Laserfiche WebLink
BOOK 103 PAGE59i <br />Board and the applicant would have to go through the planned development process to get <br />any density bonus. It is not a by -right allowance. <br />Commissioner Ginn asked if past actions could set a precedent and have a legal <br />bearing on density bonuses, and County Attorney Vitunac thought it is a legal problem if the <br />Board has established a course of always giving the bonus once the applicant meets the basic <br />elements. He would have to research it to give a better answer. <br />Chairman Macht recalled the reason density bonuses were given previously was <br />because it was incorporated in the recommended package and not really presented as an <br />optional item. <br />Commissioner Ginn mentioned there were three projects on south Indian River <br />Boulevard that received 20% density bonuses and she was concerned about traffic impact <br />in other properties that are currently designated RM -6. <br />Director Keating stated that staff has looked at the Comprehensive Plan and they have <br />an overall transportation element. They will make certain that the future traffic circulation <br />system can accommodate the proposed land use allowances. Also, from an MPO standpoint, <br />they will be considering a scope of services for the MPO's long-range transportation plan <br />update through the year 2025 at their next MPO meeting. <br />It seemed to Chairman Macht that the 20% density bonus would be site-specific and <br />involved the ability to handle the traffic. He felt that an across-the-board precedent would <br />not prevail. <br />County Attorney Vitunac advised that he would like to analyze the last three density <br />credits and advise the Commission how that happened and whether it would be binding in <br />the future. There is time to look at the whole issue regardless of this zoning request. The <br />applicant has apparently met all the zoning criteria - this is quasi-judicial. The Board may <br />later have a right to give a density bonus in the future but that is extraneous to what is before <br />them. <br />It was determined that no one else wished to be heard and the Chairman closed the <br />public hearing. <br />MARCH 9. 1999 <br />70 <br />41 0 <br />