HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-5994 Staff AnalysisMay 22, 1995
4
File NO,:
Owner•
Address:
Description-
zoned:
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Present Use of Property:
Proposed Use of Property:
Staff Report
A. -Engineering Commen%e:
Z-5994
Bill Lusk
921 Rushing Circle
Lot 1, Lusk Place Subdivision
C-4
A variance is requested from the
base flood elevations of Section
8-302 to permit construction of a
storage building and canopy with
the lowest floor being less than
the base flood elevation.
The building will be used for
storage only. Doors will be placed
in either end of the building which
are equipped with an automatic
opener that will be activated by a
float switch when the water level
reaches 6 inches above the floor
level, thus allowing water to flow
through the building. The
applicant desires to keep the
storage building at the same floor
elevation as the principal
structure to facilitate easier
access to the building by employees
and delivery trucks.
Plumbing sales and contractor
Plumbing sales and contractor
Recommend that a Special Flood Hazard Development Permit be
issued, allowing construction of the proposed storage
facility with a finish floor elevation of 312.25 feet NGVD
as requested by the applicant.
Background
This office received information regarding the proposed
storage building from Sam Davis, Engineer of Record on March
May 22, 1995
Item N 4 Can
22, 1995 and determined that a variance was necessary to
permit this facility. Staff and the City Engineer met with
Ray Lusk on April 12, 1995 to discuss the proposed
development and made the following determinations, supported
by information provided by the Engineer of Record.
• Storage at the site was requested to have a finished
floor elevation of 312.25 feet, the same as the existing
building's first floor, and co-dependent with regard to
loading and unloading from the common parking area.
• Two doors are proposed with adequate openings to equalize
hydrostatic pressures associated with flooding.
• The materials being stored consist of plumbing parts not
vulnerable to flood waters. The proposed structure is
concrete floor and metal siding construction, not
vulnerable to flooding, and a thirty by thirty square
foot area is actually being enclosed.
• No heating or plumbing is provided for the proposed
structure, only lights, an alarm, and wall electrical
receptacles, which will all be placed above the 100 -year
flood elevation of 314.0• feet.
The above "wet floodproofing" measures are consistent with
sound floodplain management. Mr. Lusk was advised that
issuance of a floodplain variance for this proposed
structure would not effect the insurance rates or status of
the building, which if insured would carry an increased
actuary rate based upon the finished floor's elevation with
respect to the base flood elevation. Mr. Lusk was not
concerned about flood insurance, and was complimentary of
the Corps/City Fourche Creek Flood Reduction Project for
reducing the incidence of flooding on his property.
B. Staff Analysis:
The applicant desires to construct a 30 foot by 60 foot
storage building on this C-4 zoned property. Half of the
structure will be enclosed and the other half will be an
open canopy. The property is currently occupied by a two-
story building housing a plumbing -supplies sales and
contracting business. The storage building will be used to
store plumbing supplies and materials.
The property is located in the floodplain and has a 100 year
flood elevation of 314 feet NGVD. Section 8-302 of the Code
of ordinances requires this nonresidential structure to
have a minimum floor elevation of 315 feet NGVD, 1 foot
above the base flood elevation. The existing building on
the property has a finished floor elevation of 312.25 feet
NGVD. The applicant desires to construct the new storage
building with the same finished floor elevation as the
2
May 22, 1995
Item No.: 4 (Cont.)
existing building. Keeping the floor elevations equal will
facilitate easier access to the building by employees and
delivery trucks.
Division 3 of Section 8 of the Code of Ordinances
establishes the provisions for flood hazard reduction. A
registered professional engineer or architect is required to
develop structural design, specifications and plans for the
construction and to certify that the design and methods of
construction are in accordance with acceptable standards of
practice outlined in this section.
Samuel L. Davis, a registered professional engineer, has
submitted the required information to the City Engineer's
Office. The City's Floodplain Administrator has reviewed
those plans and recommended approval of the variance.
C. Staff Re mmen ion:
Based on the recommendation of the City's Floodplain
Administrator, staff recommends approval of the floodplain
variance subject to compliance with the plans and
specifications reviewed and approved by the City Engineer's
office.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(MAY 22, 1995)
The applicant, Ray Lusk, was present. There were no objectors
present. Staff presented the item and a recommendation of
approval, with conditions.
Mr. Lusk offered no additional comments at that time.
In response to a question from John Borchert, Mr. Lusk stated
that there would be approximately 6 feet between the existing
building and the proposed accessory building.
John Borchert ask Mr. Lusk why the building was being built at
the proposed elevation. Mr. Lusk responded that the structure
would be built over an existing, asphalt paved parking area,
making it more difficult to raise the elevation of the ground
required to meet the floodplain requirement.
In response to a question from Mark Alderfer, Mr. Lusk stated
that an existing, 20 foot by 20 foot canopy type structure would
be removed to make room for the new structure.
A motion was made to approve the floodplain variance subject to
compliance with the plans and specifications reviewed and
approved by the City Engineer's Office. The motion was approved
by a vote of 8 ayes, 0 noes and 1 absent.
q
May 22, 1995
x an 4 n
After the item was approved, two persons representing the new
ownership of Lot 1, Studebaker's Subdivision arrived at the
meeting. They stated that they had just purchased the property
occupied by Eagle Bank and had not received notice of the Board
hearing. Staff advised them that the required notice had been
sent based on a list of property owners provided by American
Abstract and Title Company and that it was possible the sale of
the property was so recent that it was not picked up by the
abstract company.
After the variance issue was explained to them, they stated that
they had no objection to the item.
4