8003 LARIMER RD 2016-01-01 MF Import

The barn will be constructed at a slope uith the lowest corner at 14.80 feet elevation ;and the highest point at 18.46 foot elevation. If the applicant werz to fill the heifer barn site to meet the code requirement of 20 foot elevation it would require that the s_te be raised approximately five feet which would put it five feet above the adjacent dairy barn uhich would not be desirable. The bulk of the barn will be in the flood fringe and since it xill be open on both ends and is adjacent to an existing much larger structure, it shoul� not impede flood waters. In addition, one 4,800 square foot barn at che old site whi.eh is in the flood way was demo].ished this year and a 1,440 square foot machine shop and 2,560 square feet of la}� stalls will also be demolished this year for a tutal of 8,800 square feet of buildings being removed from the flood way. Silage Bunkers: The two proposed 3,000 square foot silage bunkers will �e constructed approximately two to four feet below the regulatory flood elevation� ho�aever, neither the structures themselves or the contents would be damaged by flood waters. In addition, there are two dilapidated silage bunkers totaling 7,000 squaee feet at the old site in the flood way that will be demolished along with a 30 by 100 foot remaining wall and end of a third bunker, when the ne�t bunkers are complete. tlachine Shop: The elevations at the machine shop site vary from 16.6 feet elevation to over 18 feet elevation. If the lowest floor of the structure is below 78 feet elevation the building must be wet flood proofed per Federal Regulaticns. Floodproofing: Under National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) standards, new non-rAsidential r.onstruction must attain either a watert,ight degree of floodproofing (i.e.� dry f]oodproofing) or be elevat��d such that the Euilding's lowest floor i.s located a6ove the regulatory flood eleva'�;ion. Either condition must be met for the strueture to be recogni2ed for insurance pre�.nium reductions. New consl:ruction not built to these standards can be subject to extremely hi�;h insuraoce premi,�ms. The E'ederal Emergency ManaQement Agency does, however, recog�ized that a"lesser degree" of floodproofing may be an apprcpriate flood damage pre�tection technique for certain types of stru�:tures and their uses. Such methods, categorized as "wet floodproofing" involve purpo:ely designing a buildin6 for inundation by potable water or floodwar,ers, but in a manner that results in minimal damage to the building or its contents. In these situations, the granting of a variance by a community may be justifiable if application of dry floodproofing regulations ti•ould constitute an exceptional hardsl�ip and the circumstances meet all variance criteria in Para. 60.6(a) c�f the NFIP Aegulations. Conclusions: There are exceptional circumstances apFlying to this property that do not apply generally to other properties in the vicinity and zonr,. Beca�se of the nature of the structures� i.e.� pole construction with tlie barn open on both ends and two 12rge doors �.^. the machine shop, its location in the flood fringe, and the proposed uses, wet flood proofir.g would seem to be the most appt�opriate flood damaQe prevention technique. -2-