12/18/1985 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC 18 1985 sooK PAGE 71 specifically delineating where the building will go on a lot in relation to other lots. Also there is a buffer required to visually separate the project from the adjacent right-of-way and lands. Director Keating felt it is apparent that a lot of people" think there is an increase in density in the project; however, this is definitely under Comprehensive Plan maximum density. Another issue is incompatability, and Director Keating felt the buffers that are required, landscaping, berms, etc., will lessen those concerns. Commissioner Scurlock inquired what effect it would have on the project if the Board said the minimum size of lots would be 751, and Director Keating was not sure, except that there definitely would be less lots. Commissioner Scurlock noted that the City had 50' lots which created many problems and they tried to get away from them. He did not see what specific benefit we are achieving in this project by the density transfer other than just accomplishing that transfer, and Director Keating stated that besides accom- plishing the density transfer and protecting the environmentally sensitive area, we are allowing the developer discretion to be creative and meet the County's criteria. Commissioner Scurlock did not see why we should give the developer a credit when he has a piece of land he can't get a permit to put anything on anyway. Director Keating noted that one of the objectives of the Comprehensive Plan was not to deprive someone of the use of their land. We do not actually prohibit development there; it would be very difficult, but not necessarily impossible. Commissioner Bird felt the point is that the project as proposed, although creative to some degree, does not fall completely within our allowable standards, and we, therefore, are being asked to make an exception to those standards so that it can be built as proposed. 72 - M M