Laserfiche WebLink
Revised: 07/06/97 Minutes - June 26-27, 1997 Page 23 <br /> Cooley asked if they would not prefer a berm. Mr. Boles qualified it by saying that there should not <br /> be a levy system for protection, they would prefer that the reclamation of the property provide for <br /> the mitigation or the provision of maintaining the hydrological balance by virtue of features. <br /> Something that does not require ongoing public expenditures for maintenance and that does not <br /> contain the increased risk associated with levy systems. They believe that the applicant should be <br /> able to provide a design that restores the land to at least the hydrologic conditions, or similar to that, <br /> that existed before and that does not include a feature that requires ongoing public expenditures. <br /> Mr. Cohan asked if the erm was taken out and spread across the area, would that somewhat raise <br /> Ctzv:. ,c , <br /> the entire areaevaluatiert: Mr. Boles replied that it would be a very tiny amount. <br /> Mr. Parker stated that in 1985 they re-mapped the flood plain and the property was taken out of the <br /> flood plain, so when this Amendment came through in 1989, he feels that no one in his <br /> department—that was dealing with the flood plaint--saw the Amendment as the planners didn't <br /> pass it through. <br /> Mr. Schwarz presented the Board with Exhibit 15C-Brief In Comment, Letters, etc. Packet and <br /> handed Mr. Taylor, Mr. Parker and Mr. Boles a document from July 15, 1996, a memorandwn from <br /> the Boulder County Department of Transportation to the Boulder County Commissioners which <br /> sets forth the County's analysis of the berm and the positive benefits it provides. It also contained <br /> affirmative statements that the berm was contemplated on the onset when the Application was filed <br /> with the Division. He referred to the top of page two which talks about the diversion channel being <br /> part of the Reclamation Plan. Mr. Parker stated that since he wrote the document, he couldn't <br /> disagree with it, but wanted to make it clear that he recognizes the berm and levy as being a viable <br /> mitigation flood plain structural device, but it doesn't solve the problem. Tearing it down, having it <br /> removed or having it fail would not be in the health, safety and welfare of the citizens. <br /> Mr. Schwarz asked Mr. Parker to read a page from the Exhibit 15D-Urban Drainage and Flood <br /> Control District 1973 Study. Mr. Parker read: "The area along the north and south side of the <br /> Denver-Boulder Turnpike will have widespread shallow flooding in the event of major flows in the <br /> creek. The possible flooding would be due in part by the construction of the Turnpike. Flood <br /> waters could spread northwest around the South Boulder Road interchange, over the Turnpike and <br /> into parts of the Keewayden Meadows area. At this point the flows would be west of 47 h Street <br /> bypass which could present possible additional drainage problems." Mr. Schwarz wanted to bring <br />