My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 12 21
PORTAL
>
BOARDS COMMISSIONS COMMITTEES RECORDS (20.000)
>
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
>
2001-2019 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
2016 Board of Adjustment Agendas and Packets
>
Board of Adjustment Agenda and Packet 2016 12 21
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
3/10/2021 2:03:13 PM
Creation date
12/30/2016 11:52:29 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
City Council Records
Doc Type
Boards Commissions Committees Records
Supplemental fields
Test
BOAPKT 2016 12 21
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
24
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
Show annotations
View images
View plain text
Board of Adjustment <br />Meeting Minutes <br />November 16, 2016 <br />Page 7 of 12 <br />would not analyze the floodplain development permit. The next stop for that would be at building <br />permit to verify the floodproofing methods and to comply with code. <br />DeJong says it is my understanding that as far as our approval, it could be contingent upon <br />subsequent analysis and approval of the floodproofing by the City. <br />Zuccaro says yes, Staff thought it was an assumed condition, but it would not hurt to make it an <br />explicit condition if you approve the proposal. <br />DeJong says the BOA can approve it specifically contingent upon the floodproofing standards, <br />the certification by a registered professional engineer or architect, and satisfaction of the <br />floodproofing by the City and permits thereafter. <br />Meseck says to speak to Allison's question, we have not heard a floodplain development permit <br />recently. My understanding is that our scope is limited on those. We are simply determining <br />whether we agree with Staff's recommendation that the impact to the floodplain is minimal or <br />negligible. <br />Gorsevski says we are operating under the assumption that some of these issues will be <br />addressed such as the floodproofing of the building and that the process will adhere to the City's <br />rules and regulations. <br />Meseck says the primary reason for this is to insure we are not impacting other structures or <br />parts of City property by this construction. <br />Zuccaro says the general purpose and intent is to insure that the floodplain is not being <br />impacted in any way to create an adverse impact up or down stream, and to make sure that the <br />on-site development is appropriate, safe, and limits any potential property damage. <br />Campbell asks about the map that has the blue and Tight blue. I am not familiar with the terms <br />you used. Previously, I understood that floodplains were 100 year and 500 year. <br />Zuccaro says the turquoise and the darker blue areas are the 100 year floodplain. There are <br />two areas of the 100 year floodplain. The darker blue is called the floodway which is the water <br />course and where the actual floodwaters would flow. The lighter blue is where water would build <br />up but it is not flowing. I call it the backwaters. The 500 year floodplain is the orange and not <br />part of the City's regulatioe 100 year floodplain falls under the City regulations. <br />Applicant Presenta <br />Ryan Byrne, Civil peer, PE, ,Martin/ , Inc., 12499 West Colfax Avenue, <br />Lakewood, CO <br />Joseph Lear, Davis Pa c i - - ake Street, #100, Denver, CO <br />Byrne presents. We were tasked with preparin• e floodplain study for the floodplain <br />development permit. Staff discussed the existing affected FEMA floodplain which was the aerial <br />imagery. It is what FEMA currently recognizes as the affected floodplain and the analysis to <br />support it was prepared by a consulting firm in 1996 before the Coal Creek development was <br />built. In this map, the floodplain does not make sense with the topography and buildings that <br />exist today. The subsequent Flood Hazard and Delineation (FHAD) study was done by <br />RESPEC Consulting & Services in November 2014. The State and Urban Drainage has <br />adopted that study as the regulatory study and the best information available. We have <br />prepared both pre- and post -project conditions in support of the floodplain development permit, <br />and it supports the no rise condition. The black line shown on the map is the FEMA effective <br />line. The topography of the buildings presently there does not support the delineation and it is <br />outdated. The addition is located in the 100 year floodplain as discussed. The floodway is the <br />area reserved to convey the 100 year floodplain without causing an increase of a specified <br />value. Anything more than 1/2 foot rise would trigger a Conditional Letter of Map Revision <br />(CLOMR) process. In Section 17.56 regulations, any development within a floodway is <br />prohibited 100% without causing no -rise. Those limits can be superseded or overridden if a <br />CLOMR or Letter of Map Revision (LOMR) process has gone through and remapping is done. <br />Typically, after a project is completed, a LOMR is completed and it remaps the floodplain. The <br />comparison is between pre- and post -project conditions. It is not a comparison from the effected <br />floodplain study that is currently viewed by FEMA as regulatory. The pre- and post -project <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.