HomeMy WebLinkAboutZ-6236 Staff AnalysisDecember 23, 1996
Item
File No.:
Owner•
Address-
Description:
Zoned•
Variance Requested:
Justification:
Z-6236
Valley Drive Limited Partnership
5829 and 5909 Valley Drive
Lots 174 and 175, Hoyt's Replat of
Tract "B", Section "A McClellan
Place Addition, Little Rock, Pulaski
County, Arkansas
A variance is requested from the
base flood elevation provisions of
Section 8-302 to permit renovation
of two buildings with floor
elevations less than 1 foot above
the base flood elevation.
Applicant's Statement: The Valley
Drive Limited Partnership would
like to get a variance from the
floodplain restrictions for 2
buildings, 5829 and 5909 Valley
Drive, which are part of a 9 -
building, 52 -unit renovation
project. The two 8 -unit buildings
are in the 100 year floodplain,
with floor elevations .1 foot and
.2 feet above the Base Flood
Elevation, as interpolated by the
City Engineers' Office. The
floodplain ordinance requires the
finished floor of the structures to
be 1.0 feet above the BFE, except
for structures that are to be
remodeled there is a formula to
determine the relationship of the
new work to the existing condition
of the building. We have disputed
the method with which the City
floodplain administrator has
calculated this, and feel there are
a lot of gray areas in this formula
for determining the amount of work
that is required to bring the
buildings into compliance with the
local building and housing codes.
December 23, 1996
No.. 5 (Cont.
We are asking the Board of
Adjustment for a variance to allow
the Valley Drive Limited
Partnership to remodel these two
buildings. This project has a lot
of local interest because it is
started by the LISC program, with
the City of Little Rock investing a
lot of CDBG funds into it. If
these two buildings are not
included in the project, it could
jeopardize the entire project.
Present Use of Propert : Apartments
Proposed Use of Property: Apartments
Staff Report:
A. Public Works Issues:
Applicant states that structures are at or above Base Flood
Elevation. The Corp Flood Study adopted by FEMA has
surcharge water levels above the Base Flood Elevation that
range from 0.7 feet to 0.8 feet in this area. The City
ordinance requires 1 foot above Base Flood Elevation to
allow development in a floodplain. Without surcharge level
being maintained, the City would require that development
not occur in the floodplain versus our current policy to
restrict development in only the floodway.
The applicant must justify or show a reason why the
surcharge levels are unreasonable and that there is a very
small probability that these will occur in the future.
Because if the Corp of Engineers study is correct, these
buildings will have from 0.7 to 0.8 feet of water in the
lower floors.
B. Staff Analysis:
The Valley Drive Limited Partnership is currently renovating
a 9 building, 52 unit apartment development located on
either side of the 5800-5900 Blocks of Valley Drive. The
renovation project is substantial, including both interior
and exterior improvements. A large portion of the
development is located within the 100 year floodplain as
identified by the Federal Emergency Management Agency. The
two, eight unit buildings located at 5829 and 5909 valley
Drive are within the floodplain and have finished floor
elevations .1 foot and .2 feet above the Base Flood
Elevation, as interpolated by the City's Floodplain
Administrator.
2
December 23, 1996
Item No.: 5 (Cont
Section 8-302(2) of the Code of Ordinances states:
"Nonresidential construction. New construction
and substantial improvement of any commercial,
industrial, or other nonresidential structure
shall either have the lowest floor (including
basement) elevated to one (1) foot or greater
above the base flood elevation or, together with
attendant utility and sanitary facilities, be
designed so that below the base flood elevation
the structure is watertight with walls
substantially impermeable to the passage of water
and with structural components having the capacity
of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads
and effects of buoyancy. A registered
professional engineer or architect shall develop
and/or review structural design, specifications,
and plans for the construction, and shall certify
that the design and methods of construction are in
accordance with acceptable standards of practice
outlined in this subsection. A record of such
certification which includes the special elevation
(in relation to mean sea level) to which such
structures are floodproofed shall be maintained by
the floodplain administrator.
The City's Floodplain Administrator has denied a development
permit for this project. The applicant disputes the method
the City has used to determine its denial of the permit and
has appealed to the Board of Adjustment. Section 8-284
states "the Board of zoning adjustment shall hear and render
judgment on requests for variances from the requirements of
this article (Article IV, Flood Loss Prevention). The Board
of Adjustment shall hear and render judgment on an appeal
only when it is alleged there is an error in any
requirement, decision or determination made by the
Floodplain Administrator in the enforcement or
administration of this article."
On an issue such as this, the Planning staff relies heavily
on the expertise of the City's Engineering staff. The
Engineering staff has stated that the applicant has failed
to provide adequate justification or reason to support the
variance.
Section 8-284(j) states "variances shall only be issued
upon:
(1) Showing a good and sufficient cause;
(2) A determination that failure to grant the variance
would result in exceptional hardship to the applicant;
and
3
December 23, 1996
Item No.: 5(Cont.
(3) A determination that the granting of a variance will
not result in increased flood heights, additional
threats to public safety, extraordinary public expense,
create nuisances, cause fraud on or victimization of
the public, or conflict with existing local laws or
ordinances.
While the case could be made that the applicant has
addressed the first two conditions noted above, without
additional information the third condition cannot be met.
As such, staff cannot make a recommendation concerning this
matter. It will be placed on the agenda and the applicant
will be afforded the opportunity to address the issue. If
additional information is received after the printing of
this agenda, it will be presented to the Board.
C. Staff Recommendation:
No staff recommendation.
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT:
(DECEMBER 23, 1996)
Bill Wiedower was present representing the application. There
were no objectors present. Staff presented the item with no
recommendation. Staff also informed the Board that the applicant
had not followed the proper notification procedure. The
applicant had not obtained a certified list of property owners
within 200 feet from an abstract company.
Bill Wiedower addressed the Board. He stated that he waited too
late to contact an abstract company and when he did, they could
not prepare the list in time to mail the notices 10 days prior to
the public hearing. He stated that he went to the county tax
records and researched the property owners. He presented a map
showing that he had notified all property owners within 200 feet.
Mr. Wiedower noted that the signs had been on the property and
that neighborhood residents did not seem to have a problem with
the variance.
A motion was made to waive the bylaws and to accept the
notification as performed by the applicant. The motion was
approved by a vote of 5 ayes, 1 noe, 2 absent and 1 open
position.
David Scherer, of the Public Works Department, addressed the
Board. He discussed the Public Works Comments and stated that it
was the applicant's responsibility to show that the surcharge
levels established by FEMA are unreasonable and that there is a
very small probability that these will occur in the future.
Bill Wiedower explained to the Board the 9 building remodeling
project. He stated that several of the buildings were in the
4
December 23, 1996
Item No.: 5 Cont.
flood plain but that these two buildings had finished floor
elevations less than 1 foot above the base flood elevation. He
discussed the three components of Section 8-284(j) and stated
that he felt there was justification for the Board to approve the
variance. He stated that remodeling these existing buildings
would not increase any impact on the floodway. Mr. Wiedower
stated that he had spoken with persons who lived in the area at
the time of the last 100 year flood (1978) and that those persons
stated that these buildings did not flood. Mr. Wiedower stated
that there had been drainage improvements downstream from this
property and that it was even less likely that this site would
flood.
David Scherer stated that the Board had to look at the
information presented by Mr. Wiedower and determine if a variance
was appropriate.
Kirby Rowland asked what it would take to do a new study of the
floodway since the last study was done prior to 1976. Mr.
Wiedower stated that the Corps of Engineer told him it would be
approximately 3 years before they could do a study. He stated
that a private study would cost approximately $8,000.00. Mr.
Rowland commented that $8,000.00 seemed rather insignificant
considering the multi-million dollar cost of the overall project.
In response to a question, Mr. Wiedower stated that it would not
be feasible to raise the buildings.
Willie Lee Brooks asked if there was no economically feasible way
to bring the buildings into compliance. Mr. Wiedower responded
that there was not.
Kirby Rowland commented that the site has not flooded and that
downstream drainage improvements had been made. He stated that
he would still prefer to see a new study of the floodway.
Brandon Rogers asked it there was liability if the variance is
approved and the property floods. Steve Giles, of the City
Attorney's office, responded that the Board members had no
personal liability but that the City could be liable and its
flood insurance rating jeopardized if FEMA determined that the
City did not enforce its own flood regulations. Mr. Giles
commented that the regulations were being enforced by requiring a
Board of Adjustment hearing and public review.
David Scherer commented that downstream development could raise
the water height. He noted that much of the property downstream
consists of single family residential development which was very
difficult to control as regards possible filling in the flood
plain.
Steve Giles read from a letter from City Attorney Tom Carpenter
in which Mr. Carpenter stated that "mechanical improvements" must
be above the base flood elevation. Mr. Giles suggested making
5
December 23, 1996
Item No.• 5 Cont.
that comment a condition of approval. Mr. Wiedower stated that
the applicant had agreed to "flood proof" the structure which
would address Mr. Carpenter's concerns.
David Scherer stated that the Public Works staff did not object
to the variance. He noted that Mr. Wiedower had presented
information that there is not a probability that these properties
will flood. Mr. Scherer stated that he would have objected to
the variance request if Mr. Wiedower had not presented that
information.
A motion was made to approve the requested variance subject to
the buildings being "flood proofed" and a SFHA development permit
being obtained. The motion was approved by a vote of 6 ayes,
0 noes, 2 absent and 1 open position.
6