My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
BOARD01914
CWCB
>
Chatfield Mitigation
>
Board Meetings
>
Backfile
>
2001-3000
>
BOARD01914
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
8/16/2009 3:08:42 PM
Creation date
10/4/2006 7:04:38 AM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Board Meetings
Board Meeting Date
12/4/1974
Description
Agenda or Table of Contents, Minutes, Resolution
Board Meetings - Doc Type
Meeting
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
95
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
<br />original thought was to designate a flood hazard area as being that <br />area inundated by an intermediate regional flood. I would prefer not <br />make distinctions between the high hazard area and the low hazard area. <br />That is the simpliest way to do it. However, we are talking about <br />people's lands and the use they can make of them. As we surveyed the <br />many ordinances. regulations. and laws throughout the United States. <br />we found that it was almost universal to designate a fringe area as an I <br />area in which the occupation of it would not have any significant effect <br />upon increasing the flood hazard. We doubt that there will be many of <br />these low hazard areas in Colorado because of the gradient for most of <br />our streams. We have placed a restriction against building in a low <br />hazard area unless the building is at least fifteen feet from the high <br />hazard area. <br /> <br />It appears to us that there are very few cases in which the low hazard <br />zone can be used. However. we know that we do have low hazard zones in <br />the plains where the streams tend to widen. There will be low hazard <br />areas in the Denver metropolitan area and on downstream. We doubt that <br />it will have much application above Denver. We are not sure that there <br />is any problem in connection with these low hazard areas. Experience <br />may indicate otherwise. We realize the difficulty of administering <br />different types of zones within a floodplain. Nevertheless, it is <br />being done throughout the United States. Because valuable property is <br />involved. we think that this exception must be permitted. Any city <br />can eliminate this if it chooses. They can be more restrictive than <br />we are under the statute. So each city has a tough decision to make. <br />Until it has been demonstrated to us by actual experience that these <br />low hazard zones encompass a greater area then we think they do. then <br />the staff is not inclined to make any change. <br /> <br />Mr. Wrbht: Well I think as far as the low hazard zone is concerned. <br />it will encompass quite a bit of area, particularly with the definition <br />that you use for nonresidential areas. number seven. the multiplier of <br />seven for instance. If we took the area upstream from Meeker. it will <br />mean the difference. And this is. let's say the eight miles upstream <br />from Meeker, it will make the difference between maybe seventy-five <br />percent of the regular floodplain. Let's say if the regular floodplain <br />was 300 yards wide the low hazard zone would probably, as you had it <br />defined in the September 11 draft, encompass maybe twenty or twenty- <br />five percent. This is a rough example only. If we use your multiplier <br />of seven. you will find that the low hazard zone includes nearly the <br />entire floodplain. except the channel area. The multiplier of seven <br />has a very significant impact on how much we are looking at in terms of <br />low hazard zones. I think that Mr. Lang or some of the hydrologists on <br />the staff could run some test cases on this and could demonstrate that <br />it makes a lot of difference. <br /> <br />Mr. srarks: We will be guided by what the facts are. We have no chips <br />in th s game other than do the best we can for all interests in the <br />state of Colorado. I can tell you that now we are not going to increase <br />any of these things. We may decrease them. We think we have gone as <br />far as we can. <br /> <br />I <br /> <br />There is one other factor that we have considered. OUr obligation under <br /> <br />-55- <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.