My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
COM 0176.083 2006-2008
ClerkCouncil
>
Council Records
>
Communications
>
2006-2008
>
COM 0176.083 2006-2008
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/12/2008 11:19:30 PM
Creation date
5/8/2008 5:44:45 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Communications
Communications - Type
COM
Communications - Council Term
2006-2008
Communication
0176
Point
083
Author
Bruce C. McClure, P.E., Public Works Director
Communications - Referred To
COUNCIL
Comments
Council: Close file - 6/1/07
Document Relationships
AGE COUNCIL 2007/06/01 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Agendas\2006-2008\Council
BIL 051 Draft 03 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Bills\2006-2008
COM 0176.000 2006-2008
(Related)
Path:
\Council Records\Communications\2006-2008
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
13
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).
View images
View plain text
<br /> BILL 51 DRAFT 3 DPW COMMENTS - 5/23/07 <br /> Sec. 27-18(c)(6): We do not believe that controlling the amount grading to be the best <br /> approach to address flooding and erosion. Chapter 10, 23 & 25 already <br /> addresses these issues in the urban environment. There are many other <br /> stormwatet management techniques that should be first considered, such as <br /> limiting the amount of impermeable surface and/or infiltration treatments to <br /> retain a given volume of water rather than just limiting the amount of <br /> grading which will have many serious unintended consequences. We suggest <br /> discussing this matter further with Planning Department and DPW. Should <br /> this issue be pursued in it's present form, we will need to discuss impacts <br /> with our Planning Department, Real Property Division and Finance <br /> Department as the 10 and 20 percentage requirements seems to have no <br /> economic or technical justification that we can see. <br /> Sec. 27-18(d): We would like to add a new section labeled 27-18(d)(5) be added that would <br /> read as follows: <br /> (51 Within Zone X (shaded): <br /> f~ For new construction. the lowest floor shall be elevated at least <br /> one foot above the hi¢hest adjacent ¢rade. <br /> f~ New construction shall be required to provide adequate <br /> drainaee paths around structures on slopes to ruide floodwaters <br /> around and away from proposed structures. <br /> Sec. 27-18(d): There is no economic or technical justification that we are aware of that <br /> warrants raising elevations by a minimum of 1-foot. FEMA's repetitive loss <br /> data shows that damages are reoccurring in coastal high hazard areas (V & <br /> VE), yet these zones do not have the additional 1-foot requirement that have <br /> been applied to the other zones. <br /> Sec. 27-18(e): We would like to revise this section to read: <br /> All new construction, improvements to repetitive loss structures and <br /> substantial improvement within areas of special flood hazard and Zone X <br /> shaded shall be certified as required by the standards of section 27-17. <br /> Sec. 27-20(a): We would like to revise this section to read: <br /> (a) All subdivisions and other developments within areas of special flood <br /> hazards, Zone X (shaded). and flood-prone areas shall: <br /> Sec. 27-20(a)(4): This section may be in violation with the NFIP; and needs to be discussed <br /> with State NFIP Coordinator. <br /> Sec. 27-20(d): The changes may be in violation with the NFIP; and needs to be discussed <br /> with State NFIP Coordinator. <br /> Page 5 of 8 <br /> <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.