Loading...
Item M3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: April 16, 2003 Bulk Item: Yes No X Division: Growth Management Department: N/ A AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution amending Resolution #187-2002 in order to revise the Implementation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program. ITEM BACKGROUND: On March 19,2003, the BOCC tentatively approved a proposal for complying with FEMA's minimum requirements for enforcing the County's floodplain regulations. The proposal was favorably received by FEMA staff at a March 18, 2003, meeting in Atlanta with the Commission's FEMA Liaison and other County representatives. This proposal will require revisions to the County's FEMA approved Implementation Plan for its Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program. The attached resolution includes a revised implementation plan (Exhibit I) that incorporates the elements of the proposal. Once the revised implementation plan is adopted by the BOCC and approved by FEMA, the Growth Management Division staff will begin drafting new amendments to the County's floodplain regulations. As this process will substantively revise the floodplain regulations, the staff is recommending that these text amendments to be taken back through the Planning Commission for recommendation to the BOCC. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: Adopted Resolution #187-2002 on April 17, 2002, approving Implementation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance and Inspection Program. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval TOTAL COST: N/ A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING:Yes N/A No AMOUNT PER MONTH N/ A YEAR APPROVED BY: County Attorney X . k Management N/A DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENTATION: Included X To follow Not Required __ /YL? DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #: County of Monroe Growth Management Division 2798 Overseas Highway Suite 410 Marathon, Florida 33050 Voice: 305.289. 2500 FAX: 305.289.2536 Board of County Commissioners Mayor Dixie Spehar, District 1 Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, District 5 Corom. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3 Corom. George Neugent, District 2 Corom. David Rice, District 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, AlCP /111 Director of Growth Manag6l7fl~ DATE: April 7, 2003 SUBJECT: Revised Implementation Phin for the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program Overview The BOCC is requested to officially adopt revisions to the Implementation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance by approving a resolution which amends Resolution #187-2002. These revisions are based on the proposal tentatively approved by FEMA and presented to the BOCC at its March 19,2003, meeting. The amending resolution includes the revised implementation plan (Exhibit 1). To aid in reviewing the proposed revised plan, a strike-out/underline version showing changes made to the existing implementation plan approved by FEMA is also included in this agenda package. Summary of Major Changes The following is a summary of the major revisions made to the existing implementation plan that are reflected in the revised implementation plan: o Elimination of the requirement for restrictive covenants that would have allowed the County to inspect downstairs enclosures to ensure compliance; o Replacement of the requirement for a restrictive covenant with a requirement for a County inspection prior to transfer of property and the permitting of any structural alteration or expansion of the elevated portic~ of the structure; o Inclusion of a new requirement that any County inspection be included as part of the closing documents upon transfer of property; \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\april I 5agenda.doc o Inclusion of a new requirement prohibiting the enclosing of any downstairs enclosure of more than 299 square feet with opaque materials; o Revision of existing floodplain regulations to allow under specific conditions alterations, expansions and non-substantial structural improvements to elevated portion of residential structures with non-conforming downstairs enclosures; o Inclusion of request to be made to Monroe County Property Tax Appraiser to furnish County with updates on changes made to habitable space in downstairs enclosures. Recommendation The staff recommends approval of the resolution, which: amends Resolution #187-2002 and the Implementation Plan (Exhibit 1) for the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program; directs the County Administrator to send the approved resolution to Region IV Office of FEMA; and directs Growth Management Division in coordination with the County Attorney to prepare amendments to the floodplain regulations based on this revised implementation plan and to initiate this text amendment process through the Planning Commission. RESOLUTION -2003 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 187-2002 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY APPROVING A REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE FLOOD INSURANCE INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") adopted Resolution No. 187 -2002 on April 17, 2002, approving a revised remedial plan for submittal to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), called the "Implementation Plan for Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program" to meet one of the requirements identified in a letter from FEMA's Region IV Director, dated January 14,2002; and, WHEREAS, the revised "Implementation Plan for Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program" was subsequently approved by FEMA; and, WHEREAS, as required in revised implementation plan, the County through the offices of State Representative Ken Sorenson, requested, but was unable to obtain any relief from the Florida Legislature to amend provisions of the Florida Statutes barring the County from directly bringing non-compliant downstairs enclosures with non-compliant improvements of more than four-years old into compliance; and, WHEREAS, the Growth Management Division staff prepared draft amendments to the County's floodplain regulations in accordance with the implementation plan; and, WHEREAS, significant legal and political concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the existing floodplain regulations were raised during the public hearing process, particularly requirements for the imposition of restrictive covenants to allow County compliance inspections; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners tabled the adoption of the proposed amendments and directed the County Growth Management Division staff in coordination with the Commission's FEMA Liaison and County Attorney to prepare an alternative approach that meets FEMA's concerns about the enforceability of the County's floodplain regulations; and, WHEREAS, a County delegation headed by the Commission's FEMA Liaison met with FEMA Region IV officials on March 18, 2003, and received tentative approval from FEMA for the County's alternative proposal; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Section 1. The BOCC hereby amends Resolution No. 187-2002, by replacing Exhibit 1, "Implementation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program", with a new Exhibit 1 which is attached hereto. Section 2. The County Administrator is directed to expeditiously transmit this Resolution and attached exhibit to the Region IV Office of FEMA. C:\Documents and Settings\kkc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\resolutionimplan2.doc Section 3. The Growth Management Division staff is directed to prepare new amendments to the County's floodplain regulations based on Exhibit I and re-initiate the process for consideration of these text amendments starting with the Planning Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 16th day of April, A.D., 2003. Mayor Dixie Spehar Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner David Rice (SEAL) A TrEST: Danny K. Kolhage, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairman C:\Documents and Settings\kk:c\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\resolutionimplan2.doc EXHIBIT 1 REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE MONROE COUNTY FLOOD INSURANCE INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM Flood Insurance Inspection Program o Prior to March 14, 2002, the Growth Management Division staff submitted a complete list of the names and addresses of owners (policy holders provided by FEMA) of all structures less than four years old that may contain possible violations of the County's floodplain regulations to the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance and Mitigation Division (FEMAlNFIP). o In June, 2002, the County Growth Management Division staff began submitting monthly to FEMAlNFIP, the names and addresses of approximately-50 owners (policy holders) of structures with possible conflicts with violations of the County's floodplain regulations. The compiled lists are being sent to FEMA~ starting with the newest structures working back through to the oldest structures. o The County's Building and Code Enforcement staff is conducting inspections and implementing the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program as outlined in the Federal Register. [As of March 21, 2003, the County staff has conducted 54 inspections, identified 27 structures with code conflicts and brought 7 structures into compliance with the floodplain regulations.] o As an element of the inspection program, the County staff is collecting and recording the amount and number of flood insurance claims submitted for each inspected structure to be supplemented by data produced from County required inspections and property tax records. [This information will be used for calibrating and updating the flood damage model and to assist underwriters in setting insurance rates for structures with downstairs enclosures.] Florida Keys Flood Damage Model At the County's request, FEMA had its engineering consultant complete an evaluation of the validity and accuracy of the existing Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Monroe County and found them to be technically valid and accurate. As more updated information becomes available from the County's Flood Insurance Inspection program, compliance inspections, and the property tax records, FEMA is requested to use this information in the recalculation of insurance risk assessments and rates. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinaI3 .doc Page 1 of 5 Remediation of Non-conforming Structures Including Those Older than Four Years o As agreed upon in its initial Implementation Plan for the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program, Monroe County through State Representative Ken Sorenson did attempt to seek legislative relief from the statute of limitations barring code enforcement prosecution of violations of the County's floodplain regulations more than four years old; however, the County was rebuffed by the Legislature's General Counsel and Director of Bill Drafting. For the foreseeable future the statute of limitations is not going to be modified by an act of the Florida Legislature. As such, any structures with unpermitted improvements of more than four years old are considered by judicial ruling to be "defacto" non-conforming. Therefore, any efforts on the County's part to bring these non-conforming structures into compliance must be consistent with provisions of Section 95.11(3), Florida Statutes. o The County's inspection program includes of all post-FIRM structures, even those structures with unpermitted improvements more than four-years old. The County Commission and its Growth Management Division staff believe that a significant percentage of structures with unpermitted, non-conforming below base flood elevation improvements will voluntarily come into compliance through this multi- year flood insurance inspection program. As these structures with potential unpermitted improvements that conflict with the floodplain regulations are identified by the County staff through the flood insurance inspection program, the County will provide a list to FEMA of those structures. If the owners of these structures refuse the inspection, their insurance may not be renewed by their insurer. The property owner of any structure inspected by the County that is determined to have an unpermitted improvement will have six months, if the violation is more than four years old, or two months, if the improvement is less than four years old, to obtain a permit to bring the structure into compliance. If the owner of a property with an identified conflict with the code chooses not to obtain the permit by the deadline established above, or obtains the permit but no approved final inspection occurs within 60 days after issuance of the permit, the County will pursue one of the following actions as applicable: 1) If the violation is less than four-years old, the County will expeditiously pursue code enforcement action and will formally submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act if the structure is not brought into compliance.' \ \G MD0059\tirn\DOCUMENT\Floodplain \revisedrernedialfina13 .doc Page 2 of5 2) If the violation is beyond the four-year statute of limitations, the County will submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act. o In situations where an unpermitted improved downstairs enclosure is found to be occupied by a very low to moderate income household during the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program, the County will provide the opportunity for the property owner to apply for additional compliance time in accordance with the FEMA approved "Plan and Procedures for Allowing an Extension from Compliance Deadlines under the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection Program for Eligible Non-compliant Below Base Flood Enclosures Used for Affordable Housing" adopted by Board of County Commissioners' Resolution #397-2002. Actions to Ensure No New Additional Non-conforming Structures o Although the County is currently limited by the four-year statute of limitations as to code enforcement action, the County through its County Growth Management Division will implement the following actions, consistent with the Florida Statutes, to ensure that any new conflicts with the floodplain regulations are resolved in a timely manner and do not become subject to the four-year statute of limitations barring code enforcement prosecution: I) Amend the existing floodplain regulations and appropriate sections of the County Code to require that any residential structure having a downstairs enclosure with an opaque wall covering have a County compliance inspection prior to transfer of property or prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structural alteration or expansion of the elevated portion of the structure; and to provide that such inspections required prior to the transfer of can be conducted, at the discretion of the property owner, by either the County staff or a registered architect or professional engineer. [The requirement for an inspection prior to the transfer of property does not also require that the property be brought into compliance prior to transfer or, subsequent to transfer; however, if the unpermitted improvement is less than four years old, it may be subject to code enforcement action (see No.5). The sole intent of this inspection is to provide information for recording and monitoring improvements to downstairs enclosures subject to the County's floodplain regulations. This inspection is not intended to be used to identify or preosecute any other unpermitted improvements that are not subject to the floodplain regulations. ] 2) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to specifically require that the issuance of any permit to a downstairs enclosure, other than a demolition permit, be contingent upon bringing the downstairs enclosure into compliance with the floodplain regulations. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinaI3 .doc Page 3 of5 3) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to allow the expansion or structural alteration of the elevated portion of any residential structure non-conforming with the floodplain regulations contingent upon the following conditions as appropriate: a) the improvement is not substantial as defined under the floodplain regulations; b) a pre-permitting inspection is completed by the County to document the extent of the non-conformity; and, c), if within a "V" zone, the submittal of a professional engineer's or registered architect's sealed certification that the non-conforming improvements to the downstairs enclosure do not subject the elevated portion of the structure to increased structural damage. 4) Conduct required inspections of downstairs enclosures as stipulated in Actions #1-#3 above. 5) Continue to vigorously pursue code enforcement action for violation of the County floodplain regulations through code enforcement and the normal permitting process, including prosecution of owners of structures, where property tax records and/or evidence from inspections provide probable cause of a violation that is less than four years old. 6) Request that FEMA provide the County with a "Submit to Rate" for any applications for new flood insurance policies on previously uninsured properties with a possible violation, so that the County may pursue compliance under code enforcement proceedings, if the violation is less than four years old, or if older than four years, through a Section 1316 declaration. 7) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to only allow enclosing with opaque materials of downstairs enclosures of 299 square feet or less in area. 8) Request the Monroe County Appraiser to provide the County Growth Management Division with an annual update by residential property owner from the County property tax records of the changes in the habitable floor area of downstairs enclosures, if feasible and practical. 9) Identify and compile for Monroe County's flood insurance inspection and compliance program a list of all structures that fail to come into compliance and submit a quarterly progress report to FEMA beginning July, 2003. 10) Evaluate Monroe County's Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program by June 2004, and if necessary, develop and implement further remedial actions with FEMA's approval, to ensure enforcement of the County's floodplain regulations. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfina13 .doc Page 4 of5 The County Growth Management Division staffhas the sufficient resources to implement the above program over a six year period. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfma13 .doc Page 5 of5 STRIKE- THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION EXHIBIT 1 REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE MONROE COUNTY FLOOD INSURANCE INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM Flood Insurance Inspection Program o Prior to March 14, 2002, the Growth Management Division staff submitted a complete list of the names and addresses of owners (policy holders provided by FEMA) of all structures less than four years old that may contain possible violations of the County's floodplain regulations to the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance and Mitigation Division (FEMA/NFIP). o Starting In June, 2002, the County Growth Management Division staff will: began submitting monthly to FEMA/NFIP, the names and addresses of approximately 50 owners (policy holders) of structures with possible conflicts with violations of the County's floodplain regulations. The compiled lists to be compiled and are being sent to FEMA.2- will-starting with the newest structures working back through to the oldest structures. o As the first requests for inspeotions from property ovmers come f-ofV:m-d after notifioation by their insuranee cOHlflanies, tIhe County's Building and Code Enforcement staff will begin is conducting inspections and implementing the dovmstairs enclosure Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program as outlined in the Federal Register. [It is an-tieipated that aotual inspeotions will not begin until Ootober, 2002, wnion v/ould mean that under the inspeotion program, the first group of unpermitted enolosures and impro'/ements would not be brought into oomplianee until mid 2003.] rAs of March 21. 2003, the County staff has conducted 54 inspections, identified 27 structures with code conflicts and brought 7 structures into compliance with the floodplain regulations.l o During As an element of the inspection program, the County staff will: is collecting and recording the amount and number of flood insurance claims submitted for each inspected structure to provide a data base f<Jr oalibrating and updating any flood damage model be supplemented by data produced from County required inspections and property tax records. rThis information will be used for calibrating and updating the flood damage model and to assist underwriters in setting insurance rates for structures with downstairs enclosures.l Florida Keys Flood Damage Model To assist MOllloe County in its efforts to bring non oompliant buildings into complianoe with its floodplain regulations, the MOIHoe County Commission is requesting that FEM.<^~ create or cause to create a Florida Keys flood damage model based on Florida \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinaI3accom. .doc Page 1 of6 STRIKE- THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION Keys topography, mstorieal records, and aot1:lal flood damage sHstaiRed, pest FIRM, by Florida Keys stmotlH'es. It is antieipated tRat sHell a smdy e01:lld be eompleted iR 2003, wmeh w01:l1d allew the C01:lflty's floodplain eomplianee program to be modified, if appn)Yed by FE~L^.., based OR the resHlts of tRe damage model. At the County'S request. FEMA had its engineering consultant complete an evaluation of the validity and accuracy of the existing Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Monroe County and found them to be technically valid and accurate. As more updated information becomes available from the County's Flood Insurance Inspection program, compliance inspections, and the property tax records, FEMA is requested to use this information in the recalculation of insurance risk assessments and rates. Remediation of NaB ealRpliaBt Non-conformin2 Structures Including Those Older than Four Years o The BOai'd of County Commissioners will reql:lest its delegation to the Florida Legislatare to address the fOl:lf year stat1:lte of limitations on eode enforoemeBt proseeution ofyiolations oftlle County's floodplain reg1:11ations. As agreed upon in its initial Implementation Plan for the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program, Monroe County through State Representative Ken Sorenson did attempt to seek legislative relief from the statute of limitations barring code enforcement prosecution of violations of the County's floodplain regulations more than four years old: however, the County was rebuffed by the Legislature's General Counsel and Director of Bill Drafting. For the foreseeable future the statute of limitations is not going to be modified by an act of the Florida Legislature. As such, any structures with unpermitted improvements of more than four years old are considered by iudicial ruling to be "defacto" non-conforming. Therefore, any efforts on the County's part to bring these non-conforming structures into compliance must be consistent with provisions of Section 95.11(3), Florida Statutes. o The County's inspection program will inc1ude~ ef all post-FIRM structures, inoluding even those structures with unpermitted improvements more than four- years old identified as having a potential 'liolation. The County Commission and its Growth Management Division staff believe that a significant percentage of structures more than f01:lr yeai'S old with unpermitted, non eompliant non- conforming below base flood elevation improvements will voluntarily come into compliance through this multi-year flood insurance inspection program. As these structures with potential unpermitted improvements that conflict with the floodplain regulations are identified by the County staff through the flood insurance inspection program, the County will provide a list to FEMA of those structures that may have a potential ';iolation, and which will require an \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfma13accom. .doc Page 2 of6 STRIKE- THROUGH/UNDERLINE VERSION inspeetion. If the owners of these structures refuse the inspection, their insurance will- may not be renewed by their insurer. The property owner of any structure inspected by the County that is determined to have an violation unpermitted improvement will have six months, if the violation is more than four years old, or two months, if the '/iolation improvement is less than four years old, to obtain a demolition. permit to bring the structure into compliance. If the owner of a property with an identified violation conflict with the code chooses not to obtain the dem.olition permit by the deadline established above, or obtains the demolition permit but no approved final inspection occurs within 60 days after issuance ofthe demolition permit, the County will pursue one of the following actions as applicable: 1) If the violation is less than four-years old, the County will expeditiously pursue code enforcement action and will formally submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act if the structure is not brought into compliance. 2) If the violation is beyond the four-year statute of limitations, the County will submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act. o In situations where an unpermitted improved downstairs enclosure is found to be occupied by a very low to moderate income household during the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program, the County will provide the opportunity for the property owner to apply for additional compliance time in accordance with the FEMA approved "Plan and Procedures for Allowing an Extension from Compliance Deadlines under the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection Program for Eligible Non-compliant Below Base Flood Enclosures Used for Affordable Housing" adopted by Board of County Commissioners' Resolution #397-2002. Actions to Ensure No New Additional Non eompliant Non-conformin2 Structures o Although the County is currently limited by the four-year statute of limitations as to code enforcement action, the County through its County Growth Management Division will implement the following actions, consistent with the Florida Statutes, to ensure that any new yiolations conflicts with the floodplain regulations are brought into timely compliance resolved in a timely manner and do not become subject to the four-year statute of limitations barring code enforcement prosecution: 1) Amend the existing floodplain regulations and appropriate sections of the County Code to require as a condition of its building permit that any new dv;elling with an opaque below base flood enclosuro have a restrietivo \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfmal3accom. .doc Page 3 of6 STRIKE- THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION cOYeBam allowing the Colmty to iB~ect the stnletl:lre OR a periodic Basis to eRSl:1fe eompliaftce v:ith Colmty floedplain regulations. that any residential structure having a downstairs enclosure with an opaque wall covering have a County compliance inspection prior to transfer of property or prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structural alteration or expansion of the elevated portion of the structure~ and to provide that such inspections required prior to the transfer of can be conducted, at the discretion of the property owner, by either the County staff or a registered architect or professional engineer. rThe requirement for an inspection prior to the transfer of property does not also require that the property be brought into compliance prior to transfer or, subsequent to transfer~ however, if the unpermitted improvement is less than four years old, it may be subject to code enforcement action (see No.5). The sole intent of this inspection is to provide information for recording and monitoring improvements to downstairs enclosures subject to the County'S floodplain regulations. This inspection is not intended to be used to identify or preosecute any other unpermitted improvements that are not subject to the floodplain regulations.l[i\mefldments to the floodplain regulations will be in effect by no later than July, 2002.] 2) Req1:lire any struct1:H'e fo1:lfld to be non compliant during the flood insl:1fance inspection program or code enforcement action ha'/e a restrictive covenant similar as that req1:lired f.or Bew construction proposed in 1) above, if an opaq1:le below base flood enclosl:1fe is to be retained as a permit condition to bring the structure into compliance. [This requirement will be implemented thr01:lgh the above amendments to the floodplain regulations.] Amend the existing floodplain regulations to specifically require that the issuance of any permit to a downstairs enclosure, other than a demolition permit, be contingent upon bringing the downstairs enclosure into compliance with the floodplain regulations. 3) Conooct inspections of dV/ellings with restrictive coveRants to eFlsure compliance with the C01:lflty's floodplain regulations, upon receipt of evidence establishing probable cause of a violation, or a minimum of once every foar years. Amend the existing floodplain regulations to allow the expansion or structural alteration of the elevated portion of any residential structure non-conforming with the floodplain regulations contingent upon the following conditions as appropriate: a) the improvement is not substantial as defined under the floodplain regulations~ b) a pre-permitting inspection is completed by the County to document the extent of the non- conformity~ and, c), if within a "V" zone, the submittal of a professional engineer's or registered architect's sealed certification that the non- conforming improvements to the downstairs enclosure do not subject the elevated portion of the structure to increased structural damage. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfma13accom. .doc Page 4 of6 STRIKE- THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION 4) Conduct required inspections of downstairs enclosures as stipulated in Actions # 1-#3 above. 4- ~) Continue to vigorously pursue code enforcement action for violation of the County floodplain regulations through code enforcement and the normal permitting process, including prosecution of owners of structures mere than foW' yeW's old, where property tax records and/or evidence from inspections site yisits provide probable cause of a violation that is less than four years old. ~ Q) Request that FEMA provide the County with a "Submit to Rate" for any applications for new flood insurance policies on previously uninsured properties with a possible violation, so that the County may pursue compliance under code enforcement proceedings, if the violation is less than four years old, or if older than four years, through a Section 1316 declaration. 7) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to only allow enclosing with opaque materials of downstairs enclosures of 299 square feet or less in area. -4- ID PrepW'e for FE~V\'s approyal ey no later than 8eptember 30, 2002, a plan and administratiye proeedures, as part of the County flood insuranoe inspection program, for pro'/iding additional time to oome into compliafloe for those Non eompliant: structures v/ith eelow base flood enelosures oooupied ey very low to moderate income households, as defined l:H1der the MOflfoe Co'l:1flty Code. [This proposal reoognizes the difficulty in finding suitaele replaoemem housiNg for the Co'l:1flty's most at risk populatioN and would help mitigate the ad'/erse impaets on these households and the COl:H1ty's affordaele housing stook Request the Monroe County Appraiser to provide the County Growth Management Division with an annual update by residential property owner from the County property tax records of the changes in the habitable floor area of downstairs enclosures, if feasible and practical. '+ 2) Identify and compile for Monroe County's flood insurance inspection and compliance program a list of all structures that fail to come into compliance and submit a quarterly progress report to FEMA beginning July, 2003. & 10) Evaluate Monroe County's Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program by June 2004, and if necessary, develop and implement further remedial actions with FEMA's approval, to ensure enforcement of the County's floodplain regulations. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfma13accom..doc Page 5 of6 STRIKE- THROUGH/UNDERLINE VERSION The County Growth Management Division staff has the sufficient resources to implement the above program over a six year period. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinaI3accom. .doc Page 60f6 ;' -. 2) If the violation is beyond the four-year statute of limitations, the County will submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act. o In situations where an unpermitted improved downstairs enclosure is found to be occupied by a very low to moderate income household dUring the Flood Insuran~e Inspection and Compliance Program, the County will provide the opportunity for the property owner to apply for additional compliance time in accordance with the FEMA approved ''Plan and Procedures for Allowing an Extension from Compliance Deadlines under the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection Program for Eligible Non-compliant Below Base Flood Enclosures Used for Affordable Housing" adopted by Board of County Commissioners' Resolution #397-2002. l Actions to Ensure No New Additional Non-conforming Structures o Although the. County is currently limited by the four-year statute of limitations as to code enforcement action, the County through its County Growth Management _ Division will implement the following actions, consistent with the Florida Statutes, to ensure that any new conflicts with the floodplain regulations are resolved in a timely manner and do not become subject to the four-year statute of limitations baning code enforcement prosecution: I) Amend the existing floodplain regulations and appropriate sections of the County Code to require that any residential structure having a downstairs enclosure with an opaque viall covering have a County compliance inspection prior to transfer of property or prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structural alteration or expansion of the elevated portion of the structure; and to provide that such inspections required prior to the transfer of can be conducted, at the discretion of the property owner, by either the County staff or a registered architect or professional engineer. [The requirement for an inspection prior to the transfer of property does not also require that the property be brought into compliance prior to transfer or, subsequent to tranSfer; however, if the unpermitted improvement is less than four years old, it may be subject to code enforcement action (see No.5). The sole intent of this inspection is to provide information for recording and monitoring improvements to downstairs enclosures subject to the County's floodplain regulations. This inspection is not intended to be used to identifY or preosecute any other unpermitted improvements that are not subject to the floodplain regulations. ] 2) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to specifically require that the issuance of any permit to a downstairs enclosure, other than a demolition permit, be contingent upon bringing the downstairs enclosure into campI' ce with the floodplain regulations. oodplain\revisedremedialfina13.doc Page 3 of5 ) () r "e.wv-t.~ f n ~~~ ()4Io..~~ ~ o.~) --,.,~ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Division: Growth Management Department: N/ A Meeting Date: April 16, 2003 Bulk Item: Yes No X AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution amending Resolution #187-2002 in order to revise the Implementation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program. ITEM BACKGROUND: On March 19, 2003, the BOCC tentatively approved a proposal for complying with FEMA's minimum requirements for enforcing the County's floodplain regulations. The proposal was favorably received by FEMA staff at a March 18, 2003, meeting in Atlanta with the Commission's FEMA Liaison and other County representatives. This proposal will require revisions to the County's FEMA approved Implementation Plan for its Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program. The attached resolution includes a revised implementation plan (Exhibit 1) that incorporates the elements of the proposal. Once the revised implementation plan is adopted by the BOCC and approved by FEMA, the Growth Management Division staff will begin drafting new amendments to the County's floodplain regulations. As this process will substantively revise the floodplain regulations, the staff is recommending that these text amendments to be taken back through the Planning Commission for recommendation to the BOCC. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: Adopted Resolution #187-2002 on April 17, 2002, approving Implementation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance and Inspection Program. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval TOTAL COST: N/ A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Y es N/ A No AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A YEAR APPROVED BY: County Attorney X OMB/Purchasing N/ A ) . k Management N/A DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENTATION: Included X To follow Not Required __ AGENDA ITEM #: /,/U' DISPOSITION: County of Monroe Growth Mana5l:ernent Division 2798 Overseas Highway Suite 410 Marathon, norida 33050 Voice: 305.289. 2500 FAX: 305.289.2536 Board of County Commissioners Mayor Dixie Spehar, District 1 Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson, District 5 Corum. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, District 3 Corum. George Neugent, District 2 Corum. David Rice, District 4 MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, AI9}1 J Director of Growth Manilfi{Yf.ent DATE: March 24, 2003 SUBJECT: Revised Implementation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program Overview The BOCC is requested to officially adopt revisions to the Implementation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance by approving a resolution which amends Resolution #187-2002. These revisions are based on the proposal tentatively approved by FEMA and presented to the BOCC at its March 19,2003, meeting. The amending resolution includes the revised implementation plan (Exhibit 1). To aid in A copy of a strike-out/underline version showing changes made to the existing implementation plan approved by FEMA is also included in this agenda package. Summary of Major Changes The following is a summary of the major revisions made to the existing implementation plan that are reflected in the revised implementation plan: o Elimination of the requirement for restrictive covenants that would have allowed the County to inspect downstairs enclosures to ensure compliance; o Replacement of the requirement for a restrictive covenant with a requirement for a County inspection prior to transfer of property and the permitting of any structural aiteration or expansion of the elevated portion of the structure; o Inclusion of a new requirement that any County inspection be included as part of the closing documents upon transfer of property; \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\april I 5agenda.doc o Inclusion of a new requirement prohibiting the enclosing of any downstairs enclosure of more than 299 square feet with opaque materials; o Revision of existing floodplain regulations to allow under specific conditions alterations, expansions and non-substantial structural improvements to elevated portion of residential structures with non-conforming downstairs enclosures; o Inclusion of request to be made to Monroe County Property Tax Appraiser to furnish County with updates on changes made to habitable space in downstairs enclosures. Recommendation The staff recommends approval of the resolution, which: amends Resolution #187-2002 and the Implementation Plan (Exhibit 1) for the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program; directs the County Administrator to send the approved resolution to Region N Office of FEMA; and directs Growth Management Division to prepare amendments to the floodplain regulations based on this revised implementation plan and to initiate this text amendment process through the Planning Commission. RESOLUTION -2003 A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION NO. 187-2002 OF THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY APPROVING A REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE FLOOD INSURANCE INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM FOR SUBMITTAL TO THE FEDERAL EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT AGENCY WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ("BOCC") adopted Resolution No. 187-2002 on April 17, 2002, approving a revised remedial plan for submittal to the Federal Emergency Management Administration (FEMA), called the "Implementation Plan for Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program" to meet one of the requirements identified in a letter from FEMA's Region N Director, dated January 14,2002; and, WHEREAS, the revised "Implementation Plan for Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program" was subsequently approved by FEMA; and, WHEREAS, as required in revised implementation plan, the County through the offices of State Representative Ken Sorenson, requested, but was unable to obtain any relief from the Florida Legislature to amend provisions of the Florida Statutes barring the County from directly bringing non-compliant downstairs enclosures with non-compliant improvements of more than four-years old into compliance; and, WHEREAS, the Growth Management Division staff prepared draft amendments to the County's floodplain regulations in accordance with the implementation plan; and, WHEREAS, significant legal and political concerns regarding the proposed amendments to the existing floodplain regulations were raised during the public hearing process, particularly requirements for the imposition of restrictive covenants to allow County compliance inspections; and, WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners tabled the adoption of the proposed amendments and directed the County Growth Management Division staff in coordination with the Commission's FEMA Liaison and County Attorney to prepare an alternative approach that meets FEMA's concerns about the enforceability of the County's floodplain regulations; and, WHEREAS, a County delegation headed by the Commission's FEMA Liaison met with FEMA Region N officials on March 18, 2003, and received tentative approval from FEMA for the County's alternative proposal; NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA that: Section 1. The BOCC hereby amends Resolution No. 187-2002, by replacing Exhibit 1, "Impl~me:ltation Plan for the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program", with a new Exhibit 1 which is attached hereto. Section 2. The County Administrator is directed to expeditiously transmit this Resolution and attached exhibit to the Region N Office of FEMA. C:\Documents and Settings\kkc\Local Settings\Ternporary Internet Files\OLK6\resolutionirnplan2.doc Section 3. The Growth Management Division staff is directed to prepare new amendments to the County's floodplain regulations based on Exhibit 1 and re-initiate the process for consideration of these text amendments starting with the Planning Commission. PASSED AND ADOPTED Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 16th day of April, A.D., 2003. Mayor Dixie Spehar Mayor Pro Tern Murray Nelson Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy Commissioner George Neugent Commissioner David Rice (SEAL) ATTEST: Danny K. Kolhage, Clerk BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By: By: Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairman C:\Documents and Settings\kkc\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLK6\resolutionimplan2.doc EXHmIT 1 REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE MONROE COUNTY FLOOD INSURANCE INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM Flood Insurance Inspection Program o Prior to March 14, 2002, the Growth Management Division staff submitted a complete list of the names and addresses of owners (policy holders provided by FEMA) of all structures less than four years old that may contain possible violations of the County's floodplain regulations to the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance and Mitigation Division (FEMA!NFIP). o In June, 2002, the County Growth Management Division staff began submitting monthly to FEMAlNFIP, the names and addresses of approximately-50 owners (policy holders) of structures with possible violations of the County's floodplain regulations. The compiled lists are being sent to FEMA, starting with the newest structures working back through to the oldest structures. o The County's Building and Code Enforcement staff is conducting inspections and implementing the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program as outlin~d in the Federal Register. LAs of March 21, 2003, the County staff has conducted 54 inspections, identified 27 structures with violations and brought 7 structures into compliance with the floodplain regulations.] o As an element of the inspection program, the County staff is collecting and recording the amount and number of flood insurance claims submitted for each inspected structure to provide a data base for calibrating and updating any flood damage model. This information is to be supplemented by data produced from County required inspections and property tax records. Florida Keys Flood Damage Model At the County's request, FEMA had its engineering consultant complete an evaluation of the validity and accuracy of the existing Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Monroe County and found them to be technically valid and accurate. As more updated information becomes available from the County's Flood Insurance Inspection program, compliance inspections, and the property tax records, FEMA is requested to use this information in the recalculation of insurance risk assessments and rates. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfmal..doc Page 1 of 4 Remediation of Non-conforming Structures Including Those Older than Four Years o As agreed upon in its initial Implementation Plan for the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program, Monroe County through State Representative Ken Sorenson did attempt to seek legislative relief from the statute oflimitations barring code enforcement prosecution of violations of the County's floodplain regulations more than four years old; however, the County was rebuffed by the Legislature's General Counsel and Director of Bill Drafting. For the foreseeable future the statute of limitations is not going to be modified by an act of the Florida Legislature. As such, any structures with violations of more than four years old are considered by judicial ruling to be "defacto" non- conforming. Therefore, any efforts on the County's part to bring these non- conforming structures into compliance must be consistent with provisions of Section 95.11(3), Florida Statutes. o The County's inspection program includes all post-FIRM structures, even those structures with unpermitted improvements more than four-years old. The County Commission and its Growth Management Division staff believe that a significant percentage of structures with unpermitted, non-conforming below base flood elevation improvements will voluntarily come into compliance through this multi- year flood insurance inspection program. As these structures with potential violations of the floodplain regulations, which will require an inspection, are identified by the County staff through the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program, the County will provide a list to FEMA of those structures. If the owners of these structures refuse the inspection, their insurance may not be renewed by their insurer. The property owner of any structure inspected by the County that is determined to have a violation will have six months, if the violation is more than four years old, or two months, if the violation is less than four years old, to obtain a permit to bring the structure into compliance. If the owner of a property with an identified violation chooses not to obtain the permit by the deadline established above, or obtains the permit but no approved final inspection occurs within 60 days after issuance of the permit, the County will pursue one of the following actions as applicable: 1) If the violation is less than four-years old, the County will expeditiously pursue code enforcement action and will formally submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act if the structure is not brought into complia...cc. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinal. .doc Page 2 of4 2) If the violation is beyond the four-year statute of limitations, the County will submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act. o In situations where a non-conforming downstairs enclosure is found to be occupied by a very low to moderate income household during the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program, the County will provide an opportunity for the property owner to apply for additional compliance time in accordance with the FEMA approved "Plan and Procedures for Allowing an Extension from Compliance Deadlines under the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection for Eligible Non-compliant Below Base Flood Enclosures Used for Affordable Housing" adopted by Board of County Commissioners' Resolution #397-2002. Actions to Ensure No New Additional Non-conforming Structures o Although the County is currently limited by the four-year statute of limitations as to code enforcement action, the County through its Growth Management Division will implement the following actions, consistent with the Florida Statutes, to ensure that any new violations are brought into timely compliance and do not become subject to the four-year statute of limitations barring code enforcement prosecution: 1) Amend the existing floodplain regulations and appropriate sections of the County Code to require that any residential structure having a downstairs enclosure with an opaque wall covering have a County compliance inspection prior to transfer of property or prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structural alteration or expansion of the elevated portion of the structure. 2) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to specifically require that the issuance of any permit to a downstairs enclosure, other than a demolition permit, be contingent upon bringing the downstairs enclosure into compliance with the floodplain regulations. 3) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to allow the expansion or structural alteration of the elevated portion of any residential structure non-conforming with the floodplain regulations contingent upon the following conditions as appropriate: a) the improvement is not substantial as defined under the floodplain regulations; b) a pre-permitting inspection is completed by the County to document the extent of the non-conformity; and, c), if within a "V" zone, the submittal of a professional engineer's or registered architect's sealed certification that the non-conforming improvements to the downstairs enclosure do not subject the elevated portion of the structure to increased structural damage. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinal. .doc Page 3 of 4 4) Conduct required inspections of downstairs enclosures as stipulated in Actions # 1-#3 above. 5) Continue to vigorously pursue code enforcement action for violation of the County floodplain regulations through code enforcement and the normal permitting process, including prosecution of owners of structures, where property tax records and/or evidence from inspections provide probable cause of a violation that is less than four years old. 6) Request that FEMA provide the County with a "Submit to Rate" for any applications for new flood insurance policies on previously uninsured properties with a possible violation, so that the County may pursue compliance under code enforcement proceedings, if the violation is less than four years old, or if older than four years, through a Section 1316 declaration. 7) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to only allow enclosing with opaque materials of downstairs enclosures of 299 square feet or less in area. 8) Request the Monroe County Appraiser to provide the County Growth Management Division with an annual update by residential property owner from the County property tax records of the changes in the habitable floor area of downstairs enclosures, if feasible and practical. 9) Identify and compile for Monroe County's Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program a list of all structures that fail to come into compliance and submit a quarterly progress report to FEMA beginning July, 2003. 10) Evaluate Monroe County's Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program by June 2004, and if necessary, develop and implement further remedial actions with FEMA's approval, to ensure enforcement of the County's floodplain regulations. The County Growth Management Division staff has the sufficient resources to implement the above program over a six year period. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinal. .doc Page 4 of 4 STRIKE- THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION EXHIBIT 1 REVISED IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR THE MONROE COUNTY FLOOD INSURANCE INSPECTION AND COMPLIANCE PROGRAM Flood Insurance Inspection Program o Prior to March 14, 2002, the Growth Management Division staff submitted a complete list of the names and addresses of owners (policy holders provided by FEMA) of all structures less than four years old that may contain possible violations of the County's floodplain regulations to the Federal Emergency Flood Insurance and Mitigation Division (FEMAlNFIP). o Starting In June, 2002, the County Growth Management Division staffwm began submitting monthly to FEMAlNFIP, the names and addresses of approximately 50 owners (policy holders) of structures with possible violations of the County's floodplain regulations. The compiled lists to be eompiled and are being sent to FEMA..... wHl-starting with the newest structures working back through to the oldest structures. o l\S the first reqMests for inspeotions from property o\vners come forward after notifieation by their insw:anee eompames, tIhe County's Building and Code Enforcement staff will begin is conducting inspections and implementing the do'.vnstairs enclosure Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program as outlined in the Federal Register. [It is anticipated that aotual inspections will not begin until October, 2002, '.vhieh would mean that ooder the inspeotion program, the first group of unpermitted enolosw:es and improvements would not be bro1:lgflt into complianoe until mid 2003.] [As of March 21, 2003, the County staff has conducted 54 inspections, identified 27 structures with violations and brought 7 structures into compliance with the floodplain regulations.l o During As an element of the inspection program, the County staff wm is collecting and recording the amount and number of flood insurance claims submitted for each inspected structure to provide a data base for calibrating and updating any flood damage model. This information is to be supplemented by data produced from County required inspections and property tax records. Florida Keys Flood Damage Model To assist MOIH'oe COWlt)' in its eff{)rts to bring non eompliant buildings il'lto complianoe v/ith its floodplain regulations, tho Monroe County Cor.unission is foq'.10sting that FEM.1\ create or eause to create a Florida Keys flood damage model based on Florida Keys topography, historioal records, and actual flood damage sustained, post FIRM, by Florida Keys struetures. It is antioipated that suoh a study eould be completed in 2003, \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinalaccom..doc Page 1 of5 STRIKE-THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION whioh wou16 allew the County's flooEli31ain eemplianee prog'fBlll te Be modified, if appreved by FEMA, based on the results of the damage model. At the County's request, FEMA had its engineering consultant complete an evaluation of the validity and accuracy of the existing Flood Insurance Study (FIS) and Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) for Monroe County and found them to be technically valid and accurate. As more updated information becomes available from the County'S Flood Insurance Inspection program, compliance inspections, and the property tax records, FEMA is requested to use this information in the recalculation of insurance risk assessments and rates. Remediation of NaB eampliaBt Non-conformin2 Structures Including Those Older than Four Years o The Board of C01mty CElJ.nm.issioners will request its delegation to the Florida Legislatl:H"e to adckess the folH year staMe of limitations on eode eBforeement proseeution of violatiofls of the Col:Hl:ty's floodplain regulations. As agreed upon in its initial Implementation Plan for the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program, Monroe County through State Representative Ken Sorenson did attempt to seek legislative relief from the statute of limitations barring code enforcement prosecution of violations of the County's floodplain regulations more than four years old: however, the County was rebuffed by the Legislature's General Counsel and Director of Bill Drafting. For the foreseeable future the statute of limitations is not going to be modified by an act of the Florida Legislature. As such, any structures with violations of more than four years old are considered by iudicial ruling to be "defacto" non- conforming. Therefore, any efforts on the County's part to bring these non- conforming structures into compliance must be consistent with provisions of Section 95.11(3), Florida Statutes. o The County's inspection program will include~ ef all post-FIRM structures, inel1:1ding even those structures with unpermitted improvements more than four- years old identified as having a potential violation. The County Commission and its Growth Management Division staff believe that a significant percentage of structures more than four years old with unpermitted, non compliant non- conforming below base flood elevation improvements will voluntarily come into compliance through this multi-year flood insurance inspection program. As these structures with potential violations of the floodplain regulations, which will require an inspection, are identified by the County staff through the flood insurance inspection program, the County will provide a list to FEMA of those struciun:s (hUt miiy ha-;e a po~ential yiolation, and which will require an inspeotion. If the owners of these structures refuse the inspection, their insurance wHl- may not be renewed by their insurer. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfmalaccom. .doc Page 2 of5 STRIKE- THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION The property owner of any structure inspected by the County that is determined to have a violation will have six months, if the violation is more than four years old, or two months, if the violation is less than four years old, to obtain a demolition permit to bring the structure into compliance. If the owner of a property with an identified violation chooses not to obtain the demolition permit by the deadline established above, or obtains the demolition permit but no approved final inspection occurs within 60 days after issuance of the demolition permit, the County will pursue one of the following actions as applicable: 1) If the violation is less than four-years old, the County will expeditiously pursue code enforcement action and will formally submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act if the structure is not brought into compliance. 2) If the violation is beyond the four-year statute of limitations, the County will submit a declaration for denial of the property owner's insurance to FEMA pursuant to Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act. o In situations where a non-conforming downstairs enclosure is found to be occupied by a very low to moderate income household during the Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program. the County will provide the opportunity for the property owner to apply for additional compliance time in accordance with the FEMA approved "Plan and Procedures for Allowing an Extension from Compliance Deadlines under the Monroe County Flood Insurance Inspection Program for Eligible Non-compliant Below Base Flood Enclosures Used for Affordable Housing" adopted by Board of County Commissioners' Resolution #397-2002. Actions to Ensure No New Additional NaB e9R1pliaBt Non-conformine Structures o Although the County is currently limited by the four-year statute of limitations as to code enforcement action, the County through its County Growth Management Division will implement the following actions, consistent with the Florida Statutes, to ensure that any new violations are brought into timely compliance and do not become subject to the four-year statute of limitations barring code enforcement prosecution: 1) Amend the existing floodplain regulations and appropriate sections of the County Code to require as a condition of its building permit that any new dwelling with an opaqae below base flood enelosure have a restricti',e oo"ooant allo\ving the County to inspect the structure on a periodic basis to ensure compliance-with--C-eunty fl00dplaffi- re;ulaticns. that any residential structure having a downstairs enclosure with an opaque wall covering have a County compliance inspection prior to transfer of property or prior to the issuance of a building permit for any structural alteration or \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinalaccom..doc Page 3 0[5 STRIKE- THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION expansion of the elevated portion of the structure. [.AmendmeBts to tae floodplain regl:llations will be iR effect by no later tlum laly, 2002.] 2) Reqaire aftY struct1:lre f01:md to be 1'101'1 compliant during the flood insUfaftce inspection program or oode enforcement action have a restrictive covenant similar as that required for Rew constrnctioR proposed in 1) above, if an opaque bolo..-,' base flood enclosure is to be retained as a permit condition to bring the struetl:H"e into compliance. [This reqairement will be implemented thi'Ough the above amendments to tae floodplain regl:llations.] Amend the existing floodplain regulations to specifically require that the issuance of any permit to a downstairs enclosure, other than a demolition permit, be contingent upon bringing the downstairs enclosure into compliance with the floodplain regulations. 3) Conduct inspections of dV/ellings with restrictiye coyenants to ensure compliance with the Coooty's floodplain regulations, upon receipt of evidenoe establishing probable oause of a violation, or a minimmn of onoe every foar years. Amend the existing floodplain regulations to allow the expansion or structural alteration of the elevated portion of any residential structure non-conforming with the floodplain regulations contingent upon the following conditions as appropriate: a) the improvement is not substantial as defined under the floodplain regulations: b) a pre-permitting inspection is completed by the County to document the extent of the non- conformity: and, c), if within a "V" zone, the submittal of a professional engineer's or registered architect's sealed certification that the non- conforming improvements to the downstairs enclosure do not sublect the elevated portion of the structure to increased structural damage. 4) Conduct required inspections of downstairs enclosures as stipulated in Actions #1-#3 above. 4- ~) Continue to vigorously pursue code enforcement action for violation of the County floodplain regulations through code enforcement and the normal permitting process, including prosecution of owners of structures mere than four years old, where property tax records and/or evidence from inspections site visits provide probable cause of a violation that is less than four years old. ~ Q) Request that FEMA provide the County with a "Submit to Rate" for any applications for new flood insurance policies on previously uninsured properties with a possible violation, so that the County may pursue compliance under code enforcement proceedings, if the violation is less ~harl four years old, or if older than four years, through a Section 1316 declaration. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinalaccom..doc Page 4 of5 STRIKE- THROUGHlUNDERLINE VERSION 7) Amend the existing floodplain regulations to only allow enclosing with opaQue materials of downstairs enclosures of 299 SQuare feet or less in area. -e- ID Pr-epare for FEMf..'s appnwal by BO later tflaR 8ef)tember 30, 2002, a plan and administrative pmeeelt:H'es, 85 part of the Coanty flood iBst:H'anee iBspeotioB program, for providiBg additioBal time to eome imo eomplianee for those BOB eOHlflliant stru.ett:H'es ':Iith belo'.\' base flood eBelost:H'es oee:upied by '/ery low to moderate ineome households, as defined under the Monroe COW'lty Code. [This proposal reoognizes the diffieulty in finding suitable ref)laeemeBt housing for the Coooty's most at risk populatioB and would help mitigate the adverse iHlflaots on these households and the County's affordable housing stook Request the Monroe County Appraiser to provide the County Growth Management Division with an annual update by residential property owner from the County property tax records of the changes in the habitable floor area of downstairs enclosures, if feasible and practical. :; 2) Identify and compile for Monroe County's flood insurance inspection and compliance program a list of all structures that fail to come into compliance and submit a quarterly progress report to FEMA beginning July, 2003. g. 10) Evaluate Monroe County's Flood Insurance Inspection and Compliance Program by June 2004, and if necessary, develop and implement further remedial actions with FEMA's approval, to ensure enforcement of the County's floodplain regulations. The County Growth Management Division staff has the sufficient resources to implement the above program over a six year period. \ \GMD0059\tim\DOCUMENT\Floodplain\revisedremedialfinalaccom. .doc Page 5 of 5 A STUDY REPORT A SELFuFINANCEO PROGRAM TO ESTABLrSH HURRICANE SI-fELTERS In MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA Prepared for presentatIon to the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida April 16, 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: tlakeys(iysprynet -.:om TABLE OF CONTENTS Page No. Table of Contents.. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY. II ABSTRACT. I. BACKGROUND , [I THE 'vTRTrCAI. f-:V/\CUArrON CONC!:f>"T 4 II! HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF MONROE COUNT v CONCERNS RELA TED TO TALL BUILDINGS 5 IV. DESIGN CRITERIA FOR VERTICAL SHELTER PROJECTS.......................... 10 A. Special Structural Requirements for Buildings.................................................. 10 B. Special Site Requirements.... ................ ................... ...... ............... .....................12 C. Special Building Content Requirements..........................................................14 V. ECONOMIC FEASIBILITY.......... .................. ....... .... ........ ........ ........... ................ 16 A. Elevator Economics....................... ........ ......... ........................ ............. ........ ...... 17 B. Building Cost Impacts............................... .................................................... '" 19 C. Special Building Contents.................... .................. .......... 20 D. Land Costs.......................... ...... ............ ...... ..... 2 J E. Potential Cost-Offsetting Economic Values Created VI. ATTRACTING VENTURE CAPITAL VI! SPECIAL ADMINISTRATIVI PROCFDf JF<fS 26 27 28 APPENDIX - DRAFT OF PROPOSED HSD IONING REGULA TrONS.. .... .A-l I. Qualifying Site Requirements for HSD Zones................................... .......... A- I 2. Special Structural Design Requirements for Buildings....................................A_2 3. Special Building Facilities Requirements..... ......... ....................... .................. ..A-4 4. Site Development Criteria for Buildings ..........................................................A-S 5. Special Occupancy and Use Limitations for Buildings.....................................A_6 6. Spe.cial Major Conditional Use Administrative Procedures..............................A-8 7. Approval and Authorization Procedures.... ..... ........................................... ..A-I 0 l! EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Impact of effects of Hurricane Hugo emphasized the fact that rv10nroe County cannot cope with a major hurricane. Since this concept was first presented, impact of Hurricane Andrew has brought the problem closer to home Not only can the population not he reliably evacuated overland. hut emergency shelter provisIOns are not only inadequate, but unlIkely to be III place In time to be available where needed withIn any predictable future Folltwving "planned" overland evacuatIOn procedures resulted in directing many people from areas \V'here (fiCV vvoulJ have been safe,- into the eye of where the storm hIt Having alTlved there. they were left to dnve all over the mainland (as far as Orlando and GainesvJlle) trying to find a place to stay. A vague idea has been simplistically incorporated in plans developed by the county "planning staff'. While detailed plans have 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 storms ofless than category III intensity (Saffir/Simpson intensity scale). That same law provides that shelters be provided and used for the lower storm intensity categories. No comparable planning for their supply has been done. The requirement has 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 developing them in any time frame. There is no need f()r such facilities for county government requIrements to serve other county government needs. There is certainly no need fcn county government facilitIes to be dispersed along the charn of islands the \\/a\ shelter tacrl ities<,llOuld he dlsrersed to place them where needed when needed. Such ne\v county capital facilities as have heen planned have consolidation of government functions as their objective Under such a scenario, only a few shelter facilities will come into being coordinated with construction of future public buildings. They will be widely spaced. There is no schedule for the projected number of public buildings or their intended dispersal related to requi red shelter capacity and its required dispersal. It is improbable that the county 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 along the len!:,rth of the county to provide shelter access where needed. It is even more unlikely that the county capital improvement budget can support expenditures required from tax income sources to construct ill special purpose facilities to supply the shelter need. It is equally improbable that existing county capital facilities that were built with no such service intended will provide the needed resistance to a stonn of significant magnitude by pure chance To resolve this impasse related to \vhat is a publiC safety matter of concern for which the sltuatlOll in Homestead has made people recognize as real. a proposal IS presented for I11corporatlOl1 1n the Land Use Plan Intended to attract prl\alc capital {usupp/v such f;lcil1tles In pmatclv built and financed buildlngs.- whose princIpal use IS economically viable to the owner/developer f(Jr all those weeks and years \vhen no hurricane emergency conditIons anse Principal risk of loss of life in a hurricane strike is that of drowning in accompanying floods. The safest place that can be provided to avoid rising Hood 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. 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 is intended to create a procedure for attracting private capital to supply emergency shelter needs while retaining land use intensity and density limitations intended by the land use plan. A set of regulations that do not depend on building height restriction to accomplish those purposes is presented The!1 are deSigned to meet concerns of those who previously believed heIght restnctions were needed to preserve the Visual Cll\iJronment that gives the Kevs their unique character 1\ PRELIMINARY D R AFT - NOVEMBER 1.2002 HlJRRICANE SHELTER DEVELOPMENT (HSD) ZONrNG ABSTRACT: Material presented herein is a concept ((\I' rCrtrlltllllg COIl.sfrllctlon ofbulldlllgs 3. Carable of supplying emergency shelter needs of the general public in a hurricane emergency b. Assuring their geographical dispersal along the length of the county to make them available where and when needed 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 increase in land use intensity and/or density beyond that permitted by the existing land use plan. The report details: I. Means of attracting necessary private capital investment in terms of real estate economics affecting investment viability of opportunities created. 2. Siting criteria best suited to assure both hurricane invulnerability and public accessibility, with minimal adverse impact on other land llse concerns. 3. A draft of appropriate regulations that will assure lillllting both density and land LIse IntenSltv to no more than that permitted under eXIsting land use regulatIons r 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 location ofJandfall ofa hurricane being tracked, with sufficient accuracy and lead time, to permit evacuation overland via the single 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 vulnerable itself), and NOAA cannot make an accurate prediction 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 tenns of probability of death and/or injury, as are likely to be caused by an anticipated hurricane strike. In the aftennath of Hugo, renewed concerns about hurricane safety have elicited suggestions that hurricane shelter capacity be incorporated in proposed public buildings ! infortunatelv. 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 consolidation of 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 nature of the problem, and could have the effect of lulling people into mIstaken beliefs that the problem is no longer a matter of concern The same Flonda statutes that obligate planlllng overland evacuation for storms e.,<peeted to bc of Saftlr/Simpson category 3 mtensitv or hIgher. a/so ohligates provIsion of a shelter program for storms of lesser intensIty when evacuatIon IS not c-'reeted to be mandatof\-' Thus far, the planning depanment has hlandly assumed that coullty capital facilitIes would serve the need. It is extremely unlikely Several years ago, after reviewing and conducting many studies of hurricane strikes both in Florida and along other states bordering the GulfofMexico, Dr. Neil Frank (former director of the NOAA National Hurricane Center) proposed a concept which he referred to as his "Vertical Evacuation Plan". [t was based on years of observation and evaluation of principal causes of death and personal inj ury during hurricane strikes, and studies of patterns of destruction and damage by hurricanes as they make their landfalls. Principal observations that fonned the rationale for Dr. Frank's "Vertical Evacuation" concept are: 1. Primary risk of bodily harm to persons during hurricanes is 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 Occurs within 250 yards of shore lines. 3. While accompanying torrential rainfall may exacerbate condItions, principal source of flood damage along coastal areas results from "storm surge", the dome of water that flses 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 of the storm system ThIS surge follows the storm under the "eye" as 11 moves across the ocean Its height diSSIpates rapidly as the stonn moves across land NOAA uses a storm intensity classification system (the SaffirlSimpson Hurricane Scale) under which all stonns are divided into five categories reflecting their relative severity. Worst category is the Class V storm, which poses threat 01'200+ 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, actual level reached when landfall occurs becomes storm surge height plus or minus concurrent tide height at the time ofJandfall. (viz.- In the Florida Keys, where mean high tide is often 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 5ides.) Above relative surface level height, the matter of wave height associated with surges exacerbates risks. Wave height is affected by a series offactors including wind velocity, fetch, water depth, and shape of the bottom. Fortunately, where the dome is at its highest (beneath the center of the "eye"), Wind velocity IS zero. 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 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 enonnous concurrent wind velocities, probably conditions near the "eye wal/" rather than 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. IJ. THE VERTICAL EVACUA lION CONCE~I Thc baSIC obscrvatlon that prompted Dr Frank to propose his "vertical evacuation" concept was that if time 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, and land much in excess of that elevation is over 100 miles away. The only accessible places with an elevation high enough to be above maximum flood levels and wave heights are upper floors of man-made structures. The essential criterion oftlood safety is height. What remains to be assured is structural adequacy of a building tall enough to survive stoml exposure. 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, of up to 200 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 length of the island chain (perhaps not closer than four miles apart),- a criterion intended to assure a shelter with reasonable accessibility on short notice to wherever population exists At the same time, such standards must assure that. under the guise of public safety, clusters of tall buildings are not built whIch create an urbanized visualllnpacl on what has been Intended to remain a group of restfully qUIet 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 wiIl permit such construction. At the same time, these regulations must be drafted in such a way that they will not permit random construction offaciIities 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 limited needs of public safety, hl/ln()! more, a set of very tightly drawn criteria must be prepared which not only define what must be incorporated to supply the need, but which also limits its application to not more than amounts required to supply that need. ~ :2 III. HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE OF MONROE COUNTY CONCERNS RELA TED TO TALL BUILDINGS Original concerns that prompted establishment of height limitations in local land use regulatIons were two-fold. The "knee-jerk" reactions of man v people not t~lllll",lr with the concept of effect of FAR limitations, are visIons of collectIons of densely-packed wal/-to-\vall huildings blocking vIstas, and turning the Keys Into a cfC)\vded Miami suburb 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, 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, ifthere 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, ultimately no one much over five feet tall could fit in a building without stooping, and a height limitation for people becomes implied) Smce then, another set of FEMA regulations has !..,cn adopted \vhich did, rn many areas. raise minimum floor levels. (?) In many large older cities of the United States. areas ofblock-atter-block of low-rise buildings built decades ago, pack available land. In many instances, these areas have become centers of/arge urban slums Such areas are among 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 of 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 most residentially zoned areas incorporated in present l'lnd-use regulations). Rigorous uniformity of set-back and height regulations associated with present zoning results in all buildings being lined up monotonously: same width, same height. and same volume,-:- all in regulated uniformity. By the] 960's, after a decade of this type of post- World War IT development had been experienced, the refrain ofa popular song summarized general public disillusionment with the ultimate effect "-and they're all made of ticky-tacky, and they all look just the same." 4 Peculiarly, in insisting on rigorous enforcement of such constraints, many of those objecting in principle to height, regardless of whether or not it represents high density or land use intensity, 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 profcsslOnalliteraturc In the f'ic!d. "tidy-tacky" remains the obligatory form defined In Monroe County land use regulations. If those objecting to high rise buildings can learn to understand benefits of pennissible 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/ow-rise residential units in a vertical fornlat; and visual relief from row after row of little boxes, -even if it only happens at most, once every four to eight miles. Another protection to the populace lies in the fact that access by numbers of people to be served is assured by minimum site size, while a maximum size has also been provided to assure that shelter needs do not become 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 for, but if used to accommodate residential units, the maximum residential unit content has been specified; and ifused for a hotel/motel occupancy (tourist density), maximum number of guest room accommodations has been specified. All are proportioned to size of sites in a way that actually increases open space remaining beyond what might have resulted had a HSD project not been created. Other than denSity concerns, there has heen a concern for blocking and obstructing view of the sea, again a fear derived from VISIons of row-after-row of high-rise condos and hotels along beaches. blocking view and ocean breezes from everything landward of the buildings 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 an island 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 building and the sea. Whatever view of the sea might have been before, will remain after construction of HSD's are in place. In some stretches of the Keys, it will be difficult to find suitable parcels ofJand located far enough from shorelines to meet requirements because the islands are not wide enough. These areas will become dependent on being served by sites on nearest larger islands, presumably able to be found within five miles in either direction. This problem is more apt to be encountered in the upper Keys where natural land forms are parallel to direction of the highway, than in lower Keys where long dimensions of the islands are perpendicular to the highway. Presumably, it is also the lower Keys that are most dependent on vertical shelters in an emergency. Because of those geographic coincidences, it is most probable that the HSD system should start being built where it has greatest probability of being needed, and where numbers of available sites are greatest It IS essential that consideration of concepts presented not be taken out of the complete context 2 within which they have been developed' Dashing off with trivial infonnation that "they want to pennit high-rise buildings", without including the content that prevents things making "high-rise" anathema a call to anns,- become appeals to fear rather than reason. Unfortunately. "sloganeering" has historically (or perhaps hysterically) been more attractive to mob appea I The fact that a high-rise may also be means of preventing loss of hundreds of lives as a result of "Hugo-ff" or "/\ndrew)r" tracking across the Keys ought not he lost In hysterIa Homo sapIens IS also entItled to protection as a specIes 1 lugo and /\ndre\v are sImply the most recent example of the t~lct that it can happen here Wc arc not prepared wllh an adequate means of survival should a com parable storm pass thIS \vav Can worst prospects envisioned by Images of "monstrous" buildings poking up from middles of islands, four to eight miles apart, be more horrendous to contemplate than prospect of hundreds of bodies floating around among debris after a solid hit by a 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 go substantially beyond reqUIrements of building codes applicable to other buildings in general fn 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 is presently defined as fastest wind sustained for one mile with a recurrence probanil ity of once every hundred years Since Andrew, there has been some change in the reference criterion to one based on maxImum short term gust velocity Roth generally result In similar strength requirements.) Starting from !:,Tfound level reference, buildings must be designed for increasingly higher wind velocities as their height increases, in accordance with a building code formula that results in increasing "base wind" loading exponentially with height Here in the Keys, a "basic sustained wind speed" of 130 mph requires use of a 43 pound-per-square- foot horizontal wind loading thirty feet above the ground. At a height of 100 feet above the ground (i. e. -height of a ten-story building), that same base wind load reference requ i res use of a horizontal wind force applied to the structure of80 pounds-per-square-foot. Such a force is already twice that produced by basic reference design wind speed applied at thirty-foot levels. The public is aware of reports from NOAA giving estimated wind velocities during course of tracking a hurricane event, but is not familiar with differences in use of terms in a NOAA tracking report, and use made of "base wind speed" in a building code. 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 anJ",-'here in the storm system. (At this early stage, despite eXlstence 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 wmd velocIty) {: As the storm becomes better organized, starts approaching the American mainland, and indicates a likelihood of making a North 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 of 15,000, 5,000 or 1,500 feet (Maximum wind velocities, along the "wall of the eye", are also in the most violent thunderstorm activity area, and may preclude ability of aircraft to fly there) Based on these dIrect wmd velocit), and barometric pressurc readings, methodology for comput1llg probable maximum WInd velocitlcs becomes less subJcctive, and accurate cSlimalcs are feasible Vcfocities reported are '",vorst case" as measured In generaL "worst case" Winds m;lV occur anvwhcrc up the "wall", and maya/so C\tend t(lf a conSldcrable distance up and down the "wall", depending on concurrent presence of up or down dratis associated With wl11d velocities recorded Combination of minimum central barometric pressurc 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 three 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, and most recent, was hurricane Gilbert which was actually a category III storm when it crossed through the Antilles. It built up to 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. Most damaging of recent hurricanes (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 extent and kinds of buildings in its path. (Locallized gusts, as distinct from sustained winds, may have exceeded sustained winds reported. 11urricanes commonly spawn small area tornadoes within areas covered.) None of these wind speed reports have anythlTlg to do With references to maximum wind thirty feet above the ground' Lowest of those reported by aircraft reconnais~ance were measured at alt1tudes higher than any building ever built A fifteen-story building is only one tenth the height of lowest aIrcraft altitude employed ITl 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 ofthe 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 maximum 200 mph incorporated in definition of a category V storm was not used is due to author's familiarity with both the Saffir/Simpson 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 Irl terms ofl1oor area ratio ( FA R) constrai nts, to achieve security offered by maximum hel ght, while constraiT1l ng density 7 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 encou~aged. At the same time, it is recognized that the taller the building, the higher design \vind loading will become, and the higher the cost per square foot of building floor area will he. A distinction must be kept in mind bet\veen needs of a "shelter'. and needs of a "refuge" Storm duratIOn itsel f may come and go In a matter of a few hours. and at most, less than a dav Needs of providing a "refuge", a place of sanctuary where people can go to wait out passage of storms. mm he rather easilv met bv a hui!dIn1.! strong enough to endure the fury of the storm. sUltahlv located for the populatIOn involved. AccesSibility for suc~h purposes is reasonably assured by requirements that HSD faci! ities he geographically dispersed along the length of the archipelago. Red Cross refuge criteria for Monroe County recommend a 10 s. f per person floor area for refuge capacity detennination. 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 stonn) 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 impact of "Hugo" on the Carolinas emphasized the distinction. Conditions following the Andrew disaster were significantly worse. While the population of the Keys is smaller, means of bringing outside relief may be more difficult 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 longitudinal dispersal of shelter facilities along the length of the Keys. 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 Florida Building code requirements may nevertheless have transportation difficulty in returni ng to their hOllses. Structures may have suffered building damage due to flying debris. hut much will probably remain useable for all hut most improbable of storm intensity categories However, accessibility to support "shelter" requIrements may be quite different from one segment of the archipelago to the next depending on 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 capability will be a major consideration both at or on the sites themse!ves. Nearby open spaces may be pressed into emergency use for overflow parking purposes, including areas where risk of inflicting property damage in the process would be secondary to the purpose of providing human safety. Beyond siting requirements related to assurance of 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 regulations proposed. Projects smaller than minimum needed should be disallowed since such pr~iccts will fall short of supplying needs and will ultimately defeat the purpose of the plan by preventlllg one lilrgc enough to supply needs from being built close enough thereafter Projects larger than maxImum would automatically R fall into "abuse of intent" category. C. Special Building Content Requirements Having provided siting considerations needed to get the populace safely inslde. it IS to be expected that as storm intensity builds. and flooding starts developing, most f(mns 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 followmg 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 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 the emergency facilities be situated above the flood risk at hurricane flood levels. Within the buildings, accommodations for the number of persons ex~cted to be in the building during the period of the storm must be assured. Nature of these accommodations must be determined on the basis of estimated number needing "refuge" (as previously defined), and number needing "shelter" f()r an extended penod 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 along the length ofthe Keys; and special off-site requirements related to access from existing county and state paved highways. In addition, guarantees must be incorporated in the project to assure deliverv of public safety facilities expeditiously, while retaining growth management intent of the land use plan. V. ECONOMIC FEASffiILITY Construction of buildings meeting such unusual requirements will be expensive. Several additional facilities that must be incorporated will also add to cost of projects without having a useful non- emergency value commensurate with those additional costs. In retaining public right to commandeer the building, or its designated special purpose shelter facilities within, an owner is encumbering additional risk not faced by investing in more conventional development opportunities 2 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 unnecessari Iv imposed, beyond those necessary to accompJ Ish intended purposes, incentive to partICIpate can be destroyed. Thus, opportul11ty to supply a public need that cannot be supplied bv public expenditure will be dcs{!llvcd. Everyone dealing with this concept must recognize, at the outset, that 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 fonns 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 called upon to perform shelter functions. Such usage must be so attractive, in terms of return on investment, that it will more than justifY premium costs that must be encumbered in its construction. An understanding of several significant considerations related to 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 ^ Elevator Economics As soon as a proposed building becomes four stones or taller, building codes require that it be equipped with elevators. 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, and 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. 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. It 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 number and size of elevators, and their operating speed requirements. 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. Significance of the impact of this sort of analysis can be seen in what has happened over the years to classification of building types. 10 Economics of elevator requirements has given rise to categorizing of "mid-rise" buildings and "high- rise" buildings. Mid-rise buildings are almost unit<mnly eight stories high (one rarely sees a modern 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 cost of elevator type that can serve that number of stories and the square-footage per floor that can be served by an elevator of that type. Maximum height building that may be built wIthout elevators is the three-story or "garden apartment" type building Three stones lS the maximum tolerahle "walk-up" Practically no-one ever builds four or five stones tall on the baSIS of economic analysIs At that height, all expenses ofclevatonng the building have been encumbered, but the ratio oftloor area served to elevator cost is enough to wipe out economic benefit of obtaining only one extra floor. (The 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, it has 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. B. Building Cost Impacts 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. Cost and time of hoisting materials increase costs of the finished building. As certain increments orheight are reached, size, type, and number of pieces ofhoisting equipment needed on thcloh increase, further compounding height/cost relationshIps Requinng 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 hei ght. 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 required loading (called "factored" load or load multiplier, - a required "safety factor" in layman's terminology ). Raising bas~ wind speed load requirements primarily causes cost increases in columns, frame, and foundations beneath those columns. In general, cost ofthe structural frame ofa building represents approximately 15 % of cost of the building Other than wind forces on the building and flood levels around its base, special provisions have been Incorporated in the suggested text of proposed regulations to provide safety from hazard of flying debris during the stonn. Greatest exposure risk for these missiles IS via windows in the building 11 Requirements for shatterproof material (polycarbonate) glazing to be substituted for conventional glazing imposes an additional cost premium of double the price for glazing material itsel f Add these costs to premium prices for frames designed to \vithstand 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 eSpecial Burldll1g Contents Requirements for provision of stand-by generation equipment and stored emergency drinking water supplies may not actually represent a special cost premium addition of the maf,'11itude that their actual procurement might seem. ffan elevatored building had been contemplated for other reasons, existing codes already require some amount of stand-by emergency generating facilities to be provided. New considerations become added expenses of locating equipment above flood elevation risk, and providing fuel storage adequate to carry its operation for the length of time shelter 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, adding to cost of housing it, and contributing to another reduction in net rentable floor area in the total project. ffproposed 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 be part of the commercial facilities t()f everyday use In non-emergency conditions Even requirements for provislOn of special cmergency communicatIons facilities, to be used by the Office ofF~mergcncy 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, most probable use of opportunities created under these proposed regulations can already be foreseen as potential hotel facilities, or office buildings, with additional possibility of a mixed-use occupancy ("sandwich" type buildings, usually consisting of 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 Tn general, there is a fairly consistent relationship between market price of land and value of building development it must support. Land is especially scarce in the Keys and generally commands a high premium. In other parts of the country, prices of urban land are reflected in height of buildings huilt on it 12 Ultimately, the sum of cost of building plus cost of/and 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 atti"active return on Investment of the total project cost Market demand is related to supply of desired amounts of square footage availahle for the purposes for which It is to he used. If not enough I100r space IS available on the market. the price goes up lfcnough exists, at an acceptable pncc no more will be built (particularly at a premium cost) Planning and zoning regulations have an enormOllS impact on 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 he a fixed amount of land utilized for whatever developments are economically feasible. When there is not much more land on which zoning laws pennit additional office space to be built at reasonable costs, prices of available office space increase (until it becomes high enough to justiry constructing it in more costly ways). Price of remaining land able to be developed also rises along with cost of building. Since zoning determines both amount ofland available for a given land use, and 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 val ues. Principal criterion of real estate valuation is "location". What makes a location desireable is its proximity to values created by the surrounding community: travel tnne to community facilities: access via community transportation facilities; access to a labor supply; access to utilities; access (0 market; access to recreational opportunities; access to schools; etc. When these location "values" are stipulated for a glvcn use by zonTng regulations. that zoning category determines inherent valuation of land While it requires Investment of a developer to realize that value, designation of pennissihle usage to which land may he put places an implied value on the site itself. rn 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 intention nor 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 of land 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 proposed regulations that require a prospective developer to complete all required drawings for submittal for his building pennit within six months of conditional HSD zoning approval of his major conditional use application. Construction must begin within usuallimita.tions after permit issuance The building, rather than its land. receives the zoning classification When estahlishing requirements, conSideration must be gIven to cost of preparation of necessary 13 drawings for such a building which will include substantial fees for several design specialties (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 special major conditional use approval being sought,- even under the proposed new regulations for this new HSD category ofIand Lise It IS not reasonable to also expect all costs of final deSIgn preparatIon (generally about SlX percent ofestimated construction cost) to have been prepared before it is known whether or not permlsslon 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 of less-than- complete final building drawings, and the time all design work can be accomplished. 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 investc)f!builder seriously intending to incorporate the valuation awarded in the community facility justifY111g award of HSD land valuatlOll A new form of "re-zoning" has been suggested It becomes a zonmg category awarded to the permitted building rather than the empty site on which it might be placed. Only 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 realtzed 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. Add- on land speculation premiums 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 artificial land-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 public safety risk will remain what it was. Greatest likelihood of needed shelter facilities coming into being, given premium costs described to build them, suggest that only lowest cost sites are likely to allow consideration by a developer. Fortunately, siting requirements for shelter purposes described, and conditions contributing to highest prices of land in the Keys, are mutually exclusive. In general, highest pnced land in the 1--1. 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 from nearest shoreline as possible (not less than 850 feet as written in the draft), and not closer to US Rte.# I than 300 feeL-to avoid creatIon of another traffic con:;cstiol1 hub on US:: 1 dunng all the time the building will not he called upon to provlde its hUrricane emergency response The combination of "away from shoreline" and "a\vav from US Route tj 1" also defines lowest land valuatIOn areas of the Key's considered "bUIldable". A'ccessibility from U.S. Route # I 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 radius creates a unique "address~' that also distinguishes the building. Such a building, offering back-up power for even conventional power outages that afllict many areas of the Keys, also has additional appeals to users that create a basis for commanding a premium for "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 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, view of surrounding oceans, which creates premium land values along shorelines, may suddenly become available to occupants in the middle of an 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, particlllarly for such a faciltty as a roof- top restaurant VT ATTRACTING VENTURE CAPITAL, Once the new rules have been adopted, another lapse of perhaps three years at the least can be expected before first structures built under the program are likely to become available. Buildings of the sort envisioned will require investment of larger amounts of capital than has traditionally been required for projects of this 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). Absence of adequate fire-fighting equipment to serve tall buildings in Monroe County will also force additional costs on the building to provide sprinkler and stand-pipe systems, and fire-proof construction details. 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 needed to inform developers from beyond the borders of Monroe County of emergence of a new, if limited opportunity here. However, the construction industry has always had an internal "grapevine" of its own, and word will spread without any sizeable advertising effort It IS most likely that one or another of the self- 12 appointed guardian organizations will furnish needed furor to obtain media coverage ofthe 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 local real estate firms, that also have financial contacts In the United States, can be expected to initiate efforts to line up land assemblies meetmg sltmg Criteria to create syndicates for the purpose Joint local ventures can develop appropriate packages, and additional publicity will be provided by "leakage" from these efforts, probably whlle 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 may 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. VII. Special Administrative Procedures Since the land use plan was adopted, the Monroe County planning staff will be facing need to deal with requests for a new type of exception to existing provisions of the land use plan. For the first time, function of requestors is to provide a needed community service for which the plan itself made no provision. Obviously, county government does not have resources to supply the community need cited, and continued participation in the FEMA program (and Florida statutes themselves) require it 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 the land use plan, generally involved processing of requests to obtain additional benefits to a property owner. In all these cases, 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 ofthe surrounding community, or to maintenance of"inte!:,'Tity" of the land use plan itself. In general, all such requests are reviewed to determine whether or not granting such requests might adversely affect intent of the land use plan itself, create adverse demands on public facilities, or inflict adverse impacts on the community at large to accomplish a private purpose. Principal focus of review processes has been, and remains, to determine whether or not a reason can be found for denial of requests, an/or to exact a premium payment in impact fees for its approval. Over-riding operative principle has been to allow nothing to depart from literal details of regulations that might alter intent of the plan under circumstances of the request. Such review procedures are designed to preventor minimize deviation from details of content of the plan as it now exists. Nothing about the present plan included 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 l-lurricane Shelter Development (HSD), to be placed on maps by procedures suggested, only upon completion of construction of the proposed facilitIes as approved l.Q 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 department. The review process can not focus on preservation of the plan as it exists. Granting approval to applicants presenting requests fulfilling requirements of proposed new regulations provides a benefit to the surrounding community oflife-saving magnitude, and is intended to recti fv a glaring oversIght in the plan as it exists' HSD category review procedure is deliberately onented to finding justification for altering the plan as it exists. to accomplish over-riding public purposes ofprotecting human life. Buildings meeting reqUIrements stated in 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 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 forms of 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- offbetween 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 ofa proposed HSD site as being of greater community importance than saving a few hundred lives ~ Under these conditions, it is difficult to conceive of any impact on surrounding areas being of greater significance than risk encumbered by denial of such a requested zoning change, other than an impact which itself can be measurable as resulting in a risk of several hundred human lives From a planning perspective, opportunity to create a series of off-highway, ofT 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 intent of the designation "suburban commercial" it is described as intended to provide for local commerCial occupancies to be located offl rs Rte I to relieve some of the traffic impacts on US Rte.1 for local facilities not needing a site on the highway. Having explained that concept, on the maps that were developed, one cannot find a single parcel ofSC land zoning in the lower Keys except along IJS Rte 1.) Whatever facilities might be located in HSD zones will undoubtedly be those that otherwise would be located on either Overseas Highway or waterfront. (One of the objectives of the land use plan was to constrain the continuing pattern of increasing densities ofland use concentrated in those two areas. ) 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. Ifhighway 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 oflJ.S.Rte.# I for work-related commuting. To the extent that an office occupancy serves the surrounding residential area (viz- a f,'TOUP practIce center of physicians operating an out-patIent climc), another set of trip origins and destinations can be moved from US Rte.# J to secondary roads. Were the facility a hotel, the volume of tourist 11 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 of fISD zones based on suggested sIting criteria may accomplish a similar planning purpose, and scrve needs ofpublic safety rather than pressure ofland speculators A nev. concern will have entered the scene which might not leave advantage ofa location on US Rtc. # 1 as secure an attraction as it might now seem. If built, will a U.S. # I location still attract a user in the face of availability of an accessible location in hurricane-safe buildings away from highway congestion? Presence of an alternative is enough to cause some people to pause before continuing to invest in existing patterns of development. An overriding factor that cannot be underestimated is required lead time. HSD projects deserve high-priority expediting of approval procedures. It was clearly intended by the land use planning process to constrain rate of development ("growth management"). For kinds of projects intended to be constructed under the HSD program, lead time between project concept and completion of construction, exclusive oftime consumed by administrative procedures, cannot be expected to be much less than three years. No one can foresee which ofthose three years might be the one bringing a killer storm. Even an approved project may actually come too late. Tn terms of risk evaluation, risk of error in approving a project, even despite some technical deficiency in an application, is smaller than risk of failing to approve one that had 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 deticiency before the building permit will be issued), than refraining from taking action until every detail is in place III administrative paper work In general, It is more important that projects proceed on the baSIS of being brought into compliance than that a basls for rejt~ctinn he 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 location or 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 if he wishes to participate in the pro!:,Tfam. Even presence of examples of endangered species should not become basis for rejection (mitigation or transplanting is preferable to rejection). The over-riding endangered specie of concern in this program is homo sapiens I Another planning purpose being served will be that sites offered will probably be from among types providing for some amount of residential occupancy. Least likely occupancy type for HSD projects will be some sort of residential use. 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 density will be reduced. I.n the proposed regulation, no increase in residential density is permitted for HSD projects If despite such provisions, someone should decide to attempt a super-luxury condominium development (the only sort that could afford costs of such an expensive type of building), any density increase would be dependent on use oftransfer 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 [n ~ addition, accommodating eXlstmg density vertically reduces land coverage and open space consumption that occurs under existing single-family residential categories in the land use plan. 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 the land use plan Had the need been thought out thoroughly at the time the land use plan was thrown together, it is more likely that incorporation of something very nearly like the prol.:,'Tam 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, 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 price became affordable. That does not motivate a developer 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. Opportunity is lost if permitted and not acted upon, and 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. "If'twere done when 'tis done, 'twere best 'twere done quickly"... Respectfully submitted, Joel H. Rosenblatt, P.E. Summerland Key, FL 1.2 PROPOSED CODE REVISION TEXT The following text is proposed as a special purpose new zonmg classification under the Monroe County Land Use Plan. [t provides for review under tenm of provisions applicable to major conditional use proJects, \vith one baSIC difTerence in the function of the review and approval process. The sIte does not receive requested reclassdlcatlon In the process of'revlcw and approval procedures Reclassification and map changes do not occur until the buildll1g 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 the community, albeit understood to perhaps be contrary to existing land use plan concerns for a specific parcel. Such applications ought to 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 need for most contents of environmental impact assessments. 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 provlded. HlfRRICANE SHELTER DEVELOPMENT ("SO) 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 60 acres nor more than 8.0 acres In area b. No point on any site boundary sha1l fa1l within 850 linear feet of the nearest shoreline of a natural body of water. (Shoreli ne IS defIned for purposes of these regulations as a point whose A-l natural elevation is less than or equal to Mean High Water as established by reference to the USGS 1929 NGVD, and continues from there to a natural hody 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 he within three miles distance to next nearest eXlstmg HSf) approved site, except puhlic (county, state, or federal government owned) buildings also complying with requirements of supplying I-ISD factllties 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 Monroe County 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 he less than 10 foot above highest grade elevation of the site The exterior of the budding shall be Ilood-proofed to an elevation not less than 1.0 foot above the base flood elevation as indicated on those maps, in accordance with recommended FEMA flood-proofing requirements. Flood-proofing shall not be required in 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 feet above the base flood elevation if the site is within a "V" zone as indicated on the FEMA 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 1205 of the Southern Standard Building Code for wind loading (ASCE 7), with all resulting stresses calculated remaining within limits permitted under relevant provisions of the building code pertaining to materials employed in /\-2 the construction. c All support structures located belo\\; the elevation of the base ll(\od 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. d. Structural adequacy of upper floor levels shall remain unimpaIred ifall or any portion of enclosing perimeter walls below the base flood level were removed or destroyed. e. 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 <wailable to prevent eXIstence ofa pressure dIfferential between enclosed intenor spaces an external barometnc pressure greater than two inches of mercury (2 0" Hg) All exterior \valls, fenestration. and other openings shall be designed to withstand that two-inch maximum pressure differential without rupture or distress. f. 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 Monroe County HSD zoning requirements /\-3 3. Special Building Facilities Requirements in HSD Zones a. Elevated potable water storage containing a minimum capacitv 01' 60 U S.gallons of potable \vater per person for rated shelter capacity of the huilding plus normally expected residents of the building shall be provided. (Rated refuge capacity shall be bascd on 15 square feet of 1l0or space per person for floor area designated as emcrgency refuge area for tile 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 amount of emergency provisions and supplies prescribed by the Monroe County Office of Emergency Management for number of persons in rated shelter capacity for a three-day emergency duration. c A communications room equipped WIth at least a minimum complement ofUHF!VHF radio communication equipment, With capability of operating on frequencies specilled by the Monroe County Office of Emergency Management as needed to maintain radio communications during hurricane emergency conditions d. 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 ofboth wind loading specified in paragraph 2.b. above and a concentrated impact load of :ZOO pounds applied anvwhere on the glazed surface A-4 e. Emergency electric power generating facilities shall be supplied by co-generation or stand-by electric generator equipment capable ofsustaining not less than 600/0 of peak electric power demand of the entire HSD developmcnt Illdependently or any external electric pO\ver supply from public utility distribution systems serving the site Fuel supply reqUIred for operation of electric power generation equipment shall be of sufficlcnt capacity. slorl.~d above the base flood elevation, to carry electric load at 60~.() of peak demand capacity for a period of not less than 77.. 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. f 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 intended principle access route to the site, together with at Icast one additional alternate route to the site, with closest existing paved roadway along intended routes of trayel interconnecting the site with cxisting paved roadway systems g. Not less than 100;(, of total habitable tloor 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 houndary line. Unenclosed cantIlevered haiconies, walkways. /\-5 and roof overhangs, above base flood elevation, and not supported by vertical supports extending from ground level, may extend into these ground-level set-backs. b. Maximum building land coverage as seen In plan outline shall no~ exceed height and one- half per cent (85 %) 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 0.5, 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 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 building(s) proposed d To permit attainment ofmaxllllum FAR permitted by paragraph 4C,wlthin 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 Monroe County ordinances 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 perlaimng to A-o multiple use occupancies are met for the combination of occupancies proposed. b. If either ll1ultiple use occupancies of a single building. or two P[ more buildings are proposed for a HSD project, arrangements must be prOVided for confining supply of electric power from emergency electnc 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 maximum permissible number of dwelling units permitted under zoning classification of the site for which HSD designation is requested, nor shall it exceed a FAR of 0.15 of total FAR permitted, whichever is greater. d Maximum floor area ofa 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 hurricane shelter accommodations shall not be included in determination of FAR allowed for either residential occupancy or hotel/motel guest rooms. 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 ofland in set-back clearances designated in paragraph 4.a. above, and/or open parking deck level(s) a minimum 01'9.0 feet below lowest enclosed floor area ;\- 7 g. Minimum designated emergency shelter floor areas in HSD projects shall be: J) For f-fSD projects containing not more than 60,000 square feet of gross buildIng tloor 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 of 60,000 square feet of gross building floor area, designated emergency shelter floor area shall be not less than 10 % of gross building area of the project. 6. Special Maior Conditional Use Administrative Review Procedures for HSD Zones Applications for HSD zoning classi fication shall generally be required to be accompanIed by the same supportive documentation as that required to accompany other major conditional use projects as prescribed by existing land use plan regulations. WIth exception that all Monroe County Impact fees shall be waived, and all other matters clearly not intended to apply to HSD considerations may be waived by the Director of Planning. In order to fulfill intent of provision ofHSD designations, 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. If designated as an HSD zone, it may not thereafter be subdivided. b. No internal portion of the tract shall be further class! fied in terms of other land use categones. A-8 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 intended phasing or sequencing of construction. All shelter and acccss road proviSions must be I1lcludcd in the first construction phase d. Ownership of the entire project, consistj ng 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 Monroe County are concerned; that entity shall be responsible for payment of all taxes or other obligations of an owner; and shall be responsible for maintenance of emergency 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 arc noted, they will be reported to the responsible legal entity, and ifnot 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 c. 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.#l 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 I--!SD building requirements have been constructed, installed, and are in operatIOnal readiness. A-l) 7. HSD Approval and Authorization Procedures a. Applications for HSD ZOlllng ckslgnatlnn shall be recorded and dated in chronological order receIved As each applicatIon IS received, it shall be checked agamst all applications rece1ved bearing a prior chronological order number to determine if the application relates to a parcel interfering with the four-mile proximity rule contained in parafo,Tfaph l.d. above. Should an interference be found, applicant shall be so advised, and shall be given the location and name of 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 holder ofthe 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), holder of the next dated pplication for the area shall be immediately notified to proceed \v1th his application b. The Monroe County 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 aUorded a reasonable opportunity to submit additional materials and/or amend materials submitted to bring applications into full compliance. When all materials have ben 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 development review board for certification to Department of Community Affairs for approval. A-10 c. After approval is received from the Department of Community Affairs, or if DCA takes no action within forty-five days, the pro.iect shall be placed on the agenda for the next regular meeting of the Planning Commission. Procedures for final approval thercafter shall be the same as thosc for other major conditional use pro.lcctS. cxcept 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 Monroe County. 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 Monroe County 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 reclassification, and the application right shall be given to the next applicant in the queue for the area. Should failurc 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 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 a-vailable to the next applicant in the queue. Only the completed project, not the land, may receive HSD desib'l1ation A-l1 e. The Planning Commission will hold the same review and puhlic hearing process as IS normal procedure for any other major conditional use approval f Certificate of Occupancy shall not be issued until required shelter provIsions have been installed, inspected, and approved by the Office of Emergency Management, in addition to norma] inspection and approval of construction hy 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 in Monroe County. Owner shall retain the services of a qualified licensed independent testing and inspection organization for the duration of construction of all structural components ofthe building to provide such certification. g. Upon issuance of Certificate of Occupancy for the HSD project, land use plan maps of Monroe County shall be amended to indicate boundaries of the HSD zone thereby created, and new zoning designation shall he recorded in land records of Monroe County on the deed for the parcel affected A-12