In a recent government meeting, discussions centered around a variance request related to a proposed home construction within a designated floodplain area. The city is currently reviewing a preliminary floodplain boundary that is set to be adopted by the State Emergency Management Association. The variance request pertains specifically to the effective floodplain line, which has not changed since the last meeting, and no new information has been submitted by the applicant.

The proposed home is designed to be built at a low sill elevation, two feet above the base floodplain elevation of Car Creek. City regulations require that any construction in a floodplain must achieve a \"no rise\" certification, ensuring that the new development does not alter existing flood conditions. The applicant's engineer has submitted a hydrology report confirming that the proposed construction will not impact flood conditions, a finding supported by an independent review conducted by the city.

However, the meeting revealed significant community opposition, with 18 written comments against the variance and only one in support. If the variance is denied, the property will be limited to passive activities only, as construction would not be permitted under current regulations.

The developer, Doug Nance, emphasized that his client purchased the property with the understanding that construction was feasible, despite the recent changes in FEMA flood mapping that now encumber the entire lot within a 100-year floodplain. Nance argued that the proposed construction would not adversely affect neighboring properties, citing the no rise report as evidence.

Chris Kuester, an engineer involved in the project, reiterated that the proposed home would partially sit within the floodplain but would not exacerbate flooding conditions. He noted that the variance is crucial for moving forward with the construction, as the current floodplain regulations significantly limit the usable area of the lot.

The meeting concluded with city officials and planning staff available to address further questions, as the board considers the implications of granting or denying the variance request.