Loading...
DSAC Agenda 07/10/2013 2013 Development Services Advisory Committee Agenda July 10 , 2013 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA July 10, 2013 3:00 p.m. Conference Room 610 NOTICE: Persons wishing to speak on any Agenda item will receive up to three (3) minutes unless the Chairman adjusts the time. Speakers are required to fill out a "Speaker Request Form," list the topic they wish to address, and hand it to the Staff member seated at the table before the meeting begins. Please wait to be recognized by the Chairman, and speak into a microphone. State your name and affiliation before commenting. During discussion, Committee Members may direct questions to the speaker. Please silence cell phones and digital devices. There may not be a break in this meeting. Please leave the room to conduct any personal business. All parties participating in the public meeting are to observe Roberts Rules of Order,and wait to be recognized by the Chairman. Please speak one at a time and into the microphone so the Hearing Reporter can record all statements being made. Call to Order-Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from June 12,2013 IV. Public Speakers V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Department update-[Jeff Wright] B. Public Utilities Division update—[Nathan Beals or Tom Chmelik] C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning—[Jay Ahmad and/or Reed Jarvi] D. Fire Review update—[Ed Riley] E. Growth Management Division/Planning &Regulation update—[Jamie French] VI. New Business A. Permit Reconciliation per fee schedule [Jamie French, Rich Long,Tonia Spangler] B. Web Page adjustments [Jamie French] C. New Low Voltage law signed by Governor—how does it affect us? [Rich Long] D. New unlicensed fee schedule signed by Governor[Mike Ossorio] E. Developer Built Road Design and Permitting Process [Reed Jarvi] VII. Old Business A. Update on the status of the Architectural Review Committee [Mike Bosi] B. Discussion of the 2010 FBC Compliant Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance [Robert Wiley] VIII. Committee Member Comments IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates August 7, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm September 4, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm October 2, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm November 6, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm December 4, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm June 12, 2013 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, June 12, 2013 LET IT BE REMEMBERED, the Collier County Development Services Advisory Committee in and for the County of Collier, having conducted business herein, met on this date at 3:00 P.M. in REGULAR SESSION at the Collier County Growth Management Division Building, Conference Room #609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive, Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: David Dunnavant James E. Boughton Clay Brooker Chris Mitchell Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Stan Chrzanowski Eleanor Taft Norman Gentry Ron Waldrop Excused: Marco Espinar Dalas Disney Blair Foley Absent: Laura Spurgeon DeJohn ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Director, Operations & Regulatory Management Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Nathan Beals, Project Manager, Public Utilities Diane Flagg, Director, Code Enforcement Jeff Wright, Assistant County Attorney Jack McKenna, County Engineer Ed Riley, Fire Code Official Kris Van Lengen, Public Utilities Mike Bosi, Planning Director 1 June 12, 2013 I. Call to Order- Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:04pm II. Approval of Agenda Mr. Valle moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Mulhere. Carried unanimously 8- 0. III. Approval of Minutes from May 1, 2013 Meeting Mr. Chrzanowski moved to approve the minutes of the May 1, 2013 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Valle. Carried unanimously 8- 0. IV. Public Speakers None Ms. Taft arrived at 3:07pm V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Department update— [Diane Flagg] Diane Flagg submitted the report "Collier County Code Enforcement Department Blight Prevention Program - Cumulative Code Enforcement statistics" via email dated May 29, 2013 for information purposes. She reported she will be vacating her position effective July 1, 2013. Jeff Wright was introduced as the new Director of Code Enforcement. The Committee recognized Ms. Flagg's service to the residents of the County. B. Public Utilities Division update— [Nathan Beals or Tom Chmelik] Nathan Beals reported the Utility Committee will be meeting on June 18, 2013 to discuss wastewater issues. C. Growth Management Division/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning— [Jay Ahmad and/or Reed Jarvi] None D. Fire Review update— [Ed Riley] Ed Riley, Fire Code Official submitted the documents "Office of the Fire Code Official— Summary of Plan Review Activity—April- 13" and "Fire Plan Review— Time Frame Summary-April— 13" for information purposes. Due to the recent increase in business, he is budgeting for a new employee for next fiscal year with an estimated start date of 1/1/14. Mr. Dunnavant arrived at 3:16pm E. Growth Management Division/Planning & Regulation update— [Jamie French] Jamie French submitted the "May 2013 Monthly Statistics"which outlined the building plan review activities. 2 June 12, 2013 The Committee requested Staff to: 1. Review the logistics of the permit "pick up area"to ensure it is operating efficiently for those parties "picking up"issued permits. 2. Review the "permit reconciliation"process to ensure it is operating as intended. Mr. Boughton arrived at 3:25pm VI. New Business A. Copies of Building Plans [Nick Casalanguida] Mr. French reported training workshops are underway for those individuals participating in SIRE active review with the system being well received by vendors and consultants. B. Discuss Amendment for five percent reduction to the fee schedule building permit processing review and inspection fees [Jamie French] Jamie French presented the Executive Summary "Recommendation to bring back an amendment,providing for a five percent reduction, to the Collier County Administrative Code Fee Schedule of building permit processing, review and inspection set fees as provided for in The Code of Laws and Ordinances, Section 2— 11"for information purposes. He noted: • Staff is proposing a decrease in all flat building permit development related processing, review and inspection fees by 5 percent. • The proposed reduction in fees will decrease anticipated revenues by $83K in Fiscal Year 2013 and $500K in Fiscal Year 2014. • Staff has determined the decrease will not adversely impact the Department's levels of service, fund reserves or debt obligations. • The proposal is to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners on July 9, 2013. VII. Old Business A. Architectural Review Committee Status Update [Carolina Valera] Mike Bosi, Planning Director reported the Board of County Commissioners will be appointing the members to comprise the Architectural Review Committee. He will provide the DSAC members with the list of individuals currently under consideration for appointment to the Committee. VIII. Committee Member Comments None IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates July 10,2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm August 7, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm September 4, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm October 2, 2013 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm 3 June 12, 2013 There being no further business for the good of the County, the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 3:58 PM. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman, William Varian These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on as presented , or as amended 4 From: FlaggDiane Sent: Thursday,June 20, 2013 1:54 PM To: PuigJudy Cc: WrightJeff Subject: Code Enforcement Weekly Report 6/10-16/2013 Judy, For DSAC meeting.... Collier County Code Enforcement Department Blight Prevention Program Cumulative Code Enforcement statistics 11/2008-06/16/2013: Total Abatement Costs Paid By Lenders(savings to taxpayers) $3,237,641.11 Total Violations Abated by Lenders 2,855 7/2009-06/16/2013: Amount of Fines Waived (BCC, CEB, OSM) since July 2009 $ 12,858,002.11 Department Performance Statistics 06/10-16/2013 Cumulative FY13 Abatement Costs Paid by Lenders $1,012.20 $252,606.69 Violations Abated by Lenders 3 230 Number of Code Cases Opened 78 4169 Number of Educational Patrols 51 2735 Number of Code Case Property Inspections 271 14170 Number of Cases Closed with Voluntary Compliance 63 2071 Number of Community Meet and Greet events 2 45 Number of Community Clean-up Events 0 16 Number of vacant home sweeps 1 9 Code Enforcement Board and Special Magistrate Orders 33 367 Number of Liens Filed 70 606 Number of Nuisance Abatements Processed 43 734 Amount of Fines Waived (BCC, CEB, OSM) $109,850.00 $4,403,642.39 New Bankruptcy Filing Notifications 0 33 Number of Bankruptcy Documents Received 4 280 Number of Cases Affected by Bankruptcy 41 Average 41 Number of Requests for Property Payoff Requests 6 281 Number of Requests for Property Lien Searches 164 5687 Number of Lien Searches Completed with Open Code Cases 14 264 Number of Permits Issued: Garage Sale, Recreational Vehicle 56 2100 Number of Citations processed from DAS, PU, PR, SO, &CE 85 4043 Average Time from Complaint to Completion of Initial Inspection 2 2 Average Number of Code Cases Per Investigator 34 34 For period of: 06/10-16/2013 Open Cases by District Golden Gate—207 East Naples—209 Immokalee—139 Golden Gate Estates—139 North Naples—144 Total Open Cases—838 Report by Case Type Animal—2 Accessory Use- 2 Land Use-5 Noise—5 Nuisance Abatement—25 Occupational License—2 Parking Enforcement- 1 Property Maintenance—17 Right of Way-0 Sign—0 Site Development—9 Snipe Sign -0 Vehicle—7 Vehicle for Hire-0 Vegetation Removal—3 Total-78 - - - | Complaint Reported by: 6/10-16/13 Since BCC policy 3/12/13 Elected Official 0 73 Anonymous accepted 0 9 Anonymous not accepted 7 104 pursuant to BCC policy Under Porda Law e rail addresses am pubic wcorarr If von do not want your e mail address released response to a publiO records request,do not send electronic mail to tnis entity. Instead,contact this office by telephone or in writing. Office of the Fire Code Official Summary of Plan Review Activity May-13 Architectural Reviews 735 Sprinkler Reviews 41 Underground Reviews 21 Fuel&LP Gas Reviews 8 Hoods&FSUP Reviews 12 Alarm Reviews 81 SDP Reviews 85 Total#of Plans Reviewed 983 Number of Work Days 22 Average#of Plans Reviewed per Day 45 ASAP Reviews per Building Department: 6 Architectural 26 AC Change Outs 7 Low Voltage 1 Tent Total#of ASAP Reviews*: 40 Total ASAP Reviews per Day 2 *Overtime Reviews are not included in this figure Scheduled Meetings/Hours: Ed: 30.50 Bob: 14.75 Jackie: 2.60 Ricco: 31.58 Maggie: 2.67 Classes and Seminars attended by FCO: Participant 5/1-5/3 Performance Based Class Ed Riley Fire College,Ocala Total Overtime Hours for the Fire Code Office - 43 *Overtime Hours Reimbursed by Contractors - 46(24 Reviews) Training Room Usage Summary Meetings: Agency Meeting Type #of Hours #of Participants 5/3 ENFD Special Meeting 3.5 10 5/14 ENFD Board Meeting 3.5 35 5/16 CCFMA,FSPK Committee Meeting 1 6 5/16 CCFMA FALR Committee Meeting 1 14 5/28 CBIA Joint Meeting 1.5 12 5/30 CC Fire Marshal Association Bi-monthly Meeting 2 17 5/30 Fire Districts CFAS Meeting 4 46 Classes: Agency 5/2 AFSA Fire Sprinkler Class 8 10 In addition to the above-mentioned tasks,The Fire Code Official's Office fields numerous phone calls,walk-ins,field inspections and impromptu meetings. Office of the Fire Code Official 2700 N.Horseshoe Dr. Naples,FL 34104 Fire Plan Review-Time Frame Summary May-13 Number Number Average #of %of Percentages of of Time in Reviews Reviews Within Time Reviews Days Days Approved Approved Frames Architectural Reviews Total 735 5585 7.60 1st Review 508 4862 9.57 399 79% 61/10 Days 31 Day Max 2nd Review 189 587 3.11 160 85% 75/3 Days 3rd Review 33 106 3.21 30 91% 70/3 Days 4th Review 5 30 6.00 3 60% 40/3 Days Total 2-4 Reviews 227 723 3.19 193 85% 73/3 Days 15 Day Max Fire Sprinkler Reviews Total 41 227 5.54 1st Review 27 170 6.30 19 70% 100/10 Days 10 Day Max 2nd Review 10 37 3.70 8 80% 50/3 Days 3rd Review 4 20 5.00 3 75% 50/3 Days Total 2-3 Reviews 14 57 4.07 11 79% 50/3 Days 11 Day Max Underground Reviews Total 21 118 5.62 1st Review 12 98 8.17 6 50% 100/10 Days 10 Day Max 2nd Review 8 19 2.38 6 75% 63/3 Days 3rd Review 1 1 1.00 1 100% 100/3 Days Total 2-3 Reviews 9 20 2.22 7 78% 67/3 Days 5 Day Max Fuel&LP Gas Reviews Total 8 40 5.00 1st Review 6 35 5.83 5 83% 100/10 Days 9 Day Max 2nd Review 1 4 4.00 1 100% 0/3 Days 3rd Review 1 1 1.00 1 100% 100/3 Days Total 2-3 Reviews 2 5 2.50 2 100% 50/3 Days 4 Day Max Hood&FSUP Reviews Total 12 61 5.08 1st Review 11 60 5.45 7 64% 91/10 Days 12 Day Max 2nd Review 1 1 1.00 1 100% 100/3 Days Total 2nd Review 1 1 1.00 1 100% 100/3 Days 1 Day Max Fire Alarm Reviews Total 81 253 3.12 1st Review 65 235 3.62 44 68% 100/10 Days 9 Day Max 2nd Review 16 18 1.13 16 100% 100/3 Days Total 2nd Review 16 18 1.13 16 100% 100/3 Days 1 Day Max Summary 1st Review 629 5460 8.68 480 76% 67/10 Days 2nd Review 225 666 2.96 192 85% 3rd Review 39 128 3.28 35 90% 4th Review 5 30 6.00 3 60% Total 2-4 Reviews 269 824 3.06 230 86% 73/3 Days Overal Totals 898 6284 7.00 710 79% Office of the Fire Code Official 2700 N.Horseshoe Dr. Naples,FL 34104 Responses to Comments Received Thru 4-1-13 for the State's "New Model" 2010 Florida Building Code Compliant Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Acronyms used in the responses: ASCE =American Society of Civil Engineers BFE = Base Flood Elevation CRS = Community Rating System (a voluntary program within the NFIP; Collier County is currently rated as a Class 6 CRS community) DSAC = Development Services Advisory Committee FBC = Currently effective Florida Building Code FDPO = Flood Damage Protection Ordinance FMPC = Floodplain Management Planning Committee NFIP = National Flood Insurance Program SFHA = Special Flood Hazard Area (floodplain areas where the flood zone starts with the letter"A"or"V") Comment #1 I'm still wading through the material, but my observation is this has been carefully crafted by the State and their vast legal resources. I'm guessing there has been many hours poured over this language and it's there for a reason. STAFF RESPONSE: No response needed. Comment #2 At this point in time I have no comments, but as I continue review I will let you know. STAFF RESPONSE: No response needed. Comment #3 Comment: I stuffed my thoughts in "red" paragraphs and tried to explain why I would like them considered, and my intent isn't to start WW 3. You didn't miss these things or leave them out! I'm stuck in a time warp with my thoughts about floodplain management. It is vital for our ecology, economy and environment to place the proper emphasis on what's left of the functional watershed. Higher regulatory standards are only as good as the enforcement process that supports them. I strongly believe the minimum NFIP floodplain regulations do not provide adequate long-term flood risk reduction for Big Cypress Basin and that the benefits of flood risk reduction achieved by higher regulatory standards far outweighs the burden of administering them. B. DEFINITIONS. Compensatory storage means the volume of water storage provided to replace the volume of water . • .' ' -•- - ... . .• . The volume is calculated for the • • to compensate for the loss of floodplain storage caused by filling in the floodplain, which can result in raising flood elevations, especially with the impact of cumulative fills. RATIONALE: Floodplains provide the critical and beneficial functions of flood storage, natural habitat and water quality. The placement of fill impairs these functions and should be avoided. Where some placement of fill is unavoidable, requiring compensatory storage can mitigate some of the negative impacts of floodplain fill. NOTE: There are a number of versions of compensatory storage language. The following sample language is provided as developed from a review of existing regulations: (1) Assurance of Flood Carrying Capacity: Compensatory Storage Required for Fill Fill within the special flood hazard area shall result in no net loss of natural floodplain storage. The volume of the loss of floodwater storage due to filling in the special flood hazard area shall be offset by providing an equal volume of flood storage by excavation or other compensatory measures at or adjacent to the development site. (2) Add to the language for the Application Requirements section: Volumetric calculations demonstrating compensatory storage. STAFF RESPONSE: Since the term "compensatory storage" is never used in the FDPO, this definition will not be added. ***********************; ******************************************************* CRITICAL DEVELOPMENT PROTECTION OBJECTIVE: To protect critical facilities and development against damage, and to minimize the potential loss of life from flooding. RATIONALE: Facilities which provide critical services, or services that are depended on during storms, should be protected to an even higher standard than other development. Failure to provide flood protection to these types of critical facilities creates severe and unacceptable public safety risk. NOTE: The standard used in Executive Order 11988 is the 500-year flood event, or the historically highest flood (if records are available), whichever is greater. Two alternatives are presented below, the first being less restrictive, the second being more restrictive: (1) Add to Definitions: Critical Development Critical development is that which is critical to the community's public health and safety, are essential to the orderly functioning of a community, store or produce highly volatile, toxic or water reactive materials or house occupants that may be insufficiently mobile to avoid loss of life or injury. Examples of critical development include jails, hospitals, schools, daycare facilities, public electric utilities, fire stations, emergency operation centers, police facilities, nursing homes, wastewater treatment facilities, water plants, gas/oil/propane storage facilities, hazardous waste handling and storage facilities and other public equipment storage facilities. (2) Add to Use Regulations (Prohibited Uses): [Option I] Critical facilities and developments in all special flood hazard areas. Where critical developments are located adjacent to special flood hazard areas, the flood protection elevation shall be two feet above the 0.2% flood elevation and that elevation shall be used as the basis for the ACCESS (INGRESSEGRESS) provisions in section II. [Option ll] Critical facilities and developments in all special flood hazard areas, and in all 0.2% annual (500-year) floodplains. STAFF RESPONSE: The term "critical facility" or"critical facilities" does not occur within the 2010 FBC "Model" ordinance document. Likewise, the terns do not appear in the 2010 FBC or in A.SCE-7. However, the following definition does exist within the 2013 CRS Coordinator's Manual: Critical facility: A structure or other improvement that, because of its function, size, service area, or uniqueness, has the potential to cause serious bodily harm, extensive property damage, or disruption of vital socioeconomic activities if it is destroyed or damaged or if its functionality is impaired . Critical facilities include health and safety facilities, utilities, government facilities, and hazardous materials facilities. For the purposes of a local regulation, a community may also use the International Codes' definition for Category III and IV buildings. Also, the 2010 FBC, Building does address the intent of regulating critical facilities by stating that the lowest floor elevations of buildings will meet various requirements, depending upon the use of the building. • Chapter 4, Section 419 (Hospitals) says the lowest floor of all new facilities shall be elevated to the Base Flood Elevation as defined in Section 1612 of this code, plus 2 feet, or to the height of hurricane Category 3 (Saffir-Simpson scale) surge inundation elevation, as described by the Sea, Lake, and Overland Surge from Hurricanes (SLOSH) model... There are additional criteria that can vary this elevation for existing facilities. • Chapter 4, Section 420 (Nursing Homes) contains similar language to Section 419, but it is not identical. • Chapter 4, Section 423 (Educational Facilities) says that education facilities in flood hazard areas (423.4.2) shall comply with ASCE 24. For the initial and subsequent installation of public educational relocatable units (423.25.5.1) the finished floor shall be 12 inches above the Base 'Flood Elevation. • Chapter 16 (Structural Design Requirements) identifies Section 1612 as being applicable for structures in flood hazard areas. Sub-section 1612.4 says that the design and construction of buildings and structures located in flood hazard areas, including flood hazard areas subject to high-velocity wave action, shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of ASCE 7 and with ASCE 24. Those ASCE documents then identify four classifications of structures (Table 1-1) and specify minimum elevation criteria for lowest floor (Table 2- 1), elevation of bottom of lowest horizontal structure member (Table 4-1), elevation below which flood damage resistant materials shall be used (Table 5-1), minimum elevation of utilities and equipment (Table 7-1) and dry floodproofing of non-residential structures and non-residential portions of mixed-use buildings (Table 6-1). ASCE/SFI 24-05 TABLE 1-1. Classification of Structures for Flood-Resistant Design and Construction (Classification same as ASCE 7, Ref. 11]) Nature of Occupancy Category Buildings and other structures that represent a low hazard to human life in the event of failure including,but not limited to: • Agricultural facilities' • Certain temporary facilities • Minor storage facilities' All buildings and other structures except those listed in Categories I, Ill,and IV 11 Buildings and other structures that represent a substantial hazard to human life in the event of failure including,but III not limited to: • Buildings and other structures where more than 300 people congregate in one area • Buildings and other structures with day-care facilities with capacity greater than 150 • Buildings and other structures with elementary school or secondary school facilities with capacity greater than 250 • Buildings and other structures with a capacity greater than 500 for colleges or adult education facilities • Health care facilities with a capacity of 50 or more resident patients but not having surgery or emergency treatment facilities • Jails and detention facilities • Power generating stations and other public utility facilities not included in Category IV Buildings and other structures not included in Category IV (including, but not limited to,facilities that manufacture, process, handle, store,use,or dispose of such substances as hazardous fuels,hazardous chemicals, hazardous waste, or explosives)containing sufficient quantities of hazardous materials considered to be dangerous to the public if released. Buildings and other structures containing hazardous materials shall be eligible for classification as Category II struc- tures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction by a hazard assessment as described in Section 1.5.2`that a release of the hazardous material does not pose a threat to the public. Buildings and other structures designated as essential facilities including, but not limited to: IV • Hospitals and other health care facilities having surgery or emergency treatment facilities • Fire, rescue,ambulance, and police stations and emergency vehicle garages • Designated earthquake,hurricane,or other emergency shelters • Designated emergency preparedness,communication, and operation centers and other facilities required for emergency response • Power generating stations and other public utility facilities required in an emergency • Ancillary structures(including,but not limited to,communication towers,fuel storage tanks,cooling towers, electrical substation structures,fire water storage tanks or other structures housing or supporting water,or other fire-suppression material or equipment)required for operation of Category IV structures during an emergency • Aviation control towers,air traffic control centers,and emergency aircraft hangars • Water storage facilities and pump structures required to maintain water pressure for fire suppression • Buildings and other structures having critical national defense functions Buildings and other structures(including, but not limited to,facilities that manufacture, process,handle, store,use, or dispose of such substances as hazardous fuels, hazardous chemicals, hazardous waste, or explosives)containing extremely hazardous materials where the quantity of the material exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction. Buildings and other structures containing extremely hazardous materials shall be eligible for classification as Category II structures if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction by a hazard assessment as described in Section 1.5.2`that a release of the extremely hazardous material does not pose a threat to the public.This reduced classification shall not be permitted if the buildings or other structures also function as essential facilities. aCertain agricultural structures may he exempt from some of the provisions of this standard see Section C1.4.3. bFor the purposes of this standard, minor storage facilities do not include commercial storage facilities. e Section 1.5.2 reference is made to ASCE Standard 7-05, not this standard. 7 TABLE 2-1. Minimum Elevation of the Top of Lowest Floor Relative to Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or Design Flood Elevation (DFE)—Flood Hazard Areas Other Than Coastal High Hazard Areas,a Coastal A Zones,a and High Risk Flood Hazard Areasa Structure Minimum Elevation Category' of Lowest Floor I DFE III BFE + 1 ft or DFE, whichever is higher III BFE + 1 ft or DFE, whichever is higher IV° BFE + 2 ft or DFE, whichever is higher a Minimum elevations shown in Table 2-1 do not apply to Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Zones (see Table 4-1). Minimum elevations shown in Table 2-1 apply to other High Risk Flood Hazard Areas unless specific elevation requirements are given in Section 3 of this standard. b See Table 1-1 for structure category descriptions. c For nonresidential buildings and nonresidential portions of mixed- use buildings, the lowest floor shall be allowed below the minimum elevation if the structure meets the floodproofing requirements of Section 6. TABLE 4-1. Minimum Elevation of Bottom of Lowest Supporting Horizontal Structural Member of Lowest Floor Relative to Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or Design Flood Elevation (DFE)—Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Zones Structure Member Orientation Relative to the Direction of Wave Approach Categorya Parallelb Perpendicularb I DFE DFE II DFE BFE + 1 ft or DFE, whichever is higher III BFE + 1 ft or DFE, BFE + 2 ft or DFE, whichever is higher whichever is higher IV BFE + 1 ft or DFE, BFE + 2 ft or DFE, whichever is higher whichever is higher a See Table 1-1 for structure category descriptions. b Orientation of lowest horizontal structural member relative to the general direction of wave approach: parallel shall mean less than or equal to+20 degrees from the direction of approach; perpendicular shall mean greater than +20 degrees from the direction of approach. Table 5-1. Minimum Elevation, Relative to Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or Design Flood Elevation (DFE), Below which Flood-Damage—Resistant Materials Shall Be Used Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Zones Structure Flood Hazard Areas Orientation Orientation Categorya Parallelb Perpendicularb I DFE DFE DFE II BFE + 1 ft or DFE, BFE + 1 ft or DFE, BFE + 2 ft or DFE, whichever is higher whichever is higher whichever is higher III BFE + 1 ft or DFE, BFE + 2 ft or DFE, BFE + 3 ft or DFE, whichever is higher whichever is higher whichever is higher IV BFE + 2 ft or DFE, BFE + 2 ft or DFE, BFE + 3 ft or DFE, whichever is higher whichever is higher whichever is higher a See Table 1-1 for structure category descriptions. b Orientation of lowest horizontal structural member relative to the general direction of wave approach: parallel shall mean less than or equal to +20 degrees from the direction of approach; perpendicular shall mean greater than +20 degrees from the direction of approach. Table 7-1. Minimum Elevation of Utilities and Attendant E uipment Relative to Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or Design Flood Elevation (DFE) Locate Utilities and Attendant Equipment Aboveb Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Zones Structure Flood Hazard Areas Orientation Orientation Categorya Parallelb Perpendicularb I DFE DFE DFE II BFE + 1 ft or DFE, BFE + 1 ft or DFE, BFE + 2 ft or DFE, whichever is higher whichever is higher whichever is higher 111 BFE + 1 ft or DFE, BFE +2 ft or DFE, BFE + 3 ft or DFE, whichever is higher whichever is higher whichever is higher IV BFE + 2 ft or DFE, BFE+ 2 ft or DFE, BFE + 3 ft or DFE, whichever is higher whichever is higher whichever is higher a See Table 1-1 for structure category descriptions. b Locate utilities and attendant equipment above elevations shown unless otherwise provided in the text. c Orientation of lowest horizontal structural member relative to the general direction of wave approach: parallel shall mean less than or equal to +20 degrees from the direction of approach; perpendicular shall mean greater than+20 degrees from the direction of approach. TABLE 6-1. Minimum Elevation of Floodproofing, Relative to Base Flood Elevation (BFE) or Design Flood Elevation (DFE)—Outside of High Risk Flood Hazard Areas Structure Minimum Elevation of Floodproofingb Categorya I BFE + 1 ft or DFE, whichever is higher IIc BFE + 1 ft or DFE, whichever is higher III BFE + 1 ft or DFE, whichever is higher IV BFE+2 ft or DFE, whichever is higher a See Table 1-1 for structure category descriptions. b Wet or dry floodproofing shall extend to the same level. c Dry floodproofing of residential buildings and residential portions of mixed-use buildings shall not be permitted. The recommended additional elevation for "critical facilities" is already incorporated into the 2010 IBC via the ASCE 24 reference. UNLESS the County desires to increase the CRS activities to include Higher Regulatory Standards–Protection of Critical Facilities (CRS Activity 432.1) or Flood Warning System and Response–Critical Facilities Planning (CRS Activity 612.d), which to this point there has not be majority support, there is no need to address "critical facilitylcritical facilities" in the ordinance. ******************************************************************************** i CUMULATIVE SUBSTANTIAL., DAMAGE/ SUBSTANT'IAL IMPROVEMENT OBJECTIVE: To track cumulative improvements or damages to structures in special flood hazard areas to ensure that flood protection measures are incorporated. RATIONALE: The vast majority of flood damages to structures amount to less than 50% of the value of the structure. Without cumulative substantial damage/improvement provisions, the cycle of flood-repair-flood is typically never broken by mitigating risk. The NFIP Increased Cost of Compliance provisions (provides added funds to substantially damaged flood insurance claims for mitigating the structure) are most effective in communities with cumulative provisions. NOTE;: (1) Add the following sentence at the end of the "substantial damage" definition: Substantial Damage--Substantial damage also means flood related damage sustained by a structure on two (2) separate occasions during a 10-year period for which the cost of repairs at the time of each such flood event, on the average, equals or exceeds 25 percent of the market value of the structure before the damage occurred. (2) Add the following sentence (bolded) to the "substantial improvement" definition: Substantial Improvement—Any reconstruction, rehabilitation, addition, or other improvement of a structure, the cost of which equals or exceeds 50 percent of the market value of the structure before the "start of construction" of the improvement. When the combined total of all improvements or repairs made after adoption equals or exceeds 50 percent of a structure's market value, that structure is considered to be substantially improved. STAFF RESPONSE: The issue of"substantial damage" and "substantial improvement" was extensively discussed during the development and passage of the current FDPO. At the end of the discussion, the weight of the discussion and recommendation of DSAC resulted in the removal of any consideration of cumulative value. Therefore, the current FDPO allows improvement or damage repair values up to just below the 50% mark for each building permit. When one permit is completed, the owner can immediately apply for another permit. Although remodeling or damage repair projects are supposed to be considered in their entirety (see information from FEMA P-758 below), if the owner simply says the permits are not for a continuation of the same remodeling work or damage repair work, staff is limited in an ability to deny based upon an accumulation of total work. The results are obvious, and are supported by DSAC:'. FEMA. Publication 758 provides the following information: The term "phased improvement"refers to a single improvement that is broken into parts. For a number of reasons, owners may wish to schedule anticipated improvements over a period of time, and they may request separate permits for each phase. Local officials should take care to ensure that phased improvements do not circumvent the substantial improvement requirements. Experienced plan reviewers can usually tell if the work described in a permit application adequately identifies all of the work needed to complete the improvement. One approach is to remind the applicant that the application is a legal document and that it is the applicants lity (or the responsibility ol:'the applicant's design professional or to accurately complete the application. It is also reasonable for the local official to request that the applicant state, in writing, that the work proposed is all of the anticipate work and that the work can he done ibr the stated cost estimate. Other scenarios of phased improvements include: • Incomplete work. Permits should not be issued fbr work that clearly will not result in a building that can be occupied without additional work. For example, while a community may decide to issue one permit for the foundation, framing, and roof of an addition, and a second permit at a later time to complete the remaining work necessary for occupancy (electrical, plumbing, flooring. etc.), the SI/Si) determination must be made prior to issuance of the first permit, and must consider the cost of all work regardless of the number'of permits issued. • . Some jurisdictions, especially larger cities and counties, issue separate mechanical, electrical, plumbing, and building permits. If handled by different offices, coordioutiouimcupeui4l{yicopodunimothsdthevu|ucofu[} vvorkisconubincdForthcS(/SD determination, regardless of the number of permits issued. • Consecutive perni$. If an application for a second permit is submitted within a short period of time after the first permit is issued, the local official should examine whether the work covered by the second request is related to improvements to the building. If so, then the work must be evaluated in co junction with the first permit to determine whether the combination constitutes substantial improvement. The substantial improvement regulations apply to all of the work that is proposed as the improvement, even if multiple permits are issued. Therefore, the determination of the cost of the improvement should consider all costs of all phases of the work before issuance of the first permit. • Modification crui(s. A request to modify an existing permit to add work could retroactively trigger substantial improvement. It is common that a permit is issued to repair a damaged structure, and the owner subsequently decides to have some additional improvements done. Whether the community handles this as a modification of'the initial permit or issuance of a second permit, care must be taken to reevaluate the Sf/SD determination. Local officials must verify that the proposed repair work includes all of the anticipated work, including improvements to the building. • Unauthorized work. if unauthorized work on a bu }ding in the SFHA is discovered, the enforcement action taken by the community must include making an SI/SD determination. The costs must include all of the work that has been perfbrmed, plus all of the remaining work necessary to complete the pr 'eot. "Incremental rcpoirs^` are similar to phased improvements and refer to a single repair pr 'eCt that is broken into parts. When buildings have sustained damage, regardless of the cause, it is fairly common for some owners to undertake restoration and repairs over a period of time. Sometimes the initial work is only the minimum necessary to make the building safe enough to reoccupy (provided re-occupancy is allowed by the community). Sometimes the owner's financial situation does not allow all of the repairs to be done at the same time. The definition of"substantial damage" makes it very clear that the substantial damage determination must consider all costs necessary to restore damaged structures to their before- damage condition. Even if an owner elects to perform less work or make repairs over time, the community must require the applicant to provide an estimate of the costs to fully restore the structure. The CRS program offers up to 90 credit points for tracking cumulative improvement/damage- repair costs under CRS Activity 432d, but staff is not in a position to recommend adding cumulative substantial improvement/damage into the FDPO without the majority support of the FMPC and DSAC. Also, in regards to Note 1 above, it appears that the commenter is mixing the term "substantial damage" with "repetitive loss". ********************************************************************************** Development permit means, for the purposes of this Ordinance, the local site Development or Building permit, as applicable, i.e., any County authorization which must be approved by the County prior to proceeding with any "Development". A review of a development permit in order to determine compliance with this Ordinance will not result in a separate fee or review process. STAFF RESPONSE: 'Bone needed since no comment was provided. However, there does need to be a discussion on what the 2010 FBC "model" ordinance identifies as a "floodplain development permit or approval" and whether this will become a separate permit with inspections and fees when it is for development outside of the normal building permit currently issued. ********************************************************************************** DUNE PROTECTION OBJECTIVE: To provide greater protection to sand dunes and their flood mitigation qualities. RATIONALE: Sand dunes act as flood protection barriers along shorelines, and absorb wave energy before it causes damage to buildings. Land altering activities can destabilize sand dunes, and reduce the ability of the dune to absorb wave energy. NOTE: Add the following provisions to the general requirements for development in V Zones: Retaining walls, landscaping, dune crossovers and other non-essential accessory structures shall be designed and located to minimize impacts to sand dunes. Primary frontal dunes shall not be altered unless a qualified engineer demonstrates and certifies that flood risk will not be increased to the subject, or other, properties. Activities which reduce the volume of sand on the dunes or beach can generally be presumed to increase flood risk to landward locations. Adding sand volume to the dune or beach can generally be presumed to not increase flood risk. STAFF RESPONSE: This topic is already addressed in the 2010 FBC "model" ordinance document in sections 105.1(8), 105.3(4),303.6, and 307.8(3). It is also addressed in ASCE 24 in section 4.3. ******************************************************************************** ELEVATION OF AL:IT.. ADDITIONS OBJECTIVE: To protect new horizontal additions (increase in building footprint) from flood damage. RATlONALi: : Building an addition below flood level is essentially expanding a non-conforming use — a practice that has been prohibited in many contexts. NOTE: Add the following provisions to the residential and non-residential development requirements: All new horizontal additions must have the lowest floor and all I IVAC elevated to the regulatory base flood elevation. STAFF RESPONSE: This would be additional local criteria considered as a higher regulatory standard than required by the basic NFIP. Staff has not been directed to amend the State's "model" ordinance document to include higher regulatory criteria other than what we already have in our existing ordinance. The criteria are good in concept in that they promote building to an increased level of flood damage prevention. If the FMC or DSAC vote to include this as local criteria then that recommendation will be passed on to the BCC to obtain their direction. If the BCC supports the requirement, then it will need to be processed as an amendment to the FBC rather than be placed within the 201.0 FBC "model" ordinance document. The FBC amendment process would run simultaneous with the FDPO adoption process. ********************************************************************************** FILL STANDARDS OBJECTIVE I: To provide guidelines for the placement of fill in special flood hazard areas. RATIONALE: Nearly all floodplain filling activities create negative consequences to adjacent areas. Improperly designed and constructed fill can also jeopardize structures elevated on fill. NOTE: There are many variations and combinations of standards that can be used for fill. The language below incorporates standards for quality, stability, and compaction. Add to Use and Development Standards for Flood Hazard Reduction: Fill The following standards apply to all fill activities in special flood hazard areas: A. Fill sites, upon which structures will be constructed or placed, must be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum density obtainable with the Standard Proctor Test method or an acceptable equivalent method, B. Fill slopes shall not be steeper than one foot vertical to two feet horizontal, C. Adequate protection against erosion and scour is provided for fill slopes. When expected velocities during the occurrence of the base flood are greater than five feet per second armoring with stone or rock protection shall be provided. When expected velocities during the base flood are five feet per second or less protection shall be provided by covering them with vegetative cover. D. Fill shall be composed of clean granular or earthen material. STAFF RESPONSE: The FBC does not contain a single, definitive minimum compaction requirement. The previous FBC 95% compaction requirement has been changed in the 2010 FBC as follows: FBC-Building (Section 1803.5.8) Compacted fill material. Where shallow foundations will bear on compacted 611 material more than 12 inches (305 mm) in depth, a geotechnical investigation shall he conducted and shall include all of the following: 1. Specifications for the preparation of the site prior to placement of compacted fill material. 2. Specifications for material to be used as compacted fill. 3. Test methods to be used to determine the maximum dry density and optimum moisture content of the material to be used as compacted fill. 4. Maximum allowable thickness of each lift of compacted fill material. 5. Field test method for determining the in-place dry density of the compacted fill. 6. Minimum acceptable in-place dry density expressed as a percentage of the maximum dry density determined in accordance with item 3. 7. Number and frequency of field tests required to determine compliance with Item 6. FBC-Building (Section 1804.5) Compacted till material. Where shallow foundations will bear on compacted fill material, the compacted fill shall comply with the provisions of an approved geotechnical report, as set forth in Section 1803. Exception: Compacted fill material 12 inches (305 mm) in depth or less need not comply with an approved report, provided the in-place dry density is not less than 90 percent of the maximum dry density at optimum moisture content determined in accordance with ASTM I) 1557. The compaction shall be verified by special inspection in accordance with Section 1704.7. The compaction requirement is now defined by the geotechnical investigation report submitted. with the permit application. The Building Department has stated their preference to not have a local FBC: amendment to specify minimum compaction criteria (telephone conversation with Dick Noonan on 5-29-13 following his discussion with the Chief Building Official, Tom DeGram). Maximum allowable fill slopes are already defined in the Collier County Land Development Code, along with the required erosion and scour protection. Placing the required information on fill placement, compaction, erosion protection, etc. into the FD PO is an option that could be considered as a CRS higher regulatory activity (Activity 432c) with up to 35 credit points. Existing regulations already address most, but not all of the requirements for CRS Activity 432c. If the FMPC or DSAC vote to include this as local criteria then that recommendation will be passed on to the BCC to obtain their direction. If the BCC supports the requirement, then it will need to be processed as an amendment to the FBC rather than be placed within the 2010 FBC "model" ordinance document. The FBC amendment process would run simultaneous with the FDPO adoption process. ************************************************************************************** OBJECTIVE 2: To ensure structures built in areas removed from the floodplain via Letters of Map Revision Based on Fill (LOMR-F) are built"reasonably safe from flooding." NOTE: Add the following provisions to the residential and non-residential development requirements for new construction or substantial improvement: "In any area that has been removed from the floodplain via a Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill, any existing or new structure, addition, or substantial improvement must meet the required elevation freeboard requirements." STAFF RESPONSE: Areas removed from the SHIA by a LOMR-F (Letter of Map Revision Based on Fill) are considered as flood zone X which does not have a BEE since the ground is above the BFE. The FBC, Residential does not require freeboard for its applicable structures. The FBC, Building in referencing to ASCE-24 does require freeboard for most structures as discussed above. In those situations, the County looks to the nearby SFIIA. BFE to establish a minimum elevation upon which to base the starting elevation for calculating the required freeboard as required by ASCE-24. Therefore, unless the County opts to adopt a freeboard higher regulatory requirement (local criteria), the issue of this Objective 2 is already being met on a daily basis by the Building Dept. **************************************************************************************** Floodproofing means any combination of structural and non-structural additions, changes, or adjustments to Structures, which reduce or eliminate Flood damage to real estate or improved real property,water and sanitary facilities, Structures and their contents. 1. Dry Flood proofing utilizes construction materials, and techniques able to withstand the hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and buoyancy forces that would be caused by Flood depths, pressures, velocities, impact, and uplift forces associated with the Base flood and keep Floodwaters from entering the Building up to the BFE. 2. All areas of the Building components below the BFE must be water tight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and contain an internal seepage collection, control and discharge system capable of operating during periods of electrical power loss. 3. The internal seepage collection, control and discharge system, e.g., sump pump must be capable of handling an allowable seepage rate for the entire Building up to four(4) inches of water depth during a 24- hour period(103 gallons/hour/1,000 square feet). 4. In designing the Building to be substantially impermeable,the allowable seepage calculation assumes that the internal seepage collection, control and discharge system is not in place and functioning, so it cannot be used in the calculations to offset the leakage to below four(4) inches per 24 hours. 5. For existing Buildings where no internal seepage collection, control and discharge system was provided, the maximum allowable seepage rate for the entire Building is one quarter(1/4) inch of water depth during a 24-hour period(6.5 gallons/hour/1,000 square feet). 6. Flood damage-resistant materials must be used in all areas where such seepage is likely to occur. 7. The Building's utilities and sanitary facilities, including heating, air conditioning, electrical,water supply, and sanitary sewage services, must be located above the BFE, completely enclosed within the Building's watertight walls or made watertight and capable of resisting damage during Flood conditions. 8. Dry Floodproofing components for openings through the substantially impermeable walls(e.g., doors, windows, etc.)must be installed within four(4)hours after issuance of a Flood warning or a hurricane warning by the National Hurricane Center. 9. Wet Floodproofing utilizes Flood damage-resistant materials and techniques able to withstand prolonged submergence without damage and readily allow Floodwaters to enter and leave the Building up to the BFE. STAFF RESPONSE: Although there was no comment provided on this defined term in our existing FDPO, if we wish to keep this definition, the County will need to process a local amendment to the FBC simultaneously with the 2010 FBC "model" FDPO adoption. The County's current definition identifies the amount of allowable seepage rather than state the non- defined "substantially impermeable to the passage of water" and also identifies a time limit for installation of the dry floodproofing components that require human intervention. The current definition for "dry floodproofing" from the FBC-Building (1612.2) is as follows: DRY FLOODPROOFING. A combination of design modifications that results in a building or structure, including the attendant utility and sanitary facilities, being water tight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capacity to resist loads as identified in ASCE-7. ASCE-24 contains the following definition for floodproofing: Floodproofing—any combination of structural or nonstructural adjustments, changes, or actions that reduce or eliminate flood damage to a structure, contents, and attendant utilities tined equipment. ASCE-24 also contains the following information on floodproofing: C6.0 DRY AND WET FLOODPROOFING C6.1 SCOPE Structures in certain flood hazard areas may be designed and constructed so that, together with attendant utility and sanitary facilities, areas below the minimum specified elevation are watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water and with structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and effects of buoyancy. For consistency with the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP), dry floodproofing is applicable only for structures, and portions of structures, that are not used for residential purposes. The NFIP considers that residential uses include, but are not limited to, houses, dwelling units in apartments, sleeping rooms for rent or lease, areas of hospitals and medical facilities where patients are housed, and child and elder day care. For suggestions for existing, nonconforming residential structures, designers are referred to FEMA's Homeowner's Guide to Retrofitting: Six Ways to Protect Your House from Flooding, Ref. [C48]. Planning and design of floodproofing measures should consider the implications, including aesthetics, construction costs, alternative designs, and flood insurance premium charges, of floodproofing to an elevation higher than the minimum required elevation. Structures that are floodproofed to an additional 1 ft or more above the minimum elevations specified in the standard may, while being more costly to construct, qualify for lower federal flood insurance premium rates. In general, because of the forces involved and the likely severe damage and consequences if floodwaters exceed the design flood elevation, floodproofing for water depths of more than 2 to 3 ft is less common. For nonconforming, existing structures, relocation and elevation measures are most likely to successfully protect flood-prone structures; however, other floodproofing measures, when properly designed for existing structures, can also provide flood protection. For new structures, floodproofing measures built into a structure and requiring no human intervention during the flood event are the most reliable and preferred method of floodproofing for all structures located in the flood hazard area. Floodproofing measures requiring human intervention inherently have a greater chance of failure. There are many documents that provide detailed information on planning, design, and construction of these floodproofing measures. Among the more notable are the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers publication, Flood Proofing Regulations, Ref. [C31], and two FEMA publications, Floodproofing Non-Residential Structures, Ref. [C49], and Engineering Principles and Practices for Retrofitting Flood Prone Residential Buildings, Ref. [C50]. These documents provide information for engineers, architects, city officials, and building owners regarding all aspects of floodproofing existing structures in flood hazard areas. NFIP regulations regarding floodproofing, contained in 44 CFR Chap. 1 subparagraphs 60.3c(3), (4), and (8), should also be consulted. These regulations are discussed in NFIP Technical Bulletin 3-93, Non-Residential Floodproofing—Requirements and Certification for Buildings Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, Ref. [C51]. Design of levees and floodwalls intended to provide flood protection to an individual or group of structures are outside the scope of this standard. There are numerous engineering, nonengineering, and regulatory issues involved in the design and construction of levees and floodwalls. Therefore, caution should be exercised when considering employing a levee or floodwall as a method of providing flood protection. Local floodplain management officials, and various state and federal agencies that may have regulatory authority over levees and floodwalls, should be consulted. C6.2 DRY FLOODPROOFING Whenever dry floodproofing is proposed for the lowest story of a new structure, whether it be above grade, below grade, or a combination of the two, assurance must be provided that reliable flood protection will be achieved and that the structure will be substantially impermeable to the passage of floodwater, against all floods up to and including the design flood. This requires strict adherence to materials and construction requirements for dry floodproofing. Designers are advised that, as required by the NFIP, signed and sealed documentation of the design and proposed methods of construction is required. Existing nonresidential buildings and nonresidential portions of mixed-use buildings may be dry floodproofed using retrofit methods. Extensive evaluation of the structure's ability to resist flood loads and all possible avenues of entry of water must be undertaken to ensure that retrofit methods appropriately account for flood loads and failure points. Designers should be aware that retrofit dry floodproofing should achieve the same performance expected of new structures that are dry floodproofed. Where proposed work, including the dry floodproofing work and all other work, constitutes substantial improvement, compliance with the requirements for new structures is required. Designs and proposed methods of construction are required to be accompanied by documentation that is signed and sealed by the designer. C6.2.1 Dry Floodproofing Limitations Dry floodproofing in residential structures, and residential portions of mixed-use structures, is not permitted because it frequently requires human action such as installing flood shields, maintaining the protective features, having an operational plan, and being able to take action within a reasonable warning time. The possible failure of the homeowner or other occupants to take such an action because of absence, lack of maintenance, or change in ownership of the home is regarded as an unacceptable risk. Because of the nature of the loads and the chance for increased erosion and scour along solid walls, dry floodproofing measures are not allowed in structures in Coastal High Hazard Areas and Coastal A Zones. Walls below elevated structures in these areas are to meet the design requirements for breakaway walls. The 5 ft_sec velocity restriction for floodproofing is not a requirement of the NFIP, but is used in the regulations of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Flood Proofing Regulations, Ref. [C31] in design of structures exposed to water loads from stagnant or flowing waters. Although effective dry floodproofing can be designed for higher velocities, this is a reasonable existing limit that addresses safety of dry floodproofed structures during a flood. C6.2.2 Dry Floodproofing Requirements For safety, dry floodproofed buildings should not remain occupied during conditions of flooding. The requirement that at least one door be above the applicable flood elevations is intended to provide occupants that do not evacuate prior to the onset of flooding at least one access point that is above the design flood elevation. C6.2.3 Limits on Human Intervention In some instances, active floodproofing that requires human intervention to be effective provides an economic and appropriate means of floodproofing a structure. However, adequate warning from a credible source must be available, and strict guidelines for implementing active floodproofing must be followed (persons responsible for installing or implementing active floodproofing must be familiar with the procedures and equipment; sufficient warning time must be given to ensure the measures are put into place, etc.). Guidance on flood warnings is available in a document entitled Automated Local Flood Warning Systems Handbook, Ref. [C52]. C6.3 WET FLOODPROOFING LIMITATIONS Wet floodproofing techniques are used to reduce flood damages when an enclosed area of a structure is designed to allow entry and exit of floodwaters. However, all construction materials below the Design Flood Elevation should be flood resistant and have appropriate structural strength to resist flood forces. NFIP Technical Bulletin 7-93, Wet Floodproofing Requirements for Structures Located in Special Flood Hazard Areas, Ref. [C5], provides information on NFIP regulations regarding floodproofing. The areas for which wet floodproofing is permitted include enclosed areas used solely for building access, parking, and storage, as well as certain types of agricultural structures. Some examples of enclosed areas that may be wet floodproofed include garages, crawl spaces, entrance foyers and stairwells, and areas beneath elevated buildings. In some instances, active floodproofing provides an economic and appropriate means of floodproofing a structure. However, human intervention is required, and strict guidelines for implementing active floodproofing must be followed (persons responsible for installing or implementing active floodproofing must be familiar with the procedures and equipment; sufficient warning time must be given to ensure the measures are put into place, etc.). Guidance on flood warnings is available in a document entitled Automated Local Flood Warning Systems Handbook, Ref. [052]. ******************************************************************************** FUTURE CONDITIONS HYDROLOGIC MAPPING OBJECTIVE: To protect property against impacts of increased flood heights due to anticipated future development anywhere in the watershed, especially in rapidly developing areas. RATIONAL..,E: In many cases, flood studies reflect current conditions at best, and more likely past conditions since the studies often rely on old data. As watersheds are developed, future flood heights are likely to increase. The flood risk criteria used to site and design a project should rely on conditions the location is likely to experience during the project's lifetime, not past or current conditions. NOTE: Communities that are experiencing rapid urban and suburban growth and development should require that all new construction and substantial improvement have the lowest floor elevated to or above the future conditions 1%-annual-chance (base)flood level, ideally with the freeboard and other higher standards recommended in this document. We recommend the following three regulations: (I) Add the following definition: Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area—Also known as area of future conditions flood hazard,the land area that would be inundated by the one-percent-annual-chance flood based on future conditions hydrology. (2) Add the following sentence to the"special flood hazard area" definition: Any area outside the one-percent-annual-chance flood hazard area identified by FEMA.and designated as Future Conditions Flood Hazard Area on FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map shall also be considered special flood hazard areas. (3) Require that all map revisions and watershed studies include analyses based on future conditions associated with anticipated watershed growth and land-use and land-cover changes. These future condition analyses shall be included on community floodplain maps and will serve as the basis for this regulation. STAFF RESPONSE: While looking to the future is always good planning, the current FEMA floodplain mapping process only addresses current conditions,with the understanding that at least every five (5) years the FEMA. Director is required to assess the needs and update all floodplain areas 142 USC 4101.(e)]. That doesn't mean that every five (5) years FEMA will update a map, but at least they will look at the map to determine if there appear to be reasons to do a new Flood Insurance Study for an update. Additionally, the local participating community has the responsibility under 44 CFR 65.3 to notify FEMA. of physical changes that may increase or decrease the flood elevations. The CRS program (Activity 412d) offers up to 160 credit points if floodplain mapping takes in future condition considerations, but since that is a higher level of criteria than the minimum, and we are not currently doing that, staff's direction is to not include it in the new FD.PO. If either the FIVIPC or DSAC vote to include this as local criteria then their recommendation would be presented to the BCC to see if the BCC supported including it into the new FDPO. ****************************************************************************************** Hardship as related to Variances from this Ordinance means the exceptional Hardship associated with the land that would result from a failure to grant the requested Variance. The community requires that the Variance is exceptional, unusual, and peculiar to the property involved. Mere economic or financial Hardship alone is not exceptional. Inconvenience, aesthetic considerations, physical handicaps, personal preferences, or the disapproval of one's neighbors likewise cannot, as a rule, qualify as an exceptional Hardship. All of these problems can be resolved through other means without granting a Variance, even if the alternative is more expensive, or requires the property owner to build elsewhere or put the parcel to a different use than originally intended. STAFF RESPONSE: The term "hardship" is used in the State's "model" FDPO document without being defined. Likewise, the term is not defined in the FBC. Since the term is essential in making a determination for a variance request, staff recommends incorporating the definition into the FDPO or through an amendment to the FBC, depending upon the direction provided by the State as they review our draft FDPO document. ********************************************************************************** LEGAL RIGHT OF ENTRY TO ENFORCE FLOODPLAIN ORDINANCE OBJEC:CIVE: The floodplain administrator must have legal authority to enter private property to enforce the community floodplain ordinance and the minimum requirements of the NFIP. While this may not be considered a higher standard this authority is paramount for a community to have a sound floodplain management program. RATIONALE: 44 CFR • Part 60.2 (h) - The community shall adopt and enforce floodplain management regulations... • Part 60.3 (a) (1) - Require permits for all proposed construction and other developments in the community... • Part 73 - a property that has been declared to be in violation of State or local laws, regulations or ordinances using Section 1316 of the National Flood Insurance Act of 1968 FEMA 480, Unit 7 Section E, page 7-40: Enforcement "In order to ensure that development is meeting these requirements, you must monitor the floodplain, and where necessary, conduct an inspection of a property. Some permit officials have statutory limits on where they can go to inspect a potential violation. Be sure to review our authority to access onto private property with the county attorney." STAFF RESPONSE: Staff discussions with the Building Department and Code Enforcement identified the current limitations of access for inspections, but those limitations are not a part of the Flood. Damage Prevention Ordinance issue. Access through the County Sherriff is currently available through the court system if needed. ****************************************************************************************** Mangrove stand means an assemblage of mangrove trees which are mostly low trees noted for a copious Development of interlacing adventitious roots above ground and which contain one or more of the following species: Black mangrove (Avicennia germinans); red mangrove (Rhizophora mangle); white mangrove (Laguncularia racemosa); and buttonwood (Conocarpus erecta). STAFF RESPONSE: The term "mangrove stand" is used in the State's "model" FDPO document without being defined. Likewise, the term is not defined in the FBC. Since the term is used in making a determination for potential flooding impacts in coastal areas, staff recommends incorporating the definition into the FDPO or through an amendment to the FBC, depending upon the direction provided by the State as they review our draft FDPO document. ********************************************************************************** MATERIALS STORAGE OBJECTIVE: To protect the community against flood damage from materials that may block flood flows or which become buoyant, flammable, explosive, or cause other enviromnental health issues in floods. RATIONALE: Storage of materials is often difficult to regulate since many areas do not require building permits for storage. Stored materials can become waterborne debris during floods, endangering adjacent properties, and creating potential debris blockages where bridges or culverts exist. NOTE: (1) Add the following to a Prohibited Uses section: A. Storage or processing of materials that are hazardous, flammable, or explosive in the identified special flood hazard area. B. Storage of material or equipment that, in time of flooding, could become buoyant and pose an obstruction to flow in identified floodway areas. (2) Add the following to the Storage of Materials section: Storage of material or equipment not otherwise prohibited shall be firmly anchored to prevent flotation STAFF RESPONSE.: Materials storage can be addressed as a local criteria. Within the CRS there is a higher regulatory activity (Activity 432a) that addresses prohibitions of outdoor storage of materials with a maximum possible scoring range of 10 to 50 CRS credit points. Within the County well field protection ordinance there are regulations for storage of hazardous materials, but only as that relates to preventing releases to the environment — not specifically from a flood. Those regulations can be found in the Land Development Code (Section 3.06). The SFHA encompasses a large portion of Collier County. To prohibit the storage or processing of hazardous materials in the SFHA could prove to be extremely difficult to accomplish. If there is majority support from the FMPC or DSAC to develop special regulations to make the places engaged in the storage and use of hazardous materials more resistant to flooding, that effort could be as a subsequent amendment to the County's adoption of the State's "model" ordinance document. The development of the local criteria would need to be carefully examined for impacts to both existing and future property owners and the benefits gained by the County. ***************************************************************************************** National Geodetic Vertical Datum (NGVD) of 1929 means a vertical control used as a reference for establishing varying elevations within the Floodplain. Existing elevation information based upon NGVD and used for Floodplain purposes prior to the effective date of this Ordinance may continue to be used provided there is also converted elevation information based upon NAVD. After the effective date of this Ordinance, all elevation information submitted with a Development permit shall utilize NAVD. STAFF RESPONSE: No comments were provided for this defined term, but it is used by the County to require consistency in which elevation datum development applications use to show compliance with the flood elevations. Staff recommends placing this definition into the State's "model" ordinance document. ********************************************************************************** STORMWATER MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVE: To prevent increased flood flows and limit increased runoff from a proposed development to pre- development conditions, and to maintain floodplains and stream channels by reducing erosion and sedimentation from construction activities in flood hazard areas. RATIONALE: One of the most effective ways to prevent flooding problems from getting worse over time is to limit the changes in watershed hydrology that increase flood flows. Probably the single most effective way to accomplish this is through storm water regulations which limit increases in runoff that result from new development. Significant CRS credit is available for this activity. NOTE: We should adopt comprehensive stormwater management regulations which address water quality issues associated with development, and address increased runoff quantity by adopting regulations which ensure, at a minimum: All subdivision and other development proposals which involve disturbing more than 10000 square feet of land shall include a stormwater management plan which is designed to limit peak runoff from the site to predevelopment levels for the 1, 10, and 100 year rainfall event. These plans shall he designed to limit adverse impacts to downstream channels and floodplains. Single residential lots involving less than (1/4. 1/2, 1) acre of land disturbance are not subject to this regulation. STAFF RESPONSE: As noted by the commenter, the CRS program offers up to a maximum of 755 credit points for the Stormwater Management activity. Those possible points are broken down into four sub-activities. • 380 credit points for Stormwater Management Regulations (Activity 452a) • 315 credit points for Watershed Master Plan (Activity 452b) • 40 credit points for Erosion and Sedimentation Control Regulations (Activity 452c) • 20 credit points for Public maintenance of Required Facilities (Activity 45d2d) Most of the creditable work for these CRS sub-activities would come from implementing and/or expanding some of the initiatives identified in the County's Watershed Management Plan. The issues are not specifically well-suited for inclusion in the FDPO. If the County chooses to implement this level of regulation and work, some of it would be placed in the Land Development Code, and some would be expanded work programs for County staff. Previous discussions on this topic did not receive strong support from County administration because the Watershed Management Plan was still a work in progress. Since these are a higher level of criteria than the minimum, and we are not currently doing them, staff's direction is to not include them in the new FI)PO. If either the FMPC or DSAC vote to include this as local criteria then their recommendation would be presented to the BCC to see if the BCC supported including it into the new FDPO or some other location within the County's Code of Laws and Ordinances or the Land Development Code. ***************************************************************************************** Temporary housing: Typically provided by FEMA or the Florida Division of Emergency Management (FDEM) in accordance with guidance noted in the Stafford Act and/or the Post-Katrina Emergency Management Reform Act and similar laws. FEMA or the Florida Division of Emergency Management may provide housing resources via its contractor or other approved agency such as the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development and others to provide for emergency housing including but not limited to: modular homes, mobile homes, component homes, cottages, camper trailers, or some other type of temporary living quarters intended to house displaced residents impacted by a natur al or man -made d isaster ev ent for periods not exceeding ( 18) eighte en months unless extended by the Board of County Commissioners. Such Temporary housing efforts may be excluded from the Floodplain regulation(s) in light of the urgent need for Temporary housing. Such exclusions may further require an emergency notification and evacuation plan to be completed to ensure the safety of the occupants of the Temporary housing efforts. This emergency notification and evacuation plan will be approved by the Collier County Department of Emergency Management within 30 days of occupancy within the Temporary housing efforts. STAFF RESPONSE: This definition was developed by staff from the County :Dept. of Emergency Management and FEMA as a result of difficulties that arose during the recovery efforts from Hurricane Wilma in 2005. FEMA Region IV mitigation staff have advised that they think this topic should be in a separate ordinance or resolution and not a part of the FDPO, but are willing to let it remain in the FDPO if the County feels strongly about it. The definition is accompanied supported by additional text within the body of the current FDPO. There were no comments received from Emergency Management staff as to what they want to do with the defined term and its usage. County staff proposes to add this definition and appropriate usage criteria into the State's "model" FDPO document unless directed otherwise by Emergency Management, the FMPC or DSAC. ********************************************************************************** USE RESTRICTIONS OBJECTIVE: To restrict or prohibit uses of the floodplain which are dangerous to health, safety or property in times of flood, or which cause excessive increases in flood stages or velocities. RATIONALE: Avoidance of floodplains is far preferable to setting standards and allowing building in the floodplain. For many types of critical facilities, the tolerance for even minimal flood risk is extremely low, and complete avoidance of the floodplain should be the standard. NOTE: Add the following to a Prohibited Uses section: A. New construction of any residential or nonresidential structures in floodway areas. B. Storage or processing of hazardous, flammable, or explosive materials in special flood hazard areas. [Caution: while this policy defines the floodplain, floodway and BFE's future conflicts may occur when the watershed is remapped or modified by a LOMC] C. Critical development in special flood hazard areas. (Note: Must also adopt the critical development definition—see critical development higher standard). D. The use of nonconforming structures shall not be changed from a non-residential structure to a residential structure or a mixed-use structure, or increase the residential use area of a mixed-use structure. E. The use of any structure shall not be changed to a critical facility, where such a change in use will render the new critical facility in violation of Section IV - Critical Development Protection. STAFF RESPONSE: The topic of "critical facilities" is not included in the County's current FDP() or the State's "model" ordinance document. .ASCE-24 does identify "essential facilities" as being Category IV structures for building design requirements with minimum lowest floor elevation requirement of base flood elevation plus 2' or the design flood elevation. That would be for new construction. The CRS program does provide a definition for "critical facilities" and there are CRS credit points for protection of critical facilities (Activity 4320 as well as critical facilities planning (Activity 612d). The Emergency Management Department has included much information related to qualifying for the Activity 612d CRS credit points into the Local Mitigation. Strategy, but the documentation has not been developed and approved by the BCC for the complete package of requirements to earn Activity 612d credit points. If the FMPC or DSAC recommend that the County attempt to earn CRS Activity 61.2d credit points by further expanding the Local Mitigation Strategy, that recommendation will be presented to the BCC for their direction, but the issues don't really fit directly into the scope of the State's "model" ordinance document. • Note A: Collier County does not have any mapped floodways on the DFIRM, so there is no need to address the topic of Note A under any prohibited uses. • Note B: Prohibiting the storage or processing of hazardous, flammable or explosive materials within the SFHA would be a higher level of regulation than the current FDPO requires, As the commenter notes, subsequent floodplain remapping efforts could change floodplain boundaries with substantial impacts to properties that may be newly mapped within the SFHA. If either the FMPC or DSAC vote to include this as local criteria then their recommendation would be presented to the BCC to see if the BCC supported including it into the new FDPO. • Note C: This topic has been previously discussed. • Note D: The proposed restrictive language needs to be carefully compared to existing language within the Land Development Code and the Code of Laws and Ordinances to see what conflicts it would create. The language changes would take place in those locations rather than within the FDPO. If either the FMPC or DSAC vote to include this as local criteria then staff will need to research the matter and present the topic to the BCC to see if the BCC, supports revising existing regulations. • Note E: Same response as to Note D above. Comment #4 What were the specific objections raised by FEMA or the State with reference to our current FDPO? I understand that our current ordinance at a minimum must be revised to be compliant with the Florida Building Code but what were the objections, if any,beyond that? I seem to recall discussions regarding them being very"sticky" on format of the ordinance but not certain of that. As I go through the two documents, it would help if I know where the objectionable material or sections are in our current ordinance. It appears our ordinance contains a lot more specificity than the model ordinance does but do they have an objection to that? Also,we are allowed to be more restrictive than the model ordinance aren't we? STAFF RESPONSE: The issue of repealing a community's existing FDPO based upon the State's former"model" ordinance document and replacing it with a new FDPO based upon the State's current "model" ordinance document is entirely a State issue relating to the adoption of the 2010 FBC. The 2010 FRC now includes extensive citations for building design/construction within the SFHA. Basically, the State's "model" ordinance document acknowledges the FBC and then focuses on requirements for structures not covered by the FBC or additional local criteria. Since many existing local community FDPO's contain detailed specific language on construction within the SFHA, those requirements often conflict with the FBC. That can lead to a weak defense in a law suit brought by someone desiring to build and finding conflicting criteria. The State is required to review all FDPO documents, so for those communities desiring to adopt new ordinances based upon the State's "model" ordinance document, the State strongly requests that their "model" document format be retained so they can find what changes the local community made have made. Since the State is required to review all local FDPO documents, they have established a department policy that all FDPO's based upon the State's new "model" _ I ordinance document that retain the "model" formatting will be reviewed on a priority basis, while those using a different format will be placed at the bottom of the stack for review. There really isn't a specific point or section of objectionable material. It is the basic concept of what the community's FDPO is supposed to address that is the issue. Previously the FI)PO provided all the necessary information on requirements to comply with the NFI I'. Now those requirements have been placed within the FBC, so the local FDPO is to now address all development not regulated by the FBC and to include local criteria that exceeds the minimum FBC: requirements. If the local criteria are based upon a CRS activity requirement, the criteria can go into the FDPO. If the local criteria are to create requirements more restrictive than the FBC, then the local criteria are to be adopted by an amendment to the FBC. Comment #5 Draft 2010 FBC Compliant FDPO (3-6-13) doesn't need much work: Strike-through of 103.5 requires that 103.6 - 103.8 be renumbered. STAFF RESPONSE: Agreed, but that will not occur until after the State reviews a draft prior to submittal to the BCC. The State needs to see that we have deleted 1 03.5. Section 5....needs a date. STAFF RESPONSE: Agreed, but that won't occur until presentation to the BCC. The instructions and notes were very helpful. I especially enjoyed the explanatory notes for Model Floodplain Management Ordinance. If we can get this adopted it will make me a happy camper. There is some unusual capitalization in "Local Criteria Within the Current Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance." It's distracting but the content appears correct. How will these be adopted?Will they be added as an Appendix or included within the FDPO? STAFF RESPONSE: Based upon the response we receive from the FMPC and I)SAC the current local criteria issues may result in incorporation into the ordinance, incorporation into an amendment to the FBC, or simply be left out of our ordinances and regulations. Comment #6 Here are my brief comments regarding the draft FDPO. I would certainly include the acronyms and definition sections by adding any definitions in ours that are not included in the model. I note there are no acronyms in the model ordinance I would also add an acronym for BZA (Collier County Board of Zoning Appeals). It is tough for me to cross reference what standards appear on our current ordinance with equivalent sections in the model ordinance (by referring to the list of provisions excluded from the model). In general terms, if we have regulations,which have been left out of the model and NOT included in the Florida Building Code, I would add them to the model. Since I don't have the Florida Building Code that is something I can't determine. For example A. General Standards (16) does not have a comparable regulation in the model and so it should probably be added to the mode UNLESS those requirements are already included in the Florida Building Code. Overall, and certainly not my call, I would vote to have a clean slate and start from a new base, that being the model ordinance. Unless a current regulation really jumps out as something we view VITAL to our County's flood damage protection, I would just go with adopting the model (as personalized to our County) which would repeal our existing ordinances. Then we could begin to work off the newly adopted "model" and make selective amendments if we believe a regulation MIDST be included in that ordinance, allowing the state and FEMA if necessary to review our proposed amendments. Additionally,we should analyze our"omitted" regulations and determine which of those should be included in amendments to the LDC which would cover our basis without having to be redundant with the FDPO, and at the same time simplify the FDPO to preclude future dissyncronization with the State. My opinion is that many of the regulations now in the current FDPO should be incorporated in to the LDC. Hope the above helps but I believe the easiest and most efficient course of action is to fall back,re-group and move forward on a firm new basis approved by the State. STAFF RESPONSE: The intent of staff is to maintain the current FDPO local criteria that is not found within the State's "model" ordinance document. The specific item mention regarding lowest floor elevations [current FDPO, SECTION FIVE, A. General Standards, (16)] is a good example of local criteria that has served well for years, and would be considered as a local amendment to the FBC instead of placing it within the FDPO. Staff is presenting these issues to the FMPC and DSAC to receive recommendations to keep or eliminate these current local criteria. Staff will then receive the input from the State to determine the specific mechanism for keeping the current local criteria. Comment #7 I have very little faith in the abilities of the Federal, State or local Emergency Management folks to address our local issues and can't see why we are abandoning Robert's years of effort and expertise in stormwater in favor of this document. That having been said, I am really neutral on this issue and will vote with the majority that might feel more strongly than I do. STAFF RESPONSE: None. Comment #7 I don't have any comments or questions at this point. STAFF RESPONSE: None. Comment #8 I have reviewed the first of the 3 documents, Draft 2010 FBC and have some questions. 103.1 -states the County Mgr or designee.Who is the designee? STAFF RESPONSE: Nick Casalanguida 104.3 - Is this a new set of forms or are these existing? STAFF RESPONSE: This issue is still being discussed by Growth Management Division staff, but where existing permitting process do not sufficiently address the matter, revision of these processes to account for a floodplain development permit review would need to be established. 106.1.3 -These structures are Certified by State DCA inspection.What are the conditions that would be inspected other than elevation? STAFF RESPONSE: Elevation is the major inspection issue to ensure compliance with the base flood elevation, but other related issues (e.g. anchoring, utilities connection, etc.) could also be considered. 108.1 thru 108.3 -Will there be a cross reference to the FBC excluded structures to avoid a trap of non- compliance? STAFF RESPONSE: No cross reference is currently proposed, but the issue is really based upon the federal definition of"development" within the NFIP. That definition includes more than structures. Development means any man-made change to improved or unimproved real estate, including but not limited to buildings or other structures, mining, dredging, filling, grading, paving, excavation or drilling operations or storage of equipment or materials. (44CFR59.1) 108.3 Are violations listed currently in the ref document? Cost of violations? Listing of violations? STAFF RESPONSE: Section 202 Definitions Existing building and New Building use 9-4-1979 -Why? STAFF RESPONSE: That is the date of the County's first adoption of a Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance, which had to be adopted on or before the date of the first Flood Insurance Rate Map on 9-14-79. 307.2 and 307.3 refer to 303.4 and then to 105.3(1) and it appears to be a circular illogical loop of words and requirements for additional analysis and justification. Is there an end to this somewhere? STAFF RESPONSE: The issue in question is the development within a designated floodway. Since that is a special locational situation with special restrictions, 105.3 identifies the requirement for a Florida engineer to perform a floodway encroachment analysis. 303.4 identifies the limitations to development within a floodway that must be verified by the floodway encroachment analysis in 105.3 and 307.2 and 307.3 both relate to specific types of proposed development within the floodway that sometimes get overlooked as a "development" activity. This is not the circular illogical loop of words that it at first may appear to be. Section 3 Add new section 107.6.1 - If Affidavit permits are not extended to flood loads construction and Building Official appears not allowed to accept.Who will? STAFF RESPONSE: FBC-B Section 107.6 allows for the submission of an affidavit whereby the Building Official never reviews the construction plans. 107,6 Affidavits. The building official may accept a sworn affidavit from a registered architect or engineer stating that the plans submitted conform to the technical codes. For buildings and structures,the affidavit shall state that the plans conform to the laws as to egress,type of construction and general arrange- ment and, if accompanied by drawings, show the structural design and that the plans and design conform to the require- ments of the technical codes as to strength, stresses, strains, loads and stability. The building official may, without any examination or inspection, accept such affidavit, provided the architect or engineer who made such affidavit agrees to submit to the building official copies of inspection reports as inspec- tions are performed and upon completion of the structure,elec- trical, gas, mechanical or plumbing systems a certification that the structure, electrical, gas, mechanical or plumbing system has been erected in accordance with the requirements of the technical codes. Where the building official relies upon such affidavit, the architect or engineer shall assume full responsi- bility for compliance with all provisions of the technical codes and other pertinent laws or ordinances. The building official shall ensure that any person conducting plans review is quali- fied as a plans examiner under PartI of Chapter 468,Florida Statutes, and that any person conducting inspections is quali- fied as a building inspector under Part XII of Chapter 468, Florida Statutes According to the State's explanatory notes, "Despite the submission of an affidavit authorized by B107.6, the Building Official must review plans for compliance with the flood provisions and issue permits and perform inspections to ensure compliance with the flood provisions. Under the NFIP, the community is responsible for ensuring compliance." Comment #9 I reviewed the information provided and I am still concerned about compensated storage east of CR 951. If you continue to allow people to fill in wetlands to develop their property and do not compensate for the displacement of wet season flow,will not the design flood elevation continue to change? If so,how do you plan on addressing this? Somehow,the NGGE Flow Way and other small flow ways need to be clearly identified and mitigation for compensated storage needs to be addressed within the drainage basin of impact. STAFF RESPONSE: Compensatory storage is currently not addressed within the County's FDPO. It was addressed in County Ordinance 2008-10 whereby the County Land Development Code ordinance was amended to add Section 3.07 (Interim Watershed Management Regulations). LDC Section 3.07.02(B) says: Floodpiain storage compensation calculation shall be provided on a case by case basis, based upon historical flood and drainage problem area information, as determined by staff, for developments within the designated flood zones "A", "AE", and "NT" as depicted on the Flood Insurance Rate :Maps published by the Federal Emergency Management Agency with an effective date of November 17, 2005. Floodplain storage compensation calculations shall be provided on a case y case basis, based upon historical flood and drainage problem area information, as determined by staff. for areas known to be periodically inundated by intense rainfall or sheetflow conditions. Although the interim watershed management regulations indicate the intent to require floodplain storage compensation within the regulated floodplain as mapped by FEMA,with the adoption of the Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM effective date of 5-16-12) that intent has become mostly ineffective. The Zoning Manager has previously expressed an opinion that the LDC language is specific and limited to the mapped flood zones on the 2005 FIRM and is not applicable to the mapped regulatory floodplain on the 2012 DFIRM. The result is that compensatory storage within the regulated floodplain is not being required for the areas in question by the commenter. Staff is working to complete a riverine floodplain build-out analysis to determine the effect on the mapped base flood elevations for future development. Comment #10 I find the proposed FDPO vague in terms of definitions and specifications.As an engineer by trade, I appreciate the difference between practical application and scientific theory. Feedback from the: "Compilation Document for Ordinance 2011-07 thru 2012-24" C.STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. It is the purpose of this Ordinance to save lives,promote the public life health,safety and general welfare and minimize public and private losses due to Flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to: (1) Restrict or prohibit uses which are dangerous to health,safety and property due to water or erosion hazards,which result in damaging increases in erosion or in Flood heights and velocities; (2) Require that uses vulnerable to Floods including facilities which serve such uses be protected against Flood damage throughout their intended life span; (3) Control the alteration of natural Floodplains,stream channels, and natural protective barriers which are involved in the accommodation of Floodwaters; (4) Control filling,grading,dredging and other Development which may increase erosion or Flood damage; and (5) Prevent or regulate the construction of Flood barriers which will unnaturally divert Floodwaters or which may increase Flood hazards to other lands. D.SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS(V-ZONES). Located within the SFHA established in SECTION THREE, B, are Coastal high hazard areas, designated as Zones V1-30,VE, or V(with BFE).The following provisions shall apply: (13)Accessory Structures.The following standards are required to properly regulate Accessory structures in addition to A-Zone requirements: (a)Accessory structures meeting the criteria of small or low-cost,such as small metal/wooden sheds that are "disposable" must be unfinished on the interior, constructed with Flood damage-resistant materials below the BFE and used only for storage. (b) Maximum allowable size of Accessory structures in V-Zones is 100 square feet. (c) Maximum allowable value of Accessory structures in V-Zones is $2,500.00. Feedback: It would seem that from the above Section D,the following section from the: "Local Criteria within the Current Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance" is at odds with that STATEMENT OF PURPOSE. Specifically under section D.SPECIFIC STANDARDS FOR COASTAL HIGH HAZARD AREAS (V-ZONES) permitting accessory structures e.g.low value'sheds' that can be pushed inland on a storm surge is perhaps a violation STATEMENT OF PURPOSE (Item 1).Why would we allow these structures in the V- Zone? STAFF RESPONSE: The "low value" accessory structures are desired by property owners for the storage of items in an easily accessible place. These accessory structures use breakaway wall construction techniques so that when the storm surge hits them, the walls crumble and do not create large objects that can be pushed inland. Hurricane surge analyses indicate that the difference in impact to a structure between water only or water with small sized debris pieces is relatively negligible. Since the accessory structures are required to be of low cost value if constructed below the BFE, there is not a large impact on flood insurance claims. Upon adoption of the 2010 FBC Compliant FDPO, the "compilation" document will become repealed. Feedback from the "DRAFT 2010 FBC Compliant FDPO (3-5-13)" 102.6 Interpretation. In the interpretation and application of this ordinance,all provisions shall be: (1) Considered as minimum requirements; (2) Liberally construed in favor of the governing body; and (3) Deemed neither to limit nor repeal any other powers granted under state statutes. 103.2 General.The Floodplain Administrator is authorized and directed to administer and enforce the provisions of this ordinance.The Floodplain Administrator shall have the authority to render interpretations of this ordinance consistent with the intent and purpose of this ordinance and may establish policies and procedures in order to clarify the application of its provisions. Such interpretations, policies,and procedures shall not have the effect of waiving requirements specifically provided in this ordinance without the granting of a variance pursuant to Section 107 of this ordinance. Feedback: Given the FPA (Floodplain Administrator) can liberally construe this body of work which has enough boiler plate to sound official, but lacks many specifics. I only hope we have a fair minded, thoughtful individual in that position.Well written law should prevail, not vague,weak,guidelines subject to liberal interpretation. I would suggest striking the entire Clause B. STAFF RESPONSE: The phrase "Liberally construed in favor of the governing body" is standard ordinance language whereby the governing body basically given the benefit of doubt as the winner in a tie-breaking situation where the application of an ordinance is part of a legal suit. This phrase appears throughout the County's ordinances. SECTION 105 SITE PLANS AND CONSTRUCTION DOCUMENTS Feedback: The Floodplain Administrator is authorized to waive the submission of site plans, construction documents,and other data that are required by this ordinance but that are not required to be prepared by a registered design professional if it is found that the nature of the proposed development is such that the review of such submissions is not necessary to ascertain compliance with this ordinance. This is the last statement in Section 105,what does this mean? Forget about everything in this document? STAFF RESPONSE: While this may appear to be a "forget about everything else" type of statement, it is for those situations where there are no required construction plans from a design professional (e.g. Florida engineer or architect) and the proposed construction can readily be determined to have no floodplain impact (e.g. construction of a pole barn on agricultural land where no fill is placed on the site for feeding livestock to keep the food dry and provide shade). 107.3.1 Restrictions in floodways.A variance shall not be issued for any proposed development in a floodway if any increase in base flood elevations would result,as evidenced by the applicable analyses and certifications required in Section 105.3 of this ordinance. Feedback:This could be a very restrictive clause without any dimension around the statement"any increase in base flood elevations" (millimeters vs. meters). For instance, adding an additional parking space may increase the base flood elevation. STAFF RESPONSE: One of the NF.I I' requirements, from the federal language, is that construction in a floodway cannot be approved if there is any increase in the BEE in the floodway as a result of that construction. Collier County sloes not have any mapped floodways, so that restriction,while required to be in the ordinance, has no impact. Comment #11 What is a critical facility? You identify Waste Water Facilities as being critical,what about single family septic systems?Should they not be considered as critical facilities?Single family wells? STAFF RESPONSE: .A critical facility is something that provides a vital function to the community's ability to maintain the health, safety and welfare of the community. These would be public utility, communication, and emergency service type facilities. While a single family septic system or well would be of vital importance to that family, it would not be considered as a community's critical facility since it serves only the one family. Future Hydrologic Conditions- If we properly deal with compensated storage and surface water movement as stated/flood elevation should not increase, right? STAFF RESPONSE: As a rough basic guidance statement, that would be correct. There are other issues that can impact future hydrologic conditions, but the two mentioned items are the key components. The County should consider doing a storm water master plan for Golden Gate Estates based on the worst case scenario and design a functional surface water system.The BCB/SFWMD should be a key player and contributor to this effort. We have to stop kicking this can down the road. Development is coming and we have a chance to do it right. STAFF RESPONSE: The Watershed Management Plan did identify initiatives that need to be addressed. Several of these initiatives are being implemented, specifically the study to address impact on B:FEs from future development. Stormwater Management- How are you going to address all the 1/4 acre impacts? All the large developments currently are required to develop surface water management plans and currently go through a vigorous analysis to prove pre and post surface runoff are equal and are incorporated into the surface water design.STAFF RESPONSE: Current regulations do not identify a major concern with small acreage development impacts. Summed together, there is potential for cumulative impact. Regional storm water master planning should consider these cumulative effects since there is generally insufficient room on a 1/4 acre parcel to construct meaningful storm water volume and quality retention/detention facilities to account for any increased runoff characteristics.