12/15/1982 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

Under the current Plan, "environmentally sensitive areas east of 1-95 shall have the same maximum residential density Macres. ation as the v(2 Rural/Residential-2 land use district" or one unit per While I personally would be pleased to have De Joia's 5 acres and the adjoining 5 acres restricted to a gross density of 2 residences each, I think the R-1 AA classification allowing 2.6 units per acre is much more realistic than De Joia's requested 4.0 units per acre. I believe concurrent application to the Corps of Engineers, the Department of Environmental Regulation, and the St. Johns River Water Management District is required as well. 2) The creek which runs through this property provides natural drainage for a watershed area extending back to the Sebastian city limits. I believe the Public Works Department will verify that this area already has drainage and road problems which they cannot readily correct. It would not seem prudent to further impact this area until these problems are resolved. A few weeks ago the County Commission had before it a drainage problem further west on Roseland Road with a correction cost climbing into hundreds of thousands of dollars. Another area to the east, through Mrs. Hanson's property, is similarly demanding the County's attention. 3) Over 25 people along Havenview (126th Street) and surrounding streets, signed a petition for the Planning and Zoning Commission, specifically objecting to duplexes on this property. While I don't com- pletely share their fears of a transient neighborhood, I do know that, historically, multi -family units are not the nature of the Roseland com- munity. With the exceptions of the Sandrift Motel on U.S. 1 and the �- - Roseland Gardens Apartments 2 miles west, the only multi -family units that I know of in all of Roseland are the two duplexes at the corner of Havenview and Roseland Road. The fact that the residents on Havenview don't wish to have more duplexes may be experience speaking. We have many rental units already in Roseland but they are in the form of single family residences. 4) The density which_De J.Qia cur rently_proposes f� his nr�p 4 units per acre is double that of the ropert to the south (2 units t, s bei acre) and_ qudru aple that of the prope no to the rth (1 unit per acre). He `points to Havenview Street to the west as a bellwether of greater ensity but in fact, many people on this street own more than one lot (as has been the trend in the Roseland Townsite since it was established in 1903). The fact that a developer cuts the land into small lots does not mean that people want to live on small lots. ►.. 5) 1 believe the County Commission's decision to change the land use designation on this property from LD -1 to LD -2 was based on in- complete information from the current planning staff which in turn may have relied too heavily on De Joia's research and data. At this point, a restrictive zoning classification would give swifter correction of that error than advertising for a change in the land use designation. 6) At the last Land Use Hearing it was stated that De Joia's duplex development would "improve" the area. "Improvement" is a very sub- jective thing — it's in the eyes of the beholder — and one cannot improve another's property, one can only improve his own. A real neighborhood is a cohesive unit that evolves over the years, gradually, and an outsider cannot come in and "improve" it against the present residents' wishes with- out changing the neighborhood's character and subsequently destroying it. Quite simply, I sympathize with De Joia's need to make top dollar on his investment but I also feel that 8 - 10 quality units on this property would give him an excellent return on his money without overloading the surrounding area. Please vote to restrict the density on this property to 2 units (or less!) per acre by changing the zoning to R-1 AA. ilm_ O " Sincerely, Nancy C. Fletcher Post Office Box 276 Roseland, FL 32957 93