12/11/1990 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

r ® � property, and that equates to a 3,712 unit deficit just because you are on the other side of the line. Mr. Poppell continued to stress the difference in units from one side of the road to the other on property which has infrastructure and the other property which is without infrastructure. He urged that someone check' with Walker Banning and Bob Knave to confirm their reaction to his ideas and stressed that there is no real risk involved to the county in doing this. Commissioner Scurlock asked Director Keating about the thought process followed by staff in identifying the densities in this area. Director Keating reminded the Board that Mr. Schlitt came in and spoke to some property in this area during the initial consideration of the Plan, and he also explained that the blue on the map represents generally an overlaying of the flood zone in that particular part of the county. The difficulty in developing in the flood hazard area was the reason why in February a large unit there was put in 1 upa. Commissioner Scurlock had questions about just what land the flood prone area covered and whether it included the L-2. Director Keating advised that the L-2 shown in the orange is not in the flood area, and Commissioner Scurlock noted that then some of the property Mr. Poppell is talking about wanting to average to a lower density is in'the flood zone and some is not. Director Keating confirmed that statement and explained that this was identified from the FEMA flood maps._ Chairman Eggert noted that it is one thing to deal. with Mr. Poppell's property, but she did not think we have advertised considering any change in the property east of 43rd; so what would our legal status be if we should wish to recommend a change in zoning there? Director Keating advised that our advertising set out that we were going to consider remedial actions for the entire plan. ®C 11 19a 55 800K ;�p . l I