|
•
<br />- Objections 2, 3, and 4
<br />DCA's Objections 2, 3, and 4 ignore the fact that, as a whole, the proposed amendment will decrease
<br />overall land use intensity and will enhance overall environmental quality by enlarging, enhancing
<br />and preserving existing wetlands. Those objections raise concerns about allowing more intense land
<br />uses on Subject Property 2. Specifically, those objections relate to the proposed amendment's
<br />impact on on-site floodplain and on nearby wetlands.
<br />The analvsis will demonstrate the following:
<br />• Subject Property 2 is not within the area likely to be flooded by a 100 year storm;
<br />• Even if Subject Property 2 were located within an area likely to be flooded, existing
<br />comprehensive plan policies and land development regulations enure that commercial
<br />development could take place on that site without degrading the floodplain; and
<br />• Changing the land use designation of Subject Property 2 would not adversely impact nearby
<br />wetlands.
<br />As noted in the description and conditions section of this staff report, FEMA maps place a small
<br />portion of Subject Property 2 within Flood Zone A. While FEMA maps provide a general indication
<br />of flood zone areas, more specific flood area information is available.
<br />While preparing the Horizon Outlet Center Application for Development Approval (ADA),
<br />extensive topographic data were collected and presented on Map C of the ADA. Attachment 6 of
<br />this staff report contain topographic information from Map C of the ADA. Attachment 6 also
<br />depicts Subject Properties I and 2, and the boundary line between Flood Zones A and X as derived
<br />from the FEMA map. Attachment 6 indicates that the majority of Subject Property 2 is at an
<br />elevation of 30 or more feet above Mean Sea Level (MSL), while the western edge of Subject
<br />Property 2 slopes to an elevation of 26 feet above MSL.
<br />One hundred year storm canal elevations found in the Indian River Farms Water Control District
<br />document Evaluation and 1 J do ating of the Pla4 of Reclamation. Works of improvement (July 1990)
<br />by Carter and Associates, Inc. and Williams, Hatfield, Stoner, Inc., indicate that the 100 year storm
<br />elevation in the area of Subject Property 2 would be approximately 26 feet. Therefore, development
<br />of Subject Property 2 would not likely be flooded by a 100 year storm, and would not result in the
<br />reduction of floodplain storage capacity.
<br />As indicated in Attachment 7, most of the land in the county is within flood prone areas. Therefore,
<br />the development of standards to allow some development in some flood prone areas has been
<br />necessary. Thus, the following comprehensive plan policies and land development regulations
<br />ensure that even within flood prone areas, commercial development can take place without degrading
<br />the floodplain.
<br />• FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT POLICIES: 1.3, 3.3, 3.4, 7. 1, and 7.5
<br />• STORMWATER MANAGEMENT SUB -ELEMENT POLICIES: 1.1 and 1.2
<br />• C.APITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENT POLICIES: 3.3 and 3.5
<br />• LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CHAPTER 930 (Stormwater Management and
<br />Flood Protection)
<br />The above listed policies will be discussed in greater detail in the "Consistency with the
<br />Comprehensive Plan" section of this staff report.
<br />Finally, Objections 2, 3, and 4 raise concerns about development on Subject Property 2 impacting
<br />nearby wetlands. Despite those concerns, current county comprehensive plan policies ensure that
<br />impacts on existing wetlands are minimized. Wetland protection policies exist in the Future Land
<br />Use Element (Policies 1.3, 7.3, 7.4, and 7.6) and the Conservation Element (Policies 2.4, 5.3, 7.2,
<br />7.3, and 7.4). Those policies, which include policies that require wetland buffers and stormwater
<br />management provision, have been incorporated into land development regulation chapter 928 and
<br />are the same under both the existing residential designation and the requested commercial
<br />designation. Therefore, changing the land use designation of Subject Property 2 would not adversely
<br />impact nearby wetlands.
<br />It is important to note that, as previously referenced, the proposed amendment is related to a DRI.
<br />Because the proposed amendment is associated with a DRI, site design issues such as stormwater
<br />management, setbacks, landscaping, and others may be considered when reviewing the
<br />reasonableness of the proposed amendment. In fact, the DRI and the associated Development Order
<br />related to the proposed amendment have been reviewed by DCA, the St. John River Water
<br />Management District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and numerous other state
<br />and regional agencies. Each of those agencies has found the proposed DRI acceptable, subject to
<br />condition contained in the recommended Development Order.
<br />JUNE 291998
<br />-25-
<br />E:� ,, M , F+1, ��'
<br />
|