Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 12 21

Home Browse Search

Board of Adjustment Meeting Minutes November 16, 2016 Page 10 of 12 Summary and request by Staff and Applicant: Staff recommends approval of 826 Coal Creek Circle — Floodplain Development Permit — Request for a Floodplain Development Permit to Construct a 40,000 Square -Foot Building Addition in the Flood Regulatory District Case #16 -033 -FL. Staff recommends the conditions may be: 1. that the report be stamped and signed by a Colorado registered professional engineer 2. there be an engineer certification on the floodproofing method to comply with LMC. Staff would approve the conditions. Closed Public Hearing and discussion by Commission: Stuart makes motion to close public hearing, DeJong seconds, approved by voice vote. Meseck says we need to resolve what these contingencies are. Stuart says I think it is fine to approve this with the contingency to stamp and certify the report and another to say that the floodproofing will be certified and approved at some later date. Meseck says are we inserting redundancy into this by requesting floodproofing. That is the City's job. DeJong says if we don't approve, they don't get the building. Meseck says we can approve the floodplain development permit without contingencies. Do we need to add two contingencies to it in the record? DeJong says in my reading of this document, there is no responsible party. I need to have a professional engineer as a responsible party to say this is a valid report with valid conclusions. Stuart says the contingency would be to leave it to Staff to verify it is stamped and signed appropriately. DeJong says the other contingency is that the Building Department accepts the certification and floodproofing methods. Meseck says that is part of their normal daily business. Gorsevski says I would like to discuss these two contingencies separately. I don't have any issue with the contingency that we see a stamped copy. I agree that the rules provide for it. I am not convinced that it is not redundant to put a condition about the specific methods of floodproofing. Reviewing this language on page 3 of the study, it states the type of floodproofing that will be appropriate and used in the structure. I have confidence that Staff can apply the rules and regulations to make sure the floodproofing proposed at the time we move to the building permit complies with the applicable standards. They recognize that the structure must be floodproofed, so we let Staff work out the details. Meseck says I question the redundancy of it as well. This is just another check box that has to be done as part of the process, and not something we need to address tonight. Gorsevski says it would be a different situation if we felt that the floodproofing to be done in this circumstance was different or not consistent with FEMA requirements. Meseck says if we go back to the statement that the LMC requires the following information submitted for all floodplain development permits and look at #3 and certification by a registered engineer, we do not have it at this time to approve the floodplain permit. DeJong says there are no floodproofing methods specified. I have no idea if they would meet the standards because an engineer hasn't told me. Gorsevski says the study does specify the methods that will be used to floodproof. We are not in a position to review whether those methods are adequate or not. DeJong says the study states that these may include. Gorsevski says if that is a position we want to take, then we would tie them to specific methods at this time as a term of their floodplain development permit. Meseck says as opposed to being checked at a later date by the Building Department. Gorsevski says going to the exact language in Staff's summary, I am referring to the Martin/Martin report on page 5 where the full language is cited, Section 17.56.250, DeJong reads #5, Section 17.56.250,