The URL can be used to link to this page

10-13-25 Regular Commission Meeting Adopted MinutesMINUTES Jt `.s ; \ Regular City Commission Meeting r Monday, October 13, 2025 - 6:00 PM s = Commission Chamber City Hall, 800 Seminole Road Atlantic Beach, FL 32233 INVOCATION AND PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE CALL TO ORDER: Following the Pledge of Allegiance, Mayor Ford called the meeting to order at 6:00 PM. CC Bartle called the roll. ATTENDANCE: Present: Curtis Ford, Mayor - Seat 1 (At Large) Bruce Bole, Commissioner - Seat 2 (District 1308) Thomas Grant, Commissioner - Seat 3 (District 1307) Candace Kelly, Commissioner - Seat 4 (District 1306) Jessica Ring, Commissioner - Seat 5 (District 1312) Also Present: William B. Killingsworth, City Manager (CM) Jason Gabriel, City Attorney (CA) Donna Bartle, City Clerk (CC) Kevin Hogencamp, Deputy City Manager (DCM) Ladayija Nichols, Deputy City Clerk (DCC) Amanda Askew, Neighborhoods Department Dir. (NDD) MOVE ITEM 9A ON THE AGENDA With no objection from the Commission, Mayor Ford moved Agenda Item 9A to follow the approval of the minutes. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1A. Approve minutes of the Regular Commission Meeting held on September 22, 2025. The Commission approved the minutes as submitted. 9A. ORDINANCE NO. 90-25-257, Public Hearing and Final Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS; SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 24-89, STORMWATER, DRAINAGE, STORAGE AND TREATMENT REQUIREMENT TO REDUCE THE REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO RESIDENTIAL STORMWATERS STORAGE, PROVIDING FOR RECORDATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The public hearing was opened. The following speakers provided their comments: Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 Richard Arthur provided a handout (which is attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as Attachment A). Steve Piscitelli Steve Fouraker Mike Schmidt Geoff Selhorst Mark Gabrynowicz Christina Kelcourse Ellen Glasser Paul Kaufmann Kosmas Ballis Terry Brown Sarah Boren Brinkley Harrell Claudia LeBlanc Mary Emerson -Smith Nancy Staats Jackie Beckenbach Lisa Herrold Carole Schwartz Susanne Barker Angela Waters Ellen Golombek The public hearing was closed. The following individuals chose not to speak but submitted comment cards: Debbie Brown Lindsey Young Jason LeBlanc unknown name Ruth Bowman 10-13-25 Attachment A 10-13-25 Attachment B MOTION: Adopt Ordinance No. 90-25-257. Motion: Thomas Grant Second: Curtis Ford Prior to Mayor Ford seconding the motion, he temporarily relinquished the Chair to Mayor Pro Tem Bole, who assumed the role of Mayor. Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 MOTION. Amend the motion on the floor to read as follows: Development that results in more than thirty-five percent impervious lot coverage shall be required to provide onsite stormwater storage for the entire impervious surface area. Projects that result in less than four hundred square feet of additional impervious surface shall be exempt from this requirement, provided that the total lot coverage remains within the applicable zoning district. The four hundred square feet shall be calculated cumulatively from the adoption date of this ordinance. Motion: Curtis Ford Second. Thomas Grant The proposed amendment is attached hereto and made part of this Official Record as Attachment B. Discussion ensued. Mayor Ford called the question. CA Gabriel explained that calling the question is a motion to end debate and proceed to a vote. Mayor Pro Tem Bole asked for those in favor of calling the question. Three members voted in favor (Mayor Ford, Commissioners Ring, and Grant); two opposed (Mayor Pro Tem Bole and Commissioner Kelly). Mayor Pro Tem Bole asked if he could propose a friendly amendment; Mayor Ford declined. Curtis Ford (Moved By) For Bruce Bole For Thomas Grant (Seconded By) For Candace Kelly For Jessica Ring For Motion passed S to 0. MOTION: Ordinance No. 90-25-257 as amended for approval. Motion: Curtis Ford Second. Thomas Grant CA Gabriel clarified that that the original ordinance proposed removing the entire section c of Section 24-89; however, the ordinance being voted on, as amended, reflects the language presented in Attachment B. Curtis Ford (Moved By) For Bruce Bole Against Thomas Grant (Seconded By) For Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 Candace Kelly For Jessica Ring For Motion passed 4 to L The meeting recessed at 7:50 PM and reconvened at 8:01 PM. 10. MISCELLANEOUS BUSINESS 10.A. Public Hearing - APP25-0006 - Appeal of a decision of the Community Development Board (CDB) for variance ZVAR25-0013 at 34510th Street Request for a variance to build an addition above a legal non -conforming portion of the single-family home in the eastern side yard of the property. 10.B. City Attorney Procedural Reminders CA Gabriel explained the procedures as detailed in the agenda packet. 10.C. Disclosure of Ex Parte Communications, if any No disclosures were reported by the Commission. 10.D. Swearing in of all persons who will speak CC Bartle administered the oath to all speakers. 10.E. City Staff Overview NDD Askew presented as detailed in a presentation (which is attached hereto and made part of this official record as Attachment Q. 10-13-25 Attachment C 10.F. Applicant Presentation Dave Lamar and Maureen Lamar, applicants presented as detailed in Attachment C and provided a petition (which is attached hereto and made part of this official record as Attachment D). 10-13-25 Attachment D 10.G. Public Comments None. 10.H. Closing Comments/Rebuttal NDD Askew and Maureen Lamar answered questions from the Commission. 10.I. Commission Deliberation and Action MOTION: Approve Variance 25-0006 based on 6 (Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property) and 4 (Onerous Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 2. 3. effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property). Motion: Jessica Ring Second. Bruce Bole MOTION. Approve Appeal 25-0006 under 4 (Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property). Motion: Jessica Ring Second. Bruce Bole Curtis Ford Bruce Bole (Seconded By) Thomas Grant Candace Kelly Jessica Ring (Moved By) Motion passed S to 0. COURTESY OF FLOOR TO VISITORS PUBLIC COMMENT For For For For For The following speakers provided their comments: Dan Giovannucci Ellen Glasser CITY MANAGER REPORTS 3.A. Accept the 90 -Day Calendar (Oct. - Dec. 2025) There was a CONSENSUS to accept the 90 -Day Calendar. 4. REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS FROM CITY COMMISSIONERS Commissioner Bole • Thanked the Commission for the opportunity to participate via Zoom at the previous meeting. • Suggested prioritizing budget items in future discussions. • noted the Navy's 250th anniversary, highlighting the significant military service represented at a recent memorial event. Commissioner Grant • Expressed appreciation for the memorial service honoring fallen heroes. Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 • Raised safety concerns regarding electric bike usage on Beach Avenue. Commissioner Kelly • Noted that baseball has not yet met city requirements regarding audit documentation and safety training. The CM and CA were directed to write a letter on behalf of the Commission to the baseball association requesting compliance, their audit, and verification of proper training. • Acknowledged staff for their additional efforts related to recent budget decisions. Commissioner Ring • Raised concerns about lighting on Main Street. • Highlighted he City's ongoing support for veterans and requested information on efforts to assist homeless veterans, which was addressed by Deputy City Manager Hogencamp. Mayor Ford • Thanked Mayor Pro Tem Bole for serving as acting Mayor during his absence. • Announced a public meeting with the Duval County School Board on October 23, 2025, at 5:00 PM at Fletcher High School auditorium. 5. UNFINISHED BUSINESS FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS None. 6. CONSENT AGENDA 6.A. Approve Resolution No. 25-79. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA AUTHORIZING A VOLUNTARY COOPERATION AND OPERATIONAL ASSISTANCE LAW ENFORCEMENT MUTUAL AID AGREEMENT WITH THE JACKSONVILLE SHERIFFS OFFICE, NEPTUNE BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT, AND JACKSONVILLE BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT; PERMITTING OFFICERS TO PROVIDE LAW ENFORCEMENT SERVICE AND OPERATIONAL ASSISTANCE OUTSIDE OF THEIR JURISDICTIONAL BOUNDRIES; AUTHORIZING THE MAYOR, CITY MANAGER, AND CHIEF OF POLICE TO EXECUTE THIS AGREEMENT TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 6.B. Approve Resolution No. 25-84. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH AUTHORIZING THE EXECUTION OF A MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING BETWEEN THE ATLANTIC BEACH POLICE DEPARTMENT AND PANAMA CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT RELATED TO TRAFFIC AND CRIMINAL SOFTWARE SYSTEM; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER OR DESIGNEE TO SIGN THE MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDNING IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION. Adopt both consent agenda items 6A and 6B. Motion: Candace Kelly Second: Jessica Ring Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 7. 8. Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole For Thomas Grant For Candace Kelly (Moved By) For Jessica Ring (Seconded By) For Motion passed 5 to 0. COMMITTEE REPORTS 7.A. Arts, Recreation, and Culture Committee (ARCO) Report Lisa Goodrich, ARCC Chair gave an update to the Commission. ACTION ON RESOLUTIONS 8.A. RESOLUTION NO. 25-67 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE PURCHASE AND INSTALLATION OF A REPLACEMENT BLOWER AT THE WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION: Approve Resolution (No.) 25-67. Motion: Bruce Bole Second. Candace Kelly Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole (Moved By) For Thomas Grant For Candace Kelly (Seconded By) For Jessica Ring For Motion passed 5 to 0. 8.B. RESOLUTION NO. 25-80 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE A $313,922.32 CHANGE ORDER WITH ACON CONSTRUCTION CO. FOR THE COMPLETION OF RENOVATIONS TO MARSH OAKS COMMUNITY CENTER; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION: Approve Resolution No. 25-80. Motion: Jessica Ring Second. Candace Kelly Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole For Thomas Grant For Candace Kelly (Seconded By) For Jessica Ring (Moved By) For Motion passed 5 to 0. 8.C. RESOLUTION NO. 25-81 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ISSUE A TASK AUTHORIZATION TO JOHN COLLINS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION ADMINISTRATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES WATER TREATMENT PLANT #2 UPGRADES; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. 25-81 as read. Motion: Candace Kelly Second. Bruce Bole Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole (Seconded By) For Thomas Grant For Candace Kelly (Moved By) For Jessica Ring For Motion passed 5 to 0. 8.D. RESOLUTION NO. 25-82 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING STAFF TO ISSUE A TASK AUTHORIZATION TO JOHN COLLINS ENGINEERING ASSOCIATES, LLC FOR CONSTRUCTION Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 ADMINISTRATION SERVICES IN CONNECTION WITH THE PUBLIC UTILITIES WASTEWATER TREATMENT PLANT CHLORINATION & DECHLORINATION SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDERS IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION. Adopt Resolution No. 25-82 as read. Motion: Candace Kelly Second. Bruce Bole Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole (Seconded By) For Thomas Grant For Candace Kelly (Moved By) For Jessica Ring For Motion passed 5 to 0. 8.E. RESOLUTION NO. 25-83 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO PROVIDE $65,000 IN FISCAL YEAR 2025-26 GRANT FUNDING FOR ARTISTIC, RECREATIONAL AND CULTURAL PROGRAMS, EVENTS AND PROJECTS UTILIZING FUNDS BUDGETED IN ACCOUNT NO. 001-6010-572-82-00; AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO EXECUTE ANY CONTRACTS AND PURCHASE ORDER(S) IN ACCORDANCE WITH AND AS NECESSARY TO EFFECTUATE THE PROVISIONS OF THIS RESOLUTION; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION: Adopt Resolution No. 25-83 as read. Motion: Candace Kelly Second. Bruce Bole Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole (Seconded By) For Thomas Grant For Candace Kelly (Moved By) For Jessica Ring For Motion passed 5 to 0. Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 9. ACTION ON ORDINANCES 9.B. ORDINANCE NO. 90-25-258, Public Hearing and Final Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, HEREBY AMENDING THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS AS ADOPTED BY ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-24-253, INCLUDING ALL AMENDMENTS THERETO; THIS ORDINANCE SPECIFICALLY AMENDING SECTION 24-161, OFF-STREET PARKING AND LOADING, PROVIDING FOR RECORDATION AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. The public hearing was opened, there no speakers, and the public hearing was closed. MOTION. Approve Ordinance No. 90-25-258. Motion: Bruce Bole Second. Thomas Grant Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole (Moved By) For Thomas Grant (Seconded By) For Candace Kelly For Jessica Ring For Motion passed S to 0. 9.C. ORDINANCE NO. 95-25-127, Introduction and First Reading AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, COUNTY OF DUVAL, STATE OF FLORIDA, AMENDING CHAPTER 18, SOLICITATIONS, SECTION 18-1 DEFINITIONS TO MODIFY EXISTING DEFINITIONS; SECTION 18-2, PERMITS, REGISTRATION AND FINGERPRINTING REQUIRED TO REQUIRE DUVAL COUNTY CLERK OF COURTS PERMIT PRIOR TO SUBMISSION; SECTION 18-8, EXCEPTIONS; SECTION 18-9, PENALTIES TO CLARIFY THIS PROCESS; PROVIDING FOR PURPOSE AND INTENT; PROVIDING FOR CONFLICT; PROVIDING FOR CODIFICATION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE. MOTION: Approve Ordinance No. 95-25-127 (on first reading). Motion: Bruce Bole Second: Candace Kelly Curtis Ford For Bruce Bole (Moved By) For Thomas Grant For Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 Candace Kelly (Seconded By) For Jessica Ring For Motion passed S to 0. 11. CITY ATTORNEY/CITY CLERK REPORTS AND/OR REQUESTS None. 12. CLOSING COMMENTS BY CITY COMMISSIONERS AND CITY MANAGER Commissioner Bole • Announced plans to attend the upcoming Beaches Town Center Agency meeting. • Expressed concern about the potential local impact of a federal government shutdown. The CM noted that protocols are in place to support families affected by such events. Commissioner Grant • Inquired about the status of the Farmers Market RFP. The CM reported that it is expected to be released by the end of the month or early next month, with an award anticipated at the beginning of the year. Commissioner Kelly • Raised traffic concerns on Ahern Street. The CM confirmed that a traffic study is currently underway. Commissioner Ring • Highlighted upcoming events, including the Artisans' Fair and the Centennial Celebration kickoff scheduled for December 4. 13. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 9:31 PM Attest: dalt,X4 awvz - Donna L. Bartle, City Clerk Date Approved: IU/Z7 ZOZs Lid, 501z Curtis Ford, Mayor Regular City Commission October 13, 2025 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes I (% u / AGENDA ITEM M 86 4.1 ndoai AUGUST 23. 2010 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH CITY COMMISSION MEETING STAFF REPORT AGENDA ITEM: Stormwater Runoff and Land Development Regulations On -Site Storage Requirements SUBMITTED BY: Rick Carper, P.E., Public Works Director 4c'_ DATE: August 13, 2010 BACKGROUND: During the July 14`" Commission Meeting, a resident with a new construction building permit with on-site storage required questioned the City's requirement as being over burdensome and costly to new home builders. On- site storage is required by Land Development Regulations Section 24-66 (b). (Attachment A) The State has regulated stormwater discharge from larger sites for years using Environmental Resource Permits (ERP). The current thresholds for requiring a Water Management District permit are 4000 SF drivable impervious surface or 5000 SF of building or other impervious area not drivable, with the goal of limiting post development discharge (both quantity and quality) from a development site to less than or equal to pre -development discharge Atlantic Beach extends these requirements to the single family lot level. History: In 2002, the City was beginning construction of the Core City Drainage Improvements to combat flooding issues. This $9 million dollar drainage and infrastructure improvement project was designed to minimize damage to trees in the right of way to maintain the canopy coverage that is so much a part of the Old Atlantic Beach ambience. To minimize these impacts, on many streets the drainage system was placed in the middle of the street and pipe sizes were limited to that necessary to carry the existing runoff volumes, meaning the system does not have capacity for increased runoff resulting from added impervious area (Attachment B, City Manager letter from April 2006 provides additional details concerning stormwater collection system limitations). At the same time the Core City Project was proceeding, Engineers from CDM were finishing a Stormwater Master Plan Update (SMPU) for the city. As part of the SMPU, CDM was tasked to make recommendations for changes to the Land Development Regulations to ensure future development with increased impervious surface areas and resulting stormwater runoff did not result in a return to the flooding conditions the city was spending millions of dollars to correct. CDM's recommendations (Attachment C) included the requirement for on-site storage from every developed or redeveloped parcel. This requirement was added to the Land Development Regulations in March 2003. The City considered allowing developers to pay a stormwater impact fee rather than provide on-site storage, however this option was not adopted, partly because of a belief that the persons causing the problem should be responsible for the solution, but also because of the problem of quantifying a cost for public development of future facilities (as an example, the dramatic increase in land costs for the Hopkins Creek Retention Pond from when it was initially proposed in 1996 (—$400,000) and the land was finally purchased in 2006 ($860,000)). Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes AGENDA ITEM N 8G AUGUST 23. 2010 Since the City started enforcing the on-site storage requirement, there have been periodic complaints from builders, developers and homeowners that control of storm water was a municipal function and should not be required at the lot level. City response has always been that it should be the responsibility of the developer / homebuilder to pay for impacts caused by increased stormwater runoff rather than City tax payers as a whole. Controlling the increase at the source also results in many small systems, with little environmental impact, rather than larger. public systems such as wet ponds with the attendant increase in public maintenance costs. Additionally, it would be less of a burden for the neighbors if the stormwater solutions were provided on site vs. in the ROW (no closed roads during construction, etc.) A comparison of costs for publicly financed stormwater retention systems to the cost for various systems used by private homeowners / builders to meet the requirements at the lot level shows that private storage is significantly less costly on a unit cost ($/Cubic Foot) storage basis. Staff calculated this unit cost as $5.92/CF for Hopkins Creek using actual project costs vs. $4.96/CF for a proprietary in ground storage system already constructed in Atlantic Beach. Private storage may also be accomplished in many cases by surface swales or by perforated HDPE pipe in a gravel envelope at substantially lower unit costs than the proprietary systems. Because of rising land values, the lack of undeveloped land in Atlantic Beach, and limited areas in which to construct detention facilities, construction of under road vault systems with associated pumping stations may be the only method feasible for Atlantic Beach to construct a public stormwater facility. A unit cost estimate of at least $15/CF is a more likely comparison point for future public vs, private costs. The resident voicing this latest concern over the on-site storage requirement provided a survey showing only an existing swimming pool with his original building permit application. Since approval of the building permit, the resident, with Staff assistance, has provided documentation of substantially more previously existing impervious area on this lot, such that the on-site storage requirement has been reduced from 1830 cubic feet to 540 cubic feet. He has submitted a plan that provides this volume using surface swales and in -ground storage with no requirement for pipes or other structures. If the original on-site storage requirement had remained, using a cost of $440,000 for the lot (Property Appraiser's website) and a reported construction value of $390,000, the reported cost of $7000 for materials, assuming a 50% cost for design and installation, would have amounted to -1.25% of the total cost for the home. BUDGET: No budget impact, for Commission information only. RECOMMENDATION: None. For Commission review and discussion, pending further direction to Staff. ATTACHMENTS: A. COAB Land Development Regulations Section 24-66 (b) B. City Manager's Letter - Capacity of City of Atlantic Beach Storm Water System and Related Storm Water Regulations C. SMPU 2002 Appendix D, Stormwater Criteria for Development and Redevelopment REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER: Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Attachment A AGENDA ITEM N 8G AUGUST 23, 2010 Sec. 24-66. Stormwater, Drainage, Storage and Treatment Requirements. (b) On -Site Storage. The Applicant shall be required to provide on-site storage, such that there is no increase in the rate or volume of flow to off-site, from every developed or redeveloped Parcel, and for any addition or modification that increases the impervious surface area on a developed lot by 10% or 400 SF, whichever is smaller and provide documentations and calculations to demonstrate compliance. Development Projects previously permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), which have an in -compliance retention or detention system that collects and controls run-off, are exempt, however a copy of the Engineer's Certification of As -Built Construction to the SJRWMD must be submitted to the City before issuing building permits for individual lot construction may begin. The requirement for on-site storage may be waived by the Director of Public Works if storage is determined to be unnecessary or unattainable. If on-site storage is required, an As -Built survey, signed and sealed by a licensed Florida surveyor, documenting proper construction and required volume of the storage system, must be submitted to the Director of Public Works prior to permit closeout or issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. For an under- ground system, a notarized letter from the General Contractor, along with red -lined plans and construction photographs, will be sufficient to document proper construction. Volume calculations for Lots that require on-site storage should be based on the difference in run-off volume generated by the new impervious area ("delta volume") and would be calculated by: V=CAR/12, where V = volume of storage in cubic feet, A = area of the lot in square feet, R = 25 year and 24 hour rainfall depth (9.3 inches) over the lot area, and C = run-off coefficient, which is 0.6 for the 50% maximum imperviousness, 0 4 for 25% imperviousness, and 0.2 for 0% imperviousness. This delta volume (post V minus pre -V in cubic feet) must be stored at least 1 foot above the wet season water table and below the overflow point to off-site (in many cases this may be the adjacent road elevation). As an option, and as approved by the Director of Public Works, the owner of the parcel to be developed or redeveloped may implement, at the applicant's cost, off-site storage and necessary conveyance to control existing flood stages off-site. Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes AGENDA ITEM N EG AUGUST 23, 2010 ATTACHMENT A APRIL 10, 2006 COMMISSION MTG Capacity of City of Atlantic Beach Storm Water System and Related Storm Water Regulations April 5, 2006 There is no excess capacity in the City of Atlantic Beach storm water system. In recent years, engineers working for Atlantic Beach have designed storm water improvements to prevent street flooding during most major storms and flooding of homes during a 25 year storm. This means a rainfall event that will occur on average once every 25 years. In Atlantic Beach, that would equal 9.3 inches of rain over a 24 hour period. It has been many years since a storm of that magnitude has been seen here. The city recently spent over 59,000,000 in the old Atlantic Beach area making storm water and other utility improvements. The final plan for these improvements was identified only after two previous designs were rejected by the public because of their environmental impacts. Those plans would have included converting major portions of two parks into retention ponds, the construction of large storm water lines and pumping systems and the removal of many street side trees. Atlantic Beach is basically flat and getting storm water to move rapidly out of residential neighborhoods is difficult. Every additional square foot of impervious surface that is added in old Atlantic Beach will increase the level of flooding in surrounding homes. For this reason, in 2001 the Mayor and Commission adopted a 50% limit on the amount of impervious surface on any given lot and in 2003 adopted regulations requiring the on-site retention of additional storm water runoff resulting from development. In spite of these regulations, the total impervious surface in Atlantic Beach will grow in the future because most of the present lots have less than 50% impervious area, and they can legally expand under current regulations. The purpose of the current regulations is to slow the increase of storm water into the city's system and thereby push the need for additional and more invasive storm water solutions as far into the future as possible. • Other areas of Atlantic Beach face the same problems. Some of those, like the area around Aquatic Drive and Hopkins Creek, experience considerable flooding during major rainfall events and will certainly experience house flooding during a 25 yeza storm. Planning is underway for improvements in those areas. In other neighborhoods such as Oceanwalk, little or no flooding has been apparent even in the worst of storms. However, as the lots in Atlantic Beach are redeveloped with larger homes, bigger driveways, new swimming pools and other impervious surfaces, more storm water will be put into the drainage systems which inevitably will cause future flooding and the need for additional capital projects to bring that flooding under control. Just because most of the city drainage system works now doesn't mean that we can be careless in the design of new development. For additional information on the status of the city's storm water system, consult the Atlantic Beach Storm Water Master Plan dated February 1995 and the Master Plan Update dated August, 2002. Both are available in City Hall. Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes AGENDA ITEM 0 SG AUGUST 23, 2010 Appendix D Stormwater Criteria for Development and Redevelopment Background The City of Atlantic Beach has committed significant capital funds to reduce flooding in the Core City. This Storm Water Master Plan Update (SWMPU) has identified a series of projects with additional significant capital costs to reduce/ control flooding in other parts of the City. The City is characterized by a series of remnant depressional areas from the coastal dune system, which along with development patterns has created a series of closed and quasi -closed depressions or "bathtubs" where flooding occurs. As such, these areas are sensitive to the volume of runoff discharged to them. All of the analyses (Core City, SWMP, and SWMPU) have been based on the existing land use and storage conditions in the City. Therefore, redevelopment and new development could increase the volume and rage of runoff discharged to offsite through new impervious areas and/or the filling of onsite depressional (natural) storage. As an example of this, CDM used the Hopkins Creek stormwater model to simulate the effects of increased impervious area if the upstream areas were to develop to the allowable 50 percent level, and the results show that the flood stages in houses and buildings would be increased. The St Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) regulates the peak discharge from development greater than 40 acres or 12 acres of impervious surface. CDM recommends that the City extend these criteria to smaller projects (individual lots) to provide and preserve the City's desired levels of service for flood protection. Recommendations Therefore, CDM recommends that the City consider the following criteria for implementation: ■ The City already requires a maximum of 50 % impervious area per parcel. CDM recommends that this apply to parcel subdivision for all platted lots (e.g., split a lot into two lots). CDM recommends that the City require the applicant to provide onsite storage such that there is no increase in the rate or volume of flow to offsite from every developed or redeveloped parcel. This includes documentation and calculations to demonstrate compliance. Subdivisions and developments that have been permitted by the SJRWMD and have an in -compliance retention/ detention system that collects and controls runoff would be exempted (e.g., Ocean Walk, Fleet Landing, Tiffany By The Sea, Paradise Cove). 1M ataan_aw�.wr.iw�o_�w�c �po��.00.Nrr n.va++r�sanae.owcv..� ami Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Apperxft D Stom Ater CHtede > >n nY cv ya Or, the City should require from the developer or landowner a fee -in -lieu -of onsite W m storage. This fee would be based on the fair share of capital and annual costs for the o = City to construct and maintain the piping and storage facilities downstream in c order to cause no adverse impact offsite (e.g., no increase in flood stages). This fee would include the cost of land acquisition, which could include existing building acquisition. ■ The volume calculations for lots that require onsite storage should be based on the difference in runoff volume generated by the new impervious area ("delta volume") and would be calculated by V- C*A*R/12; where, V - volume of storage in cubic feet, A - Area of the lot in square feet, R - 25 year 24 hour rainfall depth (9.3 inches) over the lot area, and C = runoff coefficient, which is 0.6 for the 50% maximum imperviousness, 0.4 for 25 % imperviousness, and 0.2 for 0 % imperviousness. This delta volume (in cubic feet) must be stored at least 1 foot above the wet season water table and below the overflow point to offsite (in many cases this may be the adjacent road elevation. The City should require no net loss of 100 -year floodplain storage for areas where a floodplain elevation has been defined by either the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs), the 1995 SWMP, the Core City project, or the 2002 SWMPU (e.g., Hopkins Creek). Therefore, site grading must create storage onsite to make up for filling of volume onsite. This storage is in addition to the storage required for the increase in impervious area. D-2 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes COAB STORMWATER WORKSHOP Monday lune 17, 2024, 6:00 PM Gregory Powell, PhD, PE D �� Good evening! For the Record: G�erI 1. Name: Gregory Powell ��Gi4- 2. Address: 1871 Selva Marina Drive, Atlantic Beach, FL. 32233 gr 3. 1 have lived at this address for over 30 years. 4. BS(1972), ME(1975), Ph.D.(1980) in Engineering, from the University of Florida. 5. Licensed Professional Engineer in Florida since 1982 (PE No. 31165). 6. Worked for over 40 years as a consulting engineer specializing in Civil, Environmental and Water Resources Engineering. 7. 1 have testified as an expert in administrative hearings and in court over 15 times on subjects including: Hydraulics, Hydrology, Water Quality, Water Supply, Stormwater Management, and Wastewater Disposal. 8. 1 am now semi -retired, and I am here representing myself as a property owner in COAB. If time will allow, there are a number of issues with the current Chapter 24 stormwater regulations that are TECHNICALLY INCORRECT, and in my professional opinion, they are NEITHER REASONABLE nor APPROPRIATE. However, before I address those issues, I would like to start with three aspects of the Chapter 24 Stormwater Regulations that are foundational, and in my opinion are REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE. 1. The OBJECTIVE of the Chapter 24 Regulations: a. As discussed in the Storm Water Master Plan, developed by CDM, as far back as 2012 (SWMP 2012), the objective of the stormwater regulations is to control EXCESS stormwater runoff from IMPERVIOUS surfaces. b c d e EXCESS runoff is the increased runoff from an IMPERVIOUS surface, when compared to runoff from a typical PERVIOUS area (SWMP, 2012). It's clear from the language of the code cited in this document that there shall be no increase in the rate or volume of flow from development or redevelopment of a lot. it is also clear from the history of development in Atlantic Beach, and other places, that unregulated development leads, over time, to increases in the percent impervious area, which increases offsite stormwater runoff, which can lead to localized flooding. This OBJECTIVE is both REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE. My concerns are not with the OBJECTIVE, but with the IMPLEMENTATION. 2. The DESIGN STORM EVENT required by Chapter 24. a. The design storm required is a 25 -year, 24-hour event with a rainfall depth of b. This design storm is commonly used in stormwater analysis and regulation. c. In my professional opinion it is REASONABLE AND APPROPRIATE. Page 1 of 5 COAB Stormwater Workshop 6/17/2 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes 3. The DEFINITION OF IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (Section 24-17) a. The first sentence of this definition is CORRECT. b. An IMPERVIOUS SURFACE is a surface that prevents the entry of water into the soil. I will not be presenting any calculations today to support my conclusions. However, I have provided them, in the past to City staff and would be happy to provide them to others that wish to review them. Now, I would like to discuss my concerns with the Chapter 24 stormwater regulations. The expanded definition of Impervious Surface in Chapter 24 is TECHNICALLY INCORRECT after the first sentence. a. While it is true that some surfaces made of concrete, asphalt, brick, or plastic are effectively impervious, the definition should NOT be based on the materials of construction -- It should be based on the infiltration rate of the material. b. There are many products made from concrete, asphalt, brick, and plastic that are partially or effectively PERVIOUS. Examples include: i. Permeable Pavers, ii. Porous Pavers or "Turf Blocks", iii. Permeable Concrete or Asphalt, iv. Pervious Pavers, and v. Artificial Turf. c. To exclude these products based solely on the material of construction is a significant stormwater management mistake that is UNREASONABLE AND INAPPROPRIATE. d. In Northeast Florida, rainfall events with an intensity of 4.0 inches/hour have a return period of 100 -years (US Department of Commerce, Weather Bureau, Technical Paper No. 25). Furthermore, most "typical" PERVIOUS surfaces in Atlantic Beach have an infiltration rate that is less than 4.0 inches/hour. e. Consequently, if test data or manufacturer's specifications confirm a long-term infiltration rate greater than or equal to 4.0 inches/hour, it should be classified as 100% PERVIOUS. f. I have personally conducted tests on pervious pavers and found the infiltration rates to be well above 4 inches/hour even after subjecting them to mud flows and applying water seal. g. A suggestion for correcting the definition of Impervious Surface is provided below: i. In the 2nd sentence, insert the word "may" before the word "include". ii. Insert the following sentence between the 2nd and 3rd sentences. "Construction products or the surface materials that may be impervious, as discussed above, can be classified as PERVIOUS, if test results or manufacturer specifications confirm that the long-term infiltration rate is greater than or equal to 4.0 inches/hour, and the base or lining is not impervious." iii. Delete the last sentence. This statement about pools is incorrect (see #5 below). 2. Chapter 24 regulations should be based on the Curve Number (CN) Method, NOT on a "modified" rational method, because the CN method is more accurate and justifiable. a. The CN method is now the required procedure by many municipal and regional authorities [Handbook of Hydrology, Maidment (1983)]. Page 2 of 5 COAB Stormwater Workshop 6/17/24 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes b. The CN method has largely replaced the rational method for calculating runoff volumes and peak runoff rates for several reasons: i. Literature values used with the rational method depend on storm intensity, duration and other drainage basin factors that require significant judgement, rather than justifiable or measurable data - it may be simple, it can be very inaccurate. it. The CN method incorporates many of the physical characteristics (i.e., land cover, soil characteristics, and storm depth) that determine the runoff volume. iii. Consequently, the CN method is much more accurate and justifiable. iv. Also, peak runoff rates and the impact of onsite storage can be determined from CN methods. The procedures are discussed in Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds (USDA, Technical Release -55, 1986). i c. Since the objective is to determine the onsite storage needed to control excess runoff from impervious surfaces, the more accurate CN method should be used. d. Then, the results can be easily converted to a simple modified rational formula for regulatory simplicity. 3. The CN for atypical pervious surface in AB a. Using soil data for Atlantic Beach from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS web soil survey), I determined that a typical pervious surface in AB (i.e., upland, grassed open space in good to fair condition) has a CN of 65. b. Jones/Edmunds used the CN method in Attachment 1 to the SWMP Update (October 2018) and found the same exact value for typical pervious area in AB. c. I recommend that this CN -value (65) for atypical pervious area in AB, along with the standard CN for an impervious surface (98), be incorporated into Chapter 24, for clarity and consistency. 4. The Chapter 24 "modified" rational formula used to determine onsite storage is NOT CORRECT. a. Using the standard CN method, the calculation shows that the AB Code requires a property owner to install more than twice the onsite storage as is necessary to meet the stated objective to control the excess runoff from impervious surfaces. b. This error in Chapter 24 can be easily corrected by changing the constant at the beginning of the formula [Redline. Sec 24-89 (c)(9)j from 0.92 to 0.44. c. Furthermore, while it is true that the SWMP objective requires limiting both excess runoff volume and peak discharge rate, the CN methods in TR -55 show conclusively that if the onsite storage volume criteria is met, the peak discharge rate criteria also will be met. d. Consequently, there is no need to regulate peak discharge separately, and appropriately, the AB code does not provide a formula for calculating peak discharge. 5. Classifying all swimming pools as 50% impervious is INCORRECT, ARBITRARY AND UNJUSTIFIED a. At best, this pool credit was based on consensus of the AB City Commission, with input from staff. The credit was NOT backed by sound science or engineering. b. Infinity pools have little or no freeboard and should be considered 100% IMPERVIOUS. i Page 3 of 5 COAB Stormwater Workshop 6/17/24 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Standard swimming pools use a surface skimmer to remove floating debris and the skimmer is usually installed between 4.5 and 5.5 inches below the deck or coping. This defines the normal water level and the pool's freeboard. d. If the pool freeboard is at least 4.3 inches, which is the case for most standard pools, runoff from the pool during the design storm event will be no more than from a typical pervious area in Atlantic Beach (i.e., the pool will not cause any excess runoff). Therefore, the pool should be considered 0% IMPERVIOUS. e. If for some reason, a pool's normal freeboard (PFB) is less than 4.3 inches, calculation of PERCENT IMPERVIOUS is simple and straight forward. Pool Freeboard 2 4.3 inches: %IMPERVIOUS = 0% Pool Freeboard <4.3 inches: %IMPERVIOUS=[ 1 -(PFB (inches)/4.3 inches)]• 100 6. Artificial Turf, which AB previously considered pervious, is now being classified as impervious. a. The OF/IFAS paper, mentioned in the Comprehensive Plan Presentation, did not call artificial turf either IMPERMEABLE or IMPERVIOUS. As discussed above (issue #1), artificial turf should be classified on its ability to infiltrate water. b. I have seen data from artificial turf manufacturers (independent testing labs) that show infiltration rates exceeding 500 inches/hour. c. The OF/IFAS paper relied on other studies, which are not directly applicable to AB for SEVERAL reasons: Just one example, the authors point out that this experimental setup is most appropriate for TEMPERATE climate conditions. Atlantic Beach is considered HUMID SUBTROPICAL. There are several other reasons why this study is NOT APPLICABLE. ii. The depth(sma(l) and duration(short) of the simulated rainfall events. iii. The relatively small plots, and high simulated slopes when compared to AB. d. The redline version of Chapter 24 states that artificial turf is prohibited within the dripline of a regulated tree. This statement is NOT JUSTIFIED OR JUSTIFIABLE. Even if the impervious character of artificial turf were somehow justified, it would NOT justify the prohibition. There are numerous examples of truly impervious surfaces within the dripline of regulated trees that have been in place for years without an adverse impact to the tree. 7. Professional Engineering Certification As a Professional Engineer, I would suggest that permit applications, submit with plans and specifications, signed, and sealed by a Florida PE should be reviewed by a PE. I would suggest the following language be included in Chapter 24: If a Professional Engineer (PE), licensed in the State of Florida, provides the COAB with a signed and sealed engineering report for an onsite stormwater management system (including necessary plans, specifications, and calculations), and certifies that the system meets the objectives and requirements of Chapter 24, only the City Engineer, or a licensed engineer under the City Engineer's responsible charge, shall review the plans and approve/disapprove the permit. Furthermore, If the COAB chooses not to review the plans within a reasonable time Page 4 of 5 COAB Stormwater Workshop 6/17/24 i I Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes (TBD), the permit should be automatically approved. However, if the City Engineer requests further information from the PE, the review clock stops until the PE responds. This is not intended to preclude a property owner from providing the COAG with the necessary information for a permit. It is intended to ensure that the work of licensed Professional Engineer is reviewed by a similarly qualified engineer. 8. One Last Point. One of the unintended consequences of overreach when establishing regulations is that the citizens begin to ignore them, request more and more exceptions, or may even litigate. I can attest to the fact that some of this is happening in AB with respect to the stormwater regulations. a. Regulations must be based on sound science and good engineering practices. b. To gain acceptance by those regulated, they must be APPROPRIATE, JUSTIFIED, AND CONSISTENT. THANK YOU FOR LISTENING TO MY CONCERNS. ANY QUESTIONS? water Workshop 6/17/24 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes 10.00 • #F � 8.00 c 7.00 a� 6.00 0 V) 5.00 Ln 00 4.00 a� 3.00 Cr Cl) oC 2.00 1.00 me] 9.30 Design Storm Onsite Storage (Based on Excess Runoff) 8.56 COAB Code requires more than twice the onsite storage as is required to meet any of IF the SWMP OBJECTIVES CXI: 2.33 COAB Code SWMP Objective SWMP Objective Peak Volume Rate 1.25 WQ Control Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Hydrologic Soil Group & Areas For Atlantic Beach Data Source: NRCS, Web Soil Survey, 5/13/2023 Area of Interest: Intercoastal Marsh to Ocean, Hanna Park to Atlantic Blvd. Map Unit Area (ac) HSG 7 8.5 A 14 257.4 C 22 19.3 B 24 24.2 A 29 36.2 A 32 489.4 B 33 1.7 B 35 113.2 B 36 78.3 A 42 4.3 A 49 20.7 B 58 24.9 B 62 23.3 B 71 753.6 B Total Area = 1855 % of Area Total A = 151.5 8% Total B = 1.446.1 78% Total C = 257.4 14% Typical Pervious Area CN = 65 All A/D Soils Aassigned HSG = B. All HSG D Soils Dropped to be Conservative (i.e., to minimize runoff from the Typical Pervious Area). Tables.xlsx Table 1 1 of 5 6/14/2024 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Hydrologic Soil Group (HSG) & Areas For Atlantic Beach Data Source: NRCS, Web Soil Survey, 5/13/2023 Area of Interest: Atlantic Beach Municipal Boundaries. Map Unit Area (ac) HSG 7 8.5 A 14 257.4 C 24 24.2 A 29 36.2 A 32 489.4 B 36 78.3 A 42 4.3 A 58 24.9 B 71 753.6 B Total Area = 923.2 % of Area Total HSG A = 151.5 16% Total HSG B = 514.3 56% Total HSG C = 257.4 28%! Typical Pervious Area CN = 65 All A/D Soils Further Evaluated: Based on Drainage Class, Surface Texture, Wet Season Depth To Water Table, and Hydric Rating. All HSG D Soils Dropped to be Conservative (i.e., to minimize runoff from the Typical Pervious Area). Tables.xlsx Table 2 2 of S 6/14/2024 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Estimate of Runoff and Onsite Storage Coefficients Based on Standard Curve Number Method. Atlantic Beach Design Storm = 9.3 inches (25 -year, 24-hour) Required Onsite Storage Volume = CAR 1.2 cu. ft. Reference: AB Municipal Code Sec. 24-68(b)(9) Reasonable Value for C = 0.97-0.53 = 0.44 1 NOT 0.92, as used in AB Municipal Code The rational or the modified -rational methods are designed to predict peak discharge rate. IDF Curves for Jacksonville, FI show that a 9.3 inch rainfall would have a duration of at least 24 hours. SCS CN method uses a hydrograph method and is based on 24 hour rainfall events. SCS CN method is more appropriate for calculating runoff volumes. CONCLUSION: The AB Municipal Code is requiring home owners to install more than twice the onsite storage volume necessary to control runoff from the regulated impervious area during the design storm event. Reference HEC -HMS Technical Reference Manual (USACE) Tables.xlsx Table 3 � Of 1, 6/14/2024 Typical Pervious Impervious RUNOFF CALCULATION Area Area Average CN for Area i, " 98 Soil Storage (inches) 5.4 0.20 Initial Abstraction (la] (inches) 1.1 0.04 Total Runoff (inches) 4.97 9.06 Equivalent Runoff Coefficients 0.53 0.97 Required Onsite Storage Volume = CAR 1.2 cu. ft. Reference: AB Municipal Code Sec. 24-68(b)(9) Reasonable Value for C = 0.97-0.53 = 0.44 1 NOT 0.92, as used in AB Municipal Code The rational or the modified -rational methods are designed to predict peak discharge rate. IDF Curves for Jacksonville, FI show that a 9.3 inch rainfall would have a duration of at least 24 hours. SCS CN method uses a hydrograph method and is based on 24 hour rainfall events. SCS CN method is more appropriate for calculating runoff volumes. CONCLUSION: The AB Municipal Code is requiring home owners to install more than twice the onsite storage volume necessary to control runoff from the regulated impervious area during the design storm event. Reference HEC -HMS Technical Reference Manual (USACE) Tables.xlsx Table 3 � Of 1, 6/14/2024 Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Runoff Coefficient required to Keep Peak Discharge from impervious Area equal to Peak Discharge from Pervious Area' 25 -Year 24 -Hour Depth = 9.3 illi ht�5 Runoff Pervious CN = 65 Qp - 4.97 inches Impervious CN = 98 Qi = 9.06 inches Rainfall Distribution = Type III Qi-Qp = 4.09 inches Pervious la = 1.077 inches Table 4.1 TR -55 Pervious la/P = 0.1158 Impervious la = 0.041 inches Table 4.1 TR -55 Impervious la/P = 0.0044 Peak Discharge Coefficients: Pervious Impervious Co = 2.471685 2 457317 C1 = -0.51846 -0.52206 C2 = -0.16808 -0.18188 Time of Concentration = 0.5 hr Min=0.1, Max = 10 Unit Peak Discharge qu = 409.7562 csm/in 396.268846 csm/in qo = Qp'qu(p) = 7.3E-05 cfs/ft' Peak Pervious Unit Outflow Rate qi = Qi'qu(i) = 1.29E-04 cfs/ftPeak Impervious Unit Inflow Rate qo/qi = 0.567173 Vs/Vr = 0.25 Onsite Storage Volume (ft) = 0.25 ' P(inches)`Imp Area(ft2)/12 To Control Peak Runoff Rate the coefficient should be = 0.25 To Control Runoff Volume the coefficient should be = 0.44 The RO Coefficient in the AB Code = 0.92 Conclusion: If you control RO volume, you will control Peak runoff rate Note 1: Calculation Method from Urban Nydrofogy for Smoll Wutersheds, TR -55, USDA, June 1986. Note2: Lot size = 0.5 acres L = 209 ft n = 0.35 2 -yr 24 -hr Depth = 4 inches Land slope = 0.02 ft/ft tc = 0.5 hr Tables.xlsxTable 4 4 of 5 6/14/202412:44 PM Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Pool Pervious Credit Table' Design Storm Volume = 9.3 Inches Pervious Area CN = 65 Impervious CN = 98 Typical Pervious Area Runoff = 4.97 Inches Impervious Area Runoff = 9.060 Inches Total Pool Pool Pool Pool Freeboard' Runoff Pervious Percent (inches) (inches) Credit (%) Impervious Comments 50.24 9.060 0% 100% Example: infinity pools 1.0 8.30 19% 81% 2.0 7.30 43% 57% Interpolate between values, if 2.3 7.00 50% 50% nessary. 3.0 6.30 67% 33% 4.0 5.30 92% 8% 4.3 4.97 100% 0% 100% Pervious, No Extra Credit 5.0 4.30 116% -16% Pervious credit values above 100% or negative percent impervious values represent extra storage credit that could be used to offset other impervious areas. (See Example Beelow) 6.0 3.30 141% -41% 7.0 2.30 165% -65% 8.0 1.30 190% -90% 9.0 0.30 214% -114% 10.0 -0.70 239% -139% 11.0 -1.70 263% -163% 12.0 -2.70 287% -187% 1 Based On Curve Number Method - Vertical distance between normal pool water level and overflow elevations. ' Example: If pool freeboard is 8.0 inches, impervious area credit would equal.- qual:0.90 0.90x Pool Area. Tables.xlsx, Tab: Table 5 5 of 5 6/14/2024 12:44 PM Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Overview of StormWater Master Plan (SWMP) Update and City Implementation Present Capital Improvement Projects Review and Update of Onsite Retention Requirement Ditch Rehabilitation Options Onsite Stormwater Controls and Options Current Ordinance Overview Application of Low Impact Development concepts to redevelopment by more than 10% or 400 sq -ft of impervious area No net loss of onsite surface storage (to avoid displacing historic onsite stormwater onto adjacent parcels and to maintain existing aquifer recharge) No increase in runoff volume for the 25 year 24 hour design storm (to avoid increases in runoff volume, flooding and pollution to offsite while maintaining aquifer recharge) — SJ RW M D Standard 46 Smith Onsite Stormwater Control Evaluation OW • Test area Evaluation for existing and potential redevelopment conditions - Impervious area, Groundwater table Considered four LID BMPs — Swales/retention Rain garde ns/bioretention Exfiltration trench Underground storage Driveway / grassed area cSmith Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes n LJ 514.00 --------- 512.00 0 510.00 LL �j $8.00 a> CL US6.00 - - -- Undergrou Storage Icdergroundrage------ ----------- $4.00 Trench ioretentiont ain Garden 52.00 ----------------------- --------------- Retention $0.00 ---- _ -- - ---- --- Con ---- .. unoff Onsite Runoff Control " , trot s - Attachment A to 10-13-25 Minutes The City is already providing a credit for infiltration Credit for storage available between - - the BMP and 1+ ft above the seasonal high groundwater elevation Further credit refinement would require additional groundwater and soil data Maintain the current credit based on depth to groundwater, given the current data available _ Soil Boring Information a K Attachment B to 10-13-25 Minutes Exhibit A Sec. 2489. Stormwater, drainage, storage and treatment requirements. (a) Except as required to meet coastal construction codes as set forth within a valid permit from the Florida Department of Environmental Protection; or as required to meet applicable flood zone or stormwater regulations as set forth herein, the elevation or topography of a development or redevelopment site shall not be altered. (b) Topography and grading. All lots and development sites shall be constructed and graded in such a manner so that the stormwater drains to the adjacent street, an existing natural element used to convey stormwater, or a city drainage structure after meeting onsite storage requirements, as set forth within this section. The city shall be provided with a pre -construction topographical survey prior to the issuance of a development permit and a post -construction topographical survey prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy. Elevations in all topographic surveys will be referenced to NAVD 1988. Said surveys shall be signed and sealed by a licensed Florida surveyor. All new developments and redevelopments shall provide assurance that adjacent or nearby properties not owned or controlled by the applicant will not be adversely affected by drainage or flooding. (c) Onsite storage. Except as provided for herein, an applicant shall be required to provide onsite storage of stormwater in accordance with this section as follows: (1) Development that results in more than thirty-five percent (35%) impervious lot coverage shall be required to provide onsite stormwater storage for the entire impervious surface area. Projects that result in less than four hundred (400) square feet of additional impervious surface shall be exempt from this requirement, provided that the total lot coverage remains within the applicable zoning district. The four hundred (400) square feet shall be calculated cumulatively from the adoption date of this ordinance. (2) Any modification or replacement of driveway and sidewalk areas only on a developed lot shall not be required to provide onsite storage improvements provided the modification or replacement does not alter the footprint of the existing driveway or sidewalk area. (3) Applicants shall provide documentations and calculations to demonstrate compliance with submittal of applications for construction. (4) Projects permitted by the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD), which have an in -compliance existing retention or detention areas that collect and control stormwater are exempt for further onsite storage requirements; provided, however, a copy of the engineer's certification of as -built construction to the SJRWMD must be submitted to the city before building permits for individual lot construction may be issued. (5) When onsite storage is required, an as -built survey, signed and sealed by a licensed Florida surveyor, documenting proper construction and required volume of the storage system, must be submitted to and approved by the director of public works prior to permit closeout or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. For an under -ground system, a notarized letter from the general contractor, along with as -built plans and construction photographs will be sufficient to document proper construction. (6) In addition, a declaration of restrictive covenant, in recordable form and approved by the city, identifying and describing the required on-site storage improvements to be maintained, shall be executed and recorded in the public records of Duval County, Florida, by the owner of the Attachment B to 10-13-25 Minutes Exhibit A development parcel and shall be binding on successors and assigns. prior to permit closeouts or issuance of a certificate of occupancy. (7) Volume calculations for any projects that require onsite storage shall be based on the following calculation: V = CAR/ 12, where V = volume of storage in cubic feet, A = total impervious area, R = 25 -year and 24-hour rainfall depth (9.3 inches) over the lot area, and C = runoff coefficient, which is the difference between impervious area (C=1.0) and undeveloped conditions (C=0.08). This volume must be stored at least one (1) foot above the wet season water table and below the overflow point to offsite (in many cases this may be the adjacent road elevation). As an option, and as approved by the director of public works, an applicant may implement, at the applicant's cost, offsite storage and necessary conveyance to control existing flood stages offsite, provided documentation showing appropriate authorization for the off-site use and meeting the requirements of this section is submitted and approved by the city. (d) Floodplain storage. There shall be no net loss of storage for areas in a special flood hazard area (100 -year floodplain), where a base flood elevation has been defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) on flood insurance rate maps (FIRMs). Site grading shall create storage onsite to mitigate for filling of volume onsite. This storage is in addition to the storage required for the increase in impervious surface area. The applicant shall provide signed and sealed engineering plans and calculations documenting that this "no net loss" requirement is met. (e) Stormwater treatment. For all new development or redevelopment of existing properties, excluding single- and two-family uses, where construction meets limits for requiring building code upgrades, stormwater treatment shall be provided for a volume equivalent to either retention or detention with filtration, of the runoff from the first one (1) inch of rainfall; or as an option, for facilities with a drainage area of less than one hundred (100) acres, the first one-half ('/2) inch of runoff pursuant to Chapter 62-330, Florida Administrative Code (FAC). No discharge from any stormwater facility shall cause or contribute to a violation of water quality standards as provided in Section 62-302, FAC. This treatment volume can be included as part of the onsite storage requirement in subsection (b) of this section. (f) NPDES requirements. All construction activities shall be in conformance with the city's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Systems (NPDES) permit, in addition to the requirements of the St. Johns River Water Management District and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. NPDES requirements include use of best management practices (BMPs) prior to discharge into natural or artificial drainage systems. All construction projects of one (1) acre or more require a stand-alone NPDES permit. Site clearing, demolition and construction on any size site may not commence until site inspection and approval of the proper installation of a required best management practices erosion and sediment control plan is completed. (g) Enforcement. Subsequent to approval of a property owner's final grading, including onsite and/or floodplain storage and stormwater treatment and closeout of the applicable permit or issuance of certificates of occupancy, the improvements shall be maintained by the property owner. In order to ensure compliance with the provisions of this section and the requirements to maintain onsite stormwater improvements over time, the city is authorized to conduct inspections of property, upon reasonable notice and at reasonable times, for the purpose of inspecting said property and/or onsite storage improvements for compliance with this section and with any applicable conditions of Attachment B to 10-13-25 Minutes Exhibit A previously issued permits. Failure to maintain the improvements will require restoration upon notification by the director of public works, within a stipulated time frame. If restoration is not timely completed, the city shall have the right to complete the restoration, and the city's actual cost incurred, together with a charge of one hundred (100) percent of said costs to cover the city's administrative expenses, shall be charged to the then owner of the property. (h) Variances to impervious surface area limits. Variances to impervious surface limits shall be subject to the provisions in section 24-65. Impervious surface requirements shall not be eligible for relief via waivers from the city commission. (Ord. No. 90-24-253, § 3(Exh. A), 10-14-24) Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes APP25mOOO6 for 345 10t" St (ZVAR25=0013) Request to appeal the order of denial of ZVAR25-0013 for a variance to Section 24-85(b)(1) to expand an existing legal nonconforming structure and Section 24-106 e(3) (side yard setback) to allow construction of a full story located above the garage at 34510t" Street. Site Context and Details • Zoned Residential, Single - Family (RS -2) This property is 50 feet wide by 150 feet deep Located on the north side of east 101h St Currently exists as a developed lot with a single-family residence Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes Back round Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes 5.9' a - 5.9' Pubic hearing on July 15, 2025 . Community Development Board (CDB) denied the N applicants request for a . , variance to expand an existing legal nonconforming structure rs I A� 7. and to reduce the side yard setback West East side Combined side yard and RS -2 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet Existing 5.9 feet 4.3 feet 10.2 feet CDB made a motion to approve the variance. It failed with a vote of 3-3 therefore; denying the request Background �J�j LOT 24BLK 13N 0.3' orr 6'WFX l6 X 1a X X� 518"FRC L8#7337 CONC. SNV �y X X �a 1X a� X 9h I 9X PAVERS LOT 22 BLK 13 0.172 ± Ac. 1 STY. RES #345 FF ELEV. RES..11.6B x aI? ,\ �� 01 I�� X �4 in X X X as 40 Q: dip X�� J�j LOT 24BLK 13N 0.3' orr 6'WFX l6 X 1a X X� 518"FRC L8#7337 CONC. SNV �y X X �a 1X a� X 9h I 9X PAVERS LOT 22 BLK 13 0.172 ± Ac. 1 STY. RES #345 FF ELEV. RES..11.6B GRAVEL L2, °5'{ ;Q N P, LOT 20 <:.,I Lu BLK 13 O N as M to �a ON UNE F0.4: OFF c� Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes In 2013, the former owner split the 100 -foot lot into its original two 50 -foot platted lots, which was allowed at the time. To split the lots, a variance to reduce the side yard setbacks was granted. 4 X STUCCO COI. ''X i 0.5' OFF FIP v� �FIP N0jp�p RS -2 10 feet 5 feet STUCCO COL i 0CAW Existing 5.9 feet 4.3 feet 0`O e1 0 ce-T UAG NAIL I 15 feet 10.2 feet F�i 26.8' c. C, ,\ �� 01 I�� X es a X in X -.:j X VVM a 40 Q: GRAVEL L2, °5'{ ;Q N P, LOT 20 <:.,I Lu BLK 13 O N as M to �a ON UNE F0.4: OFF c� Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes In 2013, the former owner split the 100 -foot lot into its original two 50 -foot platted lots, which was allowed at the time. To split the lots, a variance to reduce the side yard setbacks was granted. 4 X STUCCO COI. ''X i 0.5' OFF FIP v� �FIP N0jp�p RS -2 10 feet 5 feet STUCCO COL i 0CAW Existing 5.9 feet 4.3 feet 0`O e1 0 ce-T UAG NAIL I 15 feet 10.2 feet Request Although the reduced setbacks were previously approved by variance, the structure remains legal nonconforming, and any additions beyond the original variance require a new variance. Aplicant is requesting a variance from Section 24-85(b)(1) &24- 106(e)(3) to expand a legal non- conforming use and to reduce the required side yard. Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes X id 4 w x x o' Ix 0 �. X � 4+ x x , LOT 20 o '4.�, x x "� W BLK 13 q ,� PAVERS ,� � � v CP t7.1Y Existing 4.3' bO '-1 5 9 �g setback q1 o� LOT 24 CZ N R LOT 22 •.r BLK 13 N N 27 BLK 13 .-1► 0.172 ± Ac z 1 STY off uNE q RES #3, 5 q a� FFELE" 0 3' OFF f q In RES. -Ii q�f 1 10.T e 4' OFF xb ip a1 qui C ob q1 x Z q1 ud aX %%3 x S XCeoCOI Area of proposed e1 x9� `oo addition �' 3 x 0 5 OFF x X x Xy x v ITFIPg L� b9 5 g FAC WM O , 4 r L807337 v¢ S ca. NN: S��N qo e L2 CONC. SET G NAS. 4a`* T8M - e. Request Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes RS -2 10 feet 5 feet 15 feet Existing 5.9 feet The applicant now proposing to build livable second -story addition over the southeast portion of the home located 4.3 feet from the side property line. 4.3 feet 10.2 feet CxISt1NG sA 1q�2 ad�ii�ar O'-16INK- �A 7 tig4 1� --14.4 pPowD 5/7 &OE,�TR> tflw-A rtol-rviNf Ol � IGS Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes MENLa n.■■�ga�d a Grounds for Decision APPOVAL- existence of one or more of the following Section 24-65 (c) 1. Exceptional topographic conditions of or near the property. 2 Surrounding conditions or circumstances impacting the property disparately from nearby properties. ? Exceptional circumstances preventing the reasonable use of the property as compared to other properties in the area. Onerous effect of regulations enacted after platting or after development of the property or after construction of improvement upon the property. 5. Irregular shape of the property warranting special consideration. b Substandard size of a lot of record warranting a variance in order to provide for the reasonable use of the property. Attachment C to 10-13-25 Minutes DENIAL, The Commission may consider a denial upon finding that none of the requirements in 24-65 (c) exist. Review and vote on APP25-0006 (an approval would approve Variances &denial would not approve the Variances) Attachment D to [-*n t iofi5 101,131 -,5-��d� 10-13-25 Minutes / Petition In Favor of APP25-0006 345 10th Street Name I / Address 1. R D 5r- £ T K iZ A w 1r c-_ - ',V 5l /07-9 57�. 7. 8. 9. 12 13 14 15 t I' 16. 17. 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 331 /1"" C-l'JWd'I Dr. 3'