##VIDEO ID:0x3Y5HMjm-o## I had what they I everything I believe it is can't see 102 so we're 2 minutes late I am calling the November 6 2024 meeting of the environmental and natural resources advisory committee to order um welcome everyone uh roll call yes Melissa Lamers presid Jessica gal here Wendy Anderson here Donna brosmer here Tom bbing Bob fit simm here John hob here Liss Jameson John Dono here Bill lights here Tyler mberg here Sarah Lee morrisy here Mr seret is absent Michelle Whit here okay we have quum we have a quum do we have anybody on line uh no members online we have uh some staff of County attorney and Land Development staff on very good and may we have their names please oh um yes let me go back to that um Palo soraia is online from the county attorney's office and Amy Michaels is with our Land Development Office thank you very much and welcome to them as well and um so uh just as an announcement we do have a few folks in the audience today if at some point you folks would sign in on the signin sheet that would be really appreciated and then there's also um if anybody wanted to speak to one of the items um we have the green card for you to be able to participate thank you Jer um our next our first order of business is approval review approval and review of the minutes from our October 2nd meeting has everyone had an opportunity to read the minutes Miss morisy I wasn't gonna do this again but you're very good at no actually um I I have to just ask a question I realized um it could have been me it was it involves today's presentation but it's also it reflected in the minutes and I just want to make sure um uh at towards the end um page four when we were talking about um a and the sidewalk path to an entrance you know I had raised a concern and we had some discussion and a little bit of the discussion is reflected in the minutes I thought we made a different motion than we did apparently and I just wanted to check because you know we were at the end of the meeting we're trying to hurry up get through things are we all good with where we are there well um I don't have it on my page four okay okay okay it's not on page four I'm sorry it's on page seven yeah am I right it's on page seven where is it no it's it's line 1617 of eight of eight yeah yeah yeah okay I had raised the issue and then um member jono and then member momberg and we had some discussion I had thought it may go without saying but I had thought at the very least we were going to clarify that the actual path from those Ada spaces to an entrance had to be ADA Compliant and smooth but um I might be wrong then so I'm good with whatever everybody else remembers I just felt the need to BR you did have discussion on that okay here on the screen is uh what we think was what recommended for approval so all of the sidewalks and at least 50% of the sparking parking spaces excluding anything identified as an ADA accessible route yeah must be alter yeah I think what we were seeking there and please feel free to correct my memory hi blz welcome um Bliss Jameson has arrived that we were attempting to ensure there was at least one route that was ADA Compliant leading from any parking area or in area into the building and if there were multiple routes then you could have am I correct well and I where I thought we came out was that anything that's identified as the Ada accessible path or route would be excluded from the requirement yes exactly okay that something that we'll be covering review any other and and just to Channel sarily A little bit I just wanted to point out that on page five uh I think it's line five anyway there's a reference to um our one of our County Engineers is stormy but her name is put in a storm could we just add the Y to her name no her name is Storm stormies yeah sorry but there is another type of that I saw that I'll fix I will say that as I was reading the minutes I got confused because there was something that I had brought up and we voted on and I knew that and I think that it's because the are written as they are presented chronologically and not grouped by a topic so that's the can and throw are there any other observations corrections to the minutes from the October 2nd meeting no when you still have your I'll make a motion to approve the minut second uh we have a motion by sarene morisy seconded by second first Wendy or oh okay um all those in favor any opposed the minutes are approved so our work today we are facing um uh the ldrc will be hearing the liid recommendations on November 21st which would they can only hear them if we finished them and so that was uh our main portion of business for today so that this can go before the council again at the beginning of next year with uh the pdrc having rendered their decisions on it and then we were going to go back to the storm water ordinance any changes to this agenda or comments I would like to make a comment I would like to make a comment if I can before we dive into the nitty-gritty work if I can just take a couple minutes to do that um um our last meeting was on October 2nd which was the week before hurricane Milton hit and our County took another very hard hit we have not met since then after Ian too many elected officials and staff from the cities and County played the historic storm hard it was a 500-year storm as if it couldn't happen again for another 499 years as if we didn't need to incorporate the consequences that we witnessed into our plans for the future many of us said no this is our new normal we are living in a rapidly changing intensifying weather pattern and we have now fast forward in two years and our leaders are now acknowledging this is our new normal we must have policies that protect our citizens in this new normal we are charged we our committee is charged with revising and writing new language for several sections of Land Development code pertaining to the environment we were then directed earlier this year to focus on Co codes pertaining to flooding our three meeting of work that we focused on storm water management didn't really produce the kind of substantive changes that would either prevent new flooding and certainly does not address um current flooding um prior to that we worked on Wetlands protection but most of that most of that work remains unfinished we have spent an inordinate amount of time on tree preservation which also addresses flooding and we move the clamshells around a little bit about that we agreed as a committee a year ago to propose a hybrid liid ordinance but then staff and Council believed that we could only approve a voluntary liid ordinance because of Senate Bill 250 and then we learned that we were not constrained by that and even if we were those constraints would have expired last month anyway and yet we have not asked Council to reconsider the hybrid approach because we believed they wouldn't agree to it that was before Milton and I would like to believe that every single one of our council members is human and Humane enough to want to respond now to the suffering that has occurred again in each of their districts each and every one of their districts has experienced catastrophic losses we need to ask again we need to ask the council again if we can come forward with a hybrid model that is not just about incentivizing but also includes some teeth some real teeth that can require developers to do differently we need language that is about banning fill and build in Wetlands we need language that goes beyond compensating storage um for for when we do impact those flood planes and wetlands we have to go beyond that we have to say we are not going to do this anymore excuse me thank you so much for those remarks I think a number of us had planned to say some similar things okay in the appropriate portion of of the meeting okay um I will save the remainder of my remarks for when we get to Those portions and I think we have also struggled and I and this bear is pointing out we have struggled as a committee I will say it again the council has not seen fit to hear our annual report that was scheduled to be heard in February of 2024 um so that has never been rendered to them nor has there been a formal presentation by us of a work plan for year 2024 but we were directed from the Das not to look at flooding to look specifically at storm water ordinances we are aware as a committee that these things are interrelated with tree preservation and flood plane protections and Wetland protections are all part and parcel of of flooding and it also beares to mention since we do have members of the public presid that NRA cannot go back and fix things that occurred in the past we can only take into consideration the best science available to us and balance that going forward and write ordinances that will be effective the last council meeting was heart-rending was absolutely heart-rending if you didn't hear it two hours the citizens begging for assistance so this will be a long conversation but I think we need to get through the ID in terms of the ordinances as they're written and then take into consideration what we recommend to the council if anything beyond what's in the text that we have to present to [Music] them so so we'll um we'll we'll have a greater bigger storm water conversation after the L and then um it's okay with everyone we'll just sort of continue where we left off and then at the if we get through the Matrix and all that then you know whatever discussion about if you we want to make different recommendations um about hybrid approach Etc um so I'm going to start with the Matrix oh and um I'm here for Samantha because she's at the lad conference um today and tomorrow which is is a good thing um so you have me instead of her sorry um I'll do my best um one thing on the screen this is something we talked about and you recommended approval at at our last meeting and I just wanted to bring it back because we did get some more information after the last meeting so we had when we talked about reducing or or the fee incentives um Jessica had brought up that um and and you all voted that applications that use a private provider shouldn't be eligible for the fee reduction just um for clarification uh applications currently that use a private provider for plan review don't already get a fee reduction so uh we can you know per we can leave this as it is and they still they wouldn't get the liid fee reduction the way that it's written but I think when you made that decision you were under the impression that they were getting a fee reduction already by using a private provider and they are not so I don't know if you want to revisit that that was um a unanimous vote with um Jessica you made the motion and sarily made the second to not have the folks using a private provider get the discount just and just as the motion maker and iist IL legal how are they not getting reduction I thought it was statutory not on the application fee and this is only talking about the application fee they if they're using the private provider for inpections than they are also for plan review if they're using a private provider for plan review there are certain fees that are not not that are waved because specifically for the plan review the administrative fee is still okay any additional comments on it so unless we take another action that would stay the way that it is which is totally fine okay um I'm sorry last meeting we decided to approve everything as a block I believe rather than item by item are we still good with that okay oh I'm sorry so should we bring that back up as what I'm hearing and I think it's just duplicative it does the same thing now as it does I don't know that we need to technical difficulties can't all right I'm G stop sharing are we having issues with the my apologies I have to share the screen correctly okay now is the time if anybody has a good say as long as we're waiting okay all right we're good my apologies um so where we left off no I need this PowerPoint okay all right we're good but now I need to see it right here so I can actually sorry apparently we're not okay last time we did okay okay see if it changes this okay all right sorry about that everyone okay where we left off in the BMP Matrix was on the BMP of um minimize directly World minimize directly connected impervious surfaces so this BMP is uh would require that all roof storm water is directed into a pervious area like a rain Gardener Swale um and that disconnected area has to be identified on the site plan and um within a table um on the the plan set and the idea behind that is that then that has an opportunity to either um percolate or you know drop out some of the sediment and glut before it gets to one of the connected storm water areas we have removed Civic from all the all the documents we're we're going to say site plans so civil plans and and everywhere in the documents so any discussion just one question John does that uh run off from the roof being directed to an impervious area and it still run across the parking lot to a SLA or does it have to be a direct the intent is the first place it hits is an impervious area that impervious area may not be big enough to you know actually hold all that storm water permanently or throughout the storm event but it hits there first and then it enters into the system could be over the paring lot or whatever J you just said impervious but you meant perious yeah I meant perious yes thank you thank you because I served wheny um so where would exfiltration basins um would they be would they be included because you know if you are building in a already dense Urban situation where you don't have space for this kind of soft Green Solution you know you might want to use an exfiltration Basin where you're directing your storm water under the building into a into a sstn type thing under the building so is that included in here or is that someplace else that we're going to it's someplace else and so that's one of the bmps that's in the actual you know storm water part of the section we're still in site design bmps in fact I think this is the last of the site design bmps so you could use this in conjunction but they're two different bmps no additional comments okay good okay so now we move into the storm water storage treatment and conveyance bmps so if you remember in our framework if you're doing an liid development you would choose two of the bmps that are in this section so the first one is creation of a storm water treatment Park which would um create passive uh or active recreational um amenities in the storm water system with several um opportunities you know to pick uh some of the site design or amenities so um we're saying pick three of the amenities that we've identified which would include a playground or picnic shelters you know picnic tables um free play areas Etc um there are actually two options in this storm water treatment Park option A is if you're um creating a wet pond in your development that that pond would have to include a loral Zone that's planted with Native um vegetation and use um bioactive media to um to provide some treatment and the bottom of that pond option b is if you're using a dry Pond um it would include an Upland buffer of native plants trees vegetation and additionally use the Bam um in the bottom of that pond so I had a little question about this there on the previous slide there are options of what to do with this land and but we're saying that we need to have um the signage educational signage I would assume that that educational signage would refer to the loral zones it would refer to the planting around the ponds and the benefits of that um but not or the playground I don't know if that needs to be clarified but until I got on the other page I was confused when I was reading through it so we could make a change just it's educational assign is related to low impact development anybody a build do you have a on the dry Pond slide pushing the button it's just not going so does that mean you always have to design a native planted area around a dry pond or you have to keep what was there I'm just not understanding the value of that like slides are not moving um the if in fact you could construct it and and retain the native vegetation that would would meet the requirement if they don't they're not moving um generally speaking when you build the pond everything around it it's pretty nuked so most likely be replanting with Native vegetation thank you must included up and buffer native trees why do you do that why what's the value of that instead of just a dry pond because what in this case if you're choosing this option it's creating this sort of storm water par situation and so the addition of the Native um vegetation it um adds to the habitat value the you know more than just the storm Mark and does this will this then be used for active Recreation is that the link it could be it could be passive or active Recreation um would have you know the whole area would have to have three of the amenity options okay and just as an FYI too like we've identified these area uh options at the very end we'll talk about a statement in there that you know if there are things we didn't think about right there are bmps that come along that we hadn't thought about or somebody has a um Innovative idea for want to do a storm water treatment par but they want to do something other than these there's an ability for staff to approve something that we just didn't conceptualize yet Wendy Jessica Wendy says I was just going to say I like the staff ability to change it but with this list it seems very active based and so I don't know if we can look at because then if an interpretation comes up and they say no it was intended to be active kind of like the open space discussion if we should throw in some other passive like a race board walk or something like that that would complement more of a passive Recreation Tyler thank you um speaking as a potential developer I would look at this say okay what's the cheapest way I can meet these three of these things and still make money so is is any discussion we given to a minimum size of how big this park would be as a percentage of the size of the overall site I if you got 100 AC site they give us a picnic table a pavilion and I don't know a dog park that's two or three acres out 100 acres that's very useful actually was any sorry I got here late for all these talk it's okay did that come up I don't I don't think we did I think we just focused on trying to keep the topography there yeah so um I would say that um in other parts of the code like particularly if it's a PUD there are requirements for how much open space is required and what the types of open space are whether it's passive or active um this we had kind of thought about this a little bit differently in that it's the vicinity of the pond right so it's right that area right around the pond that you're adding some amenities to that you're still going to have to meet whatever open space requirements are of the development which really only applies to p um but so this wasn't intended to address all of the recreational needs of a community necessarily I just know l b yeah agreed yeah good point Tyler think in general this one is the BMP that bothered me out of the set or didn't seem like it fit especially the idea of putting a dog park against our storm water facilities where you're going to have maybe there's some better control mechanisms for veryl the dog park um but I definitely think the you know for me you see this is a good idea to for to move forward we need to have higher level of specifics on what it is I think these are great ideas for like Echo projects and other public projects for us to look at how we can use our storm waterer facilities for public benefit I think within development it's good to encourage it but this is something that usually happens in the P process and as part of the negotiation or some other thing that the developers looking to incentivize they'll offer additional amenities so I'm kind of against the SS presented you have how want to be I mean I think in the intent of low impact development none of these things are striving towards flooding prevention protection of environment or Improvement of water quality other than the BAM requirements and the bond which is extremely expensive and so I just see this having a low up take rate and having a whole set of streams that like it is these are good ideas together but there I just don't think this would be one that would be chosen as it's written and I don't think the way that it would be chosen I think it's like what Tom said where the developer is going to push us as engineers in a direction where we're doing something kind of dumb so B was the intent of this to give active Recreation or passive Recreation um credits towards additional storm water treatment is that I think that the intent was um one of the things we've heard from the development Community is that um the area devoted to storm water doesn't count toward open space requirements and those sorts of things and so if you choose to do this BM P right an option that you could choose not required um that this would allow some of these areas that are you know storm water related to also count toward open space it was an attempt to address that barrier that we've heard from the development Community but also add value U to to the storm water system and you to the community in general um to go back to what Ty was saying and I agree with you part of the language in both the comprehens in the comprehensive plan and the PD Lang use the mic oh this again um as what Tyler was saying is that um this this sounds like it should be more of a definition than a goal because within the Pud process itself as he mentioned and within the comprehensive plan they talk about Innovative and they do allow a certain amount of of U leeway with clay and his staff to say okay well this is innovative we like this idea I this this is I don't I like Simplicity as I've said before this is verbage that people is going to gloss by and then they'll sit down with staff and they'll talk about it I I'm just hey make let's remember this is one option in addressing the bigger issue of storm water the whole intent behind it was to amenitie your storm water so it could count towards some of the other requirements we have in the code and it will not it will not only apply to puds I may have a subdivision where I'm coming in and I want to do this and I have to have 15% of my area for Native vegetation retention area I can go in there amenitie this get my storm water taking care of and also as you also know now I can sell Lots up against a nature conservative area Conservation Area that's got the trees and all that amenities there that will also increase the value of the Lots so it was giving developers an option so that that way they can maximize the use of their land because one of the things that we heard loud and clear from St John's River Water Management District is many of the efforts to utilize ID become land intensive and so there's a disincentive to use them whatever we can do to make sure that traditional pipes and ponds take up similar areas as what we're trying to get with li we're looking at ways to maximize the use of those areas that is the whole point it's an option available thank you and I would remind the especially for the benefit of newer members that we have a menu approach pick and choose so not nothing is 100% required it's do X number and these are the this is the menu that you can choose from to do so it's not and and the reason why we have that is we realize that an infill Redevelopment site is going to be able to utilize some of the tools that are different that would not necessarily be applicable to a new Green Field development that new Green Field developments can take advantage of it to provide some better compensation whereas with infield we're really looking for what can we do with those sites to do something to address the S water problem thank you CL any other comments to this um I guess I would just ask if if we're GNA think prior meetings we did sort of lump things together for motions but if there's a particular BMP where there's some controversy do we want to entertain a motion if you want it the way that it is or with edit or you don't like it like how do we want to move forward in my view it would be more expeditious to have vote when it's a little bit more discussion around it because if we wait till the end of the meeting we forget yeah I agreed so I will move on unless somebody so I have a question so if we proposed not including this as a BMP and a developer wanted to do this are they allowed it just doesn't count towards open space so um you know there's the general language that says if you come up with something we haven't thought of or that isn't in here we we'd be willing to entertain it so I guess some you yes you would be allowed to do it it would be more of a process though than now where I just check okay I've chosen this BMP and this BMP and this BMP um I guess it wouldn't preclude you from it certainly wouldn't preclude the developer from doing any of these things um it right you you either wouldn't get the lid credit for it or you would have to go through the process of you know interaction with staff to say here's what I want to do it's not on your list can I do this thing so the whole point of this was to incentivize and and from from an environmental perspective the big deal is having a stor water treatment part with natural vegetation around it that's the the me of that from an environmental perspective correct and then from a development perspective it's let's incentivize giving them Open Space Credit by using as clay just said using the storm water treatment Pond area as passive or active Recreation and they can choose to do that to my mind I would not wish to disincentivize the portion of the storm water treatment part with Native vegetation around it I would I would like so I don't know if we're if we're discussing the whole thing or if we're discussing the list of amenities which are flexible because the developer has the opportunity to come in and say I have another amenity idea as Jessica mentioned a boardwalk if any of you have been to ero Wetlands blue water in Gainesville or or Wakota hatchee in South Florida those are municipal but they're incredible amenities uh of wetlands so I'm looking for clarity from our group thank you Jessica yeah I would just say two quick things I'm wondering if we suggest changes to this clarify that if we if this one is used you do get the full Open Space Credit in this because I know you get liid credit but the open space um and then is there a way to say no fewer than three active or passive recreational improvements including but not limited blank and then say if a picnic shelter is used there'll be a minimum of two at this size just making it more flexible like having a general list that says this isn't everything you can do but here are examples and if you use a a picnic shelter the minimum size has to be 15 by 20 if you use this it has to be CL is your I'm sorry then Tyler the primary com I was going to is I didn't see where this gave credit for the double buing of open space and storm water Pond um second comment is I think more important rather than giving higher level of density allowed in development or the application fee to incentivize this would be to separately from this address the restriction on that overlap and to suggest conditions under which the overlap would be allow where credit could be given to both and look at incentivizing it on everything and not just as part of the LA menu um so I'll just answer on the um why maybe it wasn't obvious that uh it was counted as open space but if you look at the table the the incentives that are associated with is that this BMP would be permitted within landscape buffers and building setbacks it would be credited as Landscaping it would be credited as open space and then the reduced uh fees so that's not in the definition of the BMP itself it's in the list of the incentives that would be associated with it I need to also clarify for this group that our County Council has directed us to go look at how we do our open space calculations for puds and these types of things so as we go through that exercise if we see that there needs to be a correction made here we'll bring this back to the en organization okay all right are we ready to move on from this and we will move on from this don't feel like sorry I was just going to make a motion to approve it as written that okay motion made by theight seconded by Tom Burbank all those in favor any you oppose two oppos sorry I saw Tyler okay okay the next BMP is uh design of a wet Pond the requirements to gain incentives for that would be that the Pond we designed to capture 15% more storm water than is required by the minimum standards in the Land Development code so it's a traditional wet Pond but it's built um a little bit bigger um and that the pond must include a loral Zone um uh and bioactive media would be used and just a note here that the 15% in additional capacity wouldn't be for compensating storage for in the flood line would would not be counted as that any questions or comments so weet ponds that have orifice control systems are typically referred to as detention ponds detention ponds increasing the 15% capture is going to help some with flood attenuation during an event however all that water gets left out of the storm After the Storm event and goes wherever it's going to go for its for this control recovery um this may not be as beneficial for things beyond the during the storm event the post flood storm flooding is not going to be dissolved by this type of a change so there's a differ difference between retention detention was to slow it down yeah the detention a chance to filter out some of the flues as well that's just refreshing on some rain and what so you have a flood event this is 15% greater requirement than the current Land Development code in terms of carrying capacity of the pond correct I'm just I'm not an engineer so yeah it's just a bigger bucket we still have a whole draining the bucket back out to starting level so I explain again why this is a as good at thing as it looks like it is retention puts the water back into the ground or reduces effectively the runoff differential from pre- to post-development detention does not so if you have a river or a canal or something else that immediately dumps to the ocean you aren't likely going to cause worsening of flooding from that where this so we already some but that that's a good point and I'll look to staff in a second but we've we've already established and I'm sure we're going to talk about it in a little while you're not supposed to flood your neighbor's property so I think that's what you're there there's a lot of new mons that we don't really have time to cover and how all storm water code goes together and all the different design events and the different types of flooding that occur I just wanted to put the comment out for discussion that a retention requirement would have more impacts in positively on everything then increase immediately so this is this is again an option from among the menu that the developer can choose from we want the options to be effective we want them to be attractive so it seems to me that the unknown on here is where that detention pond water goes and that would be something that would help us out here Wendy and then and then yeah maybe Tad and I can tag team on this but is it possible to make this about Retention Ponds instead of just detension ponds well but what ponds are either one yeah have wet retention Bond just typically yeah you don't generally but the what I was going to say about it is particularly when you're talking about wet Pond okay you're controlling the water table consistent with the the seasonal high so you have an orice that always allows that water to flow through once it reaches that elevation if you're going to apply a 15% Factor you'd have to move the orice above that which then changes the groundwater and I don't know that you actually retain 15% more because you if you get into the rainy season you may now hold more water than you intended to because it can't percate and get to where it was supposed to so I don't know that on a detention system that this is even potentially a viable option at all doesn't mean don't put it in there maybe there are situations where the soils are better maybe I'm I'm not thinking this all the way through but retention where you're retaining the entire thing putting an additional 15% on it it's not going anywhere anyway but it does oversize your pond a little bit and provide some uh some potential for holding more but um not necessarily enough to strike it but I don't know that it adds much benefit overall but when I think we would definitely want to avoid encouraging developers to stack water higher than the seasonal high water on a on a permanent or regular basis it would I would just and a uh and a detention block DET so just so that was heard Wendy clarified what Tad was saying about with the water level changing High water level changing stacking water on top of water T clarified that in the tension went on yes that would happen my suggestion would be we have an attenuation volume we have a difference between our post storm runoff and our pre-storm r that we have a known volume just make the incentive a percentage of the attenuation volume is provided by dry retention whether rre whether a that a percentage of that attenuation volume post to minus pre- differential volume P pass the hold be provided by dry retention for our detention system so as a pre-treat it it should be a pre dry retention well you go into the dry and then that overflows into the wet it provides the greatest Improvement of a wet pond in its nutrient removable efficiency of our systems dollar for dollar um that also then on the dry Pond you could just say size at 15% bigger but what that's going to do is it's going to retain 15% of your designed storm event volume but most 15 minute 30 minute 1 hour rain events aren't going to go beyond that dry pond so you're going to put substantially more water into the ground on your site so there is a potential that you know so these are open bases these are not not you're not putting a detention pond in the areas that flooded in West fua during mil you're going to be putting a detention Pond along the canal on Nova that floods so it's it's a different Basin and the groundwater soil recharge those things it it's not a there isn't a good one rule fits all but I think that that would be better approach to this I would make a suggestion I ask how that would be written so would it be that if you're using a wet Pond you include a design feature actually you're basically pre-treating exactly is really that's that's the really short version of what he just said really so you add a pre-treatment system or or doing something like the B yeah but could a a Swale or rain Garden also serve as that pre-treatment it doesn't have to be a dry Pond it could be another well we consider those dry pons when we apply for the permit under the criteria those are all best management practice yeah any of those types of things any I just want to see if I got the words right but and I know you would have to vote on any change but so it would say um include a pre-treatment system equivalent to 15% of the required storm water volume if you're using a wet detention Mar just say pre-treatment retention of 15% say that again pre-treatment retention of 15% of the required tenation is that okay okay and through this we should be then addressing both the quantity of water and some treatment of that water yeah this is a better engine TR so if we were going to make those we with need a motion you want to keep in the possibility of doing ban leave the rest it's just the maybe this first sentence so there's some additional treatment being provided whether it's free treatment or ban or some other inv management practice by count there the conversation going on are are you suggesting that the ban be Tad that the ban be uh optional or one of many possible pre-treatment solution we should accomplish the additional 15% there through pre-treatment or bam or something else but the BAM wouldn't be required specifically okay it would be need to accounting for the additional still be requiring the bam in the in the wet Pond right right right but I want to go back to the comments that Tyler shared with us a couple months ago that he typed up um is it better to have bam in the bottom of your pond where you're having infil ation into the ground which is then also very difficult to replace every 10 or 20 years or is it better to have your bam in like the outfall structure where there's um a filtration as the water leaves the system but it's easier to to replace and replenish or or both so I'm not fully up to date on everything that is out on the market right now I'm going to start with that but based on my of what is available when you're dealing with wet detention PS most of your nutrient discharge is through that workhouse so we use what is called an upflow filter it's basically a box full of the BAM materials the water flows through it about the rate of a 4 in pipe under Gravity flow 6 in pipe something like that so it's a pretty decent flow it's a really big box so it's going slow has good contact on our overflow discharges big storm event discharges don't go through that box they go over the top of it um so that's pretty much the best way that you're going to deal with wet Pond discharges so bam in a wet Pond detention system prior to the water getting into the pond or that the water is able to engage with in the pond can have some benefits you can do flow over strips or other things where you are having a surface flow going into the pond but on a piped connection it's a lot of maintenance for most of what's available so we're pretty limited to the UPF flow on the outlet and Michelle's probably much more expert and in tune on this than I but um on dry ponds where the water's perking in the ground for it to recover is where the nutrients are leading the pond so putting the BAM there has more of an impact and because it usually is a dry Pond you can replace that material it's just expensive yeah so if we we just said that um we would modifi potentially modify this to say that pre-treatment retention of 15% is required would it make sense to say that within that pre-treatment retention that's where the ban material would be like you were just saying like it would flow over it or no we're getting into an area of science that there hasn't been enough study and writing on for me to educate myself off uh the knowledge of others just independently but right now we don't permit nutrients going into groundwater so that would be addressing primarily nutrients going into groundwater unless you have like a through burm type of recovery event or something [Music] I bam is something that like do studied it on the side of US1 and Mormon where there's direct discharge into tamoka River the where it's blowing out and they put a flow over strip where they couldn't collect and do some other form of treatment it's effective there but it's not cost effective versus other options and so from a squeezing dollars out of you know different options I just don't find lining ponds has been an alternative that we've only done it a few times in our pre-treatment things and it's where we're having trouble meeting nutrient removal and we want to make it smaller better thing to do is to hit the 15% volume threshold in my mind it would have value not to say that it wouldn't have value it's just it's a lot of expense for the value that be gained what needed you have for the so when Ginger finishes are we G to read a new well we would need a motion I mean I can read my the notes of what we discussed um that's helpful okay it it might even be helpful if you could put it into the words that that someone could make a motion right so so right now the first sent is a wet Pond is designed to capture 15% more rain water than required I think what we've talked about is that um if using a wet detention Pond the requirement would be to add pre-treatment retention system equivalent to an additional 15% where I'm not entirely sure so I think that covers that first sentence right and then of the minimum standards but then I what I'm not sure about is is there a suggestion to remove this sentence about bam must be used in the sorry in the wet Pond portion of this BMP not the 15% portion right I think we we have an idea for how the 15% would would be handled right it would be a pre-treatment system of some sort but then the question of whether or not the BAM at the bottom of the wet Pond is valuable important doable I would not include bam in the we pond with a pre- treat bill you don't need to right you're now double double pre-treat or double giving you 15% right if you do pre-treatment of 15% the BAM also will improve the water quality so isn't the pre-treatment of the 15% the bonus you're looking for yeah don't disagree that that's that's what the case with my way of thinking what we might want to do is just identify that we want to treat that's what we're talking about for the most part of this is at a higher standard whether that's accomplished through using bam or pre-treatment or some other technology we don't yet known about I think the important thing is reaching the goal and how we get there we leave open and available because I mean bam is new there may be something else that replaces that or improves on that uh overall and as long as the water is cleaner I don't know that it matters generally how we get there but so we said we said a pre-treatment system of a certain size the pre-treatment implies some sort of water quality benefit and then the size has the quantity that we're talking about that a true statement yes I have a science question so we would not wave the requirement of having aquatic macrofit vegetation does not the macrofit vegetation perform an environmental service in terms of cleaning water and removing some of least the nitrogen okay yes what happens if we take must out and just say may points yeah this this has got to be issue these are all they're all yeah so so John just said to S if you harvest it so to answer answer your biological question the vegetation yes takes up a good bit of nutrients but you have to harvest the plants and get them out of the system for those nutrients to leave the system so this is a maintenance issue if this is a a BMP that is chosen there has to be a maintenance and enforcement component to kind of follow up on that on that nutrient medication so in the case of both the B just I'm sorry just quickly following what what is been I so you can't just vegetation or B you're into a maintenance need a requirement keep on your existing wet LS for example you should go through every 10 15 20 years and dig up the bottom to get rid of the heavy metals that the sun doesn't break down and this stuff as it is right now your wet system basically uh holds the water for a certain time period the sun breaks vast majority of the chemicals down doesn't break down the solids or anything along themselves generally breaks down all the the chemicals which cleans that water and it does a very good job for the most part you do have things like phosphorus and nitrogen it doesn't very well and that's really what we're targeting saying you set a higher goal which is consistent with what the arm is trying to do with their most recent rules ches you're uh you're already accomplishing large part of that PA first place so at some point you want to said are we really giving credit for something that's already required by the water manure District that's a great question yeah oh Jessica sorry made it's hiding behind your water bottle fine the question on maintenance I think we said at the beginning of this manual that if you're utilizing this process you have to include An Li maintenance plan so that would be included in this okay okay I tried to write what we've said might not have gotten it so if using a wet detension system it must make it a little sound better but it must include a pre-treatment retention system equivalent to 15% more rain water than required by the minimum standards then I struck the band but left the the tal Zone vegetation I would uh I would leave the ability to put in b instead of doing pre treatment retention system you do either or but the BAM doesn't give you the volume right addition it doesn't that's I'm going look we trying to accomplish treatment we're trying to accomplish tenation trying to separate the two somebody here we need a motion or more discussion motion to approve as amended I'm scre second U so motion made by T second by Wendy all those in favor any oppose motion carries okay it Sav I won't remember yeah do hit save please because none of have to record yeah then then you have to listen okay I'm going to leave it on this edit mode if we have more so um so the next BMP is about a dry Pond uh the requirement would be to capture 15% additional um storm water volume the pond must include an Upland buffer of native trees shrubs and underst Stor vegetation and Bam must be used again the 15% would not include any um credit for compensating storage for fill in the flood plane any questions comments thank you okay the next BMP is underground retention and detention systems this um requirement would be if you chose it um that um if an underground storage system is installed uh to minimize the impact to at least 10% of the natural areas on site so right this would be using that underground system to avoid um creating a pond above the ground and uh the uh of course these These are only available in certain sites that you know you can meet the water table requirements um and then um the applicant couldn't use this BMP to gain the incentive if this is the only option they have to meet the storm water requirements so for instance if it's a strange site and they have to do this because you know they don't have enough um then that wouldn't be eligible for the incentives any questions or comments okay um okay the next BMP is infiltration and exfiltration trenches um this requirement would be that um the applicant use um an infiltration exfiltration on site um to meet the total storm water volume required by the code um and then the storm water volume must be demonstrated in the storm water calculations um this BMP would only be utilized on a commercial site in private streets or outside the public RightWay so um you wouldn't be able to use this in the public right of way um and again the water table would would have to be appropriate I don't this is one of our options for storm water treatment want cover more site unless it's achieving something else it's use by itself seems a benefit versus others if anything I see as a detriment because it doesn't have near as long of a service life as just a dry Pond and it's a lot more expensive for us to desilt it than it is to scrape the bottom of the dry SP by put it on and de against never successful always lose volume as you go along by age I'll tell you the recommendation would be to strike total in set a percentage that's fine but I would not ever recommend this being the total storm no okay so maybe it's not worded right so the intent was that you could if you chose use an infiltration or exfiltration trench and the volume that that provides would be counted toward your requirement not that it be the only thing you do on site that it be part of your treatment train so it may be that we just didn't word it very well but so that was the intent it's basically to um allow by right the use of this as a BMP and that it count toward your total volume so so to understand this I'm looking high again so liid is to in so far as it is possible retain the topography of a parcel of land and to keep the water on that property what I would see just on my limited knowledge is if I have to handle x amount of storm water but I want to utilize the natural topography as much as possible I may need a combination of a pond and a trench it's true except for the fact that to put this in you're have to dig up that section you're putting it in so you're in point of fact disturbing that area that you're trying to keep setting but the problem with these is they're they're maintenance is questionable at best there is no good method for maintaining the volume that you have once it's initially installed for the life cycle of you're always losing percentage and you can never stop them there's no good method for cleaning out the voids that are used outside by along those lines and then on top of that you know it's got a built-in your time frame that's worse than others um so you have to have an NB that can maintain it and when the time comes it needs to be replaced it's a pretty good expense and if you put it under something then you're replacing that as well which is why we would never um actually put them under structures as was mentioned earlier you're not going to want to be in that position the other aspect too is if this gets overwhelmed so if you have you know a continuous High period of rainfall uh uh more so than whatever the design storm is set for or the seasonal eye is off when it fails it fails differently than a swarm water Pond would there's no extra it moves on and if you get into certain situations you can actually if they're not designed properly you see it in lift stations and things like that the damn things will float and pop up so I there's just a lot of problems with these things in general so I would certainly like I said strongly recommend not using the word total and uh I don't to the intent but there's a reason we used to use them we don't use them very much now at least for this thank you so an infiltration trench typically comes to the surface to help accelerate letting water into the ground and exfiltration trench we typically run a pipe into and and we're using it to get water to infiltrate into the ground for the most part I'm just ignoring infiltration trenches and comments here because it's not something that we really use in Florida it's something you use for have Clay things of that nature um so speaking to exfiltration trenches what I would say could be a beneficial intent of this rule that I don't think is really spelled out would be that we have a goal of having our post-development site have a certain coverage of infiltration area whether it is retention Pond or exfiltration trench or infiltration trench or a a bios sell or whatever we want it to be some coverage of that site and I've thought of how to try to write this and I've tried to think of different sites and I'm stuck in the writing and you know brainstorming stage of peers but I actually have something that I was trying to write along the lines of this and one of the challenges is say you picked 20% you want 20% of your site well if you have a 50 Acre Site how do you make sure that that 20% isn't one form of the 50 acres and you know then we're giving an incentive to somebody to do something that we think is a bad idea and so it's the how do you write something that's simple but that actually achieves The Beneficial result we want and I don't have a good answer for it however I think that's what you're probably trying to get to with this um so you pull that to a bigger a bigger view of x% of retention on the property and filtration on the property to be accomplished in one or a combination of these ways is that what kind of what you just said yeah a non engineer I think that the benefit of this is that you are able to put ground that you're percolating water into back under a parking lot or other hard surface where you previously were taking away that soil storage and groundwater recharge Zone um all of its benefits come with all of the detriments that Tad talked about um I can mention they've got like a three or 4 foot deep Vault system maybe even deeper on these apartments that just went in on the south end of the land over by the library and it it looked like pre-cast conrete and other stuff that is going and I've seen a lot of these different systems there are dozens of different ways that we can achieve these exfiltration trenches some of them are more maintainable than others some of them are more constructible than others some of them are more resistant to collapse type of failures and so all of that is something that um the developer that we work with has to pick the system typically and so I I would be very cautious with how is WR I did make a couple of maybe edits which would just say that the exfiltration may be used on site to meet the the storm water volume required so it's there as an option um but if it's something we don't want people to do then that's a different story but but this makes it more like you can use it if that works on your site and it and the volume in it would be counted toward your total requirement I think I think the everything gets measured against a goal um the Big Goal having more water retained and having it go back into the ground as clean as possible so under that having options should be a helpful thing Wendy and then Tom so would it help to say um may be used on site to contribute to the storage or to partially contribute to the storage rather than to just say to meet um and and right I mean it's my understanding that we often use these in parking lot situations particularly in urban areas and and yeah I know that when the Delan Commons were being built you know Ted byer's flying his drone over it every day you know we all got to see the you know the excavation and the installation of these structures and and I was keenly keenly curious to see how it would perform in Milton and and it performed remarkably well I mean how and Alabama did not flood and it always flooded and so I it seemed to work I was I was shocked actually um well as was said this is something that you don't see very often where has fall out of f and I'm thinking most Engineers would look long and hard at this as an option in any design to put forth for this time because that reason so this this probably won't happen offw a lot my comment is I thought this was already allowed it is yeah Point points for using something you're already allowed to use and saying that the reason is yeah I mean I guess the incent is to incentivize other things than just I'm building a big pond on a site right if you provide these options and there incentives for them then maybe people are doing the treatment train approach which is the Bedrock of L okay does this help or does this harm in leaving it ends when need I'm I'm made a little bit of an edit up there I don't know so it would just say that you may use this and the volume captured you may count toward the volume required it's sort of a duh statement but the one thing I would certainly recommend adding is that uh site conditions just like any of this but uh site conditions can have a huge effect on whether or not it's a viable option I would probably make a note because um you can always make a pond a viable option but you can't always make this a viable option so we don't want it to sound like well if the water table's high I can still do it and still get credit for it so um let's just be a Target something something that shows that it's been reviewed it's approved one thing I would say too and I I'll modify my earlier statements about the exfiltration this is listed as exfiltration trenches so trenches are a smaller setup it's basically a pipe with a larger set a larger Rock placed around it to create the voids and the storage space that you get and those um like I said they they they don't operate very well and you lose your volume rather quick there are other things that do exfiltration we don't I don't generally think of them as trenches but they are similar size but they are much bigger structures to create volume with and those do clean out better uh overall so what we might want to do in this case is put a limitation on um what type of X filtration get rid of the word trenches maybe come up with something that shows a minimum size in terms of a pipe size if you have a 8 inch pipe you're never really going to clean that out you're never going to be able to get the use out of it that you want to but if you're putting in uh you know some of the bigger systems something like uh what's actually pictured you have that picture that picture3 I have Mas some Turing Fields so if you got as shown in the top left if you've got a system like that no wonder a pipe it's really a PDC structure or something similar yeah that is much more effective you got a lot more bind that gets created so even though you have some losses that loss is much much smaller percentage of the overall system that we'd be fine with and done some of that myself so that's not bad but you wouldn't want to be into these smaller pipe sizes something along those lines so um and what I recommend yes yeah something like that is not what I would recommend you digging that up in about 10 15 years because there's no way it'll be affected and you'll never clean out that rock space and you can see where majority of your volume volume is not the pipe space it's the voids around there so you are uh your failure is going to occur much quicker and uh your maintenance life cycle on it is going to be much worse so there some kind of clarity between the different types of systems okay word Smith right well that's why I want to get rid of trench so um it system or structure um think what we put in there is a exfiltration system in which the Vault space greater than a 36 in wi something I don't have a number off the top of my head so I apologize for that but know that's kind of where I would recommend F that's the direction that grou we'll figure out what that Engineers does 36 in seem reasonable Deep Cover again I'm I'm thinking along the lines you look at those uh yellow structure as there it's the storm teexs are typically 12 to 18 inch deps depending what model the CeX are typically 18 or 24 in deps that's a half pipe so a 36 in pipe cut in half would be 18 in deep it's just I I would just say an exfiltration system that its volume is primarily or the something percentage of its volume is provided by pipe void rather than we call it why would we call it Vault system yeah and refer to that particular exhibit Vault system that's an ads St Tech that's except that goes with a different B&P that's underground retention and detention systems understood well which is what but are the two things different underground detention is just a vault it doesn't necessarily okay so maybe it's the photo okay okay okay I just wanted to make sure we weren't creating two things that were the same thing that clarifies they kind of okay yeah gender they kind of are two things that are the same thing okay so in the actual manual I mean to the to the question earlier about like this is already allowed and how is this incentivizing you know LG and all that um or how are we gaining anything so in the manual the language is an underground storage system is installed to minimize impact of 10% of the Natural Area on site so it's I mean the goal is to maintain the natural areas or the natural topography and so yes that's what we're gaining that's that that's the one we already talked about underground retention and detention has 10% okay right okay so maybe I'm in the wrong next this one do the other one you have to do this one you've already incentified you've already met the two so we should combine them yeah or get rid right think it's a compe Mich has moved that we get rid of this second Tyler has seconded all those in favor iOS then it is got who that's 20 minutes Michelle Tyler everybody bill should get rid of it unanimous he was telling me to speak up that's gonna throw all the numbering of everything very much no longer exist at least it's toward the end of the okay it is 2:24 we take a customary bio break at 2:30 um do we want to try to get through the next one in six minutes or do we want to break a little bit early okay okay the next one is Storm watery this would be um a method to um count toward the total from volume um could be a fond a sister Etc um basically you storm our Harting you identify how much volume that is and um only permitted within multi family commercial and Industrial Zing classifications there see more detail in the next slide um only for non-potable uses mosquito control designs and um incentives could not be gained by using storm water harvesting to meet and fire requirement that something so um looking at this the SLE is something like this where the the rain water comes off of this roof collected and his sister so Michelle and Bob I just had a question if it's been utilized before in the county there's an example we can use sorry microphone is there an example we can use from the county projects was do this before we don't have any photos um that that we've used on any of our projects now this was the closest um example we could find Bob was next then Wendy yeah I understand not allowing a single family residents on a single lot to utilize this but there's a lot of designs these days that are actually residential single family where you're clustering and putting homes closer together and under those circumstances if you had Gardens or other things of that nature in that Community um I would think you shouldn't be allowed to use this and it would be advantageous to use this because in those settings you're usually creating more impervious area than not so not on the Lots but you're talking about like in the common areas of a sub correct correct correct because this doesn't apply to each home I know but I I thought his initial question was why is that the case appar no I'm looking at a you know a development if you will single of single family homes so residential um that's not multif family that has a lot of common areas and places where this could be utilized and make sense and you have an entity to take care of it I mean I would agree with you T that I would love to see it on a single family home as well but I don't know how you would manage that yeah you know um Clemens we had slendy then John then Tyler then Michelle okay so again going back to the manual um the other photo that's included in the manual is of a storm water Pond which is probably also considered a storm water treatment Park and it's the Central Lake Victoria pond in Victoria Commons it's the so storm water facility for that section of the neighborhood and it has you know picnic areas and playgrounds and you know and Amphitheater and all of the all of the sort of recreational amenities but it's also used for irrigation you know again one of the one of the pros and cons and we' we've addressed this in some other context of you know what's going on in Victoria Park is you know and I know we've got you know victims of Victoria Park sitting across the room looking at me right now is that one of the good things about Victoria Park is that it is collecting its own storm water to be used for irrigation it's also supplementing with reclaimed from the city which is probably a problem um but it is using its storm water for irrigation that's a good thing I think that's what's being referenced here is that our storm water ponds whether it's a closed sstn or a pond is then being is then being recirculated for irrigation that's a good thing right we want to incentivize that yes okay so just to clarify that that's included here so I think the order with John Tyler Michelle um it's again I'm still learning but is it is it on oh great thanks uh final site plan I I just I mean I know approv site plan but do you have is there a distinction that's a an actual step in our development and I you I would assume the final site plan are the construction plans it includes the construction plan yes so so there's a there's an approval called the final site plan that's what we call it and then included in that are all of the plans yes Michelle then Wendy it's not opposed to the in concept um we've had a couple barriers to implementation and we've tried to have a centralized provide provision of irrigation water when you get a 100 homes or a community the Size Victoria Park You Can Am morize the cost of the pump system that can meet all of the different rates and on and off points of the different individual homeowners irrigation systems but when you're dealing with say 80 homes or smaller we have to have a single controller that runs the irrigation zones and turns the pumps on or we end up with some very common breakages in in nonfunctional irrigation systems so there are some implications where this is restrictive and its use it works best if you have a single maintaining agency over the network of what you're doing or you have big enough that you can have very bu speed pumps and controllers and automate um so implementation challenges are going to be present this isn't going to be a high uptake on smaller projects of that nature unless we go to assister ear approach what I would suggest is that we have some type of volume like some Metric have you met or have you not met otherwise I could stick a 55 gallon barrel out it's a rain barrel cool I've met this criteria I put a little pump in it when it goes dry I go back to whatever my other source of irrigation water is that's not our goal here is um the second implementation challenge we've had it won't be an issue here but when we've tried to use it in the past it's been to get a pond to recover that wasn't recovering we're in a closed Basin we're trying to get that extra infiltration we have code restrictions against running those systems after rain we have to have rain sensors that turn off our irrigation systems in valua County the rainy season is when you have trouble getting your ponds to recover so the Restriction against running the system prevented us from being able to use it towards the storm water code for St John's or state criteria so as just an added effort here that's fine however I just want to note that during technically during the rainy season shouldn't be getting used which is kind of when the water is there to harvest so we have a little bit of chicken and egg issue in Florida that we kind of have too much storm water during the rainy season and most of what we see where these examples come from are places that don't have that issue I'm not in line I think it was Michelle then John John draw written right now it says may be used to meet total storm water volume I would suggest that we do a percentage of the storm water volume yeah I'll tell you what that was supposed to say and it sounds like it doesn't say it but was whatever the volume is it counts toward your volume requirement so not that it is the total but it counts toward the total okay so we just haven't written that well but I I I like the idea of it's got to be a certain size or you have like 40% % of the total storm water volume shall be harvested I me just do depth of rainfall over the site area is what you would need to be able to hold for Recovery whether it's like a half it's just the way the rest of our stuff gets these days yeah however you want to say it what is the typical sorry the typical design requirement is you have to hold the first inch of rainfall right where is it oh it's all different it's now all nutrient calculation based and it varies so stor water yeah so if we but if we say the first half inch under the system will be held then that's reasonable okay John would probably be able to tell you typical irrigation rate is but as well the ginger did anybody answer your well keep writing write what you need to oh Michelle I'm sorry did you have a an additional comment excuse me and other um bmps and other sustainability do doents this kind of storm waterer harvesting has been a percentage so I think the idea of just doing it a percentage of the total storm waterer volume requirement part of the incentive I think it's a good idea more than more than tying it to a rain form amount but that's my suggestion um I'm not qualified to make any comment on evaluating which of those two things is better but someone else might be well generated volum percentage or first amount doesn't really matter we identify a percentage we want to tie it to you the treatment volume the attenuation volume something I think attenuation probably what the intent is so okay I'm not an engineer but it would seem to me that a system like this would probably not be handling that much of the required retention um or detention on a site so would is 50% you know way too much should it be 20 I I I I don't know but I'm just thinking from a practical standpoint that that threshold may be so high that it would never be considered so attenuation volume on a 2596 storm event or 100e 24hour storm event land the rainfall is about 11.3 to 11.5 in depending on where you are predevelopment runoff of that rainfall on sandy soil is going to be something like 4 Ines by the the post- development runoff from impervious is going to be all of it so it depends on your site coverage on how much that increases but you could have you know anywhere from 4 to 8 in an increase in your typical runoff rate from a storm event over your area a half inch is just is where John can answer the question for me but I don't run my sprinklers to put more than a half inch of water out time ever one in one in but if that says half of the storm water volume I wasn't reading yeah re anounced for two minutes came back in I'm with you now I'm 100% but that's why I was saying it in inches over the Basin was just because of it it's how our storm water ended up working no I agree that's not what I was reading we've had a couple of Concepts on here oh Jessica sorry go I was just going to say to the volume if you use storm water volume versus rainfall I do think it has to be much less because this is just capture and you have Outland flow and all of that so so a rainfall amount we've discussed an attenuation amount we've discussed a percentage and I don't think we've met it out anywhere so well whoever makes the motion gets to decide everybody jump at once B yes are we going to add residential on that last portion uh you know well it it doesn't apply to single family so much it could be a subdivision and it could be in the common area of the subdivision but this whole thing doesn't apply to one single family house coming in for a permit I understand that but you've okay so yeah zation and we'd have so that just would change this too because subdivisions don't go through the final site plan process so we would change that to be procedurally final plat right prary plat here would just the Tyler's earlier point about you know who is actually responsible for maintaining the irrigation system to deliver from the storage facility out to the you know wherever the irrigation is going that's it's a point well taken you know having having lived through the the headaches of that in Victoria Park it's it's you know millions of dollars of year some years at sometimes when it's going bad or those all the pumps go down at the same time and have to be replaced I could see I mean yeah I've lived through it in a single family subdivision I can see this being most useful in commercial you know commercial properties where you've got you know facilities manager you know an irrigation specialist you know you're you're irrigating a big amazon campus or whatever it makes more sense there where you have kind of a single facilities manager or a single we seen it in single family subdivisions where you don't get to maintain your yard yeah right yeah at 55 and up or something yeah Okay this may be ready for someone to make I make a motion we approve is amended well there's a question still on the amendment are we talking about the first half inch are we talking about a certain percentage we didn't decide that move the percentage are you advocated for percentage and should that say rainwater volume it should say run off volume yeah run up okay um Tad says that's not much that first half inch that's so one that's not much water and Har so um maybe the percentage that's question between the engineers is it was that but I left my dartboard at home so I mean the good thing about this is is you know we can come up with what seems like a reasonable solution there are designed into this is oh if we didn't get it right we can modify it design the process to be able to do that yeah and so we like to get it right the first time since the chair said that the person making motion had the option uh I uh I move we amend we we uh approve this as amended as the amended amendment was made well we've amended it a couple of times second but that one right up there I move we appr it the first half but we've heard that the first Captain is not much we' heard we heard of a it depends on the site okay well so then I guess the question is is there a second to that and if not then we would need a different motion did anybody Bob moved that we approve this amended amended amendment is anybody SEC is there a second I'll second Tom second all the any discussion well except what put your card up oh my gosh I I thought the issue we just heard is that the first half inch is negligible so like I feel like we're pretending all up with that because it's a catalog of best management practices and I don't understand where a half an inch is the best manag prce um that's the first Grizzle you get is a half an inch what about the excess that you're trying to control so I definitely need a bigger number than has inch I would amend it to the first two in because you're capturing water to redistribute you somewhere else if you're going to I mean if you're going to water your yard with this glass of water is one thing but if you're going to water it with you know a picture it's a different and I I would say if you're going to make it a best man in practice make it a best man in practice make it hold two in Okay Tyler you have a comment on that on the motion yeah I I was more thinking when I said half inch in my head that's how much you needed to get out through your ear ation system per cycle or per week or like the I mean it's one thing to hold the water in the pond it's another thing to be able to use it and I actually kind of in the comment being brought up I think both of them probably need to be defined in this is that each cycle needs to be able to move a certain amount of the water is c yeah I but that's I'm suggesting a change it like I understand huh but that's dependent upon the area that you're going to cover with that water not all sites are going to be beneficial to this if it's not beneficial then we shouldn't be giving the credit for its utilization going going back for a second to something Tyler said earlier so city of Morman beach has purple pipes that go out with with treated water for irrigation and they had a problem where in the rainy season they could not their storage was not sufficient to hold all the rain water so they still had to do releases of that partially treated water into the Halifax in the dry season they couldn't meet the demand for the reclaimed water for the irrigation I think that's kind of what we're trying to talk about managing here and how how best we can do that and I know we you know Michelle Advan the IDE she's got her card up and maybe she'll take us out of our missery we had the percentage and we've had inches and in all of this unfortunately it seems that we're always doing a best estimate because there are many variabl involved so I'd really like it please if the engineers would help us understand what that best estimate is going to be and I don't want to I really not hear dark board prer to hear s t but that was oh I just have I'm Eric Turner with kimley horn and I just want and what they have used is about 1 in to 2 in that has come through and so and that's for full treatment of their site so I feel like maybe a half inch would be reasonable just to be able to get some credit so I'm just kind of throwing that out there of a recommendation thank youly I'm gonna second what John said let's go with two inches and Michelle did you have on this or okay think so we are I'm sorry Tom well they both make good points depends on the size of the site how about a half inch prise this big and two inches prise this big stage it down depending on site criteria and you guys the EXT pick two numbers on 50 acres water to use as well where we G use it now Water Management District uh in the past I think Tyler alluded to it a little bit earlier would allow you to go ahead and use storm water harvesting as a means for actually recovering your storm water pond in situations where you potentially couldn't or wanted to go ahead and just water your areas there is a set calculation for that aspect and we could actually identify maybe a backwards calculation actually in this case decide what we want to provide for the uh the site in terms of number of inches of water per per week then backwards calculate from there using that particular set of formulas then that way you're providing the amount of water that you want to have for your site G even all right you're going to be reducing the uh need for either reuse or reuse is not available able water irrigating the property said a minimum number of inches per week that way and that's a minimum number of inches that you want to put on the ground right to irrigate and that's different from the two inches that you're capturing correct okay I think this is really where John based on his initial comments where you need a certain amount of water for per week in the first place I think he was just trying to work with in the framework we do again have a set of calculations but allow us to backwards work our way to that answer based on the square footage you the size of the pond all those different things run off generic way that is on any particular site you would capture the amount of water that would meet the regulatory limits of the irrigation I could because we're not going to know that not like but you know whatever the irrigation is is on that site you would capture that amount per per time you identify basically the Green Space it's yeah you wouldn't want wouldn't want to necessarily your tree preservations or your naturally vegetated no you're looking at the areas that you're disturbing and replanting that are not impervious and then you're back so it couldn't say that the volume is sufficient to completely offset the irrigation requirements of the site for a week per per per you wouldn't go beyond yeah yeah I think a week's Reserve is more than enough that's how it's calculat How many inches per week are you yeah so two inches a week okay tell depends on the time of year too watering restrictions we done for the water man District that's you don't want a over water either yeah so dollar we exactly but that's edible so acknowledging there's a motion on the floor acknowledging we have a motion on the floor that could need Amendment and kind of I'm I'm withdraw well you you could amend we have to vote on the original motion right I'm take I'm trying to take a step back for a moment excuse me to make sorry the original motion was made by Bob and it was that it was seconded by Tom so we have a motion that is on the floor but if we're looking at amending it one of the things that I'm hearing is the common theme is the goal is to stop pumping water in for the use of irrigation and whether we Harvest it from our pond or from a groundwater well a not deep aquafer you know flating aquifer well but a groundwater well or you know some other means it should achieve the credit and so what we should say is design an irrigation system and storm water capture or grand groundwater source that can provide for the site's complete irrigation Well I this is also about having a different way to hold some of your SN water right and we do talk about Irrigation in one of the bmps that we talked about like maybe two meetings ago we not included a problem I think again should be it is tile stor harvesting it is using the pond volumes for something else not trying to okay we're Mr fit simm does this require a separate Pond as it's written no so how is this going about additional volume versus the way it's written I would not interpret it to mean that my pond has to be bigger than my Storm Volume it just would mean that I can't have pure Detention of the volume well well no because you're reaching a volume goal across your site one inch across your site 2 inches across your site you have to retain that particular amount of volume now if you do that and still meets your attenuation needs you don't need it upsize that's one thing and then in that case the benefit is solely that you're not using reclaimed or worst case scenario pable water so there is still an overall benefit to that that said if your pond isn't big enough in its natural condition attenuation wise to meet that one inch two inch minimum that we've identified and it is being upsized using a sister or another right Mr Fitz Simmons does what is written not the yellow there not the yellow reflect the motion that you have made yeah yes yeah and made there was a seconded motion on the floor so there a motion to amend the second has to agree to amend right somebody other than the motion can make a motion to am Mo you got to got have this been withdrawn put it down and back before this becomes a subcommittee this is why I suggested we have our break I'm so sorry my help me out here legal my collection is the first motion made on this was by Mr Fitz Simmons seconded by Mr buret yes then we had discussion two in yes Mr two in Mr H brought up the idea of the two in in In Cahoots with Miss Mory so did you accept their no we have to vote on the amendment okay so have to say whether or not he wants to amend to vote Bob you have the power you you suggested he do it suggest motion was a motion to amend you can't you can't have only one motion to amend but we have an it has to be by has to be to do so what okay we have a motion by B that you have to take action on correct right after that you can go with Mr H's Amendment okay or I can amend the motion correct yes which would you like to do you have all the power right there well I like the idea of what we discussed and and add the same way is meeting the needs for a week I don't know how we're going to do that you know um in the wordi part here but the concept is that as as long as you have harvested enough water to meet the irrigation needs of the site for a week and you determine that was 2 in that's the threshold two in over theable area not over the whole site right not over the whole site the two Ines of whatever the irrigation needs of that site are just just do one in my recommendation I would I would you go this if you say one as your Amendment I'm going to be happy then one inch we do that we smithing with it so not one inch of run off over the site though one equal to one inch of irrigation per week is that correct so you capture a volume of water sufficient to meet the irrigation requirements of the site per week and I'm going to put yeah one in one inch of irrigation one inch per week is the is is the is I grammatically correct Tom do you accept that Amendment absolutely motions call the vote I know all those in favor I anybody opposed the motion carries unanimously awesome and with that I am declaring a very quick break for us um no more than 10 minutes only because beine all right it's stud got all I'm so you col there you know than yeah still that's how much by bye well f just they that's out there good SP got be be um we have how many more bmps four we have four more bmps on low impact development we have two members of the public that came speak to storm water which we've been talking about as a component one of the things that loan impact development is designed to deal with um we have a hard deadline for this month to meet the pdrc meeting on the 21st with our recommendations for low impact development I would like to let the members of the public have their three minutes but that may mean are we available as it possible to say a few extra minutes if we need to to finish out liid okay so I would like to call um first Donna rein or P I would like Pat to be able to go first all right after pat Joselyn from the land you can you can move it if it's like intimidating you can even sit and use one of these mic yes I came today to um see what you guys were all about because I'd never I'm beginning to become very political in my three minutes of time with everybody uh my name is Pat Joselyn we have lived I'm a native of Dand um 70 years old almost so I've been here almost all 70 years and over the last 20 years I've owned the piece my husband and I've owned the piece of property that's on Taylor Road so I'm listening to all of you guys and I'm going to tell you I'm going to tell you you're not doing enough you're not doing enough for storm water you're not doing enough for water retention that one or two inches that ain't enough I'm sorry if you wet your ground like those people next to us that have been wetting their ground they eventually wet the ground so much that it it goes to us which has been happening for four years or five years or whatever however long they've been building over there um and I know that's not your fault because not the County's fault because the county turned them down and turn them down the plr whatever turned them down to the point that they went to the city of Dand and the City of Dand said okay you can build so they're building on 0.16 Acres I did as much math I'm not an engineer I did math I I did it per acre I did it per swimming pools because most people can understand a swimming pool so those houses in the neighborhood next to us are anywhere from 1.16 Acres to. 23 Acres those people in this last event should have held two and a half to four swimming pools on their property on their property I have also learned that their retention areas which are really not retention areas because they fill them up all the time their retention areas are only designed to hold 6 in of water right so that makes absolutely no sense to me so their 6 in their night we it rained 19 in at our house we rain 19 in the week before we got 9 in we held our water we designed our property to hold our water not somebody else's our road and all 50 homes in our area held each of us held our 19 in of water and every bit of the 19 in of water of the subdivisions next to us and that's like 15 or 18800 homes so whatever you're doing is not enough unless you're going to build brick walls that go down into the ground to make sure that that property that they are building on that whatever subdivision is being built I don't care what it is that they're actually going to hold their water and they're not going to flood somebody next to them and that's all I have to say I think it's I think it's great what you're doing but you're not doing enough thank you and if you have questions I'll tell you where I got my information was the geological something or another identifying an inch of rain on an acre of land but that acre of land as some of you guys have been saying is a perious acre of land and not a cemented cover of acre of land and the other thing that I would recommend that you do is Don't Put in stupid St Austine grass put in grass that doesn't need water thank you um Don and it is three minutes I'm sorry in the I just want to say this is my first time at a meeting like this so I've gone to the city council and the County Council um I am high and dry I have no problem with flooding so I'm just here as a very concerned citizen for my fellow citizens in this County I've been in D land 28 years Lake Helen 15 I'm originally from Massachusetts um I do want to say I hear a lot of expertise here and I'm so happy to hear that I didn't expect that that there's there's a lot of you that really know and understand things and I've done a lot of talking to Wendy and so she I know you know her with her doctor and her I know in her area she is an expert and I by listening I can tell you all are too so I'm not so really what I have to say is um I'd love for you all to think about how important you are when you think about history we all read about history and you know our elections whichever way we decide we've probably thought about things historically and made decisions on that and you're all going to go down in the history books of the land and the decisions that you make so I just want to remind you to really think seriously about like Pat said the bigger problems you know I have waited for years for a farm like hers a CAC where you can get fresh vegetables that are organic and I was so thrilled when up and I've been in this area there's never been flooding there you know until Victoria Park was built and you know so these things are really important and you are part of that solution for the future you can't do anything about the past but realize how important you are and think about that you will go down in history for the decisions that you make thank you I am going to momentarily turn this meeting over to Jessica because I forgot my water bottle and if I don't get something Gooding those are our two public comments I think we're back to the BMP yes yes okay so the next BMP in the manual is uh the use of a vegetated Swale so the requirement for this thank you ladies thank you uh the requirement for this would is that you may use a vegetated swell on site the swell um would count toward the storm water volume requirement of the site as demonstrated in the storm water calculations um the vegetation must be native and identified within uh the site plan and the landscape plan some things are easier than others John if there are no questions we'll take a motion or we can do it in the Slate we get a few okay okay perfect uh the next BMP is a rain Garden uh the requirement for this would be that a rain Garden may be used on site to and can be counted toward the total storm water volume required um as demonstrated in the storm water calculations the landscape plan must um depict which native plant species location the number um Etc um It also says that you don't have to use the um zoning landscape uh list because um that list doesn't have aquatic plants so if you're using aquatic plants it would um not be on the list and you'll just change the instead of to meet total towards total yeah I think I think we have good language about can be counted toward the requirement and we'll make sure that that is consistent throughout can I just make one uh addition hopefully not too complicated but they're not uh are you allowed to use plants not on the landscape list but I think they should make sure that they're not invasive oh yeah all the plants would be required to be native it's just that in some cases they might not be on the zoning list because the zoning list does not include aquatic plants but yes they are aquatic based that's yes for sure Michelle did you have a comment got a question sorry back on the vegetated SES it just says we shall use them and I'm thinking of an out for an engineer say well I have 10 feet of vegetative soil so I used it so I checked that box right um is there some kind of criteria we can hold them to to make it a little more restrictive or just you know um I I think that's a great point and we went back and forth as staff we did have numbers in here at one point um and I think that's true a vegetative sale true of rain Garden you know should it be of a certain size or a certain volume that's a great point but you do that by saying must meet total Stone and water volume required by well so the right way to say this part the used to meet is that may be counted toward the total volume the total volume require right so the intent is not that the Swale is all of it it's that it Mak maybe counted I just don't want to if so you do a 5 foot vegetated soil to the rain to a rainu and I got two boxes checked and you're just getting a little more incentivized all right come up with a solution yeah that's what I'm thinking of what would that be can it be and let's use our cards guys um you did it um do you think because I don't know if we can use a length because then it gets to this sight size issue could it be a percentage of the sale needs to be vegetated no no I think the whole sale has to be vegetated I think the way I heard it was the question is should the Swale or whatever the BMP is account for 10% of the total storm water volume work at one point we had it written where the BMP will intercept right which maybe wasn't the right word 10% of the total volume required on the site so as to get to that treatment train right so um Tyler I think the intent is that this would be like a pre-treatment again maybe we use area instead of volume 10% of the volume it's a pretty big sale versus pond so maybe it's coverage area so would someone like to make a mo on regarding this if there are no additional comments I think we're looking for a minimum percent or something right yes not feeling super conf that we're making educated decision on these person and as much as we want to finish we might want to build in some language that says can be set by industry FR or something because like T said we're just throwing darts at a dart bird we're picking 10 22 inches we're supposed to be based on science Bas I say and I'm quoting Tad so I want to add to that it was just you know we I want to get this to the pbrc as well but I agree with Jessica that I'm not quite comfortable with arbitrary numbers one of the things that that you might want to consider was given the way we overhauled the earlier discussion on the providing the additional 15% treatment the uh pre-treatment or something along those lines we didn't really get into necessarily we sort of did identify a method for doing that might want to just say as a part of something like this you would provide it as part of that 15% above and beyond or as a means for providing that 15% above and beyond this would be one of the methods a smaller set of pond something along those lines to do that back the picture this much through these various gains right choice right so really what you're doing is improving the amount of treatment SL attenuation that you're potentially accomplishing and there's different ways to do that I don't know that uh you know doing a vegetated Swale is any different than doing a small dry retention Bond or a detention Bond before you you know I don't think the chemistry is any different in those cases if you're using bam it might be but you know I think just putting out there the different methods that could be used to accomplish the additional 15% that is the overall goal it's probably the better way to get there instead of trying to Define 8% of this 10% of that 12% of this we if we did that we'd have to think about how we originally said you have to pick four of the site design bmps and two of the storm water bmps because if the wet Pond discussion we had is you have to meet the 15% pre-treatment and then you can use any of the other bmps vegetative soil Etc you're getting your two automatically right like like do we have the program right if what all I don't want to say all we're saying but if we did what Tad said and so you just say you have this number of pre-treatment 15% use any of the things listed below you're you're we'd have to go back and revisit the pick two thing because we wouldn't be picking two now well what I say is the target is 15 you also put in a target for 25 and you would get additional incentives for that change the in because each thing has incentives right so the do the wet Pond thing has incentives and then the do the vegetated SLL has incentives if they're one thing you wouldn't want two sets of incentives correct understood so and I want to let List have her card up for a moment or a bit um again going back to that big picture we want to retain and clean as much water as possible so perhaps pad's suggestion to increase the percentage in order to keep the structure of choose more than one but bliss please well um two of you have already voiced your trepidation about making a decision because we don't have enough information or enough um educated information so um I was going to really save my suggestion for the for B but um I don't know why it can't be applicable to this as well um Bard has a committee for storm water why don't we ask them to weigh in with their recommendations they were coming to speak to the group previously as my understanding previously on storm water um but why can't they address Li storm water as well we we did send this all of this to vCard for their review and have they come back with anything yet no but were they aware that this was going to be on the agenda yes just a suggestion as chair of vard all we in say they are aware the typical process for vard is to listen to input and provide comments on the ordinance as it goes through the public hearing process so there will be vCard comments just not today a comment there oh but with without it today it doesn't weigh in on our decision when we need some assistance not it would be I'm asking that you know we hear from another um Authority uh what their recommendations would be uh and just to be clear not only vCard we we sent the information out to um all interested parties anybody who's indicated interest we sent it out to the environmental Community um sent it out to the development Community outside of vCard um for any feedback we did a survey of um developers and asked them what incentives they thought would be good or what or you know what barriers they saw so um we we've done quite a bit of of Outreach hoping to get input from all over with you know moderate success I guess so I I'm going to modify a little bit my comment about the what we called it in storm water was the safety factor or the fudge factors or whatever we want to call it I would like to hear a strong advocacy for some that is substantiated I I want it I mean I want to hold more water and have that water be cleaned and say who you are and then Tyler's gonna hi Kelly centino the executive director for vCard um I just want to say about bliss's comment I actually didn't know that this was the topic today I thought it was just storm water not liid storm water um so the card wasn't prepared and I didn't get um some of these resources I got some some of them a couple months ago but I didn't receive these so I just wanted to state that I I will I will just not saying just to let you know just for future everything that we review is on the website okay so you can always find it find it there I understand that you didn't know that for and I'm sorry it was a communication on my part so thank you so back to this point we had proposed a 15% yes and then said that that would create one best management practice so it wouldn't be two to choose from and then Tad said we could up the percentage Yeah and I guess the philosophically the question is right so the the purpose of liid is to distribute the storm water management system across the site to the extent possible so that you're not ending up with one pipe and pond system um and the treatment train is the basis for liid right putting together a series of treatment options that both handle the storm water volume and the water quality um concerns so however we want to set it up I think you know keeping that goal in mind is important so if if we say where we were back on wet Pond and we said okay you have to provide a 15% additional volume and some sort of pre-treatment right if the if then you you say that and then you say here are all the ways you can do it right it could be a vegetated soil it could be this it could be that that's one thing which is okay we can do that that way um we would um just have to change the way that we've identified the incentives right because if if the only thing you're doing and and I I don't mean only to be a negative thing but if the one thing you're doing is 15% more volume with treatment then that's you're not choosing two things and you only get one set of incentives whatever those are which is a doable way to do it it I will say this it's not going to PDC in November if we do that because that's a a big rewrite that won't happen by Friday Jessica or Tyler and Jessica so so thing about this there's stuff beyond the definition of vegetated soil that we might want to give credit for we're having trouble with how it could find the minimum size standard such falling through in my head as it's defined here vegetated sale was just a really long skinny vegetated dry so regardless of whether it's a dry retention Pond or sale or whatever to me the goal is that we have some percentage of our site that it's covered with vegetation that is being utilized as our retention areas it could also be that you have a Swale that's between two developed areas that's conveying water that you could vegetate it's going to help slow down the conveyance rate it's going to help with some of the clean up of the water prior to getting to wherever that storm water area is so I would say that maybe what I mentioned earlier maybe a minimum coverage would be our goal maybe it should be minimum coverage typically your retention are is 15 to 20% of the SES maybe we say that we want to have 10% site coverage of vegetated retention or conveyance areas and I'm throwing a dart at the dboard to acknowledge that that 10% is a guess we need to be but I think that structure you know the percent side might be what I would see as a preference of structure Jessica then Wendy along those lines I was going to ask about kind of the empirical Norms right so vegetated swes under the new rules can count towards treatment under St John's right and so if there's a way to tie in and I'm okay with the 10% again I just think it's a dark 40 if there's a way to tie in the vegetated sale has to demonstrate that it's treating blank nutrients or whatever the usual permit check off is that would be better gender's making a face the only thing I would say about that is our storm water requirements don't have treatment right right it's just about quantity in in our code okay they will have to do things to meet the districts and the new storm water rules just as a clarifying point my side comment to Jessica under the state storm waterer rules there is zero credit for nutrient removal applied based on the presence where the lack presence of vegetation it is purely based on the retained volume so that conveyant swell being vegetated does zero force with the state because it's not retaining we can put bam in and other things there are things that will give credit however vegetation itself unless it's a floating matter or harvested or some um system that has engineering science some testing behind it we don't get credit so What If instead it was that if you are providing a sale and 80% of it is vegetated this requirement is met because the Swale is a separate BMP is providing the different conveyance methods and design or we can do Tyler's idea if he makes a motion I'm okay so a unvegetated Swale isn't one of the bmps in the LI man swes are absolutely part of a storm water system could be right but in the L vegetated we had uh Wendy clay and then bill so the question before my question is about what counts as vegetated like is a carpet of St Augustine counting as vegetated no because it has to be 100% native species and there is no turf grass that's native to Florida got it okay thanks for clarifying um my real my real question is and I know we've talked about this repeatedly so in a in a subdivision a residential subdivision can the swes be part of individual home you know home lots or do they have to be in the common areas and I know that that's a maintenance question because the SES do have to to be maintained and the homeowners may or may not maintain them um but on the other hand it could be more of an incentive to developers if those swales are in fact kind of built into the area that was going to be offered as a yard um so I'm I don't have a I don't have a position on that I'm just throwing it out there as a as a point of distinction between common areas versus residential because a Swale can be very a very functional part of a yard if done right so or or rain Garden at least Bliss so to answer your question do you do do you have to place that in common Space Engineers for permitting a Swale in a development we do yes generally require that uh because the storm water system stormwater conveyance aspect of the system is going to convey improvements that are generally by owned by the county now if you have a private subdivision which why I use the word generally ver if you have a private subdivision you have more leeway on how you handle that portion but if it's uh pled subdivision and the county is going to own and maintain the roads at the end yes we do require that those swes be within the right of way um because we do need to make sure that they're maintained and we don't want to enter on a private property to to do so and at private subdivision again you have flexibility but you also based on our experience quite a bit recently you have uh two neighbors that don't like each other one guy Downstream to screw you and he fills in his damn swell and then you have no recourse or very little recourse short of gny court and so there are there are those kinds of reasons which I wouldn't necessarily recommend that aspect of now there are potentially ways to accomplish what when he really trying to get at is an incentive to developer you could include it in the loss but you give an easement then to the HOA or whoever is the maintaining Authority for the roads in the first place and do things like that and so they can call it a bigger lot even though you're not really using it we already do things like that on our standard platted Lots with the 10 first 10 fet of your lot is set up as a utility easement anyway you so you can't really do much with it otherwise so it's same concept it's still part of your lot you own it you can use that space But you have to allow the utilities and nothing you can do to the utilities can be done in that space there's different ways to to do that I don't know that uh I don't know that that's going to be a huge thing because there just aren't that many private subdivisions but that wasn't my question I just wanted to answer that one we're not just throwing darts randomly it is an educated yes so you know we're just trying to put book hands around and I think we should get to the end put a good um number out there and then um it can change later down the road what you're asking to do is you're asking to improve the existing condition and identifying a percentage you think makes sense to make that effort worthwhile anything Downstream from an area with better treated water is going to appreciate that now I know uh a vast majority of the water that you get is going to be pretty clean there aren't too many areas that you see around the county that are have Terri water um overall government any percentage is good it's just a question of what percentage do we think is reasonable to attain and I think 15 or 25 and I think it makes sense to set goals give them incentives you know 15% may be great 25% H that's always better and uh you know then they get other bonuses to offset that that additional that they put in um you know I will say that uh short of seeing one of these and put in place you know that's going to be where the rubber hits the road and uh we'll see whether it's worth it you know we come in three years from now and know developers have used any of these rules are the rules really that good we've got things like that the cluster uh subdivision does some of the things that we were talking about doing and I'm not aware that we've ever had cluster subdivision two process two in process but you know that Rule's been in place for more than that oh cluster's been our we're we've invested in cluster here for a long time but um what I wanted to kind of talk about is that realize we're not changing the treatment requirement what we're changing is how the treatment is done we're still looking at a 25y year 24hour storm event so that's where we're at and I know that those speakers just came through perhaps we need to be looking at adjusting that but one way or the other what we're talking about here and at the 10,000 foot level is it's the same treatment we're just talking about how or same goal how you treat it before it was a pipe and a pond we have concerns that the pipe in the pond results in negative impacts to the groundwater table to the water table uh excuse me to the overall storm water of the area and also it doesn't necessarily um flow with the Natural Area so what we're trying to do with these standards is mimic the natural site pre-development so when we start going through here if we start analyzing each one of the incentives on their own without looking at them being part of the grander scheme of it we're going to get into these details about whether 15% or 20% is correct or one in or two Ines correct realize that there may be situations where there is an incentive for something that somebody already has the right to do but if it's Lo loaded into a treatment stream that is part of an overall system we want to give them that incentive to do so so please as you're going through it yes look at whether or not there is some feasibility and the practicality of it but also remember that this is part of our larger things and I just want to address y'all have been doing this for almost two years we have sent this to vCard VB and a variety of other organizations two years ago so we've asked for input from the development communities all along through every step we've opened it up to the development Community environmental coalitions that are out there anyone who would give us feedback we've asked for so it has been done your your staff went through an A A A I would say an arduous process of trying to come up with the barriers that were in our code that took 6 months alone and I think cost Samantha West a couple years of her life just trying to get teeth pulled to get answers from it so we are I have to tell you and I agree with what Bill said thank you is that these are not just throwing darts these are um swags scientific file scientific that's right and so please I just want to kind of give you that insight and I think it ties into just exactly what Tad was saying thank thank you because you know keeping keeping what the overall goal is and how it fits in is really important and it's it's difficult for us because we don't do this every day thank you all our attention to detail people appreciate well that's why we paid the big fcks to do this I have no idea what the order is now but I think it might be Wendy Tyler Bliss but Wendy were you first I just wanted to respond to a couple of um points that clay just made um I think the in ginger too I think the treatment train concept is is sort of a core part of the liid um set of principles and and so it doesn't make sense for us to have um even voluntary incentives that are just like pick one or two because they don't work if you're not using a system you know like multiple multiple sections of the of the site have places where the storm water is slowed down allowed to spread out and allowed to infiltrate that's it doesn't work to just pluck one or two out of the box it doesn't so I think you know we do need to maybe clarify language in these manuals that make that clear that you have to do several it's one of the reasons that at the beginning today I was attempting to make a plea for us to maybe go back to considering a hybrid approach where you know a few of these are required like you must choose two or three and then you may also add in you know some additional so something like that and again I understand that our charge right now is not that but but I think that's important and also to Clay point about you know we're still operating under the assumption that we're dealing with a 25e storm that in and of itself needs to change and maybe we're coming back around to that in the storm water review but um yeah I mean we get a lot of mixed signaling or mixed messages from the council and from others where they say oh well you know we keep our you know we hold our storm water on site well we hold our storm water on site for a 25e storm and then we are legal we meaning people are legally elected owed to discharge down the natural hydrologic flow way that is legal it is legal for Victoria Park to flood their neighbors that's legal that's why lawsuits have gone nowhere on that and so that's that's something that needs to change so not discounting one thing that you're saying at actually Tyler Bill or Bill Tyler you guys l so I and try to get some language together and you know see where that goes so utilize vegetation within Swale and retention areas on slopes and bottoms of less than 5 ft in width to achieve a 10% sight coverage say it again slowly so rails and ponds that have less than a 5ft flat bottom area achieve a 10% site coverage of vegetation on those surfaces yeah Ginger's good but give her a break equal to 10% of what so on slopes of swes and retention areas I don't really care if they're dry or wet as long as it's vegetated and can survive and what was the 5 um it could be on yeah 5T or narrower Splat areas that makes it well yeah I don't well I don't want to I'm wanting to include retention SES so the slopes of dry Retention Ponds wet Retention Ponds things of that nature but I don't want people to just bottom of D I like that and is it 10% of the total area or 10% of the total storm water treatment area total Site Area is my in temp that was the can SS and storage SS be able to be utilized so you're going to have much more leaves the pond area and so would that take the place of vegetated swes and Rain Gardens I think it could the shell May no I mean you could put a caveat of this cannot be utilized with a rainard or mean well you could say is that you know rain Gardens can be used to cood is 10% this I think is both and is this a different thing than the 15% we talked about under weet HS this is focus purely on nutrient removal I would assume that in your lit uh maintenance for this that you would have a management of the planted material and that would be a nutrient the other would be nutrient and it's inovation benefit right Michel then bill I was going to make a motion to it through the amended language and then although yeah title it though and I would just make sure you get the note flat areas up to 5et width so that people don't get creative to see in the future otherwise I will get creative to see in the future why we have this discussion okay and what are the three dots uh that was me not catching up to the tying all right that's all I Michelle I didn't hear you I'll make a motion to second okay so the motion was already made for this and second for what is written up there okay and seconded by Bob already Yes okay to Tom don't do this to me now all right we'll let we'll let Chelsea work it out she'll decide who who seconded that all those in favor any opposed motion carries Bob I don't know what so so I'm G to go to the next to the last slide and kind of reinforce what Clay's been saying t uh you know that uh you know this this whole liid guidance is to promote creativity and site design the applicant may present alternative liid bmps and gain appropriate incentives as approved by the development Review Committee and then also the footnote that manual must be adopted every two years with the approval of the development commit um I don't really think there's much substance in the last couple of things that are here and so I'm going to move that we accept everything that we've got right now uh to go forward to um is it going to the lrc he's jumping ah had to approve everything count toward okay so we have a motion made by Bob pit Simmons to go ahead and approve everything that's left which are basically two two BPS three three three second we have a second by S Morris do we have any any discussion one can she just put it on the screen just to take a what are the things okay tree box filters and rainfall Interceptor actually I had a question about that sorry I and walls yeah those those were the two and then the generic language about creativity and that he just read us yeah very a on my de um Tyler I personally don't like these two is counting towards our credits because they're not or I mean tree box filters and rainfall interceptors do I do this on one Treon of them well but if you did it on One Tree and you had a little bit of volume then shouldn't that volume count toward your requirement but isn't I mean incentive I'm not saying that we should allow these things to count towards our storm water stuff however I think that we need to have some minimum thresholds for them to be incentive items I would say that allowing these to be included with other stuff but not having them as incentives would be my position in other words they're dinky yeah so just um to help with that uh the way that it's written now that the incentives for tree box filters for instance is that it would be permitted within a land landscape island or a rownd it would be credited as Landscaping because it's vegetated oops um and then it would um be eligible for the reduced fees which the others are too so you wouldn't double the fee reduction right but um and then for the vegetated roofs and walls the incentives right now are flexible building setbacks and then credited as landscaping and reduced Beast two of the stormw water bmps four of the s design bmps we have a motion oh Tom sorry um having written a few of these and had to sell them to to body politic I would suggest a buzzword like Innovative creative and Innovative it just goes down smoother um okay so we had a motion to accept everything then we have discussion the motion stays as it is yes yes okay all those in favor I any oppose motion carries we are done with this you are done with this so uh just procedurally we'll um make edits what will go to the pdrc is our best interpretation of the edits that we're here um there will of course be always an opportunity if there's public participation at pdrc if we get anything wrong and we'll send out the infut if we got anything wrong there's still opportunity to clarify fix whatever there'll be the public hearing at pdrc and then hopefully uh after that a hearing at Council um probably in February January or February but probably February and there's two hearings required because one of the things we have as comp plan changes that requires two hearings so that'll go twice okay anything else for today sarily uh I'm sorry that we weren't able to get to the storm water if I do have some comments for you that'll I'll give to you Tad I'd like to just make a comment on um Wendy's comment I think is really important that as this goes forward and is presented that this entity here first made a recommendation to council that this be a hybrid approach okay and Council came back to us telling us us that they only wanted voluntary that needs to be part of presentations I think if we as individuals or perhaps if we decide as a committee that we would like to provide an additional statement that a hybridge approach is still the preferred recommendation of this committee and much more like ly to see use by the development Community then that can be a separate discussion by us but I do feel strongly um I I personally feel strongly that this is going to get very little use as a voluntary approach we were told that by the experts presented and um and we have spent enormous time on it um for something that is likely not to see the light of day um so I I would like to add to that I also feel that our original recommendation in October of last year for the hybrid approach was very fair and and it was based on considerable thought by both staff and by the committee and and um because of 250 whether rightfully or wrongfully at the time it went before the council they could not approve it I also would like to suggest and already have to my council member that it be Revisited as as originally presented and I and I also do feel that that should be brought up in the presentation um for all the reasons that have been that have been outlined and also because you know we're steeped in this not as much as clay Irvin of course but we're steeped in this compared to the average citizen and the council is supposed to be relying upon us to help them do their job well and they are getting yelled at by people whose properties are flooding like we both heard and I know every single person around this table feels terribly about about that about what's happening to these people homes Li is a big part of it's a big part of the toolbox or developing in a way that will flood less and I I I think it's really that I agree with Sarah Le that we should bring it bring it back a reminder at minimum a reminder that when we first looked at this we ask for it to be a hybrid approach not solely voluntary I would only add to that that uh let's hold Jeff row or feet to the fire he's made this a commitment let's make him do it one I would suggest we not bring individual politicians into this and just stick to what we've done here so far which is how do we solve these problems so I will just say if the committee has a specific thing uh statement they want the staff to make about the committee a motion would be an appropriate way to direct us to that in addition or as an alternative having representation at the public hearing and the pdrc hearing I think is another way that you can all you all can say the things that you think um but if you're it would be good to give us direction if there specific I want to recognize Jessica then Tyler but I I a quick question on what you just said ginger for that recommendation to bring it back as as hybrid that would be exclusively to the council or would that be to the pdrc uh you you have a recommendation that needs to be included in the pdrc package thank you Jessica then Tyler Tyler so I was gonna say Council that originally created interact nominated some of us that are here isn't Council that we have today and we just went through another election we don't have the rious changes that we had last time however they had a different set of goals and directions for us and Jeff Bezos just got a bunch of crap from everybody that works at Washington Post because he refused to let them make an endorsement in the presidential election and what he wrote in his letter to the editor on it was that reality is undefeated we cannot fight reality and the reality is that our Council doesn't agree with the direction the committee would vote on this I personally agree with the Council on this but I think that arguing with council is not going to get us anywhere telling Council that they made a bad decision is approaching argumentative in my mind what I do think we have an opportunity to do is look at the flooding that occurred look at the causal factors that went into those flooding events we had Pond failures that Happ happen during M let's talk about what we can do to mitigate those things next time let's go to council with recommendations that show our value as a board instead of with the complaint that they have given us bad Direction Just to be before Jessica and Michelle just to be very clear I don't think we should berate Council either but I think we should remind them I don't think they remember honestly I've talked to a council member about it and they don't the person I spoke to did not recall the vote nor did they understand that liid has a role in in storm water and I completely agree in doing a postmortem on causes Jessica Michelle if we were to request staff or make a motion or direct it when this goes before the pdrc and Council if we can request that we provide an update on the committee the work plan in line with the lead into this I think at that time we could say this is a great starting point this is the direction we have we'd like to recommend that the committee revisit our initial recommendation canit that's how I put and get some input as well I mean it's already they're already dates set I'm just wondering if we can add that in there Michelle I was just going to make an observation a lot of the storm waterer issues that's happened in our area are from existing facilities not new facilities right so it is okay we're we're working about future development and addressing those problems a lot of the regulations now help address those um so something with the existing facilities will be probably something I would suggest we T that yeah so I think we heard from clay from Wendy from Tyler and you would hear it from me too the premise that we did our formal yes I just wanted to kind of let everyone know that whatever your final motion on whether or not to bring back the hybrid discussion we will make sure that this is reported to the planning and Land Development regulation commission into County Council so from that perspective we can only as a staff carry forward what your recommendation is I would just like to add and clarify that I don't think that bringing it back up is being argumentative with Council we believed staff believed when we were presenting it to council that we were under the constraints of 250 and so it wasn't the council didn't want to do a hybrid maybe they didn't maybe they did but we all believed that it was a nonstarter because we were we were under that constraint okay Jessica has proposed it was not a motion but she proposed that we frame within the the recommendation that we're making on liid that we frame it as a report on our work plan and suggest your words again uh can I interrupt just real quick so the bit about the work plan and the Ann and the annual report is not a plrc issue so that isn't necessarily relevant to them so that would be a discussion more at the council and I also would say that the recommendation that we look at the next step of hybrid is also a Council Direction so if I can phrase it as a motion maybe I would ask that we direct staff to look at at one of the tentative hearing dates for County Council if we can include an item on our work plan and recommendations for next steps regarding liid after this initial implementation yes uh we would have to actually do a work plan for the coming year right like we have what had last year which we could just revisit and maybe repackage but to bring it to the council we would want to have a new report and a new work plan which we could work on at the next meeting the December meeting so I got confused because I thought you said we had if if we were asking Council to revisit the hybrid approach that it had to go to plrc but if we can do this as a revised work plan and take that to a council meeting I personally think that's preferable I don't think pdrc can act if we say we want it to be hybrid anyways so I think we have to get okay so the motion was to have staff um try to agenda an item with the annual report and the work plan where we you the committee could give recommendations hopefully to line up with one of the L Council meetings so that it's all okay so that so that when liid is a topic at the council meeting the next step is part of it we have a motion we have a second by Mr P John hey any further discussion of this oh Tyler my discussion through these meetings and my votes would have been different had this been hybrid versus optional I think that taking our recommendations out of this and changing the nature of them is inappropriate 100% agreed it would be a whole new ordinance it would be none of what we just did in my opinion and I think that it would just be you just need tend your I mean we can't because I'm just gonna be very blunt the two staff members are going to have to present this item does this board want us to report to the planning Land Development regulation the County Council that you would prefer to be in hybrid or not when I first brought this up what I wanted was to make sure those who hear the staff report hear the history of this and the history of this was that we originally recommended hybrid and we were directed to create voluntar so what you have before you pdrc County Council is recommendations that are completely voluntary period I just think it's important that our our history as a committee is reflected in the staff report I think we have a motion on the floor we do okay and to clar like Jinger said I think that motion intends that we come back and discuss it discuss our work plan and the direction we give on a hybrid at the next meeting I don't think what we've created I think it's wonderful kudos to staff if we were to say you have to do half of this I'm with Tyler my votes would be different so I just want to keep that structured okay so the motion is to discuss a work plan on one of the council agendas and we had a second for that and was the second John HCK okay any further discussion all those in favor any oppose and Clay I think we can do what Sarah Lee brought up without okay my next question so next meeting we'll do what we originally planned today on storm water bring back the work that Tad and his group did and we'll talk about a work plan and an annual report uh I can we can send out what we did what what we agreed on the last work plan and annual report as a starting point is that okay yeah okay we all right any arguments about that SMI [Music] adjourn always exced I just wish I could ever getting I see what you're saying you can't leave at 10:30