IS MIXED-USE COMMERCIAL OR RESIDENTIAL?

[mark handler]

Wow, you sound like a real "glass half empty" sort. This is not a distortion at all, apartments are considered commercial property. And to clarify, this is a state law that limits residential structures but not commercial structures in the floodway. My client is not greedy, they want to develop what is allowed to be developed.

It is a distortion, totally.
You are building residential in a no residential area. Yes is it 12 feet above the grade but it is plane and simple "residential construction" does not matter if 200 feet in the air.

 

[classicT]

I was thinking about this last night and I want to comment on two claims made here. The first claim is I’ve obfuscated reality. The reality is when this law was codified the code writers chose the term “residential structures.” Not residential dwellings, or dwelling units, or residential uses. It’s clear to me this choice was made to separate structures in the same manner as the ICC has done with the IBC and the IRC. Residential structures are single-family, duplexes, and townhouses. This is not semantics; these are specific words with specific meanings. These are our building and development codes.

They chose the term "residential structures" and were very clear in the intent. They even defined the term.

Per WAC 173-158-030: "Residential structure" means a place in which one lives: Dwelling.
​

Your insistent use of definitions from sources other than the WAC is easily perceived as an intent to obfuscate the truth. Stop using building codes when your dealing with laws.

Please directly answer the following question - Will people live and reside in the proposed building as a dwelling? If yes, it meets the above definition of residential structure and you have the answer to your question.

If you are unwilling to take the answer that does not serve your interests, why ask the question. Seems that your mind has already been made up.

 

[Yikes]

T-Bird, I do appreciate what you are saying about these codes having been written prior to the concept of mixed use structures with the residential use above the floodway.
You might want to check with Kirkland and see how they allowed it in the past. Is your flood control systems handled at the municipal jurisdictional level, or at a county level? Is there a variance process available, such as at Clark county?

To clarify:
- The “Floodway” includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more that one (1) foot.
- The “Floodplain” or “Floodway Fringe” is the land area between the floodway and the limits of the one hundred (100)-year floodplain. The floodplain elevation is also known as the base flood elevation.

I think the goal behind "no residential in a floodway" is that when a big rain occurs, public safety officials can encourage everyone to "stay home today", without getting a bunch of 911 calls saying "help, I'm trapped in my home by flood waters". So in the case of your particular site, is there a portion of the site located outside the floodway, where all of your upper (residential) levels could have their exit discharge onto land that is not in the floodway during a base flood? That may help your case a lot.

 

[my250r11]

flood way is a specific flood zone where flooding is more likely and more severe

Agreed, and the term is consistently used wrong. In general no one lets something be built in the FLOODWAY. Most place do not allow even the one foot.

As Yikes was kind enough to post.

T-Bird, I do appreciate what you are saying about these codes having been written prior to the concept of mixed use structures with the residential use above the floodway.
You might want to check with Kirkland and see how they allowed it in the past. Is your flood control systems handled at the municipal jurisdictional level, or at a county level? Is there a variance process available, such as at Clark county?

To clarify:
- The “Floodway” includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more that one (1) foot.
- The “Floodplain” or “Floodway Fringe” is the land area between the floodway and the limits of the one hundred (100)-year floodplain. The floodplain elevation is also known as the base flood elevation.

I think the goal behind "no residential in a floodway" is that when a big rain occurs, public safety officials can encourage everyone to "stay home today", without getting a bunch of 911 calls saying "help, I'm trapped in my home by flood waters". So in the case of your particular site, is there a portion of the site located outside the floodway, where all of your upper (residential) levels could have their exit discharge onto land that is not in the floodway during a base flood? That may help your case a lot.

 

[T-Bird]

Agreed, and the term is consistently used wrong. In general no one lets something be built in the FLOODWAY. Most place do not allow even the one foot.

As Yikes was kind enough to post.

Not true, this state only restricts "residential structures"

 

[classicT]

In general no one lets something be built in the FLOODWAY.

Mike is right, it would be very atypical to build within a floodway - think structural design for resistance to floods and insurance provisions.

Not true, this state only restricts "residential structures"

I think the point here is that you need to verify if it is in the floodway or the floodplain. These are two very different risks. See the post by Yikes.

T-Bird, I do appreciate what you are saying about these codes having been written prior to the concept of mixed use structures with the residential use above the floodway.
You might want to check with Kirkland and see how they allowed it in the past. Is your flood control systems handled at the municipal jurisdictional level, or at a county level? Is there a variance process available, such as at Clark county?

To clarify:
- The “Floodway” includes the channel of a river or other watercourse and adjacent land areas that must be reserved in order to discharge the base flood without cumulatively increasing the water surface elevation more that one (1) foot.
- The “Floodplain” or “Floodway Fringe” is the land area between the floodway and the limits of the one hundred (100)-year floodplain. The floodplain elevation is also known as the base flood elevation.

I think the goal behind "no residential in a floodway" is that when a big rain occurs, public safety officials can encourage everyone to "stay home today", without getting a bunch of 911 calls saying "help, I'm trapped in my home by flood waters". So in the case of your particular site, is there a portion of the site located outside the floodway, where all of your upper (residential) levels could have their exit discharge onto land that is not in the floodway during a base flood? That may help your case a lot.

 

[Tim Mailloux]

They chose the term "residential structures" and were very clear in the intent. They even defined the term.

Per WAC 173-158-030: "Residential structure" means a place in which one lives: Dwelling.
​

Your insistent use of definitions from sources other than the WAC is easily perceived as an intent to obfuscate the truth. Stop using building codes when your dealing with laws.

Check & Mate

 

[e hilton]

. They don’t know that dozens, if not hundreds, of nonconforming residential structures already exist in this area.

You keep referring to me as “they” and “this person”. I have a name, and in fact that’s my real name in the title block.
Second ... just because dozens or hundreds of residences are already built in the flood way is not enough justification to build more.

 

[e hilton]

.

Nice explanation.

 

[classicT]

You keep referring to me as “they” and “this person”. I have a name, and in fact that’s my real name in the title block.
Second ... just because dozens or hundreds of residences are already built in the flood way is not enough justification to build more.

Hold up, wait a second....

E. Hilton, are you with the AHJ where this project is located? If so this just became priceless.

And sneaky sneaky....your profile shows you as a PM in Virginia.

 

[T-Bird]

this is exhausting...

I've presented this project as being located in a floodway.
The State of Washington only restricts "Residential Structures" from being built in the floodway.
The development of commercial buildings is allowed in a floodway. Hell, one third of this city is located in a floodway.
And a person who wants to develop their property is not an evil. This is a desirable location in a desirable city.
The bias of some people here is plain to see and becoming a bit hostile, wouldn't you say?

 

[classicT]

this is exhausting...

I've presented this project as being located in a floodway.
The State of Washington only restricts "Residential Structures" from being built in the floodway.
The development of commercial buildings is allowed in a floodway. Hell, one third of this city is located in a floodway.
And a person who wants to develop their property is not an evil. This is a desirable location in a desirable city.
The bias of some people here is plain to see and becoming a bit hostile, wouldn't you say?

In response to your comments:

• You have presented as being in a floodway, we are helping you understand the meaning and requirements.
• Residential structures are defined by the WAC; the proposed structure is a residential structure.
• 1/3 of the city being in the floodway is exceedingly hard to believe, floodways do not typically extend more than a short distance from the waters edge (again, are you confusing floodway with floodplain?)
• No comment other than I believe you're the only one to use the word 'evil'.
• Bias, no. I believe that we are all frustrated with your indignant opinion that lacks any defense other than the fact you will fill out a commercial building permit application.

 

[cda]

Look at places like Houston and New Orleans, people complaining they are flooded out.

Why some at or below sea level

 

[cda]

Than there are places that have never flooded, underwater.

 

[T-Bird]

In response to your comments:

• You have presented as being in a floodway, we are helping you understand the meaning and requirements.
• Residential structures are defined by the WAC; the proposed structure is a residential structure.
• 1/3 of the city being in the floodway is exceedingly hard to believe, floodways do not typically extend more than a short distance from the waters edge (again, are you confusing floodway with floodplain?)
• No comment other than I believe you're the only one to use the word 'evil'.
• Bias, no. I believe that we are all frustrated with your indignant opinion that lacks any defense other than the fact you will fill out a commercial building permit application.

yup, you know who you are.

 

[cda]

Sometimes have to ask a lot of questions to give a good answer.

Plus having to figure regional/ city codes.

Codes is a fun contact sport.

Anyway.

 

[Yikes]

T-Bird, I'm suggesting you start with the spirit of the code. I believe the reason for differentiating between commercial and residential is how they each affect public resources and safety during a base flood:

1. If a commercial structure floods, the business shuts down and people go home. There is economic loss, but that's between you and the insurance company.
2. If a residential structure floods, the people are completely displaced and need to find emergency shelter until the home is repaired. This is a much greater strain on public resources. Or worse, the residents are asleep during actual flooding, and they are stuck in a life-threatening situation.
3. If a residential structure is at the second story and does not flood, but the access to / exit from the residential structure floods, then people still need to leave their home and find emergency shelter until the base flood subsides.​

Solve for safe access during a base flood as per #3, and you might be able to convince someone to make a variance and further parse the semantic argument of commercial vs residential on the upper floors.

And for what it's worth, I applaud the creative approach, and I think it is important to find new places for housing as long as we are not compromising actual public safety resources.

 

[e hilton]

Hold up, wait a second....

E. Hilton, are you with the AHJ where this project is located? If so this just became priceless.

And sneaky sneaky....your profile shows you as a PM in Virginia.

Sorry, no reality tv drama here. I am in Va, i thought he might have been in ariz or similar, he just said its washington state. And i am a construction pm for a very large national property management firm.

 

[my250r11]

just because dozens or hundreds of residences are already built in the flood way is not enough justification to build more.

Exactly! the point is to change this trend to protect life and property, which is also the basis of all the codes.

If the State of Washington & the local AHJ will allow it then that's on them. I do not believe NFIP & FEMA will be as forgiving. Also to build in a flood area the commercial building will have to be WATERPROOFED to 1 foot above the BFE. this is even in the IBC 107.2.5.1, & section 1612.

 

[Yikes]

Exactly! the point is to change this trend to protect life and property, which is also the basis of all the codes.

I'm going to disagree - - or at least look at it the code issue without impugning motivations on the part of the developer.
The point may not be to undermine protection of life and property. It is possible that the point may be to develop where it is reasonable to do so in an infill situation, rather than simply sprawling further out of the city into undeveloped or agricultural land. I live in the LA area, where we are both dramatically under-housed and running our of available land We have homeless encampments right in the riverbeds, both within the urban areas and in the mountain canyons, and you can't tell me that is safer than putting someone inside housing that is above the base flood level.

We've all seen developments over the years that include any one of the following over a waterway: housing built on piers; housing on fill in a harbor; a site that was graded to relocate the flow of stormwater.
You may not think that putting residential above a base floodway is a good solution, but the original poster said it was being done in other nearby communities, and all he was doing was spitballing about the mechanism and rationale that might make it approvable. I see no need to draw conclusions about the motivations of the designer or developer, especially when the OP said that the code was written prior to the popularity of vertical mixed use.
Instead, it would be more productive to consider the underlying safety issues of WHY the code allows commercial but not residential, and then address that head-on. That is what I attempted to do in my earlier posts.

 

[ADAguy]

The same is true in the SFV Yikes where historic air photos show that before development the SFV was crisscrossed with channels, gullies and streams that have been built over and are subject to liquifaction. Proximity to water was usually the first location for most development without consideration to flood hazard or weather.
That was then and this is now. Don't "we" know better and yet are laws and codes have not kept pace with the obvious until a disaster happens.
We continue to allow home construction in mountain fire districts using combustable materials, don't we? And what of tornado and hurricane areas?

 

[classicT]

The same is true in the SFV Yikes where historic air photos show that before development the SFV was crisscrossed with channels, gullies and streams that have been built over and are subject to liquifaction. Proximity to water was usually the first location for most development without consideration to flood hazard or weather.
That was then and this is now. Don't "we" know better and yet are laws and codes have not kept pace with the obvious until a disaster happens.
We continue to allow home construction in mountain fire districts using combustable materials, don't we? And what of tornado and hurricane areas?

This isn't a liquefaction issue. The focus is building within an active floodway; an area subject to frequent waterflow during the base flood event (think yearly not every 100yrs).

The LAW (this is a Washington Administrative Code - WAC), is intended to protect peoples homes, allow shelter in place protection, minimize rescue needs, and most importantly, prevent the impedance of flood waters which in turn makes it worse conditions for all.

 

[Mr. Inspector]

Build it on a barge. No worry about flooding or codes.

 

[Yikes]

Ty J and Rick 18071, you both make good comments. The prescriptive provisions of the law exists for public safety, yet other technologies can provide alternate means of achieving a similar level of safety. I saw one of those British homebuilding shows on Netflix where a guy built his house on a barge in a river floodway.
My point is, if the OP can understand the underlying safety issues behind the original prescriptive provisions of the law, there may be an alternative performance-based solution that provides for equivalent safety.

Ty J, if impedence of floodwaters was the "most important" issue behind the original prescriptive requirement, then why does the WAC allow commercial construction in a floodway?