Laserfiche WebLink
JUN 171991 <br />TO: Board of County Camtissioners <br />FROM: <br />Neil A. Nelson <br />County Administrator <br />1. Description and Conditions <br />BOOK 46 PAGE 1195 <br />DATE: June 10, 1981 FI LE: <br />SUBJECT: N & B Realty, Inc. <br />(Carmen Nicotra Apts.) Extension <br />REFERENCES: <br />On May 26, 1981, Mr. Charles Garris, representing N & B Realty, has requested <br />a site plan approval extension for Carmen Nicotra Apartments. <br />The 64 unit apartment project is to be located on approximately 4 acres, at <br />the southwest intersection of 6th Avenue and 15th Place.' The gross density <br />is approximately 15 units per acre. <br />The site is zoned R-2, Multiple Family. Rockridge Subdivision is to the north <br />and east; Sunshine Quality Homes Subdivision is to the south; and co&nercial <br />establishments are to the west. Presently, 15th Place is a paved half street <br />from 6th Avenue to 7th Avenue and becomes a dirt road from 7th Avenue to U.S R. <br />The applicant proposes to pave an additional 8' from 6th Avenue to 7th Avenue to <br />allow 20 feet of pavement. The recommendations of the Technical Review Committee <br />meeting of May 31, 1979 were met. Development of the project will be contingent <br />upon receiving 6th Avenue sewer allocation and municipal water. <br />The site plan was originally approved in 1972 or 1973, then reapproved December <br />13, 1979. On December 11, 1981, the Planning and Zoning Commission approved <br />six month's extension for site plan approval. That motion included the stipu- <br />lation that no further extension be granted. This extension was granted in <br />error. The Board of County Commissioners is the proper governmental body to <br />grant/deny extensions of site plan approvals. The County Attorney's office <br />advised that since the extension was granted in good faith, that it should be <br />onored. <br />_.1ternatives and Analysis <br />A. Thd" Board of County Commissioners may deny the site plan approval extension. <br />This would allow the entire project to be reviewed with consideration given to <br />the changes in availability of utilities and the proposed design changes. This <br />would eliminate further procedural complications concerning the jurisdiction <br />for granting site plan approval extensions. <br />B. The Board of County Commissioners nay grant the extensicn. This would <br />fragment the planning process and.further complicate the procedural issues. <br />3. Recommendation <br />A. That the request for extension be disapproved. <br />B. That the site plan be resubmitted in accordance with Section 23, <br />Indian River County Ordinance No. 80-36 enacted September 24, 1980. <br />24 <br />W <br />