Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Floodplain Variance topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Reading Area Community College seeks floodplain variance to allow wet flood proofing at student union

City of Redding Zoning Board · March 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

RAC asked the City of Redding zoning board for a variance from the floodplain provision (section 18-23(b)(4)) to permit wet flood proofing for renovations at the Student Union, arguing the proposed measures and moving critical systems above base flood elevation will mitigate risk at lower cost.

Reading Area Community College asked the City of Redding zoning board to allow wet flood proofing rather than the ordinance's W1/W2 dry floodproofing standard for renovations to its Student Union at 25 South Front Street.

Joan London, attorney for Reading Area Community College, told the board the college previously received a variance in March for a different subsection of the floodplain rules and is now seeking an additional variance from section 18-23(b)(4). "We are requesting the right to utilize wet flood proofing," London said, arguing that moving most renovated spaces above the base flood elevation and using flood-resistant materials for lower areas would provide equivalent or greater safety at far lower cost than dry floodproofing.

Technical witnesses testified that key mechanical and electrical equipment would be relocated to the second story, HVAC would be roof-mounted, and ground-floor finishes would be flood damage resistant and modular to allow easy replacement. Ken Dierstein, identified as vice president of RAC, affirmed on the record that the college understands it is "building at our own risk" and would maintain insurance coverage.

The college submitted exhibits including the application, plans by Spiesle Architects and Barry Izette and Associates, and supplemental photographs. Board members had no further questions and closed the evidentiary portion; the board said it will render a decision at next month’s meeting and mail a copy to RAC.