Laserfiche WebLink
_I <br />AUG 2 11 1989 <br />ROOK / F'1GE 65 <br />maximum of 3 upa density in order to be able to get 2 upa zoning. <br />He felt that LD -1 for 3 upa and zoning for 2 upa would be a good <br />number to work with along 12th Street and that LD -1 and zoning of <br />2-3 upa would be good for the 8th Street area just west of <br />Pinetree Park. <br />Commissioner Scurlock understood then that if it is an LD -1, <br />you could go to 2 upa by having the proper zoning, but <br />Commissioner Eggert pointed out that you can't do that with RR -1, <br />which is the problem confronting Mr. Schlitt. <br />Director Keating emphasized that the big kicker is that <br />Public Works Director Jim Davis just couldn't justify more than 1 <br />upa in that area because of the drainage situation. <br />Commissioner Scurlock asked how the availability of water <br />and sewer impacts that area compared to having to go to septic <br />tanks, and Director Davis explained that the 1-upa land use <br />designation is needed in that large area because both federal and <br />local studies have shown that the land in that area will be under <br />2 or 3 feet of water when the canals overflow their banks during <br />a 10 -year storm situation. This is an inherited situation that we <br />have with the drainage district, and what we are looking at is <br />floodplain storage to some degree. The thinking was to protect <br />that area and the homes that have developed in that area, and we <br />are going to have to reduce the amount of fill and do something <br />to compensate for that fill. <br />Chairman Wheeler asked if there would be a way to do that <br />property at 2 or 3 upa through a PRD where they would go in and <br />do the drainage and storage, and Director Davis believed that you <br />could go multi -story and leave a large protected area for <br />stormwater management, but he didn't know how practical that <br />would be for a developer. <br />8 <br />