My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
4/23/2002
CBCC
>
Meetings
>
2000's
>
2002
>
4/23/2002
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
5/17/2019 1:55:12 PM
Creation date
9/25/2015 4:39:01 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
Meetings
Meeting Type
BCC
Document Type
Migration
Meeting Date
04/23/2002
Archived Roll/Disk#
2555
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
88
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
• • <br />Solid Waste <br />Solid waste service includes pick-up by private operators and disposal at the county landfill. The <br />county's adopted level of service standard for landfill capacity is 1.97 cubic yards/person/year. <br />With the county s average of approximately 2.3 persons/unit, a 57 unit residential development <br />would be anticipated to house approximately 131 people (2.3 X 57). For the subject request to <br />meet the county's adopted level of service standard of 1.97 cubic yards/person/year, the landfill <br />must have enough capacity to accommodate approximately 258 (131 X 1 97) cubic yards/year. <br />A review of the solid waste capacity for the active segiuent of the county landfill indicates the <br />availability of more than 820,000 cubic yards. The active segment of the landfill has a 2 year <br />capacity, and the landfill has expansion capacity beyond 2010. Based on the analysis, staff <br />determined that the county landfill can accommodate the additional solid waste generated by the <br />site under the proposed zoning district. <br />Stormwater Management <br />All developments are reviewed for compliance with county stonnwater regulations which require <br />on-site retention, preservation of floodplain storage and minimum finished floor elevations. In <br />addition, development proposals must meet the discharge requirements of the county Stormwater <br />Management Ordinance. Since the site is located within the M-1 Drainage Basin and the Indian <br />River Farms Water Control District (IRFWCD), development on the property will be prohibited <br />from discharging any runoff in excess of 2 inches in a 24 hour period, which is the approved <br />IRFWCD discharge rate. <br />In this case, the minimum floor elevation level of service standards do not apply, since the <br />property does not lie within a floodplain. However, both the on-site retention and discharge <br />standards apply. With the most intense use of this site under the proposed amendment, the <br />maximum area of impervious surface would be approximately 219,542 square feet, or 5.04 acres. <br />The maximum runoff volume, based on that amount of impervious surface and the 25 year/24 <br />hour design storm, and given the IRFWCD 2 inch discharge requirement, would be <br />approximately 220,824 cubic feet. In order to maintain the county's adopted level of service, the <br />applicant would be required to retain approximately 168,552 cubic feet of runoff on-site. With <br />the soil charactenstics of the subject property, it is estimated that the pre -development runoff rate <br />is 21.45 cubic feet/second. <br />Based upon the County Engineering Division's <br />would be met by limiting off-site discharge to <br />inches in 24 hours, and requiring retention of <br />intense use of the property. <br />analysis, the drainage level of service standard <br />the IRFWCD's maximum discharge rate of 2 <br />the 168,552 cubic feet of runoff for the most <br />As with all development, a more detailed draina <br />development approval process. <br />Recreation <br />e review will be conducted during the <br />A review of county recreation facilities and the projected demand that would result from the <br />most intense development that could occur on the property under the proposed zoning district <br />indicates that the adopted levels of service would he maintained. The following table illustrates <br />the additional pirk demand associated with the proposed development of the property and the <br />existing surplus park acicage. <br />April 23, 2002 <br />47 <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.