The URL can be used to link to this page

1668 W PARK TER -DRIVEWAY PAVERS e `° op) CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH rj A s) 800 SEMINOLE ROAD j t ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5814 DRIVEWAY PERMIT MUST CALL BY 4PM FOR NEXT DAY INSPECTION: 247-5814 JOB INFORMATION: Job ID: 15-DWAY-2073 Job Type: DRIVEWAY Description: PAVER DRIVEWAY Estimated Value: Issue Date: 9/18/2015 Expiration Date: 3/16/2016 PROPERTY ADDRESS: Address: 1668 W PARK TER RE Number: 172020-0156 PROPERTY OWNER: II Name: SCHARE, ANDREW I & RACHEL S, * Address: 1668 W PARK TER PERMIT INFORMATION: UTILITY DEPT.: PUBLIC WORKS: Ensure all meter boxes, sewer cleanouts and valve covers are set to grade and visible. A sewer cleanout must be installed at the property line. Cleanout must be covered with an RT1 concrete box with metal lid. Cleanout to be set to grade and visible. No parking, dumpster or portable toilet on City right-of-way. Full erosion control measures must be installed and approved prior to beginning any earth disturbing activities. Contact Public Works (247-5834) for Erosion and Sediment Control Inspection prior to start of construction. All silt must remain on-site during construction. A post construction topographic survey documenting proper construction will be required. Roll off Container Company must be on City approved list and container cannot be placed on leit1"4tlth'tet'fiWjit. (Appit0649AdAititMIDlso usa[IIill eeica)RepubIiialen✓immslkba1I ei!foatndE FI.ORRIDA N - CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH • '-T' A 800 SEMINOLE ROAD ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 INSPECTION PHONE LINE 247-5814 J33/9 Waste Pro.) Full right-of-way restoration, including sod, is required. Build a berm from natural berm with bushes to corner of fence for water retainage of approximately 400 square foot, 6" depth. Permeable pavers must be installed according to manufactures recommendation, including paver sand underlay. FEES: Fence/ROW $35.00 Total Payments: $35.00 I I I I I PERMIT IS APPROVED ONLY IN ACCORDANCE NIThI AI,I. CI'T'Y OF ATLANTIC BEACH ORDINANCES AND THE FLORIDA 13IIILDING CODES. Permit Attachment of for Permit# issued ,20_Atlantic Beach,FL 32233 Owner's Name: Property Address: R.E.#: Subdivision: Lot#/Block#: REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT THIS REVOCABLE ENCROACHMENT PERMIT,issued on this ett day of Amy' / ,20/c by Atlantic Beach, Florida, a municipal corporation organized and existing under the/laws of the State of Florida, hereinafter referred to as "CITY" and ,4Mb•o-fehare of Atlantic Beach Florida, hereinafter referred to as"USER". WITNESSETH: That the CITY does hereby grant the USER permission on a revocable basis as described herein the right to enter upon the property of the City of Atlantic Beach for the purpose as described in the City of Atlantic Beach Right-of-Way/Easement permit numbers noted above(copies attached). This work is generally described as: NA) 41,1/e0 �L Any facility maintained, repaired, erected, and/or installed in the exercise of the privilege granted remains subject to relocation or removal on thirty(30)days notice by CITY to the USER, said notice to USER shall be given by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the following address: /AP 4111 The depositing of said notice of cancellation in the United States mail shall constitute the notice of cancellation and the burden is upon USER to keep the CITY informed of USER's proper address. The USER shall promptly make any and all necessary repairs to any facility erected or maintained in the exercise of the privilege herein granted and shall at all times maintain said facility in good and safe condition. In the event it is necessary for the CITY or the City's approved representative or other franchised utility to enter upon the above-described property of the CITY, the USER shall replace at the USER's sole expense, any and all material necessarily displaced during the action of maintaining,repairing, operating,replacing, or adding to of the utilities and facilities of the CITY or franchise utility provider. The facilities allowed by the permit shall meet the current requirements of the City Code, Building Codes, Land Development Code,and all other land use and code requirements of the CITY,including City Code Section 19-7(h)which states"Driveways that cross sidewalks: City sidewalks may not be replaced with other materials, but must be replaced with smooth concrete left natural in color so That it matches the existing and adjoining sidewalks." Page 1 of 2 The USER, prior to making any changes from the approved plans and/or method, must obtain written approval from the City of Atlantic Beach,Public Works Department,for said change. The USER shall,at the discretion of the CITY,be requested to submit as-built drawings showing the change within thirty(30) days after the day of completion. This permit shall insure to the benefit of, and be binding upon, the USER and their respective successors and assigns. USER shall meet the terms and conditions of this permit and to all of the applicable State and CITY laws and/or specifications, to include utilities locate requirements and use limitations/requirements of public rights-of-way and other public land. USER further agrees that the CITY and its officers and employees shall be saved harmless by the USER from any of the work herein under the terms of this permit and that all of said liabilities are hereby assumed by the USER. DATED and SIGNED this 7.g day of v f L NY f 7 By Pro rty Owner (to be signed in presence of the Notary) STATE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF DUVAL On this 2 >M day of A c r- 20 f f personally for said County� and State, , {��p� �appeared before me, a Notary Public in �'` the property owner of Ib6k Qwk T.ecr4c -t , Atlantic Beach,Florida,known to me to be the person(s)described in and who executed the foregoing instrument; who acknowledged to me that he or she executed the same freely and volunt y and for the uses and purposes therein mentioned. Notary Public in for said County and State :£''°' SANDRA C SEMRO MY COMMISSION#EE204196 CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH, FLORIDA, a 'i s► .,�' EXPIRES June 03.2016 (407)3994153 FlorMallotatyServroe.com municipal corporation: Approv-: Do ,FI on, c Wo .<. Director For Permits where city sidewalk is impacted, City Manager approval required: Nelson Van Liere,City Manager Page 2 of 2 I < lr dy = 'r'n, CITY OF ATLANTIC BEACH �, I .= 1` .,. CONST .. WITHIN NCITY Ric r_ :a ,y-..a 800 5e _ Seminole Road tea_ •'`+'°�+r-=ri ' �,�„� ,:v D� Atlantic Beach,Florida 32233-5445 ' l •Ir i&., '4_ 800 == PLEASE SUBMI COMPLETE SETS OF PLANS WITH APPLICATION. '4LJ� 845 Date ` � I Job Address • - - 1,+ • .,.1 _ ISSUED BY THE CI.is - Permitee: , ib c Permittee Address: Telephone 9 _ d 5 C - a`• Requesting Permission to Construct: A a LI • c Location: (Reference to Cross-Street) = • -= � ,ar, ` Applicant declares that prior to filing this application he has ascertained `L , the location of all existing utilities, 1. both aerial and underground and the accurate locations are shown on the sketches. A Letter of Notification was mailed to the following Utilities/Municipalities: (A). \ Jacksonville Electric Authority ' \ �\ Bell South Telephone Company Ferrell Gas Yes( ) No (.-) Date: Comcast Yes( ) No (-) Date: Yes ( ) No (-) Date: 2. Whenever necessary for the construction, repair, Yes( ) No (-) Date: alteration or necessary for all, or any p , improvement, maintenance, safe and efficient operation, y portion of said street or easement-as determined by the Director of Public Works, any or all of said poles, wires, pipes, cables or other facilities and appurtenances hereunder, shall be immediately removed from said street or easement or reset or r required by the Director of Public Works and at the expense of the Permittee ules authorized authorized. relocated hereon as 3. All work shall meet City of Atlantic Beach or Florida Department of Trans unless reimbursement is performed under the supervision of • Superintendent) located at Transportation Standards and be 4. All materials and equipment shall be subject to inspection by the Director (Contractor's Project 5. All city property Telephone#: ty pro ert shall be restored to its original condition as far as practical, in keeping with cit and the manner satisfactory to the city. for of Public Works or his designee. S. A sketch of plans covering details of this installation, as well as, a copy city specifications part of this permit. Calculations showin an increase in ima envious area on ow Ri.ht of Wa are to be included with this application py °f a recent survey shall be made a 7. This permittee shall commence actual construction in good faith with owner's lot or in the cit more than 60 days from date of permit approval, then permittee must review the permit with the D Public Works to make sure no changes have occurred in the area that would affect ays. if the beginning date is 8. It is understood and agreed-that the rights and privileges herein set out are granted Director of City's right, title and interest in the land to be entered upon and used by the holder,the permitted construction. times, assume all risk of and indemnify, defend, and save harmless the City of Atlantic c the extent of the and the Holder will, at all against any and all loss, damage, and cost of expenses arising in any manner of the exercise exercises by the holder of the aforesaid rights and privileges. antic Beach from and 9. The Director of Public Works shall be notified twenty-four (24) hours pri to starting I or afi again immediately upon completion. • work ani again OWNER c.--' c 7 Signed: /�J� Before me this 3b>.� Date: G ,/ • SANDRA C SENIRO State Of Florida,has personally appeared of �` in the C unty of Duval, r ' ' Notary Public at Large,State of Florida,County o Duval. , �� •. '�= MY COMMISSION#EE204196 ••� My corryxiission expires: 3 ��, '%fa►.ii;., EXPIRES June 03,2016 •Person 40 398.0153 FIond p. Serme.can _Produced Identification:. t=, a ,# Comp. By: SRW • 4 Date: 9/16/2015 °VW OR 9- Public Works Department City of Atlantic Beach Permit No: 15-DWAY-2073 Address: 1668 Park Terrace West Required Storage Volume Criteria: Section 24-66 of the City of Atlantic Beach's Zoning, Subdivsion, and Land Development Regulations requires that the difference between the pre- and postdevelopment volume of stormwawter runoff be stored on site. Volume of Runoff is defined as follows: V= CAR/12 Where: V=Volume of Runoff C= Coefficient of Runoff A=Area of lot in square feet R=25-yr/24-hr rainfall depth (9.3-inches for Atlantic Beach) Predevelopment Runoff Volume: Lot Area (A) = ft2 Runoff Coefficient Area Lot Area Description (ft2) (ft 2) "C" Wtd"C" Impervious 5,577 22,184 1.00 0.25 Pervious 16,607 22,184 0.20 0.15 Runoff Coefficient(C)= 0.40 Runoff Volume V= 0.40 x 22,184 x 9.3 / 12 V= 6,896 ft 3 Postdevelopment Runoff Volume: Lot Area (A) = 22,184 ft 2 Runoff Coefficient Area Lot Area Description (ft) (ft 2) "C" Wtd "C" Impervious 6,813 22,184 1.00 0.31 %ISA = 30.7% Pervious 15,371 22,184 0.20 0.14 Runoff Coefficient(C)= 0.45 Runoff Volume V= 0.45 x 22,184 x 9.3 / 12 V= 7,663 ft3 Required Storage Volume DV= Postdevelopment Runoff Volume- Predevelopment Runoff Volume DV= 7,663 - 6,896 DV= 766 ft3 Retention Park Terrace West 1668 9/16/2015 i rt � Comp. By: SRW 0r r Date: 9/16/2015 Public Works Department City of Atlantic Beach Permit No: 15-DWAY-2073 Address: 1668 Park Terrace West Provided Storage: Elevation Area Storage (ft) (ft2) (ft3) 100 0 BOTTOM 10 x 10 400 250 TOB 20 x 20 Natural Elevation Area Storage water retainage (ft) (ft) (ft3) 0 BOTTOM 0 TOB Elevation Area Storage (ft) (ft) (ft3) 0 BOTTOM 0 TOB Inground storage=A*d*pf A=Area= 400.0 d= depth to ESHWT= 5.0 pf= pore factor= 0.3 Inground Storage= 600.0 ft3 Required Treatment Volume= 766 ft3 Supplied Treatment Volume= 850 ft3 Retention Park Terrace West 1668 9/16/2015 Du • Permeable __ • ■ -• Interlocking Concrete • Pavements Selection • Design • Construction • Maintenance David R.Smith Third Edition ti '\ tE i Ii 11 ICPI4 INTERIXKING CONCRETE PAVEMENT INSTITUTE TE Section 2.Design • Industrial sites that do not receive hazardous materials,i.e..where there is no risk to groundwater or soils from spills. • Storage areas for shipping containers with non-hazardous contents. • The impervious area does not exceed five times the area of the permeable pavement receiving the runoff. • The estimated depth from the bottom of the pavement base to the high level of the water table is greater than 2 feet(0.6 m).Greater depths may be required to obtain additional filtering of pollutants through the soil. • The pavement is downslope from building foundations,and the foundations have piped drainage at the footers. • The slope of the permeable pavement surface is at least I'fl and no greater than 5%. • Land surrounding and draining into the pavement does not exceed 20%slope. • At least 100 ft(30 m)should be maintained between permeable pavements and water supply wells,streams.and wetlands.(Local jurisdictions may provide additional guid- ance or regulations.) • Sites where the owner can meet maintenance requirements(see maintenance section). • Sites where there will not he an increase in impervious cover draining into the pavement (unless the pavement is designed to infiltrate and store runoff from future increases in impervious cover). • Sites where space constraints,high land prices,and/or runoff from additional develop- ment make permeable interlocking concrete pavements a cost-effective solution. Design Considerations for Permeable interlocking concrete pavements are not recommended on Pedestrians and Disabled Persons any site classified as a stonnwater hotspot,i.e.,if there is any risk that Before a parking la or plaza is con- stormwater can infiltrate and contaminate groundwater.These land uses strutted,existing pedestrian paths across and activities may include the following: the lot should be studied and defsed. tr Vehicle lanes,parking spaces,pedestrian • Vehicle salvage yards,recycling facilities.fueling stations,service paths.and spaces for disabled persons and maintenance facilities,equipment and cleaning facilities can be delineated with solid concrete • Fleet storage areas(bus,truck,etc.) paver.Paths with solid units will make walking more comfortable.especially • Commercial manna service and maintenance areas for pedestrians with high-heeled shoes • Outdoor liquid container storage areas and for the elderly.Likewise.parking spaces accessible to disabled persons and • Outdoor loading/unloading facilities for bicycles should be marked with solid • Public works materials/equipment storage areas lovers.Permeable interlocking concrete pavers with openings or wide joints • Industrial facilities that generate or store hazardous materials shnxtld not he used in disabled-accessible • Storage areas for commercial shipping containers with contents parking spaces or on pedestrian ramps at that could damage groundwater and soil intersections. • Land uses that drain pesticides nod/or fertilizers into permeable Infiltration Rates of Permeable pavements(e.g..agricultural land,golf courses.etc.) Interlocking Concrete • Other land uses and activities as designated by an appropriate Pavement Systems review authority A common error to designing perme- able interlocking c(NUrele pavements is assuming that the amount or percent of I0 Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements • Section 2.Design open surface area is equal to the percent of perviousness.For example,an 18%open surface area is incorrectly assumed to be 18%pervious,or 82%impervious.The perviousness and amount ot infiltration are dependent on the infiltration rates of joint filling material,bedding layer,and base materials,not the percentage of surface open area. Compared to soils,permeable interlocking concrete pavements have a very high degree of infil- tration.For example,a clay soil classified as CL using the Unified Soil Classification System might have an infiltration rate in the order of 1.4 x 10'in./hr(10'm/sec).A silty sand(SM)could have 1.4 x tO'in,br(10'in/seed infiltration rare.Open-graded,crushed aggregate placed in the openings of permeable interlocking concrete pavements will have an initial infiltration over 500 in./hr(over 10.'tn/sec),i.c,10,000 tunes greater than the send)soil and 100,000 times greater than the clay soil.The open-graded base material has even higher infiltration.typically 500 to 2.000 in./hr to lo'm/sec).Therefore,the small percentage of open surface area is capable of providing a large amount of infiltration into the pavement. Regardless of the high infiltration rate of the aggregates used in the openings and base,a key consideration is the lifetime design infiltration of the entire pavement cross-section.including the soil subgrade.Its infiltration rate is difficult to predict over time.There can be short-term varia- tions from different amounts of antecedent water in it.and long-term reductions of infiltration from partially clogged surface or base,geotextiles or soil subgrade.So a conservative approach should always be taken when establishing the design infiltration rate of the pavement system. Studies on permeable interlocking concrete posers Wise attempted to estimate their long-term infiltration performance.Permeable concrete units(made with no fine aggregates)demonstrate loss- est average permeability.Interlocking shapes with openings or those with enlarged permeable joints offer substantially higher infiltration performance over the long term. Research on permeable pavements made with solid.nonporous units provides some guidance on long-term infiltration rates.German studies(6)(7)(8)(12),ICPI(431,and a review of the literature by Ferguson(44)reviewed parking lots with open-graded materials in the poser openings over an open-graded base.They showed a high initial infiltration when new and•decrease and leveling off as they aged.The decrease in infiltration is natural and is due to the deposit of fine materials in the aggregate fill and clogging of the base and geotextiles. When tested,new pavements demonstrated very high surface infiltration rates of almost 9 in Jhr (6 x 10'n/sec)and two four-year old patting lots indicated rater of about 3 in/hr(2 x 10^m/sec). Lower rates were exhibited on pavements where openings were filled with sand or aggregate and itinerant vegetation.In another study of two and five-year old parking lots,the infiltration rata were about 6 and S in./hr(4 and 3.5 x 10'm/sec)respectively.Infiltration was measured over ap proximately one hour for these two studies.In an ICPI study(44)ten sites indicated I'/i in./hr to over 7150 in./ht The lowest infiltration rates were sites clogged with fines. The results of these studies confirm that the long-tern infiltration rate depends on the intensity of use and the degree to which the surface and base receive sediment.This is also corstimied in the literature on the performance of infiltration trenches.Since thete are mliltration differences between initial and loaf-temp performance•construction,plus inevitable clogging,a consenative design rate of 3 In-flir 12.1 x I0 in/sec or 210 L./sec/hectare)can be used as the basis for the design surface infiltration rate feu a 20-year life.This design infiltration rate will take in most storms. Site Design Data Desktop Assessment A preliminary assessment should be conducted prior to detailed site and hydrological design.This initial assessment includes a review of the following: • Underlying geology and soils maps • Identifying the NRCS hydrologic soil groups(A.B,C,D) • Verifying history of fill soil or previous disturbances or impaction • Review of topographical maps and identifying drainage patterns • Identifying streams,wetlands,wells and structures • Confirming absence of stormwater hotspots • Identifying current and future land uses draining onto the site Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pavements I ' PARTIAL EXFILTRATION • --... Irv.NO a AGGREGATE IN OPENINGS FOG STOW CONCRETE PAVERS 3 1ET(SD mm)DOZE CUP82DGE RESTRAINT WITH CUTOUTS FOR OVERT LOW DRAPMGE(CURS SHOWN) 1151 SIR ICIR 1616 ill1R p• BEDDING COURSE 1 t?TO T HO IO SO mmHK: I fK . (TNT NO BAGGREGATE)•:•;....: °p'::.o::•:i r(TOO LM)THICK NO.57 STONE EAi. -'�•••••"8p:'.•_f�� OPE76°050 BABE •��'��i� .iJ ►rM L+nn.aL EiNeCib.:'8O I o NO)STONE SUBBASE Ill 1�}• Il°� 9 •� � OPT s or GE NGRAIE ON SOTTOM AND •�a 'i1i ..9•�:• woes a oPENGRADED SASE S. =1,•.�• N' T PERFORATED PIPES spACED AND SLOPED I=I=I .�, =N=][F TO ONNN ALL STORED WATER 11=I=1.4-1 I I— —1= OUITN L PPE 4S)SLOPES TO STORK SEWER OR STREAM Sol SUBORADE SLOPED TO DRAIN NO EXFILTRATION TTP NO a AGGREGATE IN OPENINGS EGO-STONE CONCRETE PAVERS 3 1R3 IW(b Innv TWIG( CUIBIEDOE RESTRAINT WITH CUTOUTS FOR OVOKLOW DRAINAGE(CURS SHO.VN) -au am us im.�• REDO iG CO. 1+7 TO 7-1.0 TO so mm>THICK (� pp�� (TYP 1b eAGGREGATE) Irt o`B'o, ,....°oo••:' ~'1 F•(100 NM)TRIO(NO.57 STONE li'AA�:. +P...i a',, OPEN-GRADED SASE• 1E•0•�• ••..a tot coso M1NTNCK ill..�'•• •� 1 CJ •� O NO 2 STONE SIAMBE •'` 1• . 6 O 4 MPERMEABLE LINER ON BOTTOM AND •••Et. ..9�,. woes or OPEN-GRADED BASE• — ��_ 7` ' ii .' PERFORATED PIPES SPACED AND SLOPED 1=1=1 1=:': C-.; 'OZ 'MI TO ORAN ALL STORED WATER 1=1 1 1=1='•'41: 1, 11.,,11= 1B IEIE�1= =1= OUT FALL WEIS)SLOPED TO STORM SEWER OR STREAM SOIL SLOGRADE SLOPED TO DRAIN References /CPI Zephers UNI-GROUP U.S.A. Permeable Interlocking Pavement Cross-Sections These cross-sections are provided as a guide for the design of permeable interlocking concrete pavements Actual design of the pavement will vary according to local regulations and standards,climate,available construction materials,design methods,soil conditions.and traffic loads. A qualified architect,landscape architect,and/or engineer should be consulted in permeable concrete paver applications to ensure desired results. Other design options,such as draining to a deeper permeable layer,or collection and treatment of stormwater runoff are possible.Consult an engineer experienced in hydrology and hydraulics for these types of applications. If you would like to receive cross-sections as DWG files for CAD,please request these through our web site Contact your UNIs Manufacturer or visit our web site for more information. UNI ECO-STONE CROSS-SECTIONS FULL EXFILTRATION -- -_ TVP NO S AGGREGATE N OPENMIGS EGO-STOVE GONCRL L PAVERS 3 t,;';so mm)niICX CLWSEOGE RESTRAINT WITH CUTOUTS F OR OVERFLOW DRAINAGE(CURB Siio .) III lin ilIl 11111 4�.•' O .• /i�JjJj REDOING COURSE 112707140 TO 50 ern"TIC. •o••(-•��O••� �� rrrP.50 S AGGREGATE) • •! 41.0• * l I,OO MIA)TRICK NO 57 STONE ft.•..-:.g • OPENGRACED SASE E•qb •ep00O•;:•. Mw rrrisomimeo(••• .••_ O •_• NO T ATONE MOW TII�II�IE9 I�I�IC�IrrTI — OPTIONAL QIOiC(TIicIN DOT TcmAAO '--i'— ADMCO OPINONA010•ASE SOIL RORGRA@•ZERO SLOPE l`e r, a�QOCAEL Temron �+McK'�•n. t G•n.l�C9.s GROUP we make it easy Pervious Pavers • • • • r The porous appearance of these units allows rainfall to directly enter and pass though because concrete has no fines. Like other pavers,the units are fitted together over bedding,pea gravel is recommended_ Sanding the joints is not recommended as this could clog the pavers. Porous units do not meet the requirements of ASTM C 936;however,these units have strength of 4000*psi with a permeability of over 40 inches per hour. The best use is for pedestrian areas,bicycle paths,and residential applications.We offer pervious pavers in our 4x8,Old Towne,6x9,and 6x6 profiles and in all of our standard blends. Some of the benefits: • Reduction of runoff by as much as 00%from frequeniow-intensity and short duration storms. • Increased recharge of ground water. • Eliminates flooding and puddling in parking lots • Reduction or elimination of retention ponds • Conservation of space on site and reduction of impervious cover More info is available at ICPI website:http lfwww.icp44LgAIesignlpermeable_pav,t2cfm 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving,November 6-8.2006 San Francisco.California USA NC STATE UNIVERSITY PERMEABLE PAVEMENT RESEARCH AND CHANGES TO THE STATE OF NC RUNOFF CREDIT SYSTEM William F.Haat,Ill and Ebro Z.Bean William F.Hunt,Biological and Agricultural Engineering,NC State University,NCSU Box 7625, Raleigh,NC 27965-7625,USA,Ph:919.515.6751,Fax:919.515.6772.email:bill_hunt@ncsu.edu Eban Z.Bean.Agricultural&Biological Engineering,University of Florida,PO Box 110570, Gainesville,FL 32611-0570,USA,Ph:352.392.1864x260.email:ezbean(gufl.edu SUMMARY Until 2006, State of North Carolina stormwater officials considered permeable pavements to behave as if they were standard impermeable pavement,giving developers little incentive to use permeable pavement.Several studies,conducted by NC State University faculty since 1999,have led state officials to recently grant permeable pavements runoff reduction credit in the Sandhllls and the sandy Coastal Plain.The state's change of position is based upon research described in this paper.Equivalent grass percentages are employed by the state to count permeable pavement as if it were 40%impermeable surfaces and 60%permeable surfaces.The"60%credit"allows a developer to count only 40%of permeable pavement as built upon area.Because of the credit. developers are now able to avoid installing other,more costly,stormwater practices such as wet ponds. 1.BACKGROUND Runoff from impervious areas carries pollutants,such as sediments,nutrients and heavy metals,into our surfhce waters. These pollutants adversely impact water quality resulting in reduced dissolved oxygen levels, and increased turbidity and metal toxicity levels. Permeable pavements arc an alternative to traditional impermeable surfaces and have the potential to reduce the quantity and improve the quality of stormwater runoff(Bean et al..2006a;Brattebo and Booth.2003;Pratt et al., 1995;Rushton,2001). Permeable pavement allows stormwater to either infiltrate into an underground storage basin or exfiltrate to the soil,providing for groundwater recharge. Despite the potential water quality benefits,prior to 2005,permeable pavements were not assigned stormwater credit by the state of North Carolina due to potential problems with clogging. Installations of permeable pavement were considered 100%impermeable(NCDENR, 1997),despite some evidence to the contrary(Gerritts and James.2002).This paper presents results of recent research on permeable pavements that evaluated hydrologic performance and how this research helped change the State of North Carolina's acceptance of permeable pavement. Figures Ia, lb,and Ic show three of the most common permeable pavements:concrete grid pavers (CGP),permeable interlocking concrete pavers(PICP),and permeable concrete(PC). CGP have both internal voids and voids between individual pavers. PICP are concrete pavers that when installed form • 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving,November 6-8.2006 San Francisco California USA voids located at the corners and midpoints of pavers. PC is different from standard concrete in that fine aggregate has been removed from the mix,allowing interconnected void spaces to form during curing. Permeable pavements allow drainage through the existence or formation of these sold spaces. � ' , o'• r'C�"4 JK- s S � y r� 4.'...* I.'. Figure la.PICP Figure 1b.CGP Figure Ic.PC' Recent research conducted at North Carolina State University has focused on several topics relating to permeable pavement function,including:(1)water quality impacts of permeable pavement;(2)longer term runoff reduction;and(3)preventing and mitigating clogging of permeable pavements.The first and second studies examined three permeable pavement sites in North Carolina where water samples were collected for pollutant analysis.Two of these sites in eastern North Carolina were instrumented to measure rainfall and runoff rates.The third study monitored surface infiltration rates at 40 permeable pavement sites in North Carolina, Virginia, Delaware. and Maryland. Only topics(2)and (3) arc discussed herein. 2.HYDROLOGIC MONITORING STUDIES 2.1 Longer Term Runoff Reduction Three permeable pavement sites across eastern North Carolina(located in Kinston,Wilmington,and Swansboro)were instrumented to determine runoff reduction performance.For each site,rainfall was measured onsite and runoff was routed over a weir for flow-rate measurement. The Kinston site was constructed of CGP filled with sand.The pavers were laid on 5 cm of bedding sand over a permeable geo-textile to prevent clogging of the storage basin(20 cm of washed No. 57 stone)below. The Wilmington site was constructed with 10 cm of permeable concrete(enough to store 2.5 cm of runoff) laid over top of a sandy base soil, with no gravel storage layer. The Swansboro water quality monitoring site,detailed previously,was also utilized for runoff reduction monitoring. 2 • 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving,November 6-8,2008 San Francisco.California USA 4 v Figure 2.Ratio of grassed area to impervious pavement area hydrologically equivalent to permeable pavement. For each hydrologic monitoring site.SCS Curve Numbers(CWa)were determined for each event that was greater than 5.0 cm.CN's are a measure of a surface's permeability.Higher numbers mean more runoff(USDA, 1986)Equivalent CN's were determined by back calculating through the SCS Curve Number equation. In addition,an equivalent ratio of grassed area(CN:61)to pavement area(CN:98) based on runoff depth for each event(>5.0 cm)was calculated(Figure 2). 2.2 Hydrologic Monitoring Summaries The CGP site in Kinston was monitored from June 1999 through July 2001.During this period,six storms were greater than 5.0 cm.including Hurricane Floyd,which produced 36.8 cm of rainfall. For these storms,the median CN was 79 and the median equivalent percent grassed area was 62(Table I). Table 1.Calculated CN's for events greater than 2 in.from the Kinston CGP site. Rainfall(cm) Runoff Depth(cm) Site CN Grassed% 36.8 36.1 97 2 12.2 3.8 64 92 10.9 10.4 98 0 7.1 0.0 42 100 6.9 1.3 69 89 6.6 4.1 90 36 Median 79 62 Rainfall and runoff were recorded at the Wilmington PC site from May 2002 through July 2003. Three storms produced at least 5.0 cm of rainfall;the largest was 9.7 cm. The median equivalent CN was 89 for these events,while the median equivalent grassed percentage was 42(Table 2). Table 2.Calculated CN's for events 5 cm or greater from the Wilmington PC site. Rainfall(cm) Runoff(cm) Calculated CN Grassed V. 9.7 7.1 91 26 5.8 3.3 89 42 5.3 0.3 61 100 Median 89 42 3 4 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving.November 6-8.2006 San Francisco California USA Table 3.Calculated CN's for events greater than S cm from the Swansboro PICP site. Rainfall(cm) Runoff(cm) Site CN Grassed 8.9 0 37 100 7.6 0 40 100 6.4 0 45 100 5.6 0 48 100 5.1 0 50 100 Median 45 100 The Swansboro PICP site produced no runoff during monitoring from March to December 2004. Five storms were greater than 5.0 cm;the largest was 8.9 cm. For the same rainfall depths,based on the SCS Curve Number(CN)method,a grassed sandy soil(CN:61)would produce runoff. For the storms monitored,the pavement reduced more runoff than a standard grass lawn.Therefore,the equivalent grass percentage was 100%for each event. The median SCS CN was 45(Table 3). 2.3 Surface Infiltration Rate Results Surface infiltration tests were performed at 40 sites located in the mid-Atlantic and southeastern U.S. to determine whether maintenance significantly improved surface infiltration rates of CGP and whether surface infiltration rates of PICP and PC sites located near disturbed landscapes were significantly less than sites in stable watersheds(Bean et al.,2006b).Double-ring infiltrometers were primarily used to measure surface infiltration rates. However,single-ring infiltrometers were used instead for locations with rates too high (> 150 cm/h) for water to fill a double-ring infiltrometer. The double ring test requires the outer ring to maintain a constant hydraulic head.At high infiltration rates.water could not be poured into the outer ring quickly enough.The single ring infiltrometer was neither as precise nor as accurate as the double ring test. Three locations were tested at each pavement application. Each site's surface infiltration rate was the average of three test locations,which in turn,was the average of three individual tests at each location. 2.3.1 Concrete Grid Pavers Of the 40 permeable pavement sites tested,surface infiltration tests were conducted at 15 CGP sites in North Carolina to evaluate the effect of maintenance on infiltration rates. Prior to the tests,the CGP voids were filled with sand and appeared to he mixed with additional coagulated material,indicating the potential for clogging or a reduced permeable condition. For each site, tests were run in three locations where the CGP surface remained unaltered. In three additional locations at the same permeable pavement application. accumulated materials in void spaces were removed to a depth between 12.7 and 17.8 mm to simulate maintenance by a vacuum truck. Surface infiltration tests were then run on the maintained locations and compared to the tests conducted on pavers with the non- altered voids. Surface infiltration rates from sites with simulated maintenance were significantly(p=0.007)higher than rates from existing surface conditions. Of the 15 sites tested. 14 had higher surface infiltration rates for the maintained locations. The median existing surface infiltration rate was 4.8 cm/h(ranging from 0.99 to 18.8 cm/h);the median maintained surface infiltration rate was 8.6 cm/h(ranging from 1.62 to 33 cm/h);an increase of 60%. 4 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving,November 6-8.2006 San Franctsco,California USA 2.3.2 Permeable Interlocking Concrete Pacers Surface infiltration tests were conducted at 14 PICP sites in Maryland(7).North Carolina(4),Virginia (2),and Delaware(I)to compare infiltration rates in stable versus disturbed, sediment transporting landscapes.At the time of construction.the gaps between each of the permeable interlocking concrete pavers were filled with pea gravel.However, it was observed that the five lowest infiltration rates at PICP sites were those with partially clogged surfaces due to sediment accumulation in the gaps initially filled with pea gravel.These five sites were all located adjacent to disturbed soils. The median surface infiltration rate for sites affected by sediments was 8.1 env))(ranging from 1.63 to 230 cm/h),while the median rate for sites without sediment accumulation was 2300 cm/h(ranging from 100 to 4000 cm/h);an increase in infiltration of over 99%. Sites without fines had significantly(p= 0.002)greater surface infiltration rates. Of note,the surface infiltration rates of sites with sediment accumulation were comparable to rates of COP filled with sand.This is not surprising,due to the fact that sand was the primary soil type filling the gaps of the PICP. 2.3.3 Permeable Concrete Surface infiltration tests were conducted at I I PC sites located in the Piedmont and Coastal Plain of North Carolina to compare infiltration rates in stable versus disturbed landscapes. The seven highest rates were from sites relatively free of fines,while the remaining four sites had sediment deposition on the surface. The median surface infiltration rate for sites free of fines was 3800 cm/h(ranging from 640 to 6600 cm/h):while the median surface infiltration rate for sites with evidence of fines was 13.5 cm/h (ranging from 11.4 to 28 cm/h). Surface infiltration rates of the four sites with fines were significantly lower(p=0.008)than the seven sites free of fines. 2.4 Surface infiltration Rate Summary and Recommendations The study showed that removal of the top 12.7 to 17.8 mm of material accumulated from within COP void spaces significantly improved surface infiltration rates. To maintain higher surface infiltration rates for concrete grid pavers filled with sand,maintenance.such as using a vacuum sweeper,should be performed on regular(quarterly to annual)intervals.Sand should then he hackfilled into the void spaces to prevent clogging at greater depths. PICP and PC sites installed for runoff reduction should not be sited in areas prone to substantial sediment accumulation. Sources of sediments include vehicular traffic, wind blown sediments,and runoff from adjacent areas.Permeable pavements should be maintained regularly by use of a vacuum sweeper to mitigate sediment accumulation on the surface. Sediment removal should be addressed before fines are compacted into void spaces and possibly migrate to lower,harder to maintain depths within the pavement drainage profile. External sources of sediment should be closely monitored during construction of the permeable pavement to attain high surface infiltration rates. Of note.37 of 40 sites had surface infiltration rates greater than 2.5 cmih,which is comparable to rates expected for some hydrologic group A and B soils(loamy sands.sandy loams)covered with grass. Clogging at the permeable pavement surface in predominantly coarse grain(sandy)soil environments. therefore,does not cause a reduction in surface infiltration rates below some naturally grassed areas. 2.5 Euuivalent Grassed Percentaee Table 4 summarizes surface infiltration data from sites in the Sandhills,Coastal Plain,and Coastal regions of North Carolina. Ranked percentages refer to the percent of sites with higher surface 5 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving,November 6-8.2006 San Francisco,California USA infiltration rates. Thus,for the River Bend PICP site.49%of the permeable pavement sites tested, located in the selected regions had surface infiltration rates at least 23.1 cm/h. Table 4.Surface infiltration rates and ranked percentage for sites in the Sandhills,Coastal Plain and Coastal regions of North Carolina. Surface Infiltration Ranked Site Rate(cm/h) Percentage' Goldsboro PICP 4100 3 Dough Rollers PICP 2500 I I Harve de Grace PICP 100 24 River Bend PICP 23.1 49 Atlantic Beach PC 14.0 51 Carrabba's CGP 7.4 76 FTCC I PA 5.3 89 Somerset Dr.PICP 1.5 100 -Sites fell approximately at 10.25,50,75,and 90%of surface infiltration rates for sites in the Sandhills,Coastal Plain.and Coastal regions. By comparison,a study by Dr. Robert Pitt et al. (1999) found that the average infiltration rate of grassed urban sandy lawns in Birmingham, Alabama. was 6.35 cm/h. This value was used as a benchmark for converting surface infiltration rates of permeable pavements tested to equivalent grassed percentages. For surface infiltration rates of at least 6.35 cm/h. the equivalent grassed percentage would be 100%grass. From Table 4.76%of the permeable pavement sites tested had surface infiltration rates(7.4 cm/I0 at least as good as grass(6.35 cm/h). Therefore,76%of sites tested had an equivalent grassed percentage of 100%grass,meaning they behaved as if they were 100%grass. Equivalent grassed percentages were calculated for representative permeable pavement sites in Table 6. The median equivalent grassed percentage value(used in Table 5)for surface infiltration rates was based on the 89ih percentile,rather than the 50'h percentile,to be conservative.From Table 4.89%of sites tested were at least as permeable as 5.3 cm/h. Since 5.3 cm/h is 84% of the benchmark infiltration rate for grass of 6.35 cm/h,the equivalent grassed percentage for such sites would be 84% grass and 16%impermeable surface. In other words,a permeable pavement with surface infiltration rate of 5.3 cm/h behaves as if it were 84%grass and 16%impermeable surface. Approximately 90% of the permeable pavement sites tested behaved this way or were more permeable. Results of the equivalent percentages were presented to NC DWQ for consideration in giving stormwater credit for permeable pavement applications. 3.STORMWATER CREDIT Table 5 summarizes results from the three hydrologic monitoring sites and surface infiltration test comparisons. For each monitoring site. the permeable pavement sites produced substantially less runoff volumes than what would be expected from impermeable pavements. The hydrologic performance of these permeable pavement sites corresponded with lower CNs than traditional 6 1 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving.November 6-8.2006 San Francisco.California USA impervious surfaces(98). Therefore,correctly using permeable pavements may reduce nmoff volumes and thus reduce pollutant loadings. Table 5.Summary table of median equivalent grassed percentages and cure numbers. Median Equivalent _ Site _ Calculated CN Grassed Percentage Wilmington PC 89 42 Kinston CGP 79 62 Surface Infiltration Rate Comparison N/A 84 Swansboro PICP 45 100 Based on the surface infiltration and hydrologic monitoring studies performed in this project,as well as results from additional research,the authors suggested a credit system for permeable pavements in North Carolina. Permeable pavement sites (e.g., pervious concrete)that are constructed without a gravel storage basin, located in areas with in-situ sandy soils, and maintained regularly should be considered 60%impervious and 40%grassed area. Conversely,permeable pavement sites that meet the above requirements,but also have an unlined gravel storage basin of at least 15 cm washed stone (such as the Kinston CPG site) should be considered 40% impervious and 60% grassed arca. As permeable pavement hydrologic performance is researched further and monitored,these ratios may be adjusted. 4.CONCLUSIONS Until 2006,State of North Carolina stormwater officials considered permeable pavements to behave as if they were standard impermeable pavement, giving developers little incentive to use permeable pavement. Several studies, conducted by NC State University faculty since 1999. have led state officials to recently grant permeable pavements runoff reduction credit in the Sandhills and the sandy Coastal Plain.The state's change of position is based upon research described in this paper.Equivalent grass percentages are employed by the state to count permeable pavement as if it were 40% impermeable surfaces and 60%permeable surfaces.The"60%credit"allows a developer to count only 40%of permeable pavement as built upon area(NC DUNK,2006).Because of the credit,developers are now able to avoid installing other,more costly,stormwater practices such as wet ponds. More work is continuing to evaluate how different types of permeable pavements reduce runoff and improve water quality at a side-by-side testing location in Kinston.NC. Perhaps these data,together with water quality data(Bean et al.,2006a),will allow state government officials to determine whether different permeable pavements should be given various pollutant removal credit. The studies also showed that to achieve optimal hydrologic perlixmance,permeable pavements should be sited away from locations prone to sediment accumulation,be constructed with a storage basin of washed stone,and be maintained by a vacuum sweeper on a frequent basis. Since sites with lined storage basins do not effectively increase infiltration to soil,credit was only suggested for permeable pavement sites in sandy soil environments. 7 1 • 8th International Conference on Concrete Block Paving,November 6-8.2006 San Francisco.California USA ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The authors would like to thank NC Department of Environment and Natural Resources' Division of Water Quality and the Interlocking Concrete Pavement Institute for providing funds for this research. Additionally,staff from the City of Kinston.Mickey's Pastry Shop.Town of Swanshoro,and City of Wilmington provided tremendous support. Several staff and faculty at NCSU assisted including Jonathan Smith.David Bidelspach.Brandon Eckrote.and Zach Woodward. REFERENCES Bean.E.Z..,W.F.Hunt.and D.A.Bidelspach,2006a.Evaluation of four permeable pavement sites in eastern North Carolina for runoff reduction and water quality impacts.Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering.(accepted). Bean.F..Z.,W.F.Hunt,and D.A.Bidelspach.2006b.A field survey of permeable pavement surface infiltration rates.Journal of Irrigation and Drainage Engineering,(accepted). Brattebo,B.O.and D.B.Booth.2003.Long-Term stormwater quantity and quality performance of permeable pavement systems.Water Research.37(18),pp.4369-4376. Gerritts.C.and W.James.2002.Restoration of infiltration capacity of permeable pavers.In:Proc.9'h International Conference on Urban Drainage.ASCE.Portland,Ore. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources(NCDENR). 1997.Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Manual.Raleigh.N.C'. North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources(NCDENR).2006.Stormwater Best Management Practice Design Manual:Permeable Pavement Revision.Raleigh.N.C.I I p. Pitt,R,E.,J.Lantrip,R.Harrison.C.L.Henry.and D.Xue,1999.Infiltration through Disturbed Urban Soils and Compost-Amended Soil Effects on Runoff Quality and Quantity.US EPA.Cincinnati.OH. Pratt.C.J.,J.D.G.Mantle,and P.A.Schofield,1995.UK research into the performance of permeable pavement,reservoir structures in controlling stormwater discharge quantity and quality.Water Science and Technology,32(1),pp.63-69. Rushton.B.,2001.Low-impact parking lot design reduces runoff and pollutant loads.J.Water Resources Planning and Management. 127(3).pp.172-179. L.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA). 1986. Soil Conservation Service. "Urban Hydrology for Small Watersheds,"Technical Release No.55.Washington.DC. 8 i I 166/ 4/%4 4,4,4tGti 41a1 /s<-0V1- 023 L 97' _lip X AP, = 910 ./6ty `ewe dY X02.3 = LW- My >,Fe� -�9 x `�/ � 66l�mar g & X .Y z- /3 v fcfJYb / ri264-147 lij°6 30.7 /1/eca/pe a4 -- r-g--/f- 1 City of Atlantic Beach Building Department APPLICATION NUMBER (fo be assigned by the Building Department) ! Aft(V I keit i a js-ti.4/.. „ 4,-7(3 61 r L:- -111,2`11 1 IV)11 • „ .,. 8a)smninde Rom . .•,i ',/y Atlantic Bead).rtonda' 3'2233-' 5445 1 r Phone(904)247-5826 Fax(904)247-5845 - 2 r E•Inail: building-dept@coab.tis Date routed* , ....,• , 4, 1–kt• C gitill,h, City wt,•iito http llvhvw ivoat,us --- 1 i it ,04 APPLICATION REVIEW ANDTRACKING FORM 11/ti 1 ,km ) : Property Address: li 4‘ g /, , 71<., 11\1 i Dep_arirRetit-rer-view-required— `t,es-Tiii i /1/4r- i -- 0 7i . Duilding I ç Applicant: ", ,ri _ _ 4) 4 ',., -i- 4 i:e.8---'i.'- 'A it) ?"1 r . Manning&Zoning Tree Administrator ..... .. firoject: 1---rt--ke cr ;:g 1 v ik..,,io- ,owudsk, biTc Utilities i – PT.it3lic§-afety :• I, "---. _ Fire Services • ' . Review fee$ Dept Signature . Review or Receipt --- - - Other Agency Review or Permit Required a pr.__s, _, .on.•F.'2L T°°If i_Florkla Dept.of Environmental Protechon Florida Dept.of Transpoitation 1---------.. — — I St.Joists River Water Management District ! ..Army Ceres of Engineeis __ ...• — ..1..._ __ II Division of Hotels and Restaurants .•- - Division of Fucoho'ic Beverages and Tobacco f Omer_ . . ___ -• ---- 1- - APPUCATION STATUS • - - i Reviewing Department First Review: []Approved. Llnied. i (Cede one.) Comments!. 44 /6411.1111 ‘9"/Likk i BUILDING I PLANNING&ZONING i _ Reviewed by. L- • . _ - Date:447–LL1 TREE ADMIN. . Second Review: nApproved as revised. El ied U131.IC WORKS 2, Comments: PUBLIC UTILITIES PUBLIC SAFETY Reviewed by: Date: -• - ----- .• - -------- ._ ._. FiRl SERVICFS Third Review: Approved as revised [bellied. Comments: Reviewed by Date' Revisod 07127/10 . CITY OF ATLANTIC REACll IN:PARIMLNT Of PLB1.1C WORKS I:rl Sandpiper Lane Albans toss.F7.12213-431a TELEPHONE.tUtt4t 247.584 FAX:19411247-5/411 ors mdm ra C'ON FRACIOR: DATE: 9-9-2015 riders on Pavers PERMIT a I5-DWAY-2073 1 244 Arrowkal 1 errace AODRLSS: 1668 Park Terser W. Jackson'ilk.FL 32225 Atlantic Reach,FI. 12213 linmil nnder4+npavenpr gmail eoin Attention:Mr larry Anderson PERMI1 AI'I'IICA It IN FORA PAVER DRIVEWAY Your permit apphcatitm has been denied by the Public Works Department for the reasons listed below. Please submit this information at your earliest convenience in order that we may approve your application. If you have any questions,please contact Doug Layton. Public Works Director at 904-247-5834 or email:d layton(rr aoah.us. CURLIC'WORKS 141itkiCI I)N II IiMti: (Submit the lollun'ing infurnatiun to thy Public IEorks/kywnnrrntl ••Provide construction site management plan.including location of dumpster and portable toilet. Right-of-Way Permit is required if using right-of-way for construction parking. ••Provide drainage plans showing site topography 1 flow arrows.etc.! 3)••Provide erosion and sediment control plans with installation details. ..4)"Provide impervious surface calculations list entire lot(existing and post construction). ••Section 24-66b1 of the Land Development Regulations requires on-site storage for increased rm-oR t(adding 4011 SF ur more impentons surface. Provide Delta volume calculations and on-site retention required per Section 24.66(b). 5)••Please provide catalog inliomtatio n for paver proposed. 4)'MI rrua,lf must remain ore-site. Cannot raise lot elevation without measures to retain runoff. 7� ••A Right-of-Way Permit must he obtained for use of(Construction Parking). $�••Prot ide a pre-construction topographic survey prepared by a Florida I icensed Pmlcssional Land Surveyor.showing I' COMMITS. PURI It WORKS CO(vf)IIIONS(IF APPROVAL: m The h,llnn.imrg rumnrrnro a•in hi-pr inlet!nn taut permit oc('ondinons v4.dpptmnl) ••Full erosion control measures must be installed and approved prior to beginning any earth disturbing act's itie.- Contact Public Works(247-5834)for Erosion and Sediment('ontrol Inspection prior to start of construction. ••All silt must certain nn-site during constuction. ••lion-site storage is required.a post construction topographic survey documenting proper construction will be required. **Roll olT('ontaincr Company must be on City appnmved list and container cannot be placed on City Right-of-Way. (Approved:Advanced Disposal.Realci.Republic Services.Shappel's and Waste Pro.l "Full right-of-way restoration.including sod,is required. cc: Jennifer Walker.lildg.Dept. • • • City of Atlantic Beach Department of Public Works 1200 Sandpiper Lane Atlantic Beach,Fl 32233-4318 Dear Sirs, I have numbered the questions on you denial and will answer them in order. 1) There will be no dumpster on site since we are only removing sod and that will be done by dump trailers.The home owner is providing access to restrooms in the house and no need for a portable toilet.We are using the street for parking as everything is on rubber tires. 2) I will draw the lines of drainage on the Survey map that is attached.I have provided a survey with the new proposed driveway drawn on it in the application. 3) We are removing sod from the proposed area of the new added driveway.The sod on each side of the new driveway will remain.This will be done early in the morning.Base material will follow and the pavers will probably be put down the same day.There is no need for erosion control since it will be done in one to two days maximum. 4) This was provided less the new driveway.I will add the new driveway to the calculation and attach a copy to this reply. 5) The paver being used is a Tremron product-style Olde Towne.Picture attached 6) See lines 2&3 7) We will not be parking on the right-of-way.We do not want to damage the ground cover now present.Our vehicles will remain on the street and on the side of the residence. 8) I have provided aD survey�that is available to me.We are not re-grading the lot. da.4.4.1 id •¢11G4tr 14 L.I Poa K T�r r os v, t-.3 C‘It Q�1....1, Cariwax.-1r. l 3 3 Lok V0 r na IVO aa►aLI ��...`..� = 11x U. 5s11 Nord. i9 137 L 3S4 `14ot..se. 360'4. 1 X14,4,4 13oi.,o 7,94-63, o 41 V,4 NEW A,-tJ• w iA ds c.1 MI, LI _ ax 3s9 = a4%O \.lt 1,9jj, ay � dii ss5 ; .2C/0 1 b+ f . ' MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF ,o, ;7.,..„,,,,, ,. .„:..k•A vipz:..i,yki i sv., IS. Al.R...CIVIN'D 4..l'., 30C•o iA, ro,ay•:,, iwtoce;+, 5;•1. ..-7r ;Ilk COR•14{1 Pl.a.IC fif C.ARIY.,,0, 12...,■'.. '71' ' CERTIFIED TR i aritun*1 SC*1/4t* &RACI.LL S 51...01.4 OSVA Cr:WASS 011101.1S•CAPOIL/f. or(741CS,K,■ft&StR,ionS14N0S, Ve4If k SI1k7 F.; I t;l1C•e0 WO !WWI/Via CI1O1/.11 PARK TERRACE WEST "-... '''41/1.) i.= • (4,0.15//II,...a '....•• .',C, 7- V s 114 S0 I 4.' :•■i''e' $111651. E •7.98 (1AFASURED) 4. • q'k 21''•"21.41,,•.'" ., I 0,,5I■F- 47 . a 2 I...■—L. ... - , es. , • es. g W..., . . . t• .._ w , ,, , .. ,,....- .0.,.-. 1; 1!. •1 i t 1 ., P.•':, a. / ,je g•- ....."in ---t-- i..P ,-. — —74,-- ••I(• 7,P. ,. . z 1 ; ..,,, 7,7: *Nr r••-- 1 1 ( k • ..-... . N insirsr w 117.96. (MEASURED) I I srit,if V. II/x1 tt•••,..,I1 if.01.,i1■:. VV.**Teo....J vol.NM.Pi 1 MI ..:-• •er g.o..n ra.....0...ay. (100....11Mt Vttt? • CO•11,4,14.My*,. ,{ • -v.0 C.4607 . . ..11.........“...M.O. Pt . *•r(II y•gl■••• ••1 • 0.41 0“..0....c c...ow. House 3.1104430 FTC] ,411.6.,__ut,....:nr..2•rovv. •A.__."....n■ I: ,Au,■• I.r/I •■••,....•,,,, difront walk ales so FS •„.. .. .. •n • 01 II.V.•L'Vli.....-....,; .al.'SOU..'t.i do Drivimy i.„4.0„la n.. to in 4.101 7/ •10,.M.P.,.r 4iAda.1 130PM-,■••• 5)4C•.11 .litIflew drive... 1205.5 so FS ._.. . . _ • ■ • I .....-......-........-. ----.....■•- ....-... ..........-....-....■.-............ .. -... ..-............................-..-.......-....-....■.......-.-......----...-........-.. MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF i 1 ,•,.,., . t; ., ., ,..- ,... ,• , ..,,,,u1 ..i..... .,•.,I ' ...I ."'.• '''I,I, • ..'..'"I I.• I amino)TO I f., -.3! 4:1.■ X.-:. I 1 I PARK TERRACE WEST I ---.. . 4" 1 S 111851' E 87.98* (MEASURED) ...:-..."::Y''4,74_1 - • .. . . . .. I • . '. ..,....., . I . . • ••4 •••••• ,..i:•.''','.t..-r. . „.. !_. . ‘; .11..40•.;.,.. i PS I 1 ' • Z• . I I I ....• 1,../ •■ Fd I 1‘ • •••' .. .'•. .t / * 1 I I. a. . u, -...... 03• 1 . 1-, ■ , 1 • o -• _.■' . i 1 ii w ' e 3 0 .....1..........----, I i { . I \ . S I 1 - _ 1 I . N 11* ...SY W 117.9W (MEASURED) I I ■ 1 .•-!.Ni• I.'....... ,...1; : ... ... ... ., 1 .• ,...., ..,•,-, - .51 I.,..••••..1%.1 I . • Driveway for Andrew and RachealScharc 4so ►/'�' Fence Brie 511 • TREMRON.COM I®• . tioir MEGA OLDS TOWNS FRODUCT I DSiNS10M6 -mamas SF KR CUBE CUBE LYE1OLfT F�/31330 B'%9'.9'%9'.9'X 2 Tit UY 306 LBS . OLDS TOWNS MOOUCT 9 OR.ENVONS TKXElSS SF wA CUB! CUBE WONT PV312.0 on-W.VW.6'09' 2W Os 3235 LOS _ Op OLDE TOWNE 2PC PRODUCT• OWEMSA7N5 *wCYNkSY SO PEA COOL CUBE*5401 P93L99S 2YY' X24 3125 LYS OLDE TOWNE 6X9 PAOglC12 oBBi•YaNS 3NICIUYFY3 SF PEYCunt CURBM 44413 N2OlS S'Ar O W 12. 3725 LBO 1400. 4X8 BRICK PAVERS 05000CT• DAKEISLOE6 TNCIDEOS y PER CUBE CUSS WOOLIT 030.0 .'AB' 3LY' 120 3120 LBO III Property Appraiser - Property Details Page 1 of 2 SCHARE ANDREW I ' Primary Site Address Official Record Book/Page Tile# 1668 PARK TER W 1668 W PARK TER 15260-01772 9409 ATLANTIC BEACH, FL 32233 Atlantic Beach FL 32233 SCHARE RACHEL S 1668 W PARK TER Property Detail Value Summary RI it 172020-0156 IIK.121attiat USD3 Value Method CAMA CAMA Ilsitcttlh81 0100 Single Family Total Building Value $363,360.00 $290,465.00 *of Buildings 1 Extra Feature Value $1,026.00 $653.00 34-51 09-2S 29E Land Value(Market) $25 ,000.00 $350,000.00 Legal Dena SELVA MARINA UNIT 6 L IQ Value(/Igria1 $0.00 $0.00 Subdivision 03132 SELVA MARINA UNIT 06 3ust(Market)Value $614,386.00 $641,118.00 Total Aroa 20374 Assessed Value ;600,613.00 $605,417.00 The sale of this property may result In higher property taxes.For more information go Cap DIM/Portability Amt $13,773.00/$0.00 $35,701.00/$0.00 to Save Our Homes and our Property Tax Estimator. In Progress'property values, ESIMIROSNII $50,000,00 See below exemptions and other supporting information on this page are part of the working tax roll and are subject to change.Certified values listed in the Value Summary are those Taxable Value $550,613.00 See below certified in October,but may include any official changes made after certification Learn how the Property Aporaiser's Office values property. r,. Taxable Values and Exemptions—In Progress . If there are no exemptions applicable to a taxing authority,the Taxable Value is the same as the Assessed Value listed above in the Value Summary box. County/Municipal Taxable Value SJRWMD/FIND Taxable Value School Taxable Value Assessed Value $605,417.00 Assessed Value $605,417.00 Assessed Value $605,417.00 Homestead(HX) -$25,000.00 Homestead(HX) -$25,000.00 Homestead(HX) -$25,000.00 Homestead Bandng 196.031(1)(b)(HB) Homestead Banding 196.031(1xb)(MB) Taxable Value $580,417.00 -$25,000.00 -$25,000.00 Taxable Value $555,417.00 Taxable Value $555,417.00 Sales History 4.1 look/Page Sale Date I Sale Price Deed Instrument Tvue Coda Qualifed/Unaualified Vacant/Improved 15260-01772 5/27/2010 $835,000.00 WD-Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 0598-02171 7/22/2002 $355,000.00 WD-Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 07268-00619 1 2/6/1992 $157,000.00 WD-Warranty Deed Qualified Improved 06692-01471 1 4/20/1989 $145,000.00 WD-Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 06646-01775 1/23/1989 $82,600.00 MS-Miscellaneous Unqualified Improved 0888-01641 12/6/1984 $24,166.00 WD-Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 03325-00104 3/1/1972 $7,000.00 WD-Warranty Deed Unqualified Improved 03268-00035 1 9/21/1971 $6,250.00 MS-Miscellaneous Unqualified Improved Extra Features 0 LN Feature Code Feature Description Bldg. Length 1()Width Total Units Value U4 1 FPGR7 Fireplace Gas 1 0 i 1.00 I$653.00 Land&Legal Land _ -I LN;Coda Use Description Till Front Depth Category Land Lind Land LN Legal Description Unit Type Value 1 34-5109-2S-29E 1 0100 LD 3-7 UNITS PER i ARS-L 117.00 0.00 Common 1.00 1 Lot I$350,000.00 2 SELVA MARINA UNIT 6 AC 3 LOT12BLK6 Buildings Building 1 Building 1 Ste Address Element Code Detail 1668 W PARK TER Unit - Atlantic Beach FL 32233 Exterior Wall 8 8 Horizontal Lap Roof Strut 3 3 Gable or Hip Building Type 1 0101-SFR 1 STORY - 1 Roofing Cover 3 3 Asph/Comp Shng http://apps.coj.net/PAO PropertySearchBasic/Detail.aspx?RE=1720200156 9/2/2015 Property Appraiser - Property Details Page 2 of 2 • Year Built 1 1972 Interior Wall 5 5 Drywall r Building Value $290,465.00 m t Flooring 12 12 Ha dwaod F 1 Int Flooring 11 11 Ce Clay The km n.+► " Tgl Gross Heated Effective Heating Fuel 4 4 Electric �' Area Area Area Heating Type 4 4 Forted-Ducted s-1 Finished 669 0 334 Air Cond 3 3 Central Garage u Base Area 2350 2350 2350 —___---- L Rnlshed Open ,Element Code 203 0 61 Porch Stories 2.000 Rn Screened 480 0 168 Bedrooms 4.000 Porch Baths 3.500 snished upper 943 943 896 Rooms/Units 1.000 story 1 Total 4645 3293 3809 2015 Disict Taxes Notice(TRIM Notice) 15 Notice of Proposed property Assessed Value i Exemptions 1 Taxable Value Last Year Proposed Rolled-back 1 County $605,417.00 I$50,000.00 I$555,417.00 $4,488.16 $4,527.32 $4,288.65 Public Schools:By State Law $605,417.00 I$25,000.00 I$580,417.00 $2,910.87 $2,826.05 $2,846.31 By Local Board $605,417.00 I$25,000.00 I$580,417.00 $1,293.98 $1,304.78 $1,265.31 R.Inland Navigation Dist. $605,417.00 $50,000.00 $555,417.00 $19.00 $19.16 $17.77 Mantic Beach $605,417.00 $50,000.00 $555,417.00 $1,832.72 $1,848.71 $1,753.28 Water Mgmt Dist.SJRWMD 1$605,417.00 $50,000.00 $555,417.00 $174.21 $167.90 $167.90 Gen Gov Voted $605,417.00 $50,000.00 $555,417.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 School Board Voted I$605,417.00 $25,000.00 $580,417.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 Urban Service Dist3 I$605,417.00 $50,000.00 $555,417.00 $0.00 $0.00 $0.00 I Totals $10,718.94 $10,693.92 $10,339.22 Just Value 'Assessed Value Exemptions Taxable Value Last Year $614,386.00 $600,613.00 $50,000.00 $550,613.00 Current Year $641,118.00 1$605 ,417.00 $50,000.00 1$555,417.00 2015 TRIM Property Record Card (PRC) This PRC reflects property details and values at the time of the original mailing of the Notices of Proposed Property Taxes (TRIM Notices) in August. Property Record Card(PRC) The PRC accessed below reflects property details and values at the time of Tax Roll Certification in October of the year listed. 2014 •To obtain a historic Property Record Card (PRC) from the Property Appraiser's Office, submit your request here: More Information ontact Us I Parcel Tax Record I GIS Mao I Mao this property on G000le Maps I City Fees Record 4 http://apps.coj.net/PAO PropertySearchBasic/Detail.aspx?RE=1720200156 9/2/2015 _ - 4 i " I. ■ ■ . ________ 1 I 4 L I . . L . 1,LOA C11 .e. 1" n a A 18E 7 aa 184-1 i ci x 131 t ac.03 ta 4k _ TTh40J 1.0+ all, 3si .....______ 1 1 3 04, o 1 — — ) a,01 .Q1 ------------------- Li to, LI i eat, 3si r ad% \ ii __. .. ........._ I - --- _ .... ... • ...... . iii. I — ______ , MAP SHOWING BOUNDARY SURVEY OF LOT 12. BLOCK 6. SEI.VA MARINA UNIT No. 6, AS RECORDED IN PLA1 BOOK 36. PAGES 51 THROUGH 51--B. OF THE CURRENF PUBLIC RECORDS OF DUVA1. COUNTY, FLORIDA. CERTIFIED TO: ANDREW I. SC)IARF & RACHEL S. SCHARE BBVA COMPASS BANK, ISAOA/ATIMA REZNICSLK, ERASER, HASTINGS, WHI FE & SHAFFER, PA CHICAGO TITLE INSURANCE COMPANY PARK TERRACE WEST -`" p Ig7G•ri Dr NAY YAMS) ••••••••••-- p - 4-1ti'P 0• CP S 11'56'50" C 87 .91' (PLAT) p � hc 4 S 11'56.51" E 87.98' (MEASURED) URED) AP cJ* 1' 1. 4. O a1 7. . •.r Gi `G, , M e I .. PC 35'BJaDNC 1•AVERS A ACtON L9 .._ .... . _ _ ..--34 a'•.—t--•-. ;■ a. -- COKRED•''•. .LNTRY n 14.J' I 6-1. 7' I` 20.0 I-: A L• I Two STORY CC FRAME 0 POSTED #1668 w Q 39.9' Lii CC COVERS)` ". . -.(n I :� PATIO-.. VI a) Q W 1 _,...•--r-- co p • `i +� r V •.�-.- W IiO�Q Si 1-01 i ) J# r 1 . ,. •Ia k <...-...:J51}.�-1. • 23.3 0 T T" I,1 L 1 :.1 M7 li I i NELI 1!1 0 o I§LO wP I z -t(.....1 I I Thiel, f , V 0 7• •N 11'48'33" W 117.96' (MEASURED) N 11'56'50" W 111.91' (FLAT) I:EGFND. -.x.--- . FENCE S1 CTIDN 9. ILNRNS$P 2 SO.JIN, RANGE- 29 IA51 i.:t) . CONCRETE Q S(( 1/2•RERAN 51A9151)PS•$14E 0 - ttx7NU'/2'AA0t •44'NO*INK CA:MN (LITA FS'S OTHIWA S( 71DILV) a . 4'.4"mil C41 IE 4/424 '(�+t PC . 7'(Y:77 Ci CURVANR( IYIC . P0147 OI RLVL•S(.LURVATUR( A/C .M COM71'•4 Pt - PP'I7 At tAVPTIIC.Y PC(' . PONT of CC7APO:,N7 C1•YV••0', FIE VISION S r1UTf.5. i BEARINGS ARP BASED ON 1HE PLAT BEARL`IG OF __S_Z�Q3'1O'_ _L___ ALONG hIC UATF DESCRIPTION BOUNDARY LINE DC SUBJF,CT PARCEL. 2 BY GRAPHIC PLOTTING ONLY iHe C•PNO•ED LANDS (It 151111N ROOD ZONE "_ AS S,IOWN ON 1FOR. • NATIONAL 11000 INSURANCE. MAP DATED APRIL 17, 1949. COV)IUNITY NLRABLR 120019• PANEL _.00QL.Q_- ____ _,,..-.,,.,,.- .. .......... ..r ...•.. .0 010 ocrn•FKn Pi Ar A.,!CV Ti T1( C(11,2L41TMEN1 +"` ,y 2 ~ %'J 4 V' ►may V1 A' ( y 7;4.1 , o D co i , , ; , . A t . . ./.. ,/ ..f • L . , .r ,. • . Lir r" N 1 eT 3 N. fm 0 wo Q IV Cn .u Ls SP w o• (..11 \ ' .':. :,:./ 7 : :' .....- '' i 1} Ch x r O� t `� r,,• CD ro III W Z P ,- 0 , 0 . N It , b Am Gm N \ p N t N ''6- P—.■ , 1, fi . Ch i 4 s' i• . 40 CZ■ b1:3 0 00 t...■ ' I ,. i : , 0 *0 ---- .. P 4. ...... -: )-3 A 0 CI) C) h CP 446 „ • -. T3 a ,-,7 . le 0 -x O . ....1 I Al 19 CF‘ 0 CO 0 Po ! . "0 00 '0 . , , ,. , • 4 • . fy; V) 1 1.1'1', ,1 1M, , f 0 4 .,.., ...--- 4 . " . ,.. .,,..„ . •..2 : I 0 % • ''.`'• ' ;••-•-,. , 0- r• CT)(.../..) 0 ., .1. .,..* littoe (t) ..P• 0 _.-• * , -.:• _ 4 -...1 Atilt. 1 "4z..... 00 ,-- .-P 0 t\.) \,0 v0, I . IN) 4 I 00 .w 0 '4 so 0 (.0 ......... . .......1 (...., r0 ,..< i\.) ......) .1. :. . .. • 4...... .....1 o o i 3:1) --...• r-l• Ap .. •••••t- . _. .. 4.. I I ........ — . ... .-- tr.) a -- , • .. . ..,— .........„ _.....v,,,,, • 0\ •- , .-- . .. ■—• f . CD .. . .);:•\, ss• .--, , .-. •••.• ...--_-.4.N.._ (.,.) . ..,..., ., -P• A. • .. . ._._ i . .. • : . . . . II %...9.• — : an r•■t N-0.) .- .,• ,',. r•_ \ .r..,.,,,o r :•. t.•r t,•.. .it 6j, • f .. ■i...• k I..-.:-4. 1.. s...% .k.e, e, " : • ,..,, , :o r-r- . 9 . . ,. ,yi 4 . 9 . A o ---.. , , ' . • • _ -._.. . .4 t ...) o . ( • I- 4 - t uli t..p r),j, ) ' ' - IV cn if O P i. 1° ', s c'° {i o o 1111t0. '" 0 I N (. UQ CD 4 ,i .t 3 V i 4 , j - O cA �—+ - - T \ y -.. W :ir- i •° ,C 1 L.) \ t 2.. w., ,,._ . s, i� 4 �; j\-1 . ( ue Y l :f t./1 `` ,; F' , . i ON 4 1 o• • CD W ✓/'/,j,Rf -fir • (y 1 * %' y f' LA rs.An;y City of Atlantic Beach �'...Xlij- APPLICATION NUMBER sus Ad Building Department c- D ` (To be assigned by the Building Department.) y) 800 Seminole Road C.r' 0 1 2015 Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233-5445' �. �w 1)40A y - a a 7C� Phone(904)247-5826 • Fax(904) 247-5845 ! n //// /�� P,Jjt ga E-mail: building-dept @coab.us Date routed: d City web-site: http://www.coab.us APPLICATION REVIEW AND TRACKING FORM Property Address: /, / 8 ,PI�'Yf 71K/ Department review required Yes No C Building Applicant: eJf��'�zn--1 Did �G r Planning &Zoning Project: /I — ( I__, lye W # Pu e i trator u• is Utilits7 • • 1• ic-Safety Fire Services Review fee $ Dept Signature Other Agency Review or Permit Required Review or Receipt Date of Permit Verified By_ Florida Dept. of Environmental Protection Florida Dept. of Transportation St.Johns River Water Management District Army Corps of Engineers Division of Hotels and Restaurants Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Other: APPLICATION STATUS Reviewing Department First Review: ❑Approved. 11enied. (Circle one.) Comments: •fLG ##4d 40teo 4 BUILDING PLANNING &ZONING Reviewed by: L:� 5 Date: I� TREE ADMIN. Second Review: f ��Approved as revised. N - ied. UBLIC WORKS Comments: J� !'G,(, #1✓/'�I Co,ptitva PUBLIC UTILITIES JP/ r PUBLIC SAFETY Reviewed by: / Date: L / FIRE SERVICES Third Review: ['Approved as revised. •Denied. Comments: 0 Reviewed by: Date: Revised 07/27/10 rs tAn-if, City of Atlantic Beach / APPLICATION NUMBER y1 ,6a Building Department SEP 0 FI (To be assigned by the Building Department.) 1� 800 Seminole Road N Atlantic Beach, Florida 32233 5445` 1?O15 /5� I " c' ° 7 Phone(904)247-5826 Fax(904)247- 5 -- P-011 � E-mail: building-dept @coab.us Date routed: 0 / e) City web-site: http://www.coab.us v APPLICATION REVIEW AND TRACKING FORM Property ddress: / g 4-rie 'v� Department review required Yes No Y (l Building Applicant: (jiartn•-1 Q ) Planning &Zoning ee trator Project: Thv l r 'we j A' _ a 'u• is Utiliti •i. -fety Fire Services Review fee $ Dept Signature Other Agency Review or Permit Required Review or Receipt Date of Permit Verified By Florida Dept.of Environmental Protection Florida Dept. of Transportation St.Johns River Water Management District Army Corps of Engineers Division of Hotels and Restaurants Division of Alcoholic Beverages and Tobacco Other: APPLI ATION STATUS • Reviewing Department First Review: Approved. ❑Denied. (Circle one.) Comments: BUILDING PLANNING &ZONING * 3 I1 Reviewed by: Date: / TREE ADMIN. Second Review: A roved as revised. ❑ pp ❑Denied. fr i: IC WORK Comments: 4 PUBLIC SAFETY Reviewed by: Date: FIRE SERVICES Third Review: ❑Approved as revised. ❑Denied. Comments: Reviewed by: Date: Revised 07/27/10