Loading...
1-22-24 Commission Workshop Adopted MinutesMINUTES Commission Workshop Meeting 4F Monday, January 22, 2024 - 5:30 PM City Hall, Commission Chamber 800 Seminole Road, Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 ATTENDANCE: Present: Curtis Ford, Mayor Bruce Bole, Commissioner - Seat 2 (District 1308) Candace Kelly, Commissioner - Seat 4 (District 1306) Jessica Ring, Commissioner - Seat 5 (District 1312) Absent: Michael Waters, Commissioner - Seat 3 (District 1307) Also Present: William B. Killingsworth, City Manager (CM) Kevin Hogencamp, Deputy City Manager (DCM) Ladayija Nichols, Deputy City Clerk (DCC) Amanda Askew, Planning & Community Development Dir. (PCDD) Brian Broedell, Principal Planner & Environmental Coordinator CALL TO ORDER 1. TOPICS A. Comprehensive Plan Update Link to Comp Plan redline 1.17.24 PCDD Askew explained that the next formal step in this process will be to present a redlined version to the Community Development Board (CDB), as the recommending body, to take a vote and then it will go before the Commission as an ordinance that will require two public hearings. She informed that there will be additional opportunities to provide feedback and gather public input. She explained that stormwater regulations and impervious are controversial and staff is recommending taking those elements out and revisiting them at a later time to allow additional experts to take a deeper dive. PCDD Askew presented as detailed in the agenda packet. Commissioner Kelly requested that the AB Elementary school park be added to the Parks Master Plan, being that the City pays for equipment and landscaping. Commissioner Bole inquired about the commmunity-park ratio. PCDD Askew explained that the State has specific requirements for communities that experience extreme growth. As it pertains to the requirements, she explained that baseball and softball could use some work. Commission Workshop January 22, 2024 Commissioner Ring asked for an explanation of the buffers in the wetland. PCDD read the existing policy and explained that staff is proposing that jurisdictional wetlands be added as this will help make the policy more specific and easier to understand, regarding that the buffer is 50 feet (ft) between the upland buffer and the jurisdictional waterlands. She explained the purpose of the buffer and informed that the State and federal government have a wetlands map, created by environmental engineers. Mayor Ford explained his understanding of jurisdictional and asked if this policy is a global application to individually -owned lots for development. He asked if the St. Johns River Water Management District (the District) has recommended 50 ft buffers, PCDD Askew answered yes. Mayor Ford expressed that he would like to hear more from environmentalist or the District themselves before signing off on the final updates. He expressed that before voting he would like to look at the impact on development of acreage and building on existing lots. Commissioner Bole inquired about high tide. PCDD Askew explained that the buffer is not measured from the tide but rather, it's determined by the soil type. Commissioner Ring asked what specific things staff are looking to allow or not allow in Section 24-271. Brian Broedell, Principal Planner & Environmental Coordinator, briefly explained the wetland regulations for the Comprehensive Plan and Chapter 24. He described that staff is proposing, instead of just along tributaries connected to the intercostal waterway, that 50 ft buffers be required for all jurisdictional wetlands while still leaving in the exemption for lots platted before 2002. Mayor Ford provided further input on this topic and expressed that he would like to look at maps of the City's wetlands. Commissioner Kelly asked if there was a way to include a commitment to resiliency and sea level rise as it relates to improving property, in the section on conservation and coastal management. PCDD Askew informed that staff can strengthen the language currently in this section. B. Chapter 24 (Land Development Regulations) Update Link to Redline Chapter 24 (1.17.24) impervious and turf lanyuap_e removed PCDD Askew presented and explained proposed changes as detailed in the agenda packet. Commissioner Bole asked how many email addresses the City has on file when it comes to getting the word out. DCM Hogencamp answered that there are 9,000 or so and that he would try to give the Commission a report answering that question. Commissioner Ring inquired about budgeting for mailers. PCDD Askew informed that on average they're around $4,000 each time the City wants to make a change. She explained that mailers have been placed in the budget however, has not been spent yet because changes were not ready to be presented to the Commission. She explained that Commission Workshop January 22, 2024 the funds go back into the general fund if they're not spent. PCDD Askew explained various requirements for notifying by signage. Mayor Ford asked about changes in the minimum home size. PCDD Askew informed that staff is looking to reduce the sizes because it's less of an environmental footprint on the property, more affordable, and allows for more flexibility when designing. Mayor Ford expressed concerns about property values. PCDD Askew reiterated that staff is proposing to allow smaller houses to be built. Mayor Ford inquired about the analysis of the proposed changes. PCDD Askew expressed that staff typically looks at the industry standards, the American Planning Association, and cities of similar sizes. Commissioner Ring asked for an explanation of changes to Section 24-65A. PCDD Askew shared that staff would like to add clarity to the items a user could ask a variance on as well as more of the language in this Section. PCDD Askew explained further changes that staff would be proposing in this Section. Commissioner Ring inquired about minimum lot size. PCDD Askew expressed that staff is proposing to delete a large portion of the Code regarding minimum sizes and that they aren't proposing any other minimum sizes. PCDD Askew explained further changes staff would like to make. Commissioner Kelly asked what a temporary pod is; PCDD Askew explained that these are temporary storage units that are delivered to a person's home. PCDD Askew discussed minor changes that staff would like to make to Chapter 23. Commissioner Ring asked if there were openings on CBD; PCDD Askew answered yes. 2. PUBLIC COMMENT Ellen Glasser spoke about impervious surface ratios and provided a handout to the Commission (which is attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as Attachment A). 1-22-24 Attachment A ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 6:24 p.m. Attest: Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk Date Approved: Z/�Z ZOZ r�ak 0-0 Curtis Ford, M or Commission NYorkshop JanuarN 22, 2024 -,'11( ':Y �' )YJ "I �v ( k - u IU >� � Attachment A to 1-22-24 Minutes Addressing Community Concerns: Impervious Surface Ration (ISR) January 2024 City 2040 Vision. "In Atlantic Beach, we have a sense of belonging and safety. Our citizens and government care deeply about community character, and we understand that unified support is required to preserve it. We are graced with the functional beauty of our beach, our marsh, and our tree canopy. Our shady streets and multi -use paths connect our welcoming neighborhoods and vibrant local businesses. Our city supports our diverse, multigenerational, socially linked community with green spaces. active lifestyles, parks, and programming. " (Adopted 2022) Key Recommendations • Commit to not allow additional impervious surface with new development and redevelopment. • Consider both quantity and quality of stormwater runoff. • Return the ISR to 35% for residential development. • Provide science -based credits for permeable materials, trees, and green space. • Maintain compliance through greater enforcement. AB Preservation (ABP) Observations: 1. ABP met with city staff in December 2023 to convey that the impervious surface ratio (ISR) for residential lot coverage is an issue of community concern. 2. ABP supported the reduction of the ISR in 2019, but ABP urged that it be lowered even more. 3. More impervious surface means more stormwater run-off. 4. ABP is open to allowing credits for tested permeable materials. 5. A timeline for historical changes in ISR is attached. 6. Property values did not suffer as a result of slightly lowering the ISR in 2019. In fact, they increased more than neighboring cities. 7. Overdevelopment is inconsistent with our Comprehensive Plan and 2040 Vision. 8. Redevelopment and new development have increased both quantity and quality (pollutants) of stormwater runoff. 9. ISR modeling in the core city with the last stormwater master plan update demonstrated that the higher the ISR, the more stormwater run-off to manage. 10. AB's onsite storage requirement was designed to manage current and additional impervious lot coverage, but it can fail due to lack of maintenance and challenges to enforce. 11. The amount of allowable lot coverage has resulted in visible changes to the look and feel of AB. 12. The greatest impact of the ISR for lot coverage is in residential zoning districts. Attachment A to -1-22-24 Minutes 13. Much of our infrastructure functioned for a lower ISR. Notwithstanding age and maintenance, infrastructure costs to build and manage higher volumes of stormwater will be more costly and would be directly proportional to the ISR. 14. AB is losing old growth tree canopy due to clearing of lots for overdevelopment. 15. Relying on existing setbacks for adequate controls of maximum lot coverage is inadequate. 16. Our residents value a small-town quality of life, natural beauty, green spaces, and tree canopy. All are impacted by overdevelopment. 17. Managing surface lot coverage for stormwater runoff does not mitigate all flooding in low lying areas or prevent the impact of sea level rise. 18. Paver and driveway installations in violation of the ISR often avoid enforcement. Cheating is not a reason to allow more impervious surface. Other Recommendations 1. Any code changes should be driven by data and science, as well as concerns for protecting the natural beauty and character of our city. 2. Defer on code changes related to ISR and stormwater management without a city- wide stormwater master plan update that includes ISR surface modeling for all parts of the city, including the Marshside. 3. Discussion on proposed zones should be part of robust and transparent community engagement. 4. Do not increase ISR in commercial zoning districts and consider possible code changes to address size limitations, with credits for permeable materials, green space, and trees. 5. ABP supports the existing requirement for on-site storage. 6. Require homeowners to submit onsite drainage plans from an engineer for any development or redevelopment. 7. Require homeowners to submit an engineer's certification of the total impervious surface, including pavers and pools that may receive credits. 8. Setbacks should be reviewed for viability to manage ISR lot coverage. 9. Grandfathering should be limited to current owners but not for redevelopment and teardowns. 10. Properly laid permeable pavers can be considered for credit according to the type. As part of the permitting process, a check by the building department should be made to assure proper installation. 11. Swimming pools could be considered 50% pervious. Infinity pools should be considered 100% impervious. 12. Treat artificial turf as impervious, except with conditions to be proposed by staff. 13. New city sidewalks and hardscape should employ pervious materials as much as possible. 2 Attachment A to 1-22-24 Minutes REFERENCES https://buiIdgreen.ifas.ufl.edu/Fact_sheet_Permeable_Surfaces.pdf https://pinehaIIbrick.com/florida-towns-permeable-paver-installation-wins-national- recognition/ https://gsi.floridadep.gov/palatka-permeable-paving-improvements/ https://blogs. ifas. ufl.edu/escambiaco/2021 /02/23/weekly-what-is-it-pervious-pavement/ https://www.orlando.gov/files/sharedassets/public/v/1 /departments/edv/city- planning/ldc2021-10008-artificial-turf-and-landscape-code-amendment.pdf https-//www.nytimes.com/wirecutter/reviews/best-artificial-grass/ https://www.coralgables.com/sites/default/files/mediaexport/City%20Managers/Administ rative%20and%201mplementing%200rders/10%202019- 01 %20Artificial%20Turf_Amended.pdf 3 Attachment A to -1-22-24 Minutes Impervious Surface Ratio (ISR) Lot Coverage Timeline 1982: (Ordinance 90-82-74) Impervious Surface was included in the definition for Lot Coverage. Lot Coverage included all areas of the lot covered by principal and accessory uses and structures as well as impervious surfaces such as drives, parking areas, walkways, swimming pools, patios, terraces, and the like. • The maximum lot coverage for all residential districts was 35%. • The maximum lot coverage for Commercial Limited (CL) was 65%. • There was no maximum lot coverage for Commercial General (CG), Commercial Intensive (CI) and Light Industrial (LIW). 1985: (Ordinance 90-85-91) Impervious surfaces such as drives, parking areas, walkways, swimming pools, terraces, and the like were removed from the lot coverage definition, and thus, the maximum lot coverage restrictions. This change was due to the parking requirements at the time (off street parking not allowed in front setbacks) which made it nearly impossible to meet the maximum 35% lot coverage requirement. As a result, maximum lot coverage only accounted for areas of the lot covered by principal and accessory uses and structures. • The maximum lot coverage for all residential districts 35% • The maximum lot coverage for CL was 65% • There was no maximum lot coverage for CG, Cl, and LIW 1986: (Ordinance 90-86-113) The City eliminated maximum lot coverage requirements in all residential zoning districts, meaning no restrictions for maximum lot coverage existed at this time. It was mentioned by the City Commission that the 35% maximum lot coverage requirement was unnecessary due to new setback requirements that allowed for over 35% lot coverage. The belief was that setback requirements would serve to control the amount of a lot covered by structures. Also, no definition or restrictions on impervious surfaces existed in the City Code at this time. 1998: (Ordinance 90-98-167) Due to flooding and storm water concerns, impervious surfaces such as driveways, patios, decks, and the like were added to the definition of lot coverage. Additionally, a 50% maximum lot coverage requirement was created for all residential zoning districts. • The maximum lot coverage for all residential districts was now 50% • No lot coverage requirements existed for commercial and industrial properties. 2001: ( Ordinance 90-01-172) An independent definition of impervious surface was added to the City Code. This definition included rooftops, sidewalks, patios, driveways, parking lots, and similar surfaces. Swimming pools were not considered impervious because of their ability to Attachment A to -1-22-24 Minutes retain additional rain water. The definition of lot coverage was changed to "the area of the lot covered by all impervious surfaces." Also added 70% maximum Impervious Surface restrictions for CBD, CL, CG, and LIW zoning districts and 25% maximum Impervious Surface restriction for the Conservation zoning district. • The maximum Impervious Surface for Conservation zoning was 25% • The maximum Impervious Surface for residential districts was 50% • The maximum Impervious Surface for commercial and industrial zoning districts was 70% 2003: (Ordinance 90-03-184) Added "surfaces using pervious concrete or other similar open grid paving systems shall be calculated as 50% impervious" to definition of impervious surface due to advancements in paver and pervious concrete technology. Lot coverage was still defined as the area covered by all impervious surfaces. • The maximum Impervious Surface for Conservation zoning was 25% • The maximum Impervious Surface for residential districts was 50% • The maximum Impervious Surface for commercial and industrial zoning districts was 70%. Except that maximum Impervious Surface did not apply to infill development or redevelopment of previously developed sites; however, landscaping was required in accordance with the City Code. Stormwater management requirements were also required for infill development and to redevelopment projects involving exterior site changes. 2006: (Ordinance 90-06-188) Due to pavers often being installed in a way that prevented permeability, the following language was added to the definition of Impervious Surface: "Open grid pavers must be installed on a sand base, without liner, in order to be considered 50% impervious. Solid surface pavers do not qualify for any reduction in impervious area, regardless of type of base material used." In order to address infill and redevelopment of residential lots, the language below was also added to the definition of Impervious Surface: "In such cases where a previously and lawfully developed residential lot or development project exceeds the 50% limit, redevelopment or additions to existing residential development shall not exceed the pre -construction Impervious Surface limit..." 5