Laserfiche WebLink
approved the project traffic statement and indicated that <br />impacts resulting from anticipated mining operation traffic <br />are adequately addressed (see attachment #7). As approved, <br />the site plan requires improvements to the segment of 5th <br />Street S.W. from the mining site's access driveway to 82nd <br />Avenue, as well as installation of a paved apron at the 5th <br />Street S.W./82nd Avenue intersection on the east side of 82nd <br />Avenue. Since 82nd Avenue functions as a truck route for <br />citrus and vehicles using the landfill, it is an appropriate <br />haul route segment for fill vehicles. <br />3. Aesthetics and Compatibility. Although no buffers are <br />required by the LDRs for the subject project, there will be a <br />150' setback between the mining pit and perimeter properties. <br />Within the 150' setback, spoil mounds will be created between <br />the pit and perimeter properties. Though not required, the <br />applicant has indicated that existing citrus trees are to be <br />preserved along the site's east and west perimeters to provide <br />buffering. <br />In the area of the site, 1st Street S.W. is used to access <br />several large parcels upon which residences are located. To <br />avoid mixing truck traffic with this "residential" traffic, <br />the mining operation will use only that segment of 5th Street <br />S.W. west of the project entrance to access 82nd Avenue. To <br />further reduce potential conflicts with surrounding residents, <br />the Planning and Zoning Commission restricted the mine's hours <br />of operation to 7:00 a.m. - 5:00 p.m. Mondays through Fridays. <br />These restricted hours match the hours usually applied to <br />mines located adjacent to residential zoning districts. <br />*Board Review of the Appeal: Guidelines. <br />Section 902.07 provides guidelines for the review of this appeal. <br />Under 902.07, the Board of County Commissioners is to make findings <br />in the following four review areas: <br />1. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission) <br />fail to follow the appropriate review procedures? <br />2. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission) <br />act in an arbitrary or capricious manner? <br />3. Did the reviewing official (Planning and Zoning Commission) <br />fail to consider adequately the effects of the proposed <br />development upon surrounding properties, traffic circulation <br />or public health, safety and welfare? <br />4. Did the reviewing' official (Planning and Zoning Commission) <br />fail to evaluate the application with respect to the <br />comprehensive plan and land development regulations of Indian <br />River County? <br />In staff's opinion, the planning staff and the Planning and Zoning <br />Commission did not fail in any of these four areas in its decision <br />to conditionally approve the Rebel Ranch sand mine. <br />1. There appears to be no contention in terms of the procedural <br />review of the application. Pursuant to standard site plan <br />procedures, LDR review requirements applicable to the mining <br />proposal and corresponding site plan were applied. In <br />addition to normal procedural requirements, staff contacted <br />and had meetings with concerned surrounding property owners <br />throughout the review process. Concerned area residents were <br />41 <br />March 14, 1995 goo 94F,,_`► <br />L 'A <br />