Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the Floodplain Variance topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Applicant seeks waiver of FEMA submission for driveway across stream at East Black Canyon Street lot
Summary
An applicant asked the Planning Commission to waive the city’s usual requirement that certain floodplain modifications be submitted to FEMA for review before development; staff recommended allowing a waiver for a single‑house driveway crossing that staff said meets the city’s flood standards and would not increase base flood elevations.
An applicant seeking to develop a single home on a parcel at 4398 East Black Canyon Street requested a variance from the city requirement that floodplain modifications be submitted to FEMA for review and approval prior to development.
City staff described the project as involving a driveway alignment that would cross a small tributary to the West Fork White River; the crossing would provide the primary access to a portion of the applicant’s property on the east side of the creek. Staff said the applicant provided a flood analysis that showed no increase in base flood elevation, channel velocities, or flood flows attributable to the proposed driveway crossing, and staff supported the variance to waive the FEMA-submission requirement for this limited, small-scale project.
Staff explained the distinction between the city’s submission requirement and FEMA’s own rules: the submission-of-study-to-FEMA step is a City of Fayetteville ordinance requirement designed so FEMA would review significant changes to mapped floodplains. Alan (staff) said that requirement is a city-mandated submission rather than a direct federal requirement, and staff judged it would be an onerous time and cost burden—FEMA processing can take about nine months to a year—given the limited scope of the proposed crossing. Staff therefore recommended the commission grant the variance and waive the FEMA-submission requirement for this case, while keeping other safeguards in place. Commissioners asked whether larger future development of the seven-acre parcel would change the analysis; staff answered any substantial modification would require further review and would be subject to the city’s floodplain rules.
No public comments were recorded during the agenda session. Staff’s recommendation will be considered at the upcoming commission meeting.
