Loading...
DSAC Agenda 09/02/2015 DSAC Meeting September 2, 20I5 3:00 PM 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive Growth Management Department DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDA September 2, 2015 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. I. Call to Order-Chairman II. Approval of Agenda III. Approval of Minutes from July 1,2015 IV. Public Speakers V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update—[Jeff Wright] B. Public Utilities Department update—[Tom Chmelik or designee] C. Growth Management Department Transportation Engineering Division&Planning Division updates—[Jay Ahmad or designee] D. County Fire Review update—[Shawn Hanson and/or Shar Hingson] E. North Naples Fire Review update—[Eloy Ricardo] F. Operations&Regulatory Mgmt. Division update—[Ken Kovensky] G. Development Review Division update—[Matt McLean] VI. New Business A. Amendments to off-site Preservations LDC Section 3.05.07[Alex Sulecki] B. Building Block discussion regarding commercial buildings required elevations[Jonathon Walsh&Caroline Cilek] C. Review of fire systems engineering documents 61G15 [Jonathon Walsh] VII. Old Business A. Cont'd from the 7/f DSAC meetlna:School impact Fee Update Study[Amy Patterson] VIII. Committee Member Comments: Preliminary Utilities acceptance process to be on the October 7"h DSAC agenda[David Dunnavant] IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates October 7,2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm November 4, 2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm December 2, 2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm 1 July 1,2015 MINUTES OF THE MEETING OF THE COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Naples, Florida, July 1, 2015 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 Department Building, Conference Room#609/610, 2800 N. Horseshoe Drive,Naples, Florida, with the following members present: Chairman: William J. Varian Vice Chairman: Blair Foley(Excused) David Dunnavant James E. Boughton Clay Brooker(Excused) Dalas Disney Chris Mitchell (Excused) Robert Mulhere Mario Valle Stan Chrzanowski Norman Gentry (Excused) Marco Espinar(Excused) Ron Waldrop (Excused) Laura Spurgeon DeJohn (Absent) Jeremy Sterk ALSO PRESENT: Jamie French, Department Head Judy Puig, Operations Analyst, Staff Liaison Caroline Cilek, LDC Manager Marlene Serrano, Manager of Operations, Code Enforcement Rich Long, Plans Review and Inspections Manager Ken Kovensky, Director, Operations and Regulatory Management Mike Bosi, Zoning Division Director Amy Patterson, Capital Project Planning, Impact Fees and Program Management 1 July 1,2015 Any persons in need of the verbatim record of the meeting may request a copy of the audio recording room the Collier County Growth Management Department—Contact Mr. Evy Ybaceta at 239-252-2400. I. Call to Order-Chairman Chairman Varian called the meeting to order at 3:00pm H. Approval of Agenda Mr.Disney moved to approve the Agenda. Second by Mr. Valle. Carried unanimously 8-0. III. Approval of Minutes from June 3,2015 Meeting Mr.Disney moved to approve the minutes of the June 3, 2015 meeting as presented. Second by Mr. Chrzanowski. Carried unanimously 8-0. IV. Public Speakers None V. Staff Announcements/Updates A. Code Enforcement Division update— [Jeff Wright] Ms. Serrano provided the report"Collier County Code Enforcement Department Blight Prevention Program -Cumulative Code Enforcement statistics- 7/2009—6/21/15"for information purposes. B. Public Utilities Division update— [Tom Chmelik or designee] None C. Growth Management Department/Transportation Engineering and/or Planning— [Jay Ahmad or designee] None D. County Fire Review update—[Shar Hingson and/or Shawn Hanson] None E. North Naples Fire Review update—[Eloy Ricardo] None F. Operations &Regulatory Mgmt.Division update [Ken Kovensky] Mr. Kovensky submitted the"Collier County June 2015 Monthly Statistics"which outlined the building plan and land development review activities. He noted Staff participated in County budget hearings and the items put forth were accepted at this point in time. Included in the proposed budget were the 15 full time employees recently added to the Department and substantial funds allocated for outside services to complete inspections and other tasks as necessary. G. Development Review Division update [Matt McLean] See report submitted by Mr.Kovensky. H. Update on the Florida Building Code change [Rich Long] 2 July 1,2015 1 Mr.Long provided a handout summarizing changes to the Florida Building Code which became effective on June 30,2015. Discussion occurred on the requirement for the manufactures "stickers" being required to remain on the windows until"final inspection." Committee members expressed concern noting the windows are generally installed before a"final inspection"with the stickers usually removed by cleaning or other workers. Staff reported they will be undertaking the necessary measures to ensure when the windows are inspected after installation,the verifications required by the code are made at that time. The Committee requested Staff to review the automatic notification process for `permit pick up" as some applicants have not been receiving the notification, while others have. VI. New Business A. Walkability discussion with CCPC [Mike Bosi] Mr.Bosi reported the Collier County Planning Commission will be discussing pedestrian mobility at their August 20,2015 meeting and are requesting input on the issue from all interested parties. The Committee noted one topic that should be addressed are the requirements for the construction of sidewalks including `payment in lieu of sidewalk"and "sidewalks to nowhere." B. School Impact Fee Update Study [Amy Patterson] Ms.Patterson provided the "Collier County School Impact Fee Update Study—Draft Report" dated June 23, 2015 prepared by Tindale-Oliver Associates for consideration. She noted the DSAC Subcommittee charged with reviewing the item met on June 28,2015 to discuss the report. Mr.Mulhere provided an overview of the meeting and concerns raised by the Subcommittee which included the estimates developed for construction and the land acquisition costs. He noted the Subcommittee's recommendations include verification of the data used to develop the proposed construction/land costs and the implementation of increased fees should be based on a phased approach. During Committee discussions the following was noted: • The proposal is to raise the fees back to the previous "100 percent"level of 2009. • If a higher standard of education than that of the other areas in the State is proposed for the County, is it equitable to shift a portion of the cost associated to the higher standard to those parties paying impact fees? • Do the land values utilized in determining the acquisition costs include the likelihood of the new schools that will be constructed east of 951 where costs of land costs are lower than the urban area? • Given the projections,a substantial increase in student enrollment is not anticipated over the next 5 years,is it prudent to increase fees at this point in time? • The construction cost estimates used in developing the proposed fees are higher than the State average. Should the"weighted average"be used in fairness to those persons required to pay the fees? • If the fees are not raised back to the"100 percent"level,there will still be impact fees in affect at some level, assisting in addressing the impacts of development on the school system. • Was consideration given to the possible negative impacts an increase in fees would have on the demand for new housing due to possible elevated construction costs (i.e. a reduction in 3 July 1,2015 the demand for new housing thereby decreasing the amount of future property tax revenue which may offset or generate more revenue than the increased impact fees)? • Was the existing land inventory held by the school district included in the considerations for the estimates for future land acquisition costs? • Is the District currently identifying land that may be available for acquisition? Ms.Patterson noted: • One item taking into consideration when developing the proposed fee structure was the existing debt service held by the County. • If the fees are collected, but not utilized within a 7 year period,they are returned to the party that paid the fees alleviating any concerns the fees will be collected and held in perpetuity without being expended on facilities. • The item is scheduled to be heard by the Board of County Commissioners in September and if the Committee desires, Staff can review today's comments and return at the next meeting to address the concerns and ascertain a final recommendation from the Committee. The Committee requested Staff to return the item to the next meeting and provide additional information including: 1. Provide an analysis of a fee structure utilizing the "weighted average"for construction costs in the calculations 2. Provide an analysis of the "land bank"currently held by the District and how this may affect the land acquisition cost estimates utilized in developing the fee structure. 3. Demonstrate a need for increased fees based on the minimal increase projected for student enrollment VII. Old Business A. Update on the Floodplain Management Planning Committee [Caroline Cilek] Ms. Cilek reported the changes in the Florida Building Code in reference to floodplain development have been posted on the County's website. Two Priority Map Revision(PMR)requests have been submitted to FEMA and are under review. Committee discussion occurred on any other issues that may need to be addressed given the Floodplain Management Plan has been adopted. Ms.Cilek noted consideration may be given to reviewing the "Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance"to see if any changes are necessary. LDC Amendments—Cycle II Ms. Cilek reported the process required for adoption of the Cycle H amendments will initiate soon. VIII. Committee Member Comments Chairman Varian reported Bill Prysi,President of Land Architects, Inc. sent an email dated June 29, 2015 to County Staff and Mr. Mulhere expressing displeasure on the Committee's recommendation in Section 4.04.06 of the proposed Land Development Code amendment that those professionals authorized to design retaining walls be categorized depending on the walls function(i.e. landscape amenities vs. structural walls holding back soil or water). 4 1 July 1, 2015 Mr.Mulhere reported he responded to Mr.Prysi outlining the Committees concern and County S aff also responded and informed him they are recommending the language remain`as is." IX. Adjourn Next Meeting Dates September 2,2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm October 7,2015 GMD Conference Room 610—3:00 pm There being no further business for the good of the County,the meeting was adjourned by the order of the Chair at 4:07PM. COLLIER COUNTY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ADVISORY COMMITTEE Chairman,William Varian These Minutes were approved by the Board/Chairman on ,as presented , or as amended 5 1 yi f 1 i Collier County Code Enforcement Department Blight Prevention Program i Cumulative Code Enforcement statistics 7/2009—8/23/2015: I Amount of Fines Waived(BCC,CEB,OSM)since July 2009 I $28,044,887.08 I 1 Department Performance Statistics 1 Week 4 Week Cumulative 1 FY15 I 8/17/15-8/23/15 7/27/15-8/23/15 3 Number of Code Cases Opened 177 602 7,981 Number of Educational Patrol Visits 187 791 9,719 Number of Code Case Property Inspections 571 2,289 25,512 Number of Cases Closed with Voluntary Compliance 69 231 2,503 Number of Community Meet and Greet events 2 5 97 Number of Community Clean-up Events 0 1 22 Number of Abandoned Home Sweeps 1 4 65 Number of Other Sweeps 1 2 82 1 Code Enforcement Board and Special Magistrate 0 27 345 Orders 1 Number of Liens Filed 0 0 392 f Number of Nuisance Abatements Processed 41 124 789 Amount of Fines Waived (BCC,CEB,OSM) $0 $90,484.14 $9,079,138.16 New Bankruptcy Filing Notifications 0 0 3 ?. r Number of Bankruptcy Documents Received 1 8 118 Number of Cases Affected by Bankruptcy 8 8 15 Number of Requests for Property Payoff Requests 7 34 434 Number of Requests for Property Lien Searches 170 680 8,783 Number of open code cases included in Lien Search 16 48 563 Results Number of Cases Open due to Lien Search 0 0 1 Number of Permits Issued:Garage Sale, Recreational 45 172 1,998 Vehicle Number of Citations processed from DAS, PU,PR,SO, 67 353 3,986 &CE Average Time from Complaint to Completion of Initial 1.5 1.5 1.5 Inspection Average Number of Code Cases Per Investigator 43 44 41 Open Cases by District Golden Gate—244 East Naples—225 Immokalee—236 Golden Gate Estates—154 North Naples-251 Total Open Cases—1,110 For period of:8/17/15-8/23/15 Report by Case Type Animal—1 Accessory Use—1 Commercial-0 Land Use-12 Noise—2 Nuisance Abatement—27 Occupational License—1 Parking Enforcement-3 Property Maintenance—9 Protected Species-0 Right of Way-12 Sign-3 Site Development—13 Snipe Sign-73 Temporary Land Use-0 Vehicle—12 Vehicle for Hire-3 Vegetation Removal—5 Total-177 Complaint Reported by: 1 Week 4 Week Since BCC policy 3/12/13 8/17/15-8/23/15 7/27/15-8/23/15 1 2 300 Elected Official Anonymous accepted 0 0 79 Anonymous not accepted 2 6 800 pursuant to BCC policy Code Enforcement Department Monthly Report July 2015 Highlights • Cases opened: 760 • Cases closed due to voluntary compliance: 307 • Property inspections: 2,766 • Education patrol visits: 1144 • Lien searches requested: 814 Trends Cases opened per Month 1100 ...- 1000 ---_ y w j O1 » 1p ai s " a5 $ ai a e wo -- a g _„ v X a 600 aao — _. .y• A 10 1i ,`AM 1► 1► '�' 4► de' '� 1► 1► 1► 1► �► 9T 1b tib y �y '�4 �r'�b 19 !, 4, / ? / e� t� d?` V d 40 '0 ' / do- a aP` ,,� t°� a osi d r `P' ' Code Inspections per Month woo N 1 A, e . 1 :500 �I►, $.__. 111111« " a R � n _ i I1000 1 1500 I I I I I I I I I I I I I _. .III '. I liii I I I I II soo `• � O's, ♦'' .1, cA v4► v�► tis 0�► 44' 4► ,�► �,4° �.s► �,v"► d,.+► �� ��: Q,? a‘. o�' . ,:a ,3,4y 1 P- 4' o d ft l'° 0 P eN ' P `i' O' d O° 1 Y 4' P 5N Y' Total Code Cases by FY 12000 10000 10573 8000 IIIEJ 6000 El] 4000 7490 2000 0 r FY12 FY13 FY14 FY15 7000 1 6391 6417 1 i ., 5000 ( 1 4713 4263 156 Origin of Case 4000r 227 f I Code Div.Initiated •Complaint initiated 3000 1928 - 2000 ! .- -- • 1126 1 . mit 'CDC . _ , 0 FY12 FY13 FY14 F,15 i i Community Caretaking List Monthly Totals 1 1203 i I - , 1000 — 800 — -- i I1 1 I 1•_ � _w__— — :ti, 1'b 1F 1b 11* ,,P 1b 1b 1p Nts lA 1a 1P 1b 1y 1h .7 1I* ;1 N \tis N O& �d1 �` bac F¢� `S,2, �,f �,'6 `Jc lJ\ PJ4 5¢Q pc}/ �04 �¢5 ,ac ¢IP lr'k PQC �a, 1Jc . pA __ Oct- Nov- Dec Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-14 Aug- Sep- Oct- Nov- Dec- Jan- Feb- Mar- Apr- May- Jun- Jul-15 Aug- 13 13 13 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 15 15 15 15 15 15 15 (alTotal 771 976 1045 1098 1048 989 927 881 805 756 690 591 581 539 509 463 425 410 386 379 415 400 387 Community Caretaking List Properties Added and Removed 250 200 — 150 .... __.. - 100 htLt1tkTLT[ri:11 50 .._ -; �' 1'7yP 1A '.Py4 ti4 11 /0 .4. .y4 1P tit, 1� ,45 ' 1h 1y \'' Ob *o° p¢; tae le' �a� 1.9 �a'� V 0 y.0- q Oe. +0- p¢? Nac le, ‘1,1' PQM I vP lJ Mar- May- Mar May Od-13 Nov-130ec-131an-14 Feb-14 14 Apr-1414 Jun-14 Jul-14 Aug-14Sep-14 oRd4Nov-14 -Ltlan-15 Feb-15 a Apr-15 15 Jun-15 Jul-15 ■Removed 7 3 51 58 71 73 50 105 63 86 110 16 46 38 48 39 19 25 21 14 22 15 *Added 212 72 104 8 12 11 4 29 14 20 11 6 4 8 2 1 4 1 14 50 7 2 Development Services Advisory Committee 9-2-15 executive Summary Modification of Land Development Code LDC Section 3.05.07,H.1.f.iii.a.and b. OBJECTIVE: To provide recommendation on amending the LDC Section 3.05.07, H.1.£ iii. a. and b. with Board direction to consider the following options: • Modify the Land Development Code to require a larger but not perpetual management endowment. • Remove the option to donate lands and only accept donation of funds with amounts targeted to acquire and manage multi parcel projects or other targeted lands. The goal of this modification to the LDC is to better match the long term management costs for Winchester Head and Red Maple Swamp to the required amount of donated management funding so that donations under the LDC option,whether in the form of funds or both land and funds,will come as close as possible to covering management costs for a significant,though perhaps not perpetual,time period. CONSIDERATION; In 2010,the County's Land Development Code(LDC)was amended to include Section 3.05.07 H. 1. f.iii. a and b(Exhibit A). This amendment allows property owners the option of satisfying native vegetation retention requirements through monetary payment or donation of land. Land donations are required to be initially treated for exotic plants and to be accompanied by a management endowment. The existing endowment formula was based on 25% of the cost of lands acquired by the Conservation Collier Program and provides approximately $4,000 per acre for donated lands within targeted multi-parcel projects. At today's costs, this translates to approximately 7 years of basic maintenance for donated parcels. Concern has arisen that this will not fulfill the promise to voters relating to the use of the words"management... in perpetuity"which appears in the titles to Resolutions authorizing the Conservation Collier levy in 2002 and 2006. Staff took the issue of an underfunded management endowment to the Board of County Commissioners at its July 7,2015 public meeting. The Board directed staff to work with the Development Services Advisory Committee (DSAC) and the Conservation Collier Land Acquisition Advisory Committee (CCLAAC)to develop an amendment for the LDC provision considering the above-noted options. Even though the offsite preservation option was added to the LDC in 2010,donation offers did not come in to the Conservation Collier Program until 2013,when the economy began to improve and development started again. Between 2013 and 2015, six (6) land donations and two (2) monetary donations have occurred under the option,totaling 12.04 acres,and providing$79,508 in management funding. Another 3.42 acres and$8,880 in management endowments are currently in the pipeline. The current LDC option identifies Winchester Head (WH) and Red Maple Swamp (RMS), two of Conservation Collier's multi-parcel projects, as suitable locations for donations (Exhibit B). Donations within these multi-parcel projects are the best way staff has identified to fill in the gaps in these projects since Conservation Collier Program acquisitions were halted by the Board of County Commissioners in 2011. At the time acquisitions were halted,the Board also approved an Active Acquisition List identifying these areas as A-List properties should funds become available, signaling their importance as acquisition projects. The donations and management funding are critical components for completing these projects and making them fully functional in the Conservation Collier Program. Additionally, the multi-parcel projects cannot be effectively managed unless most in-holdings are acquired. The Conservation Collier Program owns 49%and 65%of the WH and RMS projects respectively.In WH this translates to 79 acres owned out of a total of 159 acres. In RMS,this translates to 200 acres owned out of a total of 305 acres. 1 Development Services Advisory Committee 9-2-15 At this point,the only management being done in these locations is exotic control over a 53-acre contiguous area on the west side of RMS, and some spot exotic control on one parcel in WH for climbing fern. Maintenance for donations will start in the FY16 budget cycle out of endowment funds. Estimating the financial needs for long term management is a relatively new science, and the number of unique conditions that can occur on parcels precludes a simple estimating formula that can address all types of lands. In this exercise,however,there are specific lands to estimate for,where many factors and some current costs are known. Future costs,however,cannot be known with 100%confidence, and developing them will always be somewhat of an educated estimate. Typical components of long term management calculations include: • staff time, • fencing, • water management, • field equipment, • reporting, • biotic surveys, • chemicals, • prescribed fire costs and • Contingency for unexpected costs(the standard is10%). A typical range for actual long term management costs in this area for forested lands is between$500 and $1,100/ac annually,according to one mitigation banker. Collier County's mitigation expert,Kevin Dugan, agreed with those values. Staff calculations are that the basic cost to mange individual parcels within the multi-parcel projects is approximately$550/ac(considering only exotic maintenance and staff time).Under the calculation matrix used by South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD)for mitigation parcel long term management funding,that annual cost would jump to$980/ac due to additional ancillary costs. A review of how other Counties and Federal Agencies handle mitigation donations accompanies this Executive Summary,along with source language for regulations. This is not comprehensive information, as responses from all agencies were not received. Significant resources have already been expended to acquire parcels in the multi-parcel project locations; in RMS,$3.7 million and in WH,$1.5 million. Between these two project areas,some management funds have been projected under the Board's approved 10-year Conservation Collier financial plan; in RMS approximately$8,000 annually, and in WH, approximately $7,000 annually. Donated individual parcels will need to be managed individually until more contiguous blocks of land are acquired; however, there are efficiencies of scale that will be realized for the larger projects as a whole when they are substantially completed. Once fully owned, RMS is anticipated to cost approximately $43,000 annually (assuming $141/acre)to manage and WH is anticipated to cost approximately$24,000 annually(assuming$149/acre). The lower cost is mostly a function of efficiency achieved in staff time by visiting multiple parcels during the site visits. The arrival of the shortfall between budgeted/donated funds and project needs depends on when the parcels are acquired and when staff is able to start managing larger contiguous acreage. At the Board meeting on July 7th,staff received direction from the Board to work with DSAC and CCLAAC to develop an amendment to the LDC option that would address concerns,considering the options provided above.This was also presented to the CCLAAC at its July 131 public meeting,who,as a body,favored the first option, and assigned the matter to a subcommittee for review. Staff is anticipating at least two meetings with each subcommittee and full Committees to develop a recommendation to present to the Board through the Land Development Code cycle in the fall. The tentative schedule, as currently understood,is for amendments to be developed and a recommendation made to the Board by the end of the calendar year. 2 Development Services Advisory Committee 9-2-15 RECOMMENDATION: That DSAC familiarize itself with the issue,consider remanding to subcommittee to focus on the issue,and develop a recommendation to be provided to the Board of County Commissioners through the next LDC amendment process. PREPARED BY: Alexandra Sulecki,Pr.Environmental Specialist,Conservation Collier Program 3 Development Services Advisory Committee 9-2-15 Exhibit A. LDC Section 3.05.07,H.l.f.iii.a.and b. iii. Off-site Alternatives. Off-site native vegetation retention requirements may be met by monetary payment or by land donation. a) Applicants shall make monetary payment to Collier County. Such funds will be used by the County for the purchase and management of off-site conservation lands within the county. The monetary payment shall be based on the location of the land to be impacted and be equal to 125 percent of the average cost of land in the Urban Designation or 125 percent of the average cost for all other Designations,as applicable,as defmed by the FLUE,purchased by Collier County,through the Conservation Collier program. This monetary payment shall be made prior to the preconstruction meeting for the SDP or final plat construction plans. b) In lieu of monetary payment, applicants may choose to donate land for conservation purposes to Collier County or to another government agency. In the event of donation to Collier County, the applicant may acquire and subsequently donate land within the project boundaries of Winchester Head, North Golden Gate Estates Unit 53, another multi-parcel project or any other land designated by Conservation Collier donation acceptance procedures. Applicants who choose to donate land shall be required to demonstrate that the land to be donated contains native vegetation communities equal to or of higher priority(as described in subsection 3.05.07 A.) than the land required to be preserved onsite. In no case shall the acreage of land donated be less than the acreage of land required to be preserved onsite. Land donated to satisfy the off-site vegetation retention requirement must be located entirely within Collier County.Donations of land for preservation shall be made to a federal,state or local government agency established or authorized to accept lands for the conservation and management of land in perpetuity, subject to the policies and procedures of the receiving entity. Lands donated to Collier County must include a cash payment for management of the land. The amount of this payment shall be equal to 25 percent of the average cost of land in the Urban Designation or 25 percent of the average cost in all other Designations,as applicable, as defmed by the FLUE,purchased by Collier County,through the Conservation Collier program. Exhibit B.Conservation Collier Multi-parcel Projects—Red Maple Swamp and Winchester Head 4 Development Services Advisory Committee 9-2-15 Conservation Collier: Red Maple Swamp Preserve • max ' ^,. R .. - 1,k---- i 4 1 if 1III1$ i. M ` ,„ � (' si -, i -.Id'' 1 I .4 4 „4,,, a %.. ,,orzfe. : ,. ___.,, I ,,,,,,i111-,:iui ���1111i11ilNi.I ,, "1 `� tiU 11mum.,..„ . , '4 1 I ' NA!,',1';,1 0 1 ' 1(;)';', i 77,-- , .-- . 0,--, -, �b sna o00 2pao Feet 1 . 1 y, c.¢..�.n..,cm-.axe mor surd ormr.: kL ? t t n � C r=7 rcr l rlr,,,_ -�E Winchester Head Preserve y c:<=�.,. F''-','� Pi :.4.siAv NE 1��•My"�*�" � #�1 4ZHt �£ x --d`-=%-7,. 1!,! +��}y�R�� � i I Il i i \fir r-a1� To i 39th Ave'E _.,. _ `"� _ ___ x.• ,n LL rc . 4 • a "I''', ' b: F - ,,`/S 'I rr iy �. ,;'1445,,Y:=';:' ft '- 4 Y { k Yt j r..,., 0 � 37th Ave NE # i`'• a. - _ '-, k! �:; wveN kms_, r rs �, . ,i¢ 4 w -0.,,,1; is . i. r s�' ;y Legend • l Mi rsr QII cs c;D_4VHparcels2015 r•'-4 1 i 1 . ,.., _ r ,..._40,_ o . �� -- y , '- -c r- i` nchester Head Moult`-parcel Pro)ec £' .,Y • ,_ 1 •.:R 'f v N Acqulre� 5 County Rules Lee County LDC Section 10-415(b)(5) • (5) Administrative deviation. Consistent with the provisions of section 10-104,the Director may permit administrative deviations to reduce the minimum 50 percent indigenous native vegetation requirement within this subsection to a lower percentage.Existing,approved indigenous preserve areas within planned developments are not eligible for administrative deviations, unless the preserve areas are interior to the project(100 feet or more from the property line).The administrative deviation request must include the unique conditions or circumstances that make the property unusable and unreasonably burdensome,and demonstrate why granting the deviation is in the public interest.The applicant must provide details of other actions that will be taken to offset the reduction(mitigation).Mitigation that will be considered includes,but is not limited to: a. Onsite ecological creation/restoration,with long-term management.A minimum two to one ratio of creation/restoration area to indigenous area to be mitigated. b. Offsite land acquisition with perpetual conservation protection.A minimum three to one ratio of acquired land to indigenous area to be mitigated. c. Offsite ecological restoration on public lands or protected private lands.A minimum three to one ratio of acquired land to indigenous area to be mitigated. d. Purchase of appropriate credits from a permitted mitigation bank. e. A minimum three to one ratio of acquired land to indigenous area to be mitigated. Indigenous preservation area credits listed in section_l Q-4I5(b)(3)a. do not apply to onsite ecological creation/restoration areas or offsite areas. Charlotte County Code of Ordinances Section 3-5-383(10) (10) Charlotte County and the Conservation Charlotte Program shall cooperate,to the greatest extent possible with other public agencies that must mitigate for environmental impacts associated with construction projects.Where possible,such mitigation shall be sited to buffer environmentally sensitive lands,create environmental corridors,and aid in the protection of functioning environmental systems. However,mitigation for off-site construction projects may be sited on lands protected using funds from the environmentally sensitive lands ad valorem tax only in accordance with section 3-5-386. Hillsborough County Land Development Code Sec.4.01.13.-Offsite Preservation The offsite preservation requirement may be fulfilled either directly by preserving land offsite or indirectly by contributing to an offsite preservation land bank,as provided below. A. In-kind Preservation 1. Offsite significant wildlife habitat preservation sites,pursuant to the requirements of 4.01.09,shall be the same type of habitat(i.e,xeric or mesic)or land which can be restored to the same type of habitat as the natural plant community being adversely impacted onsite by development. 2. Offsite preservation sites for listed species shall be biologically manageable and appropriate habitat for the wildlife or plant species requiring protection or land which can be restored to such habitat. An offsite preservation site shall be acre-for-acre compensation for the essential wildlife habitat being adversely impacted onsite by development. B. Site Selection The location of offsite preservation sites shall be within Hillsborough County. 2. Offsite preservation sites shall meet all appropriate acquisition,preservation,restoration,habitat suitability, manageability, size,and other provisions of this Section(4.01.13). Such lands may be (1)selected from a list of approved land bank sites,(2)sites composed of additions of land to existing publicly managed areas held for conservation purposes,such as State or County parks or preserves,or(3)other suitable sites recommended for preservation or restoration by a State or local governmental land conservation agency.Alternatively,the developer may propose another site within an ecosystem or river basin in proximity to the habitat being adversely impacted onsite by development. The alternative site shall be subject to review and approval pursuant to the criteria in this Section(4.01.13). 3. In determining whether the selection of a particular offsite preservation site is appropriate,the Administrator shall consider the overall habitat suitability or restoration suitability,if applicable; the life history requirements of any species being protected;the protectability of the site;the manageability of the site;the size of the site;and recommendations concerning the site from the Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and other appropriate agencies. 4. When the offsite preservation requirements apply to a listed species'essential habitat,priority shall be given to selecting a site which can be restored to support the listed species. C. Preservation Methods 1. Offsite preservation sites shall be for the purpose of restoring(if applicable),preserving,and maintaining natural areas in perpetuity. 2. The developer shall meet the offsite preservation acreage requirement through one of the following methods: a. Land Acquisition. The developer may acquire and transfer fee simple title of an appropriate offsite preservation site to a land conservation governmental agency or private,non-profit land conservation organization;or b. Contribution to an Offsite Preservation Land Bank. The developer may contribute to an offsite preservation land bank based upon the land bank's actual cost of acquiring in-kind preservation lands,plus cost of restoration,if any,plus estimated total cost of management during the life of the land bank,divided by applicable acreage,multiplied by the carrying costs;or C. Conservation Easement.The developer may acquire through fee simple purchase an appropriate offsite preservation site and establish a conservation easement in favor of the Hillsborough County or other land conservation governmental agency or private,non-profit land conservation organization in accordance with the requirements of Section 704.06,F.S. When a developer chooses this option,a management plan shall be developed in cooperation with the landowner which stipulates the limitations on the use of the land and identifies the habitat management activities and assignments of responsibility. D. Timing The Natural Resources Permit shall specify the acreage and location of the offsite preservation site,the cost and timing of any monetary contributions or offsite acquisitions,the ownership and party responsible for management of the offsite preservation site,the location of any onsite development, including land alteration and construction activities;and shall contain a requirement that any significant or essential wildlife habitat on the project site,for which offsite preservation is being provided,shall not be disturbed or adversely impacted prior to meeting the offsite preservation requirements. Monroe County Alachua County •(2) Offsite preservation. The applicant may provide offsite mitigation through the preservation of land through offsite dedication,transfer of fee or less than fee simple title to a land conservation agency,non-profit conservation organization,or other entity approved by the county. Portions of offsite conservation management areas requiring protection under this ULDC shall not be used as credit towards a mitigation proposal.Mitigation of impacts to a regulated plant or animal species or its habitat that is required by a state or federal agency (such as the water management districts)shall be applied towards offsite mitigation if it is for the same development project and meets the following requirements: a. Offsite protection sites shall meet all appropriate size,site selection and design, protection,ownership and maintenance,and other provisions of this chapter applicable to onsite conservation management areas. Fencing may be required to control access to the mitigation area. b. Offsite conservation management areas shall be located in Alachua County and may include: Sites composed of addition of land to existing publicly managed areas held for conservation purposes,such as state or county parks or preserves; ii. Sites recommended for preservation or restoration by a state or local governmental land conservation agency;or Other suitable sites within an ecosystem or watershed in proximity to the conservation or preservation area being adversely impacted by development. (d) Fee-in-lieu of land. As an alternative to the protection of land,the county may allow contribution of a fee-in-lieu-of-land to the environmentally sensitive lands fund, under which the county shall purchase or manage land to protect natural resources in accordance with standards of this chapter. Where fee-in-lieu of land is allowed,the cash payment shall be equivalent to 150 percent of the average per acre-appraised market value,at the time of permit application,multiplied by the number of acres of regulated natural resource for which mitigation is required,plus estimated total cost of management required to establish the viability of that type of resource. Miami-Dade County • Sec.24-49.2.-Review and evaluation of permit applications,natural forest community standards, specimen tree standards. A review of each completed tree removal permit application shall be conducted by the Department.This review and all actions taken by the Department under the provisions of this article shall be conducted using best available practices from biology,botany,forestry,landscape architecture and other relevant fields,and shall be conducted in a manner that is consistent with all applicable goals,objectives and policies in the Comprehensive Development Master Plan for Miami-Dade County,Florida. Upon receipt of a completed permit application,the Department shall determine whether the site contains any portion of a natural forest community, specimen trees or any other trees subject to the provisions of this article as follows: (1) If a site contains any portion of a natural forest community,then the provisions of Section 24-49.2(1) shall apply.If any person is in doubt as to whether a particular property has been designated as a natural forest community,said person may request a written determination from the Department. Said written determination shall state whether or not a particular property has been so designated by the Board of County Commissioners in the forest community maps under Resolution 1764-84 and shall be prepared by the Department within twenty(20)days of receipt of said request. Any property owner of a designated natural forest community site may request that the Department verify the designated boundaries of a specific natural forest community site or may request that a specific site be deleted from the approved natural forest community maps.Requests for verification of the designated boundaries of a specific natural forest community site or the deletion of a specific site from the approved maps shall be made in writing to the Department. Upon receipt of such requests,Departmental staff shall inspect the site and make a determination whether the approved boundaries accurately reflect the current boundaries of a natural forest community as defined herein,or whether a site should be deleted from the approved maps. If it is determined that the approved boundaries of a specific natural forest community site are no longer accurate,the Director or the Director's designee shall modify the approved boundary of the natural forest community. One(1)copy of the modified boundary shall be furnished to the person who originated the request within thirty(30)days of receipt of the original request and another copy shall be made permanently available at the Department for reference by the public. If it is determined that a specific natural forest community site in its entirety no longer meets the definition of a natural forest community as defined herein,the Director shall recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the site be deleted from the approved natural forest community maps. (2) If a site contains any specimen trees,then the provisions of Section 24-49.2(II)shall apply. (3) If there are trees present on a site other than any portion of a natural forest community or specimen trees,then the replacement provisions of Section 24-49.4 shall apply. (4) In the event that a site contains any combination of natural forest community,specimen trees or other trees,then Sections 24-49.2(1),24-49.2(11),and 24-49.4 shall be applied in proportion to the presence of each type of tree or community. The standards to be applied in reviewing tree removal permit applications involving natural forest communities or specimen trees are as follows: (I) Natural Forest Community Standards. (1) Upon receipt of an application for tree or understory removal work in a natural forest community,Departmental staff shall verify that the site currently meets the definition of a natural forest community as defined herein.If Departmental staff determine that a site no longer meets the definition of a natural forest community,then the Director shall recommend to the Board of County Commissioners that the site be deleted from the natural forest community maps.Upon approval by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners,the site will no longer be subject to the provisions of Section 24- 49.2(1),but may nevertheless be subject to the provisions of Sections 24-49.2(I1)and 24-49.4. In the event that Departmental staff determine that the site currently meets the definition of a natural forest community as defined herein,but the boundary line shown on the approved maps no longer accurately reflects the boundary of a natural forest community as defined herein,the boundary of the natural forest community as shown on the approved maps shall be modified by the Director or the Director's designee. One (1)copy of the modified boundary shall be furnished to the property owner and another copy shall be made permanently available at the Department for reference by the public. If the boundaries of a natural forest community are modified,only that area encompassed within the modified boundary of the natural forest community shall be subject to the provisions of this section. (a) Except as provided in Section 24-49.2(I)(1)(c)below,a permit shall not be issued to clear more than ten(10)percent of the canopy and understory of any hardwood hammock natural forest community or more than twenty(20)percent of the canopy and understory of any pineland natural forest community,provided said sites are five(5)acres or greater.If a site has a total area of less than five(5)acres and the natural forest community covers all or a portion of the site,a permit may be issued to clear up to one-half('/s)acre within a hammock natural forest community and up to one(1)acre within a pineland natural forest community, only if the clearing of ten(10)percent or twenty(20)percent,respectively,does not allow some use of the property. (b) The remaining portions of all natural forest community sites,outside of the areas where tree and understory removal have been permitted by the Department,shall be deemed preserve areas and shall be left in a natural state.Additional clearing of trees or understory shall be prohibited in these preserve areas, except as authorized by other provisions of this article.Firebreaks for pineland natural forest community preserves shall be permitted,and the total area encompassed by the firebreaks(up to a maximum of ten(10)percent of the natural forest community site)shall not be included in the total area which is permitted to be cleared, pursuant to Section 24-49.2(I)(l)(a)and(c). Required dedicated public rights-of- way and required public utility easements in pineland and hammock natural forest communities shall be excluded(up to a maximum of ten(10)percent of the natural forest community site)from the total areas permitted to be cleared, pursuant to Section 2449.2(I)(1)(a)and(c).The criteria for determining which portion of a natural forest community shall be preserved are as follows: (i) Whether the preservation area affords maximum protection to rare,threatened and endangered species. (ii) Whether the preservation area affords maximum protection to areas of high wildlife utilization such as,but not limited to,nesting or breeding areas. (iii) Whether the preservation area is located to minimize the number of trees and understory vegetation that is to be removed and disturbed for development. (iv) Whether the preservation area is located to protect the geological and archaeological value of the site. (v) Whether the preservation area is located contiguous with another natural forest community. (c) Permits for tree and understory removals within natural forest communities that are issued in accordance with Section 24-49.2(i)(l)(a)and(b)above shall not require any tree or understory replacement.As an alternative to Section 24-49.2(I)(l)(a). above,a permit may be issued to clear up to an additional ten(10)percent of a pineland natural forest community,provided that tree and understory replacement are a requirement of the permit. Said tree and understory replacement shall provide for the replacement of one hundred(100)percent canopy coverage equal to the square footage of the additional area to be cleared regardless of the actual tree canopy contained therein to account for the replacement of the trees and understory,pursuant to the provisions of Section 24-49.4(1)(b)(i). (d) Any permit issued for the removal of trees and understory within a natural forest community shall include a specific requirement which allows a minimum of fifteen(15)days for the salvaging of native plant materials within the area which is permitted to be cleared. However,any person desirous of salvaging plant materials must first have authorization from the permittee or owner of the property,which authorization shall not be unreasonably withheld. The Department shall maintain a list of persons interested in salvaging native plant materials and shall notify them immediately upon issuance of such a permit. (2) Alternatives to the provisions of Section 24-49.2(I)(I). In order to provide for unique design considerations for the replacement requirements in Section 24-492(I)(1)(c)above,and to address natural forest community sites which are within the 1990 Urban Development Boundary,the following shall apply: (a) Alternative tree and understory replacement plans may be submitted for projects which require mitigation,pursuant to Section 24-49.2(I)(l)(c)above,that are outside of the 1990 Urban Development Boundary. Said alternative plan shall be prepared by a landscape architect or other individual knowledgeable in the field of natural area restoration,and shall indicate the deviations from the standard requirement and justification for approval. (b) Alternative tree and understory replacement and preservation plans may be submitted for projects which affect natural forest communities which are located within the 1990 Urban Development Boundary and which cannot meet the express terms of Section 24-49.2(I)(1). In such cases,the applicant shall have the burden of demonstrating that a proposed project meets the intent of this article and that the provisions of Section 24-49.2(1)(1)cannot be met. (i) At a minimum,an alternative tree and understory replacement and preservation plan shall include: 1. A statement sealed by a landscape architect registered in the State of Florida that indicates that he has prepared the submitted plan and that the intent of this article can effectively be met through the submission of an alternative plan;provided,however, if the project only encompasses a single family residence with ancillary facilities,then said statement and plan may be made by an individual knowledgeable in the field of natural area restoration; 2. The proposed location of all vegetation preservation and replantings (consisting exclusively of native species),all property lines,and all proposed or existing structures, driveways and utility easements;and 3. A tabulation that identifies any deviations from the requirements of Sectioni 24-49.2(1)(1)and explicitly provides for equivalent compensation by alternative replanting(consisting exclusively of native species)or trust fund contributions. (ii) Approval of the plan shall be determined by the Department.The Department shall consider the following factors in evaluating the alternative preservation plan: 1. Whether the proposed plan preserves a portion of the natural forest community. 2. Whether the proposed plan provides for on-site or off-site replanting, including understory replanting. 3. Whether the proposed plan provides for an equitable contribution to the Miami-Dade County Tree Preservation Trust Fund when the minimum preservation standards of Section 24-49.2(1)(1)are not met. o > c oC .0_ ai 3 :' O N c > nL s C io o c c L 3 t 1Y Qc2 O O ° HN '0 g NC ° 'oa c 7 uu1 :n '° E 71 fl." o 0o 4.. c v 10 ctw T =• m e o } y o e ° °_Lg v E &° .cm ° , o ° mv 3 wam vmccEa ° L 4- 10 a w LcW '-o-, ,_ ` A aJa o yO. cc ` 0 a w _n d v y m O NEE o o Y a o E o c Eyw aE el a c1c c ` 4.32 N E u c c o > $ a ° m o m � c ' v ' 0, a en▪ a u o 2ao o v � H oy Q E = c 8 a .1- r : a T. C a uiLom am 2 N V W > N -ay °o a• d •- H m c a raL E a J ° EN "5„ en c ` T N 'a «� oo O Y uo E o m ua E a Y « '&' 3 E Y- m 3 w Es C C 61 C Y O C X � ° Q flN } .4S O .r ,.• - 1 C on E aO193 ^ v 2t'_. 0 2 m 8 c m 3 E nL 41 o l ,n a. C c C 0 a" e2 -0 v t 0 c a ▪ o _Do po u C o o t0 C .O wN -a a C Ey N pp O G d L U EEO 8. > O b O r O o y "O E - a C a 2 L L '+v o E E o u J -001 ° ' mmwnm° mo ` '`a > v $ ae '' o � v. Q " u • .° to > N'fl a Ca ! 3i O yrE Y 0 C C Y rD. cvo53 • Y ur .j3 m nu — ? c u ^ nvw 3 E c c o � y � a o . mvLc9 E E o a a ' 3 OEC v m 0c0Qo ca � T 0, . La o o N ,o .., a ? C v > v > - c '- E a o E m Y.c a0v w ? c '5 E -om E cvno cNo 3 ° occ c C «a E Y c co c m y avE ^) 3 c amVY c 'se d3 ° ° moa , v cv o o 0 o a w 3 c . o o a a o L w Z m`.- v t en uy .5 o c ; Y L ° ra y `oc ;; N Oi Nva ,aw - a m ° > t ` • > - a_° E O N wm ` ¢- o m 'oa o 3 aa 'T a > p Oua ,? wb. ` a c u a ,;a-3, ITd TC d A o > m > _ > m o ° ,o muYo y n o m mu a '2 S a a :o 'E cu3o .0caE c @ c m ,, "iE ▪ c L Ovao a ° m o c 8,- 3 3 2W m .,-°' O oa .H E S _ E= a v> ¢ w m o mv -° m � E a r 3 m C4 c o y, ,o ca H a .. E a d'c O• r E c Eo o 2v c o C } } J C`� •O N = C O c rt ? a a O O C c U O N u u V1 7 C O O C C C .D U �. ✓ a v a O t C a 0 N N uta y a E' — a a vo co 0 V Q a Q N i o 3 a a' c D 01- )- 3 3 1 .17) } ° o J ° a r ay ° m v ° o 7, y TC T > N E' T O a G• 0 a > >.� T a a- O V 00 2OYp c m G W C To ° N m 2 To wr,vH ov ° N so ' cu Eu E > c W m .1 4 ` N a CaC .i -✓ ° Da ° N O O N c mC N° E C N. Ooa O. N a A INN KC C O am 3 O j 1:1r-1 cC to •: >. co C a aro WM aW t O _ Nrv - LW -'- 6 0 m — zCNaGO a CJ aN 3 3 E E 0 E = Evyu E G o W J N d.-IM E m o 2cE & v m E a ma s u m d m ao mo 00 1 o o c 2 to a ° l7 n V. C L' ,C L <-4"a, b ' N 2 C 'C L co QL C et C V O V C ' j A mN .OVCp0C C2O c 0 F v.)i OctWNo2 m a. I= W a. c 2WQW1 ° c c 4- c Cc U c J o 7 U J JO L J O JO j U ° U tub U U U U to 2 c a U i J 0 p ma a 4` A 'O C O 0 a, 0 o c o E 0,0 @ 3 i a q 3 cL.l z 2 a o 2 oo m` 2 1n l _ N p a u d w m Y y t0 C E 'O vi O O m C p L o E E .5 3 CO S a o _ fo CO fa 'v m 2 y a 2 t a a E to > o a o d N ri o f El N CO v E s E E N T > o E .H N C Lf-6 O N _4 CO C C aJ O U_ Y O E al O N a) C � 4 qWa >,"a A C 5 a) 3 N and $.- A a H C m ' v -0 E 2 y E ' 2 C .'... E C N N C. 0 r w L aJ O m e E u a Y N 3 o E i- .v j. • N E ° Y Y m -.'0 -0 C E ac, c .-2 _ u v c 0 o 0 E 0 — v . a w -o v a c o c c v 0 0 ° a`; a ;, ffi -O o .E o ,2 'v f0 3 w 'C) 0 o L N >.V ` C a n ,°o, E E v Z 9 0 • E w Q y 43 v •a c w C m r0°o � C o a COm C '— O p a A d u -O 0 0 0 C ai SO'O N f0L `o .L• c v mw c o E #°.r Y v O a o as u E 15 al '° +v, T. W U v T u ,E oro gg u a E v m c c L Y n>,. Q1 N y ` w> e a v - N F- U O. n E vi as O. O d jN :i", . > T M O Y « 4 M c U m = N N _ E O n tO — m.'". — m m iri O.C V j/1 } ) M as '-I d J X o O C rl to m ro C LL O ,y 9 X .• p X O ,t O O _ O N tC > b 52 4C yam, ro' ` T.. LL. U J O U Vf O LL f- U 1 H V1 ul V To V C Q C 0.O 0 0 ' .. .1.-.02 `;'5-.' ».02E T c 0 OC a Y > A d N - C C m V .j N R oi L.° u o v y V m e v'' o '° Q n a E w -I c Z a! y 0 3 , A vi al C c v N N N P O u N 6JO O m a 3 u u m 8 M `M 2 rL 1E sy .0 2 2 > E 47J _3 3 y N W 03 aJ 19 y N - co 7_ E 3 0 o m ie o v v 1 n > > - z u a x 2 2 a N ad • o[I F- E 0 0 U m O 2 01 u - CCa. "C O m 0- U a a 111 Mit; BUILD € BLOCKS IUr DRAFT EFFECTIVE DATE: TBD SUBJECT: To establish compliance with the construction of buildings and structures governed by the Florida Building Code (FBC) 5th Edition—Building and ASCE 24-14- Flood Resistant Design and Construction. AUTHORITY: FBC 5th Edition: Chapter 1 —Administration, 101.2 Scope; Section 1612 Flood Loads; 1612.4 Design and construction; Chapter 5 of ASCE 7 —Wind Load and ASCE 24— Flood Resistant Design and Construction; Collier County Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance PURPOSE: To establish that compliance with Chapter 5 of ASCE 7 and ASCE 24-14 is required for buildings and structures located in flood hazard areas, including coastal high hazard areas. RELATED BUILDING BLOCKS: A-128 Certified Site Plans and Spot Surveys and A-132 FEMA Inspections DEFINITIONS: Base Flood Elevation (BFE): The BFE is the elevation of flooding, including wave height, having the 1% chance of being equaled or exceeded in any given year. The BFE is identified on Collier County's effective Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM). Design Flood Elevation (DFE): The elevation of the "design flood," including wave height, relative to the datum specified on the community's legally designated flood hazard map. In general, the BFE and the DFE are the same elevation on the Collier County effective DFIRM. For the purposes of South Florida Water Management District(SFWMD) DFEs, the SFWMD DFE will be compared to the BFE + 1, and the higher elevation will be required. A-133 Compliance with ASCE 24-14 for Buildings July 27, 2015 Page 1 of 7 Dry floodproofing: A combination of design modifications that results in a building or structure, including the attendant utilities and equipment 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 (Section 1612 FBC). Flood Hazard Area:The greater of the following two areas: 1) The area within a floodplain subject to a 1-percent of greater chance of flooding in any given year. 2) The area designated as a flood hazard area on a community's flood hazard map, or otherwise legally designated. For the purposes of this Building Block, the Flood Hazard Area in Collier County shall include any flood zone that begins with a "V"or"A". PERMITS: The FBC Building establishes in Chapter 1 — Administrative the scope the Building code and reads as follows: 101.2 Scope.The provisions of this code shall apply to the construction, alteration, relocation, enlargement, replacement, repair, equipment, use and occupancy, location, maintenance, removal and demolition of every building of structure or any appurtenances connected or attached to such buildings or structures. Exceptions: 1. Detached one- and two-family dwellings and multiple single family dwellings (town houses) not more than three stories above grade plane in height with a separate means of egress and their accessory structures shall comply with the Florida Building Code, Residential. 2. Existing buildings undergoing repair, alterations or additions or change of occupancy shall comply with Chapter 34 of this code. Section 1612 Flood Loads establishes General and Design and construction standards as follows: 1612.1 General. Within flood hazard areas as established in Section 1612.3, all new construction of buildings, structures and portions of buildings and structures, including substantial improvement and restoration of substantial damage to buildings and structures, shall be designed and constructed to resist the effects of flood hazards and flood loads. For buildings that are located in more than one flood hazard area, the provisions associated with the most restrictive flood hazard area shall apply. A-133 Compliance with ASCE 24-14 for Buildings July 27, 2015 Page 2 of 7 1612A Design and construction. The design and construction of buildings and structures located in flood hazard areas, including coastal high hazard areas, shall be in accordance with Chapter 5 of ASCE 7 and ASCE 24. 1612.4.1 Modifications of ASCE 24. Table 6-1 and Section 6.2.1 in ASCE 24 shall be modified as follows: 1. The title of Table 6.1 shall be "Minimum Elevation of Floodproofing, Relative to Base Flood Elevation (BFE) of Design Flood Elevation (DFE), in Coastal A Zones and in Other Flood Hazards Areas that are not High Risk Flood Hazard Areas." 2. Section 6.2.1 shall be modified to permit dry floodproofing in Coastal A Zones, as follows: "Dry floodproofing of nonresidential structures and nonresidential areas of mixed-use structures shall not be allowed unless such structures are located outside of High Risk Flood Hazard areas and Coastal High Hazard Areas. Dry floodproofing shall be permitted in Coastal A Zones provided wave loads and the potential for erosion and local scour are accounted for in the design. Dry floodproofing of residential structures or residential areas of mixed-use structures shall not be permitted." # # # # # # # # # # # # Collier County's Flood Damage Prevention Ordinance (FDPO) provides elevation requirements for non-residential construction in Code of Laws Sec. 62-126. General Standards and Sec. 62-127. Specific Standards which establish the following: Code of Laws Sec. 62-126. General Standards * * * * * * * * * * * * Note: The following provision does not apply to developments with a South Florida Water Management permit. (16)Building Lowest floor and Slab Minimum Elevations for all areas of Collier County: (a) Plans shall show that construction of the Lowest floor meets the elevation criteria listed below or engineered properly to a site specific design and certified by a Registered architect or Professional engineer; when conflict exists between the FIRM Elevation and others,the higher elevation shall be required: i. FIRM Elevation - the elevation that has been established by the Flood Insurance Study(FIS); ii. Paved Road - a minimum of 18 inches above the crown of the nearest street or interior finished roadway system if finished with paving; in the event that the nearest street or interior finished roadway system is located on an evacuation route, a minimum of 18 inches above the crown of the nearest side street; or iii. Graded or unfinished Road - 24 inches above the crown if graded or otherwise unfinished; or A-133 Compliance with ASCE 24-14 for Buildings July 27, 2015 Page 3 of 7 iv. Mean Sea Level - Lowest floors should be no lower than elevation 5.7 feet in relation to NAVD of 1988 [with an allowable exception for the bottom of the lowest horizontal structural member of the Lowest floor of accessory structures within the V-Zones as described in Section 62- 129(13)(h)]; or v. Water Management Design- 1. Buildings with projects which have water management routing and storage facilities designed and built for a 25 year, 3 day storm event in accordance with South Florida Water Management District's criteria may use a Lowest floor elevation in accordance with the project's water management designed 100 year zero discharge elevation or the FIRM elevation, whichever is higher. 2. Buildings which are not within projects having water management storage facilities designed and built for a 25 year, 3 day storm event in accordance with South Florida Water Management District's criteria shall use a Lowest floor elevation of 18 inches above the adjacent roadway crown elevation or the FIRM elevation,whichever is higher. (b) On parcels where unusual topographic conditions exist and the above standard conditions cannot be reasonably applied, the Building Official will consider requests to decrease the Lowest floor elevation. All requests will require an analysis, by a Professional engineer, of the 25 year, three(3)day storm event and the 100 year, 3 day storm event using zero discharge, for the entire discharge, for the entire drainage basin in which the proposed Structure is located. Reductions may be allowed on the basis of the analysis, but in no case shall the Lowest floor be less than the FIRM. (c) Slabs for garages, carports, screen enclosures, etc., must be at least equal in elevation to the crown of the nearest street. Code of Laws Sec. 62-127. Specific Standards * * * * * * * * * * * * (2) Non-Residential Construction. All New construction and Substantial improvement of any commercial, industrial, or non-residential Building (including Manufactured home)shall have the lowest floor, including Basement, elevated to no lower than the BFE. All commercial, industrial, or non-residential Buildings located in A-Zones may be Floodproofed, in lieu of being elevated, provided that all areas of the Building components,together with attendant utilities and sanitary facilities, below the BFE are watertight with walls substantially impermeable to the passage of water, and use structural components having the capability of resisting hydrostatic and hydrodynamic loads and the effects of buoyancy. [NOTE: Floodproofing to just the BFE will result in a higher Flood insurance premium rate for the Structure because the Flood insurance policy requires rating a Structure at one foot below the Floodproofing elevation.] A Professional engineer or Registered architect shall certify that the standards of this subsection are satisfied using the FEMA Floodproofing Certificate. Such certification along with the corresponding engineering data, and the operational and maintenance plans shall be provided to the Floodplain Administrator. # # # # # # # # # # # # A-133 Compliance with ASCE 24-14 for Buildings July 27, 2015 Page 4 of 7 Flood Design Class and Elevation Requirements: ASCE 2444Table 14,p rood Design .Glass:bf.Buildings and.Structures: `:: Use or Occupancy of Building and Structure Flood Elevation Design Requirement2 Class" Buildings and structures that normally are unoccupied 1 Built at BFE or and pose minimal risk to the public or minimal disruption DFE and to the community should they be damaged or fail due to consistent with flooding. Flood Design Class 1 includes(1)temporary local FDPO structures that are in place for less than 180 days, (2) accessory storage buildings and minor storage facilities (does not include commercial storage facilities), (3) small structures used for parking of vehicles, and (4) certain agricultural structures. [Note (a)) Buildings and structures that pose a moderate risk to the 2 BFE + 1 or public or moderate disruption to the community should DFE,whichever they be damaged or fail due to flooding, except those is higher and listed as Flood Design Classes 1, 3, and 4. Flood Design consistent with Class 2 includes the vast majority of buildings and local FDPO structures that are not specifically assigned another Flood Design Class, including most residential, commercial, and industrial buildings. Buildings and structures that pose a high risk to the 3 BFE +2 or DFE, public or significant disruption to the community should whichever is they be damaged, be unable to perform their intended higher and functions after flooding, or fail due to flooding. Flood consistent with Design Class 3 includes (1) buildings and structures in local FDPO which a large number of persons may assemble in one place, such as theaters, lecture halls, concert halls, and religious institutions with large areas used for worship; (2) museums; (3) community centers and other recreational facilities; (4) athletic facilities with seating for spectators; (5) elementary schools, secondary schools, and buildings with college or adult education classrooms; (6)jails, correctional facilities, and detention facilities; (7) healthcare facilities not having surgery or emergency treatment capabilities; (8) care facilities where residents have limited mobility or ability, including nursing homes but not including care facilities for five or fewer persons; 'See ASCE 24-14 Table 1-1 Flood Design Class of Buildings and Structures for additional details. 2 See Table 2-1 for minimum elevations for Flood Hazard Areas Other Than Coastal High Hazard Areas and Table 4-1 for minimum elevations for Coastal High Areas and Coastal A Zones for additional details. A-133 Compliance with ASCE 24-14 for Buildings July 27, 2015 Page 5 of 7 (9) preschool and child care facilities not located in one- and two-family dwellings; (10) buildings and structures associated with power generating stations, water and sewage treatment plants, telecommunication facilities, and other utilities which, if their operations were interrupted by a flood, would cause significant disruption in day-to-day life or significant economic losses in a community; and (11) buildings and other structures not included in Flood Design Class 4 (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 toxic or explosive substances where the quantity of the material exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction and is sufficient to pose a threat to the public if released. [Note (b)] Buildings and structures that contain essential facilities 4 BFE +2 or DFE and services necessary for emergency response and or 500 yr. flood recovery, or that pose a substantial risk to the elevation, community at large in the event of failure, disruption of whichever is function, or damage by flooding. Flood Design Class 4 higher and includes (1) hospitals and health care facilities having consistent with surgery or emergency treatment facilities; (2)fire, local FDPO rescue, ambulance, and police stations and emergency vehicle garages; (3) designated emergency shelters; (4) designated emergency preparedness, communication, and operation centers and other facilities required for emergency response; (5) power generating stations and other public utility facilities required in emergencies; (6) critical aviation facilities such as control towers, air traffic control centers, and hangars for aircraft used in emergency response; (7) ancillary structures such as communication towers, electrical substations, fuel or water storage tanks, or other structures necessary to allow continued functioning of a Flood Design Class 4 facility during and after an emergency; and (8) 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, or hazardous waste) containing sufficient quantities of highly toxic substances where the quantity of the material exceeds a threshold quantity established by the authority having jurisdiction and is sufficient to pose a threat to the public if released. [Note (b)] • [Note (a)] Certain agricultural structures may be exempt from some of the provisions of this standard; see ASCE 24-14 Section C1.4.3. A-133 Compliance with ASCE 24-14 for Buildings July 27, 2015 Page 6 of 7 [Note(b)] Buildings and other structures containing toxic, highly toxic, or explosive substances shall be eligible for assignment to a lower Flood Design Class if it can be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the authority having jurisdiction by a hazard assessment as described in ASCE 7-10 Section 1.5.3 of Minimum Design Loads for Buildings and Other Structures that a release of the substances is commensurate with the risk associated with that Flood Design Class. For additional information on ASCE 24-14 visit: Highlights: http://www.fema.gov/media-library/assets/documents/14983 To purchase: http://www.asce.ora/templates/publications-book- detail.aspx?id=6963 Examples: 1. New commercial office building, Class 2, no SFWMD permit, located in AE 9 food zone = Designed with the lowest floor of the building at 10 ft. NAVD or dry floodproofed to 10 ft. NAVD 2. New retail building, Class 2, with a SFWMD permit and DFE of 14 ft. NAVD, located in a AH 12 food zone = Designed with the lowest floor of the building at the DFE of 14 ft. NAVD (DFE is higher than BFE +1) or dry floodproofed to 14 ft. NAVD 3. New multi-family structure, Class 2, with a SFWMD permit and DFE of 13 ft. NAVD, located in a AH 12 flood zone = Designed with the lowest floor of the building at 13 ft. NAVD (DFE and BFE +1 are the same, no dry floodproofing) 4. New school/emergency shelter, Class 4, with a SFWMD permit and DFE of 17 ft. NAVD, located in a AH 16.5 NAVD flood zone, 500 yr. elevation 16.8 NAVD = Designed with the lowest floor of the building at 18.5 ft. NAVD (BEE +2 is higher than DFE and 500 yr. elevation) 5. Accessory shed with slab, Class 1, no SFWMD permit, located in AH 12 = Designed with the lowest floor at least equal in elevation to the crown of the nearest street and vented to BFE or dry floodproofed to BFE. A-133 Compliance with ASCE 24-14 for Buildings July 27, 2015 Page 7 of 7 Lii ! � _ 2 / f / \ \ti £ \ V \ , CO , / / 7 � � ® I \ 5 -CD \ -0 2 OJCO @ - x / u — > _ _ § a b ( m < \ _ U { f § \ z Li § J \ \ 2k ° _ 3 G z — , Q \ 2 / ƒ / \ di , , , co / \ j / / 2 \ ) \ \ $ \ \ \ 0 3 / u 4- ( \ \ o_ f � � � � a U C . \ [ \ t L.., % J >. 0 0 2 2 / \ _U / \ � ® \ ) $ \ « 2 - % Ew $ \ \ � \ 7 § \ � E TO § * a o $ 2 § j ) 2 } / / ilk \ � 11111 \ j } / \ k \ / 0o � k - � , = e CO ; C { — k § } CC : QIll 11 ! fa) ( u . -al G \ = 2 z . �d / $ ef ......yr \ I : . .. R 0 \ Q " « 111 Lii ® j ) / UC / 13 — ƒ { \ / / \ } t ° - 2 • co p y 3 \ > \ ( § 3 E } B U m / » ƒ ) _ .