Loading...
Floodplain Management Committee Minutes 07/16/2010 R ,. "4>. ... 0 f11~10 : ~:l · · HIII8r V HdlH,IFIg ~-r )..1.-/ Coyle; . . V- Br;ardmC~UI1\.;i~~~~ Golel1a . u_ ..~ Floodplain Management Planning Committee 82 .. ..-.- -RECE~\/ED' APR 2 1 2011 Ray Smith, Chairman Phillip Brougham Pierre Bruno Bob Devlin (Marco I,) Joseph Gagnier Christa Carrera (Naples) Brooke Hollander Lew Schmidt Dan Summers Jim Turner Carolina Valera. Terry Smallwood (Everglades City) John Torre, Vice-Chairman Stan Chrzanowski Jerry Kurtz Travis Gossard Mac Hatcher . Herb Luntz Clarence Tears Duke Vasey Christine Sutherland ~eeting Minutes for 7-16-10 Continued Meeting from 7-12-10 Start: 1 :40 p,m. End: 4:23 p.m, . Location: 2800 N, Horseshoe Drive, Room 610 ~eeting Attendance: Ray Smith, Rick Zyvoloski (alternate for Dan Summers), Jerry Kurtz, Jim Turner, Mac Hatcher, Todd Wright (alternate for Travis Gossard), Brooke Hollander, Christine Sutherland, Clarence Tears, Duke Vasey, Phillip Brougham, Chuck Mohlke (alternate for Terry Smallwood) and Robert Wiley, Absent: Carolina Valera (Excused), John Torre, Stan Chrzanowski (Excused), Herb Luntz, Joseph Gagnier (Excused), Pierre Bruno (Excused), Lew Schmidt (Excused), Bob Devlin, and Christa Carrera. There were no members of the public or additional staff in attendance, Meeting called to order by Ray Smith, Chairman, OLD BUSINESS: . 1. Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance - Robert Wiley opened discussion on the 7-10-10 draft of the Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) which he also had projected onto a screen for everyone to see. The Committee members were advised they should have received a 33-page document oftext and comments which was e-mailed to them, The preferred method of discussion is to go through the drat): FDPO and address each page along with the comments provided on the right hand side of each page, Page 1 - quickly discussed with no changes by FMPC. Page 2 - quickly discussed .with no changes by FMPC, Page 3 - Begins the start of a listing of definitions. R~garding "accessory structure" definition, separate sub-sections were added near the end ofthe.FDPO to address requests to expand the defInition rather than change FEMA's definition as contained within the FDPO. Chuck Mohlke asked if Robert Wiley was referencing the comments submitted by Jim Turner on 7-13-10, which are extensive and deal with specifIc standards for accessory structures as a proposed new B(8) and D(B) shown on page 33 of the "Comments Received on the 2-24-10 Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance Draft". Robert said those have not been included and are to be discussed today, DtM~~ys: , Page 1 of 15 Date: Item t: CC:~:3S 4 y// 16 I 1 B~4a ~ asked about the definition of "area of special flood hazard" as compared to the definition of "special flood hazard area" and one of the abbreviations for "special flood hazard area" which are synonymous, Robert explained that later in the ~efinitions starting with the letter "s", there is definition for "special flood hazard area" and it will" say "see area of special flood hazard", Robert agreed with Duke on the desire to carry the definition as "special flood hazard area", but FEMA uses the term as "area of special flood hazard", Ray Smith concurred with that explanation, Robert Wiley then addressed changes made to the definition for "area of shallow flooding". The term was modified to say "less than three feet" instead of the standard statement of "from one to three feet" so that the definition would conform to a clarification letter received from FEMA's Region IV office where anything under three feet in depth is considered as shallow flooding. Ray Smith asked for confirmation that the ordinance is staying with minimum. requirements, as previously agreed, Robert confirmed the ordinance is staying with minimum requirements for the most part, and he will identify where we do not stay with minimum requirements when we get to them, Page 4 ...., Robert Wiley discussed the previous request of Duke Vasey to put together a list of acronyms, He still intends to create and insert that list, but doesn't plan on doing so until after the various review committees have completed their reviews, Duke Vasey asked about the definition of "agricultural buildings" which is not included, but had been requested in earlier comments, He requested a definition of "Agricultural buildings are structures designed for fanning and agricultural practices including, but not limited to: growing and harvesting of crops and raising livestock and small animals and includes barns, greenhouses, storage buildings for farm equipment, animals, supplies or feed, storage buildings for equipment used to implement fanning and/or agricultural practices, storage buildings for crops grown and raised on site ( cold storage), and horticultural nursery," Robert said he would add as much of that definition as he can once he determines how it lines up with what FEMA says. He was not sure he could include every one of those specific terms. There may be overlap with the terms in "accessory structures", so we don't want to mix the two definitions, Mac Hatcher asked how agricultural structures were addresses in the regulations, to which Ray Smith responded that he didn't see agricultural buildings listed under 44CFR. Robert Wiley responded that there is a Technical Bulletin, and as we look at the end of the FDPO on page 33 there is a sub-section J under Variances called "Certain Agricultural Structures", . This addresses the concept that Duke Vasey is discussing, so we must make sure the definition proposed by Duke doesn't conflict with what FEMA allows to be included, Robert agreed there is a need to define "agricultural structures", . The term "coastal construction control line" has been added since we do have the term within the FDPO, This is not a term from FEMA but it comes to us through the State's model ordinance, This is the definition from Florida Statutes Section 161.053, Chuck Mohlke suggested that after each statutory reference it is appropriate to include the statement "as amended or (amended)", Ray Smith suggested the phrase "as amended or superseded". Chuck agreed with Ray's suggestion, Duke Vasey asked why "Community Rating System" was not included in the list of definitions, Robert Wiley responded that the Community Rating System is a separate voluntary program and is not a part of our FDPO, .The term does not appear within the Page 2 of 15 161 1; B2 FDPO, and he was directed to not include defInitions for terms not used within the FDPO. FEMA did advise there are certain terms that they would consider as a fatal flaw ifnot included in the FDPO, so those do remain even if they are not used in the FDPO, There are several defInitions that have been removed from the document even though they were in the model ordinance but were never used, Robert Wiley explained the change in usage of the term "coast81 high hazard area" from the current FDPO to this proposed FDPO. Under the current existing ordinance, the "coastal high hazard area" include~ all lands seaward of the "coastal construction control line" includes more land and is a higher requirement than the FEMA minimum definition which only includes all flood zones starting with the letter "V", In this respect, the proposed FDPO is a step backwards and a weakening of the existing ordinance regulatory area, which follows the direction he received to remove all higher regulatory criteria, Robert Wiley asked is this is what the Committee wants? Duke Vasey said it could be added if we provided a cost basis and could show the cost benefit, Robert Wiley said he couldn't provide the cost estimate since there is no way to determine when a property owner would want to construct within that area and it is already an existing ordinance requiremen,t, so there is no additional cost to existing. Duke Vasey said that was why the higher regulatory standards were a "red herring" initially. Robert Wiley replied :that this is not higher regulatory to what is existing, but is higher regulatory to the minimum FEMA requires, Robert Wiley then discussed the addition of the definition "cosmetic repair" to address the topic of wet floodproofing later in the FDPO, There are a series of definitions that feed off of each other to help explain what wet floodproofmg entails, or making it resistant to flood damage. Robert Wiley explained that the definition of "datum" was changed to reflect comments received from several people and we are now stating that the datum is NA VD and not NGVD. Previously the definition said NGVD or NA VD, but this now puts NA VD fIrst. We do expect to get a statement from the engineering community addressing the issue of old developments that are almost totally built out, and for the remaining properties, do they have to re":survey and re-contour plans to show NA VD elevations, The County has not yet received the proposed statement to put within the FDPO the allowance for older existing developments to continue to use NGVD elevations provided there is also an additional NA VD elevation provided so it can be seen, but it would not require them to re-topo everything. The specific situation stated by the industry is for an existing parking lot that needs to have a plan submitted to resurface or restripe, Why should there be a requirement to resurvey for NA VD elevations? Staff expects to receive input from DSAC when the ordinance is presented to them. Ray Smith asked if this definition comes from communication with FEMA, Robert Wiley responded that the definition issue is internal to staff and with the local engineering community. Ray Smith asked why not just incorporate that concept into the definition, to whicJ:l Robert Wiley responded he was waiting for the specific statement from the industry. Chuck Mohlke expressed a comment that some ofus have unique regulatory standards because of location, history, and a number of other things, Hopefully there will be some kind of communication with other regulators about what was just agreed to so there is not a likelihood that something will have to be re-topographed before they will approve it, Page 3 of 15 161 1 '82' even though for transitional purposes we have made an effort here to try and accommodate people in ~ sense of a kind of a grandfather provision, for minor yet-to-be- completed features of a development. Sometimes there are regulatory conflict between regional agencies, state, several parts of the federal including the National Park Service which we tend to ignore. . Robert Wiley then discussed the addition of the definition for "development permit" . which was added like a placeholder until feedback is received from DSAC, This does not exactly match with the existing ordinanc~ defmition, but it is based upon comments expressed, He anticipates there may be some tweaking of this definition in the future, There were a lot of comments from people asking if this meant there was a separate permit for floodplain issues, This is to clarify that a development permit is' something we are already doing, Page 5 - Robert Wiley discussed the addition of the definition for FEMA since they are mentioned in the FDPO and a Conimittee member thought we should identify who they are, A definition was added for "flood damage resistant material" to address issues later in the ordinance regarqmg making buildings resistant to flood damage, This definition relates directly to the previous definition for "cosmetic repair", Page 6 - Robert Wiley discussed the deletion of the definition for "Flood Hazard Boundary Map" since there is no such map for Collier County, We have a Flood Insurance Rate Map which is a step beyond a Flood Hazard Boundary Map. We also deleted the definition for "Flood Boundary and Floodway Map" since there are no floodways in Collier County, FEMA prefers for the County to not delete the definitions, but it is no considered a fatal error if we do, The term "FHBM" was also deleted from the definition 9f "Flood Insurance Study" as a cleanup effort on unused terms, The term "Floodplain Administrator" is sripposed to be defined in a way to say the County Manager is the Floodplain Administrator and he will delegate the work to someone else, Duke Vasey stated that the County Manager delegates his responsibility Robert Wiley said definition needs to be revised to reflect that. Duke Vasey asked to go back to the definition of "floodplain" to address a comment from Stan Chrzanowski on whether a natural, meteorological, or a broken pipe can cause flooding, What do we mean by "floodplain", Robert Wiley responded to refer to the . definition of "flooding'~. Christine Sutherland pointed out that the definition is actually called "flood or flooding" so we should call it that in the "floodplain" definition, Robert Wiley discussed the addition of specific criteria to the definition of "floodproofing" to follow along with FEMA's Technical Bulletin on floodproofing. FEMA assumes a floodproofed structure will leak up to 4" of water in a 24-hour period. There is supposed to be an internal sump pUmp capable of handling that volume of water, The Technical Bulletin specifies that you can't include the volume of the throw out pump to still end up with 4" of water in the building, Staff then took that concept into the situation where an owner doesn't want to have a pump on the inside of a building, Floodproofing is not for residential structures, and is only for non-residential structures, Assuming we only want to allow for a W' water depth accumulation in a building and there is no sump pump, the calculation is determined for allowable seepage, FEMA liked Page 4 of 15 16 J ~ B 2 the concept since it is more definitive and restrictive than not stating specific criteria, which is what the Technical Bulletin does, 1bis effort is an attempt to give some up front information into the ordinance, It is additional text that is beyond the minimum requirements. It is provided for the Committee's discussion, Duke Vasey asked about Ray Smith's group's desire to strike the terms "water and sanitary facilities" earlier in the definition, right above item 1 in the definition, Ray Smith said he had looked at the definition of floodproofing in 44CFR and it is the same definition as in this POPO, Ray asked ifthere was a regulatory or policy issue if we don't match the same language in our ordinance as in 44CFR. Robert Wiley responded that we must have at least the s~e or more restrictive language as that in 44CFR or it is FEMA's ability to declare the ordinance as invalid. Robert didn't want to put the County at risk by removing language that is in 44CFR, ~d Ray agreed, Ray did want to look at other locations for recommended verbiage changes, but wanted to move forward from this point. Robert Wiley said he discussed adding the specific criteria with his supervisor and they agreed to add it and see if there was support, It would provide criteria for an architect to use in the design of a watertight building, Duke Vasey expressed his support for the additional criteria, Phil Brougham said that as a process check, it wasn't necessary for Robert to explain each modification made to the FDPO, He suggested only going to those locations where people may have some problem with the docUment. Based upon that direction ofthe Committee, Robert moved forward to page 8, Page 8 - Mac Hatcher said the scientific names of the inangroves need to be re-phrased and he could provide that information. The species names need to be lower case, and the . species name for black mangrove is outdated. Page 9 - Duke Vasey asked if there was a final resolution for what we want to defme as "mean sea level", Robert Wiley explained the definition references NA VD, Under "new construction", Ray Smith asked if there was a typographical error in identifying the 9-4- 79 and 9-14-79 dates, Robert Wiley explained the two dates are correct and reflect the difference in the adoption and recording date of the original FDPO (9-4-79) and the effective date of the first FIRM for the County (9-14-79), There is a 6-month window of time to adopt an ordinance before the FIRM becomes effective, and by coincidence the dates happen to be 10 days apart, Ray Smith said he had checked this with language in 44CFR and the language aligns. Page 10 - Robert Wiley discussed the comments around the "repetitive loss" definition, The model ordinance has a definition that uses 2 paid flood claims within a 1 O-year period, the average of which is 25% of the value of the structure at the time of each claim. That language reflects a new program by FEMA which makes claimants eligible to receive additional coverage through the Increased Cost of Compliance program without having been through the 50% substantiaJ. damage claim requirement. However, it affects a lot more structures to be declared substantially damaged without having actually received 50% value damage. A structure with a 49% flood damage claim and a 10% flood damage claim would be considered to have an average of 30% which is greater than 25% and would be declared to be substantially damaged, Then when the owner applies for a permit to repair the 40% damage, the County would have to tell him he has an average Page 5 of15 161 1 :,a 2. ""4 greater than 25% and therefore has to mitigate the entire house, While the damage has never hit the 50%, it is the second paid flood claim, FEMA could not answer how the County would know the flood claim had been paid, Staff asked FEMA how the County would know to not issue the permit to repair the structure when there is the rush to repair damage after a flood, FEMA said we would have to figure it out some way, which was not an acceptable answer to County staff, This would put the County at much more risk on issuing a permit inappropriately, so my supervisor agreed, so we changed the definition as advised by the Florida Department of Emergency Management. Their recommendation was to go with the old FEMA definition of repetitive loss as being two paid flood claims of at least $1000 within a 1 O-yearperiod and don't include the requirement for this also being considered as substantial damage, Repetitive'loss is an issue within the Community Rating System program on how the community has to address the issue and how they qualify for grant programs. But it doesn't mandate what the community has to do. Duke Vasey asked about Reed Jarvi's comment on how would the County track repetitive loss. Robert Wiley responded that with the proposed definition, there would not be any required tracking of the repetitive loss structures since we don't have any structures less than $2000 in value. Chuck Mohlke asked if the Committee could hear again the discussion between Robert Wiley and Jim Turner on how the County would track repetitive loss ~d how it would be enforced. Chuck wanted to have discussed the observations made by a couple of comments on merging a procedure on how to track it and how to enforce it, Jim Turner said he kept track of all permits coming in for substantial damage, There are forms the applicant completes and a tracking process through the permitting process, Jim said he did not currently have a tracking procedure for repetitive Joss, He suggested that perhaps Rick Zyvoloski (Em~rgency Management) may have a tracking procedure, Rick said he didn't have a procedure for tracking repetitive loss, but thought that FEMA annually provided a report on flood loss and who is now a repetitive loss, Robert Wiley confirmed that the County does get that information from FEMA but it is always a year behind, so if the County used the definition as recommended by FEMA and put in the model ordinance, the County would need to know immediately if a structure is repetitive loss because the owner is coming in for a building permit to repair the structure and there is nothing to trigger the County's attention if the damage is less than 50%, This could get the County in the position of issuing a building permit to a structure that is to be considered as substantially damaged, and we didn't know it. Rick Zyvoloski suggested disassociating the two definitions from one another and put down a caveat for repetitive loss per FEMA's annual report which allows the County to address repetitive loss in a category by itself because that triggers special flood programs, Substantial loss triggers the local County program whereas repetitive loss opens up different grants. There is also the severe repetitive loss as defined by FEMA, He suggested leaving the responsibility with FEMA for identifying repetitive loss and if they want it timelier, they need to get reports out timelier. Perhaps we should refer to the FEMA report, Phil Brougham suggested the last available FEMA report, even if it is a year old, Discussion followed between Jim Turner, Rick Zyvoloski and Robert Wiley on the paid flood claim information prOVIded by FEMA. Rick said the titles of repetitive loss and severe repetitive loss allow owners to go forward with grant program applications, He recommended leaving those in a category by themselves and let the Page 6 of 15 16 J 1 .IB a MI County deal with substantial loss, Christine Sutherland asked if the property owner would know how much was paid, to which Robert Wiley responded yes, Phil Brougham discussed the current owner may not know what was paid to the previous. owner, Robert Wiley discussed the additional flooding information that would be needed at the time of the building permit application if we kept the repetitive loss definition in the model ordinance, That information would be tracked, and while not difficult to do, it would be a higher requirement than what is currently done, Rick Zyvoloski asked if the owner was required to repair the damage with the money received from a paid flood claim, or could they just collect the money. He again said he felt there should be a disassociation between repetitive loss and substantial loss, Robert Wiley responded that the two terms have been separated with the proposed changes to the model ordinance defInitions, Jim Turner suggested tying information from the FEMA repetitive loss repo~ to the County's address database when the reports arrive, Robert Wiley said that effort was already being done in the CD+ permit tracking software, but the information is always a year behind, Upon completion of the discussion, Ray Smith asked if everyone was OK with the proposed "repetitive loss" definition, there was no opposition, so discussion moved to the next pornt. Page 11 - Ray Smith asked about the definition for "structure" which is the same as defmed . . in 44CFR, but he still had a problem with the word "principally" because it is subjective, He asked to delete the word "principally" because a structure is either above ground, or it isn't. Robert Wiley described a theoretical example, such as a large storage tank which may be 20' tall with the lower 4' below grade, Phil Brougham also suggested deleting the word "principally" since the definition of that word could be debated at length, Christine Sutherland suggested that the term "principally" may mean the major part of the structure is above ground, Phil Brougham suggested the term "principally" was referencing the gas or liquid storage tank part of the definition, and not the walled and roofed building part of the definition, Upcm conclusion of the discussion, the Committee consensus .was to remove the word "principally", Ray Smith then moved the discussion to the "substantial improvement" definition and said he was OK with including the work "sanitary" within the definition which is different than his original comments. Robert Wiley began the discussion on the definition of "substantial damage". He disc~ssed the addition of the 24-month cumulative cost provision that was added by his supervisors, and this is a higher regulatory criteria, Ray Smith reminded the Committee of the previous decision to keep the ordinance at the base level, and this will take us above that. Ray recommended staying with the base ordinance, Jim Turner said the base level was a I-year time period, and for a long time the County had used a 5-year time . period, However when that was questioned, nobody could locate where that was approved, so he went back to the I-year period, and now this proposal is to go back to 2 years. When asked by Duke Vasey who had directed to include the 2-year cumulative period, Robert Wiley explained that Nick Casalanguida had directed it when he began to better understand the implications of substantial improvements and the money that could be put into a structure without reducing its flooding risk. Phil Brougham asked what was the previous position ofthe Committee, to which Robert Wiley responded with the standard 12 month time period, Phil Brougham stated that as in prior meetings that he has observed there is a recommendation from an advisory committee and there is always Page 7 of 15 16l J. a2 a staff recommendation that can go on top of it, Phil proposed a motion to stay with the base ordinance, and if staff wishes to make another recommendation OIi top of that when they go before the Planning Commission or the BCC, then so be it. Ray Smith said that vote was already on record, Phil Brougham motioned to remove the higher regulatory cumulative statement, the motion was seconded, Jim Turner said he had the same problem with this as he did with a previous definition where a person incurs 40% damage from flooding and then next year needs to put on a new roof. With the cumulative, the entire house would have to be raised, so he sees no problem with changing back to the base level of 12 months and taking out the 24-months, The motion passed unanimously, Robert Wiley then said he assumed the Comniittee wanted the same change to the "substantial improvement" definition to remove the 24-months cumulative, The Committee's response was yes, . . . Page 12 - Discussion then moved to the term "watercourse" which Robert Wiley explained has. been changed to better reflect other FE.MA documents to define it as the channel and banks which would eliminate the previously expressed concern about the entire sheetflow area being defmed as a watercourse, That eliminated Stan Chrzanowski's concern, The definition was also edited to add other FEMA language to clarify that the watercourse did not include the adjoining floodplain areas. The term "waterway" was then added to address the issue that occurs in ordinance section 5(B)(6), Within the riverine portion of the floodplain where there are AE flood zones and there are no defined floodways, there is a special analysis required per 44CFR. This definition is to clarify that the waterway is . not the shallow AH flood zone area, Robert Wiley explained that "wet season water table" was added to assist later in the ordinance where the term is use in the "A" zones where there is no base flood elevation (BFE), The dePnition is taken from the Florida Administrative Code, Page 13 - Robert Wiley stated the flood zones applicable to Collier County have been added at the request of Duke Vasey, Ray Smith asked if these definitions align with the FIRM, Robert Wiley responded that they align with both the existing FIRM and the proposed DFIRM, Page 14 - Robert Wiley stated the changes to the identification of the Floodplain Administrator need to be confirmed with previous discussion to make sure they are consistent, Page 15 - Robert Wiley discussed the proposed wording in the ''Penalties for Violation" paragraph. The County Attorney replaced the entire paragraph from the model ordinance with this new wording to align with the current Code Enforcement master language, Page 16 - Robert Wiley discussed changes in Sub-section B "Duties and Responsibilities of the Floodplain Administrator", Sub-paragraph (3) which requires copies of various other permits has been eliminated since we do not require all of this for each building permit application. Those other permits are handled by other departmental staff, Ray Smith asked ifFEMA was in agreement with this, and Robert Wiley said the item has not been discussed with them, FEMA will be given an opportunity to review the ordinance, In responding to comments, other portions of this Sub-section B have been edited to move text around to other locations, Page 8 of 15 161 ~ fa ~ Page 18 - Robert Wiley identified the two additional sub-paragraphs added by Emergency Management for temporary housing, . Robert Wiley explained that starting in Section 5: Provisions for Flood Hazard Reduction we get into the main text' of the ordinance. Some re-ordering has been proposed for the sub-paragraphs to better organize the new construction discussion from the manufactured home discussion, There has also been the inclusion of reference to the Florida Building Code and FEMA Technical Bulletins to provide supportive background on how to make certain decisions,. Page 19 - Jim Turner asked about sub-paragraph (5) and expressed a concern that this would cause mobile homes to be raised an additional 1.5' to 2' by requiring the equipment and service facilities to be located above flood, Robert Wiley explained that this particular location does not require everything to be above flood level, just designed and/or located to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components. Robert acknowledged that FEMA does want communities to require duct work to be above the BFE, but we need to decide if we are going to require it or leave the current language as is which comes from 44CFR. Jim Turner recommended stating that duct work should be above the BFE. There was a lengthy discussion on what to edit in this sub-paragraph (5) and the final decision of the Committee was to revise the statement to read "Electrical, heating, ventilation, plumbing, air condition equipment and other service facilities, including duct work, shall be located above the base flood elevation or designed so as to prevent water from entering or accumulating within the components during conditions of flooding, " Page 20 - Ray Smith discussed some proposed changes in sub-paragraph (12)(b) to address private as well as public utilities, He asked if there was a reason we are only looking at public utilities and facilities vs, all utilities and facilities, Robert Wiley explained it was his understanding that even if privately owned, the utilities and facilities are used by members of the public, Ray Smith recommended deleting the word "public". Rick Zyvoloski and Chuck Mohlke recommended substituting the word "all" for "public", Ray Smith agreed with that. Brooke Hollander questioned if Golden Gate Estates is considered as a sub-division, then would this include each individual house having its own sewer system, More discussion followed to clarify how various private utilities would be considered, Committee consensus was to replace the word "public" with "all", Robert Wiley discussed the addition of the text in sub-paragraph (16) as being previous text in another County ordinance that was deleted but is now being brought back to the Board for inclusion in the existing'FDPO, The text shown is roughly the same as 'proposed to the Board and this will be edited to match whatever the Board approves on 7- 27-10. Jim Turner asked for a correction to sub~paragraph (16)(b)(iv) to reflect NA VD instead ofNGVD, . Page 22 - Robert Wiley discussed the side note on sub-paragraph B(2) for floodproo:6.ng to the base flood elevation. Floodproofing to just this elevation, which is the minimum requirement, will have increased financial impacts to the owner's flood insurance premium, Jim Turner said he was already requiring floodproofing to l' above the BFE as a policy. Robert Wiley explained that flood insurance requires subtracting l' from the elevation of the floodproofing when rating a building and he provided cost.difference examples for floodproofing to or l' above the BFE, The decision for the Committee to Page 9 of 15 16 j 1 B~ 2 address is whether to recommend floodproofing to just the BFE or to go with the higher requirement of l' above the BFE as recommended by the model ordinance. Duke Vasey recommended sticking with the basic requirement, which was the consensus of the Committee, Robert Wiley discussed the additional wording to sub-paragraph B(3)(c) to include "partitioned into separate rooms, or temperature-controlled (air conditioned), This language comes from an official FEMA interpretation dated June 1999.. Jim Turner was happy with the wording but felt it would be a big issue to prevent the partitioning, Jim explained it is common for owners to get their CO and then go in and partition and air condition those areas, Page 25 - Robert Wiley explained the added text shown as sub-paragraph B(6)(c) which was developed to utilize the defined term "waterway" and provide specific criteria for impacts in the riverine AE zones on the coming DFIRM that would eliminate the need for expensive stUdies by the owner, Clarence Tears agreed with the 0,05' of head loss for a watercourse crossing and said the Big Cypress Basin was already using that number, Duke Vasey asked to remove the bullets and use numbers for the sub-points. Ray Smith reminded Robert Wiley to add the phrase "as amended" as previously discussed when referencing other legislated regulations, Robert Wiley explained that the sub-section C "Specific Standards for A-Zones without Base Flood Elevations and Regulatory Floodways" is new to the Collier County ordinance since we now have areas of this type flood zone, The language is standard language from the model ordinance until we get to sub-paragraph C(7). Page 26 - Robert Wiley discussed the changes proposed in sub-paragraph C(7) to increase the minimum elevation from 3' to 4' as recommended by Stan Chrzanowski who is the County Engineer, His direction was based upon typical design for a septic system, Staff also added in the consideration for using the wet season water table instead of just the ground surface for situations where construction may occur within a wetland depression (cypress head) area. The Committee agreed to the proposed wording. Page 28 - Robert Wiley briefly discussed the addition ofthe "air conditioned" text into sub- paragraph 6( c) to be consistent with the previous text addition in the AE flood zone, . Duke V as~y questioned why he was not given any consideration on the two paragraphs he recommended for addition in his comments, Ray Smith asked which information Duke Vasey was referencing and Duke informed him it would be on page 27 of the handout of all the comments that Robert Wiley provided to the Committee, . Robert Wiley explained that Duke wanted to add in sections for '''Specific Standards for Rural and Unincorporated Area Accessory Structures" and "Specific Standards for International Organization for Standardization (ISO) and Non ISO Storage Contamers", Robert Wiley stated that he took this information to the Planning and Zoning staff, and it was their . opinion that the information should not go into the ordinance as it didn't have anything to do specifically with flooding but were issues already covered under the Land Development Code (LDC). Ray Bellows, who. heads up the Planning and Zoning group, did not recommend their inclusion, . Page 10 of 15 16 I 1 ;B (: Duke Vasey appealed to the Committee to include these sections and then the individual nuances can be dealt with later, Duke said there were a lot of administrative procedures and the County doesn't even recognize, except by memorandum, the ISO steel containers or even Ted Sheds. He felt it was important to better identify what an accessory structure is and define how to handle them, Jim Turner said that most of the information was covered in the LDC, and didn't know that it belonged in the flood ordinance. Duke Vasey commented that the Committee had been given County Attorney instruction to have each ordinance stand on its own, Phil Brougham asked if the LDC was always the overriding law. Robert Wiley replied that the LDC is adopted by ordinance, The FDPO is a separate ordinance and will not go into the LDC, but will go into the Code of Laws and Ordinances, Ordinances are set up to complement each other so that 'whichever is more restrictive, the more restrictive becomes effective, Robert said that if the Committee wanted this text-added into the FDPO, he would take that recommendation back to his supervisors for further -direction, . Phil Brougham asked Duke Vasey what value he saw by including this text within the ordinance if it is already "in" the LDC, Duke Vasey expressed his concern that "accessory structure" is not well uilderstood by the County, and the problem is with Code Enforcement. If it isn't spelled out in an ordinance, which it isn't in the LDC, Code Enforcement will not understand how to actually enforce the Code of Ordinances which we have. His recommendation is that the Committee adopts paragraphs "E"and "F" like we did with the FEMA recommendation or with Dan Summers' request for FEMA housing. Phil Brougham questioned that if this language was included in the FDPO and the ordinance passed, how "Code Enforcement" would be aware to look at the FDPO when trying to rule on "accessory structures", Duke Vasey said it really wasn't Code Enforcement but it turns out to .be an insurance claim, This ordinance is really dealing with keeping stuff out ofthe flowway and our canals and out of the watershed, We're. lifting things up so they don't float into the canals and the drains, With this, we are adding in a dimension for "accessory structures" that doesn't currently exist. In addition, we are defining Ted Sheds and ISO shelters, Phil Brougham didn't think it would hurt . . anything to include'it, or we weren't stepping on the LDC. Ray Smith expressed concern that if there is a modification to the LDC, there would have to be a modification to this ordinance also, That's the intent of having it in one location, so they make one change and they don't have to worry about any like language in other ordinances, which is probably why they are recommending it remain in the LDC and not in here. Duke Vasey made a motion to add the language into the FDPO, The motion was seconded, During discussion, Jim Turner said he thought there would be issues with setbacks in the LDC. Phil Brougham asked if we knew that the proposed language conflicted with the LDC. Duke Vasey commented that if his proposed text was changed . to fit the LDC and placed in this document it would bring the "accessory structure" issue to life, He would have no objection for Robert Wiley to go through and make it the same as the LDC requirement, providing that it remain in this ordinance, Discussion followed on making the modifications to the LDC, but that is a very slow process, Ray Smith called for a vote on the motion and it failed on a: 4-8 vote, Page 29 - Robert Wiley began the discussion the "Section 6: Variance and Appeals Procedures", There have been many additions to this section to identify what the County is already doing but it has not received comments, Phil Brougham asked if the County Page 11 of15 .' 161-1 82 Attorney approved of this, to which Robert Wiley responded it has been sent to the County Attorney Office but no response has been received, Robert Wiley explained that this is the same as what was previously developed by the County Attorney Office. Page 30 - Ray Smith asked if the formatting was correct for the sub-points under 6(D)(3) where they are now numbered (a) through G) whereas they previously were (1) through (9) on another document. Robert Wiley explained tha;! the numbering format is not really that important at this time through the drafts because the County Attorney will ultimately develop the final formatting, Phil Brougham asked for clarification on the advancing versions of the ordinance, What happens to the document when 'others do 'not agree and make changes, Robert Wiley explained that he has been directed to take forWard "staff's" document. If it varies with recommendations of the 'Committee, the differences will show up on the sidebar area to identify them. The document text will be the staff document, and hopefully there won't be any differences to note. There then followed an extensive discussion on the process of document approvals up the chain through the review process, how input is received and handl~d, and even included a discussion on the Growth Management Plan's Evaluation and Appraisal Report (EAR) process, Page 31 - Robert Wiley discussed the sub-section 6(E) "Conditions for Variances" notation regarding the model ordinance's statement about not granting variances after the fact. . That statement was deleted from the draft FDPO because it would be considered as higher regulatory. This prohibition can affect situations where there is attempt to build exactly to minimum requirements, and then there is an error made so the structure doesn't meet the minimum requirement (e,g, the floor elevation is a few tenths below the BFE). Jim Turner expressed problems he has had with situations where owners go to the Board and get variances after the fact when they shouldn't be able to get one. He supported the model language restriction, Such approved variances are required to be documented which then hurts the CRS rating, Ray S~th asked if there were controls in place to catch the problems early, Jim Turner said the problem is not with new conStruction, but with existing construction and work done without permits, Duke Vasey stated he'had a problem with the concept because it doesn't allow for exemptions from mistakes made by government. He didn't think it should be included in the FDPO. There followed a lengthy discussion on the purpose for granting or not granting variances for improper construction, including a discussion on whether or not the inclusion of such a prohibition impacted due process rights, and impacts to the CRS program, Various efforts were put forth to develop a statement that fully addressed the issue, but finally Duke Vasey and Jim Turner came up with the recommendation that ''No variance shall be issued for unpermitted work." Page 32 - Jim Turner discussed some problems he has had with the "historic structure" issue, No changes were proposed in the draft FDPO, Robert Wiley then began the discussion on sub-section I "Certain Accessory Structures". This section was added in an attempt to address issues identified by Duke Vasey and others. It is located within the Variance section to allow the Floodplain Administrator to grant these certain variances, rather than allow staff to approve them, Robert explained that sub-point (2) is based upon the assumption that floodproofmg to l' above the BFE would have received the Committee's support, so he will now revise the text to require Page 12 of 15 a. :. ~. 1611 B2 wetfloodproofing just to the BFE. Jim Turner did not like the concept of requiring variances for the accessory structures. It was agreed to move "Certain Accessory Structures" out of the Variances section and into section 5(B)(8), Page 33 - Robert Wiley discussed sub-section 6(1) "Certain Agricultural Structures" and stated this criteria comes from a FEMA Technical Bulletin and is to be considered as a variance, Jim Turner questioned how we would handle the agricultural issue since if it is truly an agricultural building used for agricultural purposes they do not need a permit. How do we regulate FEMA if there is no permit required? Robert Wiley explained how he put that issue out to about 20 counties and received varying responses, Most handle it through a zoning review, some handle it through a floodplain permit I-page application review, Collier County and one other county don't handle it at all, FEMA is not concerned with compliance with the Florida Building Code, but is concerned with the floodplain requirements, Jim Turner said if the agricultural building has electrical and . plumbing, the County does require permits, Ray Smith asked Jim Turner what his desire was on this proposed sub-section. Rl;ly also asked Robert Wiley if this was required in the ordinance, Robert stated the language came from a FEMA Technical Bulletin and was not in the model ordinance. Ray Smith and Phil Brougham both stated the intent to stay with the model ordinance, Robert Wiley stated his concern was that the issue needs to be addressed because FEMA doesn't care that the Florida Building Code doesn't require permits for agriculture, As the new DFIRMs come into effect and place AH flood zones on the agricultural lands, the County is going to be held accountable under FEMA. Jim Turner motioned to strike the sub-section J from the draft ordinance, The motion was seconded and passed unanimously, Duke Vasey then asked that since the sub-section on "Certain Accessory Structures" was now going to be moved to section 5(B)(8), could his proposed language that was known as Section E "Specific Standards for Rural and Unincorporated Area Accessory Structure" be the lead off to get into the 6 points that are following, Ray Smith asked if that was what was previously voted down. Duke Vasey explained there was a problem With conflict with the LDC, but by removing his previous conflict areas the narrative leading into it might be suitable to open up the 6 below it. Then, if that would be an extension, he would also like to add on to the 6 points, a 7 and 8 that included the ISO structure arid the vertical tool sheds, Duke Vasey motioned to make' the inclusion, and the motion was seconded, Upon a vote, the motion failed 4-7. Page 32 - Robert Wiley then asked the Co1Iimittee to return to the relocated section on "Certain Accessory Structures" to address the value and size [small, low-cost sheds less than 200 square feet in area, using outside dimensions, and less than two percent (2%) of the value of the principal structure]. Do we want to include this, leave it out, or how do we want to bring in consistency between requirements for the AE and VE flood zones? Jim Turner didn't think there could be a value for accessory structures in the AE zone, but there could be for a VB zone, Duke Vasey then asked for accessory structures to include the steel ISO structures and vertical tool sheds without a cost limit. Jim Turner recommended to not putting a value on the accessory structures in the AE zone, the recommendation waS seconded, and call for a vote passed unanimously. Page 13 of 15 ~.. .. .1611... Be: . Duke Vasey then again motioned for inclusion of the steel ISO shelters, and the motion was seconded, Duke clarified the motion's content to add into the Accessory Structures sub-section to add the lead-in paragraph "Accessory uses and structures support and are subordinate to the use of a parcel and shall primarily serve those persons regularly and customarily involved with their use and include only those structures incidental to a permitted land use located on the same parcel. Uses identified elsewhere in this ordinance are not accessory uses," The motion also included adding two additional points to be 7 and 8 as follows: 7, Steel ISO 10'-20'40' Storage Containers may be positioned on the earth and anchored as described in SECTION FIVE A (4) above, or secured to piers. 8, Vertical tool sheds and storage buildings may be positioned on the earth and shall be anchored as described in SECTION FIVE A (4) above, or secured to piers, Jim Turner asked for clarification on what was being proposed, and Duke Vasey provided direction that he wanted to use the 6 bulletedpoints that Jim Turner had included under his comments for Accessory Structures on page 33 of the Comments handout, then add . . the two points on steel ISO structures and vertical tool sheds from Duke's comments on page 27 of the Comments handout. Robert Wiley explained this basically did away with the original 6 points in the original sub-section I "Certain Accessory Structures" text, Upon call for a vote, the motion passed unanimously, Christine Sutherland then asked for additional. clarification on some of the points described in the motioned text, and Jim Turner explained the basic concepts for consideration of all construction in the VE zone for debris considerations, Ray Smith questioned the Committee to see if there were any concerns aboutthis ordinance review and approval being rushed, as he didn't want anyone to feel this was 'being rushed through, Receivmg no response comment, Phil Brougham.then motioned that the Committee send this FDPO, as amended, and authorize staff to take the necessary steps to move it forward, The motion was seconded, and Ray Smith asked to amend the motion to include the submittal of the proposal to all of the Administrators so they have opportunity to review as we proceed, Phil accepted this amendment to the motion, Robert Wiley asked for clarification on when the ordinance is to be sent to the Administrators, and after a brief discussion it was decided to provide the Administrators with the ordinance at the time it was presented to DSAC, Christine Sutherland asked about the provision for emergency temporary housing following a disaster, she didn't think it was in the ordinance, Robert Wiley explained it was included in the text in several locations, and is not a separate area. Upon call for a vote, the motion passed unanimously, NEW BUSINESS 1. Public Comments - None, Next Meeting: Monday, October 4,2010 starting at 9:00 a,m, in Room 610 of the CDES building located at 2800 North Hor.seshoe Drive, Naples, FL 34104. passed unanimously at 4:23 p.m, Page 14 of 15 . 4 :... ... ;;P~ ~ Robert Wiley, Staff C ' . dll1ator 1 ~ 1 1 i~1 B" ... Page 15 of 15