement. However, she said, that is the best system available at this time. Payne said that it seems to her that people want to do exactly the minimum of what they need to do in order to be certified as not being in a floodplain; they want to get out of the expense of paying for flood insurance so they look for ways to get out of being certified as being in a floodplain. Payne said that the little bit of money such homeowners would have paid in flood insurance would have meant a whole lot in 2008. Eastham said that as he understands the National Flood Insurance Program, a homeowner is only required to purchase flood insurance if they have a mortgage loan with a federally insured lender. Eastham said that homeowners who are not required to purchase flood insurance by federal regulation still have the option to purchase it at their discretion. Miklo said that he did not see how regulating the 500-year floodplain would necessarily result in the City buying out more homes in a similar flood event. Weitzel said that in some ways the opposite could be true: if the focus is on flood prevention measures, there may be fewer homes to buyout. Payne said her concern had been about homes in existence prior to the ordinance taking effect. Weitzel said that the ordinance said nothing about the City buying out flooded property owners. Payne said she understood that, but that it was more of a perception issue. Koppes said that there are so many rules regarding varying buy-outs that it is impossible to debate them in advance. Koppes said her brother had lost his home to the 2008 flood in Cedar Rapids. She said that Cedar Rapids had actually already torn his home down, and he still had no buy-out agreement, so the issue is very complex. Plahutnik said he agreed with the sentiment expressed by Tallman when she said that those homeowners who were aware of the risks, had sought to remedy them, and were willing to take them on, should not be prohibited from living in a floodplain. Miklo noted that there is still an issue of public expense in those cases. He said that because there could be public efforts in trying to sandbag or otherwise protect those properties, as well as clean-up expenses after the flood event, the risk and the effect is not taken solely by the homeowners; the larger community is affected. Eastham said he is inclined to argue that new residential structures should not be established in 100 and 500-year floodplains. He said that while he understands an individual's desire to live wherever that individual wants, there is a lot of public money that has gone into repairing private homes since the floods of 2008. Eastham said the City does a lot of regulation that prevents Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 6 of 12 building permit unless the structure was in the floodway. Greenwood Hektoen said that the map referred to in the ordinance is the Johnson County, Iowa Incorporated Areas Flood Insurance Rate Map. She said that is the map that is referred to when applying and interpreting this code section. Tallman said that this map is not new. Freerks asked why the date referred to in the ordinance was changed from June 5, 1985, to May 2, 1977. Tallman said that Iowa City's first floodplain management map and study was done in May 1977. She said that was the date chosen as the baseline date for this ordinance. Freerks noted that there were likely better maps that had been created since that time, and asked why the decision was made to go back to that date. Tallman said that was when flood insurance was first made available to people in Iowa City, and when the City first began participating in the flood insurance program. Miklo clarified that the 1977 map is not the map used presently. Eastham asked if there were adequate records to determine what the floor area of each structure that was regulated by this ordinance actually was in 1977. Tallman said she relies to a large degree on the Assessor's records. Payne asked how many other towns and cities were going to the .2% versus the 1 %. Tallman said that she only knew of one in Iowa, and that is Cedar Falls. Payne asked if Cedar Falls had adopted their new code already, and Tallman said that they had. Freerks said it might be interesting to see how Cedar Falls is dealing with damage to structures in a floodplain from tornado/fire. Freerks referenced her earlier question regarding insurance in those cases, saying that she really is concerned about people left in a situation where they are simply trying to reclaim the property they already had, not trying to expand it, just trying to rebuild what they had. She said it seems completely unfair to leave someone in a position where they are required to elevate their home because of tornado/fire damage but cannot because insurance will not pay the additional costs. Miklo said that the City will have no way of knowing the specifics of whether insurance will actually cover the costs to rebuild to current code standards because it will vary from policy to policy. Miklo asked if Freerks was looking for some sort of hardship exemption for properties destroyed by factors other than flooding. Freerks said that would be an idea for discussion. Koppes noted that the same kind of situation, one in which a property owner was left unable to rebuild as a result of insurance and code factors, could arise as a result of a flood. Freerks replied that a flood is an insured peril, whereas the situation she is speaking of is a secondary issue that could prevent a homeowner from rebuilding. Payne noted that it is quite possible to have someone in the 500-year floodplain who is flooded and forced to rebuild to the 500-year standard by city code, but is told by their insurance company that they will only pay to rebuild up to the 100-year flood level. Freerks said that damage caused by a different calamity was somewhat different for her. Plahutnik said that if a person has an existing home, it is possible that the plumbing or the electrical are not up to current code. If there is some sort of calamity in which a homeowner is forced to rebuild, the plumbing and electrical cannot be rebuilt to old standards, they must be brought up to present code standards. He said it is the same with the provisions of this flood ordinance. He said that it is unfortunate that the initial rebuilding expense might be higher as a result, but that in the long run, the person with the updated electrical system will be less likely to awaken with their house on fire at night and the person with the home rebuilt so that it is elevated out of the floodplain is less likely to awaken with water in their living room. Freerks said that might be the case, but that updated electrical and plumbing would be covered by insurance whereas the elevation of a home destroyed by fire or tornado might not be. Plahutnik said that the lower price paid for a home in a floodplain may offset those costs. Freerks said she understood where Plahutnik was going but she felt pretty strongly that she wanted research into this issue before she can be comfortable with it. Eastham said that he agreed with Freerks that this was an important issue to consider. Tallman said that it is an important issue. She said that there is a rider on flood insurance that helps with the costs Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 5 of 12 people from exercising their freedom of choice. He said he did not have any particular problem with regulating this freedom of choice. He said there is a lot of land available to build on in Iowa City. Freerks noted that Commissioners are not necessarily supposed to be making up their minds at this point; rather, this is more of a question and answer period. Eastham said that the question he has for staff is whether it would be possible to construct an ordinance that would not allow new residential construction along the Iowa River Corridor for elevations below the 500- year floodplain. Miklo said that would be something that staff would have to research. They would have to closely examine what the other implications of such an ordinance would be. Miklo said that if there is a majority of the Commission that would like to study that then staff could certainly take some more time to do so. Freerks said it could be discussed further when the public hearing was opened. Koppes asked why commercial construction would be allowed if residential was prohibited. Eastham said that he would be willing to examine that as well. Weitzel said that the accuracy of flood maps has been called into question since the 2008 flood. He asked how confident staff was that the maps being used are the best available maps. Tallman said that in her own experience the maps are good predictors and important tools to use; however, properties at the edges of floodplains are always somewhat questionable. She said that often it comes down to the results of a ground survey, and she agreed with Payne's comments that sometimes all people want to know is how to get out of the mandatory flood insurance requirement. Tallman said that one of the ways to get around the flood insurance requirement is to hire a surveyor to find the lowest grade, shoot it, send it in, and say this is higher than the flood elevation. Weitzel noted that this does provide some sort of alternative to the map. Tallman said that it does, but that it has caused a lot of heartache. Tallman said she thinks the maps are okay, and that they are going to get better. She said that when the maps are not correct, proving that they are not correct is a real headache and takes time, though it can be done. Weitzel asked if it was the property owner who would have to pay for the survey. Tallman said that it generally is the property owner. In instances where a broad swath of land has been inappropriately identified as being in a floodplain, the City will do all that it can to resolve the issue with FEMA. Eastham asked if staff had considered using the Iowa Flood Center's elevations for the 500- year or 1 OO-year flood event. Tallman said they could if they were made available to them. She said that the Iowa Flood Center is using something called L1DAR mapping, which is a joint effort from IDNR and USGS for more accurate mapping across the state. Taking that mapping and providing it to FEMA to get new flood maps is a long process that could take a couple of years. Tallman said that the data can be used locally, but the City cannot change FEMA maps. A flood map issued by FEMA is formally known as the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). Iowa City can submit data and request changes on the FIRM, but changes are subject to FEMA review and approval. More to the point, Iowa City can use a mapping source that provides more detail than the FIRM (flood insurance study profiles, the Shive-Hattery maps at 1: 1 00 scale) but floodplain delineators and lending institutions and insurance agencies will only rely on what is shown on the FIRM. This can lead to confusion on the part of a property owner, but using data other than the FIRM is necessary when precise elevations are required. Eastham asked Tallman how non-FEMA maps could be used locally. She replied that the City could use whatever map was most accurate in the administration of building code to make a determination of whether a structure (not a lot, but a structure) is in the floodplain. Eastham asked if it was the case that the City could decide not to issue a building permit based upon data derived from non-FEMA maps. Miklo said that building permits are not denied based on floodplain information; rather, building permits are issued only if the building is elevated to the required level. Miklo said that he did not believe this ordinance was capable of prohibiting a Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 7 of 12 of elevation, but there are conditions. Tallman asked if all Commissioners would like a copy of Cedar Falls ordinance as it applies to non-conforming structures. Freerks opened public hearing on the matter. No public was present and the public hearing was closed. Freerks invited a motion. Weitzel motioned to defer discussion of an amendment to the code dealing with floodplain management standards until the next meeting. Koppes seconded. Miklo suggested deferring the matter until the July 15th meeting. Weitzel amended the motion to defer until the July 15th meeting. Koppes seconded. Eastham asked how the Commission should handle looking into whether or not there was a majority on the Commission that was interested in looking into prohibition on building in the floodplain. Freerks invited Eastham to describe what it was he was interested in. Eastham said that he would like staff to investigate an ordinance that prohibits development in the .2% flood areas, and eliminates residential housing along the Iowa River. He said he would be supportive of investigating the elimination of commercial development in those areas as well if the other Commissioners were interested in doing so. Miklo noted that in the creek floodplains there is not a lot of undeveloped land that the City does not already own. He noted this was also the case along the Iowa River. Miklo said staff could look at applying it universally to all floodplains as well as seeing if it was possible to break it down to just the Iowa River floodplains. Miklo said that if staff was going to look at it then it should probably be examined from both angles. Koppes said her question is how the City would deal with private land-holders in those areas. She asked if Eastham was thinking the City would compensate those landowners for their inability to develop their property. Eastham said it would be helpful to know to what extent a no- development ordinance would actually affect people before making that decision. He noted that landowners do not necessarily have an unqualified right to realize their idea of the full potential of their investment. Eastham said that in his experience, landowners wishing to develop in a floodplain quickly transfer their risk to subsequent owners who may not fully comprehend the risks associated with the property. Eastham said the end-result of those situations is that there is a substantial expenditure of public funds. Plahutnik asked if people can build on a substantial, protected slope that ends in a ravine. He said that, to him, it was a similar issue. Freerks said she thought it was a little different. Weitzel said that there were health and safety issues in both instances. Plahutnik said that he believed muddy water coming into a home was certainly a health and safety issue. He said he is perhaps even more persuaded by the benefit afforded the wider community from the green space along the riverfront that would aesthetically improve the area as well as allow for the conveyance of flood flows from the area. He said it is perfectly logical. He said it seems crazy to him to take those spaces out of the floodplain by raising them and covering them with impervious surfaces. Koppes noted that the City could do the same thing by putting a park on the property and building a parking lot for it. Plahutnik acknowledged this could be the case but said he hoped that wiser heads wou'ld prevail. Plahutnik said he would like to see what staff was able to come up with for such an ordinance. He said that in Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 9 of 12 because he would merely like to discuss the merits of such an ordinance, which is something different than voting for or against it. Greenwood Hektoen asked if Tallman could get information on how many homes would have been flooded that were one-foot above the 500-year or .2% floodplain. Tallman said she thought they could look at the maps that are now available and gather that information. Greenwood Hektoen said she was wondering if there was a way to determine how properties would have been affected if they had been built to the standards of the ordinance before the Commission. Freerks said that would be good information to have to start the Commission thinking about these things. Koppes said she would also like to know how much private land would be affected by such an ordinance. Miklo said that within the existing city limits, most of the floodplain is already developed. He said there are portions of the floodplain that the City has acquired as parkland through the subdivision process or by purchasing it. Miklo said that it would be future areas of the city, areas in the flood plain that are annexed in, that would be in private hands. Koppes said that when such areas are annexed they could be designated as no-build areas as a part of the annexation agreement. Koppes said that she would hope the City did that when annexing land that could be in the floodplain. Eastham said that his thinking was that a floodplain ordinance that would prohibit residential development for areas within the 500-year elevation would have the same effect. Koppes said there is a difference between annexing in land with building prohibitions and taking developable land and making it un-developable. Eastham said he had a difficult time seeing that distinction. Eastham said he seconded Plahutnik's sentiments. He said he feels allowing further development in floodplains at this point is tantamount to having been on the Commission at the time Idyllwild or Parkview Terrace was approved and allowing that to go forward. Payne said that filling will allow a property owner to "get out of' a floodplain by elevating a property; however, it exacerbates flooding because the water must go someplace else. She said that prohibitions on building in the floodplain would still allow property owners to fill to a level where they are not in the floodplain anymore and so would really accomplish nothing in terms of flood mitigation. Plahutnik said that was a great point, and that he had not considered the affects of that. Plahutnik said his concept was that there would not be a disturbance of the floodplain for building or filling, so he had not considered the scenario Payne put forth. Payne said her understanding is that Idyllwild was filled and filled until it was "no longer" in the floodplain, and that was what allowed it to be built. Eastham said it was Parkview Terrace she was thinking of. Miklo said that Idyllwild is in the 500-year floodplain. Freerks noted that the ordinance as written is requiring building to the 500-year flood level. Miklo said that the ordinance as written does allow exactly the scenario that Payne had described. Freerks noted that whatever happens along the river in other communities also is meaningful to the discussion. Eastham said that as he understands it the Iowa Flood Center's studies will provide useful models regarding exactly that. He said that to him the inaccurate variable to deal with is the inability to know the level of rainfall. Weitzel pointed out that there will always be some unknown factors. Freerks said the discussion had been a good one but that her feeling is that there should be more discussion on this in a future work session. Miklo asked if staff was being directed to do some research to bring back to a future work session. Freerks said that to her thinking the work session would not necessarily be about prohibiting development. but would be a broader conversation that included a study of what other communities do, up-to and including prohibiting development. Koppes asked if that meant the broader conversation would not take place until the ordinance before them was off the table. Freerks said that was her thinking. She noted that Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 8 of 12 terms of residential development in the floodplain the question is always not if it will flood but when it will flood. Freerks asked if there were four or more Commissioners who would like to look into the possibility of prohibiting development in the .2% flood event area along the Iowa River and/or the creek floodplains within the city limits. Plahutnik noted that the vote was simply to look into the matter, not to support the proposal. Weitzel said he would like to look into it further. Freerks noted that meant Eastham, Weitzel and Plahutnik were interested in exploring the issue, and asked if there was anyone else wanting to do so at this time. Koppes said she had some questions. Koppes asked how much time the Commission was asking staff to spend on such an ordinance because it could be very time consuming. Greenwood Hektoen said she certainly had concerns about an all out prohibition and she believed it would take some substantial research. Freerks said she would rather move forward with the amendment process and then at a later time, and in a much more publicized fashion, look into more prohibitive ordinances if the majority of the Commission wished to proceed in that direction. She said that it is a serious enough and large enough issue that it would need a lot more public input then what had been put forth in this meeting. She said that to her it seemed wrong to go forward with it without more public input. Weitzel noted that it was not being voted on in the present meeting. Freerks said she understood that but to even direct staff to devote that level of time and attention to the matter without public input was not the right thing to do. Koppes said she was very concerned about the time commitment it would require from staff. She said she would rather continue with the present process and put the overarching matter of prohibitions on a work calendar. Eastham said that if City Council were to adopt the proposed ordinance then it would be all the more difficult to go back and prohibit development where development has already been allowed. Payne said that it would not be any different than what Eastham is asking for now; development is already allowed in those areas so any prohibition at any time would be a prohibition of something that is currently allowed. Freerks noted that proceeding with the present ordinance would at least allow for some restrictions in the meantime, until such time when a prohibition could be examined. Payne said that the present ordinance could be viewed as a stepping stone if the Commission decided to move in a more restrictive direction. Tallman asked if it would be reasonable to look at prohibitions of subdivisions in the .2%, 500-year flood zone rather than at single-lot residential construction. Freerks said that it seems like a work session in and of itself to figure out what the Commission would be interested in studying in terms of prohibitions. She said Eastham seemed comfortable with blanket prohibitions on development of any kind, but there may be varying degrees of comfort with other Commissioners. Plahutnik said he would not push any harder than this, but that Commissioners must put themselves back in 2008 and 1993 when they were staring at a sea of water and asking themselves how the City could have let this happen. At some point in the future, Plahutnik said, the issue is going to have to be examined if it is not examined now. Payne said that building in the floodplain was not the sole cause of the floods; she said that the runoff created from building everywhere greatly contributed to the flooding. Plahutnik said that might be the case, but those in the floodplain suffer the consequences. Payne said that everyone has choices; no one is required to live in the floodplain; some people choose to live there. Freerks said that there are safer, better ways to build in those areas. Payne said the ordinance before the Commission presently is intended to do just that. Freerks said she does not have a defined opinion one way or the other, but she just does not feel comfortable moving forward with something like this when there are no members of the public in the audience. Weitzel said he is disappointed Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 10 of 12 if there were four or more Commissioners who wished to move forward in a study of a prohibitive ordinance that is what the Commission would do. She said it was probably time to determine if that was the case, however. Plahutnik said that this had been a great discussion, and he expressed appreciation for that. Freerks asked if there were four people who would like to investigate the more prohibitive ordinance. Weitzel, Plahutnik and Eastham indicated they wished to see further study. Freerks noted that just because there were not four members interested at this time, that did not mean the subject could not be brought up again in the future. Greenwood Hektoen noted that information Tallman would be bringing to the Commission regarding the number of properties that would have been affected if the ordinance had been in place, may be useful to Commissioners in this discussion at the next meeting. A vote was taken and the motion to defer carried 6-0 (Busard absent). CONSIDERATION OF MEETING MINUTES: Mav 17, 2010 (informal) and Mav 20, 2010 (formal): Weitzel pointed out that he was present for the May17th meeting. Payne motioned to approve the minutes with that change. Koppes seconded. The minutes were approved 6-0 (Busard absent). OTHER: Update of Riverfront Crossinas Miklo explained that the planning and workshops for this project were funded by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FEMA, and the Rebuild Iowa Office. One of the reasons Iowa City was eligible for this funding was because of the 2008 flooding. The idea was to look at development, floodplains, and smart growth issues and develop an idea of how a better job can be done developing in sensitive areas along the river. Miklo shared photographs illustrating how severe the damage was to private and public facilities in that area. Miklo said that as a part of the planning process environmental, market, transportation and urban design issues were focused on for that area of town. Miklo said that plans to remove the wastewater treatment plant in that area may serve as a catalyst for redevelopment of that area. Miklo explained that development visions for key intersections in the Riverfront Crossings area were designed during this process. Miklo shared sample concept illustrations and schematic drawings. The plans called for an urban park in the area where the wastewater treatment plant currently is located. Flooding in that area would then have minimal impact. Miklo said that in addition to the design illustrations, there are three written reports that go into detail about other aspects of the planning process. Miklo said that staff could share those reports with Commissioners if they so desired. Miklo said that the EPA has provided some funding to provide a second round of planning, with more detail for the area around the wastewater treatment plant. The EPA will hire a nationally Planning and Zoning Commission June 17, 2010 - Formal Page 11 of 12 known consulting firm to come in and flesh the plans out and take it to the next level. Miklo said the hope is that the resulting plans would provide some guidance both for public and private development in the area. Miklo said that staff would keep the Commissioners posted as the process unfolded. Freerks asked if there was any update for the northern portion of Riverfront Crossings, such as the Hieronymus Square area. Freerks asked if Hieronymus Square would need to come back before the Commission if substantial changes were made to their building plans. Miklo said he believed they would. Freerks said that according to the newspaper the University of Iowa was going to purchase part of the development. Eastham said that presented an interesting question, since the University was not subject to city zoning regulations and the Hieronymus Square project was. Miklo said the Old Capitol Mall is an example of that kind of arrangement. The second floor is owned by the University and the first floor is largely privately held; its zoning is Public/Commercial. Greenwood Hektoen said there are many layers and complexities being considered for that project right now. Eastham said he recalled that property owners in the southern portion of the Riverfront Crossings area had been interested in having some sort of certainty regarding what would be eligible to be built there. He asked when that point might arrive. Miklo said that they are envisioning a very flexible district. He said that most commercial zones require ground floor commercial and allow residential above that. Miklo said what they envision for an Urban Mixed Use Zone is to require the ground floor to be built to commercial standards, but to allow residential uses in it if the market for commercial was not there. He said there are many details to be worked out such as parking requirements, green space, etc. Miklo said it will probably be several more weeks before the consultant is heard from, but that the process will be a public one with the Commission and City Council involved. Freerks stated that she would not be present for the July 1st meeting. Payne said she also would not be present for the July 1st meeting. Koppes said she would not be present at the June 28th meeting but was supposed to have a return flight on June 30th, so should be present for the July 1 st meeting. Plahutnik said he would not be present on June 28th. Miklo said that staff would be doing a quorum check prior to scheduling those meetings. Payne said that she had a comment from the City Council meeting she had recently attended. She said that a Council member had noted that the conditional zoning agreement for the new car dealership on Mormon Trek would be applicable to any property owner for that particular lot, even if the property was sold to a business that was a different use. She said it was good to know that Council considered that zoning applies beyond a particular plan or proposal and remains applicable to the lot regardless of who possesses it. Koppes commented that she had gone to the dedication of the Wetherby Splash Pad and had spoken with Steve Long there regarding flood recovery projects. She said they had discussed that it would be helpful to have him come before the Commission to give a general flood update regarding the different recovery projects that had come through his office. ADJOURNMENT: Koppes motioned to adjourn. Plahutnik seconded. The meeting was adjourned on a 6-0 vote (Busard absent). Z Q en ~ :Ec ::aE~ 00 (.)(.) C)w Z~ -wo z(.)"r"" Ozo Nc(N CC ZZ c(w C).... ~!;( Z Z c( .J Q. """ w """ - >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 (Q 0 w W N - >< >< >< - >< >< it; 0 0 (Q >< >< >< >< >< >< >< it; in W """ >< >< >< - >< >< >< ~ 0 """ >< >< >< >< >< >< w ~ - 0 OC) w """ - >< >< >< >< >< >< - 0 M ~ >< >< >< >< >< >< >< N """ N >< >< >< >< >< >< >< - """ C/) :EW ..- ..- (") N 0 0 (V) o::g:; ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - wo.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ::J: >- I- et ::::i W W ...J ::) 0:: m ...J ~ ::J: et z ~ ...J W 3: C/) ::J: Z ::J: :E 0 (,) et ::::i !:2 ~ i= .., en W c :E en :E z J et ~ W- I- W 0:: ::J: 0:: W ::) ~ W et I- W 0.. Z ::J: :E C/) C/) W 0.. ~ et W et ::) et 0:: 0 ...J Z m W u. ~ a.. a.. 3: C) z i= W W :E ...J et :E 0:: o u. "'=I' W W """ - >< >< >< >< >< - - 0 0 (Q """ w w """ - >< >< >< >< >< - - 0 0 in M >< >< >< >< >< >< w it; - 0 N W """ >< >< >< >< - >< >< ~ 0 en w w N >< >< >< >< - >< - - 0 0 M """ >< >< >< >< >< >< w - - N 0 C/) :EW ..- ..- (V) N 0 0 (V) o::g:; ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- ..- - - - - - - - wa.. LO LO LO LO LO LO LO 1-)( 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 W W ::J: >- I- et ::::i W W ...J ::) 0:: ~ ...J ~ ::J: et z ...J W C/) ::J: Z ::J: :E 0 (,) et ::::i !:2 ~ i= .., W C ~ en en :E z J ~ W- I- W W 0:: ::J: 0:: W ::) ~ et I- W a.. z ::J: :E C/) C/) W a.. ~ et W et ::) et 0:: 0 ...J Z m W u. ~ a.. 0.. 3: C) z i= W W :E ~ :E 0:: o u. z E :J ~ o :J -00 CD 0 ~ Z ~ (.) -- CD >< OJ.c WEE ';;:><D<D CCDoo::: c-CDE,o::; CD C en C1l en~:90- CD.c.....Z 0 a: <2:: II II Z II II ~::?: I~ XOOZI :>-: W ~