12/1/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

DEC 1982 Southeast Enterprise November 19, 1982 Page 6 ALTERNATIVES AND ANALYSIS: (Continued) subject property contains approximately ± 21.79 acres and 71 lots. The platted density is 3.26 units/acre. The proposed development outlined in Table I including a neighborhood commercial node re- sults in a gross maximum density of 3.4 units/acre. This density is .14 units/acre greater than the platted density of River Shores. The development proposed in Table II would allow a gross maximum density of 3.2 units/acre which is .6 units/acre less than the platted density of River Shores. The applicant's proposed develop- ment would allow a maximum gross density of 4.7 units/acre. Thus, the applicant's proposed use would allow 1.44 units/acre greater density -than the present density in River Shores Subdivision. Housing Types - The proposed rezoning would allow multiple family units to be constructed on the subject property. These units would be adjacent to an established single family neighborhood. A D.O.T. ditch separates the two parcels. Good planning practices would prohibit funneling traffic from a multi -family development through a single family development. In addition, the applicant's development proposal indicates one direct access to U.S.#1. It should be noted that site plan requirements under Section 23 of the Indian River County Zoning Ordinance will require buffering and setbacks between two residential districts. In addition, multi -family development under site plan review does provide design flexibility to minimize any real or preceived negative impacts of allowing multi -family and single family development to occur next to one another. Response to Additional issues addressed at the October 14, 1982, Public Hearing. , During the Public Hearing before the Planning and Zoning Commis- sion, the residents stated two objections which have not been addressed in previous sections of this analysis: 1) The Comprehensive Plan seeks to preserve agriculture uses while the proposed development would eliminate a productive grove. 2) The location of the proposed sewage treatment plant would impact River Shores and could create pollution problems by seepage into the D.O.T. Ditch. In response to the first issue, it might be noted that Section B Agriculture of the Land Use Element which prohibits encroachment of other land uses on agricultural lands refers to the areas desig- nated as Agriculture and RR -1, Rural Residential. The intent of the Plan is to encourage an orderly, timely, urban development and prohibit premature development of areas outside urban service perimeters. While the location of sewage treatment plants is a site plan review consideration, staff concurs with the residents objection to a plant located to the north. As a part of site plan review under the provisions of Section 23 of the Zoning Ordinance, the treatment plant should be required to be located on the south side of the property. It is staff's understanding that the applicant has pro- posed to relocate the sewage treatment on the south side of the subject property.