Laserfiche WebLink
JAN 4 1984 060K 5 5 ?ACE 781 <br />Commissioner Lyons felt it was a good way to handle the <br />situation, but wished to have a density cap somewhere along <br />the line. <br />Chairman Scurlock stated that right now we are talking <br />about a transfer of 1 to 1 and asked Attorney Brandenburg if <br />we have the flexibility of doing for some and not for others <br />in the event that a property owner in that area balked at <br />donating the right-of-way and forced the County to go <br />through the process of eminent domain by establishing <br />policy. <br />Attorney Brandenburg stated that if there was <br />condemnation involved; there would be a no density transfer. <br />He cautioned that there are certain areas of the County <br />where an individual could not develop his property and could <br />not have any density on it whatsoever unless he dedicates a <br />road to the County and the County, in fact, builds a road to <br />his front door. He suggested that if we do have this <br />density transfer policy, it should not be applicable to <br />instances where an owner does not have any way of getting to <br />his property. The County would be`doing the property owner <br />a favor by putting.a road through. Therefore, the property <br />owner ought to dedicate the load for free and build the road <br />for the County rather than the County requesting the owner <br />to give the County the road and then allowing the density <br />credit. <br />Administrator Wright stated that it can be done on a <br />case by case basis because of the above reasons given by <br />Attorney Brandenburg. <br />Planning & Development Director Robert Keating felt <br />that consideration should be given to the fact that this <br />area is all multi -family density and actually has a lower <br />overall density than a subdivision. He added that they <br />did not anticipate any problem with the 35 ft. height <br />limitation in that area. <br />38 <br />M M r <br />