Charlotte City Council
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
COMMITTEE AGENDA TOPICS
I.
Subject:
Floodplain Management Ordinance Revisions
No action.
II.
Subject:
Next Meeting
November 20, 2006 at 1:00 p.m. in Room 280
COMMITTEE INFORMATION
Present:
Absent:
Time:
Anthony Foxx, Susan Burgess, Nancy Carter, and Don Lochman
Pat Mumford
2:15 p.m. to 3:40 p.m.
ATTACHMENTS
1. Agenda Package
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 2
DISCUSSION HIGHLIGHTS
Committee Discussion:
Council member Foxx welcomed everyone to the meeting and asked attendees to
introduce themselves. City Attorney, Mac McCarley then introduced Rob Phocas, the
City’s new Environmental Attorney.
I.
Floodplain Management Ordinance Revisions
Council member Foxx asked Dave Canaan to begin his presentation (copy attached) but
first asked him to remind the Committee the purpose of this update.
Mr. Canaan responded that this was approximately the fifth meeting the Committee has
held on this subject. Today’s update is to provide feedback from the neighborhood
notifications, discuss any government liability for levees, the substantial improvement
flexibility and floodplain property disclosure. Other items for today include an update of
the Chantilly Study and floodplain map maintenance.
Mr. Canaan said there was an approximately 10,000 piece mailing that went out to
property owners. It went to owners of vacant property in the floodplain, owners with
compliant structures in the floodplain and owners with structures that are below the
regulations. Following one the September 18 Committee meetings, another 750 piece
mailing was sent out to neighborhood associations. We have received feedback from 10
citizens/neighborhoods. A table was included in your agenda that details the person who
made contact, their question and our feedback. Over the weekend, several of you may
have received another comment from someone that was not included in the table.
Burgess:
Who?
Canaan:
Mr. Woodlief.
Dwyer:
Would it be possible for us to get a copy of the actual comments?
The details listed in the table seem incomplete.
Foxx:
Is there more detail?
Dwyer:
We would like to see your responses because we have some of the
same issues and concerns. So, we would like to see documentation of the
specific conversations or emails.
Tingle:
I can send those to you. The notes in the feedback are my notes.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 3
Dwyer:
Is there documentation of telephone conversations? I’m asking for
the susbstance of the comments.
Tingle:
You can have what I have.
Mr. Canaan asked the Committee to refer to the table. As you can see, the comments
vary. One of the questions about vesting is still being researched by the City Attorney’s
office.
Burgess:
When Merry Oaks asked about impact what was the answer?
Tingle:
We explained the changes to the ordinance and what the possible impacts
could be. We discussed dryland access and gave them a general
description.
Burgess:
How many homes along Briar Creek are impacted?
Tingle:
Many.
Burgess:
I’m asking because I’m working the City bond campaign there tomorrow.
Dwyer:
Did the 10,000 piece mailing go out in September?
Canaan:
No, late June.
Dwyer:
1,000 homes are in the FEMA floodplain and 600 homes are in the
community encroachment area. All 1,600 of those homeowners can’t
rebuild now without a variance with the substantial improvement rule.
The structure of my home is $41,000, but the assessed value is $171,000.
The window is 50% of the structure, which means I can’t do more than
$20,000 worth of improvements (roof, bathroom, kitchen). Did you send
notification to all 1,600 affected homeowners?
Canaan:
They should have fallen into one of the three categories. We provided the
website and phone number for homeowners to see the proposed changes to
the ordinance or call for more information about how the changes might
specifically affect them.
Dwyer:
But, did you send it to those specifically impacted because I don’t
remember getting anything?
Foxx:
I would like to request that we get through the rest of this presentation and
there will be an opportunity to address substantial improvement later.
Mr. Canaan then turned the presentation over to Jude Starrett, City Attorney, to discuss
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 4
the levee government liability.
A year or so ago, the City looked at a standalone levee policy, but then the County
adopted one. We determined the floodway regulations address levees. They are not
something we want to encourage, and the City has no regulatory control over levees. We
discussed possibly permitting levees. The property owner would have to get an
engineering “seal” for construction, they would have to agree to be responsible, and then
they would have to submit a revised form each year. There would also be an annual
inspection. But, that leads to what if the property owner doesn’t submit an annual
update, what action would we take? We could have a tickler system that triggers a
notification process which gives the property owner 30 days. But, if the form doesn’t
come in, what is the enforcement? Do we allow the levee to stay if it is no longer
approved? So, those are some of the things we looked at.
The bottom line is the property owner is financially responsible for the levee because it is
a private feature.
Burgess:
How much would a professional inspection cost?
Starrett:
I would not venture to estimate cost. It depends on how long the berm is.
There is a mechanism for calculating model height impacts.
Burgess:
Could we do that ourselves and charge 100% recovery fee?
Starrett:
We could do that. One of the important things to note is we are not
encouraging levees. We will not do anything to accept financial or
maintenance responsibility. But, there is nothing to restrict folks from
building levees either.
Carter:
We do not assume any liability? Are we at risk in any way? What if the
Homeowner’s Association evaporates and we are left with a berm? What
is that cost? There would have to be administrative costs and how do we
recoup those? Recordkeeping is also not covered.
Starrett:
The permitting is handled by the County. Yes, there is staff time
involved. The annual submission may have a permitting fee. As for
potential dissipation of a homeowner’s association, there is some legal
entity listed as the responsible party. If the entire neighborhood was
dissolved and no one stepped up to the plate, then what do you do? Well,
liability is a broad question. We regulate a lot of things. An example
would be a commercial driveway. We don’t represent that it was built
solidly or that it won’t create a hazard. We don’t assume liability if there
is no representative to say a berm is safe. There may be some liability
insurance that kicks in.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 5
Blackwell:
If Engineers are looking at the levee, they will seal that it is safe.
Burgess:
Could we consider a bond if a Homeowner’s Association was dissolved?
Starrett:
No. The level of administrative review on bonds would require direct
action, then surety. We do not want to assume any responsibility.
Burgess:
How many levees do we have have?
Canaan:
We are aware of four, maybe five levees. The County has built two of
them; one in Pineville and the floodwall at the old Piedmont Courts.
There are some private levees. The proposed changes clearly outline that
if a private property owner builds a levee, they are responsible for
maintenance and the same holds true for the public.
Mr. Canaan then continued with the Substantial Improvement Rule section of his
presentation.
Foxx:
My house was built five years ago. What if there were height restrictions
in the neighborhood, but I have to elevate the bottom of my house. Could
I end up bumping up against the height elevation?
Canaan:
I haven’t seen that situation. But, there would be a variance through the
zoning ordinance or floodplain ordinance.
Foxx:
Could you try and track something down on that?
Lochman:
When you look at the options for substantial improvement there are a
couple of pros, but the cons actually make sense. Will we eventually get a
recommendation from staff on these?
Canaan:
I can give you a recommendation today.
Lochman:
Well, the pros are positive, but the cons are rational.
Burgess:
Do you need a permit to fill in the floodplain?
Canaan:
Yes, for any development in the floodplain.
Burgess:
By developing some properties, doesn’t that serve as a levee? Can’t you
elevate a strip by development?
Canaan:
Levees have water on both sides.
Burgess:
What kind of restrictions are there for development?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 6
Canaan:
There aren’t any in the encroachment zone.
Burgess:
So, those would be automatically permitted?
Canaan:
If they meet the other requirements for a floodplain, yes ma’am.
Foxx:
Does the rule run with the current property owner or the property itself?
Canaan:
The property.
Carter:
But, it could be 25% of the original value?
Canaan:
Right, it could be 25% of the value before the event occurred two times.
Foxx:
Where does the 50% come from?
Canaan:
That is the FEMA standard.
Foxx:
Who determines the value?
Canaan:
We start with the tax value. The property owner will usually ask for an
appraisal because the property is worth more.
Dwyer:
Is the cost born by the homeowner to do that?
Canaan:
Yes.
Lochman:
Do the existing guidelines provide for an exceptional hardship?
Canaan:
The next slide shows the factors for consideration.
Carter:
As an addendum to that list, have you considered economic development
reasons? For instance, the City is promoting development in the area of
Independence Boulevard.
Canaan:
We would weigh that against the other factors. The order of this list does
not specifically give more or less weight to economic development.
Carter:
You should also look at the land use plans.
Foxx:
I would like to reiterate Council member Lochman’s suggestion that it
would be helpful to have staff’s recommendations.
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 7
Canaan:
Well, I can tell you our recommendation would be to keep the rule as it is
today. We would recommend none of the options. It is unfortunate that
there are 1,600 homeowners caught though.
McAuliffe:
There are 17 people that purchased homes in Chantilly after 2003 that did
not know their homes could not be improved.
Foxx:
Thank you, but let us get through the presentation.
Burgess:
Well, if the realtor they used did not know, they should have known and
there should be some action they could take.
Sprinkle:
The City is liable for non-disclosure.
Burgess:
Can we flag what we know about floodplain status to ensure property
owners have disclosure?
Foxx:
In the interest of time, can we move to the Chantilly study?
Mr. Canaan stated that the results of the study showed little impact on flood heights in
Chantilly (less than an inch) and that a culvert through the railroad embankment actually
increases flood heights downstream.
He continued with a brief overview of the floodplain mapping cycle, which essentially
starts with City Council adopting a land use plan or rezoning and ends with City Council
adopting flood insurance rate maps. The current maps were drawn up in 2000. We are
working on a strategy to re-map.
Carter:
The new mapping will be a one time effort? Or, will it be done every time
there is a rezoning?
Canaan:
To date, it has been a one-time method. We are working on criteria that
can be continuously applied, so we do not have to re-map every time there
is a rezoning. There is fine line in getting the maps right and we tend to
be more conservative.
Carter:
Does the community encroachment area give more realization of
actuality?
Canaan:
It is more realistic or gives us safer assumptions.
Burgess:
I’d like to go back to the Chantilly Study Update slide; did the study call
for a retention pond?
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 8
Sprinkle:
Our original plan called for a water park. The retention pond would take
the pressure off the condemned CSX levee. There is impending danger
there and the City could be criminally negligent if something happens. I
don’t think we’ve been heard by staff. There is 50% error on 75% of what
they have been saying.
Burgess:
The study shows only little impact, like one inch?
Sprinkle:
It is 4 inches below. You could take all the properties out of the
floodplain including Midwood and Morningside with our suggestions.
Burgess:
Where is the second pond?
Sprinkle:
At the Mint Museum.
Burgess:
What is your plan?
Sprinkle:
Exactly what was presented in the Dewberry Report.
Burgess:
What is staff’s response to two ponds?
Canaan:
They are not retention ponds. My impression from some of Mr.
Sprinkle’s comments is he is combining two or three reports into one.
Sprinkle:
We came up with the exact same plan as they paid $250,000 for a
consultant to come up with.
McAuliffe:
I think what Mark is trying to say is we presented an idea of a water
retention pond upstream and expected staff to look at it, to take the ball
and run with it.
Sprinkle:
You have not given us a plan of solution.
Foxx:
May I suggest that we have a meeting with you [Chantilly neighbors] and
staff and see if we can’t figure out what the breaking points are here and
see if we can’t flesh out some of these issues?
Lochman:
Could you take the assertions that have been put forward and as succinctly
as possible show where you don’t agree?
Canaan:
The floodplain regulations were adopted in 2000 and the maps are a
community tool that is out there. Individuals should have been more
informed about what they were buying and should look at why that wasn’t
disclosed. Could we make some improvements? Sure, but there is a
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 9
certain level of responsibility that belongs to the owner purchasing a
property.
McAuliffe:
You said there was one property owner that substantially improved their
property?
Canaan:
Yes, we did not stop their improvements.
Dwyer:
SWAC determined the problem was new development that has
been permitted by the City and County. You need to look at that. All
you’ve done is removed my ability to do anything and I didn’t know that
when I purchased my property.
Sprinkle:
It wouldn’t have helped.
Dwyer:
The floodplain is changing due to new development. I don’t
understand these decisions.
Sprinkle:
Back in March the process went through City Planning to the County.
City Planning didn’t know about any of this. They haven’t known
anything for six years.
Lochman:
Is it staff’s opinion in those 17 circumstances, most people did not
exercise good due diligence? Is there any level of flexibility for those 17
homeowners without creating any negative precedence financially? Could
staff bring us some potential things we could do?
Dwyer:
Foxx:
Dwyer:
Burgess:
Dwyer:
Foxx:
The impact to my wallet is the same as those 17.
Are you in the community encroachment area?
When they fish people off the rooftops, they come down my street.
We know of the 17 and those in Chantilly, but there could be hundreds
affected.
Those 17 were in the last three years.
There have been 17 in Chantilly in the last three years, so the question
worth asking is can we create some flexibility for the 600 in the
community encroachment area that gives them some comfort? Can we
apply the firmer rules to new construction? Can we true up what
development is going to do over time to the best of our calculations? Will
the community encroachment area become FEMA lines at some point? Is
there something we can do to give some flexibility? Chantilly has really
Environment Committee
Meeting Summary for November 6, 2006
Page 10
helped us in the process with the substantial improvement and notices.
We are not done with this.
What I would suggestion would be a meeting with the Chantilly
neighbors, staff and interested Committee members before the next
meeting. Then, I think we should look at:
1.
2.
3.
Staff assertions
Recommendations on other issues. We see the proposed changes,
but what was the staff input into the regulations, was it stormwater,
planning, etc.? Who is making the recommendation?
The Committee needs to determine what we want to pursue.
Dwyer:
II.
I’d like to suggest an evening meeting with the
neighbors. Middle of the day meetings are hard on our
schedules.
Next Meeting:
The next meeting conflicts with the City Attorney’s evaluation. The Committee agreed
to adjust the time back from 3:30 to 1:00 p.m. They canceled the December 4 meeting
due to the conflict with the half-day Council Retreat. The December 18 meeting stays as
scheduled [3:30 p.m. in Room 280].
Meeting adjourned.
The next meeting is Monday, November 20, 2006 from
1:00 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. in Room 280
Environment Committee
Monday, November 6, 2006 – 2:00 p.m.
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Government Center
Room 280
Committee Members:
Anthony Foxx, Chair
Patrick Mumford, Vice Chair
Susan Burgess
Nancy Carter
Don Lochman
Staff Resources:
Julie Burch
AGENDA
I.
Floodplain Management Ordinance Revisions – Dave Canaan and Tim Richards
Staff will provide additional information on the following: final feedback from
neighborhood notifications; government liability for levees; options for providing
flexibility under the “substantial improvement” provision; floodplain property
disclosure; floodplain map updates; and the Chantilly study update.
Staff seeks Committee feedback and consensus on any outstanding categories of
issues or questions. At the November 20 meeting, staff will provide any additional
information necessary and the recommendations for Committee action on the
revisions to the floodplain management ordinance.
II.
Next Meeting: November 20, 2006 / Time TBD*
* The meeting is currently scheduled for 3:30 and that conflicts with the City
Attorney’s Evaluation.
Agenda: Floodplain Management Ordinance Recommendations
Attachments:
Presentation: Floodplain Ordinance Proposed Revisions
Summary of Homeowner Association and Other Comments
Distribution:
Mayor/City Council
Mac McCarley
Environmental Cabinet
SWAC Members
Pamela A. Syfert, City Manager
Leadership Team
Keith Henrichs
Brenda Freeze
Environmental GDP Stakeholders PCCO Stakeholders
Charlotte-Mecklenburg Storm Water Services
Floodplain Ordinance
Proposed Revisions
City Council Environment
Committee Meeting
November 6, 2006
Agenda – Floodplain Ordinance
Floodplain Ordinance Revisions
6
6
6
6
Feedback from Neighborhood
Notifications
Government Liability for Levees
Substantial Improvement Flexibility
Floodplain Property Disclosure
Other Floodplain Items
6
6
Chantilly Study Update
Floodplain Map Maintenance
Neighborhood Notifications
6
6
6
6
10,000 piece mailer prior to Public Hearing
Notification to Neighborhoods mailed on
September 22 - 750 pieces
Received feedback from 10 groups
See Summary Table (handout)
Levee Government Liability
6
6
Follow-up to last Committee meeting
Discussion among Committee members
and Charlotte Legal staff
Substantial Improvement Rule
6
Approximately 1600 existing buildings are restricted
by the Substantial Improvement rule
6 1000 buildings below FEMA flood heights
6 600 buildings below Community flood heights
6
FEMA minimum requirements (1000 buildings)
6 50% Substantial Improvement threshold
6 Elevate/rebuild to FEMA flood heights
6
Ordinance Flexibility
6 Existing and proposed ordinance
6 Requesting a variance through the City Zoning Board of Adjustment
Substantial Improvement Rule
6
Option: Lessen Requirement on height of
Substantially Improved structures (1600 buildings)
PROS
6 Cost savings
6 More flexibility with exterior appearance
CONS
6 Inequitable – new vs. existing buildings
6 Building with greater value may flood in the future
6 Owners may eventually need to purchase flood insurance
6 Structure may not qualify for flood buyout or elevation funding
6 Owners may be subjected to the Substantial Improvement rule again
Substantial Improvement Rule
6
Option: Relax Substantial Improvement 50%
percentage threshold (600 buildings)
PROS
6 Cost savings
6 May improve short-term “marketability”
6 Property owners could make larger improvements
CONS
6 Inequitable – new vs. existing buildings
6 Building with greater value may flood in the future
6 Owners may eventually need to purchase flood insurance
6 Owners may be subjected to the Substantial Improvement rule
6 Questionable if owner of building will make demo/rebuild compliant
Substantial Improvement Rule
6
Conditions for Variance (Section 9-87)
Variances shall only be issued upon:
(i) a showing of good and sufficient cause;
(ii) a determination that failure to grant the Variance would result in
exceptional hardship; and
(iii) a determination that the granting of a Variance will not result in
increased flood heights (unless the requirements of Section 9-102 (a)(6)
are met), additional threats to public safety, extraordinary public
expense, create nuisance, cause fraud on or victimization of the public,
or conflict with other existing local laws or ordinances.
The fact that the property could be utilized more profitably or
conveniently with the Variance than without the Variance shall not be
considered as grounds for granting the Variance.
Substantial Improvement Rule
6
Factors for Variance Consideration (Section 9-85)
Materials being swept away
Danger to life and property
Susceptibility to flood damage
Importance of services to the community
Necessity of the facility to be waterfront
Alternative locations available
Compatibility with current and future development
Relationship to Floodplain Guidance Document, Hazard Mitigation
Plan, Greenway Master Plan and other adopted landuse plans
6 Safety of access during flood event
6 Flood heights, velocities, duration, etc
6 Costs of government services during and after a flood event
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
6
Substantial Improvement Rule
6
Option: Additional Factors for Variance Consideration
6 Amend Ordinance to possibly include additional factors
– Substantial Improvement projects only
– Only buildings that are above FEMA flood heights (600 buildings)
– ZBA should also consider…..
– Building height that is above FEMA, but below Community flood heights
– Age of the floodplain map
– Amount of development that has occurred in the watershed
6 Same PROS and CONS previously mentioned
Summary – Substantial Improvement
6
6
6
Options related to building heights, improvement
thresholds
Flexibility through Variance Process (currently and
options)
Eliminate Community Floodplains
6 Require extended detention on all new impervious area
6 Discussed through Post Construction Control Ordinance, if needed
6
Support the review of programmatic strategies
6 Update Flood Mitigation Plans to recommend other mitigation options
in the future
6 Create community funded program to assist owners with additional
cost of bringing buildings into compliance
Floodplain Property Disclosure
6
Homeowner Awareness (currently)
6 Prior to property purchase (POLARIS and Floodzone Lookup)
6 Prior to design of improvements
6 During design process (Architect/Engineer)
6 Entering building permit application process
Floodplain Property Disclosure
6
Options for Increasing Awareness
6 More specific notices to owners of buildings
6 Notices attached to deed
6 Notification through Charlotte Multiple Listing
Service
6 Changes to NC Real Estate Disclosure Form
Ordinance
Questions,
Comments, or
Discussion?
Chantilly Study Update
6
Proposed Project
6 Excavation of soil for retention/storage
6 Assumes Cavalier is acquired/demolished
6
Results
6 Little impact on flood heights in Chantilly (less than an
inch)
6 Culvert through RR embankment increases flood
heights downstream
6
Additional discussion on mapping
assumptions, frequency of remapping
Floodplain Mapping Cycle
CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTS LAND USE
PLAN OR REZONING
CITY STAFF
UPDATES DISTRICT
PLANS
CITY COUNCIL
ADOPTS FLOOD
INSURANCE RATE
MAPS
CITY/COUNTY STAFF
REVIEW DISTRICT
PLANS
COUNTY STAFF
CREATE
FLOOD
INSURANCE
RATE MAPS
Floodplain Map Updates
6
Floodplain Maps
6 Used to rate insurance and regulate development to be
reasonably safe from flooding
6 No guarantees – Mother Nature does not read floodplain maps!
6 Based on many assumptions (examples)
–
–
–
–
Impervious area - existing and future development
Soil conditions
Rainfall amounts
Overall ability to pass floodwaters
– Channel size and condition
– Bridge and culverts sizes
– Overbank areas
Floodplain Map Updates
6
Support the implementation of a Floodplain
Re-mapping Strategy
6 Develop criteria to determine which watersheds to remap
6 Apply criteria to develop proposed budget
6 Incorporate the request into the FY08 SWAC and BOCC
budget process
6 If approved, utilize Mapping Cycle
Thank You
Summary of Homeowner Association and Other Comments
Date
Name
Neighborhood
Floodplain in
Neighborhood
(y/n)
7/24/2006
Michael Boland
Southbridge
Neighborhood
Y
9/28/2006
President
Ritch Avenue
HOA
Y
9/28/2006
10/10/2006
Andrew Krewson
Sylvia L. Nance
Merry Oaks
College Downs
Y
N
10/10/2006
Constance Kovach
Marlwood Acres
Y
10/10/2006
Lisa Fay
Prosperity Village
Town homes
Y
10/11/2006
Ashland Kelker
Huntingtowne
Farms
Y
Questions/Feedback
Meeting
Requested
(y/n)
Requested general presentation on the ordinance.
Staff Action: Attend Nov 20 Neighborhood
Association Meeting
Pleased with past work on L. Sugar Creek in past.
Would like to be kept in the loop with floodplain
issues. Staff Action: No Action Needed
1. What is schedule for ordinance changes ? 2.
Will revisions to Briar Creek flood maps impact
property in Merry Oaks? 3. What has been
discussed at previous Environment Committee
meetings? Staff Action: Responded to his
questions with an email explanation of
concerns.
Unwise to "relax" regs, supports more stringent
regulations especially with regard to permit time
limits, floodplain fill certification and elevation
requirements on parking lots. Staff Action: No
Action Needed
Concerns with storm drainage and lakes in
neighborhood. No comments specifically on
ordinance revisions. Would kike to be kept
informed. Staff Action: Discussed concerns via
phone.
Supports parking lot requirements. Internal storm
drainage problems in complex. Staff Action:
Discussed concerns via phone.
Support notification of surrounding property
owners, permit time limits, impacts on existing
buildings, floodplain fill certification, standards for
electrical, plumbing, mechanical, plumbing. Not
enough time to evaluate "Dryland Access"
requirements. Staff Action: Sent email
requesting a phone call to discuss concerns.
No response at this time.
N
N
N
N
N
N
Date
10/23/2006
10/25/2006
4/06 - Present
Name
Neighborhood
Karla Knotts
Mary Thompsen
Developer
REBIC
Tracy Allen (Ted Fillette)
Wonderwood,
Shasta,
Willhaven,
Meadowood
Mark Sprinkle/Jason
McAullife
Chantilly
Homeowners
Association
Floodplain in
Neighborhood
(y/n)
N/A
Y
Y
Questions/Feedback
Concern with a variety of issues. Staff Action:
Discussed issues via phone.
Ordinance Revision Issues: City attorney
researching "vested" issues. Explained property
owner notification requirements. Explained
proposed levee requirements. Staff agreed to place
plan review and turn around time requirements in
the Technical Guidance Document.
Non-Ordinance Revision Issues: Explained
evolution of various Floodplain lines on adopted
maps. Explained how CRS savings were
calculated. Explained attached garage
requirements. Discussed the possibility of requiring
the Technical Guidance Document be approved by
SWAC. Explained some of the questions about
ordinance changes costs. There were several
questions about proposed FDP fees which I
explained were not part of these ordinance
Majority of questions concerned effect of
detention/retention ponds on flooding. Especially
with regard to two rezonings in area.
Staff Action: Discussed flood ordinance and
rezoning issues via phone. Attending an
upcoming neighborhood meeting.
Concern with a variety of issues.
Staff Action: Staff has spoken at one
neighborhood association meeting. Staff has
hosted two additional neighborhood public
meetings. Met with neighborhood
representatives on at least 6 occassions.
Ordinance Revision Issues: Substantial
Improvement requirements, Dryland Access
requirements, parking for new non-residential
building requirements.
Non-Ordinance Revision Issues: Mapping future
floodplains, notification of floodplains on property,
impact on property values, enforcement of
regulations.
Meeting
Requested
(y/n)
N
Y
Y