Item P05
..:..
Board of County Commissioners
Agenda Item Summary
Meeting Date February 19, 2003
Bulk Item: Yes [] No ra
Division: Board of County Commissioners
Department: George R. Neugent
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Presentation and discussion on a self-financed program to establish hurricane shelters.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
CONTRACT I AGREEMENT CHANGES:
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
TOTAL COST:
BUDGETED: YES [] NO []
COST TO COUNTY: $
Source of Funds:
REVENUE PRODUCING: YES [] NO [] AMT PER MONTH:
YEAR:
APPROVED BY: COUNTY ATfY [] OMS/PURCHASING [] RISK MANAGEMENT []
APPROVAL: Il!1 ~ ~
Commissioner ~GENT
DISTRICT II
DOCUMENTATION: INCLUDED II TO FOllOW [] NOT REQUIRED []
DISPosmON:
AGENDA ITEM #
-
A STUDY REPORT
-
-
A SELF-FiNANCED PROGRAM 1'0 ESTABLISH HURRICANE
-
SHELTERS
-
In
-
Monroe County. Florida
-
For presentation to the:
-
Board of County Commissioners
-
January, 2003
-
Prepared by:
-
Joel Rosenblatt, P.E.
-
Rosenblatt- Naderi Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 198
Summerland Key, Florida 33042
Phone: 305-745-2594
FAX: 305-745-3380
e-mail: flakeys@sprynet.com
-
-
-
-1-
A STUDY REPORT
A SELF.FlNANCBD PROGRAM TO ESTABLlSHHURRlCANE
SHELTERS
In
Monroe County. Florida
For presentation to the:
Board of County Commissioners
January, 2003
Prepared by:
Joel Rosenblatt, P.E.
Rosenblatt- Naderi Associates, P.A.
P.O. Box 198
Summerland Key, Florida 33042
Phone: 305-745-2594
FAX: 305-745-3380
e-mail: flakeys@sprynet.com
-1-
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page No.
Table of Contents................ .................................... ............ ........................ ii
EXECUTIVE SUMMARy.... .... ...... .................. ........ ........ ..... .... ...... ...... ....... iii
ABSTRACT.. .............. .... .... ...... ......... ....... ........... ....... ... .... .......... ....... ..... ...... 1
I. BACKGROUND............................................................ .............. .............. 1
II. THE VERTICAL EVACUATION CONCEPT......................................... 3
lli. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF MONROE COUNTy
CONCERNS RELATED TO TALL BUILDINGS.... ............................. 5
IV. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR VERTICAL SHELTER PROJECTS.............. 8
A. Special Structural Requirements for Buildings..................................... 8
B. Special Site Requirements.................................................................... 10
C. Special Building Content Requirements................................................11
V. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY... .......... .............. ................. ......... ................ 13
A. Elevator Economics.... ...... ........ ......... ...... ......... ....... ......... .... ... ............. 14
B. Building Cost Impacts.... ......... ............. ........................... ...................... 15
C. Special Building Contents..................................................................... 16
D. Land Costs............ ............................................................ ......... ............. 17
E. Potential Cost-Offsetting Economic Values Created........................... 20
VI. ATTRACTING VENTURE CAPITAL.................................................... 20
VII. SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURES..................................... 21
HURRICANE SHELTER DEVELOPMENT (HSD) ZONES...........Page 1 of 7
1. Qualifying Site Requirements for HSD Zones...................................Page 1 of 7
2. Special Structural Design Requirements for Buildings.....................Page 2 of 7
3. Special Building Facilities Requirements..........................................Page 3 of 7
4. Site Development Criteria for Buildings ..........................................Page 4 of 7
5. Special Occupancy and Use Limitations for Buildings.....................Page 5 of 7
6. Special Major Conditional Use Administrative Procedures..............Page 6 of 7
7. HSD Approval and Authorization Procedures...................................Page 7 of 7
-11-
EXECUTIVE SUMMABY
Impact of the effects of Hurricanes Hugo and Andrew emphasized the fact that Monroe
County cannot cope with a major hurricane. Since this concept was first presented, the impacts of
Hurricane Georges and Mitch brought the problem closer to home. As a result of Hurricane Floyd,
the fact that evacuation is not a feasible response to many hurricane threats became widely
recognized as being true far beyond the parochial considerations of Monroe County.
Not only can the population not be reliably evacuated overland, but emergency shelter
provisions are not only inadequate, but unlikely to be in place in time to be available where needed
within any predictable future. Following "planned" overland evacuation procedures during the
Andrew experience resulted in directing many people from areas where they would have been safe,-
into the eye of where the stooo hit. Having arrived there, they were left to drive all over the
mainland (as far as Orlando and Gainesville) trying to find a place to stay. In the afteooath of
Andrew, the Director of Public Safety of Dade County, after reviewing the results, stated that
"overland evacuation is not a feasible approach to hurricane emergency response for all of south
Florida". Nevertheless, obligatory evacuation procedures remain on the books as originally written,
unchanged by repeated demonstrations of their uselessness as an emergency response.
A vague consideration of hurricane shelters had been simplistically incorporated in plans
developed by the county "planning staff'. While detailed plans had been developed to coordinate
all the activities related to orderly overland evacuation, as mandated by state law, that same law
provides that overland evacuation shall not be ordered for stooos ofless than category ill intensity
(SaffirlSimpson intensity scale). That same law states that shelters be provided and used for the
lower storm intensity categories. However, no comparable planning for their supply had been done.
The requirement had been vaguely alluded to in our planning by a statement that such facilities will
be "incorporated in county capital facilities".
There it has remained. There are no such county facilities. There is no program for
=ill::
developing them in any time frame. There is no need for such facilities for county government
requirements to serve other local government needs. Such new capital facilities as may be planned
are too constrained by budget limitations.
Under such a scenario, only a few shelter facilities would come into being coordinated with
construction of future public buildings. There is no schedule for the projected number of public
buildings, or their intended dispersal related to required shelter capacity and its best dispersa1.
Since the two most recent hurricanes, the Secretary of the Florida Department of
Community Affairs finally convened a major work study based on recognition of the futility of
overland evacuation as a hurricane emergency response, and called for repeal of the state
regulations requiring such plans. He recommended launching generalized shelter programs
throughout all coastal areas of the state.
It is improbable that local government will ever have a need for that many public buildings
of suitable capacity. It is unlikely that needed public buildings will have an appropriate dispersal
among the urbanized areas of Monroe County to provide shelter access where most appropriate. It
is even more unlikely that local government capital improvement budgets can support the
expenditures required, from tax income sources, to construct special purpose facilities to supply
shelter needs. It is equally improbable that existing capital facilities, built with no such service
intended, will provide needed resistance to a storm of significant magnitude by pure chance.
To resolve this impasse related to what is a public safety matter of concern, for which the
situation that occurred in Homestead and after Georges has made people recognize as real, a
proposal is presented, for incorporation in the Land Use Plan, intended to attract private equity
capital to supply such facilities, in privately built and financed buildings,- whose principal use is
economically viable to the owner/developer for all those weeks and years when no hurricane
emergency conditions arise.
::!Y:
The principal risk ofloss oflife in a hurricane strike is that of drowning in accompanying
floods. The safest place that can be provided to avoid rising flood waters is in upper floors of tall
buildings designed to resist both concurrent high velocity wind forces and flooding of their
foundations and lower floors. The present height limitations of land use regulations were enacted
to preclude construction of such buildings in the belief that height limitation is a simple technique
for limiting development density or land use intensity.
The concept presented herein creates a procedure for attracting private capital to supply
emergency shelter needs while retaining the land use intensity and density limitations intended by
the land use plan. It proposes regulations to accomplish those purposes, - but without using height
restrictions as the means for accomplishing them.
:Y:
PRELIMINARY
DRAFT-
January, 2003
HURRICANE SHELTER DEVELOPMENT (HSD) ZONING
ABSTRACT:
Material presented herein is a concept for pennitting construction of buildings:
a. Capable of supplying emergency refuge/shelter needs of the general public in a hurricane
emergency.
b. Assuring their geographical dispersal along the island chain urban areas to make them
available where and when needed, and accessible by existing local transportation facilities.
c. Offering conditions making construction of such structures sufficiently economically
viable to attract private equity capital for their development.
d. Constrained by regulation to prevent creation of substantive increase in land use intensity
and/or density beyond that intended by existing land use regulations.
The report details:
1. Means of attracting necessary private capital investment in tenns of real estate
economics affecting investment viability of the opportunities created.
2. Siting criteria best suited to assure both hurricane invulnerability and public accessibility,
with minimal adverse impact on other land use concerns.
3. A draft of appropriate regulations that will assure limiting both density and land use
intensity to that permitted under existing land use regulations.
I. BACKGROUND
Repeated efforts to develop a rational evacuation plan for the Florida Keys in the event of
an impending hurricane strike have failed. Ability of the hurricane center of the National
Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration to predict the location of landfall of a hurricane
being tracked, with sufficient accuracy and lead time to pennit evacuation overland via the single
-1-
highway available for the purpose, is beyond the state of the art.
The chain of islands affected is too long, the road is too limited in capacity, and is itself
flood vulnerable. NOAA cannot make sufficiently accurate predictions of landfall location until
it is too late to evacuate the population. In many respects, efforts to conduct such an operation, once
a need for it can be reasonably well-established, poses as many risks, in terms of probability of death
and/or injury, as are likely to be inflicted by the anticipated hurricane strike.
Beyond the highway, in the aftermath of one of the previous major hurricane strikes, the
director of public safety of Dade County observed that "overland evacuation is not a feasible
response to a hurricane threat for south Florida". That is the assumed destination for Monroe
County evacuees, and its inadequacy had been recognized before Floyd made it blatantly obvious.
In the aftermath of Hugo, renewed concerns about hurricane safety elicited suggestions that
hurricane shelter capacity be incorporated in proposed public buildings. Unfortunately, the need
is for more geographically dispersed shelter locations than any foreseeable need for public
buildings. The need for new public buildings is oriented toward the need for housing government
operations. The number of buildings needed for shelter purposes is far more than the county budget
could afford for decades into the future. The suggestion that government capital facilities may
accomplish the purpose offers little more than "lip service" to the nature of the problem, and has
had the effect oflulling people into the mistaken beliefthat the problem has been addressed and is
no longer a matter of concern.
The same Florida statutes that obligate planning overland evacuation for storms expected
to be of Saffir/Simpson category 3 intensity or higher, also obli~ate provision of a shelter prow-am
for storms of lesser intensity when evacuation is not expected to be mandatory. Thus far, the
planning department has blandly stated that county capital facilities will serve the need. Having
stated that, their actual supply was left to become someone else's problem.
Several years ago, after reviewing and conducting many studies of hurricane strikes both in
Florida and along other states bordering the Gulf of Mexico, Dr. Neil Frank (former director of the
NOAA National Hurricane Center) proposed a concept which he referred to as his "Vertical
Evacuation Plan". It was based on years of observation and evaluation of the principal causes of
death and personal injury during hurricane strikes, and studies of patterns of destruction and damage
by hurricanes as they make their landfalls.
The principal observations that formed the rationale for Dr. Frank's "Vertical Evacuation"
concept are:
1. The primary risk of bodily harm to persons during hurricanes is the risk of drowning
(i.e.-flood risk is far greater than wind risk).
2. In coastal communities, over 85% of all property damage inflicted during hurricanes
-2-
occurs within 250 yards of shore lines.
3. While accompanying torrential rainfall may exacerbate conditions, the principal
source of flood damage along coastal areas results from "storm surge", the dome of
water that rises from the sea surface under the "eye" of the storm system as a result of
reduced barometric pressure in the "eye" surrounded by higher air pressures around the
exterior storm system. This surge follows the storm under the "eye" as it moves across
the ocean. Its height dissipates rapidly as the storm moves across land.
NOAA uses a storm intensity classification system (the Saffir/Simpson Hurricane Scale)
under which all storms are divided into five categories reflecting their relative severity. The worst
category is the Class V storm, which poses threats of upwards of 155+ mph wind velocities, and is
accompanied by storm surge heights 15 to 18 feet above normal tide level. Since the storm surge
is a dome of water rising from the surface of the sea, the actual level reached when landfall occurs
becomes storm surge height plus or minus concurrent tide height at the time oflandfall. (viz.-In
the Florida Keys, where mean high tide is about 2 feet above mean sea level, a Class V storm surge
arriving at high tide could create a flood level 17 to 19 feet above mean sea level. Tides in the Keys
also vary along the length of the Keys, and between ocean and gulf sides.)
Above the relative surface sea level height, the matter of wave height associated with surges
exacerbates risks. Wave height is affected by a series of factors including wind velocity, fetch,
water depth, and shape ofthe bottom.
Fortunately, where the dome is at its highest (beneath the center of the "eye"), wind velocity
is zero. The highest wind velocities, in a well-formed sharply defined "eye", occur around the "wall"
of the "eye". The perimeter of the wall is also locus of the most violent thunderstorm activity.
Across the profile of the dome curvature, there are zones where the dome, while not at its maximum
at the center, may be both substantially above normal sea level with enormous concurrent wind
velocities, probably conditions near the "eye wall" rather than the center of the "eye". In that region,
wave height may be additive to somewhat reduced storm surge height, but together, could represent
maximum flood level.
II. THE VERTICAL EVACUATION CONCEPT
The basic observation that prompted Dr. Frank to propose his "vertical evacuation" concept
was that iftime and opportunity do not permit geographical evacuation, the safest places for people
to go is out of those places where greatest personal injury risks are known to exist. The mainland
historical cry of "run to the high ground", to escape an impending flood, is a pointless bromide in
the Florida Keys. The population of most of the Florida Keys lives in an area within which an
elevation 5.0 above MSL is somewhat rare ( Solares Hill and Mt. Trashmore ?), and land much in
excess ofthat elevation is over 150 miles away. The only accessible places with an elevation high
enough to be above maximum flood levels and wave heights are the upper floors of man-made
structures.
-3-
The essential criterion of flood safety is height. What remains to be assured is structural
adequacy of a building to survive storm exposure that is also tall enough. Similarly, suitable
buildings should be sited so as to minimize exposure to maximum storm risk conditions. Such
criteria can be reduced to a set of structural requirements and siting limitations.
Structurally, building foundations must be able to survive inundation and wave height
impacts at or below lower levels of the building, with a concurrent wind loading upwards of 155
mph, on the portion above grade. Siting should require that it not be less than Dr. Frank's observed
200-yard distance from nearest shore line. Further criteria, oriented to the concept of
"accessibility", suggest that shelters should be distributed along the urbanized areas (perhaps not
closer than five miles apart),- a criterion intended to assure a shelter with reasonable accessibility
on short notice to wherever population exists, but far enough apart to preclude creation of a visual
"high-rise district". Such standards must assure that, under the guise of public safety, clusters of
tall buildings are not built which create an urbanized visual impact on what has been intended to
remain restfully quiet townscapes in the tropical islands.
Dr. Frank had observed that among all high-rise buildings that exist throughout most coastal
communities in south Florida, enough can be found meeting the strength and flood resistance
criteria to permit their being pressed into such service in time of need. However, such buildings do
not exist in Monroe County because they have been outlawed by existing and previous land use
regulations! To stimulate construction of such buildings, a new special set of regulations must be
enacted which will permit such construction. At the same time, these regulations must be drafted
in such a way that they will not permit random construction of facilities to be built in violation of
the spirit and intent of existing land use planning, by masquerading in the guise of supplying a
public safety need.
To permit construction to meet only the limited needs of public safety, but not nwre, a set
of very tightly drawn criteria must be prepared which not only define what must be incorporated to
supply the recognized need, but which also limits its application to not more than the amounts
required to supply that need. (A concurrent building need recognized as not being met by current
constraints on building might also be included by requiring that some minimum percentage of
residential occupancies to be constructed under the new shelter classification also accommodate
some minimum percentage of "affordable dwelling units",- at least provision of employee
residential units adequate to accommodate the staffs needed to operate the building types proposed.)
III. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF MONROE COUNTY CONCERNS RELATED TO TALL
BUILDINGS
The original concerns that prompted establishment of height limitations in local land use
regulations were two-fold. The "knee-jerk" reactions of many people not familiar with the concept
of the effect ofF AR limitations, are visions of collections of densely-packed wall-to-wall buildings
blocking vistas, and turning the Keys into a crowded Miami suburb.
-4-
To the average citizen, a tall building means "high-density" land use and "urbanization" of
paradise. As the Keys began to show signs of increased development pressures, efforts were made
to lower maximum height restrictions,- from 44-feet to 35 feet. Apparently, it was believed that
by hiding buildings below tree lines, even though there were increasingly more of them, we could
pretend they really weren't there. Furthermore, the general belief was that by designating a lowered
height limitation, construction of third stories that might accommodate higher densities in multi-
family units might be prevented. It might also constrain illicit enlargement of single family houses
into multi-family units by internal sub-division, thereby accommodating increased density, - if there
were fewer floors available on which to do it.
At about this same time, minimum flood level heights, as mapped by the Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA), became a part of building code requirements. Between the
two, a trend had been established which, were it to continue, involved progressively lowering
maximum building heights and progressively raising minimum floor levels. (Were both trends to
continue, perhaps ultimately no one much over five feet tall could fit in a building without stooping,
and a height limitation for people becomes implied.)
Since then, the set of associated FEMA regulations that were adopted did, in many areas,
raise minimum floor levels.
In many large older cities of the United States, areas of block-after-block of low-rise
buildings built decades ago, packed the available land. In many instances, these areas have become
centers of large urban slums. Such areas are among the highest density residential facilities to be
found anywhere in the United States,- and they are entirely within height limitations imposed by
Monroe County building regulations (thought by some to represent a way of minimizing land use
intensity).
By contrast, there are also examples of tall impressive buildings standing isolated in park-
like settings, beautifully surrounded by fountains and landscaping which, for the size tract of land
on which they have been sited, represent a haven of visual relief from the more congested impact
of block- after-block oflow-rise single-family housing developments.
This is particularly true when the apparently "preferred" form of single-family housing is of
the "tract housing" type ( the concept being maintained by inference in most residentially zoned
areas incorporated in present land-use regulations). Rigorous uniformity of set-back and height
regulations associated with present zoning regulations results in all buildings being lined up
monotonously: same width, same height, and same volume,- all spaced in regulated uniformity.
By the 1960's, after a decade of this type of post -World Warn development had been experienced,
the refrain of a popular song summarized general public disillusionment with the ultimate effect,
"-and they're all made ofticky-tacky, and they all look just the same..."
Peculiarly, in insisting on rigorous enforcement of such constraints, many ofthose objecting
in principle to height, regardless of whether or not it represents high density or land use intensity,
-5-
do not realize that the same density and FAR in an eight-story height results in more open space,
more undisturbed habitat, lower cost of distribution of public utilities, more available recreational
space, etc. The approach is generally known as "cluster type development" and originated as a
reaction to "tract-house-all-in-a-row" forms of single family housing which totally consume all
available land area.
Nearly thirty years later, after the error had long been recognized in professional literature
in the field, "ticky-tacky" remains the obligatory form defined in Monroe County and Key West
land use regulations.
If those objecting to high rise buildings can learn to understand the benefits of permissible
density rather than permissible height, it is possible that they may also find their personal safety,
in times of a hurricane emergency, is also better served. Such re-thinking will require sound and
persistent re-education. In the rethinking process, people should be exposed to factual alternatives:
i. e. _ availability of additional areas of open space habitat that could be created by rearranging lateral
sprawl of low-rise residential units in a vertical format; and visual relief from row after row of
little boxes, -even if that variation only happens at most, once every four miles.
Another protection to the populace lies in the fact that access by the numbers of people to
be served is assured by the minimum site size, while a maximum size has also been provided to
assure that shelter needs do not become the mechanism for launching precisely the sort of
development concentration that is a matter of concern to many residents of the community. Not
only has a maximum allowable floor area content been provided, but if used to accommodate
residential units, the maximum residential unit content has been specified; and if used for a
hotel/motel occupancy (tourist density), the maximum number of guest room accommodations has
been specified. All are proportioned to the size of sites in a way that actually increases the open
space remaining beyond what might have resulted had a HSD project not been created.
Other than density concerns, there has been a concern for blocking and obstructing the view
of the sea, again a fear derived from visions of row- after-row of high-rise condos and hotels along
beaches, blocking the view and ocean breezes from everything landward of the buildings.
The proposed regulations specifically preclude such developments from being considered.
Shelter projects must be located at sites removed a substantial distance from shore lines. Placed
toward the center of the urbanized land mass, there is no view of the ocean blocked by a tall
structure. The building is not between people and the sea. People are between the building and the
sea. Whatever the view of the sea might have been before, will remain after construction of the
HSD's are in place.
On many of the Keys, it will be difficult to find suitable parcels of land located far enough
from shorelines to meet requirements where the island is not wide enough. These areas may
become dependent on being served by sites on the nearest large islands, presumably able to be found
within four miles.
-6-
It is essential that consideration of concepts presented not be taken out of the complete
context within which they have been developed! Dashing off with trivial information that "they
want to permit high-rise buildings", without including the content that prevents things making "high-
rise" anathema a call to arms,- become appeals to fear rather than reason. Unfortunately,
"sloganeering" has historically (or perhaps hysterically) had more mob appeal.
The fact that a high-rise may also be means of preventing loss of hundreds oflives as a result
of "Hugo-II", "Andrew,Jr.", or "Floyd-B" tracking across the Keys ought not be lost in hysteria.
Homo sapiens is also entitled to protection as a species. Hugo and Andrew were simply recent
examples of the fact that it can happen here. While Georges was a lesser storm and Mitch had been
dissipated before crossing the Caribbean to hit the Keys, Mitch had been a major storm when it hit
the south side of the Caribbean. We are not prepared with an adequate means of survival should a
comparable storm pass this way.
Can the worst prospects envisioned by images of "monstrouS" buildings poking up from the
middle of our islands, five or more miles apart, be more horrendous to contemplate than the
prospect of hundreds of bodies floating around among the debris after a solid hit by some future
storm? Realities of such a prospect must be faced. The storm must come sooner or later. There
is no high ground.
IV. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR VERTICAL SHELTER PROJECTS
A. Special Structural Requirements for Buildings
First concern is that of assuring performance of shelter functions of buildings under assumed
hurricane conditions. To guarantee that performance, a special set of structural requirements, some
of its special purpose contents, and some of its building materials requirements must be stipulated.
Special needs to be supplied for this purpose may go beyond requirements of building codes
applicable to other buildings in general, but actually, recent upward revision of basic building code
requirements for wind load resistance, and flood plain elevations defined by FEMA, have already
established a relatively safe set of building standards for all new buildings being built in the Keys..
In any tall building, regardless of reference design "base wind speed" , it should be
understood that the reference is specifically wind speed at a point thirty feet above the ground
surface. (This has been defined as fastest wind sustained for one mile with a recurrence probability
of once every hundred years. Since Andrew, the reference criterion was changed to one based on
maximum short term gust velocity. Both generally result in similar strength requirements.) Starting
from ground level reference, buildings must be designed for increasingly higher wind velocities as
their heights increase, in accordance with existing building code formulae that result in increasing
"base wind" loading exponentially with height.
-7-
Here in the Keys, when the "basic wind speed" was 110 mph, use of a 30 pound-per-square-
foot horizontal wind loading thirty feet above the ground was required. At a height of 100 feet
above the ground (i.e.- the height of a ten-story building), that same base wind load reference
required use of a horizontal wind force applied to the structure of 42 pounds-per-square foot.
(Recently, with adoption of a gust speed criterion, the basic wind speed became 150 mph, and that
produces a force of 57 psfas the basic reference design wind speed .today.)
The public is aware of reports from NOAA giving estimated wind velocities during the
course of tracking a hurricane event, but is not familiar with the differences in use of
terminology in a NOAA tracking report and the use made of "base wind speed" in a building
code I
As hurricanes are first observed by NOAA (usually by satellite imagery), and before the
"eye" has been sharply defined, there is a procedure, substantially subjective, for "estimating"
probable peak wind velocity present anywhere in the storm system. (At this early stage, despite
existence of a statistical methodology being used, the same data presented to seven different
"experts" at the NOAA hurricane center, will result in seven different estimates of maximum wind
velocity. )
As the storm becomes better organized, starts approaching the American mainland, and
indicates a likelihood of making aN orth American landfall, assistance is asked from the Air Force
to fly into the storm to make in situ measurements with instruments carried aboard for the purpose.
Depending on flying conditions, these flights may be made at altitudes of15 ,000,5,000 or 1,500 feet
( maximum wind velocities, along the "wall of the eye", are also in the most violent thunderstorm
activity, and may preclude ability of aircraft to fly there). Based on these direct wind velocity and
barometric pressure readings, methodology for computing probable maximum wind velocities
becomes less subjective, and accurate estimates are feasible. Velocities reported are "worst case"
as measured. In general, "worst case" winds may occur anywhere up the "wall", and may also
extend for a considerable distance up and down the "wall", depending on concurrent presence of up
or down drafts associated with the wind velocities recorded.
By contrast, "basic wind speed" as defined in a building code is based on the statistical
probability of occurrence of a wind velocity as measured by an anemometer sited 30 feet above
the ground aJ a weather station. Beyond that, an entire series of calculations are prescribed for
increasing the loading resulting from the force exerted by such a wind velocity, as the height above
the ground increases from that basic wind speed reference elevation.
The combination of minimum central barometric pressure and maximum wind velocity have
contributed to evolution of the Saffir/Simpson hurricane scale. The worst category defined, the
category V storm, has only been recorded hitting the United States four times in the history of
hurricane record-keeping (one of those is an assumed value). First was the Labor Day storm that
hit the Keys in 1935. Second was Camille that hit the Gulf coast in 1969. The third was hurricane
Gilbert which was actually a category III storm when it crossed through the Antilles. It built up to
-8-
category V intensity (160 knot wind velocity) just before landfall in Yucatan, and then dropped back
to category III intensity before its North American landfall on the coast of Texas.
The most damaging of recent hurricanes that hit the American mainland (until Andrew) was
Hugo. Hugo swept across St. Croix with sustained 120-knot winds, dropped to 110 knots across
Viejes and Puerto Rico, rose to 140 knots east of the Antilles, and, after veering northward, struck
the coast of South Carolina with a velocity of 120 knots. The damage it inflicted was not because
of its unusually high intensity classification, but because of the extent and kinds of buildings in its
path. (Localized gusts, as distinct from sustained winds, may have exceeded the sustained winds
reported. Hurricanes commonly spawn small area tornadoes within the areas they cover.)
The track of Floyd, straight up along the entire southeast coast of the United States, and with
just barely under a category V wind velocity (155 mph), led to the virtual inundation of much of the
east coast of the country.
None of these wind speed reports have anything to do with references to maximum wind
thirty feet above the ground! The lowest of those reported by aircraft reconnaissance were measured
at altitudes higher than any building ever built. A fifteen-story building is only one tenth the height
of the lowest aircraft altitude employed in making airborne measurements during hurricanes. It is
important that those making recommendations of what specified design base wind speeds in a
building code should be are fully conversant with what happens to those recommendations as used
by structural engineers in designing tall structures under related provisions of building codes.
Nevertheless, to avoid debate as to the severity of the storm for which criteria should be
established, additional wind loading has been specified in the draft of special code requirements
presented hereinafter. The fact that the historical maximum greater-than-155 mph design wind
speed within the definition of a category V storm was not used is due to the author's familiarity
with both the SaffirlSimpson scale and building codes.
B. Special Site Requirements
The second set of requirements defines special siting concerns, both in terms of minimizing
storm exposure risks, and assuring accessibility in time of need. These assure removal from shore
line proximity, and assurance of access by good paved roads.
The third requirement, is imposition of maximum density limitations provided in terms of
floor area ratio (FAR) constraints,- to achieve the security offered by maximum height, while
constraining density in a multi-storied form. To obtain maximum storm effect security,
construction of maximum permissible floor area at as high an elevation as possible is encouraged.
At the same time, it is recognized that the taller the building, the higher design wind loading will
-9-
become, and the higher the cost per square foot of building floor area will be.
A distinction must be kept in mind between needs ofa "shelter", and needs ofa "refuge".
Storm duration itself may come and go in a matter of a few hours, and at most, less than a day.
Needs of providing a "refuge", a place of sanctuary where people can go to wait out passage of
storms, may be rather easily met by a building strong enough to endure the fury of the storm,
suitably located for the population involved. Accessibility for such purposes is reasonably assured
by requirements that HSD facilities be geographically dispersed along the island chain. Red Cross
refuge criteria for Monroe County recommend a 10 s.f. per person floor area for refuge capacity
determination.
By contrast, needed "shelter" requirements must be capable of providing minimal "housing"
functions, for a more extended period of time, for those whose normal "housing" (as it had existed
before the storm) may be wiped out or rendered unusable by damage wrought by the storm. It is to
be expected that several days may elapse between passage of a storm and the time that outside
emergency relief can be mobilized to provide needed longer term accommodation for those in need
of on-going "shelter". Experience demonstrated by the impact of "Hugo" in the Carolinas
emphasized the distinction. Conditions following the Andrew disaster were significantly worse.
While the population of the Keys is smaller, the means of bringing outside relief may be more
difficult and possibly exacerbated to the extent that overland highway access to the area may be
destroyed by the storm.
Accessibility of "refuge" requirements can be maximized by assuring lateral dispersal of
shelter facilities along the island chain. Many of those who seek "refuge" in facilities can be
expected to simply return to wherever they came from after the storm passes. Those living in
houses built to comply with FEMA regulations and the new Florida State Building Code
requirements, should have no difficulty returning to their houses. Structures may have suffered
building damage due to flying debris, but much will probably remain useable for all but the most
improbable of storm intensity categories.
However, accessibility to support "shelter" requirements may be quite different from one
area of the county to the next depending on the locus of storm landfall. A strike in the lower Keys
may not interfere with overland access in the upper Keys. A strike in the upper Keys may leave both
airport and port facilities in Key West intact. In other words, some "shelters" may be needed to
serve for an extended period of time, while others might not. Red Cross shelter criteria for
southeast Florida have been reduced to 15 s.f. per person. (In most other parts of the United States
they require 40 s.f. per person.)
In either case, it is to be expected that most of those arriving at such havens will probably
arrive by some sort of vehicular conveyance. Provision of extensive parking capacity will be a
major consideration both at or on the sites themselves. Nearby open spaces may be pressed into
emergency use for overflow parking purposes, including areas where the risk of inflicting property
damage in the process would be secondary to the purpose of providing human safety.
-10-
Beyond siting requirements related to assurance of the intended public safety function,
additional constraints must be clearly provided to prevent abuse of that intent. For these reasons,
both maximum and minimum project sizes have been incorporated in the regulations proposed.
Projects smaller than the minimum needed should be disallowed since such projects will fall short
of supplying needs and will ultimately defeat the purpose of the plan by preventing one large enough
to supply those needs from being built close enough thereafter. Projects larger than maximum
would automatically fall into the "abuse of intent" category.
C. Special Building Content Requirements
Having provided siting considerations needed to get the populace safely inside, it is to be
expected that as storm intensity builds, and flooding starts developing, most forms of public utilities
will be disabled. Electric and telephone utility pole lines will be destroyed or broken, water
distribution lines will be ruptured, and all will remain out of service for an extended period of time
following the storm. Well water supplies may have been flooded and contaminated. Cistern
supplies may have been contaminated if they were overtopped by the surge.
The refuge/shelters will therefore be obligated to maintain a safe potable reserve of water
stored at an elevation above flood risk, with a capacity to support the designated number of evacuees
for a designated number of days as a building criterion for such facilities. (Again, there are Red
Cross criteria for daily emergency water requirements per person.) In-house emergency electric
power generating capability, of an amount calculated to maintain essential services within the
building for a designated period of time, together with the fuel storage capacity needed to operate
that generating capability for that time, becomes another essential element of project requirements.
Some of these requirements are already part of existing building code requirements for
emergency purposes. Tall buildings dependent on elevator transportation are already required to
possess emergency stand-by power capability to keep one elevator operating in event of a power
outage, primarily for use of emergency services (fire and ambulance). What may be new is the
additional requirement that these emergency facilities be situated above risk of flooding at
hurricane flood levels.
Within the buildings, accommodations for the number of persons expected to be in the
building during the period of the storm must be assured. The nature of these accommodations must
be determined on the basis of the estimated number needing "refuge" (as previously defined), and
the number needing "shelter" for an extended period of time. These criteria have already been
established, and are readily available by reference to Red Cross and Monroe County Office of
Emergency Management. In general, needed criteria can be converted to specifics in terms of:
number of square feet of floor space per evacuee accommodated; minimum sanitary facilities; food
service capabilities; etc. In summary, it is apparent that appropriate criteria must be established for
structural requirements of the building; for a unique set of siting requirements; for special facilities
required within the buildings; for minimum distance between sites to assure geographic dispersion
-11-
in the county~ and special off-site requirements related to access from existing paved streets and
transportation facilities. In addition, guarantees must be incorporated in the project to assure
delivery of public safety facilities expeditiously, while retaining the population density limitation
intent of the land use regulations (themselves largely justified by expressions of concerns for
hurricane evacuation lead time).
N.B. _ Similar criteria have already been applied to building the new jail on Stock Island and
county services building in Marathon, based on the need to keep them in service without evacuation
of the occupants dwing a storm emergency.
V. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY
The construction of buildings meeting such unusual requirements will be expensive. Several
additional facilities that must be incorporated will also add to the cost of projects without having
a useful non-emergency value commensurate with those additional costs. In granting the right to
commandeer the building, or designated special purpose shelter facilities within it, an owner is
encumbering an additional risk not faced by investing in more conventional development
opportunities.
To be sufficiently economically viable to attract private investment willing to supply the
public needs described, projects must also offer opportunity for a developer, to warrant acceptance
of all premium costs and risks, to realize a greater benefit by undertaking such a project than he
finds offered by alternative investment opportunities.
Under conditions that must face realities of development economics, reviewers must keep
in mind that at a point at which constraints are unnecessarily imposed, beyond those necessary to
accomplish the intended purposes, incentive to participate can be destroyed. Thus, opportunity to
supply a public need that cannot be supplied by a public expenditure will be destroyed.
Everyone dealing with this concept must recognize, at the outset, that the needed balance
will not result from adoption of inflexible postures whose consequences have not been thought
through. Both advantages and risks must be considered and assigned relative weights before any
rational judgement of economic feasibility can be formulated. Other forms of variances, being
sought or granted under existing regulations, are pursued to obtain an advantage for the owner or
developer. In this case, granting requests for a development in accordance with this new proposed
set of regulations, is supplying a recognized life-threatening community protection not otherwise
being addressed.
Ultimately, assigning relative weights must be judged against available alternatives.
Developers of such projects must see an opportunity to use the building profitably, when it is not
-12-
called upon to perform shelter functions. Such usage must be so attractive, in terms of return on
investment, that it will more than justify the premium costs that must be encumbered in its
construction.
An understanding of several significant considerations related to the economics of buildings
and those of real-estate development is extremely important to one attempting to make rational
judgments about regulations intended to accomplish widespread public purposes at private cost.
A. Elevator Economics
As soon as a proposed building becomes four stories or taller, building codes require that
it be equipped with elevators. The minimum size of those elevators must be large enough to
accommodate a stretcher and its attendants. Since elevator shafts create chimney effects, which
could become means of fire spread, they must be isolated from the rest of the building by fire rated
protection. They also consume shaft floor area on each of the floors served, which contribute a
reduction of total "net rentable floor area" made available for use in the building.
Elevators designed to serve most buildings are classified in three groups: 1- geared~ 2- low-
speed gearless; and 3- high speed gearless. The cost of these machines becomes greater as one
moves from consideration of one category to the next. Essentially, their costs increase with
increase in speed and capacity. Planning vertical transportation systems for tall buildings becomes
a critical element of planning entire building projects. They can be the single most important
component determining economic feasibility limits since their costs, pro-rated to total useable floor
area, can immediately be seen to represent the most expensive component incorporated in the
building.
In planning a vertical transportation system, both occupancy of floors served and height of
building dictate the number and size of elevators, and their operating speed requirements. The
analyses required to plan vertical transportation is similar to the way horizontal traffic dictates
number of traffic lanes that must be incorporated in planning a highway system,- and its design
speed. The significance of the impact ofthis sort of analysis can be seen in what has happened over
the years to the classification of building types.
The economics of elevator requirements have given rise to categorizing of "mid-rise"
buildings and "high-rise" buildings. Mid-rise buildings are almost uniformly eight stories high (one
rarely sees a modem building being built six stories tall). High-rise buildings are almost uniformly
fifteen stories tall. ("Skyscrapers" are a special case.) In both of these cases, at these heights an
optimum relationship is reached between the cost of the elevator type that can serve that number
of stories and its size by the square-footage per floor that can be served by an elevator of that type
and size.
The maximum height building that may be built without elevators is the three-story or
-13-
"garden apartment" type building. Three stories is the maximum tolerable "walk-up". Practically
no-one ever builds four or five stories tall on the basis of economic analysis. At that height, all the
expenses of elevatoring the building have been encumbered, but the ratio of floor area served to
elevator cost is enough to wipe out the economic benefit of obtaining only one extra floor. (The
Monroe County land use plan includes such an option, but limits its application to construction of
"affordable" housing that must also provide emergency shelter accommodations. In the process, our
"planners" proposed the most expensive form of building limited to an occupancy category least
able to afford any premium construction at all. There have been no takers.)
The fact that the ground level may be entirely unusable, or only marginally useable, due to
special flood level constraints, may shift the balance up or down a story by ground level square-
footage rendered unusable by FEMA regulations. Therefore, without attempting to regulate height
of a vertical shelter project, developer's pocketbooks would almost certainly force a choice of either
eight or fifteen stories. Under those same FEMA regulations, if the building contains commercial
occupancies, the ground level may also become useable by "flood-proofing".
B. Building Cost Impacts
The costs of putting conventional building materials in place aloft increases with height
(another form of elevator problem). All building materials must be hoisted into place. The cost and
time of hoisting materials increase the costs of the finished building. As certain increments of
height are reached, the size, type, and number of pieces of hoisting equipment needed on the job
increase, further compounding height/cost relationships.
Requiring the building to be designed for a reference "base wind" loading above that
specified by building codes, subjects the basic building frame to a design requirement of resisting
progressively increasing horizontal forces as buildings get progressively taller. For a tall building,
"base wind" is not the NOAA reported "worst case" experience. It actually becomes the "least"
wind speed used, and only for low buildings. From there up, that reference wind load is
exponentially increased with height.
Our existing building code requirements would not have been exceeded by the speed of
Hugo at landfall in the Carolinas. In addition, buildings are not designed to resist applied loadings
as their ultimate strength. An additional "ultimate strength" is required, beyond that needed to
support the required loading (called "factored" load or load multiplier, - a required "safety factor"
in layman's terminology).
Raising base wind speed load requirements primarily causes cost increases in columns,
frame, and foundations beneath those columns. In general, the cost of the structural frame of a
building represents approximately 15 % of the cost of the building.
Other than wind forces on the building and flood levels around its base, special provisions
-14-
have been incorporated in the suggested text of proposed regulations to provide safety from hazard
of flying debris during the storm. The greatest exposure risk for these missiles is via windows in
the building. Requirements for shatterproof material (polycarbonate) glazing to be substituted for
conventional glazing imposes an additional cost premium of double the price for glazing material
itself. Add these costs to premium prices for frames designed to withstand increased wind loading,
plus another approximately 10 cent-per-square-foot glazing cost extra for installation in a high-rise
building, and construction costs rise even more.
C. Special Building Contents
Requirements for provision of stand-by generator equipment and stored emergency drinking
water supplies may not actually represent a special cost premium addition of the magnitude that
their actual procurement might seem. If an elevatored building had been contemplated for other
reasons, existing codes already require some amount of stand-by emergency generating facilities to
be provided.
The new considerations become the added expenses of locating that equipment above flood
elevation risk, and providing fuel storage adequate to carry its operation for the length of time refuge
functions may be required, - somewhat more than might have ordinarily been needed to provide for
a conventional building emergency power outage.
What is a bit unusual in the Keys is that elsewhere such stand-by equipment can normally
be housed underground. In the Keys, such stand-by equipment cannot be placed underground, but
must be located above flood level (or within a "flood-proofed" enclosure at grade), adding to the
cost of housing it, and contributing to another reduction in net rentable floor area in the total project.
If proposed non-emergency use of the building were selected from among those forms of
occupancy that normally include restaurant or banquet facilities, all equipment required for food
preparation, large floor areas for emergency cot set-ups for sleeping accommodation, and public
rest-room facilities would already be part of the commercial facilities required for everyday use
under non-emergency conditions.
Even requirements for provision of special emergency communications facilities, to be used
by the Office of Emergency Management during a declared emergency, could become a functional
element of a non-emergency use. Provision of "head end" equipment for internal cable television
distribution, and/or data link facilities has become increasingly attractive for commercial facilities.
Additional OEM equipment might be housed in the same space with little loss of available square-
footage to the building operator.
For such reasons, the most probable use of opportunities created under these proposed
regulations can already be foreseen as potential hotel facilities, or office buildings,- with the
additional possibility of a mixed-use occupancy ("sandwich" type buildings, usually consisting of
-15-
ground level retail facilities, several floors of office use occupancy, sometimes several floors of
residential apartment units, and often topped with a roof-top restaurant).
D. Land Costs
In general, there is a fairly consistent relationship between the market price ofland and the
value of the building development it must support. Land is especially scarce in the Keys and
generally commands a high premium. In other parts of the country, the prices of urban land are
reflected in the height of buildings built on it.
Ultimately, the sum of cost of building-plus- cost- of- land results in a figure yielding total
project cost per square foot of "net rentable space". Feasibility is then reckoned in terms of whether
or not the market value of that "net rentable" square footage will yield an attractive return on the
investment of total project cost.
Market demand is related to supply of desired amounts of square footage available for the
purposes for which it is to be used. If not enough floor space is available on the market, the price
goes up. If enough exists, at an acceptable price, no more will be built (particularly at a premium
cost).
Planning and zoning regulations have an enormous impact on the relationship of land cost
to development value. However a set of restrictions evolve, for whatever reasons that led to their
adoption, ultimately there will only be a fixed amount of land utilized for whatever developments
are economically feasible.
When there is not much more land on which zoning laws permit additional office space to
be built at reasonable costs, prices of available office space increase (until it becomes high enough
to justify constructing it in more costly ways). The price of remaining land able to be developed also
rises along with cost of building.
Since zoning determines both the amount of land available for a given land use, and the
extent to which that land may be developed for such use, it ultimately determines real estate
valuation placed on that land. Until now, zoning practices have not permitted appreciated value of
real estate, generated by regulatory constraints on land use, to be realized by the community,-
essentially the entity generating those values .I
The principal criterion of real estate valuation is "location". What makes a location desirable
is its proximity to values created by the surrounding community: travel time to community
facilities; access via community transportation facilities; access to a labor supply; access to
utilities; access to market; access to recreational opportunities; access to schools; etc.
When these location "values" are stipulated for a given use by zoning regulations, that zoning
-16-
category determines the inherent valuation of the land. While the investment of a developer is
required to realize that value, the designation of permissible usage to which land may be put places
an implied value on the site itself.
In that process, real estate speculation, by persons other than developers, offers an
opportunity for profit by administrative land use processing that alters use to which land may be put,
even for those having neither the intention nor the ability to make use of new land use categories
themselves.
If land of existing lower use value zoning can be given a new zoning classification that
creates opportunity to put it to a use commanding a higher yield on investment, its existing lower
valuation can be used to tolerate a higher cost of construction in its development, and still leave the
total project cost combination ofland and building an economically viable investment.
To assure the concept not being allowed to degenerate into more grist for land speculators'
mills, provisions were incorporated in the proposed regulations that require a prospective
developer to complete all required drawings for submittal for his building permit within six months
of conditional HSD zoning approval of his major conditional use application. Construction must
begin within the usual limitations after permit issuance. The building, rather than its land, receives
the zoning classification.
When establishing requirements, consideration must be given to the cost of preparation of
necessary drawings for such a building which will include substantial fees for several design
professionals (architect, landscape architect, structural engineer, mechanical engineer, electrical
engineer, and perhaps related specialists such as geo-technical engineer and environmental
engineer).
In addition, fees will have been paid to a variety of consultants as part of the "front end risk
costs", to prepare preliminary concept drawings of building, site plan, traffic studies, market
surveys, impact analyses, etc.,- simply to prepare the project concept for presentation to request the
special major conditional use approval being sought,- even under the proposed new regulations for
this new HSD category of land use.
It is not reasonable to also expect all costs of fmal design preparation (generally about six
percent of estimated construction cost) to have been prepared before it is known whether or not
permission to develop the project will be granted. Nevertheless, preparation of all final design
materials that will be needed to build a building of that complexity will have to be done before a
permit for its construction could be issued, and before its final cost estimate and contracting could
be undertaken.
Time will be required between the time project approval is received on the basis ofless-than-
complete final building drawings, and the time all design work can be accomplished.
-17-
For a developer seriously pursuing the perceived new opportunity, and prepared to proceed
as soon as authorization is received, six months is probably adequate. For a speculator intending
to shop for a buyer to pay a premium for preliminary processing approval received, who must then
award a contract for design of the facility,- it is hoped the time will be inadequate, and approval that
had been granted will lapse.
In order for the program to be considered a serious effort to encourage the private sector to
provide needed public facilities, it is also apparent that lead time to get them built should be
minimized. Processing time should be minimized, and thereafter, only a serious developer should
be given opportunity to participate. A new land value will be created by approval of such a
proposal, but that value should be reserved to the investor/builder seriously intending to
incorporate the valuation awarded in the community facility justifying award of HSD land
valuation.
A new form of "re-zoning" has been suggested. It becomes a zoning category awarded to the
permitted building rather than the empty site on which it might be placed. Only the presence of the
kind of building proposed creates the community need being satisfied, and, without the building,
the value-added by community proximity cannot be realized by the community.
The type of vertical shelter building that has been described, when built, will be among the
most expensive buildings in the Keys on a cost-per-square foot basis. Every effort must be made
to assure that an opportunity exists for total project cost to remain in the realm of economic
feasibility. An "add-on" land speculation premium for zoning processing should be prevented.
That premium may be needed to pay for the community safety asset cost premium
encumbered to build the development envisioned. It takes the building itself for that public safety
value to be realized. Need to pay for non-productive siphoning off of an artiticialland-value may
remove the margin of potential yield on investment needed to pay for the building itself With that,
there may be no building, and the public safety risk will remain what it was.
The greatest likelihood ofthe needed shelter facilities coming into being, given the premium
costs described to build them, suggest that only the lowest cost sites are likely to allow
consideration by a developer. (Where land already held by the county, of appropriate size and
location, is available, it might be offered for sale at a nominal price to a developer solely for HSD
use.)
Fortunately, the siting requirements for shelter purposes described, and the conditions
contributing to highest prices of land in the Keys, are mutually exclusive. In general, the highest
priced land in the Keys is on the water (or a canal providing convenient access to the water), or
commercial property immediately accessible from the Overseas Highway. (A substantial value may
also be placed on availability of an unobstructed view of the sea.)
By contrast, siting requirements for a vertical shelter project require it to be located as far
-18-
from the nearest shoreline as possible (not less than 750 feet as written in the draft), and not closer
to US.Rte.#1 than 300 feet,-to avoid creation of another traffic congestion hub on US. #1 during
all the time the building will not be called upon to provide its hurricane emergency response.
The combination of "away from shoreline" and "away from US. Route # 1" also defines the
lowest land valuation areas of the Keys considered "buildable". Accessibility from US. Route #1,
via good paved secondary roads, remains a requirement, but this sort of access would also be a
minimum requirement for any viable commercial development as well.
E. Potential Cost-Offsetting Economic Values Created
Other than land appreciation as a value-added component of completed facilities, possession
of the only tall building within a five-mile distance creates a unique "address" that also
distinguishes the building. Such a building, offering back-up power for even conventional power
outages that afflict many areas of the Keys, also has additional appeals to users that create a basis
for commanding a premium for the "net rentable" space made available. The fact that the building
is capable of surviving most hurricane risks to which the area may be subject should itself command
a premium in the market. Certain fixed costs to an owner, such as insurance premium for flood and
glass damage (on the building), and for occupants (on contents), may also become a selling point.
Finally, the principal attraction of the Keys, the view of surrounding oceans, which creates
premium land values along shorelines, may suddenly become available to occupants in the middle
of the island, on floor levels high enough above trees to be able to see across intervening land.
Availability of such a vantage point should also command a premium, particularly for such a facility
as a roof-top restaurant.
VI. ATTRACTING VENTURE CAPITAL
Once the new rules have been adopted, another lapse of perhaps three years at the least can
be expected before the first structures built under the program are likely to become available.
Buildings of the sort envisioned will require investment oflarger amounts of capital than has
traditionally been required for projects ofthis sort. They may also be expected to demand building
trades skills not commonly available in the Keys (another source of increased construction cost to
prospective developers). The additional costs to the building for provision of sprinkler and stand-
pipe systems, and fire-proof construction details are also encumbered on tall buildings, and the
absence of adequate fire-fighting equipment to serve tall buildings in the Keys will also become a
consideration (fire hydrant pressure 1)
It is likely that attracting prospective developer(s) will become dependent on attracting
developers not presently operating in the Keys. Some amount of public relations efforts might be
-19-
needed to inform developers from beyond the borders of Monroe County of the emergence of a
new, if limited, opportunity here. Emergence of the Internet as an international source of news to
investors should relieve the communications problem.
The construction industry has always had an internal "grapevine" of its own, and word will
spread without any sizeable advertising effort (web page ?). It is most likely that one or another of
the self-appointed guardian organizations will furnish the needed furor to obtain media coverage
of the program at no advertising cost at all, particularly if announcement of the proposed program
falls on a slow day for news. In addition, several more enterprising of the local real estate finns, that
also have financial contacts outside the United States, can be expected to initiate efforts to line up
land assemblies meeting siting criteria to create syndicates for the purpose. Local joint ventures can
develop appropriate packages, and additional publicity will be provided by "leakage" from these
efforts, probably while adoption of the program itself is still under debate.
The creation of "venture capital" organizations has become quite prevalent in financial
circles. While tax-shelter gimmickry is no longer available to launch real estate developments of
specious economic value, this new type of available development potential must be economically
sound, as a conventional investment intended to produce a genuine economic yield, rather than as
a tax evasion device.
Ultimately, everything must find its own level of attractiveness between marketplace for
facilities, and construction cost of regulatory compliance.
VIT. Special Administrative Procedures
Since the land use regulations were adopted, county and municipal planning staffs will be
facing the need to deal with requests for a new type of exception to existing provisions ofland use
regulations (not to mention the variety of other state and federal regulators overlapping their
functions). For the first time, the function of applicants is to provide a needed community service
for which the plan itself made no provision. Obviously, our local governments do not have the
resources to supply the community needs cited, and continued participation in the FEMA program
(and Florida statutes themselves) require them to plan and program provision of shelter facilities
(a requirement that has not been seriously addressed in the effort to drive land use planning by an
"envirocentric" single purpose agenda.)
Previously, requests for major conditional use variances, or exceptions to provisions of land
use regulations, generally involved processing of requests to obtain additional benefits to a property
owner. In all these cases, the sole beneficiary of granting a conditional use or variance has been the
owner. In departing from provisions of the plan, whatever disadvantage might be incurred has been
at the expense of the surrounding community, or some perceived "sacrifice" of the presumed
"integrity" of the land use plan itself
-20-
In general, such requests are reviewed to determine whether or not granting such requests
adversely affect the intent of the land use plan, create adverse demands on public facilities, or inflict
adverse impacts on the community at large to accomplish a private purpose. The principal focus of
review processes has been, and remains, to determine whether or not a reason can be foundfor
denial of such requests, and/or to exact a premium payment in impact fees for its approval. The
over-riding operative principle has been to allow nothing to depart from literal details of
regulations that might alter the intent of the plan under the circumstances of the request. Such
review procedures are designed to prevent or minimize deviation from details of content ofthe plan
as it now exists.
Nothing about the existing plan includes specific provisions for establishment of a series of
emergency hurricane shelters, or allocation of land use for the purpose. What is therefore being
proposed will actually become, in effect, a zoning classification, perhaps "Hurricane Shelter
Development (HSD)", to be placed on maps by procedures suggested, only upon completion of
construction of the proposed facilities as approved.
Review of applications for HSD changes in land use designation must be seen as being quite
different from major conditional use applications previously processed by the planning
departments. The review process cannot focus on preservation of the plan as it exists. Granting
approval to applicants presenting requests fulfilling requirements of the proposed new regulations
provides a benefit to the surrounding community of life-saving magnitude, and is intended to
rectifY a glaring oversight in the plan as it exists! In contrast to present procedures for review of
proposed deviations from the plan as it exists, the new process is oriented toward protection of
human life and safety by willingly granting a variation from a plan that failed to provide it.
Buildings meeting the requirements stated in the proposed regulations will undoubtedly have
an impact on areas surrounding any proposed site meeting HSD siting requirements as stated. In
general, to be viable they must become a traffic hub, imposing a substantial increase in daily trips
on tributary road systems providing them with the access requirements for a shelter site. Site
requirements for their being somewhat removed from more densely developed areas will
concurrently force them into areas presently indicated on planning maps as designated for less
dense volumes of traffic development.
On its face, the new HSD category establishes requirements that create a paradox for
traditional review processes. This paradox must be fully recognized by all those involved with
review procedures. Establishment of HSD zones will create a new community hub specifically
where existing plans did not provide such a hub. The review process must be seen as one involving
a trade-off between modifYing the plan to accommodate an oversight fault in its details, - or finding
adverse impacts on retention of the existing plan concept in the immediate vicinity of proposed
HSD sites as being of such great community importance that it supersedes the importance of saving
a few hundred lives!
Under these conditions, it is difficult to conceive of any impact on surrounding areas being
-21-
of greater significance than the risk encumbered by denial of such a requested zoning change, other
than an impact which itself might be measurable as resulting in risk of several hundred human lives.
From a planning perspective, the opportunity to create a set of off-highway, off waterfront
hubs should actually be seen as a beneficial relief for some of the problems inherent in the plan as
it presently exists (viz- in explaining the intent of the designation "suburban commercial", in the
land use plan, it is described as intended to provide for local commercial occupancies to be located
off US Rte.l, to relieve some ofthe traffic impacts on US Rte.l for local facilities not needing a site
on the highway. Having explained that concept, on the maps that were developed in the county, one
cannot find a single parcel of SC land zoning in the lower Keys except along US Rte 1.)
Whatever volume of traffic may be diverted away from existing high traffic areas by these
scattered HSD projects can only have a beneficial effect on curtailing development of increasing
congestion along the Overseas Highway. If highway and waterfront could be thought of as
equivalent of our elongated "downtown" (the CBD in planner jargon), these HSD projects might be
thought of as analogous to suburban decentralization. To the extent that the work force in these
buildings lives in nearby residential areas, to-and-from work trips can occur without use of
US.Rte.#l for work-related commuting. To the extent that an office occupancy serves the
surrounding residential area (viz.- a group practice center of physicians operating an out-patient
clinic), another set of trip origins and destinations can be moved from U.S. Rte.#l to secondary
roads. Were the facility a hotel, the volume of tourist traffic it attracts might be traffic otherwise
impacting a waterfront location.
In all likelihood, had each island ever developed a deliberate Year 2025 plan, the sort of
thing conventionally thought of as land use "planning", it is doubtful if each would not have
envisioned a set of decentralized off-highway and off-waterfront community centers of one sort or
another. Absent such deliberate planning, a set ofHSD zones based on the suggested siting criteria
may accomplish a similar planning purpose, and actually serve the needs of public safety rather than
special interest pressures of land speculators. The recent wave of community incorporations is
undoubtedly the result of increasing awareness of the fact that each of these new incorporated
communities recognize that it has unique needs as a community that are not necessarily served by
a one-size-fits-everything plan devised to serve the disparate needs of the county as a whole.
A new concern might enter the scene which might not leave advantage of a location on
Duval Street or US. Rte. # 1 as secure an attraction as it might now seem. When built, will a US.
# 1 location still attract a user in the face of availability of an accessible location in hurricane-safe
buildings away from highway congestion? The presence of an alternative is enough to cause some
people to pause before continuing to invest in existing patterns of development. Most of the present
restriction of development (under the terms of the Rate of Growth ordinance) were originally
derived from efforts to support what has become recognized as the obviously outmoded concept of
the capacity for overland evacuation in response to a hurricane threat.
An overriding factor that cannot be underestimated is the required lead time. HSD projects
-22-
deserve high-priority expediting of approval procedures. It was clearly intended by the land use
planning process to constrain rate of development ("growth management"), primarily via
expressions of concern about hurricane evacuation lead time!. HSD projects relieve the concern
that ostensibly was purported to be the justification for present "growth management" procedures.
For the kinds of projects intended to be constructed under the HSD program, the lead time
between project concept and completion of construction, exclusive of time consumed by
administrative procedures, cannot be expected to be much less than three years. No one can foresee
which of those three years might be the one bringing a killer storm. Even an approved project may
actually come too late.
In terms of risk evaluation, the risk of error in approving a project, even despite some
technical deficiency in an application, is smaller than the risk offailing to approve one that had the
potential of saving lives despite the deficiency. The better procedure would be to approve proposed
projects containing deficiencies on a conditional basis (conditional on correcting the deficiency
before the building permit will be issued), than refraining from taking action until every detail is
in place in administrative paper work. In general, it is more important that projects proceed on the
basis of being brought into compliance than that a basis for rejection be found. Permit processing
momentum should not be slowed.
On the other hand, too small a site to be correctable, too close a site to one already approved,
or similar inadequacies inherent in the location or the amount of land assembled do not lend
themselves to conditional approval. These are deficiencies that cannot be rectified by the applicant.
They are inherent in the land itself The applicant must find another site ifhe wishes to participate
in the program. Even the presence of examples of endangered species should not become the basis
for rejection (mitigation or transplanting is preferable to rejection). The over-riding endangered
specie of concern in this program is homo sapiens!
Another planning purpose being served might be that sites offered will probably be from
among types providing for some amount of residential occupancy. The least likely occupancy type
for HSD projects will be some sort of "affordable housing" residential use,- other than provision of
housing for staff In the process of re-zoning, existing permitted residential densities, no matter how
few, will be deleted by change to HSD zoning for all non-residential occupancies proposed for HSD
projects. To that extent, existing permitted ultimate residential density will be reduced. In the
proposed regulation, no increase in residential density has been permitted for HSD projects.
If despite such provisions, someone should decide to attempt a super-luxury condominium
development (the only sort that could afford the costs of such an expensive type of building), any
density increase could be dependent on use of transfer development rights. To the extent that those
development rights are transferred from other places where single family units might have been
built, more open space is created elsewhere, and no net increase in total density has occurred. In
addition, accommodating existing density vertically reduces land coverage and open space
consumption that occurs under existing single-family residential categories in the land use
-23-
regulations. To the extent that existing residential occupancy density has been predicated on a need
to assure adequate evacuation lead time in the event of a hurricane emergency, it is recognized that
all such occupancy capacity provided in the project contributes nothing to hurricane evacuation
lead time requirements, and in fact reduces that lead time requirement by the amount of
shelter/refuge capacity provided.
Protections have been built-in to proposed regulation language to be more than adequate to
prevent adoption of the program from contravening the purpose and intent of those land use
regulations that were not derived from hurricane evacuation considerations. Had the need been
thought out thoroughly at the time the land use regulations were thrown together, it is more likely
that incorporation of something very nearly like the program presented herein would have been part
of the original plan contents. Had that been done, with the HSD zone locations selected in advance
as part of the plan, it would unfortunately also have awarded valuation of the site being created to
the land rather than the building, and have simply become grist to land speculators' mills, creating
a cost premium for sites that would have reduced potential economic feasibility of constructing the
projects, or at least deferred a "taker" until the market developed to a point where even the elevated
price became "affordable". That does not drive developers to do it now.
As presented, in order to realize any benefit of ever building HSD projects, the developer's
only opportunity may be to do it now. The opportunity is lost if permitted and not acted upon, and
the opportunity may be lost if someone else does it first, somewhere else, within four miles of
wherever another developer may have preferred to put one.
The following text is proposed as a special purpose new zoning classification under the local
Land Development Regulations. It provides for review under terms of provisions applicable to
major conditional use projects, with one basic difference in the function ofthe review and approval
process. The site does not receive the requested reclassification in the process of review and
approval procedures. Reclassification and map changes do not occur until the building proposed
for construction on the proposed site has been built.
The intent and concern of most provisions of existing major conditional use review
procedures has been concern that the community and resources of the area are not adversely affected
by changes being sought or developments proposed. In the case of the new category being created,
the intent is to provide encouragement of developers to supply a needed service for protection of
the community, where it can be of greatest service to tbe community, albeit understood to perhaps
be contrary to existing land use concerns for a specific parcel.
Such applications should be reviewed more simply than the original defensive intent of
major conditional use review procedures. Many detailed requirements applicable to most major
conditional use types of projects should be waived as inapplicable for preliminary review. Site
requirements and limitations themselves, as provided herein, automatically eliminate the need for
most contents of environmental impact assessments.
-24-
Such remaining impacts, that may not be seen as provided for by the HSD criteria stipulated,
are deemed acceptable by inference, in return for the public safety community service being
provided,- regardless of what might have previously been considered an adverse effect.
Recognition ofthe need for such shelter capacity has become widely recognized. When the proposed
new regulations have been adopted, at best we might anticipate that it will take perhaps three years
before the first such buildings will become available to serve the identified need_ Ergo,
"If'twere done when 'tis done, 'twere best 'twere done quickly"...
-25-
PROPOSED CODE REVISION TEXT
HURRICANE SHELTER DEVELOPMENT (HSD) ZONES
1. Oualifying Site Requirements for HSD Zones
A site for a proposed HSD will not be considered eligible for this classification if it fails to
meet ~ of the following basic site requirements:
a. The site must contain not less than 4.0 acres nor more than 6.0 acres in area.
b. No point on any site boundary shall fall within 750 linear feet of the nearest shoreline of
a natural body of water. (Shoreline is defined for purposes of these regulations as a point whose
natural elevation is less than or equal to Mean High Water as established by reference to the United
States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) 1929 National Gulf Coast Vertical Datum (NGVD), and
continues from there to a natural body of open water.
c. Minimum width of a site across its narrowest dimension shall be not less than 400 feet.
d. The site shall not be within four miles distance to next nearest existing HSD approved site,
except public (county, state, or federal government owned) buildings also complying with
requirements of supplying HSD facilities in accordance with these regulations.
e. No site boundary shall be within 300 feet of the right-of-way of U.S. Route #1.
2. Special Structural Design Requirements for Buildings in HSD Zones
No building or other structures intended for human occupancy may be constructed within a
HSD zone which, in addition to compliance with all applicable requirements of the Building Code
and all codes of reference therein, fails to meet all additional criteria listed below:
a. Minimum elevation oflowest occupied floor shall not be less than 1.0 foot above highest
grade elevation of the site. The exterior of the building shall be flood-proofed to an elevation not less
than 1.0 foot above the base flood elevation in accordance with recommended Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA) flood-proofing requirements. Flood-proofing shall not be
required if the lowest habitable space is a minimum of one foot above base flood level in an "A"
zone, or if the bottom of the lowest supporting horizontal structural member is a minimum of 1.0
foot above the base flood elevation ifthe site is within a "V" zone as indicated on the FEMA 100-year
flood maps.
b.The building(s) shall be designed to resist a fastest-mile sustained basic wind speed of 155
miles per hour, applied in accordance with provisions of Section 1601 of the Florida Building Code
for wind loading (ASCE 7- 98) with all resulting stresses calculated remaining within limits
Page 1 of 7
permitted under relevant provisions of the building code pertaining to materials employed in the
construction.
c. All glazed exterior wall openings shall be equipped with permanent storm shutters capable
of being operated from within the building, and capable of functioning when subjected to the same
wind loading as that applied to the building in accordance with requirements of section 2.b. above,
or shall be glazed with polycarbonate or laminated safety glass affixed to window frames in a manner
calculated to withstand combined effects of both wind loading specified in paragraph 2. b. above and
a concentrated impact load of 200 pounds applied anywhere on the glazed surface.
d. All support structures located below the elevation ofthe base flood level must be designed
to function as intended when considered inundated to a static water level at the base flood elevation,
concurrently with wind loading specified in paragraph 2.b. above.
e. Structural adequacy of upper floor levels shall remain unimpaired if all or any portion of
enclosing perimeter walls below the base flood level were removed or destroyed.
f Barometric pressure equalization shall be provided to assure that all enclosed volumes of
space are provided with positive venting of interior volumes to the building exterior under any
conditions in which outside barometric pressure falls below 27 inches of mercury (27.0" Hg). Such
venting controls may be provided by gravity operated dampers combined with mechanically
operated methods to assure at least two operative redundant mechanisms being available to prevent
existence of a pressure differential between enclosed interior spaces and an external barometric
pressure greater than two inches of mercury (2.0" Hg). All exterior walls, fenestration, and other
openings shall be designed to withstand that two-inch maximum pressure differential without rupture
or distress.
g. All drawings submitted in application for a building permit for construction in conditionally
approved HSD zones shall bear a certification, by a professional engineer registered to practice in
the State of Florida, that the structure(s) shown are in full compliance with the requirements of the
provisions of section 2. of the HSD land development regulations.
3. Special Building Facilities Requirements in HSD Zones
a. Elevated potable water storage containing a minimum capacity of 6.0 U.S.gallons of
potable water per person for the rated shelter capacity of the building plus the normally expected
residents of the building shall be provided. (Rated refuge capacity shall be based on 15 square feet
of floor space per person for floor area designated as emergency refuge area for the project.) Stored
water shall be located within or on the building 1.0 feet or more above the base flood elevation, in
such a way that the water supply contained will be available by gravity flow to designated refuge
area(s) indicated on the plans.
b. Storage space for the amount of emergency provisions and supplies prescribed by the Momoe
Page 2 of 7
Monroe County Office of Emergency Management for the number of persons in rated shelter
capacity for a three-day emergency duration.
c. A communications room equipped with at least a minimum complement of UHF /VHF radio
communication equipment, with capability of operating on frequencies specified by the Monroe
County Office of Emergency Management as needed to maintain radio communications during
hurricane emergency conditions.
d. Emergency electric power generating facilities shall be supplied by co-generation or stand-
by electric generator equipment capable of sustaining not less than 50% of peak electric power
demand of the entire HSD development independently of any external electric power supply from
public utility distribution systems serving the site. Fuel supply required for operation of electric
power generation equipment shall be of sufficient capacity, stored above the base flood elevation,
to carry electric load at 50% of peak demand capacity for a period of not less than 72 hours. This
emergency power supply system shall be in addition to such other emergency lighting and power
distribution systems as are required by building codes directly and/or by reference to other applicable
standards.
e. Paved access roads shall be constructed by the developer in accordance with Monroe
County road standards, across dedicated easements and/or public rights-of-way as may be required,
to conjoin the intended principle access route to the site, together with at least one additional
alternate route to the site, with the closest existing paved roadway along intended routes of travel
interconnecting the site with existing paved roadway systems.
f. Not less than 10% of total habitable floor area approved for construction on the site in the
first phase of its proposed construction sequence shall be located at an elevation at least 55 feet
above natural grade existing on the site before construction activities begin.
4. Site Development Criteria for Buildings in HSD Zones
a. Minimum set-back distance of any point on any building wall line shall not be less than
150 feet from nearest point on a site boundary line. Unenclosed cantilevered balconies, walkways,
and roof overhangs, above base flood elevation, not supported by vertical supports extending from
ground level, may extend into the space above these ground-level set-backs.
b. Maximum building land coverage as seen in plan outline shall not exceed eight and one-
half per cent (8.5 %) of total buildable land area of the HSD tract.
c. Basic floor area ratio (FAR) of all buildings constructed within designated HSD shall not
exceed 0.4, exclusive of all non-enclosed covered areas, areas not intended for occupancy (viz. -open
"stilt" areas below base flood elevation), and all areas designated exclusively for purpose of
accommodating required elevated emergency equipment and storage of emergency supplies as
required by paragraphs 3.a, 3.b, and 3.e above. That basic permissible FAR may be increased by an
Page 3 of 7
permissible building land coverage, as permitted under paragraph 4.b., not covered by the footprint
of the proposed building (s).
d. To permit attainment of maximum FAR permitted by paragraph 4.c., within land coverage
constraints imposed by paragraph 4. b. above, all existing building height limitations pertaining to all
other categories of land use, together with all other local government ordinances or regulations of
other governmental agencies limiting maximum permissible building height, are waived for
buildings in HSD zones.
5. Special Occupan~ and Use Limitations in HSD Zones
a. Multiple use occupancies may be combined in a single building and/or within a single
HSD proj ect if so indicated on the plans, and if all provisions of building codes pertaining to multiple
use occupancies are met for the combination of occupancies proposed
b. If either multiple use occupancies of a single building, or two or more buildings are
proposed for a HSD project, arrangements must be provided for confining supply of electric power
from the emergency electric power generation system, and emergency water supply system, to that
portion of the facility containing all required hurricane shelter/refuge accommodations during periods
of declared hurricane emergencies.
c. Building floor area devoted to residential occupancy, if provided, shall not exceed the
maximum permissible number of dwelling units permitted under the existing zoning classification
of the site for which HSD designation is requested, nor shall it exceed a FAR of 0 .15 of the total FAR
permitted, whichever is greater.
d. Maximum floor area of a hotel/motel guest room shall not exceed 400 square feet, shall
not provide kitchen facilities within guest rooms, nor shall the maximum number of hotel guest
rooms exceed 25 units per acre.
e. Floor areas designated for emergency hurricane shelter accommodations shall not be
included in determination of maximum allowable FAR for the non-emergency occupancy proposed.
f. Required parking ratios for each type of occupancy proposed for inclusion in HSD projects
shall be provided in accordance with required parking ratios for each use included as defined
elsewhere in the land use regulations. Provision of such parking facilities may make use of land
in set-back clearances designated in paragraph 4.a. above, and/or open parking deck level(s) a
minimum of 9.0 feet below the lowest enclosed floor area.
g. Minimum designated emergency shelter floor areas in HSD projects shall be:
I) For HSD projects containing not more than 60,000 square feet of gross building
floor area, at least 6,000 square feet of designated shelter area floor space, in a shape suitable for
intended shelter accommodation.
Page 4 of 7
2) For HSD projects containing in excess of60,000 square feet of gross building floor
area, designated emergency shelter floor area shall be not less than 10 % of the gross building floor
area of the project.
6. Special Maior Conditional Use Administrative Review Procedures for HSD Zones
Applications for HSD classification shall generally be required to be accompanied by the
same supportive documentation as that required to accompany application for a zoning ammendment
as prescribed by existing land use plan regulations, with exception that all Monroe County impact
fees shall be waived, all constraints on development stipulated under the Rate of Growth regulations
shall be waived, and all other matters clearly not intended to supersede HSD concerns may also be
waived by the Director of Planning.
To fulfill the intent of provision ofHSD's, the following conditions are recognized:
a. No HSD zone designated may contain internal subdivision(s) of the parcel for which HSD
classification is being sought. Designated HSD zones, may not thereafter be subdivided.
b. Internal portions ofthe tract shall not be further classified in other land use categories.
c. The master plan submitted for approval of a proposed HSD project shall include location,
size, floor area content, and proposed occupancy category(ies) of each structure to be incorporated
in the development of the entire tract, and the intended phasing or sequencing of construction. All
shelter and access road provisions must be included in the first phase.
d. Ownership of the entire project, consisting of both land and proposed improvements, shall
be held by a single legal entity authorized to hold title thereto; such legal entity shall hold an
undivided interest in the entire project contents insofar as land records of the local government are
concerned; that single owning entity shall be responsible for payment of all taxes or other obligations
of an owner; and shall be responsible for maintenance of all emergency refuge/shelter provisions
required in an operable condition at all times. If, at any time, upon inspection by the Monroe County
Office of Emergency Management, deficiencies in emergency facility requirements are noted, they
will be reported to the responsible legal entity owning and responsible for such maintenance, and if
not rectified within thirty days of receipt of such notice, may be rectified by the Office of
Emergency Management, and costs thereof entered as a lien upon the property with procedure for
recovering that cost being available at law in the same manner as any other obligation of a property
owner to a lienor.
e. The master plan for the development shall clearly indicate all dimensions of set-back
distances, direction and proximity to nearest shore lines and nearest point on the U. S.Rte.# 1 right-of-
way, routes of travel intended for access, wetlands exclusions, and all data necessary to permit
determination of compliance with all provisions required for projects in HSD zones.
Page 5 of 7
f If phased development be contemplated, all special HSD requirements must be provided
in the first phase to be constructed, and no occupancy permit may be issued for use of any facility
constructed within HSD zoned parcels until all special HSD building requirements have been
constructed, installed, and are in operational readiness.
g. No limitations that may be applicable pursuant to the provisions of Rate of Growth
regulations shall be applicable to HSD projects and all building permits required for prosecution of
the work shall be issued outside whatever limitations may be imposed upon the issuance of such
permits pursuant to Rate of Growth regulations.
7. HSD AP.vroval and Authorization Procedures
a. Applications for HSD zoning designation shall be recorded and dated in chronological
order received. As each application is received, it shall be checked against all applications received
bearing a prior chronological order number to determine if the application relates to a parcel
interfering with the four-mile proximity rule contained in paragraph I.d. above. Should an
interference be found, applicant shall be so advised, and shall be given the location and name of the
applicant holding prior application rights. The second applicant may, at his discretion, either
withdraw his application, or leave it filed with notation indicating his queue position relative to
other applications predating it pertaining to the same area with which it is in conflict by virtue of
the proximity rule. Should the holder of the prior filing fail to fulfill all requirements, or fail to
pursue construction of his approved project as provided for herein (resulting in cancellation of the
prior approval as provided for herein), the holder of the next dated application for the area shall be
immediately notified to proceed with his application.
b. The Planning Department staff shall review applications as filed for compliance with all
provisions specified for HSD projects including consideration of waivers granted by the Director in
accordance with provisions of paragraph 6. above. Applicant shall be notified of any deficiencies
found, and shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit additional materials and/or amend
materials submitted to bring applications into full compliance. When all materials have been
assembled and verified as to completeness and compliance with all provisions contained herein, the
Director of Planning shall so certify the application, and it shall be considered by the Board of
County Commissioners for certification.
c. After approval is received from the Director of Planning, the project shall be placed on the
agenda for the next regular meeting of the Board of County commissioners. Procedures for final
approval thereafter shall be the same as those for other rezoning applications, except that approval
issued shall be no more than "conditional HSD approval", conditioned on: submittal of building
plans for building permits within six-months, start of construction within 60-days thereafter, up
through issuance of certificate of occupancy in accordance with usual procedures for building
construction. In addition, applicant shall be required to furnish a completion bond issued by a
recognized surety in the State of Florida to assure construction completion of the project if approved,
prior to issuance of a construction building permit by the Building Department.
Page 6 of 7
d. If, for any reason, any time allowances in that process are not met, "conditional HSD
approval" may be terminated, the land remains in the form of its land use designation before request
for its rezoning, and the application right shall be given to the next applicant in the queue for the
area. Should failure to prosecute work occur after construction has proceeded beyond foundation
work, owner and/or surety may be required to proceed with the work in accordance with the schedule
described in the completion bond, or restore the property to its original pre-construction condition,
unless delay is reasonably attributable to "forces majeur". Upon completion of the project, HSD
zoning designation shall be granted, shall be recorded, and land records and maps amended as
described Operation of facilities in accordance with HSD obligations shall become obligations of
whomever holds or acquires title to the property thereafter. Should restoration to pre-construction
conditions be chosen as alternative to project completion, zoning shall automatically remain in its
pre-construction category, and HSD development opportunity shall become available to the next
applicant in the queue. Only the completed project, not the land, may receive HSD designation.
e. The County Commission will hold the same review and public hearing process as is normal
procedure for any other rezoning approval.
f Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until required refuge/shelter provisions have
been installed, inspected, and approved by the Office of Emergency Management, in addition to
normal inspection and approval of construction by the Building Department, and as-built condition
of the building has been certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida as
having been built in compliance with all structural requirements for buildings in HSD zones. Owner
shall retain the services of a qualified licensed independent testing and inspection organization for
the duration of construction of the building to accompany such certification.
g. Upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the HSD project, land use plan maps shall
be amended to indicate boundaries of the HSD zone thereby created, and the new zoning
designation shall be recorded in land records on the deed for the parcel affected.
Page 7 of 7
PROPOSED CODE REVISION TEXT
HURRICANE SHELTER DEVELOPMENT (HSD) ZONES
1. Oualifying Site Requirements for HSD Zones
A site for a proposed HSD will not be considered eligible for this classification if it fails to
meet any of the following basic site requirements:
a. The site must contain not less than 4.0 acres nor more than 6.0 acres in area.
b. No point on any site boundary shall fall within 750 linear feet of the nearest shoreline of
a natural body of water. (Shoreline is defined for purposes of these regulations as a point whose
natural elevation is less than or equal to Mean High Water as established by reference to the United
States Coast and Geodetic Survey (USCGS) 1929 National Gulf Coast Vertical Datum (NGVD), and
continues from there to a natural body of open water.
c. Minimum width of a site across its narrowest dimension shall be not less than 400 feet.
d. The site shall not be within four miles distance to next nearest existing HSD approved site,
except public (county, state, or federal government owned) buildings also complying with
requirements of supplying HSD facilities in accordance with these regulations.
e. No site boundary shall be within 300 feet of the right-of-way of U.S. Route #1.
2. Special Structural Design Requirements for Buildings in HSD Zones
No building or other structures intended for human occupancy may be constructed within a
HSD zone which, in addition to compliance with all applicable requirements of the Building Code
and all codes of reference therein, fails to meet all additional criteria listed below:
a. Minimum elevation of lowest occupied floor shall not be less than 1.0 foot above highest
grade elevation ofthe site. The exterior of the building shall be flood-proofed to an elevation not less
than 1.0 foot above the base flood elevation in accordance with recommended Federal Emergency
Management Administration (FEMA) flood-proofing requirements. Flood-proofing shall not be
required if the lowest habitable space is a minimum of one foot above base flood level in an "A"
zone, or if the bottom of the lowest supporting horizontal structural member is a minimum of 1.0
foot above the base flood elevation ifthe site is within a "V" zone as indicated on the FEMA 100-year
flood maps.
b.The building(s) shall be designed to resist a fastest-mile sustained basic wind speed of155
miles per hour, applied in accordance with provisions of Section 1601 of the Florida Building Code
for wind loading (ASCE 7- 98) with all resulting stresses calculated remaining within limits
Page 1 of 7
permitted under relevant provisions of the building code pertaining to materials employed in the
construction.
c. All glazed exterior wall openings shall be equipped with permanent storm shutters capable
of being operated from within the building, and capable of functioning when subjected to the same
wind loading as that applied to the building in accordance with requirements of section 2.b. above,
or shall be glazed with polycarbonate or laminated safety glass affixed to window frames in a manner
calculated to withstand combined effects of both wind loading specified in paragraph 2.b. above and
a concentrated impact load of200 pounds applied anywhere on the glazed surface.
d. All support structures located below the elevation of the base flood level must be designed
to function as intended when considered inundated to a static water level at the base flood elevation,
concurrently with wind loading specified in paragraph 2.b. above applied to the building.
e. Structural adequacy of upper floor levels shall remain unimpaired if all or any portion of
enclosing perimeter walls below the base flood level were removed or destroyed.
f Barometric pressure equalization shall be provided to assure that all enclosed volumes of
space are provided with positive venting of interior volumes to the building exterior under any
conditions in which outside barometric pressure falls below 27 inches of mercury (27.0" Hg). Such
venting controls may be provided by gravity operated dampers combined with mechanically
operated methods to assure at least two operative redundant mechanisms being available to prevent
existence of a pressure differential between enclosed interior spaces and an external barometric
pressure greater than two inches of mercury (2.0" Hg). All exterior walls, fenestration, and other
openings shall be designed to withstand that two-inch maximum pressure differential without rupture
or distress.
g. All drawings submitted in application for a building permit for construction in conditionally
approved HSD zones shall bear a certification, by a professional engineer registered to practice in
the State of Florida, that the structure(s) shown are in full compliance with the requirements of the
provisions of section 2. of the HSD land development regulations.
3. Special Building Facilities Requirements in HSD Zones
a. Elevated potable water storage containing a minimum capacity of 6.0 U.S.gallons of
potable water per person for the rated shelter capacity of the building plus the normally expected
residents of the building shall be provided. (Rated refuge capacity shall be based on 15 square feet
of floor space per person for floor area designated as emergency refuge area for the project.) Stored
water shall be located within or on the building 1.0 feet or more above the base flood elevation, in
such a way that the water supply contained will be available by gravity flow to designated refuge
area(s) indicated on the plans.
b. Storage space for the amount of emergency provisions and supplies prescribed by the
Page 2 of 7
Monroe County Office of Emergency Management for the number of persons in rated shelter
capacity for a three-day emergency duration.
c. A communications room equipped with at least a minimum complement ofUHFNHF radio
communication equipment, with capability of operating on frequencies specified by the Monroe
County Office of Emergency Management as needed to maintain radio communications during
hurricane emergency conditions.
d. Emergency electric power generating facilities shall be supplied by co-generation or stand-
by electric generator equipment capable of sustaining not less than 50% of peak electric power
demand of the entire HSD development independently of any external electric power supply from
public utility distribution systems serving the site. Fuel supply required for operation of electric
power generation equipment shall be of sufficient capacity, stored above the base flood elevation,
to carry electric load at 50% of peak demand capacity for a period of not less than 72 hours. This
emergency power supply system shall be in addition to such other emergency lighting and power
distribution systems as are required by building codes directly and/or by reference to other applicable
standards.
e. Paved access roads shall be constructed by the developer in accordance with Monroe
County road standards, across dedicated easements and/or public rights-of-way as may be required,
to conjoin the intended principle access route to the site, together with at least one additional
alternate route to the site, with the closest existing paved roadway along intended routes of travel
interconnecting the site with existing paved roadway systems.
f. Not less than 10% of total habitable floor area approved for construction on the site in the
first phase of its proposed construction sequence shall be located at an elevation at least 55 feet
above natural grade existing on the site before construction activities began.
4. Site Development Criteria for Buildings in HSD Zones
a. Minimum set-back distance of any point on any building wall line shall not be less than
150 feet from nearest point on a site boundary line. Unenclosed cantilevered balconies, walkways,
and roof overhangs, above base flood elevation, not supported by vertical supports extending from
ground level, may extend into the space above these ground-level set-backs.
b. Maximum building land coverage as seen in plan outline shall not exceed eight and one-
half per cent (8.5 %) of total buildable land area of the HSD tract.
C. Basic floor area ratio (FAR) of all buildings constructed within designated HSD shall not
exceed 0.4, exclusive of all non-enclosed covered areas, areas not intended for occupancy (viz. -open
"stilt" areas below base flood elevation), and all areas designated exclusively for purpose of
accommodating required elevated emergency equipment and storage of emergency supplies as
required by paragraphs 3.a, 3.b, and 3.e above. That basic permissible FAR may be increased by an
Page 3 of 7
allowance of a FAR premium of an additional 0.05 for each 4,500 square feet of maximum
permissible building land coverage, as permitted under paragraph 4. b., not covered by the footprint
of the proposed building (s).
d. To permit attainment of maximum FAR permitted by paragraph 4. c., within land coverage
constraints imposed by paragraph 4. b. above, all existing building height limitations pertaining to all
other categories of land use, together with all other local government ordinances or regulations of
other governmental agencies limiting maximum permissible building height, are waived for
buildings in HSD zones.
5. Special Occupancy and Use Limitations in HSD Zones
a. Multiple use occupancies may be combined in a single building and/or within a single
HSD project if so indicated on the plans, and if all provisions of building codes pertaining to multiple
use occupancies are met for the combination of occupancies proposed.
b. If either multiple use occupancies of a single building, or two or more buildings are
proposed for a HSD project, arrangements must be provided for confining supply of electric power
from the emergency electric power generation system, and emergency water supply system, to that
portion ofthe facility containing all required hurricane shelter/refuge accommodations during periods
of declared hurricane emergencies.
c. Building floor area devoted to residential occupancy, if provided, shall not exceed the
maximum permissible number of dwelling units permitted under the existing zoning classification
of the site for which HSD designation is requested, nor shall it exceed a FAR of 0 .15 of the total FAR
permitted, whichever is greater.
d. Maximum floor area of a hotel/motel guest room shall not exceed 400 square feet, shall
not provide kitchen facilities within guest rooms, nor shall the maximum number of hotel guest
rooms exceed 25 units per acre.
e. Floor areas designated for emergency hurricane shelter accommodations shall not be
included in determination of maximum allowable FAR for the non-emergency occupancy proposed.
f Required parking ratios for each type of occupancy proposed for inclusion in HSD
projects shall be provided in accordance with required parking ratios for each use included as defined
elsewhere in the land use regulations. Provision of such parking facilities may make use of land
in set-back clearances designated in paragraph 4.a. above, and/or open parking deck level(s) a
minimum of9.0 feet below the lowest enclosed floor area.
g. Minimum designated emergency shelter floor areas in HSD projects shall be:
1) For HSD projects containing not more than 60,000 square feet of gross building
Page 4 of 7
floor area, at least 6,000 square feet of designated shelter area floor space, in a shape suitable for
intended shelter accommodation.
2) For HSD projects containing in excess of60,OOO square feet of gross building floor
area, designated emergency shelter floor area shall be not less than 10 % of the gross building floor
area of the project.
6. Special Maior Conditional Use Administrative Review Procedures for HSD Zones
Applications for HSD classification shall generally be required to be accompanied by the
same supportive documentation as that required to accompany application for a zoning ammendment
as prescribed by existing land use plan regulations, with exception that all Monroe County impact
fees shall be waived, all constraints on development stipulated under the Rate of Growth regulations
shall be waived, and all other matters clearly not intended to supersede HSD concerns may also be
waived by the Director of Planning.
To fulfill the intent of provision ofHSD's, the following conditions are recognized:
a. No HSD zone designated may contain internal subdivision(s) ofthe parcel for which HSD
classification is being sought. Designated HSD zones, may not thereafter be subdivided.
b. Internal portions of the tract shall not be further classified in other land use categories.
c. The master plan submitted for approval of a proposed HSD project shall include location,
size, floor area content, and proposed occupancy category( ies) of each structure to be incorporated
in the development of the entire tract, and the intended phasing or sequencing of construction. All
shelter and access road provisions must be included in the first phase.
d. Ownership of the entire project, consisting of both land and proposed improvements, shall
be held by a single legal entity authorized to hold title thereto; such legal entity shall hold an
undivided interest in the entire project contents insofar as land records of the local government are
concerned; that single owning entity shall be responsible for payment of all taxes or other obligations
of an owner; and shall be responsible for maintenance of all emergency refuge/shelter provisions
required in an operable condition at all times. If, at any time, upon inspection by the Monroe County
Office of Emergency Management, deficiencies in emergency facility requirements are noted, they
will be reported to the responsible legal entity owning and responsible for such maintenance, and if
not rectified within thirty days of receipt of such notice, may be rectified by the Office of
Emergency Management, and costs thereof entered as a lien upon the property with procedure for
recovering that cost being available at law in the same manner as any other obligation of a property
owner to a lienor.
e. The master plan for the development shall clearly indicate all dimensions of set-back
Page 5 of 7
distances, direction and proximity to nearest shore lines and nearest point on the U S.Rte. # I right-of-
way, routes of travel intended for access, wetlands exclusions, and all data necessary to permit
determination of compliance with all provisions required for projects in HSD zones.
f If phased development be contemplated, all special HSD requirements must be provided
in the first phase to be constructed, and no occupancy permit may be issued for use of any facility
constructed within HSD zoned parcels until all special HSD building requirements have been
constructed, installed, and are in operational readiness.
g. No limitations that may be applicable pursuant to the provisions of Rate of Growth
regulations shall be applicable to HSD projects and all building permits required for prosecution of
the work shall be issued outside whatever limitations may be imposed upon the issuance of such
permits pursuant to Rate of Growth regulations.
7. HSD Approval and Authorization Procedures
a. Applications for HSD zoning designation shall be recorded and dated in chronological
order received. As each application is received, it shall be checked against all applications received
bearing a prior chronological order number to determine if the application relates to a parcel
interfering with the four-mile proximity rule contained in paragraph I.d. above. Should an
interference be found, applicant shall be so advised, and shall be given the location and name of the
applicant holding prior application rights. The second applicant may, at his discretion, either
withdraw his application, or leave it filed with notation indicating his queue position relative to
other applications predating it pertaining to the same area with which it is in conflict by virtue of
the proximity rule. Should the holder of the prior filing fail to fulfill all requirements, or fail to
pursue construction of his approved project as provided for herein (resulting in cancellation of the
prior approval as provided for herein), the holder of the next dated application for the area shall be
immediately notified to proceed with his application.
b. The Planning Department staff shall review applications as filed for compliance with all
provisions specified for HSD projects including consideration of waivers granted by the Director in
accordance with provisions of paragraph 6. above. Applicant shall be notified of any deficiencies
found, and shall be afforded a reasonable opportunity to submit additional materials and/or amend
materials submitted to bring applications into full compliance. When all materials have been
assembled and verified as to completeness and compliance with all provisions contained herein, the
Director of Planning shall so certify the application, and it shall be considered by the Board of
County Commissioners for certification.
c. After approval is received from the Director of Planning, the project shall be placed on the
agenda for the next regular meeting of the Board of County commissioners. Procedures for final
approval thereafter shall be the same as those for other rezoning applications, except that approval
issued shall be no more than "conditional HSD approval", conditioned on: submittal of building
Page 6 of 7
plans for building permits within six-months, start of construction within 60-days thereafter, up
through issuance of certificate of occupancy in accordance with usual procedures for building
construction. In addition, applicant shall be required to furnish a completion bond issued by a
recognized surety in the State of Florida to assure construction completion of the project if approved,
prior to issuance of a construction building permit by the Building Department.
d. If, for any reason, any time allowances in that process are not met, "conditional HSD
approval" may be terminated, the land remains in the form of its land use designation before request
for its rezoning, and the application right shall be given to the next applicant in the queue for the
area. Should failure to prosecute work occur after construction has proceeded beyond foundation
work, owner and/or surety may be required to proceed with the work in accordance with the schedule
described in the completion bond, or restore the property to its original pre-construction condition,
unless delay is reasonably attributable to "forces majeur". Upon completion of the project, HSD
zoning designation shall be granted, shall be recorded, and land records and maps amended as
described. Operation of facilities in accordance with HSD obligations shall become obligations of
whomever holds or acquires title to the property thereafter. Should restoration to pre-construction
conditions be chosen as alternative to project completion, zoning shall automatically remain in its
pre-construction category, and HSD development opportunity shall become available to the next
applicant in the queue. Only the completed project, not the land, may receive HSD designation.
e. The County Commission will hold the same review and public hearing process as is normal
procedure for any other rezoning approval.
f. Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until required refuge/shelter provisions have
been installed, inspected, and approved by the Office of Emergency Management, in addition to
normal inspection and approval of construction by the Building Department, and as-built condition
of the building has been certified by a professional engineer registered in the State of Florida as
having been built in compliance with all structural requirements for buildings in HSD zones. Owner
shall retain the services of a qualified licensed independent testing and inspection organization for
the duration of construction of the building to accompany such certification.
g. Upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the HSD project, land use plan maps shall
be amended to indicate boundaries of the HSD zone thereby created, and the new zoning
designation shall be recorded in land records on the deed for the parcel affected.
Page 7 of 7