Laserfiche WebLink
<br />Mr. Staaleton: Does that mean there will have to be formal legislation <br />,'to amen the date of compliance? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: It seems to me that such is the case. <br /> <br />Mr. Sta~ton: Well, at this <br />1976. t will we be asking <br />the short session next year? <br />would it not? <br /> <br />point we know we can't comply by June 30, <br />the legislature to do at this session or <br />I suppose it would be at this session, <br /> <br />1 <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: We will explain the problem to them. I don't know whether <br />they will want to amend it this year or want to wait until next year. <br />I have an idea they will want to wait until next year. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: If they wait until next year, does it have to be on a <br />special caUO{ <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: Yes. <br /> <br />Mr. Vandemoer: On page 7, under 2, which is non-conforming uses, you <br />have any device or structure reasonably necessary for the diversion or <br />storage of water or for flood control or prevention. Is there any <br />problem with roads and bridges that are now in the floodplain? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: There is no problem with what is there today. The problem <br />is when they have to replace it. We would hope to require standards <br />for the construction of a bridge which would permit the passage of an <br />intermediate regional flood. Many of those bridges will not permit the <br />passage today and are substantial causes of flooding. The town of <br />Wiggins, as you will recall, was almost completely inundated in 1973. <br />That was caused almost solely by a highway bridge that diverted the <br />water into the town from Kiowa Creek. <br /> <br />Mr. Stapleton: Would you briefly review for us what comments we received <br />after we postponed this from September 18 uiltiL.now. <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: We had some comments at the December board meeting. We <br />accommodated most of those comments. They were relatively minor. The <br />only substantial comment we had was about the definition of a low hazard <br />area. We had some adverse comment on our previous definition which <br />included both depth and velocity, as you will recall. It also covered <br />two different types of areas, residential and nonresidential. We <br />have revised that definition which would apply whether it is residential <br />or nonresidential. We only have a depth criteria of one and one-half <br />feet, which simplifies the identification of those areas considerably. <br /> <br />Mr. Starleton: Larry, you haven't had any adverse comments to that new, <br />simplif ed definition, have you? <br /> <br />Mr. Sparks: No, we have not. <br /> <br />Mr. Kroe~er: Recently, in our community a floodplain study has been <br />complete. Is there adequate information in that study that this <br />ordinance could be adopted and put directly into operation? Or is there <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />-5- <br />