Change in building height limits on Nov. 4 ballot
BY PRU SOWERS
KONK LIFE STAFF WRITER
Nobody likes storm-related flooding. But not everyone agrees with the latest proposed solution to help property owners limit damage from storms like 2005’s Hurricane Wilma.
Key West city commissioners voted unanimously at their Aug. 19 meeting to put a referendum before voters in the Nov. 4 general election that would allow property owners to raise their buildings by up to four feet, to a maximum of 40 feet, above the base flood elevation as established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA). But based on several comments from the floor at the Tuesday, Aug. 19, meeting, there are questions about who exactly the resolution would benefit.
The referendum, if passed in November, would change the city charter to allow property owners in the federally designation VE and AE zones – which essentially covers the entire city except for property in the X zone – to raise the roof height of their property one foot for every foot they lift their first floor, up to four feet. Homes and commercial buildings could rise up to 40 feet in areas where the maximum building height is currently 35 feet.
But the two candidates running against Mayor Craig Cates in the primary both had concerns that the move would help developers, not property owners worried about future storm surges.
“Is this some kind of end run that is going to be rife for what I will call abuse and interpretation of others in putting up new construction,” asked Margaret Romero, who is running against Cates for the second time.
“It’s not going to benefit that many homeowners in Key West,” said mayoral candidate Sloan Bashinsky. “Don’t open that door to developers because you will end up regretting it or your heirs and successors will.”
Romero asked city commissioners to delay approving the referendum until more information could be released on what it would cost to raise a building. In addition, she said current law allows homes to be raised over the current 35-foot maximum as long as the city planning board grants a variance.
“So I’m not sure what this referendum is buying us,” she said. “I don’t think we have a business case.”
But City Planner Don Craig disagreed, pointing out that the board of adjustment, not the planning board, is the regulatory agency handling variances, and that the current city charter doesn’t encourage height exceptions. He also said cost estimates for raising a residential building three feet above the base flood elevation are $130,000 for a frame house and $170,000 for a concrete block stucco (CBS) home.
In addition, Craig said that raising a building could significantly lower flood insurance rates, a second objective of the referendum.
“If [a property] was raised three feet above base flood… the pure savings would be 94 percent. That would [mean that] an at-present, not yet raised insurance rate of $6,800 a year would go to $450 a year,” he said, adding, “It is not a freebie for developers. I can assure you of that.”
Commissioner Teri Johnston said that City Hall staff has “a great deal of education” to do to ensure voters understand the purpose and potential of the height referendum. It is true that the high cost of raising a building will keep it out of some property owners’ reach, she said.
“But what we can do as a community is we can get that obstacle out of the way for the people that can take advantage of this situation,” she said.
“The City’s adopted climate action plan… anticipates an increase in the number of intense storms in the region and predicts that sea levels will rise between 3 inches and 7 inches by 2030,” according to an earlier memo from Craig’s office to city commissioners. “In order for the city to adequately protect the city’s tax base and private property from high insurance cost and water damage it is critical that the City’s land development regulations facilitate the ability for property owners to elevate their property above the flood plain.”
[livemarket market_name="KONK Life LiveMarket" limit=3 category=“” show_signup=0 show_more=0]
No Comment