11/22/1988 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home Browse Search

10. Traffic Circulation: The plan calls for the removal of an existing dirt driveway that connects the site to 12th Street; this driveway serviced a residence previously located on the site of which only a foundation currently remains. The site will be accessed via a two-way drive onto 41st Avenue. 11. Dedications and Improvements: A sidewalk is to be provided along the site's entire 41st Avenue frontage. 12. Landscape Plan: The landscape plan exceeds the requirements of Ordinance #84-47. Preservation of existing stands of saw -palmetto and trees along most of the site boundaries will more than adequately meet the requirement for Type "B" buffering of adjacent properties. 13. Environmental Issues: A ±0.54 acre non-viable, isolated wetland is located in the center of the site (see attachment #4). The applicant has submitted copies of letters from the DER, DNR, and the Army Corps of Engineers (A.C.O.E.) which exempt the applicant from any dredge and fill or other wetlands requirements. Although these jurisdictional agencies have exempted the project from wetlands -related requirements, the County's wetlands requirements still apply. Pursuant to section 23.3(f)(1) of the site planordinance and County policy, sites containing non-viable wetlands may be developed as long as one of three available --options is pursued. These options are prioritized as follows: a. Preservation of the wetland area; b. Mitigation for developing the wetland area, type -for - type (wetlands for wetlands); or c. Mitigation for developing the wetland area, type-for- nontype (uplands for wetlands). In determining which option should be approved, the County considers the feasibility of development, the quality of the wetland area(s), the potential for mitigation, and other environmental opportunities on site. The applicant has stated that it is not feasible to preserve the wetland area and fill/build around it because it is located in the center of the site; thus preservation would render the site unbuildable for, the proposed use. Also, .the applicant has stated that attempts to mitigate filling of the wetlands by creating other wetlands on the site would destroy quality pine and hardwood uplands areas on the site. In essence, the applicant maintains that the cost (development feasibility and loss of quality uplands areas) of preserving or creating wetlands on site does not justify the potental benefits. The applicant proposes option #3, "trading -off" a non-viable wetlands area for total preservation of uplands areas as well as planting wax myrtles around retention areas to mitigate the loss of flora in the existing wetlands area. The appli- cant's mitigation plan is summarized as follows: 21 NOV 22 1988 ROOK 75 FnE 233