Item 8Aa
CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH
CITY COMMISSION STAFF REPORT
AGENDA ITEM #SA
FEBRUARY 13, 2006
AGENDA ITEM: Proposed revisions to the definition of Impervious Surface within Section
24-17 of Chapter 24, the Land Development Regulations, related to swimming pools, the use of
pavers, pervious concrete or open grid paving systems, and the applicability of Impervious
Surface limits to existing developed lots and redevelopment.
'"' SUBMITTED BY: Rick Carpcr, P.>/.
Public Works Director
DATE: January 25, 2006
BACKGROUND: At the November 28th meeting, the City Commission inquired as to the
,~„ history of the current definition for Impervious Surface, which allows Swimming Pools to be
counted as a pervious surface, and following discussion of this matter, requested that this definition
be modified. The definition of Impervious Surface (as current staff is informed) was the result of a
~„ "compromise" after the City initially proposed to adopt the 50% Impervious Surface limit on
residential lots. (The 50% Impervious Surface limit became effective January O1, 2002.) To both
Public Works and Planning Staff's knowledge, this exclusion of swimming pools from being treated
~„ as Impervious Surface is not typical. The attached ordinance proposes to revise this definition so
that Swimming Pools would be included in the impervious surface calculation. In addition, the
proposed ordinance clarifies. the applicability of the City's 50% Impervious Surface Area (ISA) limit
with respect to existing development. This clarification is necessary because of recent ISA waiver
applications for properties within older PUDs where an allowable ISA limit was not specified in the
ordinance creating the PUD.
The Community Development Board considered this revision to the definition of Impervious Surface
at their January 17th meeting. After considerable discussion by the CD Board and comments from
the public, the CD Board recommended that the definition remain unchanged with respect to the
treatment of swimming pools as pervious area, but recommended that other changes related to the
use of pavers, pervious concrete or open grid paving systems be adopted by the City Commission.
BUDGET: No budget issues.
RECOMMENDATION: Direction to staff to:
~"" 1) prepare ordinance as originally proposed by the Public Works Director, or
2) prepare ordinance consistent with the recommendations of the Community Development
Board, which would leave the current definition unchanged with respect to the treatment of
swimming pools as pervious surface, but enact other proposed revisions to the definition of
Impervious Surface Area related to the use of pavers, pervious concrete or open grid paving
systems. Also recommended was further technical analysis to determine what portion of a
fool surface might be appropriate to consider as pervious area.
ATTACHMENTS: Minutes (draft) of the January 17, 2006 Community Development Board
"'"" meeting, and copy of proposed revision as originally prepared by the Public Works Director.
REVIEWED BY CITY MANAGER:
~. --
February 13, 2006 regular meeting
~,.
AGENDA ITEM #SA
FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Draft Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
5.a Review and recommendation to the City Commission related to proposed revisions to the
Land Development Regulations (Chapter 24 of the Code of Ordinance for the City of Atlantic
Beach) related to: (Item 3 taken first.)
3) Amend Section 24-17, definition of Impervious Surface, to address swimming pools
and the use of brick pavers.
Public Works Director, Rick Carper, addressed the Board and stated that the Commission had
directed staff to change the definition of Impervious Surface to include swimming pools.
Mr. Carper stated that Jacksonville Beach and Jacksonville do not address impervious surfaces in
their drainage regulations. The thought from the Commission when they originally decided to
consider swimming pools as pervious area was that a pool retains about 6 inches of stormwater.
Carolyn Woods asked whether Atlantic Beach should be giving half credit for swimming pools to
account for the six inches. Mr. Carper stated that this had been discussed. After restating and
clarifying her question, Mr. Carper responded that was not what staff was directed to do by the City
Commission. Mr. Carper found no other communities that gave partial credit for pools.
Chris Lambertson commented about the City of Jacksonville Beach Code, and concurred that this
regulation was not written into their Codes. Ms. Woods stated that if our Code is based on
retention of water, there should be some credit given. Mr. Carper responded that it was based on
runoff. Mr. Jacobson asked why this is being addressed by the CD Board. Mr. Carper responded
that this revision had been initiated by the Commission. Ms. Doerr stated that it is before the CD
Board because it is a proposed revision to the Land Development Regulations, and the CD Board
must make a recommendation to the City Commission on any changes to the Land Development
Regulations.
Carolyn Woods stated that it seems that every surface has a percentage that it is given for runoff.
Mr. Carper responded that there are standard coefficients. Ms. Woods asked if there is a coefficient
~. for pools. Mr. Carper stated that there is not.
Sam Jacobson asked about pavers and why this is being addressed again. Mr. Carper said that the
Commission had asked the question, and responded that the amount of impacts depended upon the
installation, the slope, and how much water is running off of the paver surface.
Dave MacInnes asked that if someone currently has a pool and the house is destroyed, would the
pool be grandfathered in. Mr. Jacobson asked if homeowners can rebuild in the original footprint
of the house. Ms. Doerr stated that there were regulations to deal with nonconforming structures
and nonconforming uses.
Carolyn Woods suggested that the Board get the answer to these questions and do some scenarios
to see how drastically changes to conditions will effect homeowner's property, and recommended
that the Board come up with standards for pavers, swimming pools, and slopes and run scenarios to
,see how it effects property.
Sam Jacobson asked how would we run scenarios. Ms. Woods responded that we could take our
smallest lot to consider and see how Codes effect development on that lot.
""" AGENDA ITEM #8A
FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Draft Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
Sam Jacobson asked what was the reason for the impetus behind this request. Mr. Carper
responded that the core city storm system was designed fora 5-year storm event, and at a 10-year
~" storm, there would be flooding in the streets. With a 25-year storm, there would be no house
flooding, but flooding up to the houses.
Steve Jenkins stated that he was hesitant to confuse this issue with the question of allowing existing
nonconforming structures to be rebuilt and believed that the confusion of the technical issues with
this issue was a mistake. Mr. Jenkins believed that the recommendations are reasonable.
Sam Jacobson asked if we can we separate the swimming pools from the paver issue. Chris
Lambertson stated that if we split the issues, the topic intertwines with broader similar issues, and
noted that Atlantic Beach is the only municipality that requires you to retain stormwater on your
lot.
Sam Jacobson stated that he didn't feel that this is the place to rework the definition. Mr.
Lambertson stated that we need to look at the big picture. Mr. Carper provided background on the
Stormwater Master Plan Update, which determined what was needed to ensure that the system
would function as designed. Mr. Carper commented on the options given in the Stormwater plan,
including payment of impact fees, and stated that the runoff coefficient used was .46 for the core
city, and at the same time redevelopment really started, the City's consultant ran the models as did
the design engineer to protect the $8 million of improvements put in the ground, and suggested to
go to .6 at 50% lot coverage. Mr. MacInnes thought that this was not the place to try to re-work
definitions. Mr. Lambertson thought that we should not just take one piece forward, and need to
look at the whole issue and stated that we can't look at the issue unless the whole structure has been
laid out. Mr. Jacobson thought that that this particular definition had been work-shopped to death
five years ago, and therefore, should not be addressed singularly. If pools and pavers are addressed
at zero impervious, the house could fall under .6. The pool then would require an expensive
retention system. People don't realize what the effect of the change will have if they are building a
pool.
Carolyn Woods stated that part of the problem is that the definition says impervious, and the Code
is concerned with runoff getting into the sewer system, not percolation. This definition conflicted
with the intention of the Code. The purpose of the Code is to retain water on-site, which is what a
pool does.
Craig Burkhart stated that the interpretation that we came up with several years ago for the pavers
fell through the cracks and that the pool issue should be dealt with separately. Typical pavers laid
on sand do not allow percolation of any more than 3-4%. Mr. Burkhart agrees that some credit
should be given for pools since there will be retention of 6 inches in a storm. Fifty percent of the
25-year Stormwater will be preserved within the pool, so we should continue to give credit for the
pool surface.
Lynn Drysdale stated that she sees the merit for everything that we have been hearing, and that the
''""Board should deal only with the task of definition as before the Board, and stated that she was
comfortable with language dealing with pavers and that pools should be considered impervious,
but agrees that some credit should be given.
"' 4
*"' AGENDA ITEM #SA
Draft Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Sam Jacobson stated that his pool has never come close to overflowing, even during hurricanes.
Mr. Jacobson agreed that there were two different set of considerations. We need to address the
' purpose of the regulation, and we should address pools and pavers separately.
George Mayporth, Atlantic Beach, stated that pools should be exempt from impervious area
~"" requirements. Pools are not generally overflowing. The City should check to see what the Water
Management District is doing. Enough adjacent communities don't address the issue. He stated
that the Board should identify pavers with certain pervious ratings as certain pavers are able to
~"" absorb morc stormwater; it depends on the paver itself. Need to identify porous pavers and define
what is acceptable in the permitting process. C-value numbers are assigned that should be used.
You can't just ignore the fact that pavers are porous, and it should be so noted.
Sam Jacobson stated that whatever absorption there is in pavers depends upon the type of storm.
Mr. Mayporth stated that the paver industry is changing rapidly. The City should be careful with a
~"" blanket statement that all pavers are impervious. Mr. Carper is stating that pavers are being put
down and circumventing the rule with non-porous type pavers.
"~ Peter Sapia, 1625 Selva Marina Drive, stated that the Commission believes that they should stop
the evolution of Atlantic Beach, and does not believe that the voters have given them that mandate.
The course of change set by the 5-way intersection will be dwarfed by what is now being done.
'~ The Chairman questioned the relevancy of the 5-way intersection. Mr. Sapia felt that establishing
pools as impervious will decrease the taxes from that property, and this will effect the City's
revenue stream.
~.
Pat Pilmore, 995 Camelia Street, stated that pavers were supposed to be a pervious system, and the
~, pervious system was supposed to have spaces to allow for drainage.
Jane Wytska, 352 2nd Street, addressed that impact of pools beyond the drainage issue. Her
~„ neighbor installed a pool on a 75-foot wide lot. It causes noise and impacts vegetation. She
believes that the pool will impact quality of her life and should be considered impervious and that
pools should not be allowed on small lots.
Thomas Grant, 1909 Selva Marina Drive, objects to ruling a pool as impervious. He is concerned
about property rights in Atlantic Beach. The Commission is not taking in the impacts of the
language concerning pavers. Things are being done without considering the unintended
consequences. He urges the Board to make sure that you understand, and we understand, and to
ask more questions of the Commission. What happens if a house is damaged. Has the negative
impact on property values been considered?
Carolyn Woods stated that you have to also consider the flipside, and consider what the changes
will bring and if change is not made, what effects there could be.
Steve Jenkins stated that if more than 50% of your house is destroyed, then you have to conform
with new Codes.
Thomas Grant stated that there is not enough time between meetings. Decisions being made could
~'"' have a negative impact for the residents of Atlantic Beach, and some of this change is more severe
than it needs to be.
5
~* AGENDA ITEM #8A
FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Draft Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
Lindley Tolbert, 334 6th Street, stated that the current Commission is trying to control the size of
~"" new homes, and is pushing for pools and pavers to be 100 percent impervious so that residents
cannot build bigger homes. Ms. Tolbert questioned some comments by the Commission, and
comments by certain Commissioners to make new regulations retroactive. The Board should
'" consider the hidden issues covered by this issue.
R.D. DeCarle, 180 Beach Ave, stated that he was perturbed with the way the Commission was
~"" rushing things involving community character. He is presently trying to develop his own property.
If pools are made impervious, there is no way he can have a pool at his home. He agrees that some
credit should be given for pools. He cannot put a full driveway in due to the Code. He is having
~" to shrink his plan down, and thinks that the Commission is taking away private property rights.
Peter Litsky, 322 6th Street, stated that he was concerned about the speed that the Commission
^ was taking. Agreed with the proposal by Ms. Woods to study a standard lot. It is obvious that a
pool does have some retention value. He agrees that a study is necessary, and agrees that pavers
do have some water retention capacity. He does not think that it is up to this Board, but that it
~. should be up to the engineers and the values given by the industry. By combining pools and
pavers in this ordinance, it appears that they put the pool along with the pavers so that the pool will
be completely overlooked.
Kevin Byrnes, 391 A Street, stated that pavers do have some retention water and that a pool is a
great place for water retention.
Carolyn Woods addressed pools and proposed defining pools as a percentage so that they are
~„ 75 percent pervious and 25 percent impervious. Motion seconded by Dave MacInnes.
Craig Burkhart asked Ms. Woods how she determined that 75% was appropriate. Ms. Woods said
~„ it was based on everyone's comments. Mr. Burkhart asked if she would be adverse to using 66%
based on the information provided by Mr. Carper and what appears to be a standard free board of 6
inches, which seems more like a mathematical format. Ms. Woods said that she was just using
~. logic, and stated that the Water Management District doesn't count them as impervious at all.
Steve Jenkins felt like input received tonight made the issue of the pools as impervious or not
~• impervious a question, and there should be discussion on a scientific definition.
Dave MacInnes expressed his belief that this type of thing be delayed be until the community
character issues are worked out, but would not be opposed to voting on the motion.
Sam Jacobson expressed concern that the Board is uninformed, and we have heard only matters of
opinion. It makes sense to get really informed information. We need to get expert information
from UNF or some other source.
~,ynn Drysdale stated that premature uninformed action could result in potential litigation.
The motion was withdrawn.
6
~"" AGENDA ITEM #8A
FEBRUARY 13, 2006
Draft Minutes of the January 17, 2006 meeting of the Community Development Board
Steve Jenkins moved that the language on swimming pools be rejected, and that it go back to
staff for further study. Motion seconded by Lynn Drysdale.
Mr. Jenkins recommended that the Board reject the language related to pools and retool
language to incorporate language that would allow the pool to act as retention, with the staff
'~"' to conduct a study of the appropriate stormwater retention value. Amended motion was
seconded by Lynn Drysdale.
Steve Jenkins then recommcnd approval of the language addressing the retention value of
the pavers, which was seconded by Lynn Drysdale.
""' Carolyn Woods stated that brick-appearing pavers are rated on their permeability, and through this
motion you could be denying the ability to get credit for installing permeable pavers. Accepted
standards for the industry is the language that should be put in. Ms. Doerr explained that the 50%
''~' standard currently in the Code was the result of checking with manufacturers. Ms. Doerr stated
that what the City has discovered is that the way pavers are often installed prevents permeability.
Ms: Woods stated that she felt that the required base should be specified. Mr. Carper stated that
'"" open grid pavers are built over an underdrain, that drain into a system. Ms. Woods stated that the
language should be based on the method of installment. Mr. Carper stated that he did not have
adequate staff to inspect each and every installment.
Chris Lambertson stated that pavers are installed in South Florida over compacted limerock, that
does not absorb any water. Ms. Woods asked that if they laid it on sand, with '/4 inch spacing,
would that be open grid. Mr. Carper stated that he would look at that. Mr. Lambertson stated that
this appears that this is just a clarification. Mr. Carper responded that the interpretation that he
inherited on the existing language was that if pavers weren't installed on concrete or asphalt, they
got 50% credit as pervious surface.
Mr. Jacobson believed that 12x12 pavers would not be 50% impervious, and that pavers built over
concrete would get around the requirement. Spoke wholeheartedly in favor of the motion.
The motions to recommend rejection of the language related to swimming pools, and that
this issue go back to staff for further study, and to recommend approval of the revision, as
proposed, related to pavers were approved unanimously.
ORDINANCE NUMBER 90-06-188
AGENDA ITEM #8A
FEBRUARY 13, 2006
DRAFT
AN ORDINANCE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA,
"~' AMENDING CHAPTER 24 OF THE ATLANTIC BEACH CODE OF
ORDINANCES, THE LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS, SECTION
24-17, DEFINITIONS, AND PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
~.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ENACTED BY THE CITY COMMISSION ON
BEHALF OF THE PEOPLE OF THE CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH,
FLORIDA:
SECTION 1. The Zoning, Subdivision and Land Development Regulations, adopted as
Chapter 24 of the Code of Ordinances of the City of Atlantic Beach, Florida, is hereby amended by
modifying Article II, Section 24-17, Definitions, Impervious Surface, and upon enactment of this
Ordinance, said definition shall read as set forth below.
~„ Impervious Surface shall mean those surfaces that prevent the entry of water into the soil.
Common Impervious Surfaces include, but are not limited to, rooftops, sidewalks, patio areas,
driveways, parking Lots, and other surfaces made of concrete, asphalt, brick, plastic, or any
surfacing material with a base or lining of an impervious material. Wood decking elevated two or
more inches above the ground shall not be considered impervious provided that the ground surface
beneath the decking is not impervious. Pervious areas beneath roof or balcony overhangs that are
subject to inundation by stormwater and which allow the percolation of that stormwater shall not be
considered impervious areas. b ~ ,
~,~,.~,,,.,o „r ,~,~:.. „~.:r,t.,, ,,, .-o,.,:., ~.,a,a;,:,,,,.., ...,:,,,,,.,,o,. The water surface area of swimming pools,
vva.uu.
along with concrete bulkheads shall be considered impervious. Additionally, h~~ decking
around a pool may be considered impervious depending upon materials used. Surfaces using
pervious concrete or other similar open grid paving systems shall be calculated as fifty percent
(SOoIo) Impervious Surface, provided that no barrier to natural percolation of water shall be installed
beneath such material. Open grid Pavers must be installed on a sand base, without liner, in order to
he considered. 50% impervious. Solid surface pavers. (e. c., brick. or brick appearin~Lpavers as
opposed to open rg id pavers) do not qualify for any reduction in impervious area, regardless of type
of base material used.
'"'' Unless otherwise and specifically ~•ovided for in these Land Development Re~*ulations, or within
another Ordinance, or by other official action establishing specific Impervious Surface Limits for a
particular Lot or Development Project, the fifty percent (50°Io) lmpeivious Surface limit shall be the
~"' maximum Impervious Surface limit for all new residential Development and redevelopment. In such
cases where a previously and. lawfully developed residential Lot or Development Project exceeds the
fifthpercent (SU%) limit, redevelopment or additions to ehistin~ residential Development shall. not
~.
Ordinance Number 90-06-188
AGENDA ITEM #8A
FEBRUARY 13, 2006
aRAF
r
~.
exceed the pre construction Impervious Surface limit provided the stormwater and draina;;e
~"' requirements of Section 24-66 are met.
"~' SECTION 2. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately upon its final passage and
adoption and shall be recorded in a book kept and maintained by the Clerk of the City of Atlantic
Beach, Duval County, Florida, in accordance with Section 125.68, Florida Statutes.
Passed upon first reading by the City Commission of the City of Atlantic Beach this th day of
2006. Passed upon final reading and public hearing this th day of ,
2006.
DONALD M. WOLFSON
~. Mayor and Presiding Officer
Approved as to form and correctness:
ALAN C. JENSEN, ESQUIRE
City Attorney
~.
~* ATTEST
DONNA BUSSEY
City Clerk
~" Ordinance Number 90-06-188