Laserfiche WebLink
ATTACHMENTS <br />1. Summary Page <br />?. Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation Amendment Application <br />3. Rezoning Application <br />4. Detailed Transportation Concurrency Analysis <br />5. Approved Minutes of the September 27, 2001, Planning and Zoning Commission Meetine <br />6. Transmittal Resolution <br />Vice Chairman Stanbridge noted this has been scaled down from 180 to 142 acres and was <br />denied previously. In her opinion, this proposal was a reaction to the School Board plan for a school <br />in that area. She was unhappy because she was beginning to see a pattern. <br />Director Keating explained the rationale and development on this site will allow children to <br />walk to the school. <br />Commissioner Adams recalled the Board's main concern the first time this came before them <br />was the wetland area and runoff into the river. There was no concern with the school. The school, <br />therefore, had no bearing on this proposal, but probably added credence. The protection of the river <br />was of the most importance to her and that concern has been removed from the plan. <br />Chairman Ginn agreed and noted this is within the urban service area, but Vice Chairman <br />Stanbridge pointed out it is still within the floodplain. <br />Commissioner Adams disagreed that it was within the floodplain and discussion ensued. <br />Commissioner Adams stressed it is within the urban service area and the Board needs to be <br />consistent. <br />Vice Chairman Stanbridge continued to express concern about the floodplain but that will <br />have to be addressed in their plans for development. <br />Director Keating produced a map and pointed out the floodplain areas and according to the <br />FEMA maps this site is not located in the 100 -year floodplain. <br />Vice Chairman Stanbridge commented that FEMA has been known to be wrong. <br />The Chairman opened the public hearing and asked if anyone wished to be heard in this <br />matter. <br />November 13, 2001 <br />WO <br />