6/18/1991 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

JUN 18 1991 BOOK FAEE U UC Director Keating explained that this is an amendment that was initiated by and to satisfy one of the intervenors in the Comp Plan process. Essentially it is a recommendation to create a new LU District which would partially replace a current conservation district we have. The specific request is to create a C-3 Conservation District that would be applicable only to the St. Sebastian River area. Director Keating referred to a graphic and pointed out the wetlands along the river, noting that LU designation for those wetlands would stay the same at C-2, which is a density of 1 unit to 40 acres (1/40). The uplands on each side of the wetlands area are a very broad area that would be narrowed down to go along with this request. There would have to be certain soil types and vegetative characteristics found for the area to be considered C-3, and the particular boundaries of the C-3 would be designated at time of development by an environmental survey. Director Keating believed the staff and applicant are generally in agreement with most of the characteristics of the C-3 District itself, which has a lot of the same characteristics and requirements that are applicable to AG areas in general, such as required clustering provisions, minimum amount of open space, and required conservation easements. In the C-3 there is a minimum buffer separation from the wetlands of the river of 1001. The major sticking point is the density issue. Staff is recommending 1/5 and applicant wants 1/2.40 Director Keating advised that staff's position is this area has been designated as one of the most important natural areas in the county, and it has a lot of characteristics that indicate the area deserves added protection through lower density, plus the other requirements. Also, staff looks at the fact that most of the area around this to west, like this area, is not in the urban service area, and except for a small area around Fellsmere, the lowest density within the urban service area is 1/5. Staff, therefore, feels that such an environmentally sensitive area that should be protected as much as possible should not have a higher density than the less sensitive areas that are similarly situated in the urban service area. There have been some considerations about whether or not it would be better to put centralized services in this area and have the density increase rather than have lower density on well and septic tank, but staff's feels that, despite the fact there are some drawbacks, the soils are some of the best in the county for septic tank use, and that, combined with the separation distance from the river and the other characteristics makes it appropriate not to extend the. urban service area to this particular area. Director Keating 90