Item N1BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of Monroe A
Mayor George Neugent, District 2
The Florida. Keys w) Mayor Pro Tem David Rice, District 4
y �r Danny L. Kolhage, District I
Heather Carruthers, District 3
Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
County Commission Meeting
April 12, 2017
Agenda Item Number: N.1
Agenda Item Summary #2631
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Mayte Santamaria (305) 289-2500
3:OOPM
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A Resolution by the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners transmitting to the State Land Planning Agency an ordinance by the Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners amending Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.5.30 to
include the definition of height; creating Policy 101.5.31 to address height exceptions for non -
habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned community; and
creating Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to
protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a
structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit;
providing for severability; providing for repeal of conflicting provisions; providing for transmittal to
the State Land Planning Agency and the Secretary of State; providing for inclusion in the Monroe
County 2030 Comprehensive Plan; providing for an effective date.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing Comprehensive Plan
amendments to:
1) amend Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height within the height limit policy;
2) create Policy 101.5.31 to allow non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean
Reef community, but that such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line
(building together with the architectural decorative feature cannot exceed 40ft);
3) create Policy 101.5.32 to allow an exception of the height limit of:
a. up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit so lawfully existing
buildings can voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation
with a maximum height of 40 feet; and
b. a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow new
(new construction or substantially improved) buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three
(3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation with a maximum height of 38 feet
4) create Policy 101.5.33 to allow an exception of the height limit for lawfully established existing
buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height limit to rebuild to a height of 40ft to meet
BFE or if proposing to exceed a total height of 40 feet, require a public hearing before the
Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The BOCC shall adopt a
resolution specifying the maximum approved height.
The proposed amendments are proposed to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to
protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a
structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive
Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for
addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit,
architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present
drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, the BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and
process it as a separate amendment.
During the Comprehensive Plan update process, recommendations to amend the height policy were
made to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism
to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as
well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
Flood maps inform communities about the local flood risk and help set minimum floodplain
standards for communities to build with safety and resiliency in mind. Flood maps determine the
cost of flood insurance, which helps property owners to financially protect themselves against
flooding. The lower the risk, the lower flood insurance premiums will be. Flood maps are also the
basis for flood insurance rates through the NFIP.
As risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks. [Note, FEMA is in the
process of re -mapping the Florida Keys] Flood insurance premiums may be going up; however,
property owners may be able to reduce premiums if they build their home or business to be safer,
higher, and stronger.
The proposed changes to the comprehensive plan are mainly to address exceptions to the height limit
of 35ft to allow property owners the ability to elevate 3ft for new buildings and 5ft for lawfully
existing buildings in order to voluntarily raise their home up to 3ft above the FEMA base flood
elevation. These exceptions are proposed to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage,
reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery
from flood events.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
December 10, 2014 — BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height policies and to
extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
BOCC 2/15/17 (P-3): The Board continued the public hearing to the BOCC 3/15/17 meeting in Key
Largo, FL and to the BOCC 4/12/17 meeting in Marathon, FL to allow the item to be heard in all
three areas of the Keys.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
Staff also recommends the BOCC continue this item to the April 12, 2017 BOCC meeting so the
proposal can be discussed in the Middle Keys as well.
DOCUMENTATION:
Transmittal Resolution - height ordinance Exhibit A
Ordinance - height amendment CP_continued
Staff Report height amendment CP_BOCC_Feb_2017
Ex. 1 height BOCC 10.7.2014
Ex. 2 height 2015-006 SR DRC 03.24.15_
Ex. 3 height DRC 03.24.15 Approved 04.28.15
Ex. 5 height DRC 05.26.15 Approved 07.28.15
Ex. 6 height 2015-006 SR DRC 08.25.15_
Ex. 7 height DRC 08.25.15 Approved 10.27.15
Ex. 8 height 2015-006 SR DRC 10.27.15_
Ex. 9 height DRC 10.27.15 Approved 12.15.15
Ex. 10 height 2015-006 SR DRC 01.26.16
Ex. 11 height DRC 01.26.16 Approved 03.29.16
Ex. 12 height 2015-006 SR PC 02.24.16
Ex. 13 height PC 02.24.16 Approved 04.27.16
Ex. 14 height FEMA flood zones and number of private
Ex. 15 FEMA build back rebuild datasheets
Ex. 16 Proposed Comp Plan and Land Development Code Amendments
Example HEIGHT ANALYSIS
FEMA flood zones and number of parcels
Ex. 4 height 2015-006 SR DRC 05.26.15_ (Attachment printed thru Minutetraq)
FINANCIAL IMPACT:
Effective Date:
Expiration Date:
Total Dollar Value of Contract:
Total Cost to County:
Current Year Portion:
Budgeted:
Source of Funds:
CPI:
Indirect Costs:
Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts:
Revenue Producing:
Grant:
County Match:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
REVIEWED BY:
If yes, amount:
Mayte Santamaria
Completed
Emily Schemper
Completed
Steve Williams
Completed
Jaclyn Carnago
Completed
Assistant County Administrator Christine
Hurley
O1/31/2017 4:08 PM
Budget and Finance
Skipped
Maria Slavik
Skipped
Mayte Santamaria
Completed
Kathy Peters
Completed
Board of County Commissioners
Completed
O1/27/2017 1:09 PM
O1/27/2017 1:52 PM
O1/30/2017 10:02 AM
O1/30/2017 3:12 PM
Completed
O1/27/2017 12:47 PM
O1/27/2017 12:47 PM
O1/31/2017 4:55 PM
O1/31/2017 5:05 PM
02/15/2017 9:00 AM
1_�
2
3
4
5
6
7 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
9 RESOLUTION NO. 2017
10
11 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE
13 STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY
14 THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
15 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY
1.6 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE
17 THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31
18 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON-
19 HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES
20 WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED
21 COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND
22 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE
23 HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM
24 FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS BY
25 ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN
26 ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AND
27 INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT; PROVIDING
28 FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
29 CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
30 TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY
31 AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR
32 INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
33 PLAN, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
34
35
36 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public
37 hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal pursuant to the State Coordinated Review
38 Process in Sec. 163.3184(4), F.S., to the State Land Planning Agency for objections,
39 recommendations and comments, and to the other Reviewing Agencies as defined in Sec.
40 163.3184(1)(c), F.S., for review and comment on a proposed amendment to the Monroe County
41 Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan as described above; and
42
43 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board
44 of County Commissioners support the requested text amendment;
45
Resolution No. x 2017 Page 1 of
46 NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
47 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
48
49 Section 1. The Beard of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of
50 the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance, attached as Exhibit A,
51 for adoption of the proposed text amendment.
52
53 Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed
54 amendment to the State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in
55 accordance with the State Coordinated Review process pursuant to Section
56 1.63.3184(4), Florida Statutes.
57
58 Section 3. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required
59 transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in
60 accordance with the requirements of Section 163.31.84(44), Florida Statutes.
61
62 Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this,
63 resolution to the Director of Planning.
64
65 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
66 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 151h day of February 2017.
67
68 Mayor George Neugent
69 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice
70 Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage
71 Commissioner Heather Carruthers
72 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
73
74 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
75 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
76
77 BY
78 Mayor George Neugent
79
8o (SEAL)
81
82 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK.
83
84
r � •
Resolution No. - 2017 Page 2 of 2
MT119TWAI
1
3
4
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
ORDINANCE NO. -2017
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE THE
DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO
ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE
ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE
OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND
CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE
CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO
PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS
WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE
FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT
LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY
AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR
INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department is
proposing an amendment to revise the height limit policy in the Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing
amendments to Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; to create Policy 101.5.31 to
address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and
create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to
protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a
structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit;
and
Ord -2017
1 of 5
MT119TWAI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) considered
the proposed amendment at regularly scheduled meetings held on March 24, 2015, May 26,
2015, August 25, 2015, October 27, 2016, and January 26, 2016 and recommended approval; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
February 24, 2016, for review and recommendation on the proposed Comprehensive Plan text
amendment; and
WHEREAS, based upon the information and documentation submitted, the Planning
Commission made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and
2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and
3. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute;
and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission recommended approval of the
proposed amendment; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15I' day of February, 2017, the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and
public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted
for public participation in the planning process; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15I' day of February, 2017, the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners continued the public hearing to the regular meeting on
15th day of March, 2017; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15I' day of March, 2017, the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and
public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted
for public participation in the planning process; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15I' day of March, 2017, the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners continued the public hearing to the regular meeting on
12th day of April, 2017 and requested a discussion item on the proposed height amendments for
the Land Development Code; and
WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 'h day of , 2017, the Monroe
County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and
Ord -2017
2of5
MT119TWAI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted
for public participation in the planning process; and
WHEREAS, at the , 2017, public hearing, the BOCC adopted Resolution
-201_1 transmitting the proposed text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and
WHEREAS, the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report, received by the County on
: and
WHEREAS, the ORC report ; and
WHEREAS, the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to adopt the
proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment; and
WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on the 'h day of , 2017, the
BOCC held a public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text
amendment;
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The text of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as
follows (Deletions are shown stricken through; additions are shown underlined):
Policy 101.5.30
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe
County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as
the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including
mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for
institutional and/or public uses only, chimneys, radio and/or television antennas, flagpoles:
solar aparatus, utility poles and/or transmission towers, and certain antenna suporting
structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the
exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed
the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31,
101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Exeeptions v�411 be ^"^==,ed fewapptti4enanees—to
*,., rsmissie *,... et:s ara 6*het: sifflilfff stiz etti es In the case of airport districts, there shall be
no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Ree£ a izated master Dlanned community which is inaccessible to the surroundin
community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non -habitable
architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that
exceed the 35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet
above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any
architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
Ord -2017
3 of 5
MT119TWAI
2 As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or
3 more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the
4 county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by
5 the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation
6 facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity
7 which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members.
8
9 Policy 101.5.32
10 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land
11 Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy
12 101.5.30 to promote public health, safetygeneral welfare, allow adaptation to coastal
13 flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize
14 damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures
15 of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate
gate
16 rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum
17 of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existing
18 buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation,
19 and a flood protection height exception of a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35-foot
20 height limit shall be provided to allow new (new construction or substantially improved)
21 buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation. These
22 exceptions are in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood
23 insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from
24 flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new building
25 exceeding a maximum height of 38 feet and a lawfully existing building exceeding a
26 maximum height of 40 feet.
27
28 Policy 101.5.33
29 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land
30 Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully
31 established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote public
32 health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and
33 other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and
34 private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control
35 projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums.
36 A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or
37 elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE)provided the building does not
38 exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing
39 lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density
40 and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a
41 total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of
42 County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved
43 height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning
44 Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a
45 buildiniz. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifviniz the maximum approved height.
►,e
Ord -2017
4of5
MT119TWAI
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or
provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall
not be affected by such validity.
Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to
the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida
Statutes.
Section 5. Filin2 and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the
Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is
issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding
the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any
applicable challenges have been resolved.
Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The text amendment shall be
incorporated in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the
foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2017.
33
34
35 BY
36
37
38 (SEAL)
39
40 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK
41
42
43 DEPUTY CLERK
Mayor George Neugent
Mayor Pro Tem David Rice
Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
Mayor George Neugent
Ord -2017
5 of 5
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: January 25, 2017
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; CREATING
POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE
ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND
101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN
ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD
INSURANCE COSTS BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WHEN A STRUCTURE
CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A
MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING
FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 4 2015-006)
Meeting: February 15, 2017
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to Policy
101.5.30 to include the definition of height; to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable
architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32
and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from
flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a structure can elevate
above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County completed working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special
public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed
amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23,
File 2015-006 Page 1 of 16
2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030
Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing
was continued to October 7, 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7.
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 16
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October
27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2016, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The staff report from the January 26, 2016
DRC is attached as Exhibit 10. Minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are attached as Exhibit 11.
Planning Commission: At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 24, 2016, the Monroe County
Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendment and provided for
public comment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to the proposed amendments to
the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The staff report from the February 24, 2016
PC is attached as Exhibit 12. Minutes from the February 24, 2016 PC are attached as Exhibit 13.
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HEIGHT:
In unincorporated Monroe County, he and grade are defined as follows:
HEIGHT means the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure,
including mechanical equipment, but excluding the following: spires and/or steeples on
structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television
antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain
antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in the
Land Development Code. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this
definition he construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the maximum height
limitation. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall he absolute and
the exclusions enumerated in this definition shall not apply. (current, effective Comprehensive
Plan Glossary; and updated LDC Section 101-1, expected to be effective February 2, 2017)
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. (current, effective Comprehensive Plan
Glossary)
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 16
surface, prior to construction, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR)
dataset for Monroe County prepared in 2007 and other best available data, including, but not
limited to, pre -construction boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic
surveys, elevation certificates and/or other optical remote sensing data. (updated LDC Section
101-1, expected to be effective February 2, 2017)
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
Height limit
+2 -
[(,Wr of ieu'dd 5fl. Crown of the road
N,ottral Ele,�alor, Mr,
�.
it relkiion ff
mean Be3 level
AE 5'
The vertical distance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest part of the structure I
Height
...................... 2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
During the Comprehensive Plan update process, recommendations to amend the height policy were made to
address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist
property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in
permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
National Flood Insurance Promm & Muert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide a means for property
owners to protect themselves financially from flood events. The NFIP offers flood insurance to
homeowners, renters and business owners if their community participates in the NFIP. Participating
communities agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances that meet or exceed FEMA
requirements.
Flood maps inform communities about the local flood risk and help set minimum floodplain standards for
communities to build with safety and resiliency in mind. Flood maps determine the cost of flood insurance,
which helps property owners to financially protect themselves against flooding. The lower the risk, the
lower flood insurance premiums will be. Flood maps are also the basis for flood insurance rates through the
NFIP.
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 16
As risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks. [Note, FEMA is in the process of re -
mapping the Florida Keys] Flood insurance premium may be going up; however, property owners may be
able to reduce premiums if they build their home or business to be safer, higher, and stronger.
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 provides long-term changes to the National Flood
Insurance Program. This additional legislation has been enacted with the intent to strengthen the program,
ensure its fiscal soundness and inform its mapping and insurance rate -setting through expert consultation,
reports and studies.
Today the program is focused on implementing recent legislation by adjusting premium increases, issuing
new rates and map updates, supporting mitigation and ensuring special advocacy to connect policyholders
with the information they need to better understand the program.
Recent legislation phases out subsidies for some older buildings in high -risk flood areas. As a result, rates
for these buildings will rise until they reach full -risk rates. In addition, all policyholders will be subject to
new assessments and surcharges.[https://www.floodsmal-t.gov/floodsmart/pages/hfiaa-2014.LspI
See FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium,' L
which are attached as Exhibit 15.
Monroe County Green Keys Proiect
Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeys! Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and
commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key Largo and
a cost benefit ratios of elevating and floodproofing buildings:
ANALYSIS, OF DAMAGES FROM STORM SURGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE FOR THE
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF KEY LARGO AND STOCK ISLAND, MOINROE COUNTY, FL
USING THE C:OA.STo L ADAPTATION TO :SEA LEVEL RISE TOOL (COAST)
AICP
W , M e r r D
Mexander
kst Cann sits
Entire report can be accessed here: http://fl-monroecountyclimate.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/103
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 16
Catalysis Adaptation Partners, LLC (Catalysis) specializes in analyzing impacts from storm surges and
long-term sea level rise using its COastal Adaptation to Sea level rise Tool (COAST). COAST modeling
software mimics floods from storms and sea level rise on community assets such as homes and: businesses,
then tallies the cumulative damages over time so communities can better understand the cost to there of
not adapting (vulnerability assessment),, as well as the costs and benefits (damage reduction) of
implementing various adaptation actions.
Catalysis was contracted by Erin L. Deady, P.A. to use COAST to perform a vulnerability assessment
of homes and: commerclal building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County
in Key Largo as part of the GreenKeys! project. Working wIth Erin L. Deady, P.A., Catalysis conducted three
(3) community workshops in October, November and, December 2014, during which County residents in
Key Largo voted on modeling parameters and assumptions for "no -action" and three (3) adaptation action
scenarios: 1) Elevating and floodproofing buildings, 2) building barriers close to shore; and 3) purchasing
properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program. Voting occurred during:
Workshops #2 and #3 (results can be found In the appendix Section 6 of this report) and focused on certain
model parameters as well as whether or not actions should be further evaluated.
The "asset" selected for analysis was the value of residential and commercial buildings, obtained to
from Monroe Countytax records. Sea Level Rise assumptions were based upon the Unified Sea Level Rise
Projection for Southeast Florida'. Those projections Included a low and high estimate of sea level rise in
0
2030 of 3" and 7" respectively, as well as a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2060,of 9' and 24" U)
respectIvely. As requested by workshop participants, a lower sea level rise projection was also employed a)
in the analysis based only on the rate of sea level rise that has occurred over the last 100 years, outside
of the official Unified Sea Level Rise Projection document. A straight line projection of the tide gauge
trend was added to the modeling parameters, for a very low scenario of sea level rise of 1.82" In 2030,and 04
4.53" in 20,60. Surge values from various sized storms were obtained from the most recent Federal a)
U_
Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study. Key findings from the worst case
vulnerability assessment included one-time damage estimates of $2.0 Million from a nuisance flood in 0
2060 under a high sea level rise scenario of 24"and $2,89.2 Million from a Hurricane Wilmasizedflood in M I
CL
2060 under the same sea level rise scenario. Cumulative damages over time from -storms of various sizes
resulted in significantly higher damage estimates by 2060, with $1.673 Billion in damages under the very
low sea level rise scenario of 4.53", and $2.130 Billion in damages under a high sea level rise scenario of E
24". The value of properties (buildings and land) permanently inundated, by sea level rise alone by 2G6O,
(from daily flooding at high tide), ranged from $206.9 Million (very low scenario) to $705.6 Million (high E
scenario). Once the modeling indicated such properties would: be flooded by the daily high tide, the
software no longer subjecteditto continuing cumulative damages from that point in time forward.
A,
The three (3) adaptation actions to model identified: by the Project Team and County Staff
included:
0 Elevating and floodproofing buildings
' Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact CounVes, Sea Level Rise Ad Hoc Technical Working Group
(April 2011).
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 16
Bui I ding barriers close to the coast Ito protect from storm surge but not sea level rise); and
Purchase of properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program over
a phased timeframe.
For each action, costs were determined by the consultant and staff team, and in some cases,
modified by workshop participants by polling. Modeling parameters (,e.g., building elevation heights, the
distance between the barrier and the coast as well as the height of the barrier, the number of residents
accepting a buyout for their properties, etc.) also were established by workshop participants through a
keypad polling process. Catalysis then used COAST again with the adaptation actions in place to quantify
the predicted reduction in damages over the same time period as the vulnerability assessment.
These results were converted into benefit -cost ratios. Ratios greater than 1 represented: actions
that reduced more in damages in the future than itcostto implement them. Ratios less than 1 represented
actions that would cost more than the amount of reduced damages in the future (Le., not cost effective).
The action that had: the best benefitcostratio was elevating and floodproofing buildings (accounting for
those not already elevated or floodproofed: in the area of Key Largo within Monroe County), which had a
benefit -cost ratio between 5.48 and 13.70 (meaningfor every $1.00 spent on elevating and flood,proofing,
the avoided damages would range from $5.48 to $13.70), depending on the sea level rise scenario (high,
low or tide gauge trend) and construction cost estimates (high and low). Building barriers had the second
highest benefit -cost ratlos, but with all results below 1 (0.40 to 0.93). The voluntary buyout prograrn had
benefit -cost ratios ranging from 0.02 to 1.21. The only result with a value greater than 1 was for the tide
gauge trend sea level rise scenario, however. AsIde from the rnodel outputs, there were other factors
which contributed to these results as discussed in this document. A similar analysis for Stock Island was
completed at a later date and can be found: in Appendix 6.
These benefit -cost ratios were presented to County residents and keypad polling technology was
used, to evaluate their opinions. After looking at the COAST model results and participating in the group
discussions, residents voted that elevating and floodproofing buildings was their most preferred action.
In addition, residents thought the County should, pursue sources of funding to help private property
owners implement this strategy.
The modeling results and community engagernent process enabled the Project Team to provide
the County residents with a context for beginning more difficult conversations and decision -making
processes regarding their vulnerabilities. Discussions of factors outside of the model should lead to diverse
co -benefits (e.g., choosing to restore mangrove forests to not only improve coastal ecosystems but also
protect buildings from wave attenuation) and planning outcomes. Importantly, benefit -cost ratios
resulting from thi's work tend to open difficult conversations about exactly what is most important to a
community in planning how to adapt to sea level rise and, future storm surges.
However, these results do not rnean that the County should begin implementing a program to
elevate and floodproof residential and, commercial buildings. Catalysis recornmends that the County use
this information to:
Further discuss sea level rise vulnerability with County residents and the importance of having a
rnethod to weigh different adaptation actions against one another (benefit -cost analysis)
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 16
I
• Develop a framework for using new knowledge to engage with residents so that consensus on an
eventual adaptation action is data- and stakeholder -driven
• Share this information with neighboring communities so that more regional communication can
take place and strengthen anV local momentum towards adaptation
• Document any progress or failures towards adaptation So that other communities around the
country have lessons from which they can learn.
6 APPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST CONSIDLER A-1-IONS OF PROPOSED
STRATEGIES
6.1 KEYPAD POLLING RESULTS FROM COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2
Green KEYS I i(eypad loping Results from the COAST commun Ity modeling exercise conducted
November 5 2014 at the Nelson Govemmem Center In Key urso, rL
Quostion, #1e Currently In Key Largo, 40% of prop@rti@s are already @I@wat@d. What percentage of,
addWonal Key Largo V-:one buildings do yoki went to see elevated In this nmdel?
a a 25% 9 29%
C 75% 2! 6% ,t 9
d The draft input of 100% 14 45%
blank 4 13%
Total, 31 100%
Question #Z: What percentage of Key Largo A-zom buildings do you want W see flood fed In this
mod@[?
a 25% 21 6% Question 2
b 50% 5 16% 20 16
75% 4 11%
The draft Input of 100%
16 52%
blank 4 13% 11
Total! 31 100% C Mark
Question #3° Currently in Key Largo, new buildings are, requiired to be, elevated to the 100-year flood
elevation, which ranges from 6 to IS feet across the Key. For parcels that will be elevated In the
model, do you want them to be elevated up to this code or to something higher?
3 a U p to cuftent code 12 39% Question 3
b J p to current code pl [is 21 3 10% M 151
C Up to current code plus 3 is 49% of
blank, 1 3%
Total 31 100%
Ciuestlon #4: The model estimates floodproofing to a certain height. Now high would you like to see
parcels floodpwooMcf?
4 a I ft 0 0% Question 4
b 3 ft 8 26% ? SG
C to ft 3 10%
d The draft input of 8 ft 16 SZ%
blank 4 13% I'M Me
Total 31 100% d �flark
29
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 16
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are stti ke thf:ettgh and additions are underlined.)
Planning Commission recommendations are shown with deletions in blUC with a ot-1��-- and.
additions in blue with a do��ble underline.
.,,Il;, a..,�4,r .€ra..,ir_ e. t ., a.., z.I1 E. .I,€r a.. ir. �111 C ir._ "'.rra.. �C. I ._ �.. Ua.., a..,. r "'.-.�"ct. ,s", a.I1 E.� ., a.., �4�;'
o l ,.# r a.. c.t, € 1 EC I .
C n.,<" 3 E iC ��.
Policy 101.5.30
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall
limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance
between grade and the highest Dart of anv structure. includiniz mechanical eauinment_ but excludiniz
spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only, chimneys, radio
and/or television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers, and
certain antenna suDDorting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However. in no
event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable
space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies
101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Exeeptio 411 be .,lkw, ,o,a�aptfft€flafleeS 4) bttildiffg-:r,
tr-aff8ffli88iE)ff t . 'et:8 ra 4hef Sifflilaf stf+etti es In the case of airport districts, there shall be no
exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef. a izated master Dlanned community which is inaccessible to the surroundin
community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non -habitable
architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the
35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's
roof -line. This exception shall not result in a buildiniz toizether with anv architectural decorative
feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet
As used in this Dolicv_ a master Dlanned community means a Dlanned community of 100 or more
acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where
public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community
including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services
within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development
standards and monitors development requests by its members.
Policy 101.5.32
Within in 1 vear of the effective date of this Dolicv_ Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote
public health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other
hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses
due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for
recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection
Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be
Drovided to allow lawfully existing buildinus to be voluntarily elevated uD to three (3) feet above
FEMA base flood elevation and flooc� p cite ct ern I c � lit t can c� max��n� m of tl� c c feet
... a .. ........ ......... ......... ......... ........
above. the 5- oot. I�e��rl�t l�m�t shall be ���«v�d�d to allow new knew construction or substantially
..
improved) hUildings to volUntaril...c,le,vatc,..:lA to three.. .:feet above FEMA. base flood elevation,
File 2015-006 Page 9 of 16
"i:°:hes,c..._exc:el tions are; in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood
insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood
events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new.. Uilding exceeding a
maximuM heeding a maximum height of 40 feet.
Policy 101.5.33
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development .�
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing 0
buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general
welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from 0
C
flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize 2
future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; CL
aL
and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be x
repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE)
provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building E
is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor
height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to
exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior
to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide
a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a
resolution specifying the maximum approved hei0 r
h,.€, �3�,1 thWS _ ,U.,t,s� �. ��U �E,I �C
IaI3o;... .sP.
11
....
.r.: .. _.. r . _..
r :, ..... ,.., .. ..........
J�5
r
,....�...
..............L..:.,......,.
�az.
�� .....
[ 0....: U[IG.:CI,
..
�oo o 'Sl ",-U
I"t. ,;
�, H",
�tF, �t „
O ',, �o �,
�3"s 0
�I� �I��w
w. w.,.
,F}P, r'�s ,IU;,.,I��_
I�
UCS�.,�aa,cs cII ,�..I�::�I��_
w
I, „�.,a;I��_
I In.,""Oao o �c �3�;.,
............
........ ......... .........
or
.......... .......
3�,.;:
tI:I
�r#�
C.�,s� ,::°'FHk .
I,.. ,.i0 #� �,.,',.,� .G, C"OJ€L
s'Lifl. ,` �',.�t,
:II,., �,ai ,[ A.., t,s�.,
13 18
N,la, x iivulu,vul ht,i,hth
o rIU[U.U[IS OF
.'<T I ""i
a o C,I
!" 'U16.€`€s, �II
i#P.,
OF
�.IU[U.U'II fo r 3,.,.U'==.,taaa in.,
or
[
;'s�.W, I .,�t
I., t I ..,� ,, 5�,s�
t#�. ;I,I�,�,
a �E
„IaI t3 I�i.U[ ,_ t#�., t;''I' .I�[#�
5 #,5 ,t,s"I
[�
r �5h' 3
=1- 1C"A 11-C
Hh ..U n "'Iof, ,Uo
o "I;9
File 2015-006 Page 10 of 16
o cd for flI oo", t-, ro,
. . .. . . ... .... . . . _ 1�1 � _` I, � M � ��
........................... ...............................................
"c c o i i c', i c 0 0 i i , ;t I c Hc ol c r HC',,CH " , YsO I "i o
............... ............. ...................... .................. .................................................
C I 1111 C F 'Jfljs"; o c o 'ru "n h','ihi,�"-Ihic OF ;U"',"'),
s., 1
o ii c', i c ct�gj j
I'll-I'l�Ill"""�I ................................... ..........................
.......... . ........ . . . . ...................................................................................................................................... .........................
c" t 5. o I 1-1 OF r thc c s<j thc r ci I �s""i i c o I s., ":1
I'so, ":Ir�'T"_ o �s, ""i
Ik., ............... "I ......................................................................................................................... ......................................... s, . . .. . .. . .. . .. . .
. . . . . .0 . . . . . . . . . --I FF,1 I1, ...............0.....1...1...1...j...€...I...""I I,,,c" 1 1 k I""i r ,,-] c'.r I 'S j I I
1c
.........
I Os b j U s X
a k j I C 'I t i s,' �,,'c Uch s,' o
..................................................................................... 11111111111111111'�_""�� . ............................. ................................... .......... S . . . . . . . . ... . . . ............... -I-,--' ................
-1 o c
""i i� c "�, c', 'hc o' hc" :0 o J,C":Iturc�,, I�s, o', c "�, c',
.............. -
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is
'hcr
sly""i I o' r c I I �s, I I "M ck k
............................... . . ........... ............................................................................................................................................................................................. .............................. .
...............
H'k s.. 'k ,ur"'-d& i "-wk,irc 1 kh, hI I,,fl�s,k 'k ,""i, �Ao ,I� 1 c ", c',
1.1 , , 1 4 t, t
F 0 ", H, C', I 1 0 1 U I Os ',,I flOk �) F, s
s 0 F ic L
. ........... . . . ............... .............. ................................................................................... ...................................... . . ........... ............. "I ........................................................ .....................................................................
C oo" s� J C,\ 1 1, _ ": — , 11 11_� �0
........... ............. . ............................................................................................................................................................ . .
I - o r NI
. ........ . s i n a I c
Fa rn i I v and M Ul t i - fa m i I v I i h, I< IS
k o r c st r
f, ,Zv....
.............................
11=111111111111111111211111
. .. . .............................................. ...............v .........................
...............
........ . . I ........ .. ...............
c Js ....
(11
....... ....... - - - - - -
C
I "', 0 i C ") I
r ""i I � i o ", I ol o s� "" I I L-1 F C C ",
j I I o c c
I � k 0 '1
38 fttt or two 2 habitable floorsHjP,,;
. .............. ........ . ..................... . . ................................................... . ..... ....
. ...... ..................r, nc nt o I .I. ... .......k...I C, F ", 0 1 "" I flO1 F \0 F I 0'
1, or A c si h i `Pd �t c, I I � N, I S V I N t', J m444—fom44* I i i I i i A I c', I 10 1 , 0 1 C
............ ........ . ........ ........................................................................................................ 11 . ... . ................................ . ............... .................................................................
0 st, 1 ") F C ", 0 ,,,1 1 E,:] r << t r c 'k r o t s., n, )I a, r t, x c s s a
�j ............
"'Ifl
."I'll""I'll,�l,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,",,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,-,,,,,,,,,�,,I
hc,s� cl of
. . . ......... . . .
filv
o", c I c o,
jI jH,,J\ ....... . .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
Vhc
� k
":urno",m, m kho,"
I ";'Hu
"I'l""I",Izll""I'll",lI
............. . ............ I ` ""i
Inc i ,"I..I
C ..........................................................................
............
10
................ . . ......................
1 )1
....... ..... ...
SIs '00 dIrt"'t, "31 K"'A 01
............c..'.............
,I 1 �:1 h
,,nt r C "o s"o
Is I �t 1 ',o
so n"1 ":n ", ; . .. .. .. .. ...
. .........
o' ......... . .. . lvc................. . ........................................................
o� �s, ""i r I
. . . . . . . . . . . . "I .........................................................................
I �s,
I I �s, U
........ . . ................ . .............................................
k k c',
...............................
II ,,, ol 1 0 j �(,�,Cl dh.�, I I F 1 0' 1 o r `U' k I k k 3 , I I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ........ ................................................ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -----,----,--I, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .................................................. "Il""I'll""I'll'll"'ll""I'll""I'll'I ..................................... �;_
U, �oc":I, '1�, ,:m A 1 0 or 1 0 o r i c r
on, cf, 'o new i, I k s.,
- — --------------------------------------------------- .. .. .. .. .. .. ..
File 2015-006 Page 11 of 16
I, I, o, ""C' Is— s Icll)",I_ fl�c ,,-urIio"uw o 1, C C "'I o na t, t, t F ,�, I , o- C � C "'I
.. .... ...............................................................................................................................................
s
)Iic fl�c "'Ific Io, 6(, k I 1 4
1-( 1 Po� c"
0 1"'t-
1 u C c, I
�,s I S i I N
........... ...
...............
.. . .......
c" C I, c" C
),k C 'k I I I,
. . ................................................................
""i I "'I I- C I- o
....... . ............
s� I s"'JU 0H ",U
............. . ............ ................. ..................
1�,Cf1oi...c........
11........
�c ...
........
.........................................
..................
.........
o, ...f.................
........... ............................................. fin
1- C'A k
I I !I
,
O
J(11
I -.
N It o
. .
.................
...-.....�"
......
I J Of
1 0
0 C DI 1
. ... . ................ . ............................................................. ..............
............................ I .
................................. .............................
J I i Li I I I, I 1, ..... . ...............................................
. . ...................................................................................................
5, "'1', o' "'I
............
.. .. .. ..
.. . . ............................................................
.. .. .. .. .. ..
u I I I I V, 1-0k, C, I C ", C of ks."', so nat"t"t bJI" J PJ") I)A
or, of naort, th
..............................
`� �� :� :
E
o'-'] , �,� , � ,
" ", , ,
mU J� J 0 1 ", ", (" ! , I _�� k � 5 1,.� - � , " I � ,, � , � I � C
.. . ........................... ............................................ . .. . ........................ ...... ...... . . ....... - ----- -- — -----------------------------------------------
I
ors, flic 1,Cd1os" `n(- ("Jis, 1:
, k s., �
.......... ......... .................................. .
C I- C o k s., W C I I ",J 01
.............. ... . ....... . . ................................................................. .................
L S I I I st. 01 1 cl_ 'A i
................................ ............ ............................ . ............................................................... .
ff
I,
................................................... .............. . .. . ................ L J ................ . .... ......
C, i'hc C C "S1 I I
. trey
...... .. ..
. ..ffs0C I-
............ ......................
st, I i ,,,I J- o o'k C Ji",
......
........
.... .. .. .. .. s� k s., k s.,
0
C fl��c J,-o I., o� floo", I- C I
................... ................................. ......... . .................. ........... . . . .................. . ..................................................................................................................................................
U)
>
"I', I 'k 01 '1 ""1 Is� .
................................................................ ....................... . . ................ . .... . I . ....... ... .... ....................
I "" 1 11 ofc0 I Cfflf hc.r.-.,....C..................
I I I, I C ""i I- "'I C s., J-
,,,
.........................................................
04
C") 'S, I I i, 1(,�, U fic,
I-C fl, 0, C 4
............................. . ... . ......................... ......... . ................................. .............................. .......................................... . . .........................................................................................................................
I- I 3 C I, C i. o I
............. . ..................................
U_
"'A MI! fl�c ol ci-sl"N""'! of I)J "'1,
0
. ............................................................................................................................ ........ . ......................
. .............. ............................ . .................................
"I"', J, . .......... ...... ................ ....................... "I'l""I'll""I'llIll""I'll"",,......
ri
V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
GOAL 216
Monroe County shall maintain a program of hazard mitigation and post -disaster redevelopment to increase
public safety and reduce damages and public expenditures.
Objective 216.1
Monroe County shall maintain a program of hazard mitigation in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA)
which reduces floodplain alteration and damage or loss due to natural disasters.
File 2015-006 Page 12 of 16
Policy 216.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 216.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class rating.
Policy 216.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the land development regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
Objective 601.3
Monroe County shall continue implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve,
conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.1
Monroe County shall coordinate with other County agencies to monitor housing conditions. Standards for
evaluation of the structural condition of the housing stock are summarized below:
Sound: Most housing units in this category are in good condition and have no visible defects. However,
some structures with slight defects are also included.
Deteriorating: A housing unit in this category needs more repair than would be provided in the course of
regular maintenance, such as repainting. A housing unit is classified as deteriorating when its deficiencies
indicate a lack of proper upkeep.
Dilapidated (Substandard): A housing unit in this category indicates that the unit can no longer provide
safe and adequate shelter or is of inadequate original construction including being constructed below the
minimum required elevation by FEMA or the County's Floodplain Regulations.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Compliance Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
File 2015-006 Page 13 of 16
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
I. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
C
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
K
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
E
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
�+
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
.mac
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
File 2015-006 Page 14 of 16
163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations.
VI. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review
the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental
Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The
Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony
given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
VIII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes
6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report
7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes
File 2015-006 Page 15 of 16
8. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report
9. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes
10. January 26, 2016 DRC Staff Report
11. January 26, 2016 DRC Minutes
12. February 24, 2016 PC Staff Report
13. February 24, 2016 PC Minutes
14. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
15. FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your
Premium'
16. Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments
File 2015-006 Page 16 of 16
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Special Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Height Exceptions
Then the next change is on page 43...
You have a couple of new policies here, you all directed staff to take a look at how to possibly raise the height
limit for architectural features that really just apply to Ocean Reef and so we've also come up with some criteria
and you'll see that on those two policies 5.31 and 5.32
Mayor Murphy: Do we have a public speaker on this Lindsay?
l,indsay Ballard: We do. Joel Reed.
Mayor Murphy: Debbie, are you ready for public speakers?
Yes mam on this particular topic.
Joel Reed: Good morning Mayor, Commissioners, Joel Reed. I'm here today on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and
Ocean Reef Community Association in regard to this issue. First of all I want to thank you for the support. As
you know Ocean Reef is a distinct community. It's a private gated community of about twenty five hundred
acres, about seventeen hundred units up there. We have a lot of additional amenities up there, public buildings
or quasi, kind of public buildings that are for the club purpose as well. Ocean Reef also has a Community
Association which has its own architectural board, its architectural committee that kind of makes going through
DRC and Planning Commission a day at the beach compared to their architectural committee. They are very
stringent. They impose a lot of times additional requirements and regulations on their projects. Their whole
community is very involved with the process. They're all notified as far as any changes that happen up there. So
the five foot, we appreciate the support and the language in there a lot of times, some of the single family
homes and the commercial buildings as well bump up as far as making them more architecturally attractive to
need this section to allow for that. We also have had a lot of discussions the last couple of weeks internally as
well. I'm going to pass out, I guess to the clerk and to you guys, additional language we would like you guys to
consider. But we have been talking to staff about ....(passes out additional language considerations) So not to
confuse the issue, there are two specific issues. First is allowing for some additional architectural features that
the five foot would do. As we went through the club, as I said, owns a lot of buildings. Some of those buildings
are the hotels that are near Buccaneer Island, if you've been up there before. The Amberjack, The Dolphin, The
Marlin, these buildings are aging, they're coming to the end of their life. We have done quite a few renovations
to them. At this point there is not really many more renovations that can be done in order to continue to
maintain and operate them. As you know, that function of the club as well is essential to maintaining a Class A
club up there, continuing to provide for the tax base that comes out of Ocean Reef is by having an attractive club
where we can continue to attract, to maintain current members and attract new members. A lot of those
buildings, I have some data, it's not all there, The Amberjack for example is three levels of living. Just to give an
Page 1 of 12
example, the couple, I'm not going to go into all of them, but we said look if these things were substantially
damaged through a hurricane, or they had to come down, or we had to rebuild, we wouldn't be able to build
back those units to those heights that are there today. We have several. We have The Harbor House which is a
condominium, its over fifty four feet right now in Ocean Reef Club. We have The Marlin, which is one of the
hotel buildings, that's at forty two feet. We got the Dolphin Hotel at forty seven feet and The Creek House. We
didn't have the number on it but we know that's well over forty feet as well. That's another condominium
building up there. We came up with the boat barn, that's at thirty seven feet, the boat barn that we have up
there. But there is about seven or eight buildings specifically that we thought it would be greatly impacted as
we try to redevelop these properties or if we have to due to a hurricane or other issues. Some of the other
issues we face is that although these are three stories and they are just pushing the height limit right now. You
know, if you get three stories up there you're at thirty feet and then you have an architectural roof element
you're at thirty seven feet or something like that. A lot of these buildings are built below flood right now so if
we go to build them back, obviously we're talking about sea level rise, we want to encourage those buildings to
be brought back up to flood. What happens is we lose a whole top level that we currently have today. We
would lose almost a whole floor there out of those developments and that's just not possible to happen. So we
proposed some additional policy language to put in there to protect these existing buildings that are there to be
able to be built back. We haven't thoroughly vetted with staff yet at this point we have just proposed talking
about the issue that I just explained. We would like and hope to support and to continue to work with staff to
tweak some of this language to get into the Comp Plan to protect us on some of these issues. And the language,
it exempts, it doesn't exempt, it doesn't include single family homes so this is only for the multi -family and
commercial structures that are up there, so it doesn't include any of the single family homes and what it says is,
"lawfully established structures that exclude single family homes that exceed this height limit may be replaced
with their existing height plus any additional height required to elevate the first finished floor two feet above
the FE" so encouraging them to go, you know, those extra two feet as well above that base flood elevation to
account for future sea level rise as well. And then also that the height limit applicable to Ocean Reef and this
would be an exemption for their community center building. The community center building up there right now
puts on productions and theater productions and when it was built, they aren't able to attract and have the top
of the line theater groups that come in there because a lot of the sets that they have, they change throughout
the production. They actually lift that whole set up to lift that whole backdrop up into the ceiling and then they
drop down the new one and their theater wasn't able to be designed to that because of the height and so they
also want that as an exclusion so that they can look to enhance that building at some point to be able to attract
those types of productions there. I'm here for any questions. Thank you for considering.
Mayor Murphy: So the proposed additional language, Joel, is what you want, not the existing language?
Joel Reed: We support the Club and the Community Association both support that existing policy language
that's in there ...
Commissioner Carruthers: the institutional language ...
Joel Reed: Yeah. This is additional language, as we were talking about that five foot that was in there, that we
were supportive of. You know, we started to talk about the hotels and the aging and the issues and if we did try
and rebuild them back, what that would look like in the loss of rooms and the development that's there.
Page 2of12
Mayor Murphy Do we have a public speaker on this?
„d We do.
Mayor Murphy Let's hear the public speaker. Another one.
„„ D.A. Aldridge
D.,A, A rl ew I'm D.A. Aldridge. I live on Tavernier which is part of Kay Largo. Here we are at the last minute, a
breath away from sending the Comp Plan and all of a sudden we see a very important change being requested
by our Northern neighbors. The Federation of Homeowner's Association has been very adamant about height
restrictions for many years and we have continually fought for thirty five feet. We are asking at this time, I am
asking at this time to have you not vote on this. We have not had the opportunity to look at the language that
has been just handed to you and we feel that it needs to be reviewed very closely by the staff and by you
because this is a huge change that they are requesting. Thank you.
Mayor Murphy ... That's it
Commissioner Kol age: What does the, in the final sentence when they talk about assembly group Al and so
forth, what does that mean?
We don't know.
Mayor Murphy Well they haven't seen it yet. This is the problem with this.
Well we have seen that he emailed it but we asked questions. We didn't know what he meant
by that.
Commissioner Kol age: Well but we're going to have to be more specific on that. We'll have to have language
that says exactly what it means. I think anyway.
Could we not deal with this today and deal with it in January?
If you want us to address his comments, I just say get direction from the board at this point
We work on some type of language to bring back to you in January.
I think that's what we should do.
Mayor Murphy And what happens if we then want to make changes in January? Do we hold up the whole
process?
I think you can legally make changes on the floor by motion before we transmit.
g - . As long as you're not changing the general substance of it. The general tone of it.
Mayor Murphy Well that's what I am worried about. If we let this go til January and then begin to, ya know,
flesh it out and the public speaks and we all get confused and then what happens to the rest of Comp Plan
because we are supposed to vote on that in January.
Page 3of12
Commissioner i eugenta I would ask on issues like this because I very much agree with what was said that we
just got this and I think we need some information and my question is, and there may be some more issues very
similar to this that come up. Can we have another meeting discussing those particular issues before the January
transmittal?
Sure. We could do that.
Mayor N urphy� That would be helpful.
That may be the way to approach it.
The problem with holding it in November or December is the calendars are already a mess
from the holidays.
Commissioner i eugenta Oh my gosh we might have to do a little work.
No, that's not what I meant. It's just that even your regular board meetings got all shifted
around.
Commissioner i eugenta Have it at the board meeting. End of the item discussion for a board meeting.
Okay. We can do that.
Mayor N urphy� We can do that.
Commissioner i eugenta Another things that's in this right here as I read it, for clarification purposes,
"architectural decorating features that exceed the thirty five foot height limit but such features shall not exceed
five feet above the structures roof line" Joel also mentioned that some of these buildings are already, I guess
they would be legal non -conforming because they are above the height limit, so when you say "features shall
not exceed five feet above the structures roofline" what roofline are we talking about? The one that's already
non -conforming? Or thirty five feet, shall not exceed five feet above thirty five feet? That's not the way I
necessarily interpret that.
Mayor N urphy� Because if it's the fifty four foot building, we're now at fifty nine...
It's not though. This is meant for new development that cannot exceed thirty five feet.
Commissioner i eugenta Well what happens ...
Joel has added in and what he is really asking you to do, is in simple terms, and I think it could
be very simplified, is agree that existing, non -conforming buildings that are at a height greater than thirty five
feet, be allowed to rebuild to that height plus...
Commissioner i eugenta I didn't hear anybody bring that up...
That's really what he is asking though.
Well that's what this really says
Page 4 of 12
M ayor M rphy: R us what?
plus, let him adjust, like we already have a provision in here, for another five feet, if they need
to raise the elevation for FEMAfloodplain issues.
Mayor Murphy Fine, but not for decorative features.
Well he talked about decorative also, but he definitely spoke about ...
Mayor Murphy Well let's get it down pat.
Well we will try to but we got his language a couple days ago and...
Mayor Murphy Well his language is kind of going in a figure eight.
Cormissioner Koihagee I understand what they are saying. In other words, he wants to maintain what they
have now with an adjustment.
Yes. I think that's what he is asking.
Cormissioner Koffiagee And I think that is reasonable.
Mayor Murplhyw To replace a building, an older building that was built over thirty five feet, have a problem with
that anywhere in Monroe County. It is what it is, we're all used to it, it's part of the landscape.
Commissioner Neugent, Clarification on what you just said
Mayor Murplhyw I do not object to any of the older buildings that were built above thirty five feet. We all have
them in our neighborhoods. If they need to be replaced or have to be replaced, I don't have a problem with
them maintaining the height.
Commissioner Neugenta Hold on a minute there. Is there anything in our code, and I would use this as an
analogy, FEMA's description of it, if its damaged by more than fifty percent, it has to be rebuilt, that is there
anything in our code or Comp Plan that says that it then can be built over thirty five feet?
Mayor Murphy No, No.
Okay, today, don't mix apples and oranges. Today our code does not allow us to approve a
building permit above thirty five feet. If the structure is destroyed beyond fifty percent, they then have to
conform to the new code, which is the thirty five foot height limit. And if it's destroyed beyond fifty percent
under the floodplain rules, they have to raise the elevation and that's why they added this other position.
Commissioner Neugenta I understand the apples and oranges thing that I just plugged into it as an analogy but
what I am saying is, have we had that discussion? You just said, at least my interpretation, that you can't build
what Commissioner Murphy just said ...
You can't. That is what Joel is asking you to change.
Page 5of12
Commissioner Neugent So we need to have that discussion.
Cr)mmimAoner IrY'uth r ., And that's why we have the further thing about flood protection and height
exceptions. Go to 105.5.32. We added that so that we would allow people to exceed the thirty five feet when
they have to, to create enough free board to comply with FEMA regulations.
Commissioner Neugent, I'm not talking about base flood elevation.
C rnrnis» oner Carruthers: but that is the crunch that you are getting into. When the Mayor says that you can
rebuild a building at the height it is today, but we have a thirty five foot limit and FEMA says you gotta raise your
building five feet, you lose a story.
Commissioner Neugent: that addresses one part of it. The other part that is not being addressed in my opinion,
is do we have anything, are we proposing that then a fifty four foot high building could be rebuilt to fifty four
feet.
Joel is proposing that.
Commissioner Neugent: And that's what I am asking this Commission. Is that where we want to go with that?
Commissioner Carrutherso Well, I mean, if we don't allow people to do that, isn't that essentially a taking? I
mean you would be ... think about the real life economic consequences of...
Bob Shllhngera There may be some Bert Harris implications but it's a different analysis.
Corn issioner Koiliagee What we are considering here is because of the isolated and specific nature of Ocean
Reef, do we want to make an exception here?
Commissioner Neugent: And can I tag onto that Commissioner Kolhage? Municipalities have the right, if I
misspeak correct me, to go above thirty five feet if they choose to. Marathon has gone above thirty five feet, I
think Key West has a height limit above thirty five feet, but based on what Commissioner Kolhage just said, and I
want to hear some arguments otherwise, Ocean Reef is an isolated area, miles away from anyone else and a
gated community, albeit in unincorporated Monroe County, they're very similar to a municipality with a city
type manager, that do we want to be so parental if they have no objections internally amongst themselves to
keep them from rebuilding above thirty five feet or changing some things that they have gone through the
public input locally with their gated community. Do we want to impose our thoughts on how Ocean Reef should
be run?
Cor,nrNssk,,,,n r II[,Uce„ I don't think we are trying to do that.
Mayor Murphyw I don't either. But I will tell you, my feeling is, in many, many instances, what Ocean Reef wants
to do up there because they are away from everyone, I've agreed with. They've had good ideas, no problem and
they do it. However when it comes to things like the height limit that everyone in this county is interested in,
every developer is watching, and a lot of the homeowners are watching. I can't do something for them that I
won't do for the rest of the county. And I will go to the extent that these buildings that Joel is talking about,
were built when there was no height limit actually. If this comes down either in a hurricane or they want to
Page 6of12
remodel it, I don't have a problem with them rebuilding to the height it was. I don't think it ruins the landscape
because we have had thirty/forty years of looking at it. And therefore, everyone else in the county can also
rebuild the over thirty five feet structures they have. Most of them are commercial structures.
CornrnlssGoner Kolliage� Okay can I ask you a question Mayor so I can more or less understand your position? So
you're saying, you don't have a problem with them rebuilding to the height that they are now but you mean
without the adjustment for base flood elevation or with it?
Mayor MuYurphye No, because everyone in the county is going to get that adjustment.
CornrnlssGoner Kolliage� So you don't have an objection to it?
Mayor MuYurphye Not to that. I have an objection to the decorative features.
CornrnlssGoner Kolliage-. Okay but look, if it's, if they got a fifty foot building and there is a five foot adjustment
for base flood elevation, you don't have a problem with them going to fifty five feet?
Mayor MuYurphye No.
CornrnlssGoner Kolliage� Okay.
Mayor MuYurphye They are going to what they were before the remodel ...
and you want it county wide not just for Ocean Reef?
Mayor MuYurphye Yes.
Commissioner Carruthers; But only for flood mitigation...
Mayor MuYurphye That's it, no decorative stuff.
Well right now the decorative is in, the flood is in...
Commissioner Carrurutherso Well the decorative is in for Ocean Reef only, the flood is in for everyone. Right?
Yeah and the decorative is not so much what Joel is talking about relative to the bigger
commercial buildings, its more for the single family homes that want the decorative features on top of the roof.
They are separate issues really. So right now in the draft policy you have included an extra five feet in Ocean
Reef for the decorative architectural features, you've included for the whole county up to five feet adjustments
for flood protection, raising your elevations, and Joel is asking you to also include, for Ocean Reef, but it sounds
like you at least have one Commissioner who wants to do it county wide for grandfathering existing buildings
that are higher than thirty five feet and allowing them to get the flood adjustment.
Bob Shllhngera You'd want to vest them for that height is what I'm hearing.
Yup. But I don't know the Commissions, I'm not getting...
Page 7of12
Commissioner ieugenta Well first of all the staff is supposed to review what the request is and bring it back the
staff recommendation
. j Cb 4�mO O HACd1s LcAffi I'cfj ■CF O4 s do h I'sA■ vAsz adn CA 6§f(I+0± §Adt -
buildingsat least.
i s" 4 s U4Tc cfj m�Ua that, the economic impact, eventually we will
destroy what we know down here. I doh Cis 00§ UPos ANTI, �04 s
Commissioner Carruthers° Lr 46dl i6 i 2 241 Lr o�CdLi *J} 2 24to not let somebody rebuild what they got.
As it is when they do rebuild they have to meet standards that exist today that did not, and codes that exist
today that did not exist then.
I understand what you all are asking for so if you want to just move on without voting, we will
draft language and bring it back for discussion on one of your regular agendas.
Commissioner ieugenta Let me point this out, as someone who operated out of an illegal non -conforming
building, if you think that it is something that is, it was called Porky's restaurant, and if would have been
destroyed by a storm, I would have had a very difficult time, if not impossible time to rebuild with the same
amount of square footage because of setbacks that came into play after Porky's was built eons ago. So if you
think that there is a fairness level here, there is really a lot of situations where you can't rebuild.
Commissioner Carruthers° but wouldn't you have been able to apply for variances and exceptions to those
setbacks...
No.
Commissioner ieugenta You still would have had to meet the setback requirements.
You could apply for variance for a setback but not height.
Mayor N urphy� See well all we are talking about is height. Not their setbacks. Not anything else.
Commissioner Kol age: We're talking about changing the whole concept of the fifty percent rule.
No I understand ...
Commissioner Kol age: How does it work? For height ... we're saying we're washing away the fifty percent rule.
Well other things enter into ....for height you would be washing it away.
Bob Shilhngera As a trigger for bringing it into compliance with current code
There are still other things that apply to that but most of those can be remedied by a variance.
Commissioner Carruthers° and just to clarify what you are eluding to I think, Commissioner, is that someone
can elevate their building now. And that's not necessarily fifty percent improvement. Right?
Page 8 of 12
I mean if you are elevating a building, Tc j'rs j fj %mj&s'4�4
Commissioner Carruthers° Well it dependson the building and the cost
Commissioner Kolhagea and the whole destruction issue and the fifty percent and t�A-',s.... I'm not necessarily
saying I have a problem with that but that's what we're doing
And I will say the examples that Joel gave of the condominiums, when you, let's say have eight
units per floor and now you have a storm that destroys more than fifty percent of that building, you are
eliminating the possibility of one of those floors, because you are going to have to elevate it and that means
eight condo owners don't get a unit and so that's related to the Bert Jay Harris that Bob referred to
Commissioner Carruthers° Everybody gets a smaller unit which is still going to be an issue so ...
That's under our current rules.
And what we're trying to do is validate, you don't want to build a fifty year building or sixty
year building without accommodating expected sea level rise
Commissioner Carruthers° I guess my only other comment is that I know that this is going to be controversial
and people are going to be concerned about character and things like that...
Mayor Murphy But it's already there.
Commissioner Carruthers° Well it is already there...
Mayor Murphy So it's not changing the landscape...
Commissioner Carruthers° It's not but trust me from dealing with this in Key West people have the perception
that overnight the character of our communities is going to change and that's not what we're talking
about ... Over fifty years it probably will to some extent but it's going to have to if we want to continue to live
here.
Mayor Murphy Alright listen we're going to take a break
Mayor Murphyw And what I realized is we neglected to give Christine a head nod one way or the other on the
non -habitable architectural decorative features. My comment was, I will vote for the increase in height but not
for the decorative features. Discuss it and let her know which direction you would like her to take when she
does her staff report.
Commissioner Carruthers: Are you talking about within Ocean Reef or County wide?
Mayor Murphy They are the only ones that asked for it.
Commissioner Carruthers: I don't really care.
Page 9of12
Commissioner i eugent: We'll put together something that is going to be in place for twenty years or at least
supposedly it should be put in place so this is going to be hard and complex so I would say that the data and
information on it being done county wide.
Mayor Murphy: But the point is, what county wide? I don't care if its county wide, in fact it has to be. For me
to vote for a height limit, it has to be county wide. Otherwise, I'm not going to vote for it.
Okay wait a minute, no one has proposed, maybe that's where you're going next I don't know,
right now what's in your draft is flood for everybody ...
Mayor Murphy: Base flood elevation...
They have talked about it, I am very clear, everyone is okay with that. Ocean Reef only,
decorative features, five additional feet. And I didn't hear, I heard Murphy say she's opposed to it but I didn't
hear what any of you other Commissioners thought of that.
Mayor Murphy: And that's what I am trying to bring out so that she knows where to go with it.
Commissioner i eugent: I thought I heard you ask, you wanted a head nod whether this was going to be
proposed just for Ocean Reef or all of unincorporated Monroe County.
I had never heard that the decorative features was proposed for all of Monroe County from
you all.
Commissioner Rice and Commissioner Kolhage respond in unison: No, no...
Commissioner i eugent: Okay but I also heard Commissioner Mayor Murphy say, I'm not going to treat them
any different than the rest of the County.
Well that gives you a slight clue as to how she might vote.
So what I think I've gotten clarity on is everybody's okay allowing the people to get five of the
five feet to adjust the floodplain if they are demolished. The board wants us to draft language to address
existing structures that are already over thirty five feet to be able to be replaced with the five foot flood
adjustment. What I don't have any clarity on is whether or not the board wants us to keep in Ocean Reef
allowance for five foot additional architectural decorative features or not. Or if you want to expand that County
wide, which I had never heard as an option to this moment.
Commissioner Kol age: Let me just state my position on this and you can go down the line I guess but I really
don't care about the architectural features of Ocean Reef. I've tried to care but I just can't. But I am a little
concerned, I'm a little concerned about doing away with our fifty percent rule on the rest of the County and I'm
not saying that I am going to support that.
Commissioner i eugent: I'm not saying that I am going to support anything. I'm saying I just want the
information to be able to make the decision, have the discussions with the people who are going to speak for
and against it.
Page 10 of 12
Mayor I\A urphye And my only point with the architectural features, I don't think they are necessary, but if just
for Ocean Reef, I don't want them certainly spread all over Monroe County and if you do that you are
guaranteeing somebody an extra ten feet. Five feet for the base flood elevation, up to five feet, and then up to
another five feet for their decorative stuff, plus what they'll be rebuilding is something that is you know, fifty
feet, fifty four feet, whatever. Its adding ten feet to it instead of five. I think that's a bit much.
Commissloner Neugent: At what point in time do we bring up what was brought up previously about
addressing affordable housing, increasing the height limit ...This is all about bringing information back to us.
This is the time to bring that up if you want to.
Commissloner Neugent: And I just, looking back in history a little bit here, there were some comments that
Meridian West could have had another floor which would have increased the housing if they had gone up an
additional foot or so. So again, more information to discuss that strictly for affordable housing.
Yes and at the meeting that State Representative Raschein held, you all discussed that. We do
not have anything included right now in this policy for increased height for affordable housing. We have
discussed it as staff after you had that meeting. It's our opinion that if you are going to incentivize affordable
housing development by giving them a higher height limit that you should restrict that to very low and low
maybe median, but the moderate income level is something that we do not think should be incentivized with a
height increase.
Commissloner Neugent: One of the biggest problems in dealing with affordable housing is the property to build
them on. Another reason why I think the discussion should take place for affordable housing to go up is that if
you can build more on that specific site as opposed to trying to find other properties to build affordable housing
on. It helps resolve that part of the equation.
Commissioner Kol age: So what are you going to do with that Christine? Between now and January?
Do you want us to include something for you to consider relative to affordable in the next
version that we bring to you at your regular meeting for discussion?
I do.
Commissioner Carruthers: I do.
Okay.
Commissioner Kol age: I remain to be convinced...
I'm not sure how I feel about it but I think we do need to have the discussion.
And I'm going to have some diagrams for you all by the next meeting with each policy so you
can see what that means.
Commissioner Carruthers: Will you also, related to this policy with affordable, that would have to be in very
specific tiered areas obviously.
Page 11 of 12
I understand. I will bring that also.
Ommissioner h e LO Am Lcfj Cfba■C s'Aj f I'mjjj ■JEF I' UA* a'n4f sf kn'
Page 12 of 12
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Townley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: March 17, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND
TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY
101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE
FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES
101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT
LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN
EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR
EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS
FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN INCOME CATEGORIES ON
PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: March 24, 2015
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the
height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by
a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions
to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and
create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or
employee/workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median
income categories on properties designated as tier 3.
File 2015-006 Page 1 of 20
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.3 2: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HEIGHT:
In unincorporated Monroe County, he�ht and grade are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires andlor steeples on
structures used for institutional andlor public uses only; radio andlor television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles andlor transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna andlor collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 20
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
andlor other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
("fuwr of Rot](] :eft*
® IV twNtloll try
Mean sea Tarim
Height limit
3"
Crown of the road
10
UW1
The verticaldistance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest part of the structure
Height
2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public
hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1).
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 20
OCEAN REEF - architectural decorative features:
Poic 101tl5tl31
For Ocean reef„ a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and
has a distinct community character, structures may include non -habitable architectural decorative features
(such as finials„ rails„ wi_dow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5,30, but such
features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line, This excerption shall not result in a structure
or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
Draft Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non -habitable architectural decorative features which are
commonly applied for in the Ocean Reef community and the issues this causes in permitting relative to the
architectural decorative features.
Yellow =
symbol for a
non -habitable
architectural
decorative
feature
Cr,wr of Rrowl;] c
Nati r al Eli-ori t r
e it relatkyll tt;
Mean SAa VA
am
AE '
This type of exemption would be to address items such as balls, finials, or a widow's walk
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 20
FLOOD PROTECTION AND INSURANCE DISCOUNTS:
Policy 101tl5tl32
In order to Drotect DrODCrty from flooding and reduce flood insurance Costs for DrODCrty owners, a Flood
Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 10 1,530 as follows:
1, For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the struc-ture's minjiDum required
FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the
35-foot height limit may be ermitted, The arnount of the exception shall be a rnaximum of five (5)
feet, and shall be no greater than the arnount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and
2, For exr-str-nor structures which do not currently exceed the height hmr-t of 35 feet in Policy 10 1,530
and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the structure's minimum reclur-red FEMA BFE
based on the flood zone an excentr-on of ut, to five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit Maybe
permitted, The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater
than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above
BFE; and
3, Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101,5.30, may
be permitted a height exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the
structure to meet the structure's mini-muzn required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one)
additional foot above BFE, -
Draft Policy 101.5.32 is intended to help protect structures from flood events, mitigate upcoming FEMA
flood zone height changes, mitigate rising insurance costs for the property owner and assist with flood
insurance rate discounts in the Community Rating System. The discussed height exception would allow
structures to be elevated higher than the required minimum FEMA base flood elevation which could then
allow property owners to obtain discounts on their insurance and help mitigate potential flooding damage.
See the following example on flood insurance discounts:
EXAMPLE:
PreFIRM
"A" Zone
$250k building coverage
$2k deductible
s` A{�;
Annual
Annual
la
Premiums
Savings
savings
_. , +39
402
5,89
94%
�, +Z'
603
15,693
go%
',� +1'
BFE I
791
5,505
87%
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 20
For draft Policy 101.5.32 which creates the Flood Protection Height exception, the BOCC expressed
concerns with a property owner's ability to either build or elevate their homes without losing living space
(i.e. reducing the number of stories of the structure) and being squeezed into smaller homes. To try and
determine if this is an issue with the proposed policy exception, which would allow an additional 5 feet in
height, County staff has evaluated the number of properties per flood zone [following Flood Zone table] and
created basic illustrations [following 4 page Flood Zone Height Analysis] to depict how the current height
limit, per flood zone, may affect proposed development, and examples with the flood protection height
exception.
Based on the information in the Flood Zone table, it is noted that the majority of parcels within
unincorporated Monroe County fall within the AE 7 to AE 11 flood zones. There are 44,910 parcels within
these flood zones, out of an estimated 56,843 total parcels within unincorporated Monroe County (79% of
the total parcels are within AE 7 to AE 11).
Based on the information in the Flood Zone Height Analysis, generally:
• In flood zones X through AE 10 or VE 10 [approx. 47,158 parcels], a three (3) story structure may
be developed.
• In flood zones AE 11 (VE 11) through AE 20 (VE 20) [approx. 9,330 parcels], a two (2) story
structure may be developed.
• For flood zones AE 21 (VE 21) and greater [approx. 19 parcels], a one (1) story structure may be
developed.
The generalized comments are made based upon the provided examples, within the Flood Zone Height
Analysis, with crown of road at 5ft and used as the starting point (grade) for measuring height.
Land Development Code
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any
structure....
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher....
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 20
FLOOD
ZONE TABLE
FEMA Flood Zone
Number of Parcels
% of total
% of total
X
1,935
3.40%
Cz
0.2 PCT ANNUAL
5.16%
CHANCEFLOOD
0
C
HAZARD
999
1.76%
o
AE 5
1
0.00%
AE 6
1,964
3.46%
o
AE 7
8,996
15.83%
N M
o
AE 8
14,824
26.08%
0
AE 9
11,272
19.83%
AE 10
6,835
12.02%
83.48%
AE 11
2,983
5.25%
AE 12
121
0.21%
AE 13
418
0.74%
N C o
AE 14
36
0.06%
°o N
AE 15
3
0.01%
AE 16
1
0.00%
VE 9
5
0.01%
3 story
VE 10
327
0.58%
VEII
1,019
1.79%
Cz
VE 12
1,443
2.54%
VE 13
1,069
1.88%
C
o
VE 14
1,815
3.19%
VE 15
352
0.62%
VE 16
31
0.05%
o q
`VE
10.76%
-a
17
33
0.06%
0
VE 19
5
0.01%
VE 20
1
0.00%
o
VE 21
8
0.01%
VE 22
7
0.01%
0 0
VE 23
1
0.00%
Ct
�
VE 24
1
0.00%
o
"
VE 26
2
0.00%
OPEN WATER
10
0.02%
total 'parcels
56,843
Note: As of October 2014 there are
approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated
Monroe County.
The total froin the spreadsheet will be different as some of the subinerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones.
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 20
w
m
m
mm�
AE 51 w 61 AE 7- AE Soke 91 AE 10' AE I f AE 12'
AE 8' AE W AE 0' AE 12' AE IT) (AE 12'
y"
MA h
rsbre
11"', . 4 1lei
m
AE IS AE 14' AE 15' AE 16' AE 17' AE 1W AE 19'
At 16* At 16' AE 16* AE 2V AE 20' AE 20'
EV
Im'd
fl,mfvr 0,111or
AE 20' AE 21-,* w [-,,A
N.1.e
Height Analysis
Ej��
w
Mmm
K « VE 6' 47' & a. & 9. VE 10' VE li* VC 12'
%t 8' VE 8' vt a' W 12' VE 12' VE 12'
PVA bl�, VA
m'7
+�L
ZEM
VE lY W 14' VE 15' vE to' YE 17' w le, VE 19'
VIE 16' VE 16, VE 16,
EVA, bo-itj
A W VE 20* A 20'
( c,,A)
FMA 1"Os
14"m
, "
My- 1.
VE 2V 14 21' -- — kA
FZH1.e
EXISTING STRUCTURES:
Policy 101tl5tl33
A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height firnit of 35 feeLjn�Policy
101,530 may be re aired, im roved or reconstructed to its existinR heidt, Drovided the structure is limited
to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use, A Flood Protccti2n.1-ler_�rht
Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided
as follows:
1, For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in
Policy 101,530 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the structure's minimurn required
FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet may be permitted. The arnount
of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of
elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of vol untary elevation -above BFE, and
2, Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the heiL�ht limit of 35 feet in Policy
101,530, may be DerMitted a hei�ht exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily
elevate the structure meet the structure's rninirnurn recluired FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus I
(one) additional foot above BFE,
For draft Policy 101.5.33 which creates the height exception for a lawfully established existing structure
which currently exceeds the 35 foot height limit to be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing
height and provides a Flood Protection Height Exception to elevate the structure to meet and/or exceed the
required FEMA BFE.
Example 1: 5 feet to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE
A, I' A-
44' 0
11 MW&NII kV M in
sel level
AE 5 AE 5
M
File 2015-006 Page 12 of 20
Example 2: elevated loft to meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE plus 1 additional foot
above BFE
55,0
42'
�2 r r
AE 15 AE 15
Note, staff has not been able to complete an inventory of structures that exceed the adopted height limit of
35 feet as there is not enough information in our files to determine the exact grade (either highest natural
elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the
crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher) for most structures
built before 1985. As such, we cannot determine the number of structures which may be affected by the
proposed policy. Below are examples of structures which appear to exceed the adopted height limit:
Moon Bay Condos, mm 104
Built in the 70s
Crown of road might be 13-14' based on LiDAR,
Building B is 46' from ground level of 13' AMSL.
Building A is 49'6" from ground level.
Harbor 92 Condos, mm 92
Built in the 70s
Crown of road might be about 8' based on LiDAR
Building is 63' from ground level
Kawama Tower, mm 102
Built in the 70s
Building is 85' from ground level of about 7' AMSL
File 2015-006 Page 13 of 20
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Poicy 101tl5tl34
In order to incentivize the development of affordable and emDIoyice/worforce housin- an exception shall
be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.530 exclusively for affordable or ern loyce/workforce
dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on
properties designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or employce/workforce housin( for
very low, low and/or median income categories may be developed with a maximain height of 44 feet (to
rovide for uto three stories over° ,2arlcing or develotrient over nonresidential floor area
Heilyht is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of anv structure, including
mec-hanical equipment excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.530,
very low income household whose total household income does not exceed 50% of the median
monthly household income for the county
low income household whose total household income does not exceed 80% of the median monthly
household income for the county
median income means a household whose total household income does not exceed 100% of the
median monthly household income for the county
For draft Policy 101.5.34 which creates the height exception for affordable housing, the BOCC discussed
finding ways to incentivize additional development of affordable housing. The intent of the proposed policy
is to encourage additional affordable and employee/workforce housing provision by allowing structures
developed as affordable/workforce housing to be built with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide for
three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area.
449 0"
40' 0"
1rz
OWN
N ati it Elf-vatlor aft
b If' Irfiltioll tt;
File 2015-006 Page 14 of 20
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT
OPTIONS FOR PROPOSED HEIGHT POLICIES FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION:
Staff has developed the following draft policies for consideration. (Deletions are st-44 .' e-r tlh-veettg4 and
additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.45.630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural
environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including
mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical
distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including
mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used
for institutional and/or public uses only, chimneys, radio and/or television
antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers,
and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or
collocations. ,
tr-al4 H issi O1 tower-S avid at4er- Sim4nr c tme4iir-es
Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and
the turbines are owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian Z
Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service �+
(USFWS) and the turbines comply with relevant State and federal wildlife
protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty
Act. Bald and Golden Eaale Protection Act. and National Environmental �'-
Policy Act. Applications proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in
height within the MIAI overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review
and comment. M
In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 foot
height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Ree£ a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the
surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures
may include non -habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials,
rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30,
but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This
exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature
with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
File 2015-006 Page 15 of 20
Policy 101.5.32
In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for
property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the
35 foot height limit in Policv 101.5.30 as follows:
1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the
structure's minimum required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based
on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot
height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a
maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of
voluntary elevation above BFE; and
2. For existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of
35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or
exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the
flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot height
limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a
maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of
elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation
above BFE; and
3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35
feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more
than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the structure to
meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood
zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE.
Policy 101.5.33
A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the
limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired, improved or reconstructed
to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully
established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood
Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure
exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows:
1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the
height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to
meet and/or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE
based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet may be
permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5)
feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to
meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and
2. Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the
height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height
File 2015-006 Page 16 of 20
V.
exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate
the structure meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based
on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE.
Policy 101.5.34
In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee/workforce
housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy
101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee/workforce dwelling units that
meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories
on properties designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or
employee/workforce housing for very low, low and/or median income
categories may be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet (to provide
or up to three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor
area).
Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of
any structure, including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions
listed in Policy 101.5.30.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
File 2015-006 Page 17 of 20
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local Z
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern '-
r_
designation. 0
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, tL
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
x
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and E
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and M
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. i
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including: 04
The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
Transportation facilities;
Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
File 2015-006 Page 18 of 20
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and
strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal
development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its
elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and
shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections
of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals,
objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land
development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive
plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing
regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs,
activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land
development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable
standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
more detailed land development and use regulations.
Vl. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
File 2015-006 Page 19 of 20
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
VIII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
File 2015-006 Page 20 of 20
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tuesday, March 24, 2015
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
March 24 , 2015, beginning at 1:02 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
DRC MEMBERS
Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources
STAFF
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Emily Schemper, Principal Planner
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item 1 is delayed.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24, 2015, DRC meeting as is.
MEETING
New Items:
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY
101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES
OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO
ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN
THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND
CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT
EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS
THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN
1
INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
(1:03 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated that Items 2 and 3 will be held as a workshop discussion
versus a staff report with comments. Both items are from the comp plan update and were
proposed within the 2030 comp plan. The BOCC has asked staff to remove the policies as they
were in the comp plan and process them separately so that there is public understanding and
public input through the process. This item will be brought back two or three times to ensure
revisions can be made with public input.
Ms. Santamaria first addressed Policy 101.4.26. Ms. Santamaria explained that the current
height definition is the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure and it
is measured from either grade or the crown of the nearest road. Multiple height exceptions have
been proposed in order to address a variety of issues. The first one is the wind turbine for
facilities owned and operated by a public utility. An avian protection plan would be required.
The height exception would be for those wind turbines that facilitate green technologies and
alternative energy sources. Ms. Santamaria informed Deb Curlee there are no applications for
wind turbines currently.
Alicia Putney commented that her personal experience has been that wind turbines are not able
to generate enough current to be deemed useful unless the sustainable winds were above 20-25
miles an hour. Consequently, wind is more questionable than solar energy at this point. Ms.
Curlee is not in favor of wind turbines because of their aesthetics. Ms. Santamaria will draft a
version of the policy as the BOCC has proposed it next to a version that includes the public's
input. Bill Eardley asked that staff obtain an analysis of FKEC's two wind turbines located on
Cudjoe Key before proceeding with this policy.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.31. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy is
specific to Ocean Reef. In permitting for that community staff has had to deal with architectural
features just above the 35-foot height limit. Staff has recommended the architectural features
could exceed the 35-foot height limit by five feet, not to exceed 40 feet, and can contain no
habitable space up there.
Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association and Ocean Reef Club.
Mr. Reed stated even though Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non -habitable architectural
decorative features, it is only one and the least significant of three provisions that Ocean Reef
has requested. Mr. Reed explained that Ocean Reef has its own architectural review committee
that projects go through as well. One of the longer term issues facing Ocean Reef Club is that
they still own a number of buildings and condominiums that currently exceed the 35-foot height
restriction. These are aging buildings coming to the end of their useful life. There is concern if
they are ever destroyed they would not be able to build back to their current heights. Mr. Reed
agrees with being proactive by building above the FEMA flood heights. One policy request from
PA
Ocean Reef is for the ability to build back on a story -by -story approach rather than to the pre-
existing height. Mr. Reed feels allowing this way of rebuilding with an increase in the slab -to -
slab measurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than
tearing them down. Another issue important to Ocean Reef is the Cultural Center building.
Because the flyover space in this building is limited, the ability to have productions in this
building is limited also. Mr. Reed suggested that a height of 65 feet would accommodate that
flyover space. Mr. Reed emphasized that the proposed story -by -story rebuilding process is being
requested for Ocean Reef only, which is an isolated and gated community, not visible from the
roadway. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef provide information of the cultural center, such
as a map depiction and its existing height information. Mr. Reed agreed to provide that
information, as well as a list of inventoried buildings at Ocean Reef including their existing
heights.
Ms. Curlee asked for an estimate of the height of a building with an 11-foot slab -to -slab
allowance plus the flood elevation. Mr. Reed replied that it depends on the flood zone and the
average existing grade or crown of road of each site. Ms. Putney proposed Ocean Reef go
through a variance procedure for each of the specific buildings because of all the variables
associated with each building. Mr. Reed agreed that consideration needs to be given for each
building individually and stressed that losing a floor would not be an option in rebuilding. Mr.
Reed further explained that some communities have minimum ceiling heights so that a more
adaptable building into the future is built.
Ms. Putney asked if Ocean Reef has its own community master plan containing its own design
criteria. Mr. Reed responded that there are architectural design guidelines for Ocean Reef that
are followed currently and a process is being gone through to update and create a new master
plan for Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria clarified that it is for Ocean Reef s own development
internally, but a Livable CommuniKeys plan or even an overlay district can be proposed. Ms.
Putney voiced concern that this policy would open the door for other gated communities
throughout the Keys to increase their height restriction. Ms. Santamaria noted that the reason the
BOCC was even considering this policy is because Ocean Reef is not only gated, but it is
isolated and separate from the rest of the Keys. Bill Hunter, present on behalf of Sugarloaf
Property Owners Association (SPOA), will be taking this request by Ocean Reef back to SPOA
members for their input. SPOA recognizes that Ocean Reef is isolated and very different from
the rest of the Keys. Mr. Hunter commented that the BOCC has said in the past they do not want
to treat Ocean Reef differently than the rest of the County. SPOA is neutral on this policy as
long as this does not affect the rest of the County.
Mr. Reed explained that there is language that allows Ocean Reef to go through a letter of
understanding process without going through a conditional use process. Mr. Reed feels perhaps
some stronger language would help address the concerns being voiced. Ms. Putney again
suggested Ocean Reef have their own Livable CommuniKeys plan which is protected by the
comp plan. Mr. Reed pointed out that Ocean Reef has stricter regulations than the rest of the
County has, such as setbacks. Ms. Putney suggested adding language referring to gated
communities over a certain size. Ms. Curlee believes, regardless of Ocean Reef being isolated
and gated, the public will expect the same consideration that Ocean Reef receives. Ms. Putney
agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not want to have special rules for
3
Ocean Reef. Mr. Reed added that he believes only one Commissioner has expressed that
sentiment. Ms. Santamaria stated the BOCC will make the decision of what they choose to adopt
and/or transmit to the State and will ultimately make the decision of which communities, which
policies and where they will apply to.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained these
policies are an attempt to provide existing and new structures the ability to redevelop or lift the
existing structure to come into compliance with their flood zone. New FEMA maps are expected
in four years. The first provision of Policy 101.5.32 is for new structures to voluntarily elevate
their structures up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit. It is based on what they choose to
elevate above flood. The second provision of the policy is for existing structures to be able to
meet their base flood zone or to exceed it. Again, they can go up to five feet above the 35-foot
height limit, but this is based on the amount they choose to go up. The third provision is for
those structures that need to go a little bit higher to meet their flood zone. The addition of one
foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for.
Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structure is impractical due to the cost. It is simpler to pay
off the mortgage and cancel the flood insurance. Mr. Eardley feels there is no need for the
exception on new construction because the building can be designed to meet the current
standards. Ms. Santamaria explained the exception was proposed because the BOCC did not
want people to lose living space and be squeezed into smaller homes. FEMA representatives
have informed staff a grant program may be created to help with the cost of elevating a home.
Ms. Santamaria pointed out that some existing structures may not be able to be raised due to its
structural integrity. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there has been discussion about including
bonus points or points under the CRS for communities that provide for an opportunity for
property owners to elevate their base floor one to three feet above base flood elevation on a
voluntary basis. Dottie Moses from the Upper Keys Homeowners Federation stated that the CRS
looks at encouraging people not to build in low-lying areas. Ms. Santamaria explained that is
why the inventory of flood zones was done. Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the County is
somehow encouraging building in a very low-lying area where roads will eventually no longer be
maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number 1 is applicable when people
tear down and build a new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of homes built before
FEMA came in to Monroe County in '78 built below the base flood would be a small enough
number that they could be dealt with through some kind of a development review mechanism as
opposed to a carte blanche rule. Ms. Schemper noted that this would give property owners the
allowance to do it rather than being penalized because of their unique circumstance. Ms.
Santamaria stated staff will evaluate that.
Ms. Santamaria then described a situation of a property owner in North Florida who built a home
less than ten years ago at three feet above flood. The new FEMA maps now show that home
being three feet below flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that the new FEMA maps could impact
a substantial number of people whose flood insurance premiums are going to skyrocket up
because of this situation. FEMA is supposed to take sea level rise into account when creating
their new maps. Staff is trying to think into the future to try to facilitate people's ability to
protect their homes and investments. Mr. Hunter suggested, because it is unknown what the
maps will show, introducing the concept and making allowances for the solution in the comp
:l
plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifying the LDRs in the LDC is
an easier process. Mr. Schemper cautioned the longer addressing this issue is put off, the more
homes will be built that are going to be affected. Ms. Moses stated that at an Army Corps
meeting comments were made that all of the "easy" lots have been built on and what is left will
require mitigation and other issues. Ms. Santamaria will try to run an analysis of the flood zone
of the vacant parcels in the County.
Mr. Hunter clarified that when he suggested splitting the concept in the comp plan and the detail
in the LDRs, he was not suggesting delaying the LDRs. Mr. Hunter further stated more public
outreach would help in educating the public more on climate change and sea level rise. Mr.
Roberts clarified for Mr. Hunter that the County does not have policies in place yet regarding
replacement of infrastructure in areas potentially susceptible to sea level rise, so the County has
to proceed under existing policies and directives, which obligates the County to maintain the
roads. Ms. Santamaria described a situation in St. Augustine where property owners are suing
the municipality to maintain a road in a low-lying area so that the people would have access to
their fire service. Ms. Curlee asked about regulations regarding filling a lot. Mr. Roberts
explained that whether fill is allowed depends on the flood zone. Ms. Putney added that runoff
from higher lots into the road is creating a problem for the neighbors and in the canals, as well as
blocking views and creating shade. Mr. Williams clarified that situation does not create a
property rights issue. Ms. Santamaria noted that the variance procedure could create a staggered
view line in an area.
Ms. Moses stated the Federation has taken the position they do not want the 35-foot height limit
raised under any circumstance. The County has managed to get by under that height limit to date
with new construction. Mr. Hunter on behalf of SPOA agreed with Ms. Moses' comments. Mr.
Hunter personally believes more education is needed about freeboard and the benefits of
freeboard. Ms. Putney on behalf of Last Stand stated existing buildings should have some kind
of mechanism for special approval, but that the total raised building could not exceed 40 feet and
the space created under the first floor should be non -habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed
to new construction receiving an exception to the 35-foot height limit. Mr. Williams noted that
there is a potential map amendment process to appeal to FEMA to make an exception for a lot.
The expense of that process was discussed.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy
addresses existing structures that currently exceed the height limit, such as a three or four-story
condo. By redeveloping to upgrade the building, coming into compliance with the flood zone
may result in loss of a story of that condo. That could potentially result in 20 people on the top
floor no longer having the ability to rebuild their home. Ms. Putney questioned why it is
perceived to affect the top story as opposed to the first story. Ms. Santamaria stated half of the
people would lose their home regardless of which story it is. This policy provides for allowing
five feet above their existing height. Ms. Putney stated Last Stand supports this policy provided
that the footprint of the structure is not changed. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee there is
no cap on the height. Staff does not have a clear inventory of those structures this policy would
encompass, but estimates only a handful. Mr. Reed asked that those who do support this policy
consider giving some additional slab -to -slab height when rebuilding. Ms. Putney replied Last
Stand supports the grandfathering of nonconforming height to certain buildings in Monroe
61
County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed
that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA along with any additional voluntary
clearance above base flood elevation must be equal to or less than the height of the old
nonconforming building. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA agrees as long as the redevelopment is
involuntary, such as because of fire or flood. Ms. Santamaria asked if the public in attendance
considers the new FEMA maps deeming a structure below base flood involuntary.
Mr. Reed does not like the "involuntary" language because it is a very tricky threshold to meet.
Ms. Santamaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying
to facilitate a lot of new development. Mr. Reed clarified that while there is no magic slab -to -
slab number, floor to ceiling heights should be created that are adaptable and can continue to be
remodeled throughout future years. Ms. Curlee expressed concern that what is "involuntary" to
one person may open the door to let somebody else take advantage of this policy. Ms.
Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee that in almost all situations exceptions to the height limit will
not allow people to add a story. In some situations that would be possible. Ms. Putney believes
that language should be included to limit in what situations it would be allowed. Mr. Hunter
suggested more detail of the buildings in Ocean Reef be gathered to realize the effect this could
have on the County. Mr. Reed clarified that his comments regarding slab -to -slab increases were
specific to the Ocean Reef policy, but feels it might be worth considering for all of
unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Moses is concerned about taking people's property rights
away from them. Mr. Hunter then commented that the "historical designation" language should
be eliminated.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.34. Ms. Santamaria explained this came out of the
session of the BOCC at the October meeting to address a different height maximum for very low,
low and median income affordable employee and work force housing on properties designated
Tier III. This was to facilitate having nonresidential development on the first story and allowing
a couple stories of affordable housing on top. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA is opposed to this
amendment. SPOA believes that the County has the benefit of seeing what the cities have done
to address this issue before they make a decision on solutions. Another issue for SPOA is using
height as a solution to affordable housing in the County where there is more land than the
County has ROGO allocations for. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to raising the
affordable housing limit. Key Largo does not have an affordable housing issue. There are
affordable housing projects in the Upper Keys district already and some of the way those
projects are being managed are not the way their deed restrictions have been written.
Ms. Moses pointed out there is no definition for "workforce housing" in the code. Ms.
Santamaria replied the Affordable Housing Committee will be addressing that soon. The BOCC
hired the FSU Consensus Center to provide a report on the County's affordable housing issue.
Ms. Schemper added that the LDC uses the term "affordable housing" or "employee housing,"
which are defined terms. "Work force housing" is a more general term. Mr. Reed argued that
there is a demand and a need still in the Upper Keys for affordable housing. Mr. Reed then
stated it is a severe challenge to find appropriate land of a certain size to accommodate
affordable housing. Mr. Eardley is concerned this amendment would open the door for all kinds
of other development. Mr. Eardley agrees there are ways to address work force housing without
going higher, such as making the units smaller. Ms. Curlee added when talking about truly
11
affordable housing that would be rentals. Ms. Putney believes this issue is complex and the
height exception for affordable housing should be dealt with within the arena of the affordable
housing discussion separate from what is being done today. Ms. Santamaria clarified this
amendment would provide the opportunity to build more units, but it also will raise those units
above base flood.
Ms. Santamaria thanked the public for their comments and stated these comments will be
included in the staff report and will be back before the DRC again for more comments.
1.Playa Largo Resort, 97450 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 97.5: A public
meeting concerning a request for an Amendment to a Major Conditional Use Permit. The
requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 177-unit hotel and associated
accessory uses. The subject property is legally described as Tracts 4B and 513, Amended Plat of
Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Key Largo, and also a tract of submerged land in the Bay of
Florida fronting said Tract 5B (TIIF Deed No. 22416), Monroe County, Florida, having real
estate number 00555010.000000.
(File 2015-031)
(2:32 p.m.) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this applicant
currently has an approved major conditional use permit from 2007 and it has had several
deviations and time extensions over time. It is still active. The most recent deviation has
approved the site plan for 162 transient units and one commercial apartment, which was
previously on the site. The applicant has been issued a number of building permits. This
amendment to the major conditional use permit is to add an additional 15 transient units into the
hotel, the building of which has already been permitted, and that would bring them up to their
max number net density. It does not change any footprint on the site plan. All of the required
criteria are in compliance. The only issue that is still outstanding is the traffic and access. The
applicant had supplied a Level 2 traffic study with this application, and because of the threshold
of what is being proposed a Level 3 traffic study is needed. This may also impact the
requirement for a right -turn deceleration lane leading into the property. Ms. Schemper
recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were outlined.
Ms. Santamaria commented that the Planning Commissioners will likely want to see the traffic
studies so they can take that data into account in their decision -making and make sure that it is
compliant. Mr. Roberts asked that Number 7 of the recommended actions be reworded to
specify the number of allowed docks. Mr. Roberts will supply that number to Ms. Schemper.
Jorge Cepeda, present on behalf of the applicant, stated he was familiar with the conditions
contained in the original approval. Mr. Cepeda asked that Condition 8, the transportation shuttle
for guests and employees, be considered in the traffic study because that has less of an impact on
traffic. Mr. Cepeda asked that the second portion of the language about adequacy of public
facilities on Page 6 of the report remain part of the recommended action. Mr. Cepeda clarified
that no trees will be cut for the mulch exercise path, but there may be some underbrush that may
need to be accommodated. Mr. Roberts specified that "clearing" is the removal of any native
vegetation regardless of the size. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to inform staff if the applicant
is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted
7
for in the site plan. Ms. Schemper will look again at the deviation to see exactly how it is
worded and get back to the applicant regarding the clearing.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses asked whether the proposed commercial
apartment is bayfront. Ms. Schemper explained it was a previously existing unit, so the
residential use and density is protected. Mr. Cepeda stated the apartment is in the same location
as the prior developer's site plan. Ms. Moses then pointed out the site plan shows two entrances.
Ms. Schemper explained one is an emergency access drive requested by the fire department. Ms.
Moses then noted that the front buffer that faces US-1 looks to contain lead tree. Mr. Cepeda
replied that the landscaping will be done in the final stage. The main entrance is the original
American Outdoor entrance and at the end stage the exotics will be removed and landscaping
will be done to complete that buffer. Ms. Moses commented that there are a lot of non-native
species on the vegetation list. Mr. Roberts explained that the required vegetation is 100 percent
native vegetation, but anything planted above the minimum requirement can be anything the
developer wants. The developer is overplanting the required landscaping significantly. Ms.
Schemper clarified for Ms. Moses that the docking facility on the property is a hotel accessory
dock, not a marina.
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
(2:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated this item also comes from the comp plan update project. The
BOCC asked staff to remove these policies that were included in the comp plan and process them
separately since it was a new topic and received a lot of attention and people wanted to provide
input on the topic. These policies relate to the transfer of ROGO exemptions, density rights, as
well as where the development would be directed to.
Ms. Santamaria addressed Policy 101.5.8. Ms. Santamaria explained that, again, this item will
be handled today more like a workshop -type item.
Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to address all of
the policies together. Mr. Smith thanked staff for planning multiple workshops to allow these
policies to be vetted over a period of time where everyone can work together. Mr. Smith asked
staff to provide notice to the affected property owners of these meetings so they can actively
engage in this process. Mr. Smith asked staff to contemplate the unintended consequences of
these policies of not allowing the TDRs and TREs to be transferred to offshore islands and
designating all offshore islands as Tier L Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which
is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies
N.
put an inordinate burden on the property owners. These property owners have some
development right, all residential in nature. The code only has two ways that residential can be
built: Through ROGO allocation or ROGO exemption. These islands do not have ROGO
exemptions because they do not have homes on them, so in order to build residential one would
have to get a ROGO allocation or transfer a ROGO exemption from somewhere else. These
policies eliminate the ability to transfer. A property is left with requiring a ROGO allocation, but
the property is designated Tier L This would be so limiting that the only use left would be bee-
keeping and temporary camping by the owner. Mr. Smith asked that staff look at how these
policies would operate as a whole to get a complete picture of how it would operate.
Ms. Santamaria clarified individual property owners were not notified because this is not
property -specific and not all properties have their issues resolved with ownership. This is a
policy that would impact all privately -owned or even publicly -held offshore islands. Ms.
Santamaria further clarified that while the policy has direction of discouraging development by
designating Tier I does not mean it is an automatic Tier L That designation would have to go
through its proper process to apply a designation to a property. Ms. Santamaria commented that
this policy is not a huge change regarding the TREs and the TDRs. This is a proposed change
based on the discussions from the BOCC of where to direct the remaining allocations or
exemptions and where is the most appropriate place to direct development.
Julie Dick on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund thanked staff for the
workshop process and allowing the public the opportunity to participate in this process. Last
Stand thinks that the policies generally are consistent with the concepts of the tier overlay system
for offshore islands. Last Stand is generally supportive of the changes. Ms. Dick commented
that there are some inconsistencies with the acreage on the inventory. Ms. Santamaria explained
the Property Appraiser does not have the exact acreage of a property. A boundary survey is
required to determine the upland portions of a property. Ms. Santamaria will look into any
discrepancy reported to her. Ms. Dick further stated Last Stand agrees with the sender and
receiver site criteria. For evacuation purposes it make sense to discourage additional
development on offshore islands. Last Stand recommends removing significant upland habitat as
a criteria in Policy 206.1.2. The reasons to protect offshore islands go beyond whether or not
they are suited to upland habitat, such as containing bird rookeries. Ms. Santamaria pointed out
that under Policy 206.1.2 the significant upland habitat is one of the criteria and it is being made
consistent with the Tier I criteria.
Ms. Putney asked whether there was a determination made that offshore islands were Tier I when
the County went to the tier system. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 stated that
designating offshore islands as Tier I lands was one method used to discourage developments
proposed on offshore islands. The only offshore islands that are not designated Tier I were the
ones that were missed by accident and undesignated, but this policy does not automatically
designate them. They would still have to go through that process. The provision exists in the
LDC that any islands without a specific land use designation shall be considered zoned as
offshore islands. The approximately ten offshore islands that were missed and not designated
were discussed.
A
Ms. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to
participate in the workshop -style meetings scheduled in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
10
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tuesday, May 26, 2015
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May
26, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference
Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
DRC MEMBERS
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources
STAFF
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney
Rey Ortiz, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner Supervisor
Lori Lehr, Floodplain Administrator
Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
Present
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Ms. Santamaria approved the minutes of the April 28, 2015, DRC meeting with one correction of
a section number that will be submitted to Ms. Creech.
MEETING
New Items:
1.99700 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 99: A public meeting concerning a
request for a major deviation to a major conditional use permit. The requested approval is
required for the proposed development to increase the existing walk-in cooler and to increase the
size of the existing bathrooms which would increase the amount of non-residential floor area on
the property. The subject property is legally described as Lazy Lagoon — A revision of Amended
Plat of Curry's Corner, Plat Book 2, Page 120 of public records, Monroe County, Section 33,
Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in
metes and bounds is provided in the application/file), having real estate number
00497540.000000.
(File 2015-093)
(1:01 p.m.) Mr. Ortiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ortiz reported that the applicant is
requesting a major deviation to a major conditional use application. The applicant wants to
expand the bathroom by approximately six square feet, add a modular component to the rear of
the building for a walk-in cooler and expand an existing cooler that is currently within the
setbacks on the rear property line. The only criteria not met is regarding the variance
requirement that the site is going to need. Mr. Ortiz recommends approval to the Planning
Commission with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that
the applicant has submitted a variance application.
Hany Haroun, the applicant, emphasized that this renovation is necessary. Many hours have
been spent with Wendy's International and the County to make this work. The new kitchen
configuration in the center of the restaurant is a requirement from Wendy's International, which
takes away from the cooler/freezer space and the current storage area. The extension for the
sides is due to making the bathrooms ADA compliant. None of this will be visible from the
front. The only setback issue is for the cooler/freezer.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, does not object to what is being asked for. Ms. Moses likes
the proposed landscaping along the highway. Ms. Moses commented on the poor drainage that
exists on the property. Mr. Haroun explained that the main road was built to drain out towards
Buttonwood Drive and consequently it floods there all the time. That is on the County right-of-
way. The County and State agreed to dig out the French drain and fill it with gravel to address
the flooding problems. The tides also affect the drainage in this area. Ms. Santamaria noted
when building permits are applied for the applicant will have to comply with the stormwater
requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant provide some documentation from
Wendy's International to show the hardship imposed on the applicant for purposes of the
variance. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant to provide an updated site plan.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY
101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES
OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO
ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN
THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
2
(1:12 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item
started with the comp plan update. There were policies to amend the height policies, address the
wind turbines, affordable housing and the flood protection. The BOCC asked staff to process
this as a separate stand-alone amendment. This was before the DRC in March where a lot of
comments were received. The flood protection policy generated concerns about the overall
height exception. Staff has proposed a policy that includes the reasons why there would be an
exception with a max height limit of 40 feet and it would be to elevate property three feet above
base flood elevation (BFE). The exception for new buildings is to exceed BFE, not just to meet
it, up to three feet above BFE. The exception for lawfully existing buildings is to either meet or
exceed BFE because there are circumstances, depending on the flood zone, where this exception
will not allow you to exceed BFE. If it is exceeded, it is only that amount it is exceeded that one
gets to go above BFE. Again, it is capped at 40 feet. The exception would not be allowed in
high -risk areas.
Ms. Santamaria introduced Ms. Lehr and asked for an update and information on flood zones.
Ms. Lehr explained that one of her roles is to help the County get into the Community Rating
System (CRS) program, which would result in some discount in flood insurance. When property
owners voluntarily elevate their properties they get a reduced premium on their flood insurance.
For every foot of elevation, the savings is about a quarter of the premium. After the cap of three
feet, the discounts fall off. The cost to elevate a property is recouped quickly in flood insurance
savings. Ms. Lehr believes the future of the Florida Building Code and other legislation is going
to be moving towards the implementation of some sort of freeboard, some sort of elevation
requirement above BFE. Ms. Lehr further explained the County is going through a mapping
process currently. It will be 2018 before those new maps come out, but the general feeling of
those maps is that the elevations in some areas will increase, so the required elevations will
increase.
Ms. Lehr clarified for Ms. Moses a community has to require a higher regulatory standard above
what is required on the flood insurance rate amounts to get CRS credit. Florida in general has
some of the highest scoring communities in the nation. Ms. Lehr believes Monroe County is
doing a lot of things to address the flooding that will be worth CRS credit. There will be changes
in the Florida Building Code coming up in the next couple of years to address BFE. Ms.
Santamaria explained the CRS does not address the top height, so the BOCC gave staff direction
to look into elevating the height limit so home owners are not squeezed in from the top, causing
homes to become smaller and smaller. Ms. Lehr noted that credits are being given for existing
buildings being elevated as opposed to rebuilt. The CRS program is very adamant that
communities do what is good for their floodplain management and protection of their citizens'
investments.
Ron Miller, Planning Commissioner and Key Largo resident, questioned why the County has
become concerned about someone losing habitable space in their structure, because in URM
parking spaces were required to be under homes, which takes away from habitable space. Ms.
Santamaria clarified this proposal is not zoning -specific. Mr. Miller feels homeowners should be
amenable to some give-and-take in the loss of some habitable space. Mr. Miller believes the
people interested in more living space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms.
3
Santamaria clarified that the BOCC has become aware of the new FEMA maps coming out and
want Monroe County to get into the CRS and help the community better protect their property
and investments. So they have directed staff to address this issue by allowing people to make that
financial choice themselves. The whole intent was to better protect our community.
Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf resident, suggested that a definition of "elevate" be proposed. Mr. Hunter
mentioned different scenarios of what could fall under the definition of "elevate." Ms.
Santamaria said that staff will consider and look into those different scenarios. Ms. Lehr
clarified if a bottom floor was knocked out and used for parking with penthouses built on top of
the structure, those structures would still be limited by the height restriction from BFE. Ms.
Santamaria noted that Policy 101.5.33 is for lawfully established existing buildings which
already exceed the 35-foot height limit and a top cap of 40 feet is in place unless the owners go
to a public hearing before the BOCC. Mr. Hunter then asked for an explanation of why the
different numbers of 38 and 40 feet are used. Ms. Santamaria explained that discounts are given
for one, two and three feet above BFE. Since discounts are not given above that, the new
buildings were capped at 38 feet. The 40-foot limit was added for existing buildings in case they
needed to raise their property a little bit higher because they do not meet base flood today. Ms.
Lehr clarified that the flood insurance policy associated with a structure would receive a different
rating because of the elevation of that property. The discount for CRS is completely different.
The discount for CRS could be in addition to the different rating on the insurance policy for an
elevation. Ms. Santamaria noted that no exception will be given to either new or existing
structures in AE10 through VE10. That came from the comments made at prior DRC meetings
about not facilitating redevelopment or new development in higher -risk areas.
Mr. Hunter stated he agrees with Mr. Miller about the ability of Monroe County citizens to live
under the 35-foot height limit, but is more sympathetic to the owners of existing homes than to
new construction. Mr. Miller is concerned for the properties in such a high AE or VE that they
would not be able to develop a home that was attractive. Mr. Miller proposed keeping the 35-
foot height limit in the comp plan and allowing for a variance for those so limited that they
would not be able to develop something architecturally acceptable to the community. Ms.
Santamaria stated it would be difficult to create a variance for architectural or visual issues.
There is no real hardship in that instance.
Naja Girard, Key West resident, commented that people are more concerned over encouraging
new development in AE and VE areas as opposed to elevating existing homes in those areas.
Mr. Miller agrees with limiting infrastructure in flood -prone areas, but feels a minimal -size
house could be able to punch through the height barrier if the owners could show a hardship
when asking for a variance. Ms. Lehr explained that the CRS does not take away points. The
CRS program credits activity. Prohibiting development in high -risk areas is credited under the
CRS. The emphasis of the program has always been to build safer, more resilient communities.
Jim Hendrick was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA) regarding
Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef is an isolated and gated community with a
distinct community character. The planning process in Ocean Reef is very tough. Mr. Hendrick
said Ocean Reef would like the extra five feet for architectural features. The largest concern
with this policy for Ocean Reef is its cultural center. The cultural center does not have the head
4
room needed to be able to house events that could potentially be put on at this facility. Mr.
Hendrick asked for a height limit unique to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center, which was built and
paid for by the people of Ocean Reef. Another concern that ORCA has is that any multi -story
building in existence on the effective date of this policy be able to replace their existing number
of stories up to 11 feet slab to slab per story. The Ocean Reef hotels are currently dated with a
ceiling height of only eight feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that at the last meeting Joel Reed
presented this information on behalf of Ocean Reef Club. Staff had asked for an inventory of
existing heights of the various structures throughout Ocean Reef. Nothing has been received to
date. Mr. Hendrick will send the complete list to Ms. Santamaria. Mr. Hendrick emphasized
this is being asked to apply to Ocean Reef only, which is isolated and does have a distinct
community character.
Deb Curlee, resident of the Lower Keys, noted that Ocean Reef is still part of Monroe County.
Mr. Hendrick replied there is an abundant body of policy already recognizing the unique
circumstances of Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef consider proposing an
Ocean Reef specific overlay to address height issues in Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick replied Ocean
Reef has a very effective self -governance program within the community. Ms. Santamaria asked
that the information regarding the various heights as well as the total heights at Ocean Reef be
sent in to help staff understand what the request is from Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick then
explained for Ms. Girard how Ocean Reef is self -governed.
Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to punching through the height limit and they feel
that the 35-foot height limit has been accommodating and there is still room for elevating the
floodplain. Ms. Girard on behalf of Last Stand stated that a majority of the properties should be
able to elevate the buildings as much as needed and still have adequate living space. Last Stand
would like to see this turned into a hardship situation that would have to be triggered to go
through the height barrier.
Mr. Miller asked what would happen to those properties whose flood zone was changed due to
the FEMA flood maps. Ms. Santamaria reminded Mr. Miller that no exceptions being given to
properties in AE10 or VE10 or higher was a result of members of the community not wanting to
facilitate development of homes within those flood zones. The owners of those properties would
have to work within the rules or not build at all. Ms. Santamaria then confirmed for Mr. Hunter
that reconstructed structures in Policy 101.5.33 includes those that are demolished and rebuilt.
Ms. Santamaria explained that the BOCC resolution that specifies the maximum approved height
is done on a building -by -building basis. There is currently no limit to that height because it is
not known what would be needed to meet base flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that buildings
over 35 feet currently could only rebuild to 35 feet if they were wiped out by a hurricane.
Ms. Curlee asked why no caps are placed in Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria replied that
building heights would be different depending on how it was measured. Ideas were proposed for
the BOCC to consider when making the decision on how high they can go. Mr. Hunter
suggested considering the community's desire to limit the height. Ms. Santamaria noted a public
hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out.
5
Mr. Haroun stated he finds it unreasonable to not allow a condo to be built back up so that no
owners would lose their living space. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that is why a flood exception
is being proposed for those property owners. Mr. Miller noted that his concern is not whether
they can build back what they had or not, but his concern is that the potential for more habitable
space in this county is being increased as a result of seeking relief from sea level rise.
Ms. Santamaria then stated the affordable housing has been struck from this proposal at this
point in time. Staff will work with the BOCC and the Affordable Housing Committee further in
that regard. The other item in this stand-alone amendment is the wind turbines owned and
operated by a public utility. At the last meeting members of the public asked what the results
were from the Keys Energy demonstration project. It was concluded that the wind towers have
been proven to be ineffective. Ms. Moses proposed striking this item altogether. Ms. Girard
stated on behalf of Last Stand they would like to see the whole exception to the wind turbines
stricken. If someone comes forward and proposes a great plan in the future, then it can be looked
at with specific considerations in mind.
Ms. Santamaria stated the plan is to bring this amendment back to the DRC and get more data for
community -specific amendments. It will be brought back as two items: One as a comp plan and
an LDR for more discussion and more input.
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8
AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2
WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
(2:38 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this
amendment has stemmed from the comprehensive plan update process. There was a lot of
discussion on where to direct and how to direct development in the future and if it is appropriate
to go to offshore islands. The BOCC asked staff to remove this from the general comp plan
update and process it as a stand-alone amendment. The definition of "offshore island" has been
included. The new provision is that TDRs and TREs would not be allowed to transfer to an
offshore island.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Attorney Nick Batty was present on behalf of FEB Corporation with respect to
Wisteria Island. Mr. Batty stated the issues that FEB has with this proposed amendment pertain
to the receiver sites for TREs have to be within a Tier III designated area and must not be an
offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 provides that Monroe County shall discourage the development
11
of offshore islands which have no prior development and have significant upland habitat by
discouraging the extension of public facilities and designating the offshore islands as Tier I.
That makes a scenario where ROGO exemptions cannot be transferred to those islands and at the
same time bumps them down to a Tier I level for the ROGO allocation program. Mr. Batty
pointed out there is no definition proposed for "significant upland habitat." Significant upland
habitat does not necessarily coincide with environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, areas like
Wisteria Island, which does not have significant areas of environmentally sensitive habitat,
would by default be lumped in with a Tier I designation, which is contrary to the intent of the
code. Bumping them down to a Tier I in terms of the ROGO allocation system and not allowing
any transfers of TREs to the area would result in a situation where there would be no beneficial
uses for the properties. Mr. Roberts replied that using the blanket and undefined term
"significant upland habitat" does not account for the differences in the natural features of those
properties and effectuate the intent of the Tier I and Tier III definitions. Ms. Santamaria added
that no changes are being proposed to the Tier III criteria for designating any land. Mr. Batty
replied that islands which currently do not have a tier designation and would fit whatever the
definition is determined to be of "significant upland habitat" and have no prior development
would be pushed into that Tier I category without any other consideration. Ms. Santamaria
stated no particular tier designation is being proposed for any offshore island. This is simply
policy, not property specific. Ms. Santamaria will review this further and consider proposing a
definition for "significant upland habitat."
Ms. Girard, on behalf of Last Stand, stated it makes very little difference what is on the upland,
whether or not there even is upland, because offshore islands are surrounded by shallow waters
and environmentally sensitive benthic resources and are important for avian species. Ms. Girard
emphasized a survey containing 76 different species of native plants and a report regarding the
importance of Wisteria Island for the white crown pigeons a couple of hundred feet away from
Wisteria Island are on file with the County. Last Stand thinks it is extremely appropriate that
offshore islands be given Tier I designations and that they not be considered as receiver sites
because they are inappropriate for development in a county that has a limited number of ROGOs
and is basically facing build -out. Ms. Santamaria clarified that this is not a property -specific
amendment. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that the tier designations are based on upland
habitat. Mr. Roberts clarified for Ms. Girard that native areas that provide corridors or wildlife
access between other larger native areas are part of the Tier I designation. Mr. Batty pointed out
it is important to make sure the intent of the code is being effectuated.
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was
closed.
Ms. Santamaria stated staff will review all the comments made and will look at defining
"significant upland habitat" and bring this back to the DRC for one more round of public input
before taking it to the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.
7
MEMORANDUM
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayt6 Santan aria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: August 17, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND
CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS
TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING
AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: August 25, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 and May 2, 2015
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendments to create
Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit
in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
File 2015-006 Page I of 9
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5. 1 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies,for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the .15ft height limit, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing, Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed stclff to work on an inventoryldata of privately owned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO, The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process, The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
HEIGHT.
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rade are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of ally
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on
structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna anchor collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
File 2015-006 Pa-e 2 of 9
However, in no event shall any of. the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the Height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (L,iLtAR) dataset for Monroe
Count), prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
andlor° other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of: height - the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
Height limit 4135,
�.
ctowr of Ru*j 5ft" Crown fofthe road
Naliaral Elevazlor 3f?
" in Nrrin tt
Moan v-3 lerotl
MAR
Ztt of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as. anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014.public
hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 9
IV.. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are stricken dffe ,, and additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.45. 30
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County
shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet.
Height is defined as the vertical distance _between grade and the highest part of any structure,
including mechanical equipment, but excluding. spires and/or steeples on structures used for
institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar
apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures
with attached antennas and/or collocations.
buildings, In the case of airport districts, there
shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a master planned community which is gated, isolated and inaccessible to the
surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non -
habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the
35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the
building's roof line. This exception shall not result in a building or any architectural decorative
feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a master planned community, means a�planned community of 100 or more
acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where
public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community
including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and
services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates
development standards and monitors development requests by its members.
Nate, Ocean Reef Club his requested additional anwndnients, attached as Exhibit 9. To
date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments.
Policy 101.5.32
'Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe Coup shall adopt Land
Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 1.01.5.30
(height limit), not exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet, to promote public health safety and
general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding storm surge and other hazards; protect
property from flooding and minimize damages minimize public and private losses due to
flooding minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery
from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection 1-leight
Exception of up to a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to
allow buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three Q) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in
order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and
minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events.
File 2015-006 Page 4 or 9
LDS Section XXX:
As provided in Policy 101.5.32, buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the
FEA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit as follows:
1. For new buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35 -foot height
limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than
the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a new building
exceed 38 feet in height; and
2. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35-foot height
limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35400t height
limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than
the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus up to three (3) feet of voluntary
elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing building be elevated to exceed a
total building height of 40 feet,
3. No exception shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet; and
4. No exception shall be provided to properties located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater
FEMA flood zone.
Elevate means the action of retrofitting, moving or raising a buildingto o a higher positon.
Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above the
ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers pilings or columns.
F'loodyroofing means any combination of structural or nonstructural changes or
adjustments included in the design, construction or alteration of a building that
reduce or eliminate flood damage to the building and its contents.
Relocation means (in retrofitting), the process of moving a building, to a new location
outside the flood hazard area.
Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its
exposure to flooding and raise the living area above flood levels. In general,
retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or
extending the existing foundation below it, or leaving the building in place and either
constructing a new elevated floor system within the buildin or adding a new upper
story and converting the round level to a compliant enclosure that is used only for
parking, building access, or storage.
Retrofitting means making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or
other hazards.
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 9
Policy 101.5.33
As of the effective date of this policy, a lawfully established existing building which exceeds the
35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, may be repaired, improved or reconstructed (demolished
and rebuilt) to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building is limited
to the lawfully established exi.sting intensity,floor area density and type of use. For buildings that
are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Board of County
Commissioners shall be required prior to issuance of any county permit or Approval. A BOCC
resolution shall specify the maximum approved height.
As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot
height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed(demolished and rebuilt) to meet
the FEMA BFE provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing
intensity, floor area, density and type of use.
A Flood Protection height Exception for a lawfully established existing building
exceeding the 35-foot height limit shall be provided as follows:
1. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE an
exception of a maximum of five (5) feet may permitted. The amount of the
exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE;
and
2. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height Ii.mit that.
are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE but
will require a height exception of more than five 5 feet a public hearing before the
Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of an, c�ty permit
or approval. The BOCC shall consider:
a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel;
b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to hood damage and the
effects of such damage on the property owner;
c. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others;
d. The availability of alternate solutions;
e. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood risk; result in
additional threats to public safet • result in extraordinary ublic ex ense• create
nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public; and
f. Community character.
A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height.
File 2015-006 Pa,-e 6 of 9
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the fallowing Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seep to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998,.Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380. 552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pineiands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 9
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parrs, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
`i. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(1) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with. the Dart II of 'Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 9
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations.
'lE
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida.
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VIII.I XHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report.
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 226, 2015 DRC Minutes
6. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
7. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC
meeting (side by side comparison)
8. Chapter 5.0 Elevating Your Home, excerpt from 1~EMA's Homeowner's Guide, To Retrofitting
9. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
File 2015-006 Page 9 of 9
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tuesday, August 25, 2015
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
DRC MEMBERS
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present
Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present
STAFF
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Roberts announced Items 5 and 6 will be heard first.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Roberts deferred approval of minutes to the next DRC meeting.
MEETING
New Items:
5.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING
POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE
HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE
STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING
1
FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
Mr. Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts reported that while working on the comp
plan update the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island
policies and to pull the proposed changes for further review and submit as a separate amendment.
The proposed text amendment has been reviewed at two prior DRC meetings. Policy 101.5.30
adds mechanical equipment to the 35-foot limit while excluding certain structures. There are no
exceptions to the height limitation in Airport districts. Policy 101.5.31 for Ocean Reef, which is
a gated and isolated community with a distinct community character, includes non -habitable
architectural decorative features that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features shall not
exceed five feet above the building's roof line. There are Land Development Code amendments
to reflect these policies. Policy 101.5.32 provides that certain buildings voluntarily elevated to
meet or exceed the FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit. New
buildings voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE may exceed the
35-foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not
exceed 35 feet and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit may be
permitted.
Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, asked for the rationale for the difference of an extra two
feet between an existing building and a new building. Mr. Coyle explained that it is to allow a
homeowner more room to get into compliance and go up. Mr. Hunter then asked for clarification
on the definition of "retrofit." Mr. Roberts stated that retrofitting means making changes to an
existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. Demolition and reconstruction of a
new structure would not fit within that definition.
Dottie Moses, on behalf of the Federation of Homeowners Association, stated that the Federation
consistently maintains its opposition to raising the height limit. Ms. Moses asked who is
requesting the height increase. Mr. Roberts replied that this amendment was staff -initiated at the
direction of the BOCC. Ms. Moses believes that the recent change in the code that allows
setbacks being used for parking in URM zones will result in another floor of bedrooms being
added under this amendment, which will increase density. The hurricane evacuation issue is
always a concern in the community, also. Ms. Moses then asked where the exception provided
for properties located in the AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zones originated. Ms.
Schemper will look into that for Ms. Moses. Ms. Schemper added that this item will be brought
back to the DRC one more time.
Joel Reid, on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and Ocean Reef Community Association, commented
that these two associations have asked for height changes to address their community concerns.
Mr. Reid expressed disappointment that some items Ocean Reef has been asking for have not
been included in the staff report. Mr. Reid then asked for clarification regarding architectural
elements exceeding 40 feet under Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Schemper explained that Policy 101.5.33
applies to lawfully established buildings that are already over 35 feet high. The intent is if it was
a pre-existing feature, then the BOCC could approve it, but if it is a proposed architectural
2
feature an exception would not be given if it is over 40 feet. Mr. Reid stated Ocean Reef would
like some protection in order for residents to be able to build back their structures without losing
their views. Ms. Schemper pointed out that this amendment is to protect what is already in
existence while also meeting the flood requirements. The existing intensity or density type of
use would be protected. Policy 101.5.33 does not specifically address increasing slab -to -slab
heights. That would have to be approved by the BOCC if over 40 feet. The mechanism of going
through the approval process to the BOCC has not been thoroughly fleshed out. That would be
in the Land Development Code portion of the amendment. Mr. Reid asked how rebuilding and
doing modifications to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center and boat storage area would be handled.
Ms. Schemper responded that the full amount of data in those issues has not been received by
staff at this point.
6.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is another item
originally contemplated during the comp plan update. Staff was directed by the BOCC to pull it
out as a separate text amendment. This was already reviewed at two DRC meetings and has been
continued to this meeting to get additional public review, input and discussion. The proposed
changes are about where development in terms of TDRs and the transfer of ROGO exemptions
are directed. Existing Policy 101.5.8 allows for the transfer of units based on certain criteria.
The new policy expands the criteria and has additional standards to utilize the tier system. The
sender site must be located in Tier I, II, or III -A, or any tier designation if it is within the military
installation impact overlay. The receiver site must have a future land use category ability and
zoning district that allows the use, must meet the adopted density standards, include all
infrastructure, be located within Tier III and may not be within a V zone or a CBRS unit. The
comprehensive plan specifies specific habitat types and the certain zoning districts that were
allowed on sender site TDRs. The offshore island zoning category is specifically identified as an
eligible sender site. The new proposed policy utilizes the tier designation to specify the sender
site because this already accounts for both habitat types and zoning districts that were in the
existing policy. The new policy states only parcels designated Tier III can be receiver sites and
they must have an adopted maximum net density standard, which would be based on their zoning
category. Ms. Schemper reviewed Policy 206.1.2, which prohibits development on offshore
islands, and the definition of significant native upland habitat. This item will be brought back to
the DRC one more time.
Julie Dick with Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Florida Keys Environmental Fund
and Last Stand, believes Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and is addressed somewhere else in the
3
comp plan. Ms. Dick suggested eliminating the entire policy because any confusion resulting
from this policy leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Ms. Dick supports Policy 101.6.8 in
making sure that offshore islands are not receiver sites.
Bart Smith, Esquire, commented that generally he appreciates the revisions made to the
obtaining and transferring of TDRs. On behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith stated most of the
receiver site criteria in the staff report seems very logical. Mr. Smith does not, however, feel
that the sixth criteria that blanketly prohibits offshore islands from being receiver sites is logical
because there is not any data and analysis identifying the reasons why an offshore island cannot
be a receiver site. Mr. Smith feels that the definition of "significant native upland habitat" is a
well -thought-out definition. Mr. Smith stated everything in the proposed ordinance makes
logical sense and is conforming except for the blanket prohibition of offshore islands.
Naja Girard, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, addressed Mr. Smith's comments by responding
that one thing different about offshore islands is that shallow waters surround the offshore
islands and include benthic resources that the comp plan directs the County to protect.
Encouraging development on offshore islands would require the acceptance of all the boating
traffic that would be created as a result of that development. Ms. Girard agrees that Policy
206.1.2 is redundant and changes the normal way offshore islands are designated Tier I, which
could result in confusion on its interpretation. Ms. Girard believes this weakens the protection of
all offshore islands. Ms. Girard also believes there is not accurate data on what actually exists on
these islands.
LAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) AND COMMERCIAL FISHING AREA (CFA) TO
MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9,
DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE
NUMBER 00120940.000100, AND FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL 2 (C2) FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR
PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS
00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000, AS
PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL
CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2012-069)
Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this item is a zoning
amendment to accompany a FLUM amendment which has already been transmitted by the
BOCC to DEO. Staff has received the objections, recommendations and comments report on the
FLUM amendment. DEO's objection was that it was increasing the potential residential
4
development and should be revised to allow other residential uses. The original deadline for
adopting that FLUM amendment was September 19, but staff has asked for an extension based
on the applicant's delay and the new deadline is March 15, 2016. The current zoning
amendment would be required to match the FLUM amendment. The applicant is required to
revise the total FLUM amendment to include a comp plan policy that would limit any residential
development on the site to affordable housing only. This affects only the northernmost L-shaped
parcel on the map. The southern parcels are proposed to become commercial with no residential
density. Today's discussion concerns the zoning portion of the amendment. The net change in
development for the entire site will actually be a reduction in residential density. The Big
Coppitt portion of the site would have an increase in affordable residential, but the proposed
comp plan policy will limit all residential development to affordable housing on that site. Staff
has found that any impact is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on community character.
Staff has found no adverse effects for traffic circulation. There is sufficient capacity for the
public facilities for potential development under this zoning amendment. Staff has found that the
proposed amendment is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and the Land
Development Code. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to be consistent with the
proposed FLUM amendment that the BOCC has already recommended and transmitted to the
State. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. This is contingent on the
adoption of the FLUM amendment.
Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked what the Navy has to say about this amendment. Ms.
Schemper replied that the portion of affordable housing is actually in the noise zone at the
greatest distance compared to the rest of the property. Bart Smith, Esquire, agreed and added
that the requirement to sound -attenuate to the level the Navy requests is specifically written in to
the site -specific zoning.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (RC) TO RECREATION (R) AND
CONSERVATION (C), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE
SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY
LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER
00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND
USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-047)
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM NATIVE AREA (NA) TO PARKS AND REFUGE (PR) AND
CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF
LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO,
5
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR
COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9),
KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER
00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-048)
Ms. Schemper presented the staff reports. Ms. Schemper reported that these two amendments
are FLUM and zoning amendments that coordinates with one another for a parcel within Ocean
Reef proposed by Ocean Reef Club. The site is 11 acres and currently has a FLUM designation
of Residential Conservation with a zoning category of Native Area. The property owners would
like to develop a park on a portion of the site and are requesting to change the FLUM to 9.5 acres
of Conservation and a little over 1.5 acres of Recreation for the FLUM and, corresponding to
that, 9.5 acres of Conservation zoning and 1.5 acres of Park and Refuge zoning. The density and
intensity change for this amendment would be a decrease in both residential and non-residential
density and intensity. There is no adverse impact on community character and no additional
impact foreseen for any of the public facilities. Staff has found both proposed amendments
would be consistent with the comp plan and the Land Development Code and is consistent with
the principles for guiding development. These amendments support Ocean Reef s desire to
increase some of the park and recreational space within the community based on an increase in
the number of families with children currently in their community. If the corresponding FLUM
amendment is transmitted to the State and adopted, then the zoning plan would be required to
remain consistent with the FLUM. Staff is recommending approval of the FLUM amendment
from Residential Conservation to Conservation and Recreation and staff is recommending
approval of the zoning amendment from Native Area to Parks and Refuge and Conservation
district. The zoning recommendation would be contingent on the approval and effectiveness of
the proposed FLUM amendment that corresponds with this.
Joel Reid, the representative of the applicant, stated that Ocean Reef Club is always looking to
enhance the community's experience and meet their needs for the community members.
Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, asked whether Mr. Roberts had any concern with clearing
of upland habitat of protected species of 1.71 acres for the sole purpose of providing a park for
homeowners. Mr. Roberts replied that the applicant is required to coordinate directly with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife for the protection of these species. The County's clearing requirements would
fall back to the original development orders for Ocean Reef Club because it is not dictated by the
tier clearing limits in the code.
4.PL OCEAN RESIDENCES, 97801 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO, MILE
MARKER 98: A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A MINOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 24 ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS DESIGNATED AS
11
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE
HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED
AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL
ESTATE NUMBERS 00090810.000000, 00090820.000000, 00090840.000000,
00090840.000100, AND 00090860.000000.
(File 2015-049)
Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is a request for a
minor conditional use permit which is required because the applicant is requesting to develop 24
attached dwelling units. Within the Urban Residential zoning category that use requires a minor
conditional use permit. The development is reviewed by staff as a whole for consistency sake.
The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached
dwelling units as market rate housing. The site's current characteristics and zoning were
described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units.
Ms. Schemper then listed the categories where staff has found either compliance is still to be
determined or the site was found not in compliance. Compliance with the residential ROGO is
to be determined because at the time of the building permit is when the applicant applies for their
ROGO allocations. An additional eight market rate ROGO allocations and 24 affordable
housing ROGO allocations would be needed. Permitted uses is listed as not in compliance
because the attached residential dwelling units are permitted with the condition that sufficient
common areas for recreation are provided to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be
developed. Compliance is to be determined on residential density and maximum floor area
because the site requires 7.6 transferred development rights which are done at the time of the
building permit. Compliance is to be determined on required open space because the
calculations were not comparable of the upland area on the site plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the
indicated shoreline setbacks were either incorrect or not clearly depicted on the site plan.
Ms. Schemper continued to report that most of the non -shoreline setbacks are in compliance at
this point, but the setback lines shown on the site plan are not necessarily the correct lines in
every situation. The surface water management will be dealt with for full compliance at the time
of permit application. Mr. Roberts noted that there was conflicting information on the site plan
regarding the depth to ground water. Ms. Schemper continued to report that there are
inconsistencies on the site plan regarding the height of the fencing and privacy wall. The privacy
wall shown on the site plan separates the site completely between the attached units and the
detached units, which basically turns the parcel into two separate developments and they would
each need to meet all of the land development regulations on their own. Some sort of connection
is needed between the two. Compliance for flood plain, energy conservation and potable water
is to be determined, as well as environmental design criteria and mitigation, at the building
permit stage. The required parking is also affected by the separation between the two types of
units on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces is sufficient if the site is viewed as a
whole. The required bufferyards are not in compliance because the site plan shows some
incorrect bufferyards. Mr. Roberts added that the property was rezoned from URM to UR and
the URM boundary buffers are being shown.
7
Ms. Schemper continued to report that the square footage of the signage proposed has some
issues and recommended that the signage be done separately as part of the fence permit at the
time of the building permit. The access is currently under review by the County's traffic
consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U.S.1, but also needs to comply with
FDOT standards. Compliance is to be determined on inclusionary housing at the time of the
building permit because when the tenth permanent market rate unit gets its certificate of
occupancy, a certificate of occupancy is required on at least three of the affordable housing units,
and a proportional increase continues accordingly throughout the development. Given all of
those items, staff still recommends approval. A list of 22 conditions required are listed in the
staff report.
Jorge Cepero, present on behalf of the applicant, clarified that there is still one structure, a
gatehouse, in the front of the property that was not demolished.
Robert Ginter, owner of an adjoining property, is concerned about the fencing and buffers to
protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schemper explained that there are quite a few buffers on the site
plan. There is an access off of First Street for a portion of the property. Ms. Schemper will
make the site plan available to Mr. Ginter at the end of today's meeting.
Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, is concerned that this is the one time that the public has a
chance to review this proposal and there are so many items still not deemed to be in compliance.
Ms. Schemper explained that there is a 30-day notice that goes out that says the Planning
Director intends to issue the minor conditional use permit, as well as a legal ad. The Planning
Director's decision will not be made until these items are all fulfilled. The revised proposal will
be available through the Planning Department.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
MEMORANDUM
MONROE l::
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Maytd Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
1, October • 2015
Subject: ANORDINANCE •, .• COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE•COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATINGR• 1'I • ADDRESS IEXCEPTIONS FOR • *.
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN
REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 E
1 101.5.33 TO'"• aIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT
INSURANCEORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD
• PROVIDING •" a PROVIDING •
STATEREPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE PLANNING SECRETARY
PROVIDING FOR• • ••E COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File # 2015-006) 01
Meeting: October 27, 21 - continued from arch 2, 2015, May 26, 215 & August 25, 25
community;The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create
1,"olicy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
and create Policies 101.5.32and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptionsto the
limit in • • r • # • #• # •••; • ••• • • height
CountyThe has b.. working on • r _ Plan update• num- •
us public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
C• • special public meetings on 2014, April1 • May 22, 2014,,,
review proposed • • the Comprehensive
Plan. specialBOCC public hearing was
hel• on 1 to consider the transmittal of :iro-cosedfiearing was • • • •
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
continued to October1
File 2015-006 Page 1 of 8
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policiesfor addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architecturalfeatures,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to p•resent drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventoryldata ofprivately-owned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
Exhibit 1. 11 1 TRY17 is anaunea as
TmrL—ft' Z =C; 6=11=15f,05011-1 -V3-F'rjUW height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Z
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to .2)
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, N
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. 0
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Developmem
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the Auq,,ust 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6.
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7.
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 8
ffll�
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and ggde are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on
structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LOAR data is not available far a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
and/or other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of: height — the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
Height limit +75:
4-1—V
10M
FM
Crown of Road Sit•
Natural Elevation 3t,
• in lewbp to
men Wo kvd
M
The vertical distance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest part of the structore
= Height
2ft of fill needed to reach Sfi
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
I
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 8
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
11 Ill 111p I I , il Ig , 1j, N�i III
La-rd Dcveln-mwe7rt ,•i ::::::• I . i6l•. •
Policy 101.451630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall
limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. H ight is defined as the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding
spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or ublic uses only; •chinineys;-radio •and/or
q7Aj.jFG)fSF.jjj ilol� �Is �Ijglldws, 0, -
. ........... I ------
.Z7FM
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a master planned communily which is gated, inaccessible to the surrounding N
community, and has a distinct commurl character, buildings may include non -habitable architectural
decorative features (such as finials, rail n 0
i -gs, widow's. walk, pargpets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit
in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This
N
exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height CD
that would exceed 40 feet.
I �.Jj 11 11 1 Fiji 11
homeowners association or similar entity which regul es development standards and monitors
development reguests by its members.
Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To
date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments.
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 8
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
.2)
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, rd
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. N
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic U)
development. to
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. 04
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 8
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(in) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions N
163.3177(l), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations.
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, •, the owner • • person having a contractual
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 8
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff re;isort. staff recommendationwiroWzz
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Ob ections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
'VH. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
011W*4*011
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
Z
2. March 24,2015 DRC Staff Report
.2)
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 26,2015 DRC Minutes
6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report
7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes
8. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
N
9. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 8
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
October 27, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
DRC MEMBERS
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present
Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present
STAFF
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Ms. Santamaria asked that Items 2 and 3 be read together.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Ms. Santamaria approved the meeting minutes of July 28, 2015, August 25, 2015, and September
29, 2015.
MEETING
New Items:
LAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL (SC) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28500 AND 28540 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, LITTLE TORCH
KEY, MILE MARKER 28.5 OCEANSIDE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF
LAND IN A PART OF U.S. GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 66 SOUTH,
RANGE 29 EAST, LITTLE TORCH KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL
ESTATE NUMBERS 00113570-000000, 00113570-000100, 00113570-000200, 00113590-
00000E AND 00113620-000000, AS PROPOSED BY PATRICK R AND DIANE COLEE,
DOLPHIN MARINA ASSOCIATES LTD AND TORCH KEY PROPERTIES LTD;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(2015-152)
Mr. Bond presented the staff report. Mr. Bond reported that this is a land use district map
amendment from Suburban Commercial to Mixed Use. The property is located oceanside on
Little Torch Key and serves as a land base for the Little Palm Island. There is no FLUM change
required for this proposed amendment. The property was described. Mr. Bond stated the change
in development potential between the two districts would result in a reduction of eight permanent
residential units, a slight increase in max net density, a net zero change in transient development
potential and no change in commercial development potential. The change would open up the
possibility of some uses that are currently prohibited within the SC district. Staff has evaluated
the proposed amendment and found it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the
request does fall under two provisions of the code: Number 4, new issues; and 6, data updates,
primarily due to the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP). It is consistent with the
Lower Keys LCP. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
James Hendrick was present on behalf of the applicant and commended staff on their
memorandum.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, asked why the applicant is changing the zoning Ms.
Santamaria replied that the applicant wants to have a use their current zoning does not allow,
which will reduce the overall allocated density, but they can transfer in up to 11 more units
through TDRs. Mr. Hendrick assured Ms. Moses that the applicant is definitely not interested in
having a light industrial use on the property.
Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf Key resident, asked for clarification on the justification for the request.
Mr. Bond explained that there are seven different factors by which map amendments are to be
evaluated. Any one of those factors can be a justification for map amendment approval.
Number 4 is new issues, the new Lower Keys LCP, which was not in effect prior, and Number 6,
data updates, which is the LCP that was not in effect at the time of their original zoning. The
Lower Keys LCP is not inconsistent and is new data in the County's files. Mr. Hendrick noted
that the applicant has other rationale for the proposed change.
Deb Curlee, Cudjoe Key resident, asked for clarification on what is being proposed to be on the
property. Ms. Santamaria responded that this is a map amendment only and the specific
development is not the subject of the amendment. Mr. Hendrick offered to e-mail Ms. Curlee an
outline of the proposed development. Mr. Bond explained for Ms. Curlee that with the map
amendment staff evaluates what the potential is, not what they specifically may or may not be
planning to do. Anything listed as a major or minor conditional use would go through the review
process and, if the applicant meets all of those conditions staff would have no basis for saying no
and would approve it. Ms. Creech and Mr. Bond confirmed that no negative feedback was
received from any neighbors.
PA
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33
TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD
PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO
ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY
OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 42015-171)
Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fourth DRC
meeting on the proposed comp plan amendments for the height provisions. The BOCC asked
staff to work on the height policies that were in the comp plan update and process them
separately so that they could be fully vetted and worked through as one topic versus within the
entire comp plan update. The previous various staff reports are attached to show how these
amendments have been revised. Ms. Santamaria stated there is a proposed policy change to
Policy 101.5.3 to incorporate the height definition that is in the code today into the comp plan as
well. That height is defined as "The vertical distance between grade and the highest part of the
structure."
Ms. Santamaria reported that the next amendment is to Policy 101.5.31, Ocean Reef -specific,
related to non -habitable architectural decorative features. This would allow these features to be
above the roof line of those homes up to five feet. The overall height of those structures still
cannot exceed a 40-foot height imit. There are no differences between this version and what was
presented at the last DRC meeting regarding this policy.
3
Mr. Hendrick, present on behalf of Ocean Reef, stated Policy 101.5.31 does not address Ocean
Reef s needs. Ocean Reef had asked for three things. Mr. Hendrick acknowledged that staff has
not received the additional information it had requested. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef
contains several buildings which now greatly exceed the 35-height limitation, do not comply
with flood, and Ocean Reef would like for them to be elevated. Mr. Hendrick submitted a
document detailing what Ocean Reef is asking for with regard to the corresponding Land
Development Code. Mr. Hendrick continued to explain that Ocean Reef is most concerned about
the lawfully established existing buildings which exceed 35 feet and do not meet flood. There is
no mechanism in the proposed policies which allows for those buildings to be made flood -
compliant as -of -right. Mr. Hendrick pointed out that Ocean Reef is a master -planned
community, completely isolated from the rest of Monroe County, and they have established their
own community character, which is not 35 feet in height. Ocean Reef would ask for a policy
which enables them to replace their existing buildings, floor for floor, to allow for flood
compliance. Ocean Reef would also like to increase their slab -to -slab height in building to be
consistent with what people expect when they go to a luxury resort. Mr. Hendrick then stated
Ocean Reef is concerned about their cultural center because that building cannot accommodate
the fly space that is needed. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that staff has not received information
from Ocean Reef that they have requested. Staff needs more information so they can evaluate
and understand what is being requested. Staff has not received information on the Ocean Reef
Cultural Center.
Dottie Moses, speaking on behalf of Island of Key Largo Federation of Homeowners, voiced
concern these policies could spill over into Unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Curlee agreed.
Ms. Santamaria explained that staff would like to start to move this item toward the Planning
Commission unless members of the public would like to have another DRC meeting to get more
input. Alicia Putney, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, reiterated what Ms. Moses stated
regarding spillover into Monroe County.
Ms. Santamaria then reported that the next proposed amendment is to Policy 101.5.32, and this is
to create a flood protection height exception up to five feet above the 35-foot height limits to
allow buildings to go three feet above their base flood elevation. In no event under this policy
will a building be over 40 feet. The policy is specific to new buildings and for existing
buildings. If the building is not being elevated to meet at least the required base flood elevation
this exception cannot be used at all. This exception would not be provided for buildings located
in the very hazardous flood zones.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Ms. Moses commented that adding an extra three feet to meet base flood elevation should be
allowed with the 35-foot height limit remaining. Ms. Moses does not see the need for this
amendment for new construction. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff does not know how many
homes there are in the County below base flood right now. Staff is working on getting
information from the Property Appraiser to see if somehow that information can be extrapolated,
but it is not available at this time. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Ms. Moses that this policy
refers to elevating existing structures. If a house is torn down it must be rebuilt to a 35-foot
height limit. Ms. Santamaria then explained between the last DRC meeting and today the
:l
language has been reorganized a bit, but it is the same information. Language has been added
that if a building is not being elevated to at least meet base flood it is not eligible for this
exception. This exception shall also apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether
voluntary or not.
Ms. Putney stated that it would be helpful to know what the FEMA maps will show. Ms. Putney
then noted that with new construction, although there may be a hardship involved, it can be made
to work within the 35-foot height limit. Ms. Moses stated the Federation opposes raising the 35-
foot height limit on new construction. Ms. Moses shared a newsletter written by Dennis Henize,
a retired meteorologist, stating that communities should be thinking in terms of decelerating
growth, especially in the eyes of sea level rise. Ms. Putney pointed out that pre -FIRM, January
1, 1975, people built on the ground mostly and built a small enough house that they could afford
to lose. With insurance, houses got bigger, higher and fancier. Citizens need to open up their
minds to reverting back to smaller homes given sea level rise and FEMA.
Ms. Santamaria then reported that Policy 101.5.33 is another flood protection height exception,
but this is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height
limit. If a lawfully established existing building which already exceeds the 35-foot height limit
wants to rebuild over 40 feet, they would have to go before the BOCC and meet specific criteria.
The BOCC would then decide and specify the height that they could build to. Ms. Santamaria
reviewed the criteria used by the BOCC to evaluate the request. The BOCC would have to pass
a resolution stating which height a homeowner could build to. Ms. Santamaria explained there
are condo structures where clearly units would be lost if redeveloped at the 35-foot height limit.
Ms. Moses pointed out the amendment, as written, does not apply to only multi -tenant buildings,
but would apply to any building. Ms. Santamaria added that the public can suggest a provision
that this is for multi -family structures only. Ms. Curlee agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Moses
noted that previously Legal staff had referred to a Bert Harris implication when discussing this.
Ms. Santamaria stated at the next meeting there will be an attorney present who will be able to
address that. Mr. Hunter asked if there are any commercial buildings that fall into this category.
Ms. Santamaria is unaware of any, but stated that does not mean there is not one in existence.
Ms. Moses asked what effect raising some of the low roads would have on this. Ms. Santamaria
explained that grade is either natural elevation or crown of the road, whichever is higher. Ms.
Moses believes that could exacerbate things.
Mr. Hendrick commented that there are many commercial buildings throughout the County over
35 feet. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef has a boat barn well over 35 feet. They have real
concerns because they would like to elevate, but if they do they are going to lose rack space
when they already cannot supply the need that they have. Mr. Hendrick then asked that the
words "building envelope" be substituted with "building footprint" to be able to modernize these
spaces. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Mr. Hunter that boat barns would fall within the
definition of "building."
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
61
4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8
AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2
WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTy7u65IVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the
comp plan update in dealing with amendments that prohibited transferable ROGO exemptions
and transferable density from going to an offshore island. After numerous public comments the
BOCC asked staff to extract those amendments from the overall comp plan update and process
them separately. This amendment reflects the comp plan update. This proposed amendment is
to Policy 101.6.8, which is the transfer of ROGO exemptions. The existing text in the staff
report for this policy is already included in the comp plan update and has been transmitted to the
State with the exception of Receiver Site Criteria Number 6, which says it is not an offshore
island. This is a separate stand-alone amendment so focus can be placed on this one topic.
Policy 101.13.3, which is the transfer of development rights, has been transmitted to the State
with the EAR -based amendments except for Receiver Site Criteria Number 7, which states it is
not an offshore island. That also reflects the initial amendment in the comp plan update the
BOCC asked staff to extract and process separately. Policy 206.1.2 had an added statement not
transmitted with the comp plan update regarding discouraging the development of offshore
islands. This added statement has been struck for consideration and still includes existing
policies in the comp plan that offshore islands should be designated as Tier I and it has the
existing policy that development shall be prohibited on offshore islands, including spoil islands
which have been documented as an established bird rookery based on resource agency best
available data or survey. Staff is proposing a definition for the entity "offshore island" as
"Offshore Island means an area of land surrounded by water which is not directly or indirectly
connected to US-1 by a bridge, road or causeway."
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Lance Kyle, owner of an offshore island in Monroe County, asked for an explanation of
"severability" as used in the agenda. Ms. Santamaria explained that the one provision of
offshore island could be appealed and extracted out without overturning the rest of the ordinance
and keeping it from becoming effective. Ms. Santamaria further explained for Mr. Kyle that she
believes the ten -acre size determination came from the '86 code. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr.
Kyle that the fact that his island is only 800 feet from US-1 does not give it any kind of special
consideration.
Gidget Jackson asked whether there is any flexibility in the restricted use for the islands for
camping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner
11
only. Law enforcement would have to be called for trespassers on an offshore island. Mr.
Hendrick confirmed that the ten -acre determination did come from the ' 86 code, if not before.
Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to look closely
at whether it is necessary to prohibit transferring TREs onto offshore islands because TREs take
pressure off of the allocation system and offshore islands are already limited in density to .l per
acre. There are restrictions in place that require all of the development potential be in place with
the correct development requirements. Mr. Smith agreed with the prior comments made by Ms.
Dick on behalf of Last Stand regarding the redundancy of the language in 206.1.2 because that is
already provided for in the policy as written. Mr. Smith believes the citation to the ALJ order
from 2006 regarding the four -acre threshold was incorrect. Mr. Smith stated now that the
language that defines "significant upland habitat" has been eliminated and the term "offshore
island" is being added to the defined terms of the glossary the policies identify when
development on offshore islands should be prohibited is based on the documentation of an
established bird rookery or nesting area. Those terms are not defined in the comprehensive plan
and the land development regulations and should be. Without having a quantifiable or
objectionable criteria for what an established bird rookery or nesting area is it could be left to
interpretation. FEB Corp. has retained Phil Frank, a well -respected biologist in the community,
to put together a proposed definition for "established bird rookery or nesting area." Copies of
the definition were submitted to staff. Mr. Frank then explained how he worked through the
definition and what he reviewed in order to come up with that definition. Mr. Frank stated the
common theme in the definitions as cited by different authorities is the words "communal
nesting, gregarious birds, prominent colonies, colony forming, gregarious colony." Mr. Smith
read aloud the proposed definition. Mr. Smith believes if this term that is utilized for the
absolute prohibition of development is not defined it will be left open to interpretation that will
be fought over for years to come.
Ms. Santamaria stated that part of the reasons a definition for "bird rookery" is not proposed in
this amendment is that in the comp plan update the definition as "A communal nesting ground
for gregarious birds" was included, as well as a definition for "nesting area." This has been
transmitted to the State. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the definition for "nesting area." Mr. Frank
pointed out that passerine birds are not listed in the definition and should be. Mr. Smith stated he
is concerned that the definition for "nesting area" is too broad and could prohibit development on
any offshore island.
Ms. Curlee noted that solitary birds, which are not included in the definition, are equally as
important. Ms. Curlee does not agree with Mr. Frank's definition, but does agree with staff s.
Mr. Smith believes the definition needs to be clarified so that arguments are not made that all
offshore islands are nesting islands.
Julie Dick of the Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys
Environmental Fund, re-emphasized that offshore islands are the last place to be encouraging
development because they are not connected to public facilities and are some of the most
environmentally sensitive areas in the entire Keys. Development rights should not be moved to
offshore islands because they are the hardest areas to evacuate. Ms. Dick disagreed with Mr.
Smith that TREs should not have the restriction on transferring receiver sites to offshore islands.
7
Ms. Dick appreciates staff removing the confusing and redundant new language in Policy
206.1.2, but continues to believe the entire policy should be removed. Ms. Dick stated Last
Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund will likely support staff s existing definition over
what has been proposed today, but will need time to confer on that.
Mr. Hendrick, speaking on behalf of himself, stated he fully supports the idea of protecting bird
rookeries, but feels that it seems illogical to focus and protect nesting areas on offshore islands
because nesting areas are located everywhere. Ms. Santamaria clarified Policy 206.1.2 does not
actually refer to nesting areas. Mr. Frank commented when the comp plan was written back in
1986 the bird rookeries were teased out as special resources. Mr. Smith noted that is why using
one definition is preferable. Ms. Dick clarified Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund
fully supports the language protecting nesting areas. Ms. Dick then noted that Mr. Smith is here
on behalf of FEB, who does not own Wisteria Island, and questions their interest in the matter.
Ms. Santamaria emphasized the ordinance does not speak to a particular island, but would apply
to anything that falls within the definition of offshore island.
Mr. Kyle asked whether the term "nest" implies that the island has to have some sort of tree
canopy of bush canopy. Mr. Roberts replied not necessarily, because there are a number of shore
birds and wading birds that are ground -nesters. Mr. Kyle then commented that 90 percent of the
speck islands in the County are transient, so the evacuation time issue seems to be somewhat
discounted. Ms. Santamaria then explained to Mr. Kyle in detail how the phased evacuation
process occurs. Ms. Dick re-emphasized that evacuation is a real concern for Monroe County
citizens and it is a safety threat for everyone in the county if the evacuation predictions are not
correct. That situation adds further weight to the need to reduce added risk to the evacuation
formula by allowing further development on offshore islands.
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
Ms. Santamaria asked the public if they prefer to bring this back to DRC one more time or move
this forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith, on behalf of FEB Corp., stated they would
like to see how concerns over nesting areas are going to be resolved prior to bringing it to the
Planning Commission because it affects all offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria agreed to bring this
matter back to the DRC one more time for safe measure.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
A
�e
t`
r � usl ire ' kl:
V
1
a,car��.vcE
MEMORANDUM
e , r
o: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: January 15, 2016
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN
REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5,32
AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN
ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD
INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File # 2015-006)
Meeting: January 26, 2016 - continued from March 2, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015 and
October 27, 2015
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create
Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height.
limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
The County has been ',working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
File 2015-006 Page 1 of 12
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32.• BOCC directed staff to workon height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings u Mich exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affbrdable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular -
.December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed staff to u)ork on an inventory data o ,fprivately-owned c�ffslrcrr e islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014.BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015,.the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendinent and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled tweeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7.
File 201.5-006 Page 2 of 12
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development.
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit S. Minutes from the October
27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9.
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and grade are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys,` spires and✓or steeples on
structures used ,for institutional and✓or public uses only; radio andlor television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and✓or transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna and✓or collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
However, in no event shall any of. the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset fvr Monroe
County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
and✓or other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of: height = the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of'any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 12
Height limit ,
42
Ctf wr of Rc—,id oaf►l Crown of the road
I ir tt^"O t'c
mean sAa lot]
T .,
2fl of fill needed to reach aft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Flan update, recommendations to a►nend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-201 l) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
Excerpt below from a recent OreenKeys' Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and
commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key Largo and
a cost benefit ratios of elevating and floodprooflng buildings:
ANALYSIS OF DAMAGES FROM STORM SURGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE FOR THE
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF KEY LARGO AND STOCK ISLAND, MO ROE COL NT'(, FL
USING THE COASTAL ADAPTATION TO SEA LEVEL RISE TOOL (COAST)
Al 1ndl:-i a, M*:
L TALr. r",rl, PTAT?C)N P4RTNERS, L_C i 242 _avt;cr Street, an_ulh Portland, NiE 0•106
18 ;rn b e r 2 i" 4
�� k'.t'► fit.
Catalysis
Entire report can be accessed here: http://l1-mo►3roecount,'c I I rngte.civiCPluSconVIDOCUinentCenter/Viek�/10')
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 12
Catalysis Adaptation Partners, LLC (Catalysis) specializes in analyzing impacts from storm surges and
long-term sea level rise using its Coastal Adaptation to Sea level rise Toot (COAST). CAST modeling
software rnimics floods from storms and sea level rise on community assets such as, homes and businesses,
then tallies the cumulative damages over time so communities can better understand the cost to them of
not adapting (vulnerability assessment), as well as the costs and benefits (damage reduction) of
implementing various adaptation actions.
Catalysis was contracted by Erin L. Deady, P.A. to use COAST to perform a vulnerability assessment
. . . . . . . . #,, I -. utp— 6
I 'ON
(3) community workshops in October, November and December 2014, during which County residents in
Key Largo; voted on modeling parameters and assumptions for "no -action" and three (3) adaptation action
scenarios.� 1 _2dluatin and floodvroofin buildings,- 2' building, barriers close to shore- and a*-urclIaSIR9,
properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program. Voting occurred during
model parameters as well as whether or not actions should be further evaluated.
The "asset" selected for analysis was the vailue of residential and commercial buildings, obtained
from Monroe County tax records. Sea Level Rise assumptions were based upon the Unified Sea Level Rise
Projection for Southeast Florida'. Those projections included a low and high estimate of sea level rise in:
2030i of 3" and 7" respectively, as well as a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2060 of 9" and 24"
WM AS* em Apit
in the analysis based on]. �X_2wramw&it-
of the official Unified Sea Level Ri
P4 ir I i I t rI 1 P -11 1: q Q,-O r2 I f Pip, r--, _fn r_?_ YA s c P., t, R c ir *f_s-e_-Aaw,4 -asg z - * f AL 22 " J i 0_1 $A?
.TA
00
ie- ne Tarnak a or >27f RAincin Trom a nuisance 00 9
2060 under a high sea level rise scenario of 24"and $289.2 Million from a Hurricane Wilma -sized flood in
2060 under the same sea level rise a__—eiLa_-tL4Mkor"I
IT-ra
24". The value of properties (buildings and land) permanently inundated by sea level rise alone by 2060i
ffrom claillLiffliciodin atWSLtIWd_e_�Lm ai LLWe� mn ed from 5206,9 MillionNery. low scen
scenario). Once the modeling 'indicated such properties would be flooded by the daily high tide, the
software no longer subjected it to continuing cumulative damages from that point in time forward.
The three (3) adaptation actions to model identified by the Project Team and County Staff
included:
0 Elevating and floodprocifing buildings
' Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties, Sea Level Rise Ad Hoc Technical Working Group
(April 2011).
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 12
I
I'
• Building barriers close to the coast (to protect frorn storm surge but not sea level rise); and
• Purchase of properties vulnerabile to; sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program over
a phased timeframe.
For each action, costs were determined by the consultant and staff team, and in some cases,
modified by workshop participants by polling. Modeling parameters (e.g., building elevation heights, the
distance between the barrier and the coast as well as the height of the biarrier, the number of residents
ion acuons in s�� ace
the predicted reduction in damages over the same time period as the vulnerability assessment.
11 mrzaf
.get .ged
firr-011-11. 441111111101DW
ons Mat ToTiTTUMnore-unan ine 004(11 Or feaTcel oarriages in Me TuTure (Ce., not coii P;e Reciv
low or tide gauge trend) and construction cost estimates (high and low). Building barriers had the second
highest benefit-coist ratios:, but with all results below 1 (040 to 0.93). The voluntary buyout program had
benefit -cost ratios ran . o_ - i kaw"hM
;auge trend sea level rise scenario, however. Aside from the model outputs, there were other factors
which contributed to these results as discussed in thisf oc
completed at a later date and can be found in Appendix 6.
These benefit-cos,t ratio's were presented to County residents and keypad polling technology was
used to evaluate their opinions. After looking at the COAST model results and participating in the group
discussions, residents voted that elevating -and floodAr UVAif
In addition, residents thought the County should pursue sources of funding to help private property
owners impfement this strategy.
The modeling results and community engagement process enabled the Project Team to provide
the County residents with a context fo r beginning more difficult conversationis and decision -making
nmr.pirseci rm iS5��.Auy LW&_
I
co -benefits (e.g., choosing to restore mangrove forests to not only improve coastal ecosystems but also
protect buildings from wave attenuation) and planning outcomes, Importantly, benefit -cost ratios
resulting from this work tend to open difficult conversations about exactly what is most important to a
community in planning how to adapt to sea level rise and future storm surges. W
However, these results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a program to
E
elevate and floodproof residential and commercial buildings. Catalysis recommends that the County use
this information to:
Further discuss sea level rise vulnerability with County residents and the importance of having a
method to weigh different adaptation actions against one another (benefit -cost analysis)
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 12
• Develop a framework for using new -® to engage with residents so that consensus on an
eventual adaptation actioolider-driven
• Share this information with neighboring communities so that more regional communication can
take place and! strengthen any local momentum towards adaptation
• Document any progress or failures towards adaptation so that other communities around the
country have lessonis from which they can learn.
6, APPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPOSED
STRATEGIES
6.1 KEYPAD POW NG REsu LTs FROM COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2
GreenKEYSI Keypad polling Results from the COAST community modeling exercise conducted
November 5 2014 at the Nelson Government Center In Key Largo, FL
Question 01: Currently in Key Largo, 40% of properties are already elevated. What percentage of
additional Key Largo V-zorns buildings do you want to see elevated in this model?
I a 25% 9 29%
b 50% 2 6%
C 75% 2 6% Zo 9
d The draft Input of 100% 14 45%
blank 4 13%
Total 31 100% b 'd bla"",
Question 42: What percentage of Key Largo A -zone buildings do you want to see floodproof ed in this
model?
2 ") 25% 2 6% Question 2
b 50% 5 16% zva
C 75% 4 13%
d The draft Input of 100% 16 52%
blank 4 13% is
Total 31 100%
Question 03: Currently in Key Large, new buildings are required to be elevated to the 100-year flood
elevation, which ranges from 6 to 15 feet across the Key. For parcels that will be elevated In the
model, do you want them to be elevated up to this code or to something higher?
3 a Up to current code 12 39% Question 3
b Up to current code plus I ! 3 10% t0
c Up to current code plus 3 is 48%
blank 1 3% M:W'
Total 31 100%
I, L 1'4—'
Question #4: The model estimates floodproofing to a certain height. How high would you like to see
parcels floodproolled?
4 a I ft 0 ()% Question 4
b 3 it 8 26% 16
c 6 ft 3 10%
d The draft input of 8 ft 16 52%
ta
blank 4 13% 0
Total 31 100%
29
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 12
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are str-iekei tern and additions are underlined.)
Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately.
Policy 101.5.630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall
limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance
between grade and the highest pant of any structure, including mechanical equipment but excluding
spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or
television antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers, and certain
antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall an 3
of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the
applicable height limitations,,except as specifically ermitted in Policies 101.5.31. 101.5.32 and
101.5.33. 9weptions will be allowed fe-r- appuftenanees to buildings, tower-s and
similaF stfueiur-es. In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height
limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a gated master, planned community which is inaccessible to the surroundin
community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include „non -habitable architectural
decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit
in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This
exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height
that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a master planned coin rnunity means a planned community of 100 or more acres in
area subiect to a master plan or other, development order approved by the county where public access is
restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including* the provision of
comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a
homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors
development requests by its members.
Nate, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 11. To
date, ,sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments.
Polio 101.5.32
Within in I year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Polio 101.5.30 to,promote public
health. safety and general welfare;. allow adaptation to, coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards:
protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to
floodin • minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for,recovery from
flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance prerniums A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to
a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 12
voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood
protection, minimize flood damage reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures
of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result
in a building exceeding a maximum height of40 feet.
Policy 101.5.33
Within in I year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land 'Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing
buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare
allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards- protect property from flooding and
minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of
public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood
insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing_ building may be repaired improved redeveloped
and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation BFEprovided the building does notexceed
a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established
intensity, floor area, building envelo e floor to floor height),density and type of use. For lawfull
established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a�public hearin before
efore
the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved
height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify
the maximum approved height.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTYYEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE
THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers -
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum. FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recornmendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 21.7.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximurn extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to W
Z
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms..
File 20 t 5-006 Page 9 of 1.2
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute,
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic.
development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
I . The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. ley West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
File 2015-006 Page 10 of 12
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(in) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part 111 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problerns that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parrs, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services, and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies .
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent ,Manner and shall contain programs and activities to
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implernent the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and to
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land developmentLO
,
and use regulations.
wjntlil,�
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Beard of County Commissioners, the CD
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Beard
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
File 2015-006 Page 11 of 12
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEC}). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the CRC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 2.6, 2015 DRC Minutes
6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report.
7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes
8. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report
9. October 27, 2015.DRC Minutes
10. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
11. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
File 2015-006 Page 12 of 12
B�BZ�Z� l
Monroe County Board mfCounty Commissioners Special Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Height Exceptions
Then the next change is on page 43...
You have a couple of new policies here, you all directed staff to take a look at how to possibly raise the height
limit for architectural features that really just apply to Ocean Reef and so we've also come up with some criteria
and you'll see that onthose two policies S.31and 5.32
Mayor Murphy: Do we have a public speaker onthis Lindsay?
UndsmyWe do. Joel Reed.
Mayor Murphy: Debbie, are you ready for public speakers?
Yes mamnonthis particular topic.
Joel Reed: Good morning Mayor, Commissioners, Joel Reed. I'm here today on behalf ofOcean Reef Club and
Ocean Reef Community Association in regard to this issue. First of all | want tothank you for the support. As
you know Ocean Reef |ya 6iyL|nut community. |t'sa private gated community ufabout twenty five hundred
acres, about seventeen hundred units spthere. VVehave alot ufadditional amenities upthere, public buildings
or quasi' kind of public buildings that are for the dub purpose as well. Ocean Reef also has a Community
Association which has its own architectural board, its architectural committee that kind of makes going through
DRC and Planning Commission a day at the beach compared totheir architectural committee. They are very
stringent. They impose a lot of times additional requirements and regulations on their projects. Their whole
community isvery involved with the procesu. They're all notified osfar asany changes that happen upthere. So
the five foot, we appreciate the support and the language in there a lot of times, some of the single family
homes and the commercial buildings as well bump up as far as making them more architecturally attractive to
need this section to allow for that. We also have had e lot ofdiscussions the last couple of weeks internally as
well. I'm going to pass out, I guess to the clerk and to you guys, additional language we would like you guys to
consider. But we have been talking to staff about ....(passes out additional language considerations) So not to
confuse the issue, there are two specific issues. First isallowing for some additional architectural features that
the five foot would 6n. As we went through the club, as said, owns a lot of buildings. Some ofthose buildings
are the hotels thataremear8uccaneer|s|and'ifymu'vebeemuptherebefore. The Ambe4ack,The Dolphin, The
Marlin, these buildings are aging, they're coming tothe end cftheir life. VVehave done quite afew renovations
to them. At this point there is not really many more renovations that can be done in order to ruotiome to
maintain and operate them. As you know, that function nfthe club aswell inessential tomaintaining mClass A
club up there, continuing to provide for the tax base that comes out of Ocean Reef is by having an attractive club
where we can continue to attract to maintain current members and attract new members. A lot of those
buildings, | have some data, it's not all there, The Amberjackfor example is three levels ofliving. Just to give an
Page I of 12
example, the couple, Am not going to go into all of them, but we said look if these things were substantially
damaged through a hurricane, or they had to come down, or we had to rebuild, we wouldn't beable to build
back those units tothose heights that are there today. We have several. We have The Harbor House which is
condominium, its over fifty four feet right now in Ocean Reef Club. We have The Marlin, which is one of the
hotel buildings, that's atforty two feet. VVegot the Dolphin Hotel mtforty seven feet and The Creek House. We
didn't have the number on it but we know that's well over forty feet aowell. That's another condominium
building up there. We came up with the boat born, that's at thirty seven feet, the boat barn that we have up
there. But there is about seven oreight buildings specifically that vvethought itvvoui|d be greatly impacted as
we try to redevelop these properties or if we have to due to m hurricane or other issues. Some of the other
issues we face is that although these are three stories and they are just pushing the height limit right now. You
know, if you get three stories up there you're atthirty feet and then you have an architectural roof element
you're at thirty seven feet orsomething like that. Alot ofthese buildings are built below flood right now soif
CL
we go to build them back, obviously we're talking about sea level rise, we want to encourage those buildings to
be brought back up to flood. What happens is we lose m whole top level that we currently have today. We X
would lose almost a whole floor there out of those developments and that's just not possible to happen, So we
proposed some additional policy language toput in thereto protect these existing buildings that are there tu be �
able to be built back. We haven't thoroughly vetted with staff yet at this point we have just proposed talking
about the issue that I just explained. We would like and hope to support and to continue to work with staff to a)
tweak some of this language to get into the Comp Plan to protect us on some of these issues. And the language, �c
it exempts, it doesn't exempt, it doesn't include single family homes so this is only for the multi -family andto
commercial structures that are up there, so it doesn't include any of the single family homes and what it says is, El!
"lawfully established structures that exclude single family homes that exceed this height limit may be replaced *o
with their existing height plus any additional height required to elevate the first finished floor two feet above ��
the FE~soencouraging them to go, you know, those extra two feet aswell above that base flood elevation to
account for future sea level rise aswell. And then also that the height limit applicable toOcean Reef and this
would beanexemption for their community center building. The community center building upthere right now
puts on productions and theater productions and when it was built, they aren't able to attract and have the top
of the line theater groups that come in there because a lot of the sets that they have, they change throughout
the production. They actually lift that whole set up to lift that whole backdrop up into the ceiling and then they
drop down the new one and their theater wasn't able to be designed to that because of the height and so they
also want that as an exclusion so that they can look to enhance that building at some point to be able to attract
those types ofproductions there. I'm here for any questions. Thank you for considering.
&AaYmrMurphy Sothe proposed addMe
additional wha
t ci
X
Joel Reed: VVeauppo�the Club and ��e[nmmun�yAsaociodon both support th��m�s�n& policylanguagem�ua&e �
that's |nthere
—
Commissioner Carruthers: the institutional language
—
were supportive of. You know, westarted tntalk about the hotels and the aging and the issues and ifmedid try
and rebuild them back, what that would look like in the loss of rooms and the development that's there,
Page 2 of1Z
Mayor MurphyDowehave apublic speaker mmthis?
Un�sayBaKar�� We do.
Mayor Murphy: Let's hear the public speaker. Another one.
L�n�sav 8axard� D.A-A|dhdQe
D.A. A�dr|dge:I'm �A.Aldridge. Ulive omTavernier which is part ofKay Largo. Here weare atthe last minute, a
breath away from sending the Comp Plan and all of sudden we see a very important change being requested
byour Northern neighbors. The Federation ofHomeowner's Association has been very adamant about height
restrictions for many years and we have continually fought for thirty five feet. We are asking atthis time, | am
asking mtthis time tu have you not vote on this. We have not had the opportunity to look at the language that
has been just handed to you and we feel that it needs to be reviewed very closely by the staff and by you
because this isahuge change that they are requesting. Thank you.
Mayor K*urphy�... That's it
Commissioner Km|hage� What does the, in the final sentence when they talk about assembly group Al and so
forth, what does that mean?
We don't know.
Mayor Murphy: Well they haven't seen kyet. This is the problem with this.
Well wehave seen that heemai|editbut weasked questions. We didn't know what hemeant
by that
Connmnioaimwe, Ko!hage: Well but we're going mo have to be more specific on that. We'll have to have language
that says exactly what itmeans. | think anyway.
��mm|ss�oner�\ce: Could vvenot deal with this today and deal with |tinJanuary?
/ ' If you want us to address his comments' | just say get direction from the board at this point.
Wework onsome type oflanguage tobring back toyou inJanuary.
�omomm�ssimne��ic��|think that's what weshould do.
MayorMurphy: And what happens if we then want to make changes in January? Dowe hold up the vvho|e
process?
' | think you can legally make changes omthe floor bymotion before wetransmit.
�obghNNnQer� Aslong asyou're not changing the general substance ofit. The general tone ofit.
Mayor Murphy: Well that's what | um worried about. If we let this go fill January and then begin to, ya know,
flesh |tout and the public speaks and we all get confused and then what happens tothe rest of Comp Plan
because w*are supposed tnvote onthat inJanuary.
Page of 12
Commissioner Neugent�|would ask on issues like this because Uvery much agree with what was said that we
just got this and I think we need some information and my question is, and there may be some more issues very
similar tothis that come up. Can we have another meeting discussing those particular issues before the January
transmittal?
Sure. VVecould dothat.
Mayor Murphy. That would behelpful.
CmmmmNslmnerFflice: That may bathe way tnapproach it.
The problem with holding it in November or December is the calendars are already a mess
from the holidays.
Commissioner Nemgeru:Ohmygosh wemight have todoalittle work.
No, that's not what | meant. It's just that even your regular board meetings got all shifted
around.
CmmmoissimmerNeugent. Have itetthe board meeting. End ofthe item discussion for mboard meeting.
Okay. VVecan dothat.
Mayor Murphy: VVecan dothat.
Commissioner Nemgmmt: Another things that's in this right here an l read it for clarification purposes'
° architectural decorating features that exceed the thirty five foot height limit but such features shall not exceed
five feet above the structures roof line" Joel also mentioned that some of these buildings are already, | guess
they would be legal non -conforming because they are above the height limit, suwhen you say "features shall
not exceed five feet above the structures roofline" what rooffine are we talking about? The one that's already
non -conforming? orthirty five feet oba0 not exceed five feet above thirty five feet? That's not the way |
necessarily interpret that.
Mayor Murphy: Because ifit's the fifty four foot building, we're now atfifty wine —
It's not though. This ismeant for new development that cannot exceed thirty five feet.
CmrmmisuimnermeuQemm: Well what happens ...
Joel has added in and what he is really asking you to do, is in simple terms, and I think it could
be very simplified, bagree that existing, non -conforming buildings that are ataheight greater than thirty five
feet, beallowed turebuild tothat height p[us—
Commissioner Neagent | didn't hear anybody bring that uA—
That's really what he isasking though.
Com rnissiomer R�ce: Well that's what this really says
Page 4of12
Mayor Murphy: Plus what?
` = plus, let him adjust, like we already have a provision in here, for another five feet, if they need
to raise the elevation for FEMAfloodp|aln issues.
Mayor Murphy; Fine, but not for decorative features,
Well he talked about decorative also, but he definitely spoke about
Mayor Murphy: Well let's get itdown pat.
Well we will try to but we got his language a couple days ago and...
Mayor Murphy: Well his language iokind ufgoing inafigure eight,
Cmmrnisyiomer Km|hage; | understand what they are saying. In other words, he wants to maintain what they
have now with amadjustment.
Yes. ithink that's what heisasking.
CommmissiunerNmUhage' And | think that isreasonable.
Mayor Murphy: To replace a building, an older building that was built over thirty five feet, have a problem with
that anywhere |nMonroe County. |tiswhat itis, we're all used toit, it's part ofthe landscape.
Commissioner Nmu&ent:Clarification nnwhat you just said
Mayor Murphy: |donot object toany ofthe older buildings that were built above thirty five feet. VVeall have
them in our neighborhoods. If they need to be replaced or have to be replaced, | don't have a problem with
them maintaining the height.
Commissioner Nemgemt: Hold on a minute there. Is there anything in our code, and | vvnu|d use this as an
analogy, FE(N4/sdesrript|on of it, if its damaged by more than fifty percent, it has to be rebuilt, that is there
anything ioour code orComp Plan that says that itthen can bebuilt over thirty five feet?
Mayor Murphy: No, No.
Okay, today, don't mix apples and oranges. Today our code does not allow ustmapprove o
building permit above thirty five feet. If the structure is destroyed beyond fifty percent, they then have to
conform to the new code, which is the thirty five foot height limit. And if it's destroyed beyond Shy percent
under the floodplain rules, they have to raise the elevation and that's why they added this other position.
Commissioner Neugent� | understand the apples and oranges thing that |]ust plugged into it as an analogy but
what | am saying is, have we had that discussion? You just said, at least my interpretation, that you can't build
what[ommioionerKHurphy]ustsaid—
Commissioner Neugent: So we need to have that discussion
Commissioner Carrwthers� And that's why we have the further thing about flood protection and height
exceptions. Go to 205.5]2. We added that so that we would allow people to exceed the thirty five feet when
they have to, tocreate enough free board tocomply with FEMAregulations.
Cormmm|us1mnerNeug�ent: I'm not talking about base flood elevation.
Commissioner Carruthers: but that isthe crunch that you are getting into. When the Mayor says that you can
rebuild a building at the height it is today, but we have a thirty five foot limit and FEMA says you gotta raise your
building five feet, you lose astory.
CommissiomerNeugent: that addresses one part ofit. The other part that isnot being addressed inmyopinion,
is du we have anything, are we proposing that then a fifty four foot high building could be rebuilt to fifty four
feet.
Joel isproposing that.
CmmmnAssionerNeugent: And that's what |mmuasking this Commission. Is that where wewant toAowith that?
Commissioner Carruthers: Well, | mean' if we don't aUmm people to do that isn't that essentially a taking? |
mean you would be ... think about the real life economic consequences o['
BmbShiNinger: There may 6esome Bert Harris implications but it's adifferent analysis.
Comrmiss|mne,Kmffiage, What we are considering here is because of the isolated and specific nature of Ocean
Reef, dwvvewant tomake mnexception here?
Cmmm|soionerNea0ent� And can |ta& onto that Commissioner Ko|hage? Municipalities have the right, if
misspeak correct me, tmgmabove thirty five feet ifthey choose to. Marathon has gone above thirty five feet, [
think Key West has aheight limit above thirty five feet, but based onwhat Commissioner Ko|hagejust said, and |
want to hear some arguments otherwise, Ocean Reef is an isolated area, miles away from anyone else and m
gated community, albeit in unincorporated Monroe County, the/me very similar to e municipality with a city
type manager, that do we want to be so parental if they have no objections internally amongst themselves to
keep them from rebuilding above thirty five feet or changing some things that they have gone through the
public input locally with their gated community. Dom/ewant tnimpose our thoughts ovhow Ocean Reef should
be run?
Commissioner Rice: I don't think we are trying to do that.
MaymrMunph\c I don't either. But I will tell you, my feeling is, in many, many instances, what Ocean Reef wants
todoupthere because they are away from everyone, I've agreed with. They've had good ideas, nmproblem and
they do it. However when it comes to things like the height limit that everyone in this county is interested in,
every developer is watching, and m lot of the homeowners are watching. | can't do something for them that |
won't do for the rest of the county. And 8 will go to the extent that these buildings that Joel is talking about,
were built when there was no height limit actually. If this comes dmmm either in a hurricane nrthey want to
Page 6 of 12
remodel it, | don't have aproblem with them rebuilding tothe height bwas. | don't think itruins the landscape
because we have had oh|rty/fortyyears of looking at it. And therefore, everyone else in the county can also
rebuild the over thirty five feet structures they have. Most ofthem are commercial structures.
Commissioner Kolhage� Okay can I ask you a question Mayor so I can more or less understand your position? So
you're saying, you don't have a problem with them rebuilding to the height that they are now but you mean
without the adjustment for base flood elevation or with it?
Mayor Murphy: No, because everyone in the county is going to get that adjustment,
Cornmissioner Kolhage: So you don't have an objection to it?
Mayor Murphy: Not to that. I have an objection to the decorative features.
Cornrnissioner KolhageOkay but look, if it's, if they got a fifty foot building and there is a five foot adjustment
for base flood elevation, you don't have a problem with them going to fifty five feet?
Mayor Murphy: No.
Mayor Murphy. They are going to what they were before the remodel ...
and you want it county wide not just for Ocean Reef?
Mayor Murphy: Yes.
Comrnissioner Carruthers: But only for flood mitigation...
Mayor Murphy: That's it, no decorative stuff,
Well right now the decorative bin, the flood bin —
Commissioner Carruthers: Well the decorative is in for Ocean Reef only, the flood is in for everyone. Right?
Yeah and the decorative is not so much what Joel is talking about relative to the bigger
commercial buildings, its more for the single family homes that want the decorative features ontop ofthe roof. . 2F
a)
They are separate issues really. So right now in the draft policy you have included an extra five feet in Ocean
Reef for the decorative� e architectural features, you've included imcVuded for the whole county up to five feet adjustments *D
decorative
for flood protection, raising your elevations, and Joel isasking you toalso include, for Ocean Reef, but ksoundsLLJ
�
like you at least have one Commissioner who wants to do it county wide for 8ramdfa1herinA existing buildings
that are higher than thirty five feet and allowing them to get the flood adjustment.
BobShiNlmge,: You'd want tovest them for that height iswhat I'm hearing.
Yup. But I don't know the Commissions, I'm not getting...
Page 7of12
Commissioner Naugemo Well first ofall the staff issupposed toreview what the request isand bring itback the
staff recommendation
But |'d like to know what the board, county wide or Ocean Reef for this vesting of existing
buildings atleast.
Cmmmrmiao|oner R�ce: Well let me help you out, if we don't 6m that, the economic impact, eventually we will
destroy what weknow down here. | don't feel that vvehave any choice.
Commissioner Carruthers: I don't think it's fair ... I don't think it's fair to not let somebody rebuild what they got.
As itlswhen they do rebuild they have to meet standards that exist today that did not, and codes that exist
today that did not exist then.
I understand what you all are asking for so if you want to just move on without voting, we will
draft language and bring it back for discussion on one of your regular agendas,
Commissioner NeuGent: Let mepoint this out assomeone who operated out ofan illegal non -conforming
building, if you think that it is something that is, it was called Pmrh/s restaurant, and if would have been
destroyed byastorm, | would have had avery difficult time, ifnot impossible time to rebuild with the same
amount of square footage because of sm1bmoka that came into play after Pmrk/s was built eons ago. So if you
think that there is a fairness level here, there is really a lot of situations where you can't rebuild.
Commissioner Carruthers: but wouldn't you have been able to apply for variances and exceptions to those
setbacks...
No.
Commissioner Neugent: You still would have had womeet the setback requirements.
You could apply for variance for msetback but not height.
Mayor Murphy: See well all weare talking about isheight. Not their setbacks.Not anything else.
Commissioner Kolhage: We're talking about changing the whole concept of the fifty percent rule.
No I understand ...
ComnnnissianerKoftge: How does it work? For height ... we're saying we're washing away the fifty percent rule.
WeUotherthimgscnterinto—fnrheightyouwou|dbevvashingitaway.
Bob ShiNn0er:Asatrigger for bringing itinto compliance with current code
There are still other things that apply to that but most of those can be remedied by a variance.
Commissioner Carruthers: and just to clarify what you are eluding to | think, Commissioner, is that someone
Page 8 of 12
I mean if you are elevating a building, you're usually triggering that price ...
Commissioner Carruthers: Well it depends onthe building and the cost
Connm�ss'pone, Ko|hage: and the whole destruction issue and the fifty percent and thats—. I'm not necessarily
saying 1have aproblem with that but that's what we're doing
And I will say the examples that Joel gave of the condominiums, when you, let's say have eight
units per floor and now you have a storm that destroys more than fifty percent ofthat building, you are
eliminating the possibility of one of those floors, because you are going to h:mve to elevate it and that means
eight condo owners don't get a unit and so that's related to the Bert Jay Harris that Bob referred to
Commissioner Carruthers: Everybody gets osmaller unit which isstill going to6eanissue so ...
That's under our current rules.
Commnm-isuimwerR|ce: And what we're trying to do is validate, you don't want to build a fifty year building or sixty
year building without accommodating expected sea level rise
Cmmnnniss|aue, Carruthers` | guess my only other comment is that | know that this is going to be controversial
andpeop|eamgoingtobecnmcmrnedaboutchmractermndth|ngs|ikethat—
KAayorMurp#V, But it's already there.
CommimmienerCarruthers� Well itisalready Lhe/e—
Mayor Murphy: 5oit's not changing the |andscape—
Commissioner Carruthers: It's not but trust mofrom dealing with this inKey West people have the perception
that overnight the character of our communities is going to change and that's not what we're talking
about—Overfiftyyeao it probably will to some extent but it's going to have to if we want to continue to live
here.
Mayor Murphy: Alright listen we're going totake abreak
��������_��_����_���_����
MaymrMurphy�Andwhat| realized is we neglected togive Christine e head mod one way or the other omthe
non -habitable architectural decorative features. KHycomment was, |viU vote for the increase in height but not
for the decorative features. Discuss it and |*t her know which direction you would like her to take when she
does her staff report.
Commissioner Carruthers: Are you talking about within Ocean Reef orCounty wide?
Mayor Murphy: They are the only ones that asked for it.
[amwmn|sy|owerCarruthers� ] don't really care.
Page 9 of 12
Commissioner Neugem: We'll put together something that is going to be in place for twenty years ora1least
supposedly it should be put in place so this is going to be hard and complex so I would say that the data and
information on it being done county wide.
Mayor Murphy� But the point is, what county wide? I don't care if its county wide, in fact it has to be. For me r-
to vote for a height limit, it has to be county wide. Otherwise, I'm not going to vote for it.
Okay wait a minute, no one has proposed, maybe that's where you're going next I don't know,
CL
right now what's inyour draft ioflood for everybody ...
Mayor Murphy: Base flood e|evmdon_ E
They have talked about it, I am very clear, everyone is okay with that. Ocean Reef only, 0
decorative features, five additional feet. And I didn't hear, I heard Murphy say she's opposed to it but i didn't CL
hear what any of you other Commissioners thought of that. U
I'ViayorMonphy: And that's what |amtrying $obring out sothat she knows where togowith it. =
�
Commissioner Neugent/ Uthuught | heard you ask, you wanted a head nod whether this was going bzbe
proposed just for Ocean Reef orall ofunincorporated Monroe County. . a)
�
I had never heard that the decorative features was proposed for all of Monroe County from
you alL
Commissioner Rice and Commissioner Kulhu8*respond inunison: No, mo—
Commissioner Neugemt: Okay but 8dso heard Commissioner Mayor Murphy say, I'm not going totreat them
any different than the rest ofthe County.
Cornrn�ssionev Mce: Well that gives you a slight clue as to how she might vote
So what I think I've gotten clarity on is everybody's okay allowing the people to get five of the
five feet to adjust the floodplain if they are demofished. The board wants us to draft language to address
existing structures that are already over thirty five feet to be able to be replaced with the five foot flood
adjustment. What I don't have any clarity on is whether or not the board wants us to keep in Ocean Reef
allowance for five foot additional architectural decorative features or not. Or if you want to expand that County
wide, which I had never heard as an option to this moment,
Commissioner Kolhage: Let me just state my position on this and you can go down the line I guess but I really
don't care about the architectural features of Ocean Reef I've tried to cane but |just can't. But | am a little
concerned, I'm alittle concerned about doing away with our fifty percent rule omthe rest ofthe County and I'm
not saying that |amgoing tosupport that.
Commissioner Neugent: |'m not saying that | am going to support anything. |'m saying | just want the <
information tobeable tomake the decision, have the discussions with the people who are going tospeak for
and against it.
Page 1Oof12
Mayor Murphy: And my only point with the architectural features, I don't think they are necessary, but if just
for Ocean Reef, I don't want them certainly spread all over Monroe County and if you do that you are
guaranteeing somebody an extra ten feet. Five feet for the base flood elevation, up to five feet, and then up to
another five feet for their decorative stuff, plus what they'll be rebuilding is something that is you know, fifty
feet, fifty four feet, whatever. Its adding ten feet to it instead of five. I think that's a bit much.
Commissioner Newgent; At what point in time 6o we bring up what was brought up previously about
addressing affordable housing, increasing the height limit ... This is all about bringing information back tous.
This isthe time tobring that upifyou want to.
Commissioner Neugent; And |]uxt, looking back in history a little bit here, there were some comments that
Meridian West could have had another floor which would have increased the housing if they had gone up an
additional foot orso. So again, more information to discuss that strictly for affordable housing.
Yes and at the meeting that State Representative Rascbein held, you all discussed that. We do
not have anything included right now in this policy for increased height for affordable housing. We have
discussed it as staff after you had that meeting. It's our opinion that if you are going to inuentivize affordable
housing development by giving them a higher height limit that you should restrict that 1overy low and low
maybe median, but the moderate income level is something that vve do not think should be incemtivizedvvith a
height increase.
CommmissiunerNeugent� One of the biggest problems in dealing with affordable housing is the property to build
them on. Another reason why | think the discussion should take place for affordable housing to go up is that if
you can build more on that specific site as opposed to trying to find other properties to build affordable housing
on. khelps resolve that part ofthe equation.
Cmmmissimnernmlhoge' Sowhat are you going todowith that Christine? Between now and January?
Do you want ustoinclude something for you to consider relative to affordable in the next
version that webring tmyou atyour regular meeting for discussion?
Commissioner Carruthers- |do.
Okay.
CommissomerKoihage | remain tobeconvin,ced—
ConnmniesfonerMce, I'm not sure how | feel about itbut |think we6oneed tohave the discussion.
And I'm going to have some diagrams for you all by the next meeting with each policy so you
can see what that means.
Commissioner Carruthers: Will you also, related to this policy with affordable, that would have to be in very
specific tiered areas obviously.
Page 11 of 12
I understand. I will bring that also.
Corm,nissiorier Whage� It's all about potential serious community character issues here.
Page 12 of 12
I
I'
E1_i' H 1 B! T 2
t t'
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTN' PLAN SING & ENV1ROti�tENTAt_ Rt;sctt RCEs DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Townsley Schwab. Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From- Mayte Santannaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schernper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: March 17, 2015
Subject.. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND
TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY
101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL, DECORATIVE
FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES
101,532 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT
LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN
EXCEPTION 1-0 THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR
EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS
FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN INCOME CATEGORIES ON
PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: March 24,2015
1, REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the
height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by
a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions
to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding, and reduce flood insurance costs; and.
create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height linnit exclusively for affordable or
employee/workforce dwelling units that rneet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median
income categories on properties designated as tier 3.
File 2015-006 Page t of'20
The County has been working on the Comprehensive flan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
field on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7. 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Econornic Opportunity (DEG) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on freight policies jbr addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 3Jft height lirrrit, architectural features,
flood pr ate ctiorz purposes and affordable housing. ,Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• O(V directed staff'to work r3rz an irriJcntor}rdata ref prfivatcl};-o rtread (�ff. lacrrc islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing, was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County; 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEG. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height to
lirnit policy and process it as a separate amendment. n
111. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED
R AMENDMENT
In unincorporated Monroe County. height and gLqde are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part ref' aitj,
CD
structure, including rrrechanical ecluiprrrew, but excluding chnnnet3s: spires andlor steeples on 04
structures used fir institutional ardor public zrscs onl}l, radio and/or television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; 'utility Doles andlor transmission toilers; and certain antenna
supporting structures n ith attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
Hoi rever•, in no evew shall any qf the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit ante habitable or usable .space to exceed the applicable height limitations. Irr the cask of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the e-tehrs°ions enurrreraled
in this section shall not apply.
U
GRADE rneans the hi,-hesi natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construetion,
next to the proposed ivalls of a structure, or the crown or curb af"the nearest marl directl)l
adjacent to the structure, 'vhichever° is hi, -her. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize e the Light Detection and Ranging (LiD.,1R) dataset for Monroe
Cozwr y prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available,for a given parcel, the
File 2015-006 €laoe 2 of20
cos n(y ,shall use the best available data, inclucling, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary .survey �s ivitla elevations, pre -construction topographic surve}'s°, elevation certificates
array or other optical remote .sensing data.
Fused on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height _ the vertical distance
betvveera grode cruel the highest part ol'crrr)> structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly,
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
Height limit
("Towt' sal (;uod 51.. ,. Crown offlie road
1 lr idrItFan IV,
rear, sea lei!
AE 5'
2fl of fill needed to reach 5R
flood zone requirement Rom
the natural elevation of 3 Rm
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 00')-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood snaps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property frorn flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features,
For review convenience. a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public
bearing, is attached (Exhibit I).
File 20I S-006 Page 3 of20
OCEAN REEF - architectural decorative features.
11oliev 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef ag rted communitti NN hich is isolated and inaccessible to the. surroturding comnncrrtity. and
Ims a distinct community character, structures may itrc4nde non -habitable architectural decorative features
LuclI as finials. rails. widow-s %kalk) that exceed the 3-5 foot height limit in policy 101 5,JO. but such
features shall not exceed 5 feet above the sfructnre's roof line Tl]is�shall not result in a strticttrr.e
or anv architeCWFGtl decorative fCaILH-C vv ith a 116-Uht that would exceed 40 feet.
Draft Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non -habitable architectural decorative features which are
commonly applied for in the Ocean Reef community and the issues this causes in permitting relative to the
architectural decorative features.
EMM
Yellox+
non -habitable
architectural
decorative
feature
h`ottirctt Ele cr for
b Ir 14(r . p $.a
mir SAm I€�-C1
UJM
2m
This type of exemption would be to address items such as balls, finials, or a widow"s walk
File ?o la -roc, Page 4 vt'zo
FLOOD PROTECTION AND INSURANCE DISCOUNTS:
Poliev 101,.32
In order to protect properlN from floodin g and redrrese hood insurance costs for property owners, a flood
Protection 1leivhhtt_E.xceprtion sllagli be provided to the 3.5 toot h�i{lht limit in Policy 101,5.30 as follows:
1 For ncev structures which are Voluntarily elevated to e ceed the Structure's minimum !::gjrired
FEMA lase flood elevation (BFE) Lased can the flood zone, -,in exception of rrp to Erve 51 feet above the
35400t hekdn limit nnav be permitted. The amount oP the exception shall be a ma_iiMUM of five (5)
Feet, and shall be no ureater than the amount of VolurltarV elevation above BFE , and
2. For eNistinrg structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35) feet in Policy 1p1.5.30
and are voluntarily elevated to met and/or- exceed the ,trUcture's MininIu111 recpurred FEMA CAFE
lased on the blood zone_ an exception of rrJ) to five (5) feet above the 35-toot lick-dit limit nim be
permitted. The amOUIIt of the exception Shall be a niaxirnum of five (- feet. rrr�cl shall be no greate
than the amount of clevation necessary to meet BFF plus the an.ount of voluntary elevation above
F31°T-:: and.
1. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 f`eet in Policy-] 01,51.30, may
be permitted a hei(Ort exception of more than five (5) feet. if' necessrrr„vv,, to voluntarily elevate the
structure to 111eet the structure's rnininrum required FEMA Bl L lased on the flood zone l lus_I (one)
additional Im above 13FE.
Draft Policy 101.5.32 is intended to help protect structures from flood events, mitigate upcoming FEMA
flood zone height changes, mitigate rising insurance costs for the property owner and assist with flood
insurance rate discounts in the Community Rating System. The discussed height exception would allow
structures to be elevated higher- than the rewired rninirnUrn FEl''✓IA base flood elevation which could then
allow property owners to obtain discounts on their insurance and help mitigate potential flooding damage.
See the following example on flood insurance discounts:
to
r.,
® 1
File 2015-006 Page 5 ol'20
For draft Policy 101.5.32 which creates the Flood Protection Height exception, the ROCC expressed
concerns with a property owner's ability to either build or elevate their homes without losing living space
(i.e. reducing the number of stories of the structure) and being squeezed into smaller homes. To try and
determine if this is an issue with the proposed policy exception, which would allow an additional 5 feet in
height, County staff has evaluated the number of properties per flood zone [fallon',ing Flood Zone tulle] and
created basic illustrations [following -4 page Flood Zone Height Analysis] to depict how the current height
limit, per flood zone, may affect proposed development, and examples with the flood protection height
exception.
Based on the information in the Flood Zone table, it is noted that the majority of parcels within
unincorporated ]Monroe County fall within the AE 7 to AE 1 I flood zones. There are 44,910 parcels within
these flood zones, out of an estimated 56,843 total parcels within unincorporated Monroe County (79% of
the total parcels are within AE 7 to AE 11).
Based on the information in the Flood Zone Height Analysis, generally:
• In flood zones X through AE 10 or VE 10 [uppro.y. 47,158purcels], a three (3) story structure may
be developed.
• In flood zones AE I I (VE 1 1) through AE 20 (VE 20) [approx. 9,330 parcels], a two (2) story
structure may be developed.
e For flood zones AE 21 (VE 21) and greater [approx. 19 pareels]', a one (1) story structure may be
developed.
The generalized comments are made based upon the provided examples, within the Flood Zone Height
Analysis, with crown of road at 5ft and used as the starting point (grade) for measuring height.
Lanni Development Code
H EI 11T is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part r f any
structure....
GRADE means the highest natural elevation r1f'the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb uj' the nearest mad directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher.....
File 201' 5-006 Page 6 of 20
N ITIT i t
FEMA Flood Zone
Number of Parcels
% of total % of total
X
1,935
3,40%°
0.2 PCT ANNUAL
5.16%Q
CHANCE FLOOD
HAZARD
999
1.76%
AE 5
1
0.00%°
i
AE 6
1,964
3.46%
6
AE 7
8,996
1583%
AE 8
14,824
26.08%
AE 9
11,272
19.83%
AE 10
6,835
12,02%
83.48%
AEC 1
2,993
5.25%
_
AE 12
121
0.21%
AE 13
418
0.74%
AE 14
36
0.06%0
° 1
AE 15
3
0,01 %
AE 16
1
0.00%°
VE 9
5
0.01%
3 story
VE 10
327
0.58%
VEII
1,01.9
1.79%
VE 12
1,443
2.54%
4
VE 13
1,069
1.88%
VE 14
1,815
3,19%
VE 15
352
0.62%
VE 16
31
0.05%
ti
1
VE 17
33
10,76%
0.06%
—
VE 19
5
0.01%
VE 20
1
0.00%
—
VE 21
8
0.01°fo
VE22
7
0.01%
J
VE 23
1
0,00%
� � a
r
VE 24
1
0,00%
c
VE 26
2
0.00%
OPEN WATER
10
0.02%°
total parcels
56,843
Note: AY qf October 2014 there are apprarinvately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe C'ougy=.
The tatul.fi-ortt the spreadsheet frill be differen2 assome ol the sathmcv'ged parcels do not, fullmlthrrs the I-T1t1A Zones
1 ile 2015-006 Page 7 of-20
Fwd Z.,,77
Height ntl
AE 5' AE 6' W 7' 4« ,z W AE 10* am I' AE 12'
AE S' AE S' AE 8' AE 12' AE 12' AE 12'�� «\ (��� \� \� w/
AE 13' AE 14' AE W AE 16' AE 17' At 18' AE 19'
AE 16' AE 10' AE 16' AE 20' At 20' AE 20'
( 0111) (�— "I" ) ) (, ",- "'
EVA b�s Ew, lj�
I -A Ix-d
de,,x., O"A'c
- "
AE 20' AE 2V " ,�A
-7 4
Flood ZO
mm�
YE 61 w 71 VE S' %f S' VE 10' 4 11, W 12'
%f 12' VE 12' %E 12'
\ \ . � � � � ) � � ) PJA � j
mm, �
VE 13' VE 14' VE 15' VE 1 S' VE 17- w W VE 19,
A 16' A 16' A 16'
1
EvA I'q;^ FEVA t'j,
VE 20' VE 20 VE 20'
'i,xd
I E F I L.� I"Z
I , "! 1, " 1,
VE 20* VE 21' ,,, `, I wA
4 " 4
11oliev 1.01.5.33
A lawfully established L\istin�� strLICture which currently exceeds the hei<>ht limit,of' 35 feet in Nolte
101.5.30 May be repaired, ini,j)roveci or_-econstructcd to its existing, heielit, provided the structure is limited
to the lav�.f`blly established existing intensity. floor area density and tvpc ofLcse. A Flood Protec;tlon Fleight
FcLqrjMlamlawfully established existin{= structure excecdi the 35 Brat height li -if shall be provided
as 1,611OWS:
1, For lave folk established existin;4 strLIettere5 \+ hich currently exceed the l eiadit limit of 35 feet in
Policv 101.5.30 and are voluntarilv elevated to Beet and/or exceed the structure's niiniaum recl ed
FL:MA BFE based on the flood zone. an exception 01' L tO five (5) feet inav be permitted. The aIIIOUut
of the exception shall be a niaxInIum of five_(.5)feet, and shall be: no Lzre-ter than the amount of
elevation necessary to meet BFE :plus the amou11t Of voitnnIfflN elevation above BF1' and
I L aw f iffi established existing) structuresyvhic,h Currently exceed the licit -flit limit ui _ 5 feet in Policy
101.5.30. nay- beei-mitted a lie is� t exception of more than five (5) feet, 1` netL ssarv, to voluntarily
elevate the uIlCtLWO MeCA the Structure's mininItuaz reclUired FEMA BFE based on the flood zones 1
(one) additional foot above K E.
For draft Policy 101.5.33 which creates the height exception for a lawfully established existing structure
which currently exceeds the 35 foot height limit to be repaired, ii-tproved or reconstructed to its existing
height and provides a Flood Protection Height Exception to elevate the structure to meet and/or exceed the
required. FEMA BFE.
Example 1: > feet to exceed the structure-s minimum required. FEMA BFE
,in, n
4'0
j
�2`` _
11'. FtP"-'IM11 H;
77�� rrf,,,Jr a lev
AL' 5 AE 5
File 2015-006 Page 12 of'20
Example 2: elevated ]Oft to meet the structure's rninimum required 1~EMA BFE plus 1 additional foot
above BFE
55
42'
5'
;ft*
- is rrlll lloV W
mejn sea !C-M
AE 15 AE 15
Note, staff has not been able to complete an inventory of structures that exceed the adopted height limit of
35 feet as there is not enough information in our files to determine the exact grade (either highest natural
clevalicn caf'lhe ground swfcrcc, prior Io cranstrrrction, next to the pi-raposed ivalls (?I'o so-11clurc, or the
crown or cia-b of"the new-ev road directl}� adjacent to the sli-itelure, whichever- is higher) for most structures
built before 1985. As such, we cannot determine the number of structures which may be affected by the
proposed policy. Below are examples of structures which appear to exceed the adopted height limit:
Moon Bay Condos, mm 104
Built in the 70s
Crown of road inqht be 1 a-14' bused on Li DAR,
Building B is 46' frorn ground level of 13' AMSL.
Building A is 49'6" from ground level.
Harbor 92 Condos, mm 92
Built in the 70s
Crown of road in ghf be about 8' based on LiDAR
Building is 63' from around level
Kawama Tower, mrn 102
Built in the 70s
Building is 85' from ground level of about 7' AMSL
Fi le 2015-006 Page 13 of 20
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Policv 1,01.5.34
In order to incentivize the development of al"I"o dable and ensyeelworkforce housing. an exception shall
1 L)Lcvir ed to th 3 boot l ei rl t limit in Policy 101.5JO eXCILISiVeIN for af(ordable or emMoyee/ orklorc.e
dwellinE) trnits that meet the income limits for the very, low, lore and/or median income categories on
properties designated as Fier 3. A structut•e developed as affordable or employeeAvor l`orce (cousin, frar
r erg low, low and/or median income catetoories n-MV be deg eloped rr ith a maxi -aura height of l l feet ter
Lwori(le fir'• arl2 to three c Slor ies tr eic parking or (iev lovinellt Over` non e,s;identical clr:eyj
Ileiaht is de[ined as the vertical distance between (,lade and the LLst_ia{itt oi`any strtrcttrre, including
mecIianicaI ecluipn1ent, excludin+(y the exce Ptions hsteel a,l Po -lien 101 _S.'O.
i,eq low income = household kMose total household income odes not exceed 50% of the ttredian
monthly household incorne.for the count),
low income = household znhose total household income does not exceed 80% of the median monthly,
household income for the cc wqn
median income -= means a household rahose total household income clods not exceed 100% nl the
median rnonthf}, household incontefbr the county
For draft Policy 101.5.34 which creates the height exception for affordable housing, the BOCC discussed �
finding nays to incentivize additional development of affordable housing. The intent of the proposed policy
is to encourage additional affordable and employee/workforce housing provision by allowing structures
developed as affordable/workforce housing; to be built with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide for
three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area.
8 ' 0"
[� a*s
Y` rl,rr
�g.f••+�s A.S ree
1'0'—C"
OW
Y
C
�'Icgvr 01 Ru"'Ad soft'
r aTurol Ele vollot, 3ff
" rr+ r�:1�6�tr ter; t4f
rr€ar sea Ie'd
File 2015-006 Page 14 ol'20
OPTIONS FOR PROPOSED HEIGHT POLICIES FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION:
- Staff has developed the following draft policies for consideration. (Deletions are and
additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.45.2630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural
environment,. Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including
mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical
distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including
mechanical e ui sent, but excluding sires and/or steeples on structures used
for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television
antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus, utility poles and/or transmission towers;
and certain antenna supporting; structures with attached antennas and/or
collocations.
Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and
the turbines are owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian
Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS and the turbines comply with relevant state and federal wildlife
protection lawns such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental
Policy Act. Applications pLoposing.wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in
height within the MIAI overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review
and comment.
In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 foot
height limitation.
Policy 101..31
For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the
surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures
may include non -habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials.
rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30,
but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This
exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature
with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
rile 201 5-006 I't oe 15 of20
Policy 101.5.32
In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for
propeK!y owners a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the
35 foot hei ht limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows:
1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the
structure's minimum rewired FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based
on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot
height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a.
maximum of five (5) feet:, and shall be no greater than the arrtount of
voluntary elevation above BFE; and
2. For existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of
35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or
exceed the structure's minimum required. FEMA BFE based on the
flood zone an exception of up to five (5) feet above the. 35-foot height
limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a
maximum of five (S) feet and shall be no greater than the amount of
elevation-necessaa to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation
above BFE; and
3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35
feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more
than five 5 feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the structure to
meet the structures minir3um required FEMA BFE based on the flood
zone leis 1 oils additional foot above BFE.
Policy 101.5.33
A lawfully established existing structure which currently,,, exceeds the height
limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired.....improved or reconstructed
to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully
established existing intensity, floor area density and type of use. A Flood
Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure
exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows:
1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the
height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101 30 and are voluntarily elevated to
meet and/or exceed the structure's_ minimum rewired FEMA BFE
based on the flood zone, an exception off to five (5) feet may be
permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of fide 5
feet, and shall be no gr eater than the amount of elevation necessary to
meet BFE plus the anxount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and
I Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the
height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5 30 may be permitted a height
exception of more than five 5 feet, if necessat , to voluntarily elevate
the structure meet the structure's minimum rewired FEMA BFE based
on the flood zone plus I (one) additional foot above BFE.
Policy 101..34
In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee/workforce
housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height 11mlt in Policy
101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee/workforce dwelling units that
meet the income limits for the ve!v low, love and/or medial/ income categories
on propeities designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or
employee/work-forcehousing for vea low, low and/or median income
categories mgy be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide
for Lip to three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floo
area
lie] :ght i defined as the vertical distance between trade and the highest halt of
any.- structure, including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions
listed 1n :Policy 101.5.30..
V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, N
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010.Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers..
Goal 101: Monroe County shall nianage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, .adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that tweet or exceed the niinimurn. FEMA re0uireinents. The
13uildinyg Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard rnitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.E CD
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Prograrn (NFIP) Cornrnunity
Rating System {CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
Policy 217.1.E
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal. state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a rneans of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
File 2015-006 Page 17 of'20
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites,
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and.
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.02(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing, land use and development so that local a)
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development. 04
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. to
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. cy
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys,
CD
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
I. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
to
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; CD
CD
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
CD
5. Transportation facilities; 04
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; M
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; a)
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
CD
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
K
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacernent of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys
File 2015-006 Page 1.8 of20
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Pant If of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.),
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages, encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps, and deal effectively with future problems that may result:
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local � overnment can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare, facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1). F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and
strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal
development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its
elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and
shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections
of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals,
objectives,. and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land
development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive
plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing
regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs,
activities, and land development regulations that will be pail of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land
development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable
standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
more detailed land development and use regulations.
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be afiected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application_ the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning; &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
File 2015-006 Pape 19 of20
Of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC bolds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment„ and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment..
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, frorn the October 7, 2014 public hearing
File 201 -006 Page 20 of 20
EXHIBIT 3
Tuesday, March 24,2015
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
March 24 , 2015, beginning at 1:02 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (I" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
ROLL CALL by Grail Creech
C MEMBERS
Tow °nsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Emily Schemper, Principal Planner Present
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item I is delayed.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24, 2015, DRC meeting as is.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY
101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES
OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO
ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN
THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND
CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT
EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS
THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN
I'
INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR.
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAT, OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 201.5-006)
(1:03 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated that Items 2 and 3 will be held as a workshop discussion
versus a staff report with comments. Both items are from the comp plan update and were
proposed within the 2030 comp plan. The BOCC has asked staff to remove the policies as they
were in the comp plan and process them separately so that there is public understanding and
public input through the process. This item will be brought back two or three tines to ensue
revisions can be made with public input.
Ms. Santamaria first addressed Policy 101.4.26. Ms. Santamaria explained that the current
height definition is the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure and it
is measured from either grade or the crown of the nearest road. Multiple height exceptions have
been proposed in order to address a variety of issues. The first one is the wind turbine for
facilities owned and operated by a public utility. An avian protection plan would be required.
The height exception would be for those wind turbines that facilitate green technologies and
alternative energy sources. Ms. Santamaria informed Deb Curlee there are no applications for
wind turbines currently.
Alicia Putney cornmented that her personal experience has been that wind turbines are not able
to generate enough current to be deemed useful unless the sustainable winds were above 20-25
miles an hour. Consequently, wind is more questionable than solar energy at this point. Ms.
Curlee is not in favor of wind turbines because of their aesthetics. Ms. Santamaria will draft a
version of the policy as the BOCC has proposed it next to a version that includes the public's
input. Bill Eardley asked that staff obtain an analysis of FKEC's two wind turbines located on
Cudjoe Key before proceeding with this policy.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.31. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy is
specific to Ocean Reef. In permitting for that community staff has had to deal with architectural
features just above the 35-foot height limit. Staff has recommended the architectural features
could exceed the 35-foot height limit by five feet, not to exceed 40 feet, and can contain no
habitable space up there.
Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association and Ocean Reef Club.
Mr. Reed stated even though Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non -habitable architectural
decorative features, it is only one and the least significant of three provisions that Ocean Reef
has requested. Mr. Reed explained that Ocean Reef has its own architectural review committee
that projects go through as well. One of the longer term issues facing Ocean Reef Club is that.
they still own a number of buildings and condominiums that currently exceed the 35-foot height
restriction. These are aging buildings coming to the end of their useful life. There is concern if
they are ever destroyed they would not be able to build back to their current heights. Mr. Reed
agrees with being proactive by building above the FEMA flood heights. One policy request from
ki
Ocean Reef is for the ability to build back on a story -by -story approach rather than to the pre-
existing height. Mr. Reed feels allowing this way of rebuilding with an increase in the slab -to -
slab measurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than
tearing them down. Another issue important to Ocean Reef is the Cultural Center building.
Because the flyover space in this building is limited, the ability to have productions in this
building is limited also. Mr.. Reed suggested that a height of GS feet would accommodate that
flyover space. Mr. Reed emphasized that the proposed story -by -story rebuilding process is being
requested for Ocean Reef only, which is an isolated and gated community, not visible from the
roadway. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef provide information of the cultural center, such
as a map depiction and its existing height information. Mr. Reed agreed to provide that
information, as well as a list of inventoried buildings at Ocean Reef including their existing
heights.
Ms. Curlee asked for an estimate of the height of a building with an 11-foot slab -to -slab
allowance plus the flood elevation. Mr. Reed replied that it depends on the flood zone and the
average existing grade or crown of road of each site. Ms. Putney proposed Ocean Reef go
through a variance procedure for each of the specific buildings because of all the variables
associated with each building. Mr. Reed agreed that consideration needs to be given for each
building individually and stressed that losing a floor would not be an option in rebuilding. Mr.
Reed further explained that some communities have minimum ceiling heights so that a more
adaptable building into the future is built..
Ms. Putney asked if Ocean Reef has its own community master plan containing its own design
criteria. Mr. Reed responded that there are architectural design guidelines for Ocean Reef that
are followed currently and a process is being gone through to update and create a new master
plan for Ocean Reef. Ms.. Santamaria clarified that it is for Ocean Reefs own development
internally, but a Livable CommuniKeys plan or even an overlay district can be proposed. Ms.
Putney voiced concern that this policy would open the door for other gated communities
throughout the Keys to increase their height restriction. Ms. Santamaria noted that the reason the
BOCC was even considering this policy is because Ocean Reef is not only gated, but it is
isolated and separate from the rest of the Keys. Bill Hunter, present on behalf of Sugarloaf
Property Owners Association (SPOA), will be taking this request by Ocean Reef back to SPOA
members for their input. SPOA recognizes that Ocean Reef is isolated and very different from
the rest of the Keys. Mr. Hunter commented that the BOCC has said in the past they do not want
to treat Ocean Reef differently than the rest of the County. SPOA is neutral on this policy as
long as this does not affect the rest of the County.
Mr. Reed explained that there is language that allows Ocean Reef to go through a letter of
understanding process without going through a conditional use process. Mr. Reed feels perhaps
some stronger language would help address the concerns being voiced. Ms. Putney again.
suggested Ocean Reef have their own Livable CommuniKeys plan which is protected by the
comp plan. Mr. Reed pointed out that Ocean Reef has stricter regulations than the rest of the
County has, such as setbacks. Ms. Putney suggested adding language referring to gated.
communities over a certain size. Ms. Curlee believes, regardless of Ocean Reef being isolated
and gated, the public will expect the same consideration that Ocean Reef receives. Ms. Putney
agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not want to have special rules for
0
Ocean Reef Mr. Reed added that he believes only one Commissioner: has expressed that
sentiment. Ms. Santamaria stated the BOCC will make the decision of what they choose to adopt
and/or transmit to the State and will ultimately make the decision of which communities, which
policies and where they will apply to.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained these
policies are an attempt to provide existing and new structures the ability to redevelop or lift the
existing structure to come into compliance with their flood zone. New FEMA maps are expected
in four years. The first provision of Policy 101.5.32 is for new structures to voluntarily elevate
their structures up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit. It is based on what they choose to
elevate above flood_ The second provision of the policy is for existing structures to be able to
meet their base flood zone or to exceed it. Again, they can go up to five feet above the 35-foot
height limit, but this is based on the amount they choose to go up. The third provision is for
those structures that need to go a little bit higher to meet their flood zone. The addition of one
foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for.
Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structure is impractical due to the cost. It is simpler to pay
off the mortgage and cancel the flood insurance. Mr. Eardley feels there is no need for the
exception on new construction because the building can be designed to meet the current
standards. Ms. Santamaria explained the exception was proposed because the BOCC did not
want people to lose living space and be squeezed into smaller homes. FEMA representatives
have informed staff a grant program may be created to help with the cost of elevating a home.
Ms. Santamaria pointed out that some existing structures may not be able to be raised due to its
structural integrity. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there has been discussion about including
bonus points or points under the CRS for communities that provide for an opportunity for
property owners to elevate their base floor one to three feet above base flood elevation on a.
voluntary basis. Dottie Moses frorn the Upper Keys Homeowners Federation stated that the CRS
looks at encouraging people not to build in low-lying areas. Ms. Santamaria explained that is
why the inventory of flood zones was done. Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the County is
somehow encouraging building in a very low-lying area where roads will eventually no longer be
maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number l is applicable when people
tear down and build a new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of homes built before
FEMA came in to Monroe County in '78 built below the base flood would be a small enough
number that they could be dealt with through some kind of a development review mechanism as
opposed to a carte blanche rule. Ms. Schemper noted that this would give property owners the
allowance to do it rather than being penalized because of their unique circumstance. Ms.
Santamaria stated staff will evaluate that.
Ms. Santamaria then described a situation of a property owner in North Florida who built a home
less than ten years ago at three feet above flood. The new FEMA maps now show that home
being three feet below flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that the new FEMA maps could impact
a substantial number of people whose flood insurance premiums are going to skyrocket up
because of this situation. FEMA is supposed to take sea level rise into account when creating
their new maps. Staff is trying to think into the future to try to facilitate people's ability to
protect their homes and investments. Mr. Hunter suggested, because it is unknown what the
maps will show, introducing the concept and making allowances for the solution in the comp
4
plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifying the LDRs in the LDC is
an easier process. Mr. Schemper cautioned the longer addressing this issue is put off, the more
homes will be built that are going to be affected. Ms. Moses stated that at an Army Corps
meeting comments were made that all of the "easy" lots have been built on and what is left will
require mitigation and other issues. Ms. Santararia will try to run an analysis of the flood zone
of the vacant parcels in the County.
Mr. Hunter clarified that when he suggested splitting the concept in the comp plan and the detail
in the LDRs, he was not suggesting delaying the LDRs. Mr. Hunter further stated more public
outreach would help in educating the public more on climate change and sea level rise. Mr.
Roberts clarified for Mr. Hunter that the County does not have policies in place yet regarding
replacement of infrastructure in areas potentially susceptible to sea level rise, so the County has
to proceed under- existing policies and directives, which obligates the County to maintain the
roads. Ms. Santamaria described a situation in St. Augustine where property owners are suing
the municipality to maintain a road in a law -lying area so that the people would have access to
their fire service. Ms. Curlee asked about regulations regarding filling a lot. Mr. Roberts
explained that whether fill is allowed depends on the flood zone. Ms. Putney added that runoff
from higher lots into the road is creating a problem for the neighbors and in the canals, as well as
blocking views and creating shade. Mr. Williams clarified that situation does not create a
property rights issue. Ms. Santamaria noted that the variance procedure could create a staggered
view line in an area.
Ms. Moses stated the Federation has taken the position they do not want the 3 -foot height limit
raised under any circumstance. The County has managed to get by under that height limit to date
with new construction. Mr. Hunter on behalf of SPOA agreed with Ms. Moses' comments. Mr.
Hunter personally believes more education is needed about freeboard and the benefits of
freeboard. Ms. Putney on behalf of Last Stand stated existing buildings should have some kind
of mechanism for special approval, but that the total raised building could not exceed 40 feet and
the space created under the first floor should be non -habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed
to new construction receiving an exception to the 35-foot height limit. Mr. Williams noted that to
CD
there is a potential map amendment process to appeal to FEMA to make an exception for a lot.
The expense of that process was discussed.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy
addresses existing structures that currently exceed the height limit, such as a three or four-story
condo. By redeveloping to upgrade the building, coming into compliance with the flood zone
may result in loss of a story of that condo. That could potentially result in 20 people on the top
floor no longer having the ability to rebuild their home. Ms. Putney questioned why it is
perceived to affect the top story as opposed to the first story. Ms. Santamaria stated half of the
people would lose their home regardless of which story it is. This policy provides for allowing
five feet above their existing height. Ms. Putney stated Last Stand supports this policy provided
that the footprint of the structure is not changed. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee there is
no cap on the height. Staff does not have a clear inventory of those structures this policy would
encompass, but estimates only a handful. Mr. Reed asked that those who do support this policy
consider giving some additional slab -to -slab height when rebuilding. Ms. Putney replied Last
Stand supports the grandfathering of nonconforming height to certain buildings in Monroe
County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed
that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA along with any additional voluntary
clearance above base flood elevation must be equal to or less than the height of the old
nonconforming building. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA agrees as long as the redevelopment is
involuntary, such as because of fire or flood. Ms. Santamaria asked if the public in attendance
considers the new FEMA maps deeming a structure below base flood involuntary.
Mr. Reed does not like the "involuntary" language because it is a very tricky threshold to meet.
Ms. Santamaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying
to facilitate a lot of new development. Mr. Reed clarified that while there is no magic slab -to -
slab number, floor to ceiling heights should be created that are adaptable and can continue to be
remodeled throughout future years. Ms. Curlee expressed concern that what is "involuntary" to
one person may open the door to let somebody else take advantage of this policy. Ms.
Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee that in almost all situations exceptions to the height limit will
not allow people to add a story. In some situations that would be possible. Ms. Putney believes
that language should be included to limit in what situations it would be allowed. Mr. Hunter
suggested more detail of the buildings in Ocean Reef be gathered to realize the effect this could
have on the County. Mr. Reed clarified that his comments regarding slab -to -slab increases were
specific to the Ocean Reef policy, but feels it might be worth considering for all of
unincorporated Monroe County, Ms. Moses is concerned about tasking people's property rights
away from them. Mr. Hunter then commented that the "historical designation" language should
be eliminated.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.34. Ms. Santamaria explained this came out of the
session of the BOCC at the October- meeting to address a different height maximum for very low,
low and median income affordable employee and work force housing on properties designated
Tier III. This was to facilitate having nonresidential development on the first story and allowing
a couple stories of affordable housing on top. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA is opposed to this
amendment. SPOA believes that the County has the benefit of seeing what the cities have done
to address this issue before they make a decision on solutions. Another issue for SPOA is using
height as a solution to affordable housing in the County where there is more laird than the
County has ROGO allocations for. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to raising the
affordable housing lirnit. Key Largo does not have an affordable housing issue. There are
affordable housing projects in the Upper Keys district already and some of the way those
projects are being managed are not the way their deed restrictions have been written.
Ms. Moses pointed out there is no definition for "workforce housing" in the code. Ms.
Santamaria replied the Affordable Housing Committee will be addressing that soon. Tile BOCC
hired the FSU Consensus Center to provide a report on the County"s affordable housing issue.
Ms. Schemper added that the LDC uses the term "affordable housing" or "employee housing,"
which are defined terms. "Work force housing" is a more general term. Mr. Reed argued that
there is a demand and a need still in the Upper Keys for affordable housing. Mr. Reed then
stated it is a severe challenge to find appropriate land of a certain size to accommodate
affordable housing. Mr. Eardley is concerned this amendment would open the door for all kinds
of other development. Mr. Eardley agrees there are ways to address work force housing without
going higher, such as making the units smaller. Ms. Curlee added when talking about truly
A
affordable housing that would be rentals. Ms. Putney believes this issue is complex and the
height exception for affordable housing should be dealt with within the arena of the affordable
housing discussion separate from what is being done today. Ms. Santamaria clarified this
amendment would provide the opportunity to build more units, but it also will raise those units
above base flood.
Ms. Santamaria thanked the public for their comments and stated these comments will be
included in the staff report and will be back before the ITC again for more comments.
1.Playa Largo Resort, 97450 Overseas Highwgj, Key Lama, mile marker 97.5: A public
meeting concerning a request for an Amendment to a Major Conditional Use Permit. The
requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 177-unit hotel and associated
accessory uses. The subject property is legally described as Tracts 4B and 513, Amended Plat of
Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Key Largo, and also a tract of submerged land in the Bay of
Florida fronting said Tract 5B (TII1= Deed No. 22416), Monroe County, Florida, having real
estate number 005 5 5 010.000000.
(File 2015-031)
(2:32 p.m.) Ms. Schernper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this applicant
currently has an approved major conditional use permit from 2007 and it has had several
deviations and time extensions over time. It is still active. The most recent deviation has
approved the site plan for 162 transient units and one commercial apartment, which was
previously on the site. The applicant has been issued a number of building permits. This
amendment to the major conditional use permit is to add an additional 15 transient units into the
hotel, the building of which has already been permitted, and that would bring them up to their
rnax number net density. It does not change any footprint on the site plain. All of the required
criteria are in compliance. The only issue that is still outstanding is the traffic and access. The
applicant had supplied a Level 2 traffic study with this application, and because of the threshold
of what is being proposed a Level 3 traffic study is needed. This may also impact the
requirement for a right -turn deceleration lane leading into the property. Ms. Schernper
to
recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were outlined.CD
Ms. Santarnaria commented that the Planning Commissioners will likely want to see the traffic
studies so they can take that data into account in their decision -making and make sure that it is
compliant. Mr. Roberts asked that Number 7 of the recommended actions be reworded to
specify the number of allowed docks. Mr. Roberts will supply that number to Ms. Schemper.
Jorge Cepeda, present on behalf of the applicant, stated he was familiar with the conditions
contained in the original approval. Mr. Cepeda asked that Condition S, the transportation shuttle
for guests and employees, be considered in the traffic study because that has less of an impact on
traffic. Mr. Cepeda asked that the second portion of the language about adequacy of public
facilities on Page 6 of the report remain part of the recommended action. Mr. Cepeda clarified
that no trees will be cut for the mulch exercise path, but there may be some underbrush that may
need to be accommodated. Mr. Roberts specified that "clearing" is the removal of any native
vegetation regardless of the size. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to inform staff if the applicant
is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted
for in the site plan. Ms. Schemper will look again at the deviation to see exactly how it is
worded and get back to the applicant regarding the clearing.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses asked whether the proposed commercial
apartment is bayfront. Ms. Schemper explained it was a previously existing unit, so the
residential use and density is protected. Mr. Cepeda stated the apartment is in the same location
as the prior developer's site plan. Ms. Moses then pointed out the site plan shows two entrances.
Ms. Schemper explained one is an emergency access drive requested by the fire department. Ms.
Moses then noted that the front buffer that faces US-1 looks to contain lead tree. Mr. Cepeda
replied that the landscaping will be done in the final stage. The main entrance is the original
American Outdoor entrance and at the end stage the exotics will be removed and landscaping
will be done to complete that buffer. Ms. Moses commented that there are a lot of non-native
species on the vegetation list. Mr. Roberts explained that the required vegetation is 100 percent
native vegetation, but anything planted above the minimum requirement can be anything the
developer wants. The developer is overplanting the required landscaping significantly. Ms.
Schemper clarified for Ms. Moses that the docking facility on the property is a hotel accessory
dock, not a marina.
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERA131LITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
(2:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated this item also comes from the comp plan update project. The
BOCC asked staff to remove these policies that were included in the comp plan and process them
separately since it was a new topic and received a lot of attention and people wanted to provide
input on the topic. These policies relate to the transfer of ROGO exemptions, density rights, as
well as where the development would be directed to.
Ms. Santamaria addressed Policy 101.5.8. Ms. Santamaria explained that, again, this item will
be handled today more like a workshop -type item..
Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to address all of
the policies together. Mr. Smith thanked staff for planning multiple workshops to allow these
policies to be vetted over a period of time where everyone can work together. Mr. Smith asked
staff to provide notice to the affected property owners of these meetings so they can actively
engage in this process. Mr. Smith asked staff to contemplate the unintended consequences of
these policies of not allowing the TDRs and TREs to be transferred to offshore islands and.
designating all offshore islands as Tier I. Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which
is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies
D.
put an inordinate burden on the property owners.. These property owners have some
development right, all residential in nature. The code only has two ways that residential can be
built; Through ROGO allocation or ROGO exemption. These islands do not have ROGO
exemptions because they do not have homes on them, so in order to build residential one would.
have to get a ROGO allocation or transfer a ROGO exemption from somewhere else. These
policies eliminate the ability to transfer. A property is left with requiring a ROGO allocation, but
the property is designated Tier I. This would be so limiting that the only use left would be bee-
keeping and temporary camping by the owner. Mr. Smith asked that staff look at how these
policies would operate as a whole to get a complete picture of hove it would operate.
Ms. Santamaria clarified individual property owners were not notified because this is not
property -specific and not all properties have their issues resolved with ownership. This is a
policy that would impact all privately -owned or even publicly -held offshore islands, Ms.
Santamaria further clarified that whale the policy has direction of discouraging development by
designating Tier I does not mean it is an automatic Tier- I. That designation would have to go
through its proper process to apply a designation to a property. Ms. Santamaria commented that
this policy is not a huge change regarding the TRI s and the TDRs. This is a proposed change
based on the discussions from the BOCC of where to direct the remaining allocations or
exemptions and where is the most appropriate place to direct development.
Julie Dick on behalf of Last Stand and Florida. Keys Environmental Fund thanked staff for the
workshop process and allowing the public the opportunity to participate in this process. Last
Stand thinks that the policies generally are consistent with the concepts of the tier overlay system
for offshore islands. Last Stand is generally supportive of the changes. Ms. Dick commented
that there are some inconsistencies with the acreage on the inventory. Ms. Santamaria explained
the Property Appraiser does not have the exact acreage of a property. A boundary survey is
required to determine the upland portions of a property. Ms. Santamaria will look into any
discrepancy reported to her. Ms. Dick further stated Last Stand agrees with the sender and
receiver site criteria. For evacuation purposes it make sense to discourage additional
development on offshore islands. Last Stand recommends removing significant upland habitat as
a criteria in Policy 206.1.2. The reasons to protect offshore islands go beyond whether or not.
they are suited to upland habitat, such as containing bird rookeries. Ms. Santamaria pointed out
that under Policy 206.1.2 the significant upland habitat is one of the criteria and it is being made
consistent with the Tier I criteria.
Ms. Putney asked whether there was a determination made that offshore islands were Tier I when
the County went to the tier system. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 stated that
designating offshore islands as Tier I lands was one method used to discourage developments
proposed on offshore islands. The only offshore islands that are not designated Tier I were the
ones that were missed by accident and undesignated, but this policy does not automatically
designate them. They would still have to go through that process. The provision exists in the
LDC that any islands without a specific land use designation shall be considered zoned as
offshore islands. The approximately ten offshore islands that were missed and not designated
were discussed.
Oj
s. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to
participate in the workshop -style meetings scheduled in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
m
FX 1-4 T H TT 4
10 UK, N
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RFsOURCEs DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: May 17, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND
TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY,CREATING POLICY
101.5,31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE
FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES
101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT
LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTE'�G PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: May 26, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015
1. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the
height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by
a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions
to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and
W
create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or
employeelworkforce dwelling, units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median
income categories on properties designated as tier 3. E
Il, BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
File 2015-006 Page I of 9
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing0 was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed stqff'to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement qf'existing buildings which exceed the 3.5fi height limit, architecti4rcilfi(,tl.ti.i-Cs,
flood protection purposes and qf ft)rdable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed stq#'to work on an inventoi�yldata o privately -owned offshore islands. St ff'to
'f q.
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, front the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit I.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transiruittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height to
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
cornments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
ANALYSK�OVPROOSED AMENDMENT
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and grade are defined as follows:
t
W
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of ally
structure, including Inechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on
structures used for institutional and/or- public uses only; radio andlor television antenna, E
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles andlor transnussion towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
However, in no event shall and, of the exclusions enunierated in, this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height lunitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 9
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To coqfirin the natural elevation of the ground
suface, the county shall inilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) datasetfior Monroe
County prepared in 2007 In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given pareel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with th elevations, pre-WnStrtlCtiOn topographic surveys, elevation certificates
and/or other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height = the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part ref any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
"'Ic,wr �' , I Firxid 5ft'
Ncizural Eteva-lor 3f,,
® in 10114311 tc
MMn S.-I k-.el
Height limit
Crown of the road
+ 20'
2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
Z�
For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public
hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection
NOTE: See exhibits for additional inf6rinotion related to flood protection and fireeboard.
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 9
Z-
I
I'
V. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are 4+tek-en4hFeugh and additions are underlined.)
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County
shall limit the height of structures including mechanical
C� landfills to 35 feet.
Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the hi hest art of air structure
including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for
institutional and/or,public uses onlychirnneys; radio and/or television aqennas• lie oles; solar
apparatus; certain antenna supporting structures
with attached antennas and/or collocations. E*e"'i"
buildings,
Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are
owned and operated by a public utility 17ave an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the turbines
federal wildlife,Bird 'Treat )L Act,
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental Policv Act. Applications bv
a public utilityprapasing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height shall require a public
hearinR before the Board of Count Goi i.nissioners and a BGC L esolutian sii ortin 7 the
proposal and specifying the maximurn, approved height, prior to issuance of any county permit or
approval, Applications...proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in
overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment.
In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a master L planne
d community of 100 or more acres in area, which is gated
isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding cornmunitv, and has a distinct community character,
buildin2s. rnav include non -habitable architectural decorative features such as finials rails
widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height firnit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not
exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. T 11 i exceptiai� shall not result in a building or and
architectural decorative feature with _A_height that _would exceed 40 feet,
As used in this policy,-q master -planned communitymeans a Manned comixiunity of 100 or more
acres in area subject to a master plan or other development orderapprovedby the county when;
public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community
including the prevision ortation facilities and
services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates
development standards and monitors development requests by its member
Policy 1(1.5.32
By XXXX, date, Monroe ations which provide a
Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 (height limit), not exceeding a maximurn
height of 40 feet, to promote public health, safety and general welfare; minimize public and
private losses due to flooding; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards
File 2015-006 Paocic 4 ol'9
Protect rovertv from flooding and minimize damages; minimize future ex enditures of ublic
funds for flood control proiects and for recovery from floodevents_mifigqterisi�nflg_od
Insurance premiums; and reduce flood insurance rates by facilitating/improving the Countfs
Community Rating System score, A Flood Protection Height Exceptioq_gf_jjto a maximum of
five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be rovided to allow buildings to voluntaril
elevate qp to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to pro qgjLflood protection,
minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance Memiurns and minimize future gxpggdftqlgs of
public funds for recovery from flood events.
LDR Section XXX:
As provided in Policy 101.5.32, the
FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit s follows�
I. For new buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of up to three L-3) feet above the 35400t height limit
be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be a maximum of three (3)
feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no
event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height- and
I For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed - the 35-foot height
limit and are voluntarily., elevated to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exceplimit rna
be permitted. The amount e 5 feet,
and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus ��
to three (3) feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing
building be elevated to exceed a total building, height of 4.0 feev
3 that exceeds 40 feev and
4. No exception shall be provided to properties located in an AE 1(7 or VE lt� or greater
FEMA flood zone.
Policy 101-5.33
As of the effective date of this olio a lawfull established existiir buildin. which exceeds the
35-foot height limit in, Policy Ireconstructed to meet
required FEMA base flood elevation (B,FE), provided the building is limited to the lawfully
established existiniz intensity, floor area, dcnsj!y-qqd-!yW of use. For buildings that are proposed
to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
shall be required Prior to issuance of any county
specifv the maximum approved height.
LDR Section XXX:
which exceed the 35 foot
height firnit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to meet the FEMA the p jovided
the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity. floor area, density and
ty�f U�Se�
File 2015-006 Page 5 01,9
A Flood Protection.._ Height Exce ton for a lawfiall established existing building
exceeding the 35-foot height limit shall be provided as follows-,
1. For lawfully established existing at
are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's rninimurn required FENIA BFE. an
exception of up to five J5 } feet may be permitted, The arnounLof of exception �shall
be a maximum of five (5) feet on
.0
necessary to meet BFE; and
2. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
0
L-
are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's minimum required FENIA BFE but
CL
'a
will require a height exception of more than five j5)feet, a public hearing before the0
0
Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any permit
q=
L-
-county
or
or approval. The BOCC shall consider:
a. The physical characteristics of the existing building end parcel;
.2
b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood darnage and the
CL
effects of such damage on the property owner;
X
c. The possibility that materials from the existingbuildingmay be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others;
d. The availability of alternate solutions-, and
c. If the new proposed buildin height will result in increased flood risk- result in
additional threats to public safety result in extraordinary public expense• create
nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public.
A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved hei hit
............. I .............
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting CD
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The T"
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recornmendations of the applicable >�
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. W
Policy 217.1.5 E
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve,:,
C� its current CRS Class
rating.
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing, setback requirements
C�
File 2015-006 Pa-e 6 of 9
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implernentation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
-1
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods,
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
-1
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximurn well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development,
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and arnortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
I , The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
I Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities,
5. Transportation facilities-,
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
Z�
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
0) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that rneet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
File 2015-006 Pave 7 ol'9
C
applicable, kind by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys,
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(in) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380,0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.316](4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that Units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare-, facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(l), F& - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community corni-rutments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and ]and development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and ]arid development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations.
VL PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments ri-iay be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
Z�
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 9
M
I'
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, Upon
receipt of the CRC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
VIII.EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
5. Excerpt of CRS Coordinator's Manual, pages 430-10 through 430-15
6. FEMA Lowest Floor Elevation Fact Sheet
7. w ww. floods mLirl. gov basic info on insurance and flood risk
8. What is Freeboard? www.dnr.aiiaryland.Rov/C`oast mart
9. Using Freeboard to Elevate structures above Predicted Floodwaters — Massachusetts Office of
Coastal Zone Management
10. Floodplain Management in Florida Quick Guide, pages 1 -28
11. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC
meeting (side by side comparison)
File 2015-006 Page 9 ol'9
1 r �
Tuesday, May 26, 20I5
-- 1
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May
26, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference
Room (I" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida,
WUllfllllIMUC717"
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
RC MEMBERS
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Sao
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Rey Ortiz, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner Supervisor Present
Lori Lehr, Floodplain Administrator Present
Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Present
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning.. Commission. Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Ms. Santamaria approved the minutes of the April 28, 2015, DRC meeting with one correction of
a section number that will be submitted to Ms. Creech.
New Items:
1.99700 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mine marker 99: A public meeting concerning a
request for a major deviation to a major conditional use permit. The requested approval is
required for the proposed development to increase the existing walk-in cooler and to increase the
size of the existing bathrooms which would increase the amount of non-residential floor area on
the property. The subject property is legally described as Lazy Lagoon — A revision of Amended
Plat of Curry's Corner, Plat Book 2, Page 120 of public records, Monroe County, Section 33,
Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in
metes and bounds is provided in the application/file), having real estate number
00497540.000000.
I'
(File 2015-093)
(1;01 p.m.) Mr. Ortiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ortiz reported that the applicant is
requesting a major deviation to a major conditional use application. The applicant wants to
expand the bathroom by approximately six square feet, add a modular component to the rear of
the building for a walk-in cooler and expand an existing cooler that is currently within the
setbacks on the rear property line. The only criteria not met is regarding the variance
requirement that the site is going to need. Mr. Ortiz recommends approval to the Planning
Commission with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that
the applicant has submitted a variance application.
Hany Haroun, the applicant, emphasized that this renovation is necessary. Many hours have
been spent with Wendy's International and the County to make this work. The new kitchen
configuration in the center of the restaurant is a requirement from Wendy's International, which
takes away from the cooler/freezer space and the current storage area. The extension for the
sides is due to making the bathrooms ADA compliant. None of this will be visible from the
front. The only setback issue is for the cooler/freezer.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Dottie Moses, Ivey Largo resident, does not object to what is being asked for. Ms. Moses likes
the proposed landscaping along the highway. Ms. Moses commented on the poor drainage that
exists on the property. Mr. Haroun explained that the main road was built to drain out towards
Buttonwood Drive and consequently it floods there all the time. That is on the County right-of-
way. The County and State agreed to dig out the French drain and fill it with gravel to address
the flooding, problems. The tides also affect the drainage- in this area. Ms. Santamaria noted
when building permits are applied for the applicant will have to comply with the stormwater
requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant provide some documentation from
Wendy's International to show the hardship imposed on the applicant for purposes of the
variance. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant to provide an updated site plan.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY
101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES
OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO
ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN
THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
N
(1:12 p.m.) Nis. Santararia presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item
started with the comp plan update. There were policies to amend the height policies, address the
wind turbines, affordable housing and the flood protection. The BOCC asked staff to process
this as a separate stand-alone amendment. This was before the DRC in March where a lot of
comments were received. The flood protection policy generated concerns about the overall
height exception. Staff has proposed a policy that includes the reasons why there would be an
exception with a max height limit of 40 feet and it would be to elevate property three feet above
base flood elevation (BFE). The exception for new buildings is to exceed BFE, not just to meet
it, up to three feet above BFE. The exception for lawfully existing buildings is to either meet or
exceed BFE because there are circumstances, depending on the flood zone, where this exception
will not allow you to exceed BFE. If it is exceeded, it is only that amount it is exceeded that one
gets to go above BFE. Again, it is capped at 40 feet. The exception would not be allowed in
high -risk areas.
Ms. Santamaria introduced Ms. Lehr and asked for an update and information on flood zones..
Ms. Lehr explained that one of her roles is to help the County get into the Community Rating
System (CRS) program, which would result in some discount in flood insurance. When property
owners voluntarily elevate their properties they get a reduced premium on their flood insurance.
For every foot of elevation, the savings is about a quarter of the premium. After the cap of three
feet, the discounts fall off. The cost to elevate a property is recouped quickly in flood insurance
savings. Ms. Lehr believes the future of the Florida Building Code and other legislation is going
to be moving towards the implementation of some sort of freeboard, some sort of elevation
requirement above BFE. Ms. Lehr further explained the County is going through a mapping
process currently. It will be 2018.before those new maps come out, but the general feeling of
those maps is that the elevations in some areas will increase, so the required elevations will
increase.
Ms. Lehr clarified for Ms. Moses a community has to require a higher regulatory standard above
what is required on the flood insurance rate amounts to get CRS credit. Florida in general has
Borne of the highest scoring communities in the nation. Ms. Lehr believes Monroe County is
doing a lot of things to address the flooding that will be worth CRS credit. There will be changes
in the Florida Building Code conning up in the next couple of years to address BFE. Ms.
Santamaria explained the CRS does not address the top height, so the B4CC gave staff direction
to look into elevating the height limit so home owners are not squeezed in from the top, causing
homes to become smaller and smaller. Ms. Lehr noted that credits are being given for existing
buildings being elevated as opposed to rebuilt. The CRS program is very adamant that
communities do what is good for their floodplain management and protection of their citizens'
investments.
Ron Miller, Planning Commissioner and Key Largo resident, questioned why the County has
become concerned about someone losing habitable space in their structure, because in URM
parking spaces were required to be tinder homes, which takes away from habitable space. Ms.
Santamaria clarified this proposal is not zoning -specific. Mr. Miller feels homeowners should be
amenable to some give-and-take in the loss of so'ne habitable space. Mr. Miller believes the
people interested in more living space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms.
3
Santamaria clarified that the BOCC has become aware of the new FEMA maps corning out and
want Monroe County to get into the CRS and help the community better protect their property
and investments. So they have directed staff to address this issue by allowing people to make that
financial choice themselves. The whole intent was to better protect our community.
Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf resident, suggested that a definition of "elevate" be proposed. Mr. Hunter
mentioned different scenarios of what could fall under the definition of `.`elevate." Ms.
Santamaria said that staff will consider and look into those different scenarios. Ms. Lehr
clarified if a bottom floor was knocked out and used for parking with penthouses built on top of
the structure, those structures would still be limited by the height restriction from BFE. Ms.
Santamaria noted that Policy 101.5.33 is for lawfully established existing buildings which
already exceed the 35-foot height limit and a top cap of 40 feet is in place unless the owners go
to a public hearing before the BOCC. Mr. Hunter then asked for an explanation of why the
different numbers of 38 and 40 feet are used. Ms. Santamaria explained that discounts are given
for one, two and three feet above BFE. Since discounts are not given above that, the new
buildings were capped at 38 feet. The 40-foot limit was added for existing buildings in case they
needed to raise their property a little bit higher because they do not meet base flood today. Ms.
Lehr clarified that the flood insurance policy associated with a structure would receive a different
rating because of the elevation of that property. The discount for CRS is completely different.
The discount for CRS could be in addition to the different rating on the insurance policy for an
elevation. Ms. Santamaria noted that no exception will be given to either new or existing
structures in AEI through VE10. That came frorn the comments made at prior DRC meetings
about not facilitating redevelopment or new development in higher -risk areas.
Mr. Hunter stated he agrees with Mr. Miller about the ability of Monroe County citizens to live
under the 35-foot height limit, but is more sympathetic to the owners of existing homes than to
new construction. Mr. Miller is concerned for the properties in such a high AE or VE that they
would not be able to develop a home that was attractive. Mr. Miller proposed keeping the 35-
foot height limit in the comp plan and allowing for a variance for those so limited that they
would not be able to develop something architecturally acceptable to the community. Ms.
Santamaria stated it would be difficult to create a variance for architectural or visual issues.
There is no real hardship in that instance.
lslaja Girard, :Key West resident, commented that people are more concerned over encouraging
new development in AE and VE areas as opposed to elevating existing homes in those areas.
Mr. Miller agrees with limiting infrastructure in flood -prone areas, but feels a minimal -size
house could be able to punch through the height barrier if the owners could show a hardship
when asking for a variance. Ms. Lehr explained that the CRS does not take away points. The
CRS program credits activity. Prohibiting development in high -risk areas is credited under the
CS. The emphasis of the program has always been to build safer, more resilient communities.
Jim Hendrick was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA) regarding
Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef is an isolated and gated community with a
distinct community character. The planning process in. Ocean Reef is very tough. Mr. Hendrick
said Ocean Reef would like the extra five feet for architectural features. The largest concern
with this policy for Ocean Reef is its cultural center. The cultural center does not have the head
4
room needed to be able to house events that could potentially be put on at this facility. Mr.
Hendrick asked for a height limit unique to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center, which was built and
paid for by the people of Ocean Reef. Another concern that ORCA has is that any multistory
building in existence on the effective date of this policy be able to replace their existing number
of stories up to I I feet slab to slab per story. The Ocean Reef hotels are currently dated with a
ceiling height of only eight feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that at the last meeting Joel Reed
presented this information on behalf of Ocean Reef Club. Staff had asked for an inventory of
existing heights of the various structures throughout Ocean Reef. Nothing has been received to
date. Mr. Hendrick will send the complete list to Ms. Santamaria. Mr. Hendrick emphasized
this is being asked to apply to Ocean Reef only, which is isolated and does have a distinct
community character.
Deb Curlee, resident of the Lower Keys, noted that Ocean Reef is still part of Monroe County.
Mr.. Hendrick replied there is an abundant body of policy already recognizing the unique
circumstances of Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef consider proposing an
Ocean Reef specific overlay to address height issues in Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick replied Ocean.
Reef has a very effective self -governance program within the community. Ms. Santamaria asked
that the information regarding the various heights as well as the total heights at Ocean Reef be
sent in to help staff understand what the request is from Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick then
explained for Ms. Girard how Ocean Reef is self -governed..
Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to punching through the height limit and they feel
that the 35-foot height limit has been accommodating and there is still room for elevating the
floodplain. Ms. Girard on behalf of Last Stand stated that a majority of the properties should be
able to elevate the buildings as much as needed and still have adequate living space. Last Stand
would like to see this turned into a hardship situation that would have to be triggered to go
through the height barrier.
Mr. Miller asked what would happen to those properties whose flood zone was changed due to
the PEMA flood maps. Ms. Santamaria reminded Mr. Miller that no exceptions being given to
properties in AE] 0 or VEI0 or higher was a result of members of the community not wanting to
facilitate development of homes within those flood zones. The owners of those properties would
have to work within the rules or not build at all. Ms. Santamaria then confirmed for Mr. Hunter
that reconstructed structures in policy 101.5.33 includes those that are demolished and rebuilt.
Ms. Santamaria explained that the BOCC resolution that specifies the maximum approved height
is done on a building -by -building basis. There is currently no limit to that height because it is
not known what would be needed to meet base flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that buildings
over 35 feet currently could only rebuild to 35 feet if they were wiped out by a hurricane.
M.s. Curlee asked why no caps are placed in Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria replied that
building heights would be different depending on how it was measured. Ideas were proposed for
the BOCC to consider when making the decision on how high they can go. Mr. Hunter
suggested considering the community's desire to limit the height. Ms. Santamaria noted a public
hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out.
9
Mr. Haroun stated he finds it unreasonable to not allow a condo to be built back up so that no
owners would lose their living space. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that is why a flood exception
is being proposed for those property owners. Mr. Miller noted that his concern is not whether
they can build back what they had or not, but his concern is that the potential for more habitable
space in this county is being increased as a result of seeking relief from sea level rise.
Ms. Santamaria then stated the affordable housing has been struck from this proposal at this
point in time. Staff will work with the BOCC and the Affordable Housing Committee further in.
that regard. The other item in this stand-alone amendment is the wind turbines owned and
operated by a public utility. At the last meeting members of the public asked what the results
were from the Keys Energy demonstration project. It was concluded that the wind towers have
been proven to be ineffective. Ms. Moses proposed striking this item altogether. Ms. Girard
stated on behalf of Last Stand they would like to see the whole exception to the wind turbines
stricken. If someone comes forward and proposes a great plan in the future, then it can be looked
at with specific considerations in rnind.
Ms. Santamaria stated the plan is to bring this amendment back to the DRC and get more data for
community -specific amendments. It will be brought back as two items; One as a comp plan and
an LDR for more discussion and more input.
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONEF$S AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8
AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2
WITHfN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
(2:38 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this
amendment has stemmed from the comprehensive plan update process. There was a lot of
discussion on where to direct and how to direct development in the future and if it is appropriate
to go to offshore islands. The BOCC asked staff to remove this from the general comp plan
update and process it as a stand-alone amendment. The definition of `.`offshore island" has been
included. The new provision is that TDRs and TREs would not be allowed to transfer to an
offshore island.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Attorney Nick Batty was present on behalf of FEB Corporation with respect to
Wisteria Island. Mr. Batty stated the issues that FEB has with this proposed amendment pertain
to the receiver sites for TREs have to be within a Tier III designated area and must not be an
offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 provides that Monroe County shall discourage the development
of offshore islands which have no prior development and have significant upland habitat by
discouraging the extension of public facilities and designating the offshore islands as Tier 1.
That makes a scenario where ROGO exemptions cannot be transferred to those islands and at the
same time bumps them down to a Tier I level for the ROGO allocation program. Mr. Batty
pointed out there is no definition proposed for "significant upland habitat." Significant upland
habitat does not necessarily coincide with environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, areas life
Wisteria Island, which does not have significant areas of environmentally sensitive habitat,
would by default be lumped in with a Tier I designation, which is contrary to the intent of the
code. Bumping them down to a Tier I in terms of the ROGO allocation system and not allowing
any transfers of TREs to the area would result in a situation where there would be no beneficial
uses for the properties. Mr. Roberts replied that using the blanket and undefined term
"significant upland habitat" does not account for the differences in the natural features of those
properties and effectuate the intent of the Tier I and Tier III definitions. Ms. Santamaria added
that no changes are being proposed to the Tier III criteria for designating any land. Mr. Batty
replied that islands which currently do not have a tier designation and would fit whatever the
definition is detennined to be of "significant upland habitat" and have no prior development
would be pushed into that Tier I category without any other consideration. Ms. Santamaria
stated no particular tier designation is being proposed for any offshore island. This is simply
policy, not property specific, Ms. Santamaria will review this further and consider proposing a
definition for "significant upland habitat."
Ms. Girard, on behalf of Last Stand, stated it makes very little difference what is on the upland,
whether or not there even is upland, because offshore islands are surrounded by shallow waters
and environmentally sensitive benthic resources and are important for avian species. Ms. Girard
emphasized a survey containing 76 different species of native plants and a report regarding the
importance of Wisteria Island for the white crown pigeons a couple of hundred feet away from
Wisteria Island are on file with the County. Last Stand thinks it is extremely appropriate that
offshore islands be given Tier I designations and that they not be considered as receiver sites
because they are inappropriate for development in a county that has a limited number of ROGOs
and is basically facing build -out. Ms. 'Santamaria clarified that this is not a property --specific
amendment. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that the tier designations are based on upland
habitat. Mr. Roberts clarified for Ms. Girard that native areas that provide corridors or wildlife
access between other larger native areas are part of the Tier I designation. Mr. Batty pointed out
it is important to make sure the intent of the code is being effectuated,
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was CD
closed,
Ms. Santamaria stated staff will review all the comments trade and will look at defining
"significant upland habitat" and bring this back to the DRC for one more round of public input
before taking it to the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT MENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2.55 p.m
EXHI91.71 6
.. . .......
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCEs DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: August 17, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND
CREATING POLICIES 101.5,32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS
TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN' ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING
AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: August 25, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 and May 26, 2015
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendments to create
Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
community; and create Policies 101 .5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit
in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs,
Il. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
File 2015-006 Page I of 9
I
I'
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural,features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC ineeting.
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory1data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
C,
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Z:' Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
4�1
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendt-nent and held a workshop forinat meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
to
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC tweeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report frorn the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, to
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. V4
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
C
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
t
HEIGHT- W
In unincorporated Monroe County, height andgradeare defined as follows: E
R
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of ally
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires andlor steeples on
structures used for institutional andlor public uses only; radio andlor television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility, poles andlor fransinission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna andlor collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 9
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground sus face, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher, To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
suface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available far a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
andlor other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of: height = the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
Ctr;wr of Ru"id :aft`
Ndtdral Elevarlor 3t
I 1r, lelcirtr* U
Mocii area level
Height limit *1-5.
Crown of the road
10
Al: 5'
'ift of needed to roach 5h
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public
hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 9
I
I'
IV. PROPOSED ED AMENDMENT (Deletions are strieken thr-aug,, and additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.45,2630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County
shall limit the height of structures including mechanical _equipment and landfills to 35 feet.
Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure
including mechanical equipment, but excluding_ spires and/or steeples on structures used . fcrr
institutional and/or public lases onl • chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flag ales• solar
apparatus; utility oles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures
with attached antennas and/or: collocations.
r„'.1— �7 sY tFans,�; I.— +--„n .,n °�. nr eM r `l t In the case of airport districts, there
shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Polic 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a master planned community which is gated isolated and inaccessible to the
surrounding community,and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non -
habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials rails, idow's walla) that exceed the
35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the
buldin 's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or any architectural decorative
feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet
As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 1C1Q or rrrore
acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order: approved by the county where
public. —.access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the communit
including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and
serviceswithin its boundaries and a homeowners association or similarentit which regulates
development standards and monitors development requests by its rxrembers.
Note, Ocean lice>f'Club has requested cadditiWr:al arraendnnenats, attached as Fxhibit 9. To
date, sufficient data has not been. sulainilted to ei,,aluate the requested annendaaaents.
Policy 101.5.32
Within in I year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land
Development Regulations whichprovide a Flood Protection Hei2bt Exception to Poligy 10J.5.30
height limit),...not....exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet, to promote public health, safety and
eneral welfare; allow agitation to coastal flooding storm surge and other hazards protect
property from flooding and minimize damages. minimize ublic and private lasses due to
flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control rojects and for recover
from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height
Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 5-foot height limit shall be provided to
allow buildings., to voluntarilv elevate up to three 3 feet above FElvIA base flood elevation in
order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and
minimize future ex penditures of public funds for recovery from flood events.
File 2015-006 Page 4 c)f 9
LDR Section XXX:
As provided in Policy 101.5.32, buildings voluntarily elevatedtomeet or exceed the
FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit as follows:
I . For new buildings which are volqqtgjLy= elevated to exceed the building's minimum
required Babove the 35-foot height
limit may be permitted, The amount, of the height exception shall be no greater than
the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a new..,building
exceed 38 feet, in height, and
2. For lawfu.11y, established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35-foot height
limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five (5) feet above the 354ggLheiyht
Ifinit may be permitted, The amount of the ....height exception shall be no greater than
the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus ut)..to three (3) feet of voluntary
elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing building be elevated to exceed a
total building height of 40 feet;
3. No exception shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet-, and
4...,N.o excotion shall be provided to properties located in an AE 10 or VE LO or -greater
FEMA flood zone.
Elevate means the action of retrofitfing,�oving ,or raising a building t2_q hilhcr_positon,
Elevated Building means a building, that has its lowest elevated floor raised above the
ground level by foundation walls, shear walk, DOStS, VierS, pilings, or columns.
Flood means acombination of structural or nonstructural chin es or
proorng ny
adjustments included in the design, construction, or alteration of a building that
reduce or eliminate flood damage to the building and its contents.
Relocation means (in retrofitting), the process of moving a building to._a new location
outside the flood hazard area.
Retrofit means methods to modifv a lawfully established existing building to reduce its
exposure to flooding and raise the living area above flood levels, In general
retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or
extending the existing foundation below it, or leaving the building. in place and either
constructina new elevated floor system within the building
story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only fo
parking, building access, or storage.
Retrofitting means making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or
other hazards.
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 9
Policy 101.5.33
As of the effective date of this palit a lawfull estallished existin building which exceeds the
35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, may be repaired, improved or reconstructed (demolished
and rebuilt) to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE),provided the building is limited
to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. For buildings that
are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the BoardofCounty
Commissioners shall be rewired prior to issuance of any county permait or approval, A BOCC
resolution shall specify the maximum approved height,
LDR Section XXX:
As provided in Policy 10.1,533, lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot
height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed(deni.olished and rebuilt) to meet
the FEMA BFE,.,.-provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing
intensity, floor area, density and type of use.
A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing building
exceeding the 35-foot height limit shall be provided as follows:
1. For lawfully, established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE, an
exception of a maximum of five _(5)feet may be permitted. The amount of the
exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to pgeet BFE;
and
2. For lawfully= established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA. BFE but
will require a height exception of more than five (5) feet, a public hearing before the
Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of anycountpermit
or approval. The BOCC shall consider:
a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel,
b. The susce tblit of the existin buildin and its contents to flood damn e and the
effects of such damage on the property owner;
c. The possibilitv that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others,
d. The availabi.lity.,of alternate solutions,
e. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood risk. result in
additional threats to public safety; result in extraordinary. public -expense- _create
nuisance d
f. Community character..
A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height.
File 2015-006 Pauce 6 ol'9
I *a I ON a 10] HIMM-b"i K-111 Ilu URM0 W VI
lot N I NEWT-ILIJ 'T12 ok A 01 V .Krialulk 1] -mudiple �
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that rneel or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The,
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years, The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard rilitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System(CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
M
rating'
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms. to
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
C�
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
C, t,
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to enSUI`e the provision of safe,
Z�
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
IL-'. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Ke
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that, plan with the a)
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as t- CD
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local W
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation, E
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, U
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat,
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 9
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key Vest Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
q. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and.
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as ..
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systerns. to
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys..
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the CD
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7.) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment ent is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers.
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages, encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
CD
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S, - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, Guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent rnanner and shall contain programs and activities to
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 9
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented, The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require, identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations,
VI. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment, The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Corrin-tission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
Z� r_1
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
VIII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
1 March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes
6. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
T Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC
meeting (side by side comparison)
K Chapter 5.0 Elevating Your Home, excerpt from FEMA's Homeowner's Guide To Retrofitting
9. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
File 2015-006 pale 9 of 9
I
I'
EXHIj IT 7
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (I'` floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
ROLL GALL by Gail Creech
DRC MEMBERS
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Emily Sehemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present
Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Roberts announced. Items 5 and 6 will be heard first.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Roberts deferred approval of minutes to the next DRC meeting.
5.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING
POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE
HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE
STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING
I'
FOR. INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
Mr. Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts reported that while working on the comp
plan update the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island
policies and to pull the proposed changes for further review and submit as a separate amendment.
The proposed text amendment has been reviewed at two prior DRC meetings. Policy 101.5.30
adds mechanical equipment to the 35-foot limit while excluding certain structures. There are no
exceptions to the height limitation in Airport districts. Policy 101.5.31 for Ocean Reef, which is
a gated and isolated community with a distinct community character, includes non -habitable
architectural decorative features that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features shall not
exceed five feet above the building's roof line. There are land Development Code amendments
to reflect these policies. Policy 1.01.5.32 provides that certain buildings voluntarily elevated to
meet or exceed the FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit. New
buildings voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE may exceed the
35-foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not
exceed 35 feet and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit may be
pen-nitted.
Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, asked for the rationale for the difference of an extra two
feet between an existing building and a new building. Mr. Coyle explained that it is to allow a
homeowner more room to get into compliance and go up. Mr. Hunter then asked for clarification
on the definition of "retrofit." Mr. Roberts stated that retrofitting means making changes to an
existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. Demolition and reconstruction of
new structure would not fit within that definition.
Dottie Moses, on behalf of the Federation of Homeowners Association, stated that the Federation
consistently maintains its opposition to raising the height limit. Ms. Moses asked who is
requesting the height increase. Mr. Roberts replied that this amendment was staff -initiated at the
direction of the BOCC. Ms. Moses believes that the recent change in the code that allows
setbacks being used for parking in URM zones will result in another floor of bedrooms being
added under this amendment, which will increase density. The hurricane evacuation issue is
always a concern in the community, also. Ms. Moses then asked where the exception provided
for properties located in the AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zones originated. Ms.
Schemper will look into that for Ms. Moses. Ms. Schemper added that this item will be brought
back to the DRC one more time.
Joel Reid, on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and Ocean Reef Community Association, commented
that these two associations have asked for height changes to address their community concerns.
Mr. Reid expressed disappointment that some items Ocean Reef has been asking for have not
been included in the staff report. Mr. Reid then asked for clarification regarding architectural
elements exceeding 40 feet under Policy 101.5.33, Ms. Schemper explained that Policy 101.5.33
applies to lawfully established buildings that are already over 35 feet high. The intent is if it was
a pre-existing feature, then the BOCC could approve it, but if it is a proposed architectural
2.
feature an exception would not be given if it is over 40 feet. Mr. Reid stated Ocean Reef would
like some protection in order for residents to be able to build back their structures without losing
their views. Ms. Schemper pointed out that this amendment is to protect what is already in
existence while also meeting the flood requirements. The existing intensity or density type of
use would be protected. Policy 101.5.33 does not specifically address increasing slab -to -slab
freights. That would have to be approved by the BOCC if over 40 feet. The mechanism of going
through the approval process to the BOCC has not been thoroughly fleshed out. That would be
in the Land Development Code portion of the amendment. Mr. Reid asked how rebuilding and
doing modifications to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center and boat storage area would be handled.
Ms. Schemper responded that the full arnount of data in those issues has not been received by
staff at this point.
6.AN ORDINANCE 13Y TIME MONROE COUNT' BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY TIME DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is another item
originally contemplated during the coanp plan update. Staff was directed by the BOCC to pull it
out as a separate text amendment. This was already reviewed at two DRC meetings and has been
continued to this meeting to get additional public review, input and discussion. The proposed
changes are about where development in terms of TDRs and the transfer of ROGO exemptions
are directed. Existing Policy 101.5.8 allows for the transfer of units based on certain criteria.
The new policy expands the criteria and has additional standards to utilize the tier system. The
sender site must be located in Tier 1, 11, or 1I1-A, or any tier designation if it is within the military
installation impact overlay. The receiver site must have a future land use category ability and
zoning district that allows the use, must meet the adopted density standards, include all
infrastructure, be located within Tier III and may not be within a V zone or a CBRS unit. The
comprehensive plan specifies specific habitat types and the certain zoning districts that were
allowed on sender site TDRs. The offshore island zoning category is specifically identified as an
eligible sender site. The new proposed policy utilizes the tier designation to specify the sender
site because this already accounts for both habitat types and zoning districts that were in the
existing policy. The new policy states only parcels designated Ties- III can be receiver sites and
they must have an adopted maximum net density standard, which would be based on their zoning
category. Ms. Schemper reviewed Policy 206.1.2, which prohibits development on offshore
islands, and the definition of significant native upland habitat. This item will be brought back to
the DRC one more time.
Julie Dick with Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Florida Keys Environmental Fund
and Last Stand, believes Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and is addressed somewhere else in the
3
comp plan. Ms. Dick suggested eliminating the entire policy because any confusion resulting
from this policy leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Ms. Dick supports Policy 101.6.8 in
making sure that offshore islands are not receiver sites.
Bart Smith, Esquire, commented that generally he appreciates the revisions made to the
obtaining and transferring of TDRs. On behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith stated most of the
receiver site criteria in the staff report seems very logical. Mr. Smith does not, however, feel
that the sixth criteria that blanketly prohibits offshore islands from being receiver sites is logical
because there is not any data and analysis identifying the reasons why an offshore island cannot
be a receiver site. Mr. Smith feels that the definition of "significant native upland habitat" is a
well -thought-out definition. Mr. Smith stated everything in the proposed ordinance mares
logical sense and is conforming except for the blanket prohibition of offshore islands.
Naja Girard, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, addressed Mr. Smith's comments by responding
that one thing different about offshore islands is that shallow waters surround the offshore
islands and include benthic resources that the comp plan directs the County to protect.
Encouraging development on offshore islands would require the acceptance of all the boating
traffic that would be created as a result of that development. Ms. Girard agrees that Policy
206.1.2 is redundant and changes the normal way offshore islands are designated Tier 1, which
could result in confusion on its interpretation. Ms. Girard believes this weakens the protection of
all offshore islands. Ms. Girard also believes there is not accurate data on what actually exists on
these islands.
l.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) AND COMMERCIAL FISHING AREA (CFA) TO
MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9,
DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN 'SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE
NUMBER 00120940,000100, AND FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL 2 (C2) FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR
PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS
00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000, AS
PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL
CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2012-069)
Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this item is a zoning
amendment to accompany a FLUM amendment which has already been transmitted by the
BOCC to DEO. Staff has received the objections, recommendations .and torments report on the
FLUM amendment. DEO's objection was that it was increasing the potential residential
4
development and should be revised to allow other residential uses. The original deadline for
adopting that FLUM amendment was September 19, but staff has asked for an extension based
on the applicant's delay and the new deadline is March 15, 2016. The current zoning
amendment would be required to match the FLUM amendment. The applicant is required to
revise the total FLUM amendment to include a comp plan policy that would limit any residential
development on the site to affordable housing only. This affects only the northernrnost L-shaped
parcel on the map. The southern parcels are proposed to became commercial with no residential
density. Today's discussion concerns the zoning portion of the amendment. The net change in.
development for the entire site will actually be a reduction in residential density. The Big
Coppitt portion of the site would have an increase in affordable residential, but the proposed
comp plan policy will limit all residential development to affordable housing on that site. Staff
has found that any impact is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on community character.
Staff has found no adverse effects for traffic circulation. There is sufficient capacity for the
public facilities for potential development under this zoning amendment. Staff has found that the
proposed amendment is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and the Land
Development Code. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to be consistent with the
proposed FLUM amendment that the BOCC has already recommended and transmitted to the
State. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. This is contingent on the
adoption of the FLUM amendment.
Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked what the Navy has to say about this amendment. Ms.
Schemper replied that the portion of affordable housing is actually in the noise zone at the
greatest distance compared to the rest of the property. Bart Smith, Esquire, agreed and added
that the requirement to sound -attenuate to the level the Navy requests is specifically written in to
the site -specific zoning.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY 130ARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (RC) TO RECREATION (R) AND
CONSERVATION (C), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE
SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY
LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER
00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND
USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-047)
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM NATIVE AREA (NA) TO PARKS AND REFUGE (PR) AND
CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF
LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO
9
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR.
COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9),
KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER.
00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-048)
Ms. Schemer presented the staff reports. Ms. Schemper reported that these two amendments
are FLUM and zoning amendments that coordinates with one another for a parcel within Ocean
Reef proposed by Ocean Reef Club. The site is I 1 acres and currently has a FLUM designation
of Residential Conservation with a zoning category of Native Area. The property owners would
like to develop a park on a portion of the site and are requesting to change the FLUM to 9.5 acres
of Conservation and a little over 1.5 acres of Recreation for the FLUM and, corresponding to
that, 9.5 acres of Conservation zoning and 1.5 acres of Park and Refuge zoning. The density and
intensity change for this amendment would be a decrease in both residential and non-residential
density and intensity. There is no adverse impact on community character and no additional
impact foreseen for any of the public facilities. Staff has found both proposed amendments
would be consistent with the comp plan and the Land Development Code and is consistent with
the principles for guiding development. These amendments support Ocean Reef s desire to
increase some of the park and recreational space within the community based on an increase in
the number of families with children currently in their community. If the corresponding FLUM
amendment is transmitted to the State and adopted, then the zoning plan would be required to
remain consistent with the FLUM. Staff is recommending approval of the FLUM amendment
from Residential Conservation to Conservation and Recreation and staff is recommending
approval of the zoning amendment from Native Area to Parks and Refuge and Conservation
district. The zoning recommendation would be contingent on the approval and effectiveness of
the proposed FLUM amendment that corresponds with this.
Joel Reid, the representative of the applicant, stated that Ocean Reef Club is always looking; to
enhance the community's experience and meet their needs for the community members.
Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, asked whether Mr. Roberts had any concern with clearing
of upland habitat of protected species of 1.71 acres for the sole purpose of providing a park for
homeowners. Mr. Roberts replied that the applicant is required to coordinate directly with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife for the protection of these species. The County's clearing; requirements would
fall back to the original development orders for Ocean Reef Club because it is not dictated by the
tier clearing limits in the code.
4. L OCEAN RIBIDENCES, 97801 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO, MILE
MA _ R 98: A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A MINOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 24 ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS DESIGNATED AS
11
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE
HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED
AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL
ESTATE NUMBERS 00090810.000000, 00090820.000000, 00090840.000000,
00090840.000100, AND 00090860.000000.
(File 2015-049)
s. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is a request for a
minor conditional use permit which is required because the applicant is requesting to develop 24
attached dwelling units. Within the Urban Residential zoning category that use requires a minor
conditional use permit. The development is reviewed by staff as a whole for consistency sake.
The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached
dwelling units as market rate housing. The site's current characteristics and zoning were
described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units.
Ms. Schemper then listed the categories where staff has found either compliance is still to be
determined or the site was found not in compliance. Compliance with the residential ROGO is
to be determined because at the time of the building permit is when the applicant applies for their
ROGO allocations. An additional eight market rate ROGO allocations and 24 affordable
housing ROGO allocations would be needed. Permitted uses is listed as not in compliance
because the attached residential dwelling units are permitted with the condition that sufficient
common areas for recreation are provided to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be
developed. Compliance is to be determined on residential density and maximum floor area
because the site requires 7.6 transferred development rights which are done at the time of the
building permit. Compliance is to be determined on required open space because the
calculations were not comparable of the upland area on the site plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the
indicated shoreline setbacks were either incorrect or not clearly depicted on the site plan.
Ms. Schemper continued to report that most of the non -shoreline setbacks are in compliance at
this point, but the setback lines shown on the site plan are not necessarily the correct lines in
every situation. The surface water management will be dealt with for full compliance at the time
of permit application. Mr. Roberts noted that there was conflicting information on the site plan
regarding the depth to ground water. Ms. Schemper continued to report that there are
inconsistencies on the site plan regarding the height of the fencing and privacy wall. The privacy
wall shown on the site plan separates the site completely between the attached units and the
detached units, which basically turns the parcel into two separate developments and they would
each need to meet all of the land development regulations on their own. Some sort of connection
is needed between the two. Compliance for flood plain, energy conservation and potable water
is to be determined, as well as environmental design criteria and mitigation, at the building
permit stage. The required parking is also affected by the separation between the two types of
units on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces is sufficient if the site is viewed as a
whole. The required bufferyards are not in compliance because the site plan shows some
incorrect bufferyards. Mr. Roberts added that the property was rezoned from URM to UR and
the URM boundary buffers are being shown.
7
Ms, Schemper continued to report that the square footage of the signage proposed has some
issues and recommended that the signage be done separately as part of the fence permit at the
time of the building permit. The access is currently under review by the County's traffic
consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U.S. 1, but also needs to comply with
FDOT standards. Compliance is to be determined on inclusionary housing at the time of the
building pen -nit because when the tenth permanent market rate unit gets its certificate of
occupancy, a certificate of occupancy is required on at least three of the affordable housing units,
and a proportional increase continues accordingly throughout the development. Given all of
those items, staff still recommends approval. A list of 22 conditions required are listed in the
staff report.
Jorge Cepero, present on behalf of the applicant, clarified that there is still one structure, a
Lgatehouse, in the front of the property that was not demo,lished,
Robert Ginter, owner of an adjoining property, is concerned about the fencing and buffers to
protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schemper explained that there are quite a few buffers oil the site
plan. There is an access off of First Street for a portion of the property. Ms. Schemper will
make the site plan available to Mr. Ginter at the end of today's meeting.
Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, is concerned that this is the one time that the public has a
chance to review this proposal and there are so, many items still not deemed to be in compliance.
Ms. Schemper explained that there is a 30-day notice that goes out that says the Planning
Director intends to issue the rninor conditional use permit, as well as a legal ad. The Planning
Director's decision will not be made until these itenis are all fulfilled. The revised proposal will
be available through the Planning Department.
FA M N 81,18NO I
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
M
C �t
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTYPLANNFWG & EVVIRC, ,
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: October 16, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN
REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32
AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN
ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD
INSURANCE COSTS- PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLI&ING PROVISIONS- PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENC� AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File # 2015-006)
Meeting:
1 1 1 continued from[ N 2015 b August 25, 2015
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental resources is proposing amendments to create
Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
community, and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height
limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Hoard of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special B'OCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014,
File 2015-006 Page g of 8
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101. 5.31 and 101. 5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting,
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data cif privately -awned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO, The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
M
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
to comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a 7
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. to
V4
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2, Minutes from the March 24,
CD
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
D�RC. At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
J-
DRC. At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development CD
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and W
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
E
The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7.
File 2015-006 Page of
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and grade are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires andlor steeples on
structures used for institutional andlor public uses only; radio andlor television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles andlor transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna andlor collocations as permitted in chapter 146
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2'00 7. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certcates
andlor other optical remote sensing data -
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
"town of Road 5tt®
Nattirc6 Fjoyarlop 3ft
I III fewo to
mean w lr�d
Height limit
Crown of the road
+ 3 10,
+Mo
The vertical distance
betweeirt grade (cmwn of
road, based on definition,
forth is example) and the
highest part of the structure:
-, Height
2fi of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 8
I
I'
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately.
Policy 101.45.12630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall 0
limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance CL
between grade and the highest part of any structure, e including mechanical equipment, but excludinga)
U
X spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or Dublic uses only; chimneys,• radio and/or a)
television antennas: flagpolessolar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain
E
antenna sup2orting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any
of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to a I I p
-permit an habitable
or usable s ace to exceed the
applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 10.1,.,5,.32 and 101.5.33.
RKeeptions will '--- allowed 'k—In the case of airnort districts there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Eur-es.
E00iRLiL
For Ocean Reef. a master planned community which is gated, inaccessible to the sutEggpding
community, and has a distinct community character buildin2s ma v include non -habitable architectural
decorative features such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit
in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feetabovethe buildiny's roof -line- This
exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height
that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a..master planned communjjy means a planned communi1y of 100 or more acres in
area subiLgt toamaster plan other. development order approved by the county where public access is
restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of
comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a
homeowners associationorsimilar enti!y, which regulates development standards and monitors
development requests by its members.
Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To
date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments,
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 8
I'
Policy 101.5.32
Within in I year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County, shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promoteq-public
health, sj �fet and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards,
protect pLo - minimize public and private losses due to
perty from flooding and minimize damn es
flooding-, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control -projects and for recovery from
flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of uR to
a maximum of five (5feet., above the .35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be
voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in. order to promote flood
protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood incimpnnp premiums and minimize future expenditures
of Rublic funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result
in a building exceeding a maximurn height of 40 feet.
Policy 101.5.33
Within in J_year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which Rrovide a Flood Protection Hei ht Exce tiori for lawfullv established -existing
buildin2s. which exceed the 35-foot height, limit in Policy 101.5 3.0 to.prornote, P blic health, safety and
general —euare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding,. storm surge and other hazards-, protect propeM from
flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding: minimize future
expenditures of public funds for flood, control projects and for recovga from flood events; and mitigate
rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved,
retrofitted or redeveloped to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (L3FE) Provided the bjjj�ldindo�es
not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the lawfully
established existing intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), densily and I ype of use.
For lawfully established existing buildings that are 12roposed to exceed a total heightof 40 feet, a public
hearing before the Board of Count Commissioners, shall be required to review and sl2ecify the maximum
approved height prior to issuance of any count -pen-nit or development approval. A BOCC resolution
shall specify the maximum approved height,
;Leizang I1 l 1OLTA 01'Kawa, I allow
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 8
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
M
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
V4
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation. CD
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. a
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical W
U)
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and to
their habitat. CD
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic U1)
development,
CD
04
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
CD
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including. >�
W
I . The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; E
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities, U
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 8
9. Other utilities, as appropriate,
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
0) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to arm served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(in) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.316](4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result to
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive 7
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public to
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
CD general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
W.1
163.3177(l), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies to
CD for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and LO
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to CD
04
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued a)
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the CD
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those >�
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the W
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development E
and use regulations.
V1. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 8
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing, The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (DRC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VH. STAFF RECOMN[ENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
M
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
04
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes
to
6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report
V4
7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes
8. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
9. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
I'
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 8
Eh_HIaI,`. 9
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
October 27, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (I" door, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental. Resources Present
Emily Scheanper, Comprehensive Planning Manages- Present
Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present
STAFF
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Ms. Santamar-ia asked that Items 2 and 3 be read together.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Ms. Santamaria approved the meeting minutes of July 28, 2015, August 25, 2015, and September
29, 2015.
WIN
LAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL (SC) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28500 AND 28540 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, LITTLE TORCH
KEY, MILE MARKER 28.5 OCEANSIDE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF
LAND IN A PART OF U.S. GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 66 SOUTH,
RANGE 29 EAST, LITTLE TORCH KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL
ESTATE NUMBERS 00113570-000000, 00113570-000100, 00113570-000200, 00113590-
000000 AND 00113620-000000, AS PROPOSED BY PATRICK R AND DIANE COLEE,
DOLPHIN MARINA ASSOCIATES LTD AND TORCH KEY PROPERTIES LTD,
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
11
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(2015-152)
Mr. Bond presented the staff report. Mr. Bond reported that this is a land use district map
amendment from Suburban Commercial to Mixed Use. The property is located oceanside on
Little Torch Key and serves as a land base for the Little Palm Island. There is no FLUM change
required for this proposed amendment. The property was described. Mr. Bond stated the change
in development potential between the two districts would result in a reduction of eight permanent
residential units, a slight increase in max net density, a net zero change in transient development
potential and no change in commercial development potential. The change would open up the
possibility of some uses that are currently prohibited within the SC district. Staff has evaluated
the proposed amendment and found it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the
request does fall under two provisions of the code: Number 4, new issues, and 6, data updates,
primarily due to the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP). It is consistent with the
Lower Keys LCP. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
James Hendrick was present on behalf of the applicant and commended staff on their
memorandum.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, asked why the applicant is changing the zoning Ms.
Santamaria replied that the applicant wants to have a use their current zoning does not allow,
which will reduce the overall allocated density, but they can transfer in up to I I more units
through TDRs. Mr. Hendrick assured Ms. Moses that the applicant is definitely not interested in
having a light industrial use on the property.
Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf Key resident, asked for clarification on the ,justification for the request.
Mr. Bond explained that there are seven different factors by which map amendments are to be
evaluated. Any one of those factors can be a justification for map amendment approval.
Number 4 is new issues, the new Lower Keys LCP, which was not in effect prior, and Number 6,
data updates, which is the LCP that was not in effect at the time of their original zoning. The
Lower Keys LCP is not inconsistent and is new data in the County's files. Mr. Hendrick noted
that the applicant has other rationale for the proposed change.
Deb Curlee, Cudjoe Key resident, asked for clarification on what is being proposed to be on the
property. Ms. Santamaria responded that this is a map amendment only and the specific
development is not the subject of the amendment. Mr. Hendrick offered to e-mail Ms. Curlee an
outline of the proposed development. Mr. Bond explained for Ms. Curlee that with the map
amendment staff evaluates what the potential is, not what they specifically may or may not be
planning to do. Anything listed as a major or minor conditional use would go through the review
process and, if the applicant meets all of those conditions staff would have no basis for saying no
and would approve it. Ms. Creech and Mr. Bond confirmed that no negative feedback was
received from any neighbors.
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33
TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD
PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO
ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY
OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-171)
Ms. Santarnaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fourth DRC
meeting on the proposed comp plan amendments for the height provisions. The BOCC asked
staff to work on the height policies that were in the comp plan update and process there
separately so that they could be fully vetted and worked through as one topic versus within the
entire comp plan update. The previous various staff reports are attached to show how these
amendments have been revised. Ms. Santamaria stated there is a proposed policy change to
Policy 101.5.3 to incorporate the height definition that is in the code today into the comp plan as
well. That height is defined as "The vertical distance between grade and the highest part of the
structure."
Ms. Santamaria reported that the next amendment is to Policy 101.5.31, Ocean Reef -specific,
related to non -habitable architectural decorative features. This would allow these features to be
above the roof line of those homes up to five feet. The overall height of those structures still
cannot exceed a 40-foot height imit. There are no differences between this version and what was
presented at the last DRC meeting regarding this policy.
Mr. Hendrick, present on behalf of Ocean Reef, stated Policy 101.5.31 does not address Ocean
Reef s needs. Ocean Reef had asked for three things. Mr. Hendrick acknowledged that staff has
not received the additional information it had requested. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef
contains several buildings which now greatly exceed the 35-height limitation, do not comply
with flood, and Ocean Reef would like for them to be elevated. Mr. Hendrick submitted a
document detailing what Ocean Reef is asking for with regard to the corresponding Land
Development Code. Mr. Hendrick continued to explain that Ocean Reef is most concerned about
the lawfully established existing buildings which exceed 35 feet and do not meet flood. There is
no mechanism in the proposed policies which allows for those buildings to be made flood-
compliant as -of -right. Mr. Hendrick pointed out that Ocean Reef is a master -planned
community, completely isolated from the rest of Monroe County, and they have established their
own community character, which is not 35 feet in height. Ocean Reef would ask for a policy
which enables them to replace their existing buildings, floor for floor, to allow for flood
compliance. Ocean Reef would also like to increase their slab -to -slab height in building to be
consistent with what people expect when they go to a luxury resort. Mr. Hendrick then stated.
Ocean Reef is concerned about their cultural center because that building cannot accommodate
the fly space that is needed. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that staff has not received information
from Ocean Reef that they have requested. Staff needs more infonnation so they can evaluate
and understand what is being requested. Staff has not received information on the Ocean Reef
Cultural Center.
Dottie Moses, speaking on behalf of Island of Key Largo Federation of Homeowners, voiced
concern these policies could spill over into Unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Curlee agreed.
Ms. Santamaria explained that staff would like to start to move this item toward the Planning
Commission unless members of the public would like to have another DRC meeting to get more
input. Alicia Putney, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, reiterated what Ms. Moses stated
regarding spillover into Monroe County.
Ms. Santamaria then reported that the next proposed amendment is to Policy 101.5.32, and this is
to create a flood protection height exception up to five feet above the 35-foot height limits to
allow buildings to go three feet above their base flood elevation. In no event under this policy
will a building be over 40 feet. The policy is specific to new buildings and for existing
buildings. If the building is not being elevated to meet at least the required base flood elevation
this exception cannot be used at all. This exception would not be provided for buildings located
in the very hazardous flood zones.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Ms. Moses commented that adding an extra three feet to meet base flood elevation should be
allowed with the 35-foot height limit remaining. Ms. Moses does not see the need for this
amendment for new construction. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff does not know how many
homes there are in the County below , base flood right now. Staff is working on getting
information from the Property Appraiser to see if somehow that information can be extrapolated,
but it is not available at this time. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Ms. Moses that this policy
refers to elevating existing structures. If a house is torn down it must be rebuilt to a 3540ot
height limit. Ms. Santamaria then explained between the last DRC meeting and today the
N
language has been reorganized a bit, but it is the sarne information. Language has been added
that if a building is not being elevated to at least meet base flood it is not eligible for this
exception. This exception shall also apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether
voluntary or not.
Ms. Putney stated that it would be helpful to know what the FEMA maps will show. Ms. Putney
then noted that with new construction, although there may be a hardship involved, it can be made
to work within the 35-foot height limit. Ms. Moses stated the Federation opposes raising the 35-
foot height limit on new construction. Ms. Moses shared a newsletter written by Dennis Henize,
a retired meteorologist, stating that communities should be thinking in terms of decelerating
growth, especially in the eyes of sea level rise. Ms. Putney pointed out that pre -FIRM, January
1, 1975, people built on the ground mostly and built a small enough house that they could afford
to lose. With insurance, houses got bigger, higher and fancier.. Citizens need to open up their
minds to reverting back to smaller homes given sea level rise and FEMA.
Ms. Santamaria then reported that Policy 101.5.33 is another flood protection height exception,
but this is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height
limit. If a lawfully established existing building which already exceeds the 35-foot height limit
wants to rebuild over 40 feet, they would have to go before the BOCC and meet specific criteria.
The BOCC would then decide and specify the height that they could build to. Ms. Santamaria
reviewed the criteria used by the BOCC to evaluate the request. The BOCC would have to pass
a resolution stating which height a homeowner could build to. Ms. Santamaria explained there
are condo structures where clearly units would be lost if redeveloped at the 35-foot height limit.
Ms. Moses pointed out the amendment, as written, does not apply to only multi -tenant buildings,
but would apply to any building. Ms. Santamaria added that the public can suggest a provision
that this is for multifamily structures only. Ms. Cur -lee agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Moses
noted that previously Legal staff had referred to a Bert Harris implication when discussing this.
Ms. Santamaria stated at the next meeting there will be an attorney present who will be able to
address that. Mr. Hunter asked if there are any commercial buildings that fall into this category.
Ms. Santamaria is unaware of any, but stated that does not mean there is not one in existence.
Ms. Moses asked what effect raising some of the low roads would have on this. Ms. Santamaria
explained that grade is either natural elevation or crown of the road, whichever is higher. Ms.
Moses believes that could exacerbate things.
Mr. Hendrick commented that there are many commercial buildings throughout the County over
35 feet. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef has a boat barn well over 35 feet. They have real
concerns because they would like to elevate, but if they do they are going to lose rack space
when they already cannot supply the need that they have. Mr. Hendrick then asked that the
words "building envelope" be substituted with `:building footprint" to be able to modernize these
spaces. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Mr. Hunter that boat barns would fall within the
definition of "building."
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 1.01.5.8
AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2
WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS, PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATES PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTy7u65IVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the
comp plan update in dealing with amendments that prohibited transferable ROGO exemptions
and transferable density from going to an offshore island, After numerous public comments the
BOCC asked staff to extract those amendments from the overall comp plan update and process
them separately. This amendment reflects the comp plan update. This proposed amendment is
to Policy 101.6.8, which is the transfer of ROGO exemptions. The existing text in the staff
report for this policy is already included in the cornp plan update and has been transmitted to the
State with the exception of Receiver Site Criteria Number 6, which says it is not an offshore
island. This is a separate stand-alone amendment so focus can be placed on this one topic.
Policy 101.13.3, which is the transfer of development rights, has been transmitted to the State
with the EAR -based amendments except for Receiver Site Criteria Number 7, which states it is
not an offshore island. That also reflects the initial amendment in the comp plan update the
BOCC asked staff to extract and process separately. Policy 206.1.2 had an added statement not
transmitted with the comp plan update regarding discouraging the development of offshore
islands. This added statement has been struck for consideration and still includes existing
policies in the comp plan that offshore islands should be designated as Tier I and it has the
existing policy that development shall be prohibited on offshore islands, including spoil islands
which have been documented as an established bird rookery based on resource agency best
available data or survey. Staff is proposing a definition for the entity "offshore island" as
"Offshore Island means an area of land surrounded by water which is not directly or indirectly
connected to US-1 by a bridge, road or causeway."
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Lance Kyle, owner of an offshore island in Monroe County, asked for an explanation of
"severability" as used in the agenda. Ms. Santamaria explained that the one provision of
offshore island could be appealed and extracted out without overturning the rest of the ordinance
and keeping it from becoming effective. Ms. Santamaria further explained for Mr. Kyle that she
believes the ten -acre size determination canoe from the "86 code. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr.
Kyle that the fact that his island is only 800 feet from US -I does not give it any kind of special
consideration.
Gidget Jackson asked whether there is any flexibility in the restricted use for the islands for
camping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner
0
only. Law enforcement would have to be called for trespassers on an offshore island. Mr.
Hendrick confirmed that the ten -acre determination did corne from the ' 86 code, if not before.
Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to loop closely
at whether it is necessary to prohibit transferring TREs onto offshore islands because TREs take
pressure off of the allocation system and offshore islands are already limited in density to ..1 per
acre. There are restrictions in place that require all of the development potential be in place with
the correct development requirements. Mr. Smith agreed with the prior comments made by Ms.
Dick on behalf of Last Stand regarding the redundancy of the language in 206.1.2 because that is
already provided for in the policy as written. Mr. Smith believes the citation to the A,LJ order
from 2006 regarding the four -acre threshold was incorrect. Mr. Smith stated now that the
language that defines "significant upland habitat" has been eliminated and the term "offshore
island" is being added to the defined terms of the glossary the policies identify when
development on offshore islands should be prohibited is based on the documentation of an
established bird rookery or nesting area. Those terms are not defined in the comprehensive plan
and the land development regulations and should be. Without having a quantifiable or
objectionable criteria for what an established bird rookery or nesting area is it could be left to
interpretation. FEB Corp. has retained Phil Frank, a well -respected biologist in the community,
to put together a proposed definition for "established bird rookery or nesting area." Copies of
the definition were submitted to staff. Mr. Frank then explained how he worked through the
definition and what he reviewed in order to come up with that definition. Mr. Frank stated the
common theme in the definitions as cited by different authorities is the words '*communal
nesting, gregarious birds, prominent colonies, colony forming, gregarious colony." Mr. Smith
read aloud the proposed definition. Mr. Smith believes if this term that is utilized for the
absolute prohibition of development is not defined it will be left open to interpretation that will
be fought over for years to come.
Ms. Santamaria stated that part of the reasons a definition for "bird rookery" is not proposed in
this amendment is that in the comp plan update the definition as "A. communal nesting ground
for gregarious birds" was included, as well as a definition for "nesting area." This has been
transmitted to the State. Ms. Santarnaria read aloud the definition for "nesting area." Mr. Frank
pointed out that passerine birds are not listed in the definition and should be. Mr. Smith stated he
is concerned that the definition for "nesting area" is too broad and could prohibit development on
any offshore island.
Ms. Curlee noted that solitary birds, which are not included in the definition, are equally as
important. Ms. Curlee does not agree with Mr. Frank's definition, but does agree with staffs.
Mr. Smith believes the definition needs to be clarified so that arguments are not made that all
offshore islands are nesting islands.
Julie Dick of the Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys
Environmental Fund, re-emphasized that offshore islands are the last place to be encouraging
development because they are not connected to public facilities and are some of the most
environmentally sensitive areas in the entire Keys. Development rights should not be moved to
offshore islands because they are the hardest areas to evacuate. Ms. Dick disagreed with Mr.
Smith that TREs should not have the restriction on transferring receiver sites to offshore islands.
7
Ms. Dick appreciates staff removing the confusing and redundant new language in Policy
206.1.2, but continues to believe the entire policy should be re1mved. Ms. Dick stated Last
Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund will likely support staffs existing definition over
what has been proposed today, but will need time to confer on that.
r. Hendrick, speaking on behalf of himself, stated he fully supports the idea of protecting bird
rookeries, but feels that it seems illogical to focus and protect nesting areas on offshore islands
because nesting areas are located everywhere. Ms. Santamaria clarified Policy 206.1.2 does not
actually refer to nesting areas. Mr. Frank commented when the comp plan was written back in
1986 the bird rookeries were teased out as special resources. Mr. Smith noted that is why using
one definition is preferable. Ms. Dick clarified Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund
fully supports the language protecting nesting areas. Ms. Dick then noted that Mr. Smith is here
on behalf of FEB. who does not own Wisteria Island, and questions their interest in the matter.
Ms. Santamaria emphasized the ordinance does not speak to a particular island, but would apply
to anything that falls within the definition of offshore island.
Mr. Kyle asked whether the terrn "nest" implies that the island has to have some sort of tree
canopy of bush canopy. Mr. Roberts replied not necessarily, because there are a number of shore
birds and wading birds that are ground -nesters. Mr. Kyle then commented that 90 percent of the
speck islands in the County are transient, so the evacuation time issue seems to be somewhat
discounted. Ms. Santamaria then explained to Mr. Kyle in detail how the phased evacuation
process occurs. Ms. Dick re-emphasized that evacuation is a real concern for Monroe County
citizens and it is a safety threat for everyone in the county if the evacuation predictions are not
correct. That situation adds further weight to the need to reduce added risk to the evacuation
formula by allowing further development on offshore islands.
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
Ms. Santamaria asked the public if they prefer to bring this back to DRC one more tirne or move
this forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith, on behalf of FEB Corp., stated they would
like to see how concerns over nesting areas are going to be resolved prior to bringing it to the
Planning Commission because it affects all offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria agreed to bring this
matter back to the DRC one more time for safe measure.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
lj
EXI i113 1 T 1 0
Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County
FEMA. Flood Zone
Number of
% of total
'% of fatal
of Private -
Parcels'
Vacant Parcels
X
1,935
3.40%
462
0.2 PCT ANNUAL
5.16%
CHANCE FLOOD
HAZARD
999
1.76%„
165
AE 5
1
0.00%
-
AE 6
1,964
3.46%
95
AE 7
8,996
15.83%
296
p
AE 8
14,824
26.08%°
2,699
AE 9
11,272
19.83%
1,916
1,098
AE 10
6,835
12.02%
83.48%
AE 1.1
2,983
5.25%
326
AE 12
121
0,21%
12
AE 13
418
0.74% 0
5
s^
° N
AE 14
36
0.06%
AE 15
3
0.01 %Q
AE 16
1
0.00%
-
V E 9
5
0.01 %n
1
story
VE 10
327
0.58%
67
VEII
1,019
1.79%°
272
VE 12
1,443
2.54%0
265
b
VE 1.3
1,069
1.88%°
12.7
VE 14
1,815
3.19%°
52
VE 15
352
0.62%
52
VE 16
31
0.05%
7
10.76%
a
VE 17
33
0.06%
?
VE 19
5
0.01%
VE 20
1
0.00%
-
z'
VE 21
8
0.01 %
V E 22
7
O.O 1 °'o
VE 23
1
0.00%°
VE 24
1
0.00%m
VE 26
2
0.00%
-
OPLN WATER
10
0.02%
2
total parcels
56,843
7,921
Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County.
The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA
,ones.
EXHIBIT 1]
Ocean beef height Policy
Staffs draft height Policy for Ocean Reef, as set forth in the DRC Staff Report, reads:
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding
community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include lion -habitable
architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot
height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's
roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature
with a height that would exceed 40 feet,
The Staff Report accurately states that "Draft Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address
non -habitable architectural decorative features". However, architectural
CL
decorative features are only one (and the least significant) of three provisions that
a)
U
X
Ocean Reef has requested. Staff is occasionally presented with requests by Ocean
Reef property owners to allow extra height for widow's walks and other such
E
features, so staffs focus on that element is understandable. But of greater long-term
importance to ORCA are provisions allowing story -by -story replacement of existing
multi -family buildings, and an allowance for the unique requirements of a
modernized Cultural Center. As proposed by ORCA, the Ocean Reef height Policy
would read:
04
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to
N
the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, the
following policy shall apply:
W
L Structures may include non -habitable architectural decorative
W
features (such as finials, rails, and a widow's walk) that exceed the
35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, provided that such features
do not extend more than 5 feet above the structure's roof line.
2, Multi -story buildings in existence on the effective date of this
N
Policy may be replaced at their existing number of stories, up to
11' slab -to -slab per story.
3. The height limit applicable, to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center shall
be, 65 feet above. grade.
W
The above Policy is carefully tailored to the needs and circumstances of the Ocean
E
Reef Community. The general language of proposed Policies 101.5.32 and 101,5.33,
allowing an additional 5' of height for replacement of existing buildings exceeding
35', does not facilitate replacement of Ocean Reef's multi -story buildings, because it
would force undesirable design features such as low ceiling heights, Nor does it
accommodate the additional height needed for Cultural Center stage performances.
Santamaria-May!e
From- RC3WORLD <joelreecI5S@gmaiLcorn>
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:50 AM
To: Santamaria-Mayte
Cc: David Ritz; Jack Duncan; Jim Hendrick; Michael G. Leemhuis
Subject: Re: height Comprehensive Plan amendment and Ocean Reef Club
Attachments: Height-da:ta-table-2015-06-09.pdf, ATT00001.htm
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Categories: Blue Category
Mayte,
As was requested please find a list of buildings and corresponding data related to structures that exceed the 35' E
height limit in Ocean Reef Club. We are still collecting additional data onC.Q, Pompano, and Water
Tower. We will submit any additional detail that we have on these structures once the data is obtained.. I know
we also discussed sending the existing heights on the cultural center, which we are working on and will send
over as soon once it is available. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you or your staff have any additional
questions or comments as you prepare your next round of staff reports,
04
Sincerely, M
Joel Reed, AICP
Phone: 404.403.2925
ioelreed55 @ ginail.com
I
Table 1
OCEAN REEF EXISTING STRUCTURES> 35' DATA TABLE
Name
Primary
Levels of
Downstairs/
Overall
overall
Floor to
' Avg. Slab
Grade
Flood
Use
habitable
Storage,'
Height to
Height to Top
Floor
Thic'anes
Zono
Eno..
Soffit or Tap
of Roof
of Beam
Amberjack:
Hotel
3
No
29'- 1 1I2'
331- 1 112"'.
8' to 2' 6'
Unknown
Unknown
Soul Barn
Comm.
NIA
NIA
Unknown
37'
NIA
Unknown
Unknomvn
Creek House
Condo
Unk.
Unknown
Unknown
>35'....
_
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Dolphin
'Hotel
4
Unknown
43. 2'
49'-2'
—g
—a-
__5
AE11
Harbor House
Condo
4
Yes
Unknown
54'
9
—8"
Unknown
AE9
Marlin
Hotel
3
Yes
38
42
—8' - 9,
4'- 8 112'
WE
Plaza
Cornet.
3
Yes
28' - 6"
> 35'
9 - 0
6"
Unknown
Unknown
Yachtsman
Cando
3
Yes
35'-9
Unknown
8" 7'
Unknown.
Unknown
Unknown
Pompano
Hotel
TB9
7EE]E
TBD
C C. Dormitory
Has.
TED
T
TED
Water Tower
NfA
NFA
N7A
TBq
7Bq
Note AmbeijaCk and Plaza added as pre -firm structure because Height would' be over 35' with redevelopment it builtabove flood.
' Estimated root to be 6
Prepared by RC36 ORLD, Inc. IOaV2014 last mod€tier! 6P312415
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
January 26, 2016, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (1" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL by Debra Roberts
DRC MEMBERS
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
STAFF
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Matt Coyle, Principal Planner Present
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Janene Sclafani, Planner Present
Mitzi Crystal, Transportation Planner Present
Debra Roberts, Staff Assistant Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Ms. Santamaria approved the meeting minutes of December 15, 2015, with no changes.
MEETING
New Items:
LHenderson Building, Overseas Highway, Big Pine Key, mile marker 30: A public meeting
concerning a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for
the development of a proposed 8,000 square foot building with 2,600 square feet of commercial
retail, low -intensity and office uses and six attached dwelling units designated as employee
housing. The subject property is described as a parcel of land in Section 26, Township 66 South,
Range 29 East, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida, also known as Lots 12 and 13 of an
unrecorded Plat of survey by C.G. Bailey, Reg. Florida Land Surveyor, No. 620 and dated
September 19, 1952, having real estate number 00111560.000000.
(File 2015-218)
Mr. Coyle presented the staff report. Mr. Coyle reported that this property is 3,331 square feet,
is zoned Suburban Commercial, designated a Tier III property and has a FLUM of Commercial.
The site was previously developed, so it is disturbed and scarified, but also has some protected
pineland habitat and some protected trees on the property. Relevant County actions on the
property were described. A letter of understanding from 2008 addressed issues related to access
from US-1 to the property. Although that redevelopment proposal was found to be consistent
with a number of the comp plan policies, as well as the Big Pine and No Name master plan,
some extra development controls were placed on the property because it was mixed use and has
pineland habitat. It can only be low intensity commercial retail.
Mr. Coyle continued to report that the current building and the development proposal was found
consistent with the community character of that part of Big Pine. The design minimizes adverse
effects and visual impacts on adjacent properties. Six affordable housing ROGO allocations will
be required for the development. Mr. Coyle suggested that the applicant consider doing a BOCC
reservation since only six affordable housing ROGO allocations for Big Pine were available at
the time of the staff report. No NROGO is needed since only 2600 square feet is being
developed and the applicant is exempt over 6,000. The residential density and floor area, as well
as open space, setback requirements and height limit are all in compliance. Preliminary drainage
plans were found to be consistent with the County's requirement, but complete stormwater plans
will be required during the building permit process. All of the environmental issues were found
to be in compliance. A bicycle rack and wheel stops for the parking spaces up against the
setback or required buffer yard need to be shown on the plan. The loading space needs to be
made larger or that requirement needs to be reduced. All of the buffer yards and landscaping
meet code. There are a few issues related to access to the site. There is not enough space
between the existing curb cuts to meet the County's requirement. If the applicant wants to
maintain access on US-1 a Planning Commission variance would need to be applied for and
received. The County's transportation planner believes the applicant's existing curb cuts would
meet FDOT requirements. The County's traffic consultant, as well as Judy Clarke from the
Engineering Department, found the sight distance of the Sandy Circle access unsafe and
proposed relocating that driveway further south which would make a T intersection. Mr. Coyle
recited the nine conditions as listed in the staff report.
John Arrieta, the County's traffic consultant, joined the meeting by phone.
Barbara Mitchell, of Mitchell Planning and Design, was present on behalf of the applicant,
Ginger Henderson, and her husband, Bruce Schmitt. Her clients were introduced. The
applicant's architect, Bill Horn, and traffic consultant, Karl Peterson, were also present. Ms.
Mitchell pointed out that this was an existing site and was developed for many years. A sewage
treatment plant remains on the property that will be closed down and removed as part of this
project. There has been historical access to this site from US-1 for many years until the Overseas
Heritage Trail was installed in that section. Historically this site has had a high intensity
commercial development use. The applicant is proposing a low density use, a real estate office,
and six units of affordable housing. The applicant has avoided using the portion of the property
that contains pinelands. Ms. Mitchell then clarified that the commercial square footage is the
2,605 square feet as demonstrated on the floor plans, which fixes the loading zone issue.
PA
Ms. Mitchell then discussed the access issue. Ms. Mitchell stated FDOT earlier last summer
indicated that they wanted an ingress -only access from US-1 on this site, which has been
proposed. That reduces the traffic impact on US-1 by 50 percent. Commercial access is needed
for this project or it is not going to work. Ms. Mitchell submitted an e-mail received from FDOT
confirming that their requirements have been fulfilled except for an area of eight feet that would
require an administrative FDOT variance. Ms. Mitchell stated through her search through
County actions and in discussions with previous County Planning Directors and Planning
Commissioners an example of the 400-foot standard for curb cuts could not be found. Ms.
Mitchell pointed out that FDOT has a standard of only 245 feet from either side of the curb cut.
The Overseas Heritage Trail implementation has eradicated the opportunity to use a parallel
access road as an option. Ms. Mitchell believes Monroe County Code needs to be amended to
reflect current FDOT standards. Ms. Santamaria responded that although staff is willing to work
on future amendments, today the code has not been amended. For the applicant to come into
compliance in that regard a Planning Commission variance would be needed, which is not an
overly burdensome process. Ms. Mitchell reiterated that this standard has not been applied in the
past and the code should be applied in a fair and consistent manner. Ms. Santamaria replied that
the standard has been applied in the past and applicants have redesigned or included parallel
access, but ignoring the code is not an option. Another possibility is applying for a code change,
which is timely, but a Planning Commissioner variance is an easier route to go through in terms
of time frame, but a text change can be applied for. Staff will be going over the code with the
BOCC on March 1, 2016, and April 13, 2016, and that could become effective in June or July.
Karl Peterson, traffic engineering consultant for the applicant, stated FDOT has reviewed this
and determined it meets substantial compliance with the criteria. The eight -foot variance that is
required can be handled at the administrative level.
Bruce Schmitt, partner in this project, stated in all of the many projects he has been involved in,
the standards that the County has set in this particular project could never have been met. Mr.
Schmitt said there are areas where this standard has not been implemented by the County and
feels like they are being targeted. $50,000 have been invested to this point on a project that will
likely cost over $2 million. The issue brought about of an ingress point because of this 400-foot
rule makes no sense to Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Schmitt wants to discuss this further with Ms.
Henderson and put this application on hold until then.
Ms. Mitchell asked to discuss the Sandy Circle access since everybody involved is present in the
room in case the project does go forward. Ms. Mitchell stated the right-of-way on Sandy Circle
is encumbered by significant vegetation, making the line of sight at this intersection very
dangerous. The applicant's access point was considered and selected very carefully. The
applicant is trying to locate the accessory uses adjacent to the building. Mr. Peterson explained
that a 30 percent clearance 30 feet back from the proposed driveway would not only benefit the
driveway location proposed in the current plan, but it fixes an existing roadway problem that
currently exists. Creating a stop condition on both legs of the approach would be another option,
although not as ideal. Ms. Mitchell added that the property is County right-of-way.
Mr. Arrieta pointed out that although it is an existing condition, Mr. Peterson's suggestion adds
to a less -than -ideal situation by putting more vehicles in a less desirable location. Also, it then
3
becomes the onus of the County to maintain and have permanent clearing in that area. Putting
the driveway in without proper sight distance significantly increases the potential for a crash
because it creates more traffic conflicts. That is why the County proposed making a T
intersection where a stop sign will be controlling one of the approaches, which is probably going
to be the southbound approach. Mr. Peterson emphasized that, regardless of whether this project
goes forward or not, this area is what is known as a horizontal sight distance obstruction. Again,
there are two solutions: Clearing the vegetation in that corner to address an existing sight
distance issue or creating a stop control condition at that intersection to address the lack of
adequate horizontal sight distance there. Ms. Santamaria noted that the County does not regulate
the right-of-way. If the applicant wishes to table this item, staff will have the ability to continue
to work with them and explore the options that are available. Ms. Mitchell clarified for Ms.
Santamaria that the garbage containers will be rolled out to the street, so Waste Management will
not be required to back onto the property to empty a dumpster.
Mr. Arrieta again discussed the fact that although conflicts are present or introduced every time a
driveway is introduced, additional conflicts should not be introduced when there are sight
distance issues. Mr. Schmitt commented that the Sandy Circle issue can probably be negotiated,
but there is no reason to negotiate if there is no settlement on the ingress issue. Mr. Schmitt
asked to table this discussion. Ms. Mitchell asked if the fees for the variance would be waived
due to the inconsistency in the way the code is written. Ms. Santamaria and Mr. Williams agreed
there would not be a waiver of fees. Mr. Williams pointed out that to get a variance the applicant
will have to show a hardship. Ms. Santamaria also stressed that if the applicant proposed the
change to the BOCC, the BOCC would have to choose to include it in the Land Development
Code being processed now. If not, the applicant would have to do their own separate
amendment. Ms. Mitchell requested tabling this item.
Joyce Newman of Big Pine Key asked for and received information regarding the property
owners adjacent to the Sandy Circle corner lot.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33
TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD
PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
:l
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO
ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY
OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 42015-171)
Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the most recent 4-
draft of five of the County's height amendments. Starting with the comp plan, Policy 101.5.30 is ,0
being amended and the definition of "height" is being incorporated within the policy. Policy r_
101.5.31 is being created, which is specific to Ocean Reef as a master -planned community to
allow for non -habitable architectural decorative features up to a max total of 40 feet. Policy
101.5.32 is being created, which creates a new flood protection height exception up to a five-foot °P
increase to allow for elevating to meet or exceed FEMA base flood elevations. Policy 101.5.33
is being created, which is a flood exception policy for lawfully established and existing buildings
that already exceed the 35-foot height limit to elevate their structure to meet base flood provided •2
they have the same intensity, floor, area, building envelope, density and type of use. If -�
proposing to go over 40 feet, then they would have to go before the BOCC for review and a
determination for the max height that they would be allowed. N
Ms. Santamaria then reported on the amendments to the Land Development Code. Section 130-
187 has been amended to highlight the exceptions that are created in the policies: Provision A
for Ocean Reef to have their decorative features and Provision B for the flood exception. Brand
new buildings can have three feet to exceed FEMA base flood. Lawfully established existing
multifamily buildings can either meet or exceed FEMA base flood up to five feet. These options
are only eligible if at least FEMA base flood is met. This exception will not be provided in
AElO or VE 10 or greater because those are riskier areas and the County does not want to
incentivize the flood exceptions in those areas. Existing multifamily buildings which already
exceed the height limit are allowed to elevate up to 40 feet. Lawfully existing multifamily
structures that already exceed the 40-foot height limit would have to go before the BOCC for a
public hearing and state which criteria they meet. The BOCC would have to specify their
findings of these criteria and set the max total height of what the building could be rebuilt as.
Ms. Santamaria asked for staff and public comments.
x
Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked for clarification of the term "redevelop" for buildings
that already exist over 35 feet. Ms. Santamaria explained that could include a tear -down, but it a
states specifically a lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved,
redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation provided the building
does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet and the building is limited to the
existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope, floor -to -floor height,
density and type of use. So they are confined to the existing footprint and envelope.
Joyce Newman, Big Pine Key resident, asked about the slab -to -slab height increase request from
Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria stated that has not been included in this draft. Ocean Reef was to
provide certain information to staff to give a general picture of what the heights would amount
to, and that information has not been received to date. Ms. Newman noted that Last Stand
believes it is not a good idea to have these height increase requests go directly to the BOCC
because that completely politicizes the whole process. The Planning Commission is the logical
body to review these requests because they know the right questions to ask and is considerably
less political. Ms. Newman added that Last Stand remains opposed to the exception to the height
limit of 35 feet for new buildings because there is no burden that exists there. Construction of
new buildings can adhere to the existing 35-foot height limit and provide two stories over
parking while adding voluntary clearance to BFE.
Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, feels that the new building exemption can be taken
advantage of by somebody who has to choose between either elevation or an extra story, but
because of sea level rise and how Monroe County is going to adapt to it, Mr. Hunter supports the
new building height exemption as it is written.
Ms. Santamaria asked for further staff or public comment on this item. There was none.
4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8
AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2
WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fifth DRC
meeting on this item and this amendment is very similar to the previous drafts. This stems from
the comp plan update when the BOCC asked staff to move the provisions related to offshore
islands out of the comp plan update and process it separately as a stand-alone issue. The
amendments in this draft reflect what was already transmitted to the State in terms of Policy
101.6.8 and Policy 101.13.3. The new changes from the last meeting are only to Policy 206.1.2.
Policy 206.1.2 relates to nesting areas of birds and states "Development shall be prohibited on
offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird
rookery based on resource agency best available data or survey." New text included in today's
draft is: "As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial
birds nest. The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or
vegetation, crevices in rocks, burrows and cavities." Policy 101.6.8 includes language that the
receiver site for TREs will not be an offshore island and Policy 101.13.3 includes the criteria that
an offshore island will not be a receiver site for TDRs. Ms. Santamaria asked for staff and public
comments.
11
Bart Smith, Esquire, on behalf of FEB Corp., asked Mr. Roberts if he was involved in drafting
the additional definitions in the glossary. Mr. Roberts replied that he reviewed them. Mr.
Roberts then pointed out that the definition of an established bird rookery is specific to this
policy and is not overriding throughout the comp plan. Mr. Smith explained that Phil Frank, a
biologist on behalf of FEB Corp., suggested utilizing the term "colonial nesting water birds" in
Policy 206.1.2 since the colonial nesting birds in the Florida Keys are water birds. Mr. Smith
then read aloud a proposed definition of the term "colonial nesting water birds." Mr. Smith
noted that Mr. Frank's proposed definition mirrors Wikipedia's definition of that term. Mr.
Smith explained that Mr. Frank also suggested the language "Bird rookery means communal
nesting ground for colonial nesting water birds." Mr. Roberts agreed that the birds that are
addressed when talking about colonial nesting birds are water fowl, but stated there are other
birds that nest colonially that are not water birds that use the Atlantic flyway.
Mr. Hunter asked if solitary birds like the white crown pigeons would be protected under the
proposed definitions. Mr. Roberts explained that generally speaking the density of nests in a
rookery are much closer than what you find in a white crown pigeon nesting situation, but Mr.
Roberts will look at the literature to see if the experts consider white crown pigeons to be a
colonial nesting bird. Ms. Santamaria agreed that staff will review this because there are other
policies in the comp plan related to listed species and threatened species. Ms. Newman noted
that there are a lot more birds that nest on these spoil banks than just wading birds and water
birds.
Julie Dick from the Everglades Law Center on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys
Environmental Fund voiced concerns with respect to Policy 206.1.2. The reference to "based on
resource agency best available data or survey" should be opened up to include just "best
available data and survey" so as not to be limited to a specific source of information. Ms. Dick
also believes that an on -site verification from the County biologist would be appropriate to
determine the existence or lack thereof of bird rookeries or nesting sites or areas. "Nesting area"
should be included so there is consistency in the use of terminology throughout the plan.
Naja Girard of Key West stated she is vehemently opposed to shrinking this definition down to
just water fowl. Any species that are in any way protected through special designations by the
State or the Federal Government should be spelled out as well. Ms. Girard agreed with Ms. Dick
that the County should be open to whatever credible data and survey might come its way. Ms.
Curlee asked that the importance of these spoil and offshore islands be emphasized for birds
migrating through as resting spots. Ms. Dick followed up on that and stated that a rookery can
be a roosting area as well as a nesting area.
Mr. Smith commented that Policy 206.1.2 is an absolute prohibition on development of the entire
island. Mr. Smith suggested that there are other suitable means to protect the nesting area to
allow for birds to land that make more sense with policies that deal with the actual area that it is
in than to have an express and blanket prohibition.
Ms. Santamaria then asked for comments on the policies that relate to TREs and TDRs.
7
Julie Dick, on behalf of Last Stand and the Florida Keys Environmental Fund, voiced full
support for the criteria for receiver sites in both Policies 101.6.8 and 101.13.3 that a receiver site
may not be an offshore island. Ms. Dick asked that the same definition be used in the offshore
island zoning designation and the offshore island definition in the comp plan so that owners of
offshore islands may not be able to use this in the future to manipulate the intent to make some
offshore islands receiver sites. Ms. Santamaria clarified that offshore island zoning is not
included in the comp plan as a term that is defined, but she will review this further.
Mr. Smith agreed that it is superfluous to include the language "as defined in the glossary" and
that it may imply any other time the term is used it is not being defined by the glossary. Mr.
Smith then commented that the bank of ROGOs makes building in the County like energy: Lots
are not going to be able to be created or destroyed; just transferred. Mr. Smith does not believe it
is a good utilization of resources to have a prohibition on TREs for offshore islands and requiring
owners to compete in ROGO and ultimately having the County faced with purchasing an island.
Ms. Santamaria responded that the County, in terms of the comp plan update and code, is trying
to incentivize through the ROGO process donation and dedication of lots to the County. Ms.
Newman stated that someone who has the means to buy and develop an island should not be put
in any better position than someone who has their hopes and dreams based on retiring and living
in the Florida Keys.
Julie Dick noted that Monroe County is at its limit in terms of being able to evacuate this county
within 24 hours in the face of a hurricane. For that reason, whatever incentive built into the
comp plan that moves development away from the areas hardest to evacuate should be fully
supported. Ms. Girard does not agree with Mr. Smith's logic of sending ROGOs to offshore
islands.
Ms. Santamaria concluded by stating all comments will be taken into consideration before taking
this to the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m.
A
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Planning Commission
From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: February 12, 2016
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN
REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32
AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN
ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD
INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 4 2015-006)
Meeting: February 24, 2016
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create
Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height
limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
File 2015-006 Page 1 of 13
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 13
The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October
27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2016, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The staff report from the January 26, 2016
DRC is attached as Exhibit 12. Minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are not available as of the
date of this staff report.
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HEIGHT:
In unincorporated Monroe County, heght and grade are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on
structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section he construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall he absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
and/or other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 13
;tot tt Roud ;5tt*
(IV FPlatfml tt
Mom sea lewl
Height limit
Ll
Crown of the road
10
UWN
The vertical distance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest part of the structure
Height
„„„„„„„„„„„, 2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
National Flood Insurance PrOLyram & BiLmert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act
In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide a means for property
owners to protect themselves financially from flood events. The NFIP offers flood insurance to
homeowners, renters and business owners if their community participates in the NFIP. Participating
communities agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances that meet or exceed FEMA
requirements.
Flood maps inform communities about the local flood risk and help set minimum floodplain standards for
communities to build with safety and resiliency in mind. Flood maps determine the cost of flood insurance,
which helps property owners to financially protect themselves against flooding. The lower the risk, the
lower flood insurance premiums will be. Flood maps are also the basis for flood insurance rates through the
NFIP.
As risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks. [Note, FEMA is in the process of re -
mapping the Florida Keys] Flood insurance premium may be going up; however, property owners may be
able to reduce premiums if they build their home or business to be safer, higher, and stronger.
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 provides long-term changes to the National Flood
Insurance Program. This additional legislation has been enacted with the intent to strengthen the program,
ensure its fiscal soundness and inform its mapping and insurance rate -setting through expert consultation,
reports and studies.
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 13
I'
Today the program is focused on implementing recent legislation by adjusting premium increases, issuing
new rates and map updates, supporting mitigation and ensuring special advocacy to connect policyholders
with the information they need to better understand the program.
Recent legislation phases out subsidies for some older buildings in high -risk flood areas. As a result, rates
for these buildings will rise until they reach full -risk rates. In addition, all policyholders will be subject to
new assessments and surcharges.[https://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmartlpages/hfiaa-2014.LspI
See FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium'
which are attached as Exhibit 13.
Monroe County Green Keys Proiect
Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeys! Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and
commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key Largo and
a cost benefit ratios of elevating and floodproofing buildings:
,ANALYSIS, OF DAMAGES FROM STORM SURGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE FOR THE
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF KEY LARGO AND STOCK ISLAND, MOINROE COUNTY, FL
USING THE C:OA.STo L ADAPTATION TO :SEA LEVEL RISE TOOL (COAST)
. € _ ., Lockrr',aoi, AICP
ERIN L. DEADY, PA
-y,n 4s Canl'RNSIIS-
Entire report can be accessed here: http://fl-monroecountyclimate.eivieplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/103 x
El
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 13
Catalysis Adaptation Partners, LLC (Catalysis) specializes in analyzing impacts from storm surges and
long-term sea level rise using its COastal Adaptation to Sea level rise Tool (COAST). COAST modeling
software mimics floods from storms and sea level rise on community assets such as homes and businesses,
then tallies the cumulative damages over time so communities can better understand the cost to them of
not adapting (vulnerability assessment), as well as the costs and benefits (damage reduction) of
implementing various adaptation actions.
Catalysis was contracted by Erin L. Deady, P.A. to use COAST to perform a vulnerability assessment
of homes and commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County
in Key Largo as part of the GreenKeys! project. Working with Erin L. Deady, P.A., Catalysis conducted three
(3) community workshops in October, November and December 2014, during which County residents in
Key Largo voted on modeling parameters and assumptions for "no -action" and three (3) adaptation action
scenarios: 1) Elevating and floodproofing buildings; 2) building barriers close to shore; and 3) purchasing
properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program. Voting occurred during
Workshops #2 and #3 (results can be found in the appendix Section 6 of this report) and focused on certain
model parameters as well as whether or not actions should be further evaluated.
The "asset', selected for analysis was the value of residential and commercial buildings, obtained
from Monroe County tax records. Sea Level Rise assumptions were based upon the Unified Sea Level Rise
Projection for Southeast Florida. Those projections included a low and high estimate of sea level rise in
2030 of 3' and 7- respectively, as well as a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2060 of 9" and 24"
respectively. As requested by workshop participants, a lower sea level rise projection was also employed
in the analysis based only on the rate of sea level rise that has occurred over the last 100 years, outside
of the official Unified Sea Level Rise Projection document. A straight line projection of the tide gauge
trend was added to the modeling parameters, for a very low scenario of sea level rise of 1.82" in 2030 and
4.53" in 2060. Surge values from various sized storms were obtained from the most recent Federal
Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study. Key findings from the worst case
vulnerability assessment included one-time damage estimates of $2.0 Million from a nuisance flood in
2060 under a high sea level rise scenario of 24"and $289.2 Million from a Hurricane Wilma -sized flood in
2060 under the same sea level rise scenario. Cumulative damages over time from storms of various sizes
resulted in significantly higher damage estimates by 2060, with $1.673 Billion in damages under the very
tow sea level rise scenario of 4.53", and $2.130 Billion in damages under a high sea level rise scenario of
24". The value of properties (buildings and land) permanently inundated by sea level rise alone by 2060
(from daily flooding at high tide) ranged from $206.9 Million (very low scenario) to $705.6 Million (high
scenario). Once the modeling indicated such properties would be flooded by the daily high tide, the
software no longer subjected it to continuing cumulative damages from that point in time forward.
The three (3) adaptation actions to model identified by the Project Team and County Staff
included:
ME=
I Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties, Sea Level Rise Ad Hoc Technical Working Group
(April 2011).
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 13
I
I'
• Building barriers close to the coast (to protect from storm surge but not sea level rise); and
• Purchase of properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program over
a phased timeframe.
For each action, costs were determined by the consultant and staff team, and in some cases,
modified by workshop participants by polling. Modeling parameters (eg., building elevation heights, the
dista"�t�t e
accepting a, buyout for their properties, etc.) also were established by workshop participants through a
�*_-ten_used_CQAS&y._&h withAhe_7_4W__tajjnnaUjmLm uJulb-
the predicted reduction in damages over thesame time period as the vulnerability assessment.
These results were converted into benefit -cost ratios. Ratios greater than 1 represented actions
that reduced more in damages in the future than it cost to implernent them. Ratios less than 1 represented
actions that would cost more than the amount of reduced damages in the future (i.e., not cost effective).
The action that had the best benefit -cost ratio was elevating and flo,odproofing buildings (accounting for
those not already elevated or floodproofed in the area of Key Largo: within Monroe County), which had a
benefit -cost ratio between 5.48 and 13.70 (meaning for every $1.00 spent on elevating and floodproofing,
the avoided damages would range from $5.48 to $13.70), depending on the sea level rise scenario (high,
low or tide gauge trend) and construction cost estimates (high and low). Building barriers had the second
highest benefit -cost ratios, but with all results below 1 (0.40 to 0.93). The voluntary buyout program had
benefit -cost ratios ranging from 0.02 to 1.21. The only result with a value greater than 1 was for the tide
gauge trend sea level rise scenario, however. Aside from the model outputs, there were other factors
which contributed to these results as discussed in this document. A similar analysis for Stock Island was
completed at a later date and can be found in Appendix 6.
These benefit -cost ratios were presented to County residents and keypad polling technology was
used to evaluate their opinioins. After looking at the COAST model results and participating in the group
in addition, residents thought the County should pursue sources of funding to help private property
owners implement this strategy.
I
the County residents with a context for beginning more difficult conversations and decision -making it
N
processes regarding their vulnerabilities. Discussions of factors outside of the model should lead to diverse
U
co -benefits (e.g., choosing to restore mangrove forests to not only impirove coastal ecosystems but also
protect buildings, from wave attenuation) and planning outcomes. Importantly, benefit -cost ratios 04
resulting from this work tend to open difficult conversations about exactly what is most important to a
W
community in planning how to adapt to sea level rise and future storm surges.
E
However, these results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a program to
elevate and floodproof residential and commercial buildings. Catalysis recommends that the County use
this Information to.
• Further discuss sea level rise vulnerability with County residents and the importance of having a
method to weigh different adaptation actions against one another (benefit -cost analysis)
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 13
• Develop a framework for using new knowledge to engage with residents so that consensus on an
eventual adaptation action is data- and stakeholder -driven
• Share this information with neighboring communities so that more regional communication can
take place and strengthen any local momentum towards adaptation
• Document any progress or failures towards adaptation so that other communities around the
country have lessons from which they can learn.
6 APPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPOSED
STRATEGIES
61 KEYPAD POWNG RESULTS FROM COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2
GreenK)EYSI Keypad Polling Results from the COAST community modeling exercise conducted
November 5 2014 at the Nelson Government Center In Key Largo, FIL
Question 9,14 Currently in Key Largo, 40% of properties are already elevated. What percentage of
additional Key Largo V-zone buildings do you want to see elevated In this (nodel?
I a 25% 9 29% Question 1
b 50% 2 6%
c 75% 2 6%
d The draft input of 100% 14 45%
blank 4 134E
TotW 31 100% b C d blar'k
Question 02. What percentage of Key Largo A -zone buildings do you want to see floodproofed in this
model?
2 a 25% 2 6% Question 2
b 50% 5 16% 10 16
c 75% 4 13%
d The draft input of 100% 16 52% 2 4 4
blank 4 13% 0 — N 10
ToW 31 100% 4 C r,,,L;ir4
Question 43: Currently in Key Urge, new buildings are required to be elevated to the toil -year flood
elevation, which ranges from 6 to 15 feet across the Key. For parcels that will be elevated In the
model, do you want them to be elevated up to this code at to something higher?
3 a Up to current code 12 39% Question 3
b Up to current code plus 1 3 10% W 25,
c Up to current code plus 3 is 48%
blank 1 3% 3
Totat 33 100%
Question 44: The model estimates floodprooling to a certain height How high would you like to see
parcels floodproofed?
4 a 1 it 0 0% Question 4
b 3 ft 8 26% ib
C 6 ft 3 10% a
d The draft input of 8 It 16 52% 0
blank 4 134t
Tot,0 31 100%
29
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 13
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are stfieke thf:ettg4 and additions are underlined.)
Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately.
Policy 101.45.2-630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall
limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding
spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only, chimneys, radio and/or
television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers, and certain
antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any
of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the
applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and
101.5.33.
,,,ilat: s*..,,,.twes In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height
limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding
community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non -habitable architectural
decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit
in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This
exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height
that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in
area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is
restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision provision of
comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a
homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors
development requests by its members.
Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 11. To
date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments.
Policy 101.5.32
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public
health, safetygeneral welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards,
protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to
flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from
flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to
a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be
voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood
File 2015-006 Page 9 of 13
protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures
of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result
in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet.
Policy 101.5.33
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing
buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare,
allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and
minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of
public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising g flood
insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped
and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE)provided the building does not exceed
a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established
intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully
established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before
the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify
the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The
Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a
building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community x
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
E
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to Y
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
File 2015-006 Page 10 of 13
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
File 2015-006 Page 11 of 13
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the -�
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued C4
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the CD
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those 0
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the W
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development to
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and �
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations.04
VI. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual w
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and a
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and E
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review
the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental
Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The
Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County
Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony
File 2015-006 Page 12 of 13
given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
VIII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes
6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report
7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes
8. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report
9. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes
10. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
11. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
12. January 26, 2016 DRC Staff Report
13. FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your
Premium'
14. Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments
File 2015-006 Page 13 of 13
B�BZ�Z� l
Monroe County Board mfCounty Commissioners Special Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Height Exceptions
Then the next change is on page 43...
You have a couple of new policies here, you all directed staff to take a look at how to possibly raise the height
limit for architectural features that really just apply to Ocean Reef and so we've also come up with some criteria
and you'll see that onthose two policies S.31and 5.32
Mayor Murphy: Do we have a public speaker onthis Lindsay?
UndsmyWe do. Joel Reed.
Mayor Murphy: Debbie, are you ready for public speakers?
Yes mamnonthis particular topic.
Joel Reed: Good morning Mayor, Commissioners, Joel Reed. I'm here today on behalf ofOcean Reef Club and
Ocean Reef Community Association in regard to this issue. First of all | want tothank you for the support. As
you know Ocean Reef |ya 6iyL|nut community. |t'sa private gated community ufabout twenty five hundred
acres, about seventeen hundred units spthere. VVehave alot ufadditional amenities upthere, public buildings
or quasi' kind of public buildings that are for the dub purpose as well. Ocean Reef also has a Community
Association which has its own architectural board, its architectural committee that kind of makes going through
DRC and Planning Commission a day at the beach compared totheir architectural committee. They are very
stringent. They impose a lot of times additional requirements and regulations on their projects. Their whole
community isvery involved with the procesu. They're all notified osfar asany changes that happen upthere. So
the five foot, we appreciate the support and the language in there a lot of times, some of the single family
homes and the commercial buildings as well bump up as far as making them more architecturally attractive to
need this section to allow for that. We also have had e lot ofdiscussions the last couple of weeks internally as
well. I'm going to pass out, I guess to the clerk and to you guys, additional language we would like you guys to
consider. But we have been talking to staff about ....(passes out additional language considerations) So not to
confuse the issue, there are two specific issues. First isallowing for some additional architectural features that
the five foot would 6n. As we went through the club, as said, owns a lot of buildings. Some ofthose buildings
are the hotels thataremear8uccaneer|s|and'ifymu'vebeemuptherebefore. The Ambe4ack,The Dolphin, The
Marlin, these buildings are aging, they're coming tothe end cftheir life. VVehave done quite afew renovations
to them. At this point there is not really many more renovations that can be done in order to ruotiome to
maintain and operate them. As you know, that function nfthe club aswell inessential tomaintaining mClass A
club up there, continuing to provide for the tax base that comes out of Ocean Reef is by having an attractive club
where we can continue to attract to maintain current members and attract new members. A lot of those
buildings, | have some data, it's not all there, The Amberjackfor example is three levels ofliving. Just to give an
Page I of 12
example, the couple, Am not going to go into all of them, but we said look if these things were substantially
damaged through a hurricane, or they had to come down, or we had to rebuild, we wouldn't beable to build
back those units tothose heights that are there today. We have several. We have The Harbor House which is
condominium, its over fifty four feet right now in Ocean Reef Club. We have The Marlin, which is one of the
hotel buildings, that's atforty two feet. VVegot the Dolphin Hotel mtforty seven feet and The Creek House. We
didn't have the number on it but we know that's well over forty feet aowell. That's another condominium
building up there. We came up with the boat born, that's at thirty seven feet, the boat barn that we have up
there. But there is about seven oreight buildings specifically that vvethought itvvoui|d be greatly impacted as
we try to redevelop these properties or if we have to due to m hurricane or other issues. Some of the other
issues we face is that although these are three stories and they are just pushing the height limit right now. You
know, if you get three stories up there you're atthirty feet and then you have an architectural roof element
you're at thirty seven feet orsomething like that. Alot ofthese buildings are built below flood right now soif
we go to build them back, obviously we're talking about sea level rise, we want to encourage those buildings to
CL
be brought back up to flood. What happens is we lose m whole top level that we currently have today. We
U
would lose almost a whole floor there out of those developments and that's just not possible to happen, So we
a)
proposed some additional policy language toput in thereto protect these existing buildings that are there tu be
able to be built back. We haven't thoroughly vetted with staff yet at this point we have just proposed talking
about the issue that I just explained. We would like and hope to support and to continue to work with staff to
tweak some of this language to get into the Comp Plan to protect us on some of these issues. And the language,
�c
it exempts, it doesn't exempt, it doesn't include single family homes so this is only for the multi -family and
commercial structures that are up there, so it doesn't include any of the single family homes and what it says is,
to
04
"lawfully established structures that exclude single family homes that exceed this height limit may be replaced
to
with their existing height plus any additional height required to elevate the first finished floor two feet above
the FE~soencouraging them to go, you know, those extra two feet aswell above that base flood elevation to
LN
account for future sea level rise aswell. And then also that the height limit applicable toOcean Reef and this
would beanexemption for their community center building. The community center building upthere right now
puts on productions and theater productions and when it was built, they aren't able to attract and have the top
of the line theater groups that come in there because a lot of the sets that they have, they change throughout
the production. They actually lift that whole set up to lift that whole backdrop up into the ceiling and then they
drop down the new one and their theater wasn't able to be designed to that because of the height and so they
also want that as an exclusion so that they can look to enhance that building at some point to be able to attract
those types ofproductions there. I'm here for any questions. Thank you for considering.
&AaYmrMurphy So the proposed additional language, Joel, is what you want, not the existing language?
�
�
Joel Reed: We support the Club and the Community Association both support that existing policy language ;j
that's |nthere —
Commissioner Carruthers: the institutional language
—
were supportive of. You know, westarted tntalk about the hotels and the aging and the issues and ifmedid try
and rebuild them back, what that would look like in the loss of rooms and the development that's there,
Page 2 of1Z
Mayor MurphyDowehave apublic speaker mmthis?
Un�sayBaKar�� We do.
Mayor Murphy: Let's hear the public speaker. Another one.
L�n�sav 8axard� D.A-A|dhdQe
D.A. A�dr|dge:I'm �A.Aldridge. Ulive omTavernier which is part ofKay Largo. Here weare atthe last minute, a
breath away from sending the Comp Plan and all of sudden we see a very important change being requested
byour Northern neighbors. The Federation ofHomeowner's Association has been very adamant about height
restrictions for many years and we have continually fought for thirty five feet. We are asking atthis time, | am
asking mtthis time tu have you not vote on this. We have not had the opportunity to look at the language that
has been just handed to you and we feel that it needs to be reviewed very closely by the staff and by you
because this isahuge change that they are requesting. Thank you.
Mayor K*urphy�... That's it
Commissioner Km|hage� What does the, in the final sentence when they talk about assembly group Al and so
forth, what does that mean?
We don't know.
Mayor Murphy: Well they haven't seen kyet. This is the problem with this.
Well wehave seen that heemai|editbut weasked questions. We didn't know what hemeant
by that
Connmnioaimwe, Ko!hage: Well but we're going mo have to be more specific on that. We'll have to have language
that says exactly what itmeans. | think anyway.
��mm|ss�oner�\ce: Could vvenot deal with this today and deal with |tinJanuary?
/ ' If you want us to address his comments' | just say get direction from the board at this point.
Wework onsome type oflanguage tobring back toyou inJanuary.
�omomm�ssimne��ic��|think that's what weshould do.
MayorMurphy: And what happens if we then want to make changes in January? Dowe hold up the vvho|e
process?
' | think you can legally make changes omthe floor bymotion before wetransmit.
�obghNNnQer� Aslong asyou're not changing the general substance ofit. The general tone ofit.
Mayor Murphy: Well that's what | um worried about. If we let this go fill January and then begin to, ya know,
flesh |tout and the public speaks and we all get confused and then what happens tothe rest of Comp Plan
because w*are supposed tnvote onthat inJanuary.
Page of 12
Commissioner Neugent�|would ask on issues like this because Uvery much agree with what was said that we
just got this and I think we need some information and my question is, and there may be some more issues very
similar tothis that come up. Can we have another meeting discussing those particular issues before the January
transmittal?
Sure. VVecould dothat.
Mayor Murphy. That would behelpful.
CmmmmNslmnerFflice: That may bathe way tnapproach it.
The problem with holding it in November or December is the calendars are already a mess
from the holidays.
Commissioner Nemgeru:Ohmygosh wemight have todoalittle work.
No, that's not what | meant. It's just that even your regular board meetings got all shifted
around.
CmmmoissimmerNeugent. Have itetthe board meeting. End ofthe item discussion for mboard meeting.
Okay. VVecan dothat.
Mayor Murphy: VVecan dothat.
Commissioner Nemgmmt: Another things that's in this right here an l read it for clarification purposes'
° architectural decorating features that exceed the thirty five foot height limit but such features shall not exceed
five feet above the structures roof line" Joel also mentioned that some of these buildings are already, | guess
they would be legal non -conforming because they are above the height limit, suwhen you say "features shall
not exceed five feet above the structures roofline" what rooffine are we talking about? The one that's already
non -conforming? orthirty five feet oba0 not exceed five feet above thirty five feet? That's not the way |
necessarily interpret that.
Mayor Murphy: Because ifit's the fifty four foot building, we're now atfifty wine —
It's not though. This ismeant for new development that cannot exceed thirty five feet.
CmrmmisuimnermeuQemm: Well what happens ...
Joel has added in and what he is really asking you to do, is in simple terms, and I think it could
be very simplified, bagree that existing, non -conforming buildings that are ataheight greater than thirty five
feet, beallowed turebuild tothat height p[us—
Commissioner Neagent | didn't hear anybody bring that uA—
That's really what he isasking though.
Com rnissiomer R�ce: Well that's what this really says
Page 4of12
Mayor Murphy: Plus what?
` = plus, let him adjust, like we already have a provision in here, for another five feet, if they need
to raise the elevation for FEMAfloodp|aln issues.
Mayor Murphy; Fine, but not for decorative features,
Well he talked about decorative also, but he definitely spoke about
Mayor Murphy: Well let's get itdown pat.
Well we will try to but we got his language a couple days ago and...
Mayor Murphy: Well his language iokind ufgoing inafigure eight,
Cmmrnisyiomer Km|hage; | understand what they are saying. In other words, he wants to maintain what they
have now with amadjustment.
Yes. ithink that's what heisasking.
CommmissiunerNmUhage' And | think that isreasonable.
Mayor Murphy: To replace a building, an older building that was built over thirty five feet, have a problem with
that anywhere |nMonroe County. |tiswhat itis, we're all used toit, it's part ofthe landscape.
Commissioner Nmu&ent:Clarification nnwhat you just said
Mayor Murphy: |donot object toany ofthe older buildings that were built above thirty five feet. VVeall have
them in our neighborhoods. If they need to be replaced or have to be replaced, | don't have a problem with
them maintaining the height.
Commissioner Nemgemt: Hold on a minute there. Is there anything in our code, and | vvnu|d use this as an
analogy, FE(N4/sdesrript|on of it, if its damaged by more than fifty percent, it has to be rebuilt, that is there
anything ioour code orComp Plan that says that itthen can bebuilt over thirty five feet?
Mayor Murphy: No, No.
Okay, today, don't mix apples and oranges. Today our code does not allow ustmapprove o
building permit above thirty five feet. If the structure is destroyed beyond fifty percent, they then have to
conform to the new code, which is the thirty five foot height limit. And if it's destroyed beyond Shy percent
under the floodplain rules, they have to raise the elevation and that's why they added this other position.
Commissioner Neugent� | understand the apples and oranges thing that |]ust plugged into it as an analogy but
what | am saying is, have we had that discussion? You just said, at least my interpretation, that you can't build
what[ommioionerKHurphy]ustsaid—
Commissioner Neugent: So we need to have that discussion
Commissioner Carrwthers� And that's why we have the further thing about flood protection and height
exceptions. Go to 205.5]2. We added that so that we would allow people to exceed the thirty five feet when
they have to, tocreate enough free board tocomply with FEMAregulations.
Cormmm|us1mnerNeug�ent: I'm not talking about base flood elevation.
Commissioner Carruthers: but that isthe crunch that you are getting into. When the Mayor says that you can
rebuild a building at the height it is today, but we have a thirty five foot limit and FEMA says you gotta raise your
building five feet, you lose astory.
CommissiomerNeugent: that addresses one part ofit. The other part that isnot being addressed inmyopinion,
is du we have anything, are we proposing that then a fifty four foot high building could be rebuilt to fifty four
feet.
Joel isproposing that.
CmmmnAssionerNeugent: And that's what |mmuasking this Commission. Is that where wewant toAowith that?
Commissioner Carruthers: Well, | mean' if we don't aUmm people to do that isn't that essentially a taking? |
mean you would be ... think about the real life economic consequences o['
BmbShiNinger: There may 6esome Bert Harris implications but it's adifferent analysis.
Comrmiss|mne,Kmffiage, What we are considering here is because of the isolated and specific nature of Ocean
Reef, dwvvewant tomake mnexception here?
Cmmm|soionerNea0ent� And can |ta& onto that Commissioner Ko|hage? Municipalities have the right, if
misspeak correct me, tmgmabove thirty five feet ifthey choose to. Marathon has gone above thirty five feet, [
think Key West has aheight limit above thirty five feet, but based onwhat Commissioner Ko|hagejust said, and |
want to hear some arguments otherwise, Ocean Reef is an isolated area, miles away from anyone else and m
gated community, albeit in unincorporated Monroe County, the/me very similar to e municipality with a city
type manager, that do we want to be so parental if they have no objections internally amongst themselves to
keep them from rebuilding above thirty five feet or changing some things that they have gone through the
public input locally with their gated community. Dom/ewant tnimpose our thoughts ovhow Ocean Reef should
be run?
Commissioner Rice: I don't think we are trying to do that.
MaymrMunph\c I don't either. But I will tell you, my feeling is, in many, many instances, what Ocean Reef wants
todoupthere because they are away from everyone, I've agreed with. They've had good ideas, nmproblem and
they do it. However when it comes to things like the height limit that everyone in this county is interested in,
every developer is watching, and m lot of the homeowners are watching. | can't do something for them that |
won't do for the rest of the county. And 8 will go to the extent that these buildings that Joel is talking about,
were built when there was no height limit actually. If this comes dmmm either in a hurricane nrthey want to
Page 6 of 12
remodel it, | don't have aproblem with them rebuilding tothe height bwas. | don't think itruins the landscape
because we have had oh|rty/fortyyears of looking at it. And therefore, everyone else in the county can also
rebuild the over thirty five feet structures they have. Most ofthem are commercial structures.
Commissioner Kolhage� Okay can I ask you a question Mayor so I can more or less understand your position? So
you're saying, you don't have a problem with them rebuilding to the height that they are now but you mean
without the adjustment for base flood elevation or with it?
Mayor Murphy: No, because everyone in the county is going to get that adjustment,
Cornmissioner Kolhage: So you don't have an objection to it?
Mayor Murphy: Not to that. I have an objection to the decorative features.
Cornrnissioner KolhageOkay but look, if it's, if they got a fifty foot building and there is a five foot adjustment
for base flood elevation, you don't have a problem with them going to fifty five feet?
Mayor Murphy: No.
Mayor Murphy. They are going to what they were before the remodel ...
and you want it county wide not just for Ocean Reef?
Mayor Murphy: Yes.
Comrnissioner Carruthers: But only for flood mitigation...
Mayor Murphy: That's it, no decorative stuff,
Well right now the decorative bin, the flood bin —
Commissioner Carruthers: Well the decorative is in for Ocean Reef only, the flood is in for everyone. Right?
Yeah and the decorative is not so much what Joel is talking about relative to the bigger
commercial buildings, its more for the single family homes that want the decorative features ontop ofthe roof.
They are separate issues really. So right now |nthe draft policy you have included an extra five feet in Ocean04
�c
Reef for the decorative architectural features you've included for the whole county up to five feet adjustments
for flood protection, raising your elevations, and Joel isasking you toalso include, for Ocean Reef, but i1sounds id
like you at least have one Commissioner who wants to do it county wide for gramd6thehnA existing buildings
that are higher than thirty five feet and allowing them to get the flood adjustment. E
Bob Shilfinger: You'd want to vest them for that height is what I'm hearing.
Yup.But | don't know the Commissions, I'm not geting.'
Page 7of12
Commissioner Naugemo Well first ofall the staff issupposed toreview what the request isand bring itback the
staff recommendation
But |'d like to know what the board, county wide or Ocean Reef for this vesting of existing
buildings atleast.
Cmmmrmiao|oner R�ce: Well let me help you out, if we don't 6m that, the economic impact, eventually we will
destroy what weknow down here. | don't feel that vvehave any choice.
Commissioner Carruthers: I don't think it's fair ... I don't think it's fair to not let somebody rebuild what they got.
As itlswhen they do rebuild they have to meet standards that exist today that did not, and codes that exist
today that did not exist then.
I understand what you all are asking for so if you want to just move on without voting, we will
draft language and bring it back for discussion on one of your regular agendas,
Commissioner NeuGent: Let mepoint this out assomeone who operated out ofan illegal non -conforming
building, if you think that it is something that is, it was called Pmrh/s restaurant, and if would have been
destroyed byastorm, | would have had avery difficult time, ifnot impossible time to rebuild with the same
amount of square footage because of sm1bmoka that came into play after Pmrk/s was built eons ago. So if you
think that there is a fairness level here, there is really a lot of situations where you can't rebuild.
Commissioner Carruthers: but wouldn't you have been able to apply for variances and exceptions to those
setbacks...
No.
Commissioner Neugent: You still would have had womeet the setback requirements.
You could apply for variance for msetback but not height.
Mayor Murphy: See well all weare talking about isheight. Not their setbacks.Not anything else.
Commissioner Kolhage: We're talking about changing the whole concept of the fifty percent rule.
No I understand ...
ComnnnissianerKoftge: How does it work? For height ... we're saying we're washing away the fifty percent rule.
WeUotherthimgscnterinto—fnrheightyouwou|dbevvashingitaway.
Bob ShiNn0er:Asatrigger for bringing itinto compliance with current code
There are still other things that apply to that but most of those can be remedied by a variance.
Commissioner Carruthers: and just to clarify what you are eluding to | think, Commissioner, is that someone
Page 8 of 12
I mean if you are elevating a building, you're usually triggering that price ...
Commissioner Carruthers: Well it depends onthe building and the cost
Connm�ss'pone, Ko|hage: and the whole destruction issue and the fifty percent and thats—. I'm not necessarily
saying 1have aproblem with that but that's what we're doing
And I will say the examples that Joel gave of the condominiums, when you, let's say have eight
units per floor and now you have a storm that destroys more than fifty percent ofthat building, you are
eliminating the possibility of one of those floors, because you are going to h:mve to elevate it and that means
eight condo owners don't get a unit and so that's related to the Bert Jay Harris that Bob referred to
Commissioner Carruthers: Everybody gets osmaller unit which isstill going to6eanissue so ...
That's under our current rules.
Commnm-isuimwerR|ce: And what we're trying to do is validate, you don't want to build a fifty year building or sixty
year building without accommodating expected sea level rise
Cmmnnniss|aue, Carruthers` | guess my only other comment is that | know that this is going to be controversial
andpeop|eamgoingtobecnmcmrnedaboutchmractermndth|ngs|ikethat—
KAayorMurp#V, But it's already there.
CommimmienerCarruthers� Well itisalready Lhe/e—
Mayor Murphy: 5oit's not changing the |andscape—
Commissioner Carruthers: It's not but trust mofrom dealing with this inKey West people have the perception
that overnight the character of our communities is going to change and that's not what we're talking
about—Overfiftyyeao it probably will to some extent but it's going to have to if we want to continue to live
here.
Mayor Murphy: Alright listen we're going totake abreak
��������_��_����_���_����
MaymrMurphy�Andwhat| realized is we neglected togive Christine e head mod one way or the other omthe
non -habitable architectural decorative features. KHycomment was, |viU vote for the increase in height but not
for the decorative features. Discuss it and |*t her know which direction you would like her to take when she
does her staff report.
Commissioner Carruthers: Are you talking about within Ocean Reef orCounty wide?
Mayor Murphy: They are the only ones that asked for it.
[amwmn|sy|owerCarruthers� ] don't really care.
Page 9 of 12
Commissioner Neugem: We'll put together something that is going to be in place for twenty years ora1least
supposedly it should be put in place so this is going to be hmp6 and complex so | would say that the data and
information onitbeing done county wide.
WYayorKmmrphy� But the point is, what county wide? | don't care ifits county wide, infact lthas 1obe. For me
to vote for aheight limit, it has tobecounty wide. Otherwise, I'm not going to vote for it.
Okay wait a minute, no one has proposed, maybe that's where you're going next I don't know,
0
rightomm/vvhat'sinyourdeftioflomdforeverybody—
~L
Mayor Murphy: Base flood e|evmdon_
n-
They have talked about it, I am very clear, everyone is okay with that. Ocean Reef only,
�
�
r-
decorative features, five additional feet. And I didn't hear, I heard Murphy say she's opposed to it but i didn't
.2
hear what any of you other Commissioners thought of that.
CL
a)
PViayarMonphy: And that's what I am trying to bring out so that she knows where to go with it.
Commissioner Neugent/ Uthuught | heard you ask, you wanted a head nod whether this was going bzbe
proposed just for Ocean Reef orall ofunincorporated Monroe County.
�
�
I had never heard that the decorative features was proposed for all of Monroe County from
you alL
to
Commissioner Rice and Commissioner Kulhu8*respond inunison: No, mo—
Commissioner Neugemt: Okay but 8dso heard Commissioner Mayor Murphy say, I'm not going totreat them
any different than the rest ofthe County.
Cornrn�ssionev Mce: Well that gives you a slight clue as to how she might vote
So what I think I've gotten clarity on is everybody's okay allowing the people to get five of the
five feet to adjust the floodplain if they are demofished. The board wants us to draft language to address
existing structures that are already over thirty five feet to be able to be replaced with the five foot flood
adjustment. What I don't have any clarity on is whether or not the board wants us to keep in Ocean Reef
allowance for five foot additional architectural decorative features or not. Or if you want to expand that County
wide, which I had never heard as an option to this moment,
�
CunnmissimnerKWhage: Let rnejust state myposition onthis and you can Kmdown the line | guess but |really mm
don't care about the architectural features of Ocean Reef. |\e tried to cane but | just can't. But | am a little
concerned, I'm a little concerned about doing away with our fifty percent rule on the rest of the County and I'm
not saying that |amgoing tosupport that.
Commissioner Neugent: |'m not saying that | am going to support anything. |'m saying | just want the ~^
information tobeable tomake the decision, have the discussions with the people who are going tospeak for
and against it.
Page 1Oof12
Mayor Murphy: And my only point with the architectural features, I don't think they are necessary, but if just
for Ocean Reef, I don't want them certainly spread all over Monroe County and if you do that you are
guaranteeing somebody an extra ten feet. Five feet for the base flood elevation, up to five feet, and then up to
another five feet for their decorative stuff, plus what they'll be rebuilding is something that is you know, fifty
feet, fifty four feet, whatever. Its adding ten feet to it instead of five. I think that's a bit much.
Commissioner Newgent; At what point in time 6o we bring up what was brought up previously about
addressing affordable housing, increasing the height limit ... This is all about bringing information back tous.
This isthe time tobring that upifyou want to.
Commissioner Neugent; And |]uxt, looking back in history a little bit here, there were some comments that
Meridian West could have had another floor which would have increased the housing if they had gone up an
additional foot orso. So again, more information to discuss that strictly for affordable housing.
Yes and at the meeting that State Representative Rascbein held, you all discussed that. We do
not have anything included right now in this policy for increased height for affordable housing. We have
discussed it as staff after you had that meeting. It's our opinion that if you are going to inuentivize affordable
housing development by giving them a higher height limit that you should restrict that 1overy low and low
maybe median, but the moderate income level is something that vve do not think should be incemtivizedvvith a
height increase.
CommmissiunerNeugent� One of the biggest problems in dealing with affordable housing is the property to build
them on. Another reason why | think the discussion should take place for affordable housing to go up is that if
you can build more on that specific site as opposed to trying to find other properties to build affordable housing
on. khelps resolve that part ofthe equation.
Cmmmissimnernmlhoge' Sowhat are you going todowith that Christine? Between now and January?
Do you want ustoinclude something for you to consider relative to affordable in the next
version that webring tmyou atyour regular meeting for discussion?
Commissioner Carruthers- |do.
Okay.
CommissomerKoihage | remain tobeconvin,ced—
ConnmniesfonerMce, I'm not sure how | feel about itbut |think we6oneed tohave the discussion.
And I'm going to have some diagrams for you all by the next meeting with each policy so you
can see what that means.
Commissioner Carruthers: Will you also, related to this policy with affordable, that would have to be in very
specific tiered areas obviously.
Page 11 of 12
I understand. I will bring that also.
Corm,nissiorier Whage� It's all about potential serious community character issues here.
Page 12 of 12
I
I'
E1_i' H 1 B! T 2
t t'
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTN' PLAN SING & ENV1ROti�tENTAt_ Rt;sctt RCEs DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Townsley Schwab. Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From- Mayte Santannaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schernper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: March 17, 2015
Subject.. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND
TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY
101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL, DECORATIVE
FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES
101,532 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT
LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN
EXCEPTION 1-0 THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR
EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS
FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN INCOME CATEGORIES ON
PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: March 24,2015
1, REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the
height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by
a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions
to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding, and reduce flood insurance costs; and.
create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height linnit exclusively for affordable or
employee/workforce dwelling units that rneet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median
income categories on properties designated as tier 3.
File 2015-006 Page t of'20
The County has been working on the Comprehensive flan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
field on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7. 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Econornic Opportunity (DEG) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies jbr addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 3Jft height lirrrii, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. ,Staff to present drafts daring the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• O(V directed staff'to work r3rr an iraiJcntor}rdata ref prfivatcl};-o rtread (�ff. lacrrc islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing, was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County; 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEG. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the to
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height to
f unit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
111. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED
R AMENDMENT
In unincorporated Monroe County. height and gLqde are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part ref aiti, CD
N
structure, including rrrechanical ecluiprrrew, but excluding chimney s: spires andlor steeples on
structures used fbr institutional andlor public uses on4y; radio and/or television antenna,
.flagpoles; solar apparatus 'utility Doles andlor transmission tossers; and certain antenna �
supporting structures pith attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. 04
However, in no evew shall any qf the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit anry habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the cask of
airport districts, the height lin itations therein .shall be absolute and the e-tehrs°ions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
U
GRADE means the hi,-hesi natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construetion,
next to the proposed avalls of a structure, or the crown or curb af"the nearest marl directl),
adjacent to the structure, 'vhichever° is hi, -her. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize e the Light Detection and Ranging (LiD.,1R) dataset for Monroe
Cozwn y prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available,for a given parcel, the
File 2015-006 €laoe 2 of20
cos n(y ,shall use the best available data, inclucling, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary .survey �s ivitla elevations, pre -construction topographic surve}'s°, elevation certificates
array or other optical remote .sensing data.
Fused on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height _ the vertical distance
betvveera grode cruel the highest part ol'crrr)> structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly,
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
Height limit
("Towt' sal (;uod 51.. ,. Crown offlie road
1 lr idrItFan IV,
rear, sea lei!
AE 5'
2fl of fill needed to reach 5R
flood zone requirement Rom
the natural elevation of 3 Rm
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 00')-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood snaps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property frorn flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features,
For review convenience. a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public
bearing, is attached (Exhibit I).
File 20I S-006 Page 3 of20
OCEAN REEF - architectural decorative features.
11oliev 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef ag rted communitti NN hich is isolated and inaccessible to the. surroturding comnncrrrity. and
Ims a distinct community character, structures may itrc4nde non -habitable architectural decorative features
LuclI as finials. rails. widow-s %kalk) that exceed the 3-5 foot height limit in policy 101 5,JO. but such
features shall not exceed 5 feet above the sfructnre's roof line Tl]is�shall not result in a strrlctcrr.e
or anv architeCWFGtl decorative fCaILH-C vv ith a 116-Uht that would exceed 40 feet.
Draft Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non -habitable architectural decorative features which are
commonly applied for in the Ocean Reef community and the issues this causes in permitting relative to the
architectural decorative features.
EMM
Yellox+
non -habitable
architectural
decorative
feature
h`ottirctt Ele cr for
b Ir 14(r . p $.a
mir SAm I€�-C1
UJM
2m
This type of exemption would be to address items such as balls, finials, or a widow"s walk
File ?o la -roc, Page 4 vt'zo
FLOOD PROTECTION AND INSURANCE DISCOUNTS:
Poliev 101, .32
In order to protect properlN from floodin g and redrrese hood insurance costs for property, owners, a blood
Protection 1leivhhtt_E.xcefrtion sllagli be provided to the 3.5 toot h�i{lht limit in Policy 101,5.30 as follows:
1 For ncev structures which are. Voluntarily elevated to e ceed the Structure's minimum !::gjrired
FEMA lase flood elevation (B E>) Lased can the flood zone, -,in exception of rrp to Erve 51 feet above the
35400t hekdn limit nnav be permitted. The amount oP the exception shall be a ma_iiMUM of five (5i
Feet, and shall be no ureater than the amount of VolurltarV elevation above B E , and
2. For eNistinrg structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35) feet in Policy ld1.5.30
and are voluntarily elevated to met and/or exceed the ,tFUCture's rnininIu111 recpurred FEMA CAFE
based on the blood zone_ an exception of rrJ) to five (5) feet above the 35-toot lick-dit limit nim be
permitted. The amOUIIt of the exception Shall be a niaxirnum of five (- feet. rrr�cl shall be no greate
than the amount of clevation necessary to meet BFF Dlrrs the an.ount of voluntary elevation above
F31°T-:: and.
1. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 f`eet in Policy-] 01,51.30, may
be permitted a hei(Ort exception of more than free (5) feet. if' necessrrr„vv,, to voluntarily elevate the
structure to 111eet the structure's rnininrum required FEMA Bt L lased on the flood zone l l_us_I (one)
additional Im above 13FE.
Draft Policy 101.5.32 is intended to help protect structures from flood events, mitigate upcoming FEMA
flood zone height changes, mitigate rising insurance costs for the property owner and assist with flood
insurance rate discounts in the Community Rating System. The discussed height exception would allow
structures to be elevated higher than the required rninimurn FEMA base flood elevation which Could then
allow property owners to obtain discounts on their insurance and help mitigate potential flooding damage.
See the following example on flood insurance disCouuts:
to
r.,
® 1
File 2015-006 Page 5 ol'20
I'
For draft Policy 101.5.32 which creates the Flood Protection Height exception, the ROCC expressed
concerns with a property owner's ability to either build or elevate their homes without losing living space
(i.e. reducing the number of stories of the structure) and being squeezed into smaller homes. To try and
determine if this is an issue with the proposed policy exception, which would allow an additional 5 feet in
height, County staff has evaluated the number of properties per flood zone [fallon',ing Flood Zone tulle] and
created basic illustrations [following -4 page Flood Zone Height Analysis] to depict how the current height
limit, per flood zone, may affect proposed development, and examples with the flood protection height
exception.
Based on the information in the Flood Zone table, it is noted that the majority of parcels within
unincorporated ]Monroe County fall within the AE 7 to AE 1 I flood zones. There are 44,910 parcels within
these flood zones, out of an estimated 56,843 total parcels within unincorporated Monroe County (79% of
the total parcels are within AE 7 to AE 11).
Based on the information in the Flood Zone Height Analysis, generally:
• In flood zones X through AE 10 or VE 10 [uppro.y. 47,158purcels], a three (3) story structure may
be developed.
• In flood zones AE I I (VE 1 1) through AE 20 (VE 20) [approx. 9,330 parcels], a two (2) story
structure may be developed.
e For flood zones AE 21 (VE 21) and greater [approx. 19 pareels]', a one (1) story structure may be
developed.
The generalized comments are made based upon the provided examples, within the Flood Zone Height
Analysis, with crown of road at 5ft and used as the starting point (grade) for measuring height.
Lanni Development Code
H EI 11T is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part r f any
structure....
GRADE means the highest natural elevation r1f'the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb uj' the nearest mad directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher.....
File 201' 5-006 Page 6 of 20
N ITIT i t
FEMA Flood Zone
Number of Parcels
% of total % of total
X
1,935
3,40%°
0.2 PCT ANNUAL
5.16%Q
CHANCE FLOOD
HAZARD
999
1.76%
AE 5
1
0.00%°
i
AE 6
1,964
3.46%
6
AE 7
8,996
1583%
AE 8
14,824
26.08%
AE 9
11,272
19.83%
AE 10
6,835
12,02%
83.48%
AEC 1
2,993
5.25%
_
AE 12
121
0.21%
AE 13
418
0.74%
AE 14
36
0.06%0
AE 15
3
0,01 %
AE 16
1
0.00%° .-.-......
VF 9
5
0.01%
3 story
VE 10
327
0.58%
VEII
1,01.9
1.79%
VE 12
1,443
2.54%
4
VE 13
1,069
1.88%
VE 14
1,815
3,19%
VE 15
352
0.62%
VE 16
31
0.05%
ti
1
VE 17
33
10,76%
0.06%
—
VE 19
5
0.01%
VE 20
1
0.00%
—
VE 21
8
0.01°fo
VE22
7
0.01%
J
VE 23
1
0,00%
� � a
r
VE 24
1
0,00%
c
VE 26
2
0.00%
OPEN WATER
10
0.02%°
total parcels
56,843
Note: AY qf October 2014 there are apprarinvately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe C'ougy=.
The tatul.fi-ortt the spreadsheet frill be differen2 assome ol the sathmcv'ged parcels do not, fullmlthrrs the I-T1t1A Zones
1 ile 2015-006 Page 7 of-20
Fwd Z.,,77
Height ntl
AE 5' AE 6' W 7' 4« ,z W AE 10* am I' AE 12'
AE S' AE S' AE 8' AE 12' AE 12' AE 12'�� «\ (��� \� \� w/
AE 13' AE 14' AE W AE 16' AE 17' At 18' AE 19'
AE 16' AE 10' AE 16' AE 20' At 20' AE 20'
( 0111) (�— "I" ) ) (, ",- "'
EVA b�s Ew, lj�
I -A Ix-d
de,,x., O"A'c
- "
AE 20' AE 2V " ,�A
-7 4
Flood ZO
mm�
YE 61 w 71 VE S' %f S' VE 10' 4 11, W 12'
%f 12' VE 12' %E 12'
\ \ . � � � � ) � � ) PJA � j
mm, �
VE 13' VE 14' VE 15' VE 1 S' VE 17- w W VE 19,
A 16' A 16' A 16'
1
EvA I'q;^ FEVA t'j,
VE 20' VE 20 VE 20'
'i,xd
I E F I L.� I"Z
I , "! 1, " 1,
VE 20* VE 21' ,,, `, I wA
4 " 4
11oliev 1.01.5.33
A lawfully established L\istin�� strLICture which currently exceeds the hei<>ht limit,of' 35 feet in Nolte
101.5.30 May be repaired, ini,j)roveci or_-econstructcd to its existing, heielit, provided the structure is limited
to the lav�.f`blly established existing intensity. floor area density and tvpc ofLcse. A Flood Protec;tlon Fleight
FcLqrjMlamlawfully established existin{= structure excecdi the 35 Brat height li -if shall be provided
as 1,611OWS:
1, For lave folk established existin;4 strLIettere5 \+ hich currently exceed the l eiadit limit of 35 feet in
Policv 101.5.30 and are voluntarilv elevated to Beet and/or exceed the structure's niiniaum recl ed
FL:MA BFE based on the flood zone. an exception 01' L tO five (5) feet inav be permitted. The aIIIOUut
of the exception shall be a niaxInIum of five_(.5)feet, and shall be: no Lzre-ter than the amount of
elevation necessary to meet BFE :plus the amou11t Of voitnnIfflN elevation above BF1' and
I L aw f iffi established existing) structuresyvhic,h Currently exceed the licit -flit limit ui _ 5 feet in Policy
101.5.30. nay- beei-mitted a lie is� t exception of more than five (5) feet, 1` netL ssarv, to voluntarily
elevate the uIlCtLWO MeCA the Structure's mininItuaz reclUired FEMA BFE based on the flood zones 1
(one) additional foot above K E.
For draft Policy 101.5.33 which creates the height exception for a lawfully established existing structure
which currently exceeds the 35 foot height limit to be repaired, ii-tproved or reconstructed to its existing
height and provides a Flood Protection Height Exception to elevate the structure to meet and/or exceed the
required. FEMA BFE.
Example 1: > feet to exceed the structure-s minimum required. FEMA BFE
,in, n
4'0
j
�2`` _
11'. FtP"-'IM11 H;
77�� rrf,,,Jr a lev
AL' 5 AE 5
File 2015-006 Page 12 of'20
Example 2: elevated ]Oft to meet the structure's rninimum required 1~EMA BFE plus 1 additional foot
above BFE
55
42'
5'
;ft*
- is rrocjsloV W
mejn sea !C-M
AE 15 AE 15
Note, staff has not been able to complete an inventory of structures that exceed the adopted height limit of
35 feet as there is not enough information in our files to determine the exact grade (either highest natural
clevalicn caf'lhe ground swfcrcc, prior Io cranstrrrction, next to the pi-raposed ivalls (?I'o so-11clurc, or the
crown or cia-b of"the new-ev road directl}� adjacent to the sli-itelure, whichever- is higher) for most structures
built before 1985. As such, we cannot determine the number of structures which may be affected by the
proposed policy. Below are examples of structures which appear to exceed the adopted height limit:
Moon Bay Condos, mm 104
Built in the 70s
Crown of road inqht be 1 a-14' bused on Li DAR,
Building B is 46' frorn ground level of 13' AMSL.
Building A is 49'6" from ground level.
Harbor 92 Condos, mm 92
Built in the 70s
Crown of road in ghf be about 8' based on LiDAR
Building is 63' from around level
Kawama Tower, mrn 102
Built in the 70s
Building is 85' from ground level of about 7' AMSL
Fi le 2015-006 Page 13 of 20
AFFORDABLE HOUSING:
Policv 1,01.5.34
In order to incentivize the development of al"I"o dable and ensyeelworkforce housing. an exception shall
1 L)Lcvir ed to th 3 boot l ei rl t limit in Policy 101.5JO eXCILISiVeIN for af(ordable or emMoyee/ orklorc.e
dwellinE) trnits that meet the income limits for the very, low, lore and/or median income categories on
properties designated as Fier 3. A structut•e developed as affordable or employeeAvor l`orce (cousin, frar
r erg low, low and/or median income catetoories n-MV be deg eloped rr ith a maxi -aura height of l l feet ter
Lwori(le fir'• arl2 to three c Slor ies tr eic parking or (iev lovinellt Over` non e,s;identical clr:eyj
Ileiaht is de[ined as the vertical distance between (,lade and the LLst_ia{itt oi`any strtrcttrre, including
mecIianicaI ecluipn1ent, excludin(the exce Ptions hsteel a,l Po -lien 101 _S.'O.
i,eq low income = household kMose total household income odes not exceed 50% of the ttredian
monthly household incorne.for the count),
low income = household znhose total household income does not exceed 80% of the median monthly,
household income for the cc wqn
median income -= means a household rahose total household income clods not exceed 100% nl the
median rnonthf}, household incontefbr the county
For draft Policy 101.5.34 which creates the height exception for affordable housing, the BOCC discussed
finding nays to incentivize additional development of affordable housing. The intent of the proposed policy
is to encourage additional affordable and employee/workforce housing provision by allowing structures
developed as affordable/workforce housing; to be built with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide for
three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area.
8 ' 0"
[� a*s
Y` rl,rr
�g.�f••+�s A.S ree
1 0>_C..
OW
g
Y
C
a)
�'Icgvr 01 Ru"'Ad soft'
r aTurol Ele vollot, 3f
IF fr1q,01 ter; F+
mr'an sea Ie ' d
File 2015-006 Page 14 ol'20
OPTIONS FOR PROPOSED HEIGHT POLICIES FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION:
- Staff has developed the following draft policies for consideration. (Deletions are and
additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.45.2630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural
environment,. Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including
mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical
distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including
mechanical e ui sent, but excluding sires and/or steeples on structures used
for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television
antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus, utility poles and/or transmission towers;
and certain antenna supporting; structures with attached antennas and/or
collocations.
Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and
the turbines are owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian
Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service
USFWS and the turbines comply with relevant state and federal wildlife
protection lawns such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental
Policy Act. Applications pLoposing.wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in
height within the MIAI overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review
and comment.
In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 foot
height limitation.
Policy 101..31
For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the
surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures
may include non -habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials.
rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30,
but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This
exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature
with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
File 201 5-006 I't oe 15 of20
Policy 101.5.32
In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for
propeK!y owners a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the
35 foot hei ht limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows:
1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the
structure's minimum rewired FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based
on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot
height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a.
maximum of five (5) feet:, and shall be no greater than the arrtount of
voluntary elevation above BFE; and
2. For existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of
35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or
exceed the structure's minimum required. FEMA BFE based on the
flood zone an exception of up to five (5) feet above the. 35-foot height
limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a
maximum of five (S) feet and shall be no greater than the amount of
elevation-necessaa to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation
above BFE; and
3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35
feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more
than five 5 feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the structure to
meet the structures minir3um required FEMA BFE based on the flood
zone leis 1 oils additional foot above BFE.
Policy 101.5.33
A lawfully established existing structure which currently,,, exceeds the height
limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired.....improved or reconstructed
to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully
established existing intensity, floor area density and type of use. A Flood
Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure
exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows:
1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the
height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101 30 and are voluntarily elevated to
meet and/or exceed the structure's_ minimum rewired FEMA BFE
based on the flood zone, an exception off to five (5) feet may be
permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of fide 5
feet, and shall be no gr eater than the amount of elevation necessary to
meet BFE plus the anxount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and
I Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the
height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5 30 may be permitted a height
exception of more than five 5 feet, if necessat , to voluntarily elevate
the structure meet the structure's minimum rewired FEMA BFE based
on the flood zone plus I (one) additional foot above BFE.
Policy 101.5.34
In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee/workforce
housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height 11mlt in Policy
101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee/workforce dwelling units that
meet the income limits for the ve!v low, love and/or medial/ income categories
on propeities designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or
employee/work-forcehousing for vea low, low and/or median income
categories mgy be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide
for Lip to three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floo
area
lie] :ght i defined as the vertical distance between trade and the highest halt of
any.- structure, including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions
listed 1n :Policy 101.5.30..
CONSISTENCYV. f 2010 COMPREHENSIVE
THE FLORIDA STATUTES, Il PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDINGDEVELOPMENT
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010.Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers..
Goal 101: Monroe County shall nianage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that rneet or exceed the niinimurn. FEMA re0uireinents. The
13uildinyg Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard rnitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5 04
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Prograrn (NFiP) Cornrnunity
Rating System {CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to irnprove its current CRS Class 9
ratin
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to W
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a rneans of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
File 2015-006 Page 17 of'20
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites,
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and.
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.02(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing, land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys,
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
I. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacernent of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
File 2015-006 Page 1.8 of20
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Pant If of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.),
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages, encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps, and deal effectively with future problems that may result:
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local � overnment can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare, facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1). F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and
strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal
development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its
elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and
shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections
of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals,
objectives,. and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land
development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive
plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing
regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs,
activities, and land development regulations that will be pail of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land
development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable
standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
more detailed land development and use regulations.
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be afiected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application_ the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning; &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
File 2015-006 Pape 19 of20
Of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC bolds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment„ and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment..
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, frorn the October 7, 2014 public hearing
File 201 -006 Page 20 of 20
EXHIBIT 3
Tuesday, March 24,2015
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
March 24 , 2015, beginning at 1:02 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (I" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
ROLL CALL by Grail Creech
C MEMBERS
Tow °nsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Emily Schemper, Principal Planner Present
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item I is delayed.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24, 2015, DRC meeting as is.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY
101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES
OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO
ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN
THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND
CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT
EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS
THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN
INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR.
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAT, OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 201.5-006)
(1:03 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated that Items 2 and 3 will be held as a workshop discussion
versus a staff report with comments. Both items are from the comp plan update and were
proposed within the 2030 comp plan. The BOCC has asked staff to remove the policies as they
were in the comp plan and process them separately so that there is public understanding and
public input through the process. This item will be brought back two or three tines to ensue
revisions can be made with public input.
Ms. Santamaria first addressed Policy 101.4.26. Ms. Santamaria explained that the current
height definition is the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure and it
is measured from either grade or the crown of the nearest road. Multiple height exceptions have
been proposed in order to address a variety of issues. The first one is the wind turbine for
facilities owned and operated by a public utility. An avian protection plan would be required.
The height exception would be for those wind turbines that facilitate green technologies and
alternative energy sources. Ms. Santamaria informed Deb Curlee there are no applications for
wind turbines currently.
Alicia Putney cornmented that her personal experience has been that wind turbines are not able
to generate enough current to be deemed useful unless the sustainable winds were above 20-25
miles an hour. Consequently, wind is more questionable than solar energy at this point. Ms.
Curlee is not in favor of wind turbines because of their aesthetics. Ms. Santamaria will draft a
version of the policy as the BOCC has proposed it next to a version that includes the public's
input. Bill Eardley asked that staff obtain an analysis of FKEC's two wind turbines located on
Cudjoe Key before proceeding with this policy.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.31. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy is
specific to Ocean Reef. In permitting for that community staff has had to deal with architectural
features just above the 35-foot height limit. Staff has recommended the architectural features
could exceed the 35-foot height limit by five feet, not to exceed 40 feet, and can contain no
habitable space up there.
Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association and Ocean Reef Club.
Mr. Reed stated even though Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non -habitable architectural
decorative features, it is only one and the least significant of three provisions that Ocean Reef
has requested. Mr. Reed explained that Ocean Reef has its own architectural review committee
that projects go through as well. One of the longer term issues facing Ocean Reef Club is that.
they still own a number of buildings and condominiums that currently exceed the 35-foot height
restriction. These are aging buildings coming to the end of their useful life. There is concern if
they are ever destroyed they would not be able to build back to their current heights. Mr. Reed
agrees with being proactive by building above the FEMA flood heights. One policy request from
ki
Ocean Reef is for the ability to build back on a story -by -story approach rather than to the pre-
existing height. Mr. Reed feels allowing this way of rebuilding with an increase in the slab -to -
slab measurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than
tearing them down. Another issue important to Ocean Reef is the Cultural Center building.
Because the flyover space in this building is limited, the ability to have productions in this
building is limited also. Mr.. Reed suggested that a height of GS feet would accommodate that
flyover space. Mr. Reed emphasized that the proposed story -by -story rebuilding process is being
requested for Ocean Reef only, which is an isolated and gated community, not visible from the
roadway. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef provide information of the cultural center, such
as a map depiction and its existing height information. Mr. Reed agreed to provide that
information, as well as a list of inventoried buildings at Ocean Reef including their existing
heights.
Ms. Curlee asked for an estimate of the height of a building with an 11-foot slab -to -slab
allowance plus the flood elevation. Mr. Reed replied that it depends on the flood zone and the
average existing grade or crown of road of each site. Ms. Putney proposed Ocean Reef go
through a variance procedure for each of the specific buildings because of all the variables
associated with each building. Mr. Reed agreed that consideration needs to be given for each
building individually and stressed that losing a floor would not be an option in rebuilding. Mr.
Reed further explained that some communities have minimum ceiling heights so that a more
adaptable building into the future is built..
Ms. Putney asked if Ocean Reef has its own community master plan containing its own design
criteria. Mr. Reed responded that there are architectural design guidelines for Ocean Reef that
are followed currently and a process is being gone through to update and create a new master
plan for Ocean Reef. Ms.. Santamaria clarified that it is for Ocean Reefs own development
internally, but a Livable CommuniKeys plan or even an overlay district can be proposed. Ms.
Putney voiced concern that this policy would open the door for other gated communities
throughout the Keys to increase their height restriction. Ms. Santamaria noted that the reason the
BOCC was even considering this policy is because Ocean Reef is not only gated, but it is
isolated and separate from the rest of the Keys. Bill Hunter, present on behalf of Sugarloaf
Property Owners Association (SPOA), will be taking this request by Ocean Reef back to SPOA
members for their input. SPOA recognizes that Ocean Reef is isolated and very different from
the rest of the Keys. Mr. Hunter commented that the BOCC has said in the past they do not want
to treat Ocean Reef differently than the rest of the County. SPOA is neutral on this policy as
long as this does not affect the rest of the County.
Mr. Reed explained that there is language that allows Ocean Reef to go through a letter of
understanding process without going through a conditional use process. Mr. Reed feels perhaps
some stronger language would help address the concerns being voiced. Ms. Putney again.
suggested Ocean Reef have their own Livable CommuniKeys plan which is protected by the
comp plan. Mr. Reed pointed out that Ocean Reef has stricter regulations than the rest of the
County has, such as setbacks. Ms. Putney suggested adding language referring to gated.
communities over a certain size. Ms. Curlee believes, regardless of Ocean Reef being isolated
and gated, the public will expect the same consideration that Ocean Reef receives. Ms. Putney
agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not want to have special rules for
0
Ocean Reef Mr. Reed added that he believes only one Commissioner: has expressed that
sentiment. Ms. Santamaria stated the BOCC will make the decision of what they choose to adopt
and/or transmit to the State and will ultimately make the decision of which communities, which
policies and where they will apply to.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained these
policies are an attempt to provide existing and new structures the ability to redevelop or lift the
existing structure to come into compliance with their flood zone. New FEMA maps are expected
in four years. The first provision of Policy 101.5.32 is for new structures to voluntarily elevate
their structures up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit. It is based on what they choose to
elevate above flood_ The second provision of the policy is for existing structures to be able to
meet their base flood zone or to exceed it. Again, they can go up to five feet above the 35-foot
height limit, but this is based on the amount they choose to go up. The third provision is for
those structures that need to go a little bit higher to meet their flood zone. The addition of one
foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for.
Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structure is impractical due to the cost. It is simpler to pay
off the mortgage and cancel the flood insurance. Mr. Eardley feels there is no need for the
exception on new construction because the building can be designed to meet the current
standards. Ms. Santamaria explained the exception was proposed because the BOCC did not
want people to lose living space and be squeezed into smaller homes. FEMA representatives
have informed staff a grant program may be created to help with the cost of elevating a home.
Ms. Santamaria pointed out that some existing structures may not be able to be raised due to its
structural integrity. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there has been discussion about including
bonus points or points under the CRS for communities that provide for an opportunity for
property owners to elevate their base floor one to three feet above base flood elevation on a.
voluntary basis. Dottie Moses frorn the Upper Keys Homeowners Federation stated that the CRS
looks at encouraging people not to build in low-lying areas. Ms. Santamaria explained that is
why the inventory of flood zones was done. Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the County is
somehow encouraging building in a very low-lying area where roads will eventually no longer be
maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number l is applicable when people
tear down and build a new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of homes built before
FEMA came in to Monroe County in '78 built below the base flood would be a small enough
number that they could be dealt with through some kind of a development review mechanism as
opposed to a carte blanche rule. Ms. Schemper noted that this would give property owners the
allowance to do it rather than being penalized because of their unique circumstance. Ms.
Santamaria stated staff will evaluate that.
Ms. Santamaria then described a situation of a property owner in North Florida who built a home
less than ten years ago at three feet above flood. The new FEMA maps now show that home
being three feet below flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that the new FEMA maps could impact
a substantial number of people whose flood insurance premiums are going to skyrocket up
because of this situation. FEMA is supposed to take sea level rise into account when creating
their new maps. Staff is trying to think into the future to try to facilitate people's ability to
protect their homes and investments. Mr. Hunter suggested, because it is unknown what the
maps will show, introducing the concept and making allowances for the solution in the comp
4
plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifying the LDRs in the LDC is
an easier process. Mr. Schemper cautioned the longer addressing this issue is put off, the more
homes will be built that are going to be affected. Ms. Moses stated that at an Army Corps
meeting comments were made that all of the "easy" lots have been built on and what is left will
require mitigation and other issues. Ms. Santararia will try to run an analysis of the flood zone
of the vacant parcels in the County.
Mr. Hunter clarified that when he suggested splitting the concept in the comp plan and the detail
in the LDRs, he was not suggesting delaying the LDRs. Mr. Hunter further stated more public
outreach would help in educating the public more on climate change and sea level rise. Mr.
Roberts clarified for Mr. Hunter that the County does not have policies in place yet regarding
replacement of infrastructure in areas potentially susceptible to sea level rise, so the County has
to proceed under- existing policies and directives, which obligates the County to maintain the
roads. Ms. Santamaria described a situation in St. Augustine where property owners are suing
the municipality to maintain a road in a law -lying area so that the people would have access to
their fire service. Ms. Curlee asked about regulations regarding filling a lot. Mr. Roberts
explained that whether fill is allowed depends on the flood zone. Ms. Putney added that runoff
from higher lots into the road is creating a problem for the neighbors and in the canals, as well as
blocking views and creating shade. Mr. Williams clarified that situation does not create a
property rights issue. Ms. Santamaria noted that the variance procedure could create a staggered
view line in an area.
0
Ms. Moses stated the Federation has taken the position they do not want the 3 -foot height limit
raised under any circumstance. The County has managed to get by under that height limit to date
with new construction. Mr. Hunter on behalf of SPOA agreed with Ms. Moses' comments. Mr.
Hunter personally believes more education is needed about freeboard and the benefits of
04
freeboard. Ms. Putney on behalf of Last Stand stated existing buildings should have some kind
of mechanism for special approval, but that the total raised building could not exceed 40 feet and
the space created under the first floor should be non -habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed
to new construction receiving an exception to the 35-foot height limit. Mr. Williams noted that to
CD
there is a potential map amendment process to appeal to FEMA to make an exception for a lot.CD
The expense of that process was discussed.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy
addresses existing structures that currently exceed the height limit, such as a three or four-story
condo. By redeveloping to upgrade the building, coming into compliance with the flood zone
may result in loss of a story of that condo. That could potentially result in 20 people on the top
floor no longer having the ability to rebuild their home. Ms. Putney questioned why it is
perceived to affect the top story as opposed to the first story. Ms. Santamaria stated half of the
people would lose their home regardless of which story it is. This policy provides for allowing
five feet above their existing height. Ms. Putney stated Last Stand supports this policy provided
that the footprint of the structure is not changed. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee there is
no cap on the height. Staff does not have a clear inventory of those structures this policy would
encompass, but estimates only a handful. Mr. Reed asked that those who do support this policy
consider giving some additional slab -to -slab height when rebuilding. Ms. Putney replied Last
Stand supports the grandfathering of nonconforming height to certain buildings in Monroe
County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed
that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA along with any additional voluntary
clearance above base flood elevation must be equal to or less than the height of the old
nonconforming building. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA agrees as long as the redevelopment is
involuntary, such as because of fire or flood. Ms. Santamaria asked if the public in attendance
considers the new FEMA maps deeming a structure below base flood involuntary.
Mr. Reed does not like the "involuntary" language because it is a very tricky threshold to meet.
Ms. Santamaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying
to facilitate a lot of new development. Mr. Reed clarified that while there is no magic slab -to -
slab number, floor to ceiling heights should be created that are adaptable and can continue to be
remodeled throughout future years. Ms. Curlee expressed concern that what is "involuntary" to
one person may open the door to let somebody else take advantage of this policy. Ms.
Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee that in almost all situations exceptions to the height limit will
not allow people to add a story. In some situations that would be possible. Ms. Putney believes
that language should be included to limit in what situations it would be allowed. Mr. Hunter
suggested more detail of the buildings in Ocean Reef be gathered to realize the effect this could
have on the County. Mr. Reed clarified that his comments regarding slab -to -slab increases were
specific to the Ocean Reef policy, but feels it might be worth considering for all of
unincorporated Monroe County, Ms. Moses is concerned about tasking people's property rights
away from them. Mr. Hunter then commented that the "historical designation" language should
be eliminated.
Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.34. Ms. Santamaria explained this came out of the
session of the BOCC at the October- meeting to address a different height maximum for very low,
low and median income affordable employee and work force housing on properties designated
Tier III. This was to facilitate having nonresidential development on the first story and allowing
a couple stories of affordable housing on top. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA is opposed to this
amendment. SPOA believes that the County has the benefit of seeing what the cities have done
to address this issue before they make a decision on solutions. Another issue for SPOA is using
height as a solution to affordable housing in the County where there is more laird than the
County has ROGO allocations for. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to raising the
affordable housing lirnit. Key Largo does not have an affordable housing issue. There are
affordable housing projects in the Upper Keys district already and some of the way those
projects are being managed are not the way their deed restrictions have been written.
Ms. Moses pointed out there is no definition for "workforce housing" in the code. Ms.
Santamaria replied the Affordable Housing Committee will be addressing that soon. Tile BOCC
hired the FSU Consensus Center to provide a report on the County"s affordable housing issue.
Ms. Schemper added that the LDC uses the term "affordable housing" or "employee housing,"
which are defined terms. "Work force housing" is a more general term. Mr. Reed argued that
there is a demand and a need still in the Upper Keys for affordable housing. Mr. Reed then
stated it is a severe challenge to find appropriate land of a certain size to accommodate
affordable housing. Mr. Eardley is concerned this amendment would open the door for all kinds
of other development. Mr. Eardley agrees there are ways to address work force housing without
going higher, such as making the units smaller. Ms. Curlee added when talking about truly
A
affordable housing that would be rentals. Ms. Putney believes this issue is complex and the
height exception for affordable housing should be dealt with within the arena of the affordable
housing discussion separate from what is being done today. Ms. Santamaria clarified this
amendment would provide the opportunity to build more units, but it also will raise those units
above base flood.
Ms. Santamaria thanked the public for their comments and stated these comments will be
included in the staff report and will be back before the ITC again for more comments.
1.Playa Largo Resort, 97450 Overseas Highwgj, Key Lama, mile marker 97.5: A public
meeting concerning a request for an Amendment to a Major Conditional Use Permit. The
requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 177-unit hotel and associated
accessory uses. The subject property is legally described as Tracts 4B and 513, Amended Plat of
Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Key Largo, and also a tract of submerged land in the Bay of
Florida fronting said Tract 5B (TII1= Deed No. 22416), Monroe County, Florida, having real
estate number 005 5 5 010.000000.
(File 2015-031)
(2:32 p.m.) Ms. Schernper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this applicant
currently has an approved major conditional use permit from 2007 and it has had several .
deviations and time extensions over time. It is still active. The most recent deviation has
approved the site plan for 162 transient units and one commercial apartment, which was
previously on the site. The applicant has been issued a number of building permits. This
amendment to the major conditional use permit is to add an additional 15 transient units into the
hotel, the building of which has already been permitted, and that would bring them up to their
rnax number net density. It does not change any footprint on the site plain. All of the required
N
criteria are in compliance. The only issue that is still outstanding is the traffic and access. The
applicant had supplied a Level 2 traffic study with this application, and because of the threshold
of what is being proposed a Level 3 traffic study is needed. This may also impact the
requirement for a right -turn deceleration lane leading into the property. Ms. Schernper to
CD
recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. CD
Ms. Santarnaria commented that the Planning Commissioners will likely want to see the traffic
studies so they can take that data into account in their decision -making and make sure that it is
compliant. Mr. Roberts asked that Number 7 of the recommended actions be reworded to
specify the number of allowed docks. Mr. Roberts will supply that number to Ms. Schemper.
s
Jorge Cepeda, present on behalf of the applicant, stated he was familiar with the conditions
contained in the original approval. Mr. Cepeda asked that Condition S, the transportation shuttle
for guests and employees, be considered in the traffic study because that has less of an impact on
traffic. Mr. Cepeda asked that the second portion of the language about adequacy of public
facilities on Page 6 of the report remain part of the recommended action. Mr. Cepeda clarified
that no trees will be cut for the mulch exercise path, but there may be some underbrush that may
need to be accommodated. Mr. Roberts specified that "clearing" is the removal of any native
vegetation regardless of the size. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to inform staff if the applicant
is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted
for in the site plan. Ms. Schemper will look again at the deviation to see exactly how it is
worded and get back to the applicant regarding the clearing.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses asked whether the proposed commercial
apartment is bayfront. Ms. Schemper explained it was a previously existing unit, so the
residential use and density is protected. Mr. Cepeda stated the apartment is in the same location
as the prior developer's site plan. Ms. Moses then pointed out the site plan shows two entrances.
Ms. Schemper explained one is an emergency access drive requested by the fire department. Ms.
Moses then noted that the front buffer that faces US-1 looks to contain lead tree. Mr. Cepeda
replied that the landscaping will be done in the final stage. The main entrance is the original
American Outdoor entrance and at the end stage the exotics will be removed and landscaping
will be done to complete that buffer. Ms. Moses commented that there are a lot of non-native
species on the vegetation list. Mr. Roberts explained that the required vegetation is 100 percent
native vegetation, but anything planted above the minimum requirement can be anything the
developer wants. The developer is overplanting the required landscaping significantly. Ms.
Schemper clarified for Ms. Moses that the docking facility on the property is a hotel accessory
dock, not a marina.
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERA131LITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
(2:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated this item also comes from the comp plan update project. The
BOCC asked staff to remove these policies that were included in the comp plan and process them
separately since it was a new topic and received a lot of attention and people wanted to provide
input on the topic. These policies relate to the transfer of ROGO exemptions, density rights, as
well as where the development would be directed to.
Ms. Santamaria addressed Policy 101.5.8. Ms. Santamaria explained that, again, this item will
be handled today more like a workshop -type item..
Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to address all of
the policies together. Mr. Smith thanked staff for planning multiple workshops to allow these
policies to be vetted over a period of time where everyone can work together. Mr. Smith asked
staff to provide notice to the affected property owners of these meetings so they can actively
engage in this process. Mr. Smith asked staff to contemplate the unintended consequences of
these policies of not allowing the TDRs and TREs to be transferred to offshore islands and.
designating all offshore islands as Tier I. Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which
is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies
D.
put an inordinate burden on the property owners.. These property owners have some
development right, all residential in nature. The code only has two ways that residential can be
built; Through ROGO allocation or ROGO exemption. These islands do not have ROGO
exemptions because they do not have homes on them, so in order to build residential one would.
have to get a ROGO allocation or transfer a ROGO exemption from somewhere else. These
policies eliminate the ability to transfer. A property is left with requiring a ROGO allocation, but
the property is designated Tier I. This would be so limiting that the only use left would be bee-
keeping and temporary camping by the owner. Mr. Smith asked that staff look at how these
policies would operate as a whole to get a complete picture of hove it would operate.
Ms. Santamaria clarified individual property owners were not notified because this is not
property -specific and not all properties have their issues resolved with ownership. This is a
policy that would impact all privately -owned or even publicly -held offshore islands, Ms.
Santamaria further clarified that whale the policy has direction of discouraging development by
designating Tier I does not mean it is an automatic Tier- I. That designation would have to go
through its proper process to apply a designation to a property. Ms. Santamaria commented that
this policy is not a huge change regarding the TRI s and the TDRs. This is a proposed change
based on the discussions from the BOCC of where to direct the remaining allocations or
exemptions and where is the most appropriate place to direct development.
Julie Dick on behalf of Last Stand and Florida. Keys Environmental Fund thanked staff for the
workshop process and allowing the public the opportunity to participate in this process. Last
Stand thinks that the policies generally are consistent with the concepts of the tier overlay system
for offshore islands. Last Stand is generally supportive of the changes. Ms. Dick commented
that there are some inconsistencies with the acreage on the inventory. Ms. Santamaria explained
the Property Appraiser does not have the exact acreage of a property. A boundary survey is
required to determine the upland portions of a property. Ms. Santamaria will look into any
discrepancy reported to her. Ms. Dick further stated Last Stand agrees with the sender and
receiver site criteria. For evacuation purposes it make sense to discourage additional
development on offshore islands. Last Stand recommends removing significant upland habitat as
a criteria in Policy 206.1.2. The reasons to protect offshore islands go beyond whether or not.
they are suited to upland habitat, such as containing bird rookeries. Ms. Santamaria pointed out
that under Policy 206.1.2 the significant upland habitat is one of the criteria and it is being made
consistent with the Tier I criteria.
Ms. Putney asked whether there was a determination made that offshore islands were Tier I when
the County went to the tier system. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 stated that
designating offshore islands as Tier I lands was one method used to discourage developments
proposed on offshore islands. The only offshore islands that are not designated Tier I were the
ones that were missed by accident and undesignated, but this policy does not automatically
designate them. They would still have to go through that process. The provision exists in the
LDC that any islands without a specific land use designation shall be considered zoned as
offshore islands. The approximately ten offshore islands that were missed and not designated
were discussed.
Oj
s. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to
participate in the workshop -style meetings scheduled in the future.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m.
m
FX 1-4 T H TT 4
10 UK, N
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RFsOURCEs DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: May 17, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND
TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY, CREATING POLICY
101.5,31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE
FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES
101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT
LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTE'�G PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: May 26, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015
1. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the
U
height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by a)
a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features 04
within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions
to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and W
create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or
employee/workforce dwelling, units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median I E
income categories on properties designated as tier 3.
Il, BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
File 2015-006 Page I of 9
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing0 was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed stqff'to work on height policies j6r addressing
the replacement qf'existing buildings which exceed the 3.5fi height limit, architecti4rcilfi(,tl.ti.i-Cs,
flood protection purposes and qf
December BOCC meeting. ft)rdable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
• BOCC directed stq#'to work on an inventoi•yldata o privately -owned offshore islands. St ff'to
'f q.
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, front the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit I.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed t, .2)
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transiruittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
to
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
cornments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
ANALYSK�OVPROOSED AMENDMENT
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and grade are defined as follows:
W
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of ally
structure, including Inechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples ofz as
structures used E
.for institutional andlor public uses only; radio ondlor television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transnussion towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna andlor collocations as permitted in chapter 146. <
However, in no event shall an of the exclusions enunierated in, this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 9
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To coqfirin the natural elevation of the ground
suface, the county shall inilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) datasetfior Monroe
County prepared in 2007 In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given pareel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with th elevations, pre-WnStrtlCtiOn topographic surveys, elevation certificates
and/or other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height = the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part ref any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
"'Ic,wr �' , I Firxid 5ft'
Ncizural Eteva-lor 3f,,
® in 10114311 tc
MMn S.-I k-.el
Height limit
Crown of the road
+ 20'
2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
Z�
For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public
hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection
NOTE: See exhibits for additional inf6rinotion related to flood protection and fireeboard.
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 9
Z-
I
I'
V. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are 4+tek-en4hFeugh and additions are underlined.)
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County
shall limit the height of structures including mechanical
C� landfills to 35 feet.
Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the hi hest art of air structure
including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for
institutional and/or,public uses onlychirnneys; radio and/or television aqennas• lie oles; solar
apparatus; certain antenna supporting structures
with attached antennas and/or collocations. E*e"'i"
buildings,
Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are
owned and operated by a public utility 17ave an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the turbines
federal wildlife,Bird 'Treat )L Act,
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental Policv Act. Applications bv
a public utilityprapasing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height shall require a public
hearinR before the Board of Count Goirimissioners and a BGC L esolutian sii ortin 7 the
proposal and Wecifying the maximurn, approved height, prior to issuance of any count v vennit or
approval, Applications...proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in
overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment.
In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a master L planne
d community of 100 or more acres in area, which is gated
isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding cornmunitv, and has a distinct community character,
buildin2s. rnav include non -habitable architectural decorative features such as finials rails
widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height firnit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not
exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. T 11 i exceptiai� shall not result in a building or and
architectural decorative feature with _A_height that _would exceed 40 feet,
As used in this policy,-q master -planned communitymeans a Manned comixiunity of 100 or more
acres in area subject to a master plan or other development orderapprovedby the county when;
public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community
including the prevision ortation facilities and
services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates
development standards and monitors development requests by its member
Policy 1(1.5.32
By XXXX, date, Monroe ations which provide a
Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 (height limit), not exceeding a maximum
height of 40 feet, to promote public health, safety and general welfare; minimize public and
private losses due to flooding; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards
File 2015-006 Paocic 4 ol'9
Protect rovertv from flooding and minimize damages; minimize future ex enditures of ublic
funds for flood control proiects and for recovery from floodevents_mifigqterisi�nflg_od
Insurance premiums; and reduce flood insurance rates by facilitating/improving the Countfs
Community Rating System score, A Flood Protection Height Exceptioq_gf_jjto a maximum of
five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be rovided to allow buildings to voluntaril
elevate qp to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to pro qgjLflood protection,
minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance Memiurns and minimize future gxpggdftqlgs of
public funds for recovery from flood events.
LDR Section XXX:
As provided in Policy 101.5.32, the
FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit s follows�
I. For new buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's rninimurn
required BFE, an exception of up to three L-3) feet above the 35400t height limit
be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be a maximum of three (3)
feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no
event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height- and
I For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed - the 35-foot height
limit and are voluntarily., elevated to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exceplimit rna
be permitted. The amount e 5 feet,
and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus ��
to three (3) feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall anexisting
building be elevated to exceed a total building, height of 40 feev
3 that exceeds 40 feev and
4. No exception shall be provided to properties located in an AE 1(7 or VE lt� or greater
FEMA flood zone.
Policy 101-5.33
As of the effective date of this olio a lawfull established existiir buildin. which exceeds the
35-foot height limit in, Policy Ireconstructed to meet
required FEMA base flood elevation BFE}, provided the building is limited to the lawfully
established existiniz intensity, floor area, dcnsj!y-qqd-!yW of use. For buildings that are proposed
to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
shall be required Prior to issuance of any county
specifv the maximum approved height.
LDR Section XXX:
which exceed the 35 foot
height Iii-nit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to meet the FEMA -BFE p jovided
the building is limited to the lawfully established existing inteasity. floor area, density and
ty�f U�Se�
File 2015-006 Page 5 01,9
A Flood Protection.._ Height Exce ton for a lawfirll established existing building
exceeding the 35-foot height limit shall be provided as follows-,
1. For lawfully established existing at
are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's rninimurn required FENIA BFE. an
exception of up to five J5 } feet may be permitted, The arnounLof of exception �shall
be a maximum of five (5) feetelevation.0
necessary to meet BFE; and
2. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
0
are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's minimum required FENIA BFE but
CL
will require a height exception of more than five (5 feet, a public hearing before the0
Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any permit
.2
4-
L-
-county
or
or approval. The BOCC shall consider:
0
a. The physical characteristics of the existing building end parcel;
r-
b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood darnage and the
.0
CL
effects of such damage on the property owner;
X
c. The possibility that materials from the existing --h������
(1)
lands to the injury of others;
E
d. The availability of alternate solutions-, armed
Z
e. If the new proposed buildin height will result in increased flood risk- result in
additional threats to public safety result in extraordinary public expense• create
nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of Lhe2ublic.
A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved heir
..........
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4 Z
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting 04
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The T"
-W
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recornmendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5 E
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improveitscurrent CRS Class
C�
rating -
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing, setback requirements
C�
File 2015-006 Pa-e 6 of 9
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implernentation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
-1
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods,
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
-1
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximurn well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development,
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and arnortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
I , The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
I Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities,
5. Transportation facilities-,
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
Z�
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
0) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that rneet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
File 2015-006 Pave 7 ol'9
C
applicable, kind by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys,
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(in) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380,0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.316](4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that Units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare-, facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(l), F& - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community corni-rutments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and ]and development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and ]arid development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations.
VL PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments ri-iay be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
Z�
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 9
M
I'
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, Upon
receipt of the CRC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
VIII.EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
5. Excerpt of CRS Coordinator's Manual, pages 430-10 through 430-15
6. FEMA Lowest Floor Elevation Fact Sheet
7. w ww. floods mLirl. gov basic info on insurance and flood risk
8. What is Freeboard? www.dnr.aiiaryland.Rov/C`oast mart
9. Using Freeboard to Elevate structures above Predicted Floodwaters — Massachusetts Office of
Coastal Zone Management
10. Floodplain Management in Florida Quick Guide, pages 1 -28
11. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC
meeting (side by side comparison)
File 2015-006 Page 9 ol'9
1 r �
Tuesday, May 26, 20I5
-- 1
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May
26, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference
Room (I" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida,
WUllfllllIMUC717"
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
RC MEMBERS
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Sao
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Rey Ortiz, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner Supervisor Present
Lori Lehr, Floodplain Administrator Present
Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Present
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning.. Commission. Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
There were no changes to the agenda.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Ms. Santamaria approved the minutes of the April 28, 2015, DRC meeting with one correction of
a section number that will be submitted to Ms. Creech.
New Items:
1.99700 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mine marker 99: A public meeting concerning a
request for a major deviation to a major conditional use permit. The requested approval is
required for the proposed development to increase the existing walk-in cooler and to increase the
size of the existing bathrooms which would increase the amount of non-residential floor area on
the property. The subject property is legally described as Lazy Lagoon — A revision of Amended
Plat of Curry's Corner, Plat Book 2, Page 120 of public records, Monroe County, Section 33,
Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in
metes and bounds is provided in the application/file), having real estate number
00497540.000000.
I'
(File 2015-093)
(1;01 p.m.) Mr. Ortiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ortiz reported that the applicant is
requesting a major deviation to a major conditional use application. The applicant wants to
expand the bathroom by approximately six square feet, add a modular component to the rear of
the building for a walk-in cooler and expand an existing cooler that is currently within the
setbacks on the rear property line. The only criteria not met is regarding the variance
requirement that the site is going to need. Mr. Ortiz recommends approval to the Planning
Commission with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that
the applicant has submitted a variance application.
Hany Haroun, the applicant, emphasized that this renovation is necessary. Many hours have
been spent with Wendy's International and the County to make this work. The new kitchen
configuration in the center of the restaurant is a requirement from Wendy's International, which
takes away from the cooler/freezer space and the current storage area. The extension for the
sides is due to making the bathrooms ADA compliant. None of this will be visible from the
front. The only setback issue is for the cooler/freezer.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Dottie Moses, Ivey Largo resident, does not object to what is being asked for. Ms. Moses likes
the proposed landscaping along the highway. Ms. Moses commented on the poor drainage that
exists on the property. Mr. Haroun explained that the main road was built to drain out towards
Buttonwood Drive and consequently it floods there all the time. That is on the County right-of-
way. The County and State agreed to dig out the French drain and fill it with gravel to address
the flooding, problems. The tides also affect the drainage- in this area. Ms. Santamaria noted
when building permits are applied for the applicant will have to comply with the stormwater
requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant provide some documentation from
Wendy's International to show the hardship imposed on the applicant for purposes of the
variance. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant to provide an updated site plan.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY
101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES
OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO
ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN
THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
N
(1:12 p.m.) Nis. Santararia presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item
started with the comp plan update. There were policies to amend the height policies, address the
wind turbines, affordable housing and the flood protection. The BOCC asked staff to process
this as a separate stand-alone amendment. This was before the DRC in March where a lot of
comments were received. The flood protection policy generated concerns about the overall
height exception. Staff has proposed a policy that includes the reasons why there would be an
exception with a max height limit of 40 feet and it would be to elevate property three feet above
base flood elevation (BFE). The exception for new buildings is to exceed BFE, not just to meet
it, up to three feet above BFE. The exception for lawfully existing buildings is to either meet or
exceed BFE because there are circumstances, depending on the flood zone, where this exception
will not allow you to exceed BFE. If it is exceeded, it is only that amount it is exceeded that one
gets to go above BFE. Again, it is capped at 40 feet. The exception would not be allowed in
high -risk areas.
Ms. Santamaria introduced Ms. Lehr and asked for an update and information on flood zones..
Ms. Lehr explained that one of her roles is to help the County get into the Community Rating
System (CRS) program, which would result in some discount in flood insurance. When property
owners voluntarily elevate their properties they get a reduced premium on their flood insurance.
For every foot of elevation, the savings is about a quarter of the premium. After the cap of three
feet, the discounts fall off. The cost to elevate a property is recouped quickly in flood insurance
savings. Ms. Lehr believes the future of the Florida Building Code and other legislation is going
to be moving towards the implementation of some sort of freeboard, some sort of elevation
requirement above BFE. Ms. Lehr further explained the County is going through a mapping
process currently. It will be 2018.before those new maps come out, but the general feeling of
those maps is that the elevations in some areas will increase, so the required elevations will
increase.
Ms. Lehr clarified for Ms. Moses a community has to require a higher regulatory standard above
what is required on the flood insurance rate amounts to get CRS credit. Florida in general has
Borne of the highest scoring communities in the nation. Ms. Lehr believes Monroe County is
doing a lot of things to address the flooding that will be worth CRS credit. There will be changes
in the Florida Building Code conning up in the next couple of years to address BFE. Ms.
Santamaria explained the CRS does not address the top height, so the B4CC gave staff direction
to look into elevating the height limit so home owners are not squeezed in from the top, causing
homes to become smaller and smaller. Ms. Lehr noted that credits are being given for existing
buildings being elevated as opposed to rebuilt. The CRS program is very adamant that
communities do what is good for their floodplain management and protection of their citizens'
investments.
Ron Miller, Planning Commissioner and Key Largo resident, questioned why the County has
become concerned about someone losing habitable space in their structure, because in URM
parking spaces were required to be tinder homes, which takes away from habitable space. Ms.
Santamaria clarified this proposal is not zoning -specific. Mr. Miller feels homeowners should be
amenable to some give-and-take in the loss of so'ne habitable space. Mr. Miller believes the
people interested in more living space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms.
3
Santamaria clarified that the BOCC has become aware of the new FEMA maps corning out and
want Monroe County to get into the CRS and help the community better protect their property
and investments. So they have directed staff to address this issue by allowing people to make that
financial choice themselves. The whole intent was to better protect our community.
Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf resident, suggested that a definition of "elevate" be proposed. Mr. Hunter
mentioned different scenarios of what could fall under the definition of `.`elevate." Ms.
Santamaria said that staff will consider and look into those different scenarios. Ms. Lehr
clarified if a bottom floor was knocked out and used for parking with penthouses built on top of
the structure, those structures would still be limited by the height restriction from BFE. Ms.
Santamaria noted that Policy 101.5.33 is for lawfully established existing buildings which
already exceed the 35-foot height limit and a top cap of 40 feet is in place unless the owners go
to a public hearing before the BOCC. Mr. Hunter then asked for an explanation of why the
different numbers of 38 and 40 feet are used. Ms. Santamaria explained that discounts are given
for one, two and three feet above BFE. Since discounts are not given above that, the new
buildings were capped at 38 feet. The 40-foot limit was added for existing buildings in case they
needed to raise their property a little bit higher because they do not meet base flood today. Ms.
Lehr clarified that the flood insurance policy associated with a structure would receive a different
rating because of the elevation of that property. The discount for CRS is completely different.
The discount for CRS could be in addition to the different rating on the insurance policy for an
elevation. Ms. Santamaria noted that no exception will be given to either new or existing
structures in AEI through VE10. That came frorn the comments made at prior DRC meetings
about not facilitating redevelopment or new development in higher -risk areas.
Mr. Hunter stated he agrees with Mr. Miller about the ability of Monroe County citizens to live
under the 35-foot height limit, but is more sympathetic to the owners of existing homes than to
new construction. Mr. Miller is concerned for the properties in such a high AE or VE that they
would not be able to develop a home that was attractive. Mr. Miller proposed keeping the 35-
foot height limit in the comp plan and allowing for a variance for those so limited that they
would not be able to develop something architecturally acceptable to the community. Ms.
Santamaria stated it would be difficult to create a variance for architectural or visual issues.
There is no real hardship in that instance.
lslaja Girard, :Key West resident, commented that people are more concerned over encouraging
new development in AE and VE areas as opposed to elevating existing homes in those areas.
Mr. Miller agrees with limiting infrastructure in flood -prone areas, but feels a minimal -size
house could be able to punch through the height barrier if the owners could show a hardship
when asking for a variance. Ms. Lehr explained that the CRS does not take away points. The
CRS program credits activity. Prohibiting development in high -risk areas is credited under the
CS. The emphasis of the program has always been to build safer, more resilient communities.
Jim Hendrick was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA) regarding
Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef is an isolated and gated community with a
distinct community character. The planning process in. Ocean Reef is very tough. Mr. Hendrick
said Ocean Reef would like the extra five feet for architectural features. The largest concern
with this policy for Ocean Reef is its cultural center. The cultural center does not have the head
4
room needed to be able to house events that could potentially be put on at this facility. Mr.
Hendrick asked for a height limit unique to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center, which was built and
paid for by the people of Ocean Reef. Another concern that ORCA has is that any multistory
building in existence on the effective date of this policy be able to replace their existing number
of stories up to I I feet slab to slab per story. The Ocean Reef hotels are currently dated with a
ceiling height of only eight feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that at the last meeting Joel Reed
presented this information on behalf of Ocean Reef Club. Staff had asked for an inventory of
existing heights of the various structures throughout Ocean Reef. Nothing has been received to
date. Mr. Hendrick will send the complete list to Ms. Santamaria. Mr. Hendrick emphasized
this is being asked to apply to Ocean Reef only, which is isolated and does have a distinct
community character.
Deb Curlee, resident of the Lower Keys, noted that Ocean Reef is still part of Monroe County.
Mr.. Hendrick replied there is an abundant body of policy already recognizing the unique
circumstances of Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef consider proposing an
Ocean Reef specific overlay to address height issues in Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick replied Ocean.
Reef has a very effective self -governance program within the community. Ms. Santamaria asked
that the information regarding the various heights as well as the total heights at Ocean Reef be
sent in to help staff understand what the request is from Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick then
explained for Ms. Girard how Ocean Reef is self -governed..
Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to punching through the height limit and they feel
that the 35-foot height limit has been accommodating and there is still room for elevating the
floodplain. Ms. Girard on behalf of Last Stand stated that a majority of the properties should be
able to elevate the buildings as much as needed and still have adequate living space. Last Stand
would like to see this turned into a hardship situation that would have to be triggered to go
through the height barrier.
Mr. Miller asked what would happen to those properties whose flood zone was changed due to
the PEMA flood maps. Ms. Santamaria reminded Mr. Miller that no exceptions being given to
properties in AE] 0 or VEI0 or higher was a result of members of the community not wanting to
facilitate development of homes within those flood zones. The owners of those properties would
have to work within the rules or not build at all. Ms. Santamaria then confirmed for Mr. Hunter
that reconstructed structures in policy 101.5.33 includes those that are demolished and rebuilt.
Ms. Santamaria explained that the BOCC resolution that specifies the maximum approved height
is done on a building -by -building basis. There is currently no limit to that height because it is
not known what would be needed to meet base flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that buildings
over 35 feet currently could only rebuild to 35 feet if they were wiped out by a hurricane.
M.s. Curlee asked why no caps are placed in Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria replied that
building heights would be different depending on how it was measured. Ideas were proposed for
the BOCC to consider when making the decision on how high they can go. Mr. Hunter
suggested considering the community's desire to limit the height. Ms. Santamaria noted a public
hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out.
9
Mr. Haroun stated he finds it unreasonable to not allow a condo to be built back up so that no
owners would lose their living space. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that is why a flood exception
is being proposed for those property owners. Mr. Miller noted that his concern is not whether
they can build back what they had or not, but his concern is that the potential for more habitable
space in this county is being increased as a result of seeking relief from sea level rise.
Ms. Santamaria then stated the affordable housing has been struck from this proposal at this
point in time. Staff will work with the BOCC and the Affordable Housing Committee further in.
that regard. The other item in this stand-alone amendment is the wind turbines owned and
operated by a public utility. At the last meeting members of the public asked what the results
were from the Keys Energy demonstration project. It was concluded that the wind towers have
been proven to be ineffective. Ms. Moses proposed striking this item altogether. Ms. Girard
stated on behalf of Last Stand they would like to see the whole exception to the wind turbines
stricken. If someone comes forward and proposes a great plan in the future, then it can be looked
at with specific considerations in rnind.
Ms. Santamaria stated the plan is to bring this amendment back to the DRC and get more data for
community -specific amendments. It will be brought back as two items; One as a comp plan and
an LDR for more discussion and more input.
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONEF$S AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8
AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2
WITHfN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
(2:38 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this
amendment has stemmed from the comprehensive plan update process. There was a lot of
discussion on where to direct and how to direct development in the future and if it is appropriate
to go to offshore islands. The BOCC asked staff to remove this from the general comp plan
update and process it as a stand-alone amendment. The definition of `.`offshore island" has been
included. The new provision is that TDRs and TREs would not be allowed to transfer to an
offshore island.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Attorney Nick Batty was present on behalf of FEB Corporation with respect to
Wisteria Island. Mr. Batty stated the issues that FEB has with this proposed amendment pertain
to the receiver sites for TREs have to be within a Tier III designated area and must not be an
offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 provides that Monroe County shall discourage the development
of offshore islands which have no prior development and have significant upland habitat by
discouraging the extension of public facilities and designating the offshore islands as Tier 1.
That makes a scenario where ROGO exemptions cannot be transferred to those islands and at the
same time bumps them down to a Tier I level for the ROGO allocation program. Mr. Batty
pointed out there is no definition proposed for "significant upland habitat." Significant upland
habitat does not necessarily coincide with environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, areas life
Wisteria Island, which does not have significant areas of environmentally sensitive habitat,
would by default be lumped in with a Tier I designation, which is contrary to the intent of the
code. Bumping them down to a Tier I in terms of the ROGO allocation system and not allowing
any transfers of TREs to the area would result in a situation where there would be no beneficial
uses for the properties. Mr. Roberts replied that using the blanket and undefined term
"significant upland habitat" does not account for the differences in the natural features of those
properties and effectuate the intent of the Tier I and Tier III definitions. Ms. Santamaria added
that no changes are being proposed to the Tier III criteria for designating any land. Mr. Batty
replied that islands which currently do not have a tier designation and would fit whatever the
definition is detennined to be of "significant upland habitat" and have no prior development
would be pushed into that Tier I category without any other consideration. Ms. Santamaria
stated no particular tier designation is being proposed for any offshore island. This is simply
policy, not property specific, Ms. Santamaria will review this further and consider proposing a
definition for "significant upland habitat."
Ms. Girard, on behalf of Last Stand, stated it makes very little difference what is on the upland,
whether or not there even is upland, because offshore islands are surrounded by shallow waters to
and environmentally sensitive benthic resources and are important for avian species. Ms. Girard
emphasized a survey containing 76 different species of native plants and a report regarding the
importance of Wisteria Island for the white crown pigeons a couple of hundred feet away from
Wisteria Island are on file with the County. Last Stand thinks it is extremely appropriate that
offshore islands be given Tier I designations and that they not be considered as receiver sites
because they are inappropriate for development in a county that has a limited number of ROGOs
and is basically facing build -out. Ms. 'Santamaria clarified that this is not a property --specific to
amendment. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that the tier designations are based on upland ,
habitat. Mr. Roberts clarified for Ms. Girard that native areas that provide corridors or wildlife
access between other larger native areas are part of the Tier I designation. Mr. Batty pointed out
it is important to make sure the intent of the code is being effectuated,
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was
closed,
Ms. Santamaria stated staff will review all the comments trade and will look at defining
"significant upland habitat" and bring this back to the DRC for one more round of public input
before taking it to the Planning Commission.
ADJOURNMENT
MENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2.55 p.m
EXHI91.71 6
.. . .......
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCEs DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: August 17, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND
CREATING POLICIES 101.5,32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS
TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN' ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING
AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE
SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: August 25, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 and May 26, 2015
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendments to create
Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
community; and create Policies 101 .5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit
in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs,
Il. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
File 2015-006 Page I of 9
I
I'
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural,features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC ineeting.
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory1data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
C,
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Z:' Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
4�1
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development a)
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendi-rient and held a workshop forinat meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
to
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a 04
future DRC tweeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24
V
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. N
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
C
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
CV
MMEO��W PROPOSED AMENDMENT q.-
X
HEIGHT- W
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and grade are defined as follows: E
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any 2
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires andlor steeples on
structures used for institutional andlor public uses only; radio andlor television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility, poles andlor fransinission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna andlor collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 9
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground sus face, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher, To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
suface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available far a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
andlor other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of: height = the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
Ctr;wr of Ru"id :aft`
Ndtdral Elevarlor 3t
I 1r, lelcirtr* U
Mocii area level
Height limit *1-5.
Crown of the road
10
Al: 5'
'ift of needed to roach 5h
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public
hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 9
I
I'
IV. PROPOSED ED AMENDMENT (Deletions are strieken thr-aug,, and additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.45,2630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County
shall limit the height of structures including mechanical _equipment and landfills to 35 feet.
Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure
including mechanical equipment, but excluding_ spires and/or steeples on structures used . fcrr
institutional and/or public lases onl • chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flag ales• solar
apparatus; utility oles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures
with attached antennas and/or: collocations.
r„'.1— �7 sY tFans,�; I.— +--„n .,n °�. nr eM r `l t In the case of airport districts, there
shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Polic 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a master planned community which is gated isolated and inaccessible to the
surrounding community,and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non -
habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials rails, idow's walla) that exceed the
35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the
buldin 's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or any architectural decorative
feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 1C1Q or rrrore
acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order: approved by the county where
public. —.access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the communit
including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and trans ortation facilities and
serviceswithin its boundaries and a homeowners association or similarentit which regulates
development standards and monitors development requests by its rxrembers.
Note, Ocean lice>f'Club has requested cadditiWr:al arraendnnenats, attached as Fxhibit 9. To
date, sufficient data has not been. sulainilted to ei,,aluate the requested annendaaaents.
Policy 101.5.32
Within in I year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land
Development Regulations whichprovide a Flood Protection Hei2bt Exception to Poligy 10J.5.30
height limit),...not....exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet, to promote public health, safety and
eneral welfare; allow agitation to coastal flooding storm surge and other hazards protect
property from flooding and minimize damages. minimize ublic and private lasses due to
flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control rojects and for recover
from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height
Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 5-foot height limit shall be provided to
allow buildings., to voluntarilv elevate up to three 3 feet above FElvIA base flood elevation in
order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and
minimize future ex penditures of public funds for recovery from flood events.
File 2015-006 Page 4 c)f 9
LDR Section XXX:
As provided in Policy 101.5.32, buildings voluntarily elevatedtomeet or exceed the
FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit as follows:
I . For new buildings which are volqqtgjLy= elevated to exceed the building's minimum
required Babove the 35-foot height
limit may be permitted, The amount, of the height exception shall be no greater than
the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a new..,building
exceed 38 feet, in height, and
2. For lawfu.11y, established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35-foot height
limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five (5) feet above the 354ggLheiyht
Ifinit may be permitted, The amount of the ....height exception shall be no greater than
the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus ut)..to three (3) feet of voluntary
elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing building be elevated to exceed a
total building height of 40 feet;
3. No exception shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet-, and
4...,N.o excotion shall be provided to properties located in an AE 10 or VE LO or -greater
FEMA flood zone.
Elevate means the action of retrofitfing,�oving ,or raising a building t2_q hilhcr_positon,
Elevated Building means a building, that has its lowest elevated floor raised above the
ground level by foundation walls, shear walk, DOStS, VierS, pilings, or columns.
Flood means acombination of structural or nonstructural changes or
proorng ny
adjustments included in the design, construction, or alteration of a building that
reduce or eliminate flood damage to the building and its contents.
Relocation means (in retrofitting), the process of moving a building to._a new location
outside the flood hazard area.
Retrofit means methods to modifv a lawfully established existing building to reduce its
exposure to flooding and raise the living area above flood levels, In general
retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or
extending the existing foundation below it, or leaving the building. in place and either
constructina new elevated floor system within the building
story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only fo
parking, building access, or storage.
Retrofitting means making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or
other hazards.
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 9
Policy 101.5.33
As of the effective date of this palit a lawfull estallished existin building which exceeds the
35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, may be repaired, improved or reconstructed (demolished
and rebuilt) to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE),provided the building is limited
to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. For buildings that
are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the BoardofCounty
Commissioners shall be rewired prior to issuance of any county permait or approval, A BOCC
resolution shall specify the maximum approved height,
LDR Section XXX:
As provided in Policy 10.1,533, lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot
height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed(deni.olished and rebuilt) to meet
the FEMA BFE,.,.-provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing
intensity, floor area, density and type of use.
A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing building
exceeding the 35-foot height limit shall be provided as follows:
1. For lawfully, established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE, an
exception of a maximum of five _(5)feet may be permitted. The amount of the
exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to pgeet BFE;
and
2. For lawfully= established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA. BFE but
will require a height exception of more than five (5) feet, a public hearing before the
Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of anycountpermit
or approval. The BOCC shall consider:
a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel,
b. The susce tblit of the existin buildin and its contents to flood damn e and the
effects of such damage on the property owner;
c. The possibilitv that materials from the existing building pray be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others,
d. The availabi.lity.,of alternate solutions,
e. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood risk. result in
additional threats to public safety; result in extraordinary. public -expense- _create
nuisance d
f. Community character..
A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height.
File 2015-006 Pauce 6 ol'9
I *a I ON a 10] HIMM-b"i K-111 Ilu URM0 W VI
lot N I NEWT-ILIJ 'T12 ok A 01 V .Krialulk 1] -mudiple �
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that rneel or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The,
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years, The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard rilitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System(CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
M
rating'
Policy 217.1.6 F-
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms. to
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
C�
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
C, t,
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to enSUI`e the provision of safe,
Z�
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
IL-'. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Ke
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that, plan with the a)
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as 04
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. > I
W
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation, E
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat,
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 9
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key Vest Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
q. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systerns.
to
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. CD
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
04
(n) Protectingthe public healthsafer
p , y, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the CD
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7.) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment ent is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers.
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance: present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with 04
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S, - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, Guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent rnanner and shall contain programs and activities to
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 9
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented, The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require, identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations,
VI. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment, The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Corrin-tission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
Z� r_1
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VIL STAFF RECOMMENDATION
VIII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
1 March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes
6. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
T Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC
meeting (side by side comparison)
K Chapter 5.0 Elevating Your Home, excerpt from FEMA's Homeowner's Guide To Retrofitting
9. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
File 2015-006 pale 9 of 9
I
I'
EXHIj IT 7
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (I'` floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
ROLL GALL by Gail Creech
DRC MEMBERS
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Emily Sehemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present
Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Mr. Roberts announced. Items 5 and 6 will be heard first.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Mr. Roberts deferred approval of minutes to the next DRC meeting.
5.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING
POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE
HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE
STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING
FOR. INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING
FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
Mr. Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts reported that while working on the comp
plan update the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island
policies and to pull the proposed changes for further review and submit as a separate amendment.
The proposed text amendment has been reviewed at two prior DRC meetings. Policy 101.5.30
adds mechanical equipment to the 35-foot limit while excluding certain structures. There are no
exceptions to the height limitation in Airport districts. Policy 101.5.31 for Ocean Reef, which is
a gated and isolated community with a distinct community character, includes non -habitable
architectural decorative features that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features shall not
exceed five feet above the building's roof line. There are land Development Code amendments
to reflect these policies. Policy 1.01.5.32 provides that certain buildings voluntarily elevated to
meet or exceed the FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit. New
buildings voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE may exceed the
35-foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not
exceed 35 feet and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit may be
pen-nitted.
Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, asked for the rationale for the difference of an extra two
feet between an existing building and a new building. Mr. Coyle explained that it is to allow a
homeowner more room to get into compliance and go up. Mr. Hunter then asked for clarification
on the definition of "retrofit." Mr. Roberts stated that retrofitting means making changes to an
existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. Demolition and reconstruction of
new structure would not fit within that definition.
Dottie Moses, on behalf of the Federation of Homeowners Association, stated that the Federation
consistently maintains its opposition to raising the height limit. Ms. Moses asked who is
requesting the height increase. Mr. Roberts replied that this amendment was staff -initiated at the
direction of the BOCC. Ms. Moses believes that the recent change in the code that allows
setbacks being used for parking in URM zones will result in another floor of bedrooms being
added under this amendment, which will increase density. The hurricane evacuation issue is
always a concern in the community, also. Ms. Moses then asked where the exception provided
for properties located in the AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zones originated. Ms.
Schemper will look into that for Ms. Moses. Ms. Schemper added that this item will be brought
back to the DRC one more time.
Joel Reid, on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and Ocean Reef Community Association, commented
that these two associations have asked for height changes to address their community concerns.
Mr. Reid expressed disappointment that some items Ocean Reef has been asking for have not
been included in the staff report. Mr. Reid then asked for clarification regarding architectural
elements exceeding 40 feet under Policy 101.5.33, Ms. Schemper explained that Policy 101.5.33
applies to lawfully established buildings that are already over 35 feet high. The intent is if it was
a pre-existing feature, then the BOCC could approve it, but if it is a proposed architectural
2.
feature an exception would not be given if it is over 40 feet. Mr. Reid stated Ocean Reef would
like some protection in order for residents to be able to build back their structures without losing
their views. Ms. Schemper pointed out that this amendment is to protect what is already in
existence while also meeting the flood requirements. The existing intensity or density type of
use would be protected. Policy 101.5.33 does not specifically address increasing slab -to -slab
freights. That would have to be approved by the BOCC if over 40 feet. The mechanism of going
through the approval process to the BOCC has not been thoroughly fleshed out. That would be
in the Land Development Code portion of the amendment. Mr. Reid asked how rebuilding and
doing modifications to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center and boat storage area would be handled.
Ms. Schemper responded that the full arnount of data in those issues has not been received by
staff at this point.
6.AN ORDINANCE 13Y TIME MONROE COUNT' BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND
POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT
ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY TIME DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is another item
originally contemplated during the coanp plan update. Staff was directed by the BOCC to pull it
out as a separate text amendment. This was already reviewed at two DRC meetings and has been
continued to this meeting to get additional public review, input and discussion. The proposed
changes are about where development in terms of TDRs and the transfer of ROGO exemptions
are directed. Existing Policy 101.5.8 allows for the transfer of units based on certain criteria.
The new policy expands the criteria and has additional standards to utilize the tier system. The
sender site must be located in Tier 1, 11, or 1I1-A, or any tier designation if it is within the military
installation impact overlay. The receiver site must have a future land use category ability and
zoning district that allows the use, must meet the adopted density standards, include all
infrastructure, be located within Tier III and may not be within a V zone or a CBRS unit. The
comprehensive plan specifies specific habitat types and the certain zoning districts that were
allowed on sender site TDRs. The offshore island zoning category is specifically identified as an
eligible sender site. The new proposed policy utilizes the tier designation to specify the sender
site because this already accounts for both habitat types and zoning districts that were in the
existing policy. The new policy states only parcels designated Ties- III can be receiver sites and
they must have an adopted maximum net density standard, which would be based on their zoning
category. Ms. Schemper reviewed Policy 206.1.2, which prohibits development on offshore
islands, and the definition of significant native upland habitat. This item will be brought back to
the DRC one more time.
Julie Dick with Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Florida Keys Environmental Fund
and Last Stand, believes Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and is addressed somewhere else in the
3
comp plan. Ms. Dick suggested eliminating the entire policy because any confusion resulting
from this policy leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Ms. Dick supports Policy 101.6.8 in
making sure that offshore islands are not receiver sites.
Bart Smith, Esquire, commented that generally he appreciates the revisions made to the
obtaining and transferring of TDRs. On behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith stated most of the
receiver site criteria in the staff report seems very logical. Mr. Smith does not, however, feel
that the sixth criteria that blanketly prohibits offshore islands from being receiver sites is logical
because there is not any data and analysis identifying the reasons why an offshore island cannot
be a receiver site. Mr. Smith feels that the definition of "significant native upland habitat" is a
well -thought-out definition. Mr. Smith stated everything in the proposed ordinance mares
logical sense and is conforming except for the blanket prohibition of offshore islands.
Naja Girard, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, addressed Mr. Smith's comments by responding
that one thing different about offshore islands is that shallow waters surround the offshore
islands and include benthic resources that the comp plan directs the County to protect.
Encouraging development on offshore islands would require the acceptance of all the boating
traffic that would be created as a result of that development. Ms. Girard agrees that Policy
206.1.2 is redundant and changes the normal way offshore islands are designated Tier 1, which
could result in confusion on its interpretation. Ms. Girard believes this weakens the protection of
all offshore islands. Ms. Girard also believes there is not accurate data on what actually exists on
these islands.
l.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) AND COMMERCIAL FISHING AREA (CFA) TO
MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9,
DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN 'SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE
26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE
NUMBER 00120940,000100, AND FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL 2 (C2) FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR
PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST,
ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS
00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000, AS
PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL
CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF
CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND
PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR
AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN
EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2012-069)
Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this item is a zoning
amendment to accompany a FLUM amendment which has already been transmitted by the
BOCC to DEO. Staff has received the objections, recommendations .and torments report on the
FLUM amendment. DEO's objection was that it was increasing the potential residential
4
development and should be revised to allow other residential uses. The original deadline for
adopting that FLUM amendment was September 19, but staff has asked for an extension based
on the applicant's delay and the new deadline is March 15, 2016. The current zoning
amendment would be required to match the FLUM amendment. The applicant is required to
revise the total FLUM amendment to include a comp plan policy that would limit any residential
development on the site to affordable housing only. This affects only the northernrnost L-shaped
parcel on the map. The southern parcels are proposed to became commercial with no residential
density. Today's discussion concerns the zoning portion of the amendment. The net change in.
development for the entire site will actually be a reduction in residential density. The Big
Coppitt portion of the site would have an increase in affordable residential, but the proposed
comp plan policy will limit all residential development to affordable housing on that site. Staff
has found that any impact is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on community character.
Staff has found no adverse effects for traffic circulation. There is sufficient capacity for the
public facilities for potential development under this zoning amendment. Staff has found that the
proposed amendment is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and the Land
Development Code. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to be consistent with the
proposed FLUM amendment that the BOCC has already recommended and transmitted to the
State. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. This is contingent on the
adoption of the FLUM amendment.
Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked what the Navy has to say about this amendment. Ms.
Schemper replied that the portion of affordable housing is actually in the noise zone at the
greatest distance compared to the rest of the property. Bart Smith, Esquire, agreed and added
that the requirement to sound -attenuate to the level the Navy requests is specifically written in to
the site -specific zoning.
2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY 130ARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP
FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (RC) TO RECREATION (R) AND
CONSERVATION (C), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN
SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE
COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE
SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY
LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER
00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND
USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-047)
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM NATIVE AREA (NA) TO PARKS AND REFUGE (PR) AND
CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF
LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO
9
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR.
COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9),
KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER.
00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE
DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-048)
Ms. Schemer presented the staff reports. Ms. Schemper reported that these two amendments
are FLUM and zoning amendments that coordinates with one another for a parcel within Ocean
Reef proposed by Ocean Reef Club. The site is I 1 acres and currently has a FLUM designation
of Residential Conservation with a zoning category of Native Area. The property owners would
like to develop a park on a portion of the site and are requesting to change the FLUM to 9.5 acres
of Conservation and a little over 1.5 acres of Recreation for the FLUM and, corresponding to
that, 9.5 acres of Conservation zoning and 1.5 acres of Park and Refuge zoning. The density and
intensity change for this amendment would be a decrease in both residential and non-residential
density and intensity. There is no adverse impact on community character and no additional
impact foreseen for any of the public facilities. Staff has found both proposed amendments
would be consistent with the comp plan and the Land Development Code and is consistent with
the principles for guiding development. These amendments support Ocean Reef s desire to
increase some of the park and recreational space within the community based on an increase in
the number of families with children currently in their community. If the corresponding FLUM
amendment is transmitted to the State and adopted, then the zoning plan would be required to
remain consistent with the FLUM. Staff is recommending approval of the FLUM amendment
from Residential Conservation to Conservation and Recreation and staff is recommending
approval of the zoning amendment from Native Area to Parks and Refuge and Conservation
district. The zoning recommendation would be contingent on the approval and effectiveness of
the proposed FLUM amendment that corresponds with this.
Joel Reid, the representative of the applicant, stated that Ocean Reef Club is always looking; to
enhance the community's experience and meet their needs for the community members.
Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, asked whether Mr. Roberts had any concern with clearing
of upland habitat of protected species of 1.71 acres for the sole purpose of providing a park for
homeowners. Mr. Roberts replied that the applicant is required to coordinate directly with U.S.
Fish & Wildlife for the protection of these species. The County's clearing; requirements would
fall back to the original development orders for Ocean Reef Club because it is not dictated by the
tier clearing limits in the code.
4. L OCEAN RIBIDENCES, 97801 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO, MILE
MA _ R 98: A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A MINOR
CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE
DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 24 ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS DESIGNATED AS
11
AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE
HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED
AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH,
RANGE 39 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL
ESTATE NUMBERS 00090810.000000, 00090820.000000, 00090840.000000,
00090840.000100, AND 00090860.000000.
(File 2015-049)
s. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is a request for a
minor conditional use permit which is required because the applicant is requesting to develop 24
attached dwelling units. Within the Urban Residential zoning category that use requires a minor
conditional use permit. The development is reviewed by staff as a whole for consistency sake.
The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached
dwelling units as market rate housing. The site's current characteristics and zoning were
described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units.
Ms. Schemper then listed the categories where staff has found either compliance is still to be
determined or the site was found not in compliance. Compliance with the residential ROGO is
to be determined because at the time of the building permit is when the applicant applies for their
ROGO allocations. An additional eight market rate ROGO allocations and 24 affordable
housing ROGO allocations would be needed. Permitted uses is listed as not in compliance
because the attached residential dwelling units are permitted with the condition that sufficient
common areas for recreation are provided to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be
developed. Compliance is to be determined on residential density and maximum floor area
because the site requires 7.6 transferred development rights which are done at the time of the
building permit. Compliance is to be determined on required open space because the
calculations were not comparable of the upland area on the site plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the
indicated shoreline setbacks were either incorrect or not clearly depicted on the site plan.
Ms. Schemper continued to report that most of the non -shoreline setbacks are in compliance at
this point, but the setback lines shown on the site plan are not necessarily the correct lines in
every situation. The surface water management will be dealt with for full compliance at the time
of permit application. Mr. Roberts noted that there was conflicting information on the site plan
regarding the depth to ground water. Ms. Schemper continued to report that there are
inconsistencies on the site plan regarding the height of the fencing and privacy wall. The privacy
wall shown on the site plan separates the site completely between the attached units and the
detached units, which basically turns the parcel into two separate developments and they would
each need to meet all of the land development regulations on their own. Some sort of connection
is needed between the two. Compliance for flood plain, energy conservation and potable water
is to be determined, as well as environmental design criteria and mitigation, at the building
permit stage. The required parking is also affected by the separation between the two types of
units on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces is sufficient if the site is viewed as a
whole. The required bufferyards are not in compliance because the site plan shows some
incorrect bufferyards. Mr. Roberts added that the property was rezoned from URM to UR and
the URM boundary buffers are being shown.
7
Ms, Schemper continued to report that the square footage of the signage proposed has some
issues and recommended that the signage be done separately as part of the fence permit at the
time of the building permit. The access is currently under review by the County's traffic
consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U.S. 1, but also needs to comply with
FDOT standards. Compliance is to be determined on inclusionary housing at the time of the
building pen -nit because when the tenth permanent market rate unit gets its certificate of
occupancy, a certificate of occupancy is required on at least three of the affordable housing units,
and a proportional increase continues accordingly throughout the development. Given all of
those items, staff still recommends approval. A list of 22 conditions required are listed in the
staff report.
Jorge Cepero, present on behalf of the applicant, clarified that there is still one structure, a
Lgatehouse, in the front of the property that was not demo,lished,
Robert Ginter, owner of an adjoining property, is concerned about the fencing and buffers to
protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schemper explained that there are quite a few buffers oil the site
plan. There is an access off of First Street for a portion of the property. Ms. Schemper will
make the site plan available to Mr. Ginter at the end of today's meeting.
Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, is concerned that this is the one time that the public has a
chance to review this proposal and there are so, many items still not deemed to be in compliance.
Ms. Schemper explained that there is a 30-day notice that goes out that says the Planning
Director intends to issue the rninor conditional use permit, as well as a legal ad. The Planning
Director's decision will not be made until these itenis are all fulfilled. The revised proposal will
be available through the Planning Department.
FA M N 81,18NO I
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m.
M
C �t
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTYPLANNFWG & EVVIRC, ,
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: October 16, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN
REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32
AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN
ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD
INSURANCE COSTS- PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLI&ING PROVISIONS- PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENC� AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File # 2015-006)
Meeting:
1 1 1 continued from[ N 2015 b August 25, 2015
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental resources is proposing amendments to create
Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
community, and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height
limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Hoard of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special B'OCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
File 2015-006 Page g of 8
I'
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101. 5.31 and 101. 5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height li►rait, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting,
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data cif privately -awned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO, The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and to
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a to
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2, Minutes from the March 24, N
04
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. CD
D�RC. At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
04
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
W allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. E
The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7.
File 2015-006 Page of
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and grade are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires andlor steeples on
structures used for institutional andlor public uses only; radio andlor television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles andlor transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna andlor collocations as permitted in chapter 146
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2'00 7. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certcates
andlor other optical remote sensing data -
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
"town of Road 5tt®
Nattirc6 Fjoyarlop 3ft
I III fewo to
mean w lr�d
Height limit
Crown of the road
+ 3 10,
+Mo
The vertical distance
betweeirt grade (cmwn of
road, based on definition,
forth is example) and the
highest part of the structure:
-, Height
2fi of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 8
I
I'
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately.
Policy 101.45.12630 L-
0
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall r-
limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance .0
between grade and the highest part of any structure, e including mechanical equipment, but excludingCL
spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or Dublic uses only; chimneys, radio and/or X
a)
television antennas, flagpoles- solar a aratus- utility..Voles and/or transmission towers, and certain
antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any E
of the exclusions enumerated above be construed ig-permit any habitable or usable space to exceedtheapplicable height limitations, except as specifically i)ermitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33.
RKeeptions W-11 be-
'k—Etir-es. In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
to
Pali QiRLii
For Ocean Reef, a master planned community which is gated, inaccessible to the surrounding V
community, and has a distinct community character buildin2s ma v include non -habitable architectural N
04
decorative features such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit
in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feetabovethe buildiny's roof -line- This CL
exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height
that would exceed 40 feet. U)
As used in this policy, a..master planned communjjy means a planned communi1y of 100 or more acres in
area subiLgt toamaster plan other. development order approved by the county where public access is
restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of
comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a
homeowners associationorsimilar enti!y, which regulates development standards and monitors
development requests by its members.
Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To
date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments,
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 8
I'
Policy 101.5.32
Within in I year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County, shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promoteq-public
health, sj �fet and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards,
protect pLo - minimize public and private losses due to
perty from flooding and minimize damn es
flooding-, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control -projects and for recovery from
flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of uR to
a maximum of five (5feet., above the .35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be
voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in. order to promote flood
protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood incimpnnp premiums and minimize future expenditures
of Rublic funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result
in a building exceeding a maximurn height of 40 feet.
Policy 101.5.33
Within in J_year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which Rrovide a Flood Protection Hei ht Exce tioti for lawful]v established -existing
buildin2s. which exceed the 35-foot height, limit in Policy 101.5 3.0 to.prornote, P blic health, safety and
general —euare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding,. storm surge and other hazards-, protect propeM from
flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding: minimize future
expenditures of public funds for flood, control projects and for recovga from flood events; and mitigate
rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved,
retrofitted or redeveloped to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (L3FE) Provided the bjjj�ldindo�es
not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the lawfully
established existing intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), densily and I ype of use.
For lawfully established existing buildings that are 12roposed to exceed a total heightof 40 feet, a public
hearing before the Board of Count Commissioners, shall be required to review and sl2ecify the maximum
approved height prior to issuance of any count -pen-nit or development approval. A BOCC resolution
shall specify the maximum approved height,
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 8
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
M principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as to
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
7 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local V
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern N
designation. 04
CD
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, 0
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. CL
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical U)
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and to
their habitat.
U1)
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development, CD
04
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. 04
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including. W
1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; a)
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; E
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities, U
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 8
9. Other utilities, as appropriate,
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
0) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to arm served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(in) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.316](4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive to
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public V
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and N
04
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, CD
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(l), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies to
CD
CD
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the i
LO
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
CD strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to 04
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the 04
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the W
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
E development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations.
V1. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 8
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing, The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (DRC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VH. STAFF RECOMN[ENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes
6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report
N
7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes
04
8. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
CL
W
9. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
U)
I'
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 8
Eh_HIaI,`. 9
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
October 27, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (I" door, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental. Resources Present
Emily Scheanper, Comprehensive Planning Manages- Present
Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present
STAFF
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Ms. Santamar-ia asked that Items 2 and 3 be read together.
MINUTES FOR APPROVAL
Ms. Santamaria approved the meeting minutes of July 28, 2015, August 25, 2015, and September
29, 2015.
WIN
LAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT
(ZONING) MAP FROM SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL (SC) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28500 AND 28540 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, LITTLE TORCH
KEY, MILE MARKER 28.5 OCEANSIDE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF
LAND IN A PART OF U.S. GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 66 SOUTH,
RANGE 29 EAST, LITTLE TORCH KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL
ESTATE NUMBERS 00113570-000000, 00113570-000100, 00113570-000200, 00113590-
000000 AND 00113620-000000, AS PROPOSED BY PATRICK R AND DIANE COLEE,
DOLPHIN MARINA ASSOCIATES LTD AND TORCH KEY PROPERTIES LTD,
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
11
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(2015-152)
Mr. Bond presented the staff report. Mr. Bond reported that this is a land use district map
amendment from Suburban Commercial to Mixed Use. The property is located oceanside on
Little Torch Key and serves as a land base for the Little Palm Island. There is no FLUM change
required for this proposed amendment. The property was described. Mr. Bond stated the change
in development potential between the two districts would result in a reduction of eight permanent
residential units, a slight increase in max net density, a net zero change in transient development
potential and no change in commercial development potential. The change would open up the
possibility of some uses that are currently prohibited within the SC district. Staff has evaluated
the proposed amendment and found it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the
request does fall under two provisions of the code: Number 4, new issues, and 6, data updates,
primarily due to the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP). It is consistent with the
Lower Keys LCP. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
James Hendrick was present on behalf of the applicant and commended staff on their
memorandum.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, asked why the applicant is changing the zoning Ms.
Santamaria replied that the applicant wants to have a use their current zoning does not allow,
which will reduce the overall allocated density, but they can transfer in up to I I more units
04
through TDRs. Mr. Hendrick assured Ms. Moses that the applicant is definitely not interested in
having a light industrial use on the property.
Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf Key resident, asked for clarification on the ,justification for the request.
Mr. Bond explained that there are seven different factors by which map amendments are to be
evaluated. Any one of those factors can be a justification for map amendment approval.
Number 4 is new issues, the new Lower Keys LCP, which was not in effect prior, and Number 6,
data updates, which is the LCP that was not in effect at the time of their original zoning. The
Lower Keys LCP is not inconsistent and is new data in the County's files. Mr. Hendrick noted
that the applicant has other rationale for the proposed change.
Deb Curlee, Cudjoe Key resident, asked for clarification on what is being proposed to be on the
property. Ms. Santamaria responded that this is a map amendment only and the specific
development is not the subject of the amendment. Mr. Hendrick offered to e-mail Ms. Curlee an
outline of the proposed development. Mr. Bond explained for Ms. Curlee that with the map
amendment staff evaluates what the potential is, not what they specifically may or may not be
planning to do. Anything listed as a major or minor conditional use would go through the review
process and, if the applicant meets all of those conditions staff would have no basis for saying no
and would approve it. Ms. Creech and Mr. Bond confirmed that no negative feedback was
received from any neighbors.
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33
TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD
PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO
ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY
OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-171)
Ms. Santarnaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fourth DRC
meeting on the proposed comp plan amendments for the height provisions. The BOCC asked
staff to work on the height policies that were in the comp plan update and process there
separately so that they could be fully vetted and worked through as one topic versus within the
entire comp plan update. The previous various staff reports are attached to show how these
amendments have been revised. Ms. Santamaria stated there is a proposed policy change to
Policy 101.5.3 to incorporate the height definition that is in the code today into the comp plan as
well. That height is defined as "The vertical distance between grade and the highest part of the
structure."
Ms. Santamaria reported that the next amendment is to Policy 101.5.31, Ocean Reef -specific,
related to non -habitable architectural decorative features. This would allow these features to be
above the roof line of those homes up to five feet. The overall height of those structures still
cannot exceed a 40-foot height imit. There are no differences between this version and what was
presented at the last DRC meeting regarding this policy.
Mr. Hendrick, present on behalf of Ocean Reef, stated Policy 101.5.31 does not address Ocean
Reef s needs. Ocean Reef had asked for three things. Mr. Hendrick acknowledged that staff has
not received the additional information it had requested. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef
contains several buildings which now greatly exceed the 35-height limitation, do not comply
with flood, and Ocean Reef would like for them to be elevated. Mr. Hendrick submitted a
document detailing what Ocean Reef is asking for with regard to the corresponding Land
Development Code. Mr. Hendrick continued to explain that Ocean Reef is most concerned about
the lawfully established existing buildings which exceed 35 feet and do not meet flood. There is
no mechanism in the proposed policies which allows for those buildings to be made flood-
compliant as -of -right. Mr. Hendrick pointed out that Ocean Reef is a master -planned
community, completely isolated from the rest of Monroe County, and they have established their
own community character, which is not 35 feet in height. Ocean Reef would ask for a policy
which enables them to replace their existing buildings, floor for floor, to allow for flood
compliance. Ocean Reef would also like to increase their slab -to -slab height in building to be
consistent with what people expect when they go to a luxury resort. Mr. Hendrick then stated.
Ocean Reef is concerned about their cultural center because that building cannot accommodate
the fly space that is needed. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that staff has not received information
from Ocean Reef that they have requested. Staff needs more infonnation so they can evaluate
and understand what is being requested. Staff has not received information on the Ocean Reef
Cultural Center.
Dottie Moses, speaking on behalf of Island of Key Largo Federation of Homeowners, voiced
concern these policies could spill over into Unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Curlee agreed.
Ms. Santamaria explained that staff would like to start to move this item toward the Planning
Commission unless members of the public would like to have another DRC meeting to get more
input. Alicia Putney, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, reiterated what Ms. Moses stated
regarding spillover into Monroe County.
Ms. Santamaria then reported that the next proposed amendment is to Policy 101.5.32, and this is
to create a flood protection height exception up to five feet above the 35-foot height limits to
allow buildings to go three feet above their base flood elevation. In no event under this policy
will a building be over 40 feet. The policy is specific to new buildings and for existing
buildings. If the building is not being elevated to meet at least the required base flood elevation
this exception cannot be used at all. This exception would not be provided for buildings located
in the very hazardous flood zones.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Ms. Moses commented that adding an extra three feet to meet base flood elevation should be
allowed with the 35-foot height limit remaining. Ms. Moses does not see the need for this
amendment for new construction. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff does not know how many
homes there are in the County below , base flood right now. Staff is working on getting
information from the Property Appraiser to see if somehow that information can be extrapolated,
but it is not available at this time. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Ms. Moses that this policy
refers to elevating existing structures. If a house is torn down it must be rebuilt to a 3540ot
height limit. Ms. Santamaria then explained between the last DRC meeting and today the
N
language has been reorganized a bit, but it is the sarne information. Language has been added
that if a building is not being elevated to at least meet base flood it is not eligible for this
exception. This exception shall also apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether
voluntary or not.
Ms. Putney stated that it would be helpful to know what the FEMA maps will show. Ms. Putney
then noted that with new construction, although there may be a hardship involved, it can be made
to work within the 35-foot height limit. Ms. Moses stated the Federation opposes raising the 35-
foot height limit on new construction. Ms. Moses shared a newsletter written by Dennis Henize,
a retired meteorologist, stating that communities should be thinking in terms of decelerating
growth, especially in the eyes of sea level rise. Ms. Putney pointed out that pre -FIRM, January
1, 1975, people built on the ground mostly and built a small enough house that they could afford
to lose. With insurance, houses got bigger, higher and fancier.. Citizens need to open up their
minds to reverting back to smaller homes given sea level rise and FEMA.
Ms. Santamaria then reported that Policy 101.5.33 is another flood protection height exception,
but this is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height
limit. If a lawfully established existing building which already exceeds the 35-foot height limit
wants to rebuild over 40 feet, they would have to go before the BOCC and meet specific criteria.
The BOCC would then decide and specify the height that they could build to. Ms. Santamaria
reviewed the criteria used by the BOCC to evaluate the request. The BOCC would have to pass
a resolution stating which height a homeowner could build to. Ms. Santamaria explained there
are condo structures where clearly units would be lost if redeveloped at the 35-foot height limit.
Ms. Moses pointed out the amendment, as written, does not apply to only multi -tenant buildings,
but would apply to any building. Ms. Santamaria added that the public can suggest a provision
that this is for multifamily structures only. Ms. Cur -lee agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Moses
noted that previously Legal staff had referred to a Bert Harris implication when discussing this.
Ms. Santamaria stated at the next meeting there will be an attorney present who will be able to
address that. Mr. Hunter asked if there are any commercial buildings that fall into this category.
Ms. Santamaria is unaware of any, but stated that does not mean there is not one in existence.
Ms. Moses asked what effect raising some of the low roads would have on this. Ms. Santamaria
explained that grade is either natural elevation or crown of the road, whichever is higher. Ms.
Moses believes that could exacerbate things.
Mr. Hendrick commented that there are many commercial buildings throughout the County over
35 feet. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef has a boat barn well over 35 feet. They have real
concerns because they would like to elevate, but if they do they are going to lose rack space
when they already cannot supply the need that they have. Mr. Hendrick then asked that the
words "building envelope" be substituted with `:building footprint" to be able to modernize these
spaces. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Mr. Hunter that boat barns would fall within the
definition of "building."
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 1.01.5.8
AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2
WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS, PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATES PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTy7u65IVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the
comp plan update in dealing with amendments that prohibited transferable ROGO exemptions
and transferable density from going to an offshore island, After numerous public comments the
BOCC asked staff to extract those amendments from the overall comp plan update and process
them separately. This amendment reflects the comp plan update. This proposed amendment is
to Policy 101.6.8, which is the transfer of ROGO exemptions. The existing text in the staff
report for this policy is already included in the cornp plan update and has been transmitted to the
State with the exception of Receiver Site Criteria Number 6, which says it is not an offshore
island. This is a separate stand-alone amendment so focus can be placed on this one topic.
Policy 101.13.3, which is the transfer of development rights, has been transmitted to the State
with the EAR -based amendments except for Receiver Site Criteria Number 7, which states it is
not an offshore island. That also reflects the initial amendment in the comp plan update the
BOCC asked staff to extract and process separately. Policy 206.1.2 had an added statement not
transmitted with the comp plan update regarding discouraging the development of offshore
islands. This added statement has been struck for consideration and still includes existing
policies in the comp plan that offshore islands should be designated as Tier I and it has the
existing policy that development shall be prohibited on offshore islands, including spoil islands
which have been documented as an established bird rookery based on resource agency best
available data or survey. Staff is proposing a definition for the entity "offshore island" as
"Offshore Island means an area of land surrounded by water which is not directly or indirectly
connected to US-1 by a bridge, road or causeway."
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Lance Kyle, owner of an offshore island in Monroe County, asked for an explanation of
"severability" as used in the agenda. Ms. Santamaria explained that the one provision of
offshore island could be appealed and extracted out without overturning the rest of the ordinance
and keeping it from becoming effective. Ms. Santamaria further explained for Mr. Kyle that she
believes the ten -acre size determination canoe from the "86 code. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr.
Kyle that the fact that his island is only 800 feet from US -I does not give it any kind of special
consideration.
Gidget Jackson asked whether there is any flexibility in the restricted use for the islands for
camping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner
0
only. Law enforcement would have to be called for trespassers on an offshore island. Mr.
Hendrick confirmed that the ten -acre determination did corne from the ' 86 code, if not before.
Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to loop closely
at whether it is necessary to prohibit transferring TREs onto offshore islands because TREs take
pressure off of the allocation system and offshore islands are already limited in density to ..1 per
acre. There are restrictions in place that require all of the development potential be in place with
the correct development requirements. Mr. Smith agreed with the prior comments made by Ms.
Dick on behalf of Last Stand regarding the redundancy of the language in 206.1.2 because that is
already provided for in the policy as written. Mr. Smith believes the citation to the A,LJ order
from 2006 regarding the four -acre threshold was incorrect. Mr. Smith stated now that the
language that defines "significant upland habitat" has been eliminated and the term "offshore
island" is being added to the defined terms of the glossary the policies identify when
development on offshore islands should be prohibited is based on the documentation of an
established bird rookery or nesting area. Those terms are not defined in the comprehensive plan
and the land development regulations and should be. Without having a quantifiable or
objectionable criteria for what an established bird rookery or nesting area is it could be left to
interpretation. FEB Corp. has retained Phil Frank, a well -respected biologist in the community,
to put together a proposed definition for "established bird rookery or nesting area." Copies of
the definition were submitted to staff. Mr. Frank then explained how he worked through the
definition and what he reviewed in order to come up with that definition. Mr. Frank stated the
common theme in the definitions as cited by different authorities is the words '*communal
nesting, gregarious birds, prominent colonies, colony forming, gregarious colony." Mr. Smith
read aloud the proposed definition. Mr. Smith believes if this term that is utilized for the
absolute prohibition of development is not defined it will be left open to interpretation that will
be fought over for years to come.
Ms. Santamaria stated that part of the reasons a definition for "bird rookery" is not proposed in
this amendment is that in the comp plan update the definition as "A. communal nesting ground
for gregarious birds" was included, as well as a definition for "nesting area." This has been
transmitted to the State. Ms. Santarnaria read aloud the definition for "nesting area." Mr. Frank
pointed out that passerine birds are not listed in the definition and should be. Mr. Smith stated he
is concerned that the definition for "nesting area" is too broad and could prohibit development on
any offshore island.
Ms. Curlee noted that solitary birds, which are not included in the definition, are equally as
important. Ms. Curlee does not agree with Mr. Frank's definition, but does agree with staffs.
Mr. Smith believes the definition needs to be clarified so that arguments are not made that all
offshore islands are nesting islands.
Julie Dick of the Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys
Environmental Fund, re-emphasized that offshore islands are the last place to be encouraging
development because they are not connected to public facilities and are some of the most
environmentally sensitive areas in the entire Keys. Development rights should not be moved to
offshore islands because they are the hardest areas to evacuate. Ms. Dick disagreed with Mr.
Smith that TREs should not have the restriction on transferring receiver sites to offshore islands.
7
Ms. Dick appreciates staff removing the confusing and redundant new language in Policy
206.1.2, but continues to believe the entire policy should be re1mved. Ms. Dick stated Last
Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund will likely support staffs existing definition over
what has been proposed today, but will need time to confer on that.
r. Hendrick, speaking on behalf of himself, stated he fully supports the idea of protecting bird
rookeries, but feels that it seems illogical to focus and protect nesting areas on offshore islands
because nesting areas are located everywhere. Ms. Santamaria clarified Policy 206.1.2 does not
actually refer to nesting areas. Mr. Frank commented when the comp plan was written back in
1986 the bird rookeries were teased out as special resources. Mr. Smith noted that is why using
one definition is preferable. Ms. Dick clarified Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund
fully supports the language protecting nesting areas. Ms. Dick then noted that Mr. Smith is here
on behalf of FEB. who does not own Wisteria Island, and questions their interest in the matter.
Ms. Santamaria emphasized the ordinance does not speak to a particular island, but would apply
to anything that falls within the definition of offshore island.
Mr. Kyle asked whether the terrn "nest" implies that the island has to have some sort of tree
canopy of bush canopy. Mr. Roberts replied not necessarily, because there are a number of shore
birds and wading birds that are ground -nesters. Mr. Kyle then commented that 90 percent of the
speck islands in the County are transient, so the evacuation time issue seems to be somewhat
discounted. Ms. Santamaria then explained to Mr. Kyle in detail how the phased evacuation
process occurs. Ms. Dick re-emphasized that evacuation is a real concern for Monroe County
citizens and it is a safety threat for everyone in the county if the evacuation predictions are not
correct. That situation adds further weight to the need to reduce added risk to the evacuation
formula by allowing further development on offshore islands.
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
Ms. Santamaria asked the public if they prefer to bring this back to DRC one more tirne or move
this forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith, on behalf of FEB Corp., stated they would
like to see how concerns over nesting areas are going to be resolved prior to bringing it to the
Planning Commission because it affects all offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria agreed to bring this
matter back to the DRC one more time for safe measure.
ADJOURNMENT
The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m.
lj
EXI i113 1 T 1 0
Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County
FEMA. Flood Zone
Number of
% of total
'% of fatal
of Private -
Parcels'
Vacant Parcels
X
1,935
3.40%
462
0.2 PCT ANNUAL
5.16%
CHANCE FLOOD
HAZARD
999
1.76%„
165
AE 5
1
0.00%
-
AE 6
1,964
3.46%
95
AE 7
8,996
15.83%
296
p
AE 8
14,824
26.08%°
2,699
AE 9
11,272
19.83%
1,916
1,098
AE 10
6,835
12.02%
83.48%
AE 1.1
2,983
5.25%
326
AE 12
121
0,21%
12
AE 13
418
0.74% 0
5
s^
° N
AE 14
36
0.06%
AE 15
3
0.01 %Q
AE 16
1
0.00%
-
V E 9
5
0.01 %n
1
story
VE 10
327
0.58%
67
VEII
1,019
1.79%°
272
VE 12
1,443
2.54%0
265
b
VE 1.3
1,069
1.88%°
12.7
VE 14
1,815
3.19%°
52
VE 15
352
0.62%
52
VE 16
31
0.05%
7
10.76%
a
VE 17
33
0.06%
?
VE 19
5
0.01%
VE 20
1
0.00%
-
z'
VE 21
8
0.01 %
V E 22
7
O.O 1 °'o
VE 23
1
0.00%°
VE 24
1
0.00%m
VE 26
2
0.00%
-
OPLN WATER
10
0.02%
2
total parcels
56,843
7,921
Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County.
The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA
,ones.
EXHIBIT 1]
Ocean beef height Policy
Staffs draft height Policy for Ocean Reef, as set forth in the DRC Staff Report, reads:.
Policy 10 .5. 1
For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding
community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non -habitable
architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot
height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's
roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature
with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
The Staff Report accurately states that "Draft Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address
non -habitable architectural decorative features". however, architectural CL
decorative features are only one (and the least significant) of three provisions that U
Ocean Reef has requested. Staff is occasionally presented with requests by Ocean
Reef property owners to allow extra height for widow's walks and other such
features, so staffs focus on that element is understandable. But of greater long-term
importance to ORCA are provisions allowing story -by -story replacement of existing
multi -family buildings, and an allowance for the unique requirements of a
modernized Cultural Center. As proposed by ORCA, the Ocean Reef height Policy
would read:
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to
the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, the04
following policy shall apply:
CL
1. Structures may include non -habitable architectural decorative
features (such as finials, rails and a widow's walk) that exceed the
35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5 30, provided that such features
CD
do not extend more than 5 feet above the structure's roof line.
I CD
. Multi -story buildings in existence on the effective date of this
Policy may be replaced at their existing number of stories, up to
11' slab -to -slab per story.
3. The height limit applicable to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center shall
be 65 feet above grade
The above Policy is carefully tailored to the needs and circumstances of the Ocean
Reef Community. The general language of proposed Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33,
allowing an additional 5' of height for replacement of existing buildings exceeding
35', does not facilitate replacement of Ocean Reefs multi -story buildings„ because it
would force undesirable design features such as low ceiling heights, Nor does it
accommodate the additional height needed for Cultural Center stage performances.
Santamaria-May!e
From: RC3WORLD <joelreecI5S@gmaiLcorn>
Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:50 AM
To: Santamaria-Mayte
Cc: David Ritz; Jack Duncan; Jim Hendrick; Michael G. Leemhuis
Subject: Re: height Comprehensive Plan amendment and Ocean Reef Club
Attachments: Height-da:ta-table-2015-06-09.pdf, ATT00001.htm
Follow Up Flag: Follow up
Flag Status: Completed
Categories: Blue Category
Mayte,
As was requested please find a list of buildings and corresponding data related to structures that exceed the 35'
Z- E
height limit in Ocean Reef Club. We are still collecting additional data onC.Q, Pompano, and Water
Tower. We will submit any additional detail that we have on these structures once the data is obtained.. I know
we also discussed sending the existing heights on the cultural center, which we are working on and will send
over as soon once it is available. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you or your staff have any additional
questions or comments as you prepare your next round of staff reports,
Sincerely,
Joel Reed, AICP
Phone: 404.403.2925
ioelreed55 @ ginail.com
I
Table 1
OCEAN REEF EXISTING STRUCTURES> 35' DATA TABLE
Name
Primary
Levels of
Downstairs/
Overall
overall
Floor to
' Avg. Slab
Grade
Flood
Use
habitable
Storage,'
Height to
Height to Top
Floor
Thic'anes
Zono
Eno..
Soffit or Tap
of Roof
of Beam
Amberjack:
Hotel
3
No
29'- 1 1I2'
331- 1 112"'.
8' to 2' 6'
Unknown
Unknown
Soul Barn
Comm.
NIA
NIA
Unknown
37'
NIA
Unknown
Unknomvn
Creek House
Condo
Unk.
Unknown
Unknown
>35'....
_
Unknown
Unknown
Unknown
Dolphin
'Hotel
4
Unknown
43. 2'
49'-2'
—g
—a-
__5
AE11
Harbor House
Condo
4
Yes
Unknown
54'
9
—8"
Unknown
AE9
Marlin
Hotel
3
Yes
38
42
—8' - 9,
4'- 8 112'
WE
Plaza
Cornet.
3
Yes
28' - 6"
> 35'
9 - 0
6"
Unknown
Unknown
Yachtsman
Cando
3
Yes
35'-9
Unknown
8" 7'
Unknown.
Unknown
Unknown
Pompano
Hotel
TB9
7EE]E
TBD
C C. Dormitory
Has.
TED
T
TED
Water Tower
NfA
NFA
N7A
TBq
7Bq
Note AmbeijaCk and Plaza added as pre -firm structure because Height would' be over 35' with redevelopment it builtabove flood.
' Estimated root to be 6
Prepared by RC36 ORLD, Inc. IOaV2014 last mod€tier! 6P312415
+ v
{ tY+7eii�:
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: January 15, 2016
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN
REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32
AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN
ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD
INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 4 2015-006)
Meeting: January 26, 2016 - continued from March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015 and
October 27, 2015
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create
Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef
community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height
limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
File 2015-006 Page 1 of 12
2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for
extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments
from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC
meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff
report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are
attached as Exhibit 5.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7.
File 2015-006 Page 2 of 12
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October
27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9.
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HEIGHT:
In unincorporated Monroe County, heght and grade are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on
structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna,
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section he construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall he absolute and the exclusions enumerated
in this section shall not apply.
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
and/or other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of. height the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 12
;to t tt Rood ;5tt*
(IV FPlatfml tt
Mom sea level
Height limit
0 10
Ll
Crown of the road
10
aWN
The vertical distance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest part of the structure
Height
„„„„„„„„„„„, 2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeys! Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and
commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key Largo and
a cost benefit ratios of elevating and floodproofing buildings:
,ANALYSIS,OF DAMAGES, FROM STORM 'URGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE FOR THE
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF KEY LARGO AND STOCK ISLAND, MOINROE COUNTY, FL
UI ING THE C:O.A. To L ADAPTATION TO SEA LEVEL PII E TOOL (COAST)
br _. 7 AICP
Mexander
AT AC._AP ,% T ON PAR 7N6:, 1, D' 32 . _ .ru m P, *0rEd NIP' 0 i_CA
r. _w
t1.8
ERIN L. DEADY, P
4t, 1a�Irsr
Entire report can be accessed here: htlp://fl-monroecountyclimate.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/103
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 12
I'
Catalysis Adaptation Partners, LLC (Catalysis) specializes in analyzing impacts from storm surges and
long-term sea level rise using its COastal Adaptation to Sea level rise Tool (COAST). COAST modeling
software mimics floods from storms and sea level rise on community assets such as homes and businesses,
then tallies the cumulative damages over time so communities can better understand the cost to them of
not adapting (vulnerability assessment), as well as the costs and benefits (damage reduction) of
implementing various adaptation actions.
Catalysis was contracted by Erin L. Deady, P.A. to use COAST to perform a vulnerability assessment
of homes and commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County
in Key Largo as part of the GreenKeys! project. Working with Erin L. Deady, P.A., Catalysis conducted three
(3) community workshops in October, November and December 2014, during which County residents in
Key Largo voted on modeling parameters and assumptions for "no -action" and three (3) adaptation action
scenarios: 1) Elevating and floodproofing buildings; 2) building barriers close to shore; and 3) purchasing
properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program. Voting occurred during
Workshops #2 and #3 (results can be found in the appendix Section 6 of this report) and focused on certain
model parameters as well as whether or not actions should be further evaluated.
The "asset', selected for analysis was the value of residential and commercial buildings, obtained
from Monroe County tax records. Sea Level Rise assumptions were based upon the Unified Sea Level Rise
Projection for Southeast Florida. Those projections included a low and high estimate of sea level rise in
2030 of 3' and 7- respectively, as well as a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2060 of 9" and 24"
respectively. As requested by workshop participants, a lower sea level rise projection was also employed
in the analysis based only on the rate of sea level rise that has occurred over the last 100 years, outside
of the official Unified Sea Level Rise Projection document. A straight line projection of the tide gauge
trend was added to the modeling parameters, for a very low scenario of sea level rise of 1.82" in 2030 and
4.53" in 2060. Surge values from various sized storms were obtained from the most recent Federal
Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study. Key findings from the worst case
vulnerability assessment included one-time damage estimates of $2.0 Million from a nuisance flood in
2060 under a high sea level rise scenario of 24"and $289.2 Million from a Hurricane Wilma -sized flood in
2060 under the same sea level rise scenario. Cumulative damages over time from storms of various sizes
resulted in significantly higher damage estimates by 2060, with $1.673 Billion in damages under the very
tow sea level rise scenario of 4.53", and $2.130 Billion in damages under a high sea level rise scenario of
24". The value of properties (buildings and land) permanently inundated by sea level rise alone by 2060
(from daily flooding at high tide) ranged from $206.9 Million (very low scenario) to $705.6 Million (high
scenario). Once the modeling indicated such properties would be flooded by the daily high tide, the
software no longer subjected it to continuing cumulative damages from that point in time forward.
The three (3) adaptation actions to model identified by the Project Team and County Staff
included:
ME=
I Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties, Sea Level Rise Ad Hoc Technical Working Group
(April 2011).
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 12
I
I'
• Building barriers close to the coast (to protect from storm surge but not sea level rise); and
• Purchase of properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program over
a phased timeframe.
For each action, costs were determined by the consultant and staff team, and in some cases,
modified by workshop participants by polling. Modeling parameters (eg., building elevation heights, the
dista"�t�t e
accepting a, buyout for their properties, etc.) also were established by workshop participants through a
�*_-ten_used_CQAS&y._&h withAhe_7_4W__tajjnnaUjmLm uJulb-
the predicted reduction in damages over thesame time period as the vulnerability assessment.
These results were converted into benefit -cost ratios. Ratios greater than 1 represented actions
that reduced more in damages in the future than it cost to implernent them. Ratios less than 1 represented
actions that would cost more than the amount of reduced damages in the future (i.e., not cost effective).
The action that had the best benefit -cost ratio was elevating and flo,odproofing buildings (accounting for
those not already elevated or floodproofed in the area of Key Largo: within Monroe County), which had a
benefit -cost ratio between 5.48 and 13.70 (meaning for every $1.00 spent on elevating and floodproofing,
the avoided damages would range from $5.48 to $13.70), depending on the sea level rise scenario (high,
low or tide gauge trend) and construction cost estimates (high and low). Building barriers had the second
highest benefit -cost ratios, but with all results below 1 (0.40 to 0.93). The voluntary buyout program had
benefit -cost ratios ranging from 0.02 to 1.21. The only result with a value greater than 1 was for the tide
gauge trend sea level rise scenario, however. Aside from the model outputs, there were other factors
which contributed to these results as discussed in this document. A similar analysis for Stock Island was
completed at a later date and can be found in Appendix 6.
These benefit -cost ratios were presented to County residents and keypad polling technology was
used to evaluate their opinioins. After looking at the COAST model results and participating in the group
in addition, residents thought the County should pursue sources of funding to help private property
owners implement this strategy.
I
the County residents with a context for beginning more difficult conversations and decision -making it
N
processes regarding their vulnerabilities. Discussions of factors outside of the model should lead to diverse
U
co -benefits (e.g., choosing to restore mangrove forests to not only impirove coastal ecosystems but also
protect buildings, from wave attenuation) and planning outcomes. Importantly, benefit -cost ratios 04
resulting from this work tend to open difficult conversations about exactly what is most important to a
W
community in planning how to adapt to sea level rise and future storm surges.
E
However, these results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a program to
elevate and floodproof residential and commercial buildings. Catalysis recommends that the County use
this Information to.
• Further discuss sea level rise vulnerability with County residents and the importance of having a
method to weigh different adaptation actions against one another (benefit -cost analysis)
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 12
• Develop a framework for using new knowledge to engage with residents so that consensus on an
eventual adaptation action is data- and stakeholder -driven
• Share this information with neighboring communities so that more regional communication can
take place and strengthen any local momentum towards adaptation
• Document any progress or failures towards adaptation so that other communities around the
country have lessons from which they can learn.
6 APPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPOSED
STRATEGIES
61 KEYPAD POWNG RESULTS FROM COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2
GreenK)EYSI Keypad Polling Results from the COAST community modeling exercise conducted
November 5 2014 at the Nelson Government Center In Key Largo, FIL
Question 9,14 Currently in Key Largo, 40% of properties are already elevated. What percentage of
additional Key Largo V-zone buildings do you want to see elevated In this (nodel?
I a 25% 9 29% Question 1
b 50% 2 6%
c 75% 2 6%
d The draft input of 100% 14 45%
blank 4 134E
TotW 31 100% b C d blar'k
Question 02. What percentage of Key Largo A -zone buildings do you want to see floodproofed in this
model?
2 a 25% 2 6% Question 2
b 50% 5 16% 10 16
c 75% 4 13%
d The draft input of 100% 16 52% 2 4 4
blank 4 13% 0 — N 10
ToW 31 100% 4 C r,,,L;ir4
Question 43: Currently in Key Urge, new buildings are required to be elevated to the 100-year flood
elevation, which ranges from 6 to 15 feet across the Key. For parcels that will be elevated In the
model, do you want them to be elevated up to this code at to something higher?
3 a Up to current code 12 39% Question 3
b Up to current code plus 1 3 10% W 25,
c Up to current code plus 3 is 48%
blank 1 3% 3
Totat 33 100%
Question 44: The model estimates floodprooling to a certain height How high would you like to see
parcels floodproofed?
4 a 1 it 0 0% Question 4
b 3 ft 8 26% ib
C 6 ft 3 10% a
d The draft input of 8 It 16 52% 0
blank 4 134t
Tot,0 31 100%
29
File 2015-006 Page 7 of 12
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are stfieke thf: , and additions are underlined.)
Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately.
Policy 101.45.2630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall
limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding
spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only, chimneys, radio and/or
television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers, and certain
antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any
of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the
applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and
101.5.33.
,,,ilat: s*..,,,.twes In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height
limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding
community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non -habitable architectural
decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit
in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This
exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height
that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in
area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is
restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of
comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a
homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors
development requests by its members.
Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 11. To
date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments.
Policy 101.5.32
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public
health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards,
protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to
flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from
flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to
a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be
File 2015-006 Page 8 of 12
voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood
protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures
of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result
in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet.
Policy 101.5.33
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing
buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare,
allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and
minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of
public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood
insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped
and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not exceed
a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established
intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully
established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before
the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved
height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify
the maximum approved height.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN,
THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources.
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community x
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
E
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to Y
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
File 2015-006 Page 9 of 12
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
(e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and
disposal systems.
(j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
File 2015-006 Page 10 of 12
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.).
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations.
VI. PROCESS
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission.
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
File 2015-006 Page 11 of 12
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
VIII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report
5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes
6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report
7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes
8. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report
9. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes
10. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
11. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
File 2015-006 Page 12 of 12
m
G
0
p
p
rD
Q
G
op
w
m
O
a
x
p
N
tr1
v
rDIn
O
�.
Q
d
Q
P
m
O
p
Q rD
oq
O
O
rD
a
�
p
,
p
-
b
aL
'71
o�q
C O
0
O
rD
p�q
rD y
o
�•
o
rD
a
rD
i�
O
p
O
b
p
an
w
d
p
rD
QCrD
rD
Q
p
0
d
O
op
O
a
b
prD
aq
rD
b
y
a
Q
rD
O
O a
P
O
rD
�7rD
a
O
I'D
A�
Y
m
Y
Q d
p
"D
rD�h
O
rD
J
G
Ort
rD rD
rD
n
p
rD
arD
rD
rD
rDO
O
r 0
CD a
�.
rD
p
m
c".
m
w
"d
rD
rD
p
G
d v
nN•
a
n
rD
rD
CD
CD
G
p
O
O
v
w
rD
rD
CD
R l 4
ter'
ter'
d
n
�
CC
�•
b
n
"h
C
°
rD
OQ
�
rD o
a
o
O
m
V"
O
rD
rD
W
rD
(D
vni
�
p..
�
O
G
Attachment: Ex. 12 height 2015-006 SIR PC 02.24.16 (61 : height limit exception for floodprotection)
When they applied for a building permit,
local officials told them to build at least 2 feet above grade
to meet the current building code that accounts for potential
flood levels.' Their insurance agent told them that if they
built even higher than required, they could lower both their
premiums and their flood risk.
'Communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are required
to have all buildings constructed in high -risk areas to be built to at least the elevation
shown on the flood maps. This is known as the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and represents
the height floodwaters from a one -percent chance flood will reach or exceed in any given
year. To help ensure a safer community, many communities require construction to be a
foot or two higher than the BFE.
The ParkerS realized that weather is
unpredictable and that flood risk can change.
Another big flood could happen at any time. But
could they really afford to build higher? It was time
to break out the calculator and do the math.
F1
Estimated construction costs: $25 , 00
• Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,122
• Flood insurance premium: $143 per month or $1,716 per year
• Total monthly costs: $1,265
Estimated construction costs: $252,125
Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,132
Flood insurance premium: $46 per month or 552 per year
Total monthly costs: $1,178
Note: This comparison is based on a 1-story home in an AE Flood Zone built at BFE and 3 feet above BFE c
concrete or CMU perimeter with vents. It has the NFIP maximum coverage of $250,000 building coverage
$100,000 contents coverage with a $1,000 deductible. Elevation costs are estimated at roughly 0.85 perci
of total construction costs per additional foot of elevation. Cost savings could vary for different constructi,
methods. Insurance premiums are based on rates published in the Jan. 2013 NFIP Manual. Mortgage pay
are based on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 3.5 percent APR for the full construction amount and exclu
R
Not every case is the same. Consider your situation.
The Parkers' story is only one example. There are many variables that will impact your decision about how you rebuild.
Talk to your community officials, insurance agent, builders, and other experts to answer the following questions:
1. What is my current flood zone?
Different flood zones require different kinds of construction. How you
rebuild will depend in part on your zone and local building requirements.
2. How high does my community require me to hail
If the building is in a high -risk zone (beginning with the letter "A" or " V"), there is a required minimum elevation for
construction. Many communities have a requirement to build even higher. This is called a "freeboard requirement."
3. What are Advisory Base Flood Elevations s B and how ill they affect ect e
ABFEs sometimes are issued after a major flooding event when FEMA has more current flood hazard data available
than exists in the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps in a given area. ABFEs are provided to communities
as a tool to support them in recovering in ways that will make them more resilient to future storms.
. Is there a chance I could he mapped into a new flood zone
or have a higher Base Flood Elevation in the future?
FEMA is working to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps nationwide. If your community has
outdated maps, the new ones could show your home in a higher risk area or with a higher BFE.
5. How close am I to a high -risk flood area?
Flood risk changes over time. If you are near a high -risk zone, you might want to rebuild in a way
that would comply with that zone in case maps change in the future. If you are near a coastal
high -risk zone (a zone starting with " V"), consider rebuilding on posts, piles or piers.
6. How might my flood risks change in the future?
Physical changes can affect how much water reaches flooding sources, how far the water spreads when floods
occur, and the manner in which buildings are exposed to a flood. In addition, new data gathering and modeling
technology allows FEMA to identify and map flood hazard areas more accurately now than in the past.
i they applied for a building permit,
Mcials told them to build at least 5 feet above grade
it the current building code that accounts for potential
avels.l Their insurance agent told them that both their
ms and flood risk would be lower if they built higher
hat participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are
✓e all buildings constructed in high -risk areas to be built to at least
hown on the flood maps. This is known as the Base Flood Elevation
esents the height floodwaters from a one -percent chance flood
<ceed in any given year. ;To help ensure a safer community, many
construction costs: $400,000
monthly mortgage payment: $1,796
rance premium: $878 per month or $1,536 per year
:hly costs: $2,67
ction costs: $403,600
mortgage payment: $1,612
mium: $315 per month or $3,780 per year
: $2,127
)n a 1-story home in a VE Flood Zone built on wood pilings at BFE
FIP maximum coverage of $250,000 building coverage and $100,000
? deductible. Elevation costs are estimated at roughly 0.3 percent of t
f foot,of elevation. Insurance premiums are based on rates published
fortgage payments are based on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 3..
Lion amount and exclude all insurance costs. Flood insurance must b,
OM
R
tAm
1. What is my current flood zone?
Different flood zones require different kinds of construction. How you
rebuild will depend in part on your zone and local building requirements.
2. How high does my community require to boil
If the building is in a high -risk zone (beginning with the letter "A" or "v"), there is a required minimum elevation for
construction. Many communities have a requirement to build even higher. This is called a "freeboard requirement."
3. What are Advisory Base Flood Elevations sB and how will they affect
ABFEs sometimes are issued after a major flooding event when FEMA has more current flood hazard data available
than exists in the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps in a given area. ABFEs are provided to communities as
a tool to support them in recovering in ways that will make them more resilient to future storms.
. Is there a chance I could into a new flood zone
r have a higher Base Flood Elevation in the future?
FEMA is working to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps nationwide. If your
community has outdated maps, the new ones could show your home in a higher
risk area or with a higher BFE.
5. How close am I to a high -risk flood area?
Flood risk changes over time. If you are near a high -risk zone, you might want to rebuild
in a way that would comply with that zone in case maps change in the future.
6. How might my flood risks change in the future?
Physical changes can affect how much water reaches flooding sources, how far the water spreads when floods
occur, and the manner in which buildings are exposed to a flood. In addition, new data gathering and modeling
technology allows FEMA to identify and map flood hazard areas more accurately now than in the past.
insurance premiums. Certain types of enclosures will further increase those premiums.
Exhibit 14
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
LAND DEVELOPEMNT CODE AMENDMENTS
Policy 101.45.630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County
shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical
distance between grade and the hi mechanical part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but
excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only-,
chimneys, radio and/or television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus; utility poles and/or
transmission towers, and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or
collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as
specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33.c�ie„�
. In the case of airport
districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding
community, and has a distinct community character, buildingsmay maymay include non -habitable
architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the
35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the
building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural
decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more
acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where
public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community
including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services
within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development
standards and monitors development requests by its members.
Policy 101.5.32
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote
public health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other
hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses
due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for
recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection
Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be
provided to allow buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood
elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance
premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no
case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of
40 feet.
Policy 101.5.33
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development
Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing
buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general
Exhibit 14
welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from
flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize
future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events,
and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be
repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE)
provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building
is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor
height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to
exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior
to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide
a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum heiizht of a buildiniz. The BOCC shall adopt a
resolution specifying the maximum approved heir
Section 101-1. - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have
the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a
different meaning:
X X X X X
Elevate means the action of retrofitting or raising a building to a higher positon.
Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest floor raised above the ground level by
foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns.
Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its exposure
to flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general, retrofitting
involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or extending the existing
foundation, or leaving the building_in place and either constructing a new elevated floor system
place and either constructing a new elevated floor system
within the building or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant
enclosure that is used only for parking, building access, or storage.
Sec. 130-187. - Maximum height.
No structure or building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet.
Exceptions will be allowed for chimneys; spires and/or steeples on structures used for
institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; >�
utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached w
antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. Exceptions will be allowed for flood
protection as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 and listed below. E
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the maximum height limitation, except as
specifically_ permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. In the case of airport districts, the
height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall
not apply.
A. Within the Ocean Reef master planned community which is gated, isolated and
inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character,
buildings may include non -habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials.
Exhibit 14
railings, widow's walk, Parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features
shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a
building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would
exceed 40 feet.
B. As provided in Policy 101.5.32, buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the
FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit as follows:
1. For NEW buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35-foot height
limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than
the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a new building
exceed 38 feet in height. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of
buildings, whether voluntary or not.
2. For lawfully established EXISTING multi -family buildings which do not exceed the
35-foot height limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the
building's minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five (5) feet above
the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall
be no greater than the distance necessary to elevate the building to meet BFE plus U
to three (3) feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing
building be elevated to exceed a total building height of 40 feet.
3. No exception shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet.
4. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible
for this exception.
5. No exception shall be provided to buildings located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater
FEMA flood zone.
C. As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established EXISTING multi -family buildings
which exceed the 35-foot height limit may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or
elevated to meet the required FEMA BFE provided the building does not exceed a total
maximum building_height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully
of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully
established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and
type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of five (5) feet may be
permitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE. The amount of the
exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE.
Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for
this exception.
D. As provided in Policy 101.5.33, for lawfully established EXISTING multi -family
buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that are proposed to exceed a total
height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County
Commissioners to review and specify the maximum aproved height shall be required
prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning
Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a
building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved heir
Exhibit 14
1. For lawfully established EXISTING multi -family buildinus that are voluntaril
repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet the building's minimum
required FEMA BFE, but will require a height exception of more than five (5) feet,
a Flood Protection Height Exception exceeding the 35-foot height limit may be
provided by the BOCC based on the following criteria:
a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel,
b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood damage and
the effects of such damage on the property owner,
c. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others,
d. The availability of alternate solutions,
e. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood risk, result in
additional threats to public safety, result in extraordinary public expense, create
nuisance, or cause fraud on or victimization of the public, and
f. Community character.
g. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not
eligible for this exception.
2. A BOCC resolution shall specify the findings of criteria of D.I. a. though g_(abovel
and specify the approved maximum total height for the proposed building-,
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 24, 2016
Meeting Minutes
The Planning Commission of Monroe County conducted a meeting on Wednesday, February
24, 2016, beginning at 10:01 a.m. at the Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway,
Marathon, Florida.
CALL TO ORDER
PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS
Denise Werling, Chair
Present
William Wiatt, Vice Chair
Present
Elizabeth Lustberg
Present
Ron Miller
Present
Beth Ramsay-Vickrey
Present
STAFF
Mayte Santamaria, Sr. Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
John Wolfe, Planning Commission Counsel Present
Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Present
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present
Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present
Matt Coyle, Principal Planner Present
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Janene Sclafani, Planner Present
Gail Creech, Sr. Planning Commission Coordinator Present
COUNTY RESOLUTION 131-91 APPELLANT TO PROVIDE RECORD FOR APPEAL
County Resolution 131-92 was read into the record by Mr. Wolfe.
SUBMISSION OF PROPERTY POSTING AFFIDAVITS AND PHOTOGRAPHS
Ms. Creech confirmed receipt of all necessary paperwork.
SWEARING OF COUNTY STAFF
County staff members were sworn in by Mr. Wolfe.
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Ms. Creech asked to have Items 4 and 5 read together with separate votes taken on each. The
applicant of Item 3 is delayed and that item will be heard out of order when they arrive.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES
Motion: Commissioner Wiatt made a motion to approve the January 27, 2016, meeting
minutes. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The
motion passed unanimously.
MEETING
New Items:
LA PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND FINALIZE THE RANKING OF
APPLICATIONS IN THE DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR
OCTOBER 14, 2015, THROUGH JANUARY 12, 2016, ROGO (2n QUARTER YEAR 24).
ALLOCATION AWARDS WILL BE ALLOCATED FOR ALL UNINCORPORATED
MONROE COUNTY.
(File 2015-192)
(10:04 a.m.) Ms. Stankiewicz presented the staff report. Ms. Stankiewicz stated that this report
is for the quarterly ROGO. Ms. Stankiewicz recommended approval of the market rate
allocations as specified in the report and there were no affordable housing applications.
Chair Werling asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Miller asked for a ballpark figure of Tier I properties that have been developed in
the last ten years. Ms. Santamaria will collect that information and provide it to Commissioner
Miller.
Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion for approval as recommended by
staff. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion
passed unanimously.
2.A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND FINALIZE THE RANKING OF
APPLICATIONS IN THE DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR THE BIG
PINE KEY/NO NAME KEY SUBAREA. ALLOCATION AWARDS TO BE ALLOCATED,
IF AVAILABLE, TO APPLICANTS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED WITHIN THE BIG PINE
KEY/NO NAME KEY SUBAREA.
(File 2015-192)
(10:05 a.m.) Ms. Stankiewicz presented the staff report. Ms. Stankiewicz reported that the
Planning Department recommends approval of the release of the remaining three deferred
allocations at this time.
Chair Werling asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed.
2
Motion: Commissioner Lustberg made a motion for approval. Commissioner Ramsay-
Vickrey seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously.
4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHESIVE PLAN
CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF
MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33
TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS;
PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-006)
5.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD
PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO
ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY
OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-171)
(10:07 a.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that both the
comp plan and the Land Development Code will be addressed together today. Ms. Santamaria
explained that during the October 7, 2014, BOCC meeting the Commissioners asked staff to set
aside the height and offshore policies and sections and provide additional information on those
topics. Then in December of 2014 the BOCC decided to separate these topics totally from the
2030 comp plan and process them separately. Five DRC meetings have been held since March
of 2015 on these issues.
Ms. Santamaria provided the definitions for "height" and "grade." Those terms are critical to
understand because each property may be different depending on what their natural elevation,
their grade is or their crown of the road. A depiction was shown of how this generally works.
Ms. Santamaria continued to report that there are going to be upcoming changes with the FEMA
maps. Staff anticipates that flood zones will likely go up because sea level rise projections will
be included in the new maps. FEMA is trying to make the rates consistent with a property's
actual risk. With this legislation if a structure is elevated up to three feet above base flood
discounts can be received on flood insurance.
3
Ms. Santamaria explained the first policy change is to Policy 101.5.30, which is the policy that
includes the 35-foot height limit. The definition of "height" has been included directly into the
policy as well as the proposed exceptions to the height limits. There is a policy for the Ocean
Reef master planned community for non -habitable architectural decorative features on the roof
line up to five feet. Section 130-187A of the code contains the matching language. The
structure itself with the decorative features cannot exceed 40 feet. The first flood protection
height exception is proposed Policy 101.5.32, which allows up to a maximum of five feet above
the 35-foot height limit to a total maximum of up to 40 feet for flood protection. This is
specifically to allow property owners to better protect their property and potentially receive
discounts on their flood insurance. Section 130-187B of the code has two provisions: Number 1
is for new buildings that would have the opportunity of a maximum of up to three feet above the
35-foot height limit to a maximum height of 38 feet; Number 2 is for lawfully existing buildings,
not multi -family, up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit. The reasons five feet was
provided here instead of three feet is these structures may be below base flood and may need an
opportunity to get to base flood and hopefully will have a foot or two more to go above and
better protect themselves and receive discounts. It is proposed that no structure will ever be
more than 40 feet. FEMA base flood would have to be met for this opportunity to be afforded to
a property owner. Also, those properties located in AE10 or VE 10 or greater are not afforded
this opportunity because those are riskier areas for development. A table of FEMA flood zones
with the number of private vacant parcels in the county was shown. Most of both the existing
parcels and the private vacant parcels exist in AE5 through AE9. These ordinances, therefore,
would cover the majority of the parcels in the County.
Ms. Santamaria then explained that another flood protection height exception is for those
lawfully established buildings that exist today and already exceed the 35-foot height limit. A
lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to
meet the required FEMA base flood elevation provided the building does not exceed a total
maximum building height of 40 feet. If a building already exceeds the 40-foot height limit and
cannot rebuild within that provision of the 40-foot max, a hearing before the Planning
Commission and the BOCC would be required to set what would be their maximum height.
There is criteria created in the code to address that situation. Lawfully existing multi -family
buildings that exceed the 35-foot height limit that would need to go beyond 40 feet would again
require a hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the BOCC to set a
maximum height. The criteria to address this situation were illustrated. Ms. Santamaria
recommended approval to both the comp plan amendments as well as the Land Development
Code amendments.
Commissioner Lustberg asked for clarification between an existing house and a new house. Ms.
Santamaria clarified that existing homes can be elevated to 40 feet, a new home can be built to
38 feet, and replacement of a demolished home can go to 40 feet because of a ROGO exception.
Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey suggested exploring the difference between a damaged rebuild
and a voluntary tear -down and rebuild.
Chair Werling asked for public comment.
4
Burke Cannon, resident of Tavernier, cited examples of discrepancies that would exist in his
neighborhood. The neighborhood would change dramatically. Mr. Cannon asked that more
consideration be given to these ordinances.
Mel Montagne, president of Fair Insurance Rates of Monroe County (FIRM), asked to show a
four -minute video put together by Scott Fraser, who is the FEMA coordinator and flood plain
manager for the City of Key West, which highlights the potential savings in a video format. That
video was presented. Mr. Montagne then commented that FIRM supports Monroe County's
referendum that will allow homeowners to protect their property by elevating structures up to
five feet above base flood level, but in no case exceeding a maximum building height of 40 feet.
FEMA is expected to redraw flood insurance rate maps in Monroe County over the next several
years and the National Flood Insurance Program will be reauthorized in 2017, which may result
in rates less than favorable to Monroe County. A referendum with similar changes passed easily
in the City of Key West. Mr. Montagne asked the Commissioners to adopt proposed
amendments that allow elevation to mitigate flood risk. Commissioner Miller pointed out that
the cost of building a home higher has not been deducted in the figures shown by Mr. Montagne,
which could actually negate 20 years of savings to a home. Mr. Montagne replied that the
figures on the video were Key West -specific and based on a 30-year payout. Also, catastrophic
events should be considered in those figures. Commissioner Miller does not believe this
ordinance should be passed before knowing what the flood maps will be.
Dottie Moses, representing the Island of Key Largo Federation of Homeowners Associations,
stated that although the Federation has been a supporter of the FIRM organization, they object to
raising the 35-foot height limit on new construction. The Federation is not against raising the
base flood elevation, but believes that can be done under the 35-foot height. The flood insurance
premiums should in themselves be a motive for people to want to build higher without being
given another higher elevation, but this is voluntary. Ms. Moses then commented that although
recent sea level rise workshop data is being used as support for elevating, the executive summary
from that project says their results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a
program to elevate flood plain residential. Ms. Moses pointed out that Key West is an older
community and has more homes that are in lower elevations than Unincorporated Monroe
County. Voluntarily tearing down a house and then being allowed to rebuild it to 40 feet should
be looked at very closely and should be treated as new construction. Ms. Moses clarified for
Commissioner Lustberg that she personally supports the ability to elevate an existing house to 40
feet, but not for any new construction, including a teardown. Commissioner Miller asked where
in the LDRs it states you can build to 40 feet if you tear your house down. Ms. Santamaria
pointed out Section 130-187B. Ms. Santamaria then explained that she misspoke earlier and
clarified that this exception shall apply to the substantial improvements of buildings, whether
voluntary or not, who would be able to rebuild to 38 feet, not 40 feet.
Bill Hunter of Sugarloaf Key asked what the maximum height would be if he bulldozed his home
to build a new one. Ms. Santamaria replied the maximum would be 38 feet.
Alicia Putney, resident of No Name Key, explained that the height of 35 feet was determined by
the height of the existing tree line so that trees would be higher than the buildings. Throughout
the Keys members of homeowners associations and environmental groups fought for that height
5
limit to keep the Florida Keys a unique and special place. Ms. Putney pointed out that there are
only three land use determinants for the 2010 comp plan and LDRs: The carrying capacity
limitations; natural resource protection; and the enhancement of community character. Policy
101.2.24 limits the height of structures to 35 feet. To be able to change the comp plan new
issues or a change in circumstance need to be shown using data and analysis. The only new data
being presented today is the need to allow existing buildings to be elevated for flood protection.
Ms. Putney suggested the following ways to address this agenda item on height issues: Allow an
exception to the 35-foot height limit when the reasons to elevate the existing structure is for
FEMA reasons to a maximum of 38 feet; allow an exception to the 38-foot height limit to allow
grandfathered structures to elevate the structure for FEMA reasons; and allow an exception to the
35-foot height limit limited to Ocean Reef where the community character is distinct from the
rest of the Florida Keys provided there is legal protection from this allowance setting a precedent
for the rest of the Keys and provided the exceptions are based in a Livable CommuniKeys
planning initiative which would result in an overlay district. Allowing new construction to those
owners who desire a third story that would exceed 35 feet is encouraging development in the
lowest areas of the Florida Keys where development should be discouraged. There is no need to
change the rules for new construction. Ms. Putney asked the Commissioners to consider these
recommendations prior to voting on this important issue.
Joyce Newman of Big Pine Key spoke on behalf of Last Stand. Ms. Newman stated that Last
Stand has participated in all of the meetings related to change of height in the county and
wholeheartedly supports a mechanism that would allow an existing home to be raised five feet
above base flood elevation as protection against sea level rise and increased flood insurance
premiums. However, Last Stand is opposed to a blanket exemption to the 35-foot height that
would change the community character of the Florida Keys. A variance procedure should be
attached to any changes proposed above the 35-foot level, which would allow the Planning
Commission to look carefully at these requests on a case -by -case basis. Last Stand does not
support new construction being afforded the ability to go beyond the 35-foot level because there
is no burden on new construction to achieve the BFE elevations. Last Stand continues to object
to special considerations for Ocean Reef because of the precedent this might set. However, the
suggestion of going through the Livable CommuniKeys process might provide legal protections
to avoid the precedence being set. Ms. Newman believes this is not ready to go before the
BOCC because of the recent changes and the contention and lack of consensus that still exists.
Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Club to speak on Agenda Item 4 as it pertains to
Ocean Reef Club. Mr. Reed stated Ocean Reef has been represented at all of the meetings
regarding this issue over the last two years. This is a key and critical issue for Ocean Reef and
the language does not go far enough to protect existing structures that are already exceeding the
height limit. Mr. Reed displayed proposed language to be included under Policy 101.5.31. Mr.
Reed attempted to assuage the concerns that language applicable to Ocean Reef would spread to
the rest of the community by explaining the policy, as written, is a policy unique only to Ocean
Reef and is not applicable to other parts of the County. Ocean Reef is the only community that
meets the gated master planned community in the definitions of the code today. Additional items
that Ocean Reef is asking to be put in is that the existing structures that already exceed the 35-
foot height restriction could be built back. Ocean Reef is asking that two community buildings
that are key and essential to the community, the cultural center and the boat barn, would have a
11
65-foot height restriction. Mr. Reed described Ocean Reef as distinct in that it is isolated,
inaccessible and does have a distinct community character. There is no visual impact due to the
buildings in Ocean Reef. Commissioner Miller pointed out that Ocean Reef can be seen clearly
from the water. Mr. Reed continued to explain that Ocean Reef has design guidelines and an
architectural committee that reviews for all architecture that happens in all buildings in Ocean
Reef. Photographs of Ocean Reef were shown from different times and different vantage points.
Mr. Reed stated that Ocean Reef is more restrictive than Monroe County as far as setbacks,
building envelope requirements and architectural restrictions. Mr. Reed stated the County has no
regulations to date to protect buildings that are lawfully established buildings that exceed the
height limits that are part of the Ocean Reef community. Pictures were displayed of some of
these buildings. Ms. Santamaria clarified that a table of the proposed changes for the buildings
at Ocean Reef is contained in the backup for some policy language in Exhibit 11, although the
table is mostly blank. Mr. Reed stated that he will fill in the updated information and provide it
to staff and to the Commissioners afterwards.
Mr. Reed then continued to show the different buildings as examples in the community. Mr.
Reed stated some of the buildings have aged and have passed their useful life because of the
restrictions and not allowing these building to be rebuilt with an increase in height is not a
benefit to the community or to the overall value of that community. Some buildings have
outdated ceiling heights and Ocean Reef is asking those buildings be allowed to be built back
with 11 or 12 feet slab -to -slab height. Some buildings would lose units if built back to current
height restrictions. To build the boat barn back within codes to maintain the same number of
boats stored there it would need to go up to 65 feet. The boat barn currently is at 37 feet. The
cultural center has asked to go to 65 feet because of the space needed for the type of productions
that are put on for the community. Mr. Reed reiterated that Ocean Reef Club is a distinct
community and isolated. Ocean Reef Club is managed by its board of directors and the
homeowner piece of it, Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA), has not only a board, but
an architectural committee as well. Both the club and the community association are in support
of this request and believe it is a necessity for Ocean Reef.
Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey discussed the difference in height of the cultural center and the
boat barn currently and what is proposed by Mr. Reed. Commissioner Wiatt asked Mr. Reed
about ownership of the different structures in the table provided. Mr. Reed replied that the
commercial buildings are all owned by Ocean Reef Club and the condominium buildings are all
owned within the community association. Commissioner Wiatt expressed sympathy for the
owners that may have obtained these properties prior to the 35-foot limit, but believes owners
that obtained them after the 35-foot limit came into place should have known they could only be
built back to 35 feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that the 35-foot height restriction came into being in
1986. Commissioner Lustberg disagreed in that many things in the County are grandfathered in
and when purchasing something that violates the rules owners believe continuing that use is
generally allowed. Mr. Reed commented again concerning neighbor impact due to a change that
Ocean Reef Club is isolated and has their own rules and regulations that guide development and
their community members are part of that entire process. Mr. Reed went over Number 2 and 3 to
Policy 101.5.31 that Ocean Reef is requesting be added to the policy language. Mr. Reed
confirmed for Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey that Number 2 would allow replacement of a
building at an additional height. Commissioner Miller asked what the flood zone is for Ocean
7
Reef. Mr. Reed replied that the Amberj ack Hotel is in a V 11-13 zone and the others are AE 9
and AE 10.
Jim Hendrick of Key West was present on behalf of ORCA. Mr. Hendrick exaplained that
Ocean Reef Club is the actual ownership entity and ORCA is the local governance for Ocean
Reef that has its own architectural standards, its own boards and committees. Mr. Hendrick
noted Kay Thacker's passing. Mr Hendrick stated that Ms. Thacker fought for preserving a
measure of limitation on buildings within the island communities along the US-1 chain, but
recognized that the community character of Ocean Reef is very distinct from the rest of the Keys.
Ocean Reef is the only community that is exempted from ROGO because it is isolated. Mr.
Hendrick pointed out that under the regulations that are currently being proposed all owners of a
condominium could not be accommodated. A special policy is needed for Ocean Reef because
there are no standards given to guide the exercise of granting an exemption. A special rule can
be accomplished for Ocean Reef without setting an adverse precedent because the policy
contains the reasons why Ocean Reef is unique: Because it is a gated master -planned
community; it is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community; and has a distinct
community character. Mr. Hendrick believes the suggestion that this be worked through a
Livable CommuniKeys program has merit, but pointed out that Ocean Reef s proposed policy
gives very clear and specific guidelines as to what will and will not be allowed in Ocean Reef.
The Ocean Reef community is speaking with one voice on this and no one speaks against it.
Naja Girard of Key West asked since when is a property owner allowed to make their own rules.
Ms. Girard asked if the County wants to encourage walled -up, exclusive, gated communities
throughout the Keys. Ms. Girard asked that this issue be considered very carefully.
Deb Curlee of Cudjoe Key stated that she attended all of the DRC meetings on this issue and this
is the first time the proposed changes or additional language from Ocean Reef has been seen.
Ms. Curlee asked Ms. Santamaria to confirm that Ocean Reef is part of Monroe County. Ms.
Santamaria answered in the affirmative.
Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed
Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked to discuss Ocean Reef first. Commissioner Ramsay-
Vickrey agrees that Ocean Reef is a distinct community and agrees with the five-foot exemption
for the decorative features. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey commented that the proposed
language by Ocean Reef contained in Number 2 and Number 3 has not gone through staff review
or a public process. Therefore, she is opposed to voting on that today. Commissioners Wiatt and
Miller agreed with that. Commissioner Lustberg believes there has been substantial public
discussion on many things before coming in front of the Planning Commission and this is what is
before the Commission today. Commissioner Lustberg feels that Ocean Reef is largely protected
by the language allowing for the variance process in order to build beyond the 40 feet because it
would be considered a hardship for somebody to lose a unit. That would be considered
differently in Ocean Reef with a condo than it might for an individual homeowner.
Commissioner Miller asked if the 15,000 excluded properties in AE-10 and VE-10 throughout
the County would also apply to Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria responded that there are properties
in Ocean Reef that are AE-10, VE-10 or greater. So the proposed policy that allows for existing
multifamily structures to exceed the 35-foot height limit and go beyond 40 feet would not be
available for those that exceed the 10-foot level. Ms. Santamaria then noted that the previous
submission from Ocean Reef, Exhibit 11 of the staff report, contains 90 percent of the same
language, but the table related to the request was never submitted previously. Commissioner
Ramsay-Vickrey repeated that should go through staff and a public process before coming before
the Planning Commission on those issues.
Commissioner Wiatt noted that even though the height restrictions were originally put in place to
address aesthetics and the height of the trees, they have morphed into something more than that.
There are really only two things right now that have any control over residential floor area:
setbacks and height restrictions. Therefore, the only way Commissioner Wiatt will be
comfortable with increasing height restrictions is to make sure language is in place that does not
allow for an increase in floor area in the guise of raising properties for flood. Ms. Santamaria
confirmed that there is no limit in the text currently relating to floor area. Commissioner
Ramsay-Vickrey suggested limiting this height rise to only single- and two-story homes.
Commissioner Miller voiced concern that the height increase in new construction will result in a
density increase. Commissioner Miller distributed graphs showing the potential changes that
will result from the height increases. Commissioner Miller explained how to read the graphs.
Commissioner Miller pointed out that these increases will incentivize those people who want to
maximize their number of floors and believes protecting our homes and getting reduced FEMA
premiums can already be accomplished without the proposed increases. Taking the residential
units out of the equation may make for a better product. Commissioner Wiatt commented that
Policy 101.5.33 limits existing lawfully established floor area to the building envelope. Ms.
Santamaria pointed out that B2 does not include that language. C contains that language for
multi -family. Ms. Schemper explained that new construction is sandwiched in between base
flood and the 35-foot height limit, so an additional story is not able to be added. Commissioner
Miller disagreed with that. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey again suggested limiting the
increases to new buildings to single- or two-story homes. Commissioner Lustberg stated new
construction gets the increase only if the house is elevated that three feet above base flood. Ms.
Santamaria agreed that the increment is only what is gone above base flood. Mr. Williams
explained the house stays the same size, but just gets moved up or down. Commissioner Miller
insisted that his graph of showing the changes is correct and suggested having a workshop on
this matter. Commissioner Wiatt would like to include multi -family in the limitation to single -
or two-story structures. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey voiced concern because of the effects
that may have on affordable housing. Commissioner Miller agreed with limiting the new
construction to single- or two-story homes, but wants the community concern addressed. Ms.
Santamaria explained if three stories could be built under the 35-foot limit, then those three
stories could be built under the 38-foot limit because it is just being shifted up.
Chair Werling stated there are already buildings in the very hazardous flood areas and they are
getting no advantage to rectify their situation with these proposed changes. Ms. Santamaria
explained that they can still build back within the 35 feet and take advantage of actually adding a
couple feet above base flood, but the County does not want to incentivize construction in those
riskier areas. They would be rebuilding smaller homes in those areas. Staff tried to capture in
the language where the majority of the existing parcels and the majority of the existing
development occurs, which is AE-6 through 10. Chair Werling asked if homes in those lower
P7
areas could be considered on a case -by -case situation because it is not known what FEMA's
numbers on their maps are going to be. Mr. Williams explained how the LiDAR works when
creating these new maps and stated some counties who have had the LiDAR used to create their
maps have seen as much as a foot change in their elevation. Chair Werling is bothered that no
exception is given to those homes in the low-lying areas. Commissioner Miller questioned why
the County would not wait for the map changes before voting on this ordinance. Ms. Santamaria
replied to give people the opportunity to be better prepared and better protect their homes with
potential changes coming out. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked to add language this is to
be reviewed every time there is an issuance of new maps. Chair Werling agreed. Commissioner
Lustberg does not believe that the height should be tied in to where base flood goes because that
could go on forever. At this point a concession is being made to people who have an existing
property to allow them to use it the same way, but to make it safer for flooding and to reduce
their premiums. Commissioner Lustberg feels that this ordinance tries to take into effect where it
is appropriate to build back and how much is appropriate to grant people in order to be able to
have insured houses without allowing for inappropriate development that slips in. Otherwise,
only people who do not need a mortgage can afford to live here.
Commissioner Miller made three points: It is more equitable if the 35-foot rule applied to all of
the properties in the Keys; under no circumstances should there be increased capacity in the
number of floors that could be built under this exemption; and consideration should be given to
the fact that our communities have been built under the 35-foot height limitation successfully for
years. Ms. Santamaria proposed the following language to limit the 38-foot height exemption to
one- or two-story homes: "For new single-family or multi -family buildings, which are
voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required base flood elevation, an
exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The
amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above
base flood elevation. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height or two floors of
habitable space." Ms. Santamaria explained the proposed language for new development will
not adversely affect those property owners who can build three floors currently at 35 feet.
The Commissioners agreed to keep the language in B2 as is. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey
asked that these same changes to new and existing development decided on for Item 5 be made
to Item 4. Ms. Santamaria clarified that language will be added to specify in Policy 101.5.32 that
limits new single-family and multi -family to 38 feet and two stories and existing to 40 feet to
match the code. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey suggested in Policy 101.5.33 changing "The
Planning Commission" to "The Planning Director shall provide a recommendation to the
BOCC." Commissioner Lustberg and Chair Werling believe that language shall remain "The
Planning Commission" to allow for public input. Chair Werling stated that nobody should be
exempt in Number 5 of the LDC, especially if the maps are going to change. Ms. Santamaria
explained the rationale for that language was public comment received during the DRC that
redevelopment should not be facilitated or encouraged in the riskier areas. They could still build
under the 35-foot height limit, but would not have the ability to go the extra height.
Commissioner Miller believes that would allow for the creation of more habitable space in those
homes. Commissioner Wiatt noted that the language is covered under existing development and
the limitation of two floors covers it under new development. The people that have structures in
low-lying areas can continue to have those structures, but they are not getting any more floor
10
area. Commissioner Miller pointed out that in the lower elevations this will create more
habitable space Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey proposed the language "No exception shall be
provided to new buildings located in" AE 10 and greater or VE 10 and greater. That would
discourage development in the most sensitive and flood prone areas for new development. Chair
Werling added that there are a lot of restrictions in obtaining a permit in those areas already.
Commissioner Lustberg asked to hear the proposed language again. Ms. Santamaria read aloud
the changes in Item 4, Policy 101.5.32: "Within one year of the effective date of this policy,
Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection
Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow
adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and
minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future
expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and
mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a
maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existing
buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three feet above FEMA base flood elevation and a
Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit
shall be provided to allow new buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three feet above FEMA base
flood elevation. These exceptions are in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood
damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for
recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new
building exceeding a maximum height of 38 feet and a lawfully existing building exceeding a
maximum height of 40 feet."
Ms. Santamaria then read aloud the proposed changes to Item 5, B 1: "For new single-family and
multi -family buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required
base flood elevation, an exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit may
be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of
voluntary elevation above base flood elevation. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet
in height or two habitable floors. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of
buildings, whether voluntary or not." Ms. Santamaria explained that "multi -family" will be
stricken from B2 and B5 will read: "No exception shall be provided to new buildings located in
an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone."
Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion on Agenda Item Number 4 to
approve with the language adjustments as read by staff as directed by the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. Commissioner Lustberg asked
Legal staff about unintended consequences these changes will bring about. Mr. Williams stated
that there are always consequences, but as long as the County does not infringe on property
owners' rights as they currently exist everything should be fine. Chair Werling clarified that the
information submitted today by Ocean Reef is not included in this motion. Commissioner
Ramsay-Vickrey added that the Planning Commission is willing to address those requests when
they comes before the Commission through the existing process. There was no opposition.
The motion passed unanimously.
11
Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion on Agenda Item Number 5 to
approve with the changes as read by the Planning Director as directed by the Planning
Commission. Ms. Santamaria repeated the changes for Commissioner Miller. Commissioner
Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously.
A brief recess was held from 12:36 p.m. to 12:48 p.m.
6.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8
AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2
WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO
FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR
SEVERABIL,ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;
PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND
THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE
COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015-007)
(12:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that, similar to
the height amendment, this item started in the comp plan update and the BOCC in December
2014 asked staff to take it out of the comp plan update and process it separately. This has also
gone to the DRC five times since that time period. Three amendments are being proposed to the
comp plan. The language in Policy 101.6.8 that allows the transfer of ROGO exemptions from
one area to the other has already been transmitted to DEO and voted on and supported by the
BOCC. The new addition is that the receiver site of these existing units transferring from one
location to the other would not be to an offshore island. The language in Policy 101.13.3
allowing for the transfer of development rights, the transfer of density and not units, has also
been transmitted to the State of Florida. The new addition, Number 6, states an offshore island
will not be a receiver site for extra density. Policy 206.1.2 has the following new language
beyond what has already been transmitted: "As used in this policy, established bird rookery
refers to the location where colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and
incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow
depression in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows and cavities." A definition
of "offshore island" for the glossary that was previously included in the comp plan update and
removed is included here. It is not for offshore island zoning, but for the specific term of the
physical island, itself. "Offshore island means an area of land surrounded by water which is not
directly or indirectly connected to US-1 by a bridge, road or causeway." Ms. Santamaria
recommended approval of the amendments before the Planning Commission today.
Chair Werling asked for public comment.
Naja Girard, resident of Key West, questioned why the amendments relating to offshore islands
are being brought separately from the general comp plan update with no new data that
contradicts the original technical document. Ms. Girard stated during the final BOCC hearing on
the comp plan update one of FEB Corp's attorneys claimed to speak on behalf of a client who
12
owned a spoil island to the west of Key West when, in fact, the gentleman was not really his
client and the island is not really a spoil island. That maneuver was used as the pretext that set in
motion the sidetracking of the comp plan update as it pertains to offshore islands. Ms. Girard
urged the Commissioners to keep in mind that today there are 60 privately -owned offshore
islands and what is done here today will affect many islands that have remaining development
potential. Ms. Girard asked that the comp plan policies retain the clear language that has been in
place for decades that states that all offshore islands are Tier I, that development must be low
density and even prohibited if the island is a bird nesting colony site and that no development
rights or ROGOs may be transferred to offshore islands. Offshore islands are protected not only
for the upland habitat they provide, but also because of the important ecosystem that is found in
the waters that surround them. Spoil islands are uniquely inappropriate for residential
development because they are highly prone to erosion. Ms. Girard concluded by stating that
there is no legitimate reason and no data that supports the weakening of protections for offshore
islands.
Nicholas Batty, attorney on behalf of FEB Corp., thanked staff for their hard work in this matter.
Mr. Batty stated FEB Corp. supports this proposal except for one facet of the ordinance to which
FEB takes exception: The prohibition of offshore islands as receiver sites for TREs. It is
completely acceptable to eliminate the transfer of TDRs to offshore islands because there is no
maximum net density for islands within the offshore zoning category, but not every offshore
island has ROGO attached and the prohibition of offshore islands as receiver sites forces the
property owners to look to the ROGO allocation system which is already crowded and takes the
possibility of purchasing and transferring ROGO exemptions in the market system off the table.
There is no justification for the blanket prohibition against transfers to offshore islands. If a site
on offshore islands meets all of the required criteria, why should it not be eligible for a THE
transfer? Mr. Batty respectfully requested the Commission approve the language of the
amendment as written with the exception of the THE receiver prohibition.
Alicia Putney, resident of No Name Key, pointed out to the Commissioners that the final order
for the 1995 challenge to the current comp plan adopted by the BOCC in 1993 includes findings
of facts that specifically pertain to the goals, objectives and policies of the current year 2010
plan. Maps showing the offshore islands that were considered in the development of the comp
plan were attached to that final order. Ms. Putney recited certain language from the technical
document about offshore islands and their importance in the ecosystem of the Florida Keys. Ms.
Putney stands firmly behind staff in the concept of offshore islands not being eligible to be a
receiver site. There has been no data or analysis brought forward to justify changing the
restrictions on development of offshore islands. To do so will not only be in violation of the
comp plan, but also the principles for guiding development. Offshore islands are
environmentally sensitive by definition and the protections should not be lowered.
Julie Dick from Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Last Stand and the Florida Keys
Environmental Fund, thanked staff for all of their work that has gone into developing this
language and these policies. Ms. Dick stated her clients are fully supportive of keeping offshore
islands from being receiver sites. Being able to transfer ROGOs to offshore islands would
exacerbate very serious problems in terms of evacuation. Ms. Dick addressed some definitions
in the policies. Ms. Dick proposed the language "Development shall be prohibited on offshore
13
islands (including spoil islands) which have a nesting area or an established bird colony site,
based on best available data or survey and on -site verification by the County biologist." Ms.
Dick explained the words "been documented as" should be removed because whether or not an
offshore island has previously been documented as a nesting area or a bird rookery or colony site
is irrelevant. The important thing is whether the bird rookery or colony site is on that offshore
island and it may be documented in the future. The addition of "nesting area" is suggested
because Policy 102.7.2 has almost mirror -image language except it lists rookery and nesting
area. Nesting areas are critical to protect. In the definitions and the glossary "Nesting Areas"
cover endangered and threatened species and species of special concern at the State and Federal
level. Ms. Dick explained that "resource agency" should be removed so that the County does not
have to wait for information that is needed when there may be other available data. Also, it
should be verified by the County biologist to provide for on -the -ground verification of what is
really on these islands in terms of colony sites or nesting areas. Ms. Dick stated Dr. Jerry
Lorenz, the Florida Research Director for Audubon Florida, will address the fact that "bird
rookeries" is an ambiguous term and refers to crows. A colony site is a more scientifically
accurate reference. The definition for colony site should mirror what staff proposed in Policy
206.1.2 so there will be consistency throughout the comp plan. Policy 207.9.1 references
anticipation of an updated list of offshore islands with bird rookeries where development shall be
prohibited. That update has not been done, so Ms. Dick asked that the policy be taken out
altogether.
Dr. Jerry Lorenz, marine biologist representing National Audubon Society and Audubon Florida,
stated that in order to make some of the language more consistent scientifically "rookery" should
be changed to "colony site" because a rookery is much broader as it is defined whereas a colony
site is a nesting habitat. Dr. Lorenz stated these islands are environmentally sensitive and are
critical to bird life in the Keys and to the rest of the country because of the migration flyways
through this area. A number of birds nest on these islands that are classified as colonial or semi -
colonial, which are distinctly different. White -crowned pigeons are classified as a semi -colonial
species, which simply means they can nest in colonies or they can nest individually. The white -
crowned pigeon is critical to the upland habitat in the Keys because the hardwood hammocks are
dependent upon them for moving around seeds. They are classified as threatened by the State of
Florida and are a critical component of the ecosystem. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey noted
that changing "rookery" to "nesting site" narrows the language. Dr. Lorenz reiterated that
"rookery" is incorrectly defined in the language. All colonies are rookeries, but not all rookeries
are colonies. Mr. Roberts agreed that Dr. Lorenz' proposed language would afford less
protection to the area. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the Merriam -Webster definition of "rookery."
Dr. Lorenz noted that that definition is not scientifically correct. Dr. Lorenz stated these lands
are environmentally sensitive and he would like the comp plan to be as specific as possible to
protect these nesting habitats. Dr. Lorenz pointed out again when using the term "colony site"
that both colonial birds and semi -colonials birds need to be included. When birds form in groups
to sit on a nest it is a bird colony no matter what the bird is classified as. Dr. Lorenz then
explained that bird colonies are ephemeral. The islands will be used by birds when appropriate
and not used when not appropriate. A colony site is a place where birds would go to nest, not
necessarily that birds are nesting there at a certain time. Commissioner Miller suggested adding
the word "suitable" habitats. Dr. Lorenz agreed that would be much more restrictive and much
more protective if it said "suitable habitats for semi -colonial or colonial nesting birds."
14
Commissioner Lustberg asked if every offshore island would be suitable. Dr. Lorenz replied that
all offshore islands he is familiar with are environmentally important to all avian species even
though they may not necessarily be a nesting location. Offshore islands are critical to all species
of bird that migrate through the Florida Keys going to Cuba or the Yucatan Peninsula.
Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed.
Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked Mr. Roberts for his opinion regarding the broad definition
of rookery, which could include turtles. Mr. Roberts explained that protections are in place for
turtles. This policy protects offshore islands relative to the transfer of development rights and
the transfer of ROGO exemptions. Mr. Roberts agreed that "resource agency" can be deleted
and agreed the term "or semi -colonial" could be added. That would close a narrowly open door.
Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey does not want "resource agency" taken out because then it is
unknown who will make the determination that it is suitable habitat. Commissioner Ramsay-
Vickrey does like the receiver site criteria adding that it is not an offshore island and does like
the definition of "offshore island" mirroring what has been discussed at the comp plan level.
Chair Werling suggested adding "best available data verified by the County biologist." Mr.
Roberts explained that the resource agencies that have a presence in the Keys are U.S. Fish &
Wildlife, Florida DEP, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and the County.
Commissioner Lustberg pointed out that there is not one entity the County should be dependent
upon to get the data, but also does not want to rely on the applicants for that data. Mr. Roberts
proposed the language "based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the
County biologist." Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey agreed with that proposal. Chair Werling
asked to change "established" to "suitable" in that same paragraph. Commissioner Lustberg
pointed out that would mean there would be no development allowed on any offshore island and
right now this language allows development on offshore islands so long as it can get the
appropriate ROGO units, that it complies with all the land use maps, but no development or
ROGO units can be transferred to the properties.
Commissioner Miller asked to open this up to the idea of designating all offshore islands as Tier
I. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 directs the County to discourage development
proposed on offshore islands by methods, including but not limited to, designating offshore
islands as Tier I lands. Each property is evaluated based on the tier criteria that has been adopted
into the comp plan and code to see if they meet the criteria for the designation. Ms. Santamaria
read aloud the proposed amended language for confirmation: "Development shall be prohibited
on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird
rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County
biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial or
semi -colonial birds nest together (referring to a location where a bird lays and incubates its eggs
and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depression in sand,
soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities."
Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion to approve with the amendments
as read by the Planning Director as directed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner
Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously.
15
3.PLAYA LARGO RESORT, 97450 OVERSEAS HWY, KEY LARGO, MILE MARKER
97.4: A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A 6COP-S ALCOHOLIC
BEVERAGE USE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW BEER, WINE, AND LIQUOR IN
CONNECTION WITH OPERATION OF HOTEL, MOTEL, MOTOR COURT OR
CONDOMINIUM; SALE BY THE DRINK FOR CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES AND
PACKAGE SALES IN SEALED CONTAINERS. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LEGALLY
DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 4B AND 5B OR AMENDED PLAT OF MANDALAY ON KEY
LARGO, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2,
PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ALSO A TRACT
OF SUBMERGED LAND IN THE BAY OF FLORIDA FRONTING SAID TRACT 513,
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00555010-0000000.
(File 2016-014)
(1:43 p.m.) Mr. Rains presented the staff report. Mr. Rains described the location and zoning of
the property. Mr. Rains reported that the property is under substantial development at this time
and is in for an application for special use permit to allow alcoholic beverage sales in connection
with a hotel resort application. Mr. Rains described prior County actions on this property. Mr.
Rains explained that within an application for variance from the parking it became evident that
this was a closed resort to guests of the facility. Photographs of the property were shown.
Surrounding properties that include alcoholic beverage use permits were listed. Mr. Rains
recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were then outlined.
Nicholas Mulick, Esquire, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mulick requested that
Condition Number 2 refer to "guests of the hotel" as opposed to "registered guests of the hotel."
Mr. Williams explained this is normally not an issue, but some of the variances received on this
property expressly related to the parking issues on site. Mr. Williams suggested all people
attending a special event could register as guests.
Jorge Cepero of Playa Largo was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and stated every weekend there will be n
some kind of event, so to have every guest register for every single event is not realistic. Mr.
Cepero suggested using the language "hotel related uses." Commissioner Wiatt emphasized the
fact that parking is the concern if the bar is open to non -registered guests. Mr. Cepero responded N
that the applicant is only restricted in not advertising for people to come into the bar and be
served at the bar. Mr. Wolfe explained parking for a hotel contemplates functions like weddings.
What is not covered and is specifically excluded is traffic from people coming into the bar. Ms.
Santamaria clarified that the parking variance approved by Planning Commission Resolution
Number P39-07 states "Alcoholic beverage sales shall be limited to registered guests of the hotel
and registered guests at events at the hotel facility." Mr. Mulick asked to broaden the language w
slightly to include special events or catered events. Commissioner Lustberg noted that guests of
a conference would be registered guests even if staying elsewhere. Mr. Cepero noted that is °P
E
often controlled by people putting on the wedding or the event, not by the hotel.
Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey supports the Commission's attorney and County staff on this
item. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked if the applicant would like to take a continuance for
a month to go back and meet with staff and try to work out the language so it would be
acceptable to all. Mr. Mulick stated the applicant is fine with Ms. Santamaria's language as read
16
from the resolution. Mr. Williams pointed out that the concern is not with the present applicant,
but with what may happen two or three owners down the road who are not aware of everything
that is agreed to here. Ms. Santamaria re -read Planning Commission Resolution P39-07 aloud.
Chair Werling asked for public comment.
Dottie Moses, resident of Key Largo, was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and then asked Mr. Cepero if
the restaurant at the waterfront was no longer going to be open to the public as was previously
believed. Mr. Williams pointed out that public comment is not an opportunity for the public to
question the applicant. Ms. Moses stated that she had been told that the waterfront apartment
was for employee housing only, which is not being called a commercial unit. The two residential
areas on either side of this resort are members of the Federation of Homeowners Associations
and are very concerned about any kind of impact the parking, traffic and noise will cause in those
neighborhoods. Ms. Schemper added that some of these issues were dealt with during the
conditional use approval. The approval on that site is for a hotel with restaurant and bar areas
that are accessory uses to the hotel. The commercial apartment was approved as a commercial
apartment, which means it can be for either employees or the owner to use on the site. One of
the conditions in the conditional use permit is that there will be no outdoor entertainment past 10
p.m. Ms. Moses stated the noise ordinance in place now is not working.
Joyce Newman, resident of Big Pine Key, was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and then repeated the
story from a prior meeting about a piece of property on Big Pine Key that was proposed as a
family restaurant and in short time became Coconut's Lounge. Ms. Newman cautioned the
Commissioners to keep the big picture in mind. The neighbors of this resort are not only dealing
with a drastic change in community character, but the whole community is dealing with a loss of
affordable housing, so the developer ought to be able to give up something.
Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed
Commissioner Wiatt pointed out in fairness to the applicant that they have supplied affordable
housing for their workers, but stated he is not willing to compromise on the parking. Chair
Werling and Commissioner Miller agreed.
Motion: Commissioner Wiatt made a motion to approve staffs recommendation with the
language read by the Planning Director at the request of the Planning Commission.
Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed
unanimously.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMENTS
Ms. Santamaria reminded the Commissioners that on March 1 and April 13 the adoption
hearings for the Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan will be held. Staff is
trying to organize a training session for the Planning Commission on March 17 from 1:00 to 2:30
p.m. on fair and effective zoning hearings. Commissioner Lustberg stated she will be out of the
country, but would be happy to read any written minutes of the meeting. Ms. Santamaria will
check to see if the video can be purchased for those who cannot attend.
17
ADJOURNMENT
The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned &242p.m.
18
Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County
FEMA Flood Zone
Number of
% of total
% of total
# of Private-
Parcels
Vacant Parcel
X
1,935
3.40%
462
0.2 PCT ANNUAL
5.16%
0
CHANCEFLOOD
�4
HAZARD
999
1.76%
165
o
AE 5
1
0.00%
-
AE 6
1,964
3.46%
95
AE 7
8,996
15.83 %
296
o
N M
o
AE 8
14,824
26.08%
2,699
0
AE 9
11,272
19.83 %
1,916
AE 10
6,835
12.02%
1,098
83.48%
AE l l
21983
5.25%
326
AE 12
121
0.21%
12
AE 13
418
0.74%
5
i�,
� o
o �,
AE 14
36
0.06%
-
AE 15
3
0.01%
-
CZ
AE 16
1
0.00%
-
VE 9
5
0.01%
1
3 story
VE 10
327
0.58%
67
VEII
11019
1.79%
272
VE 12
1,443
2.54%
265
VE 13
1,069
1.88%
127
7� �4
o
VE 14
11815
3.19%
52
VE 15
352
0.62%
52
�
o
VE 16
31
0.05%
10.76%
7
VE 17
33
0.06%
2
0
VE 19
5
0.01%
-
VE 20
1
0.00%
-
VE 21
8
0.01%
-
0
VE22
7
0.01%
-
VE 23
1
0.00%
-
o
o ro
VE 24
1
0.00%
-
0
VE 26
2
0.00%
-
OPEN WATER
10
0.02%
2
total parcels
56,843
7,921
Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County.
The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA
Zones.
As risks change, insurance premiums also change to
reflect those risks. Your flood insurance premium may
be going up.
However, you may be able to reduce your premium if
you build your home or business to be safer, higher,
and stronger.
The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of
2012 provides long-term changes to the National
Flood Insurance Program.
Under the new law, rates are likely to increase overall
to reflect the true flood risk of your home and many
insurance discounts will be eliminated.
For example, premiums for certain non -primary
residences' in high -risk areas will increase 25 percent
per year until they reflect full -risk rates.
Policy rates for all properties could increase based on
one or all of the following circumstances:
• Change of ownership
• Lapse in coverage
• Change in risk
• Substantial damage or improvement to a building
Some changes will depend on external factors such
as when flood risk maps are revised, buildings are
damaged or improved, or when flood claims are filed.
Talk with your community officials and insurance
agent to see how these changes could affect you.
v=M€�
reduce the impact on your finances.
• The financial consequences of not having
flood insurance coverage could be devastating
if another flood occurs.
$9,500/year $1,410/year
$95,000/10 years $14,100/10 years
BASE FLOOD ELEVATION (BFE) The elevation
shown on the Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM)
for high -risk flood zones ("A" and ' V" zones)
indicates the water surface elevation resulting
from a flood that has a 1 percent chance of
equaling or exceeding that level in any given year.
When they applied for a building permit,
local officials told them to build at least 2 feet above grade
to meet the current building code that accounts for potential
flood levels.' Their insurance agent told them that if they
built even higher than required, they could lower both their
premiums and their flood risk.
'Communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are required
to have all buildings constructed in high -risk areas to be built to at least the elevation
shown on the flood maps. This is known as the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and represents
the height floodwaters from a one -percent chance flood will reach or exceed in any given
year. To help ensure a safer community, many communities require construction to be a
foot or two higher than the BFE.
The ParkerS realized that weather is
unpredictable and that flood risk can change.
Another big flood could happen at any time. But
could they really afford to build higher? It was time
to break out the calculator and do the math.
F1
Estimated construction costs: $25 , 00
• Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,122
• Flood insurance premium: $143 per month or $1,716 per year
• Total monthly costs: $1,265
Estimated construction costs: $252,125
Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,132
Flood insurance premium: $46 per month or 552 per year
Total monthly costs: $1,178
Note: This comparison is based on a 1-story home in an AE Flood Zone built at BFE and 3 feet above BFE c
concrete or CMU perimeter with vents. It has the NFIP maximum coverage of $250,000 building coverage
$100,000 contents coverage with a $1,000 deductible. Elevation costs are estimated at roughly 0.85 perci
of total construction costs per additional foot of elevation. Cost savings could vary for different constructi,
methods. Insurance premiums are based on rates published in the Jan. 2013 NFIP Manual. Mortgage pay
are based on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 3.5 percent APR for the full construction amount and exclu
Not every case is the same. Consider your situation.
The Parkers' story is only one example. There are many variables that will impact your decision about how you rebuild.
Talk to your community officials, insurance agent, builders, and other experts to answer the following questions:
1. What is my current flood zone?
Different flood zones require different kinds of construction. How you
rebuild will depend in part on your zone and local building requirements.
2. How high does my community require me to hail
If the building is in a high -risk zone (beginning with the letter "A" or " V"), there is a required minimum elevation for
construction. Many communities have a requirement to build even higher. This is called a "freeboard requirement."
3. What are Advisory Base Flood Elevations s B and how ill they affect ect e
ABFEs sometimes are issued after a major flooding event when FEMA has more current flood hazard data available
than exists in the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps in a given area. ABFEs are provided to communities
as a tool to support them in recovering in ways that will make them more resilient to future storms.
. Is there a chance I could he mapped into a new flood zone
or have a higher Base Flood Elevation in the future?
FEMA is working to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps nationwide. If your community has
outdated maps, the new ones could show your home in a higher risk area or with a higher BFE.
5. How close am I to a high -risk flood area?
Flood risk changes over time. If you are near a high -risk zone, you might want to rebuild in a way
that would comply with that zone in case maps change in the future. If you are near a coastal
high -risk zone (a zone starting with " V"), consider rebuilding on posts, piles or piers.
6. How might my flood risks change in the future?
Physical changes can affect how much water reaches flooding sources, how far the water spreads when floods
occur, and the manner in which buildings are exposed to a flood. In addition, new data gathering and modeling
technology allows FEMA to identify and map flood hazard areas more accurately now than in the past.
i they applied for a building permit,
Mcials told them to build at least 5 feet above grade
it the current building code that accounts for potential
avels.l Their insurance agent told them that both their
ms and flood risk would be lower if they built higher
hat participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are
✓e all buildings constructed in high -risk areas to be built to at least
hown on the flood maps. This is known as the Base Flood Elevation
esents the; height floodwaters from a one -percent chance flood
<ceed in any given year. ;To help ensure a safer community, many
construction costs: $400,000
monthly mortgage payment: $1,796
rance premium: $878 per month or $1,536 per year
:hly costs: $2,67
ction costs: $403,600
mortgage payment: $1,612
mium: $315 per month or $3,780 per year
r 2,127
)n a 1-story home in a VE Flood Zone built on wood pilings at BFE
FIP maximum coverage of $250,000 building coverage and $100,000
? deductible. Elevation costs are estimated at roughly 0.3 percent of 1
f foot,of elevation. Insurance premiums are based on rates published
tortgage payments are based on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage at 3..
Lion amount and exclude all insurance costs. Flood insurance must b,
OM
1. What is my current flood zone?
Different flood zones require different kinds of construction. How you
rebuild will depend in part on your zone and local building requirements.
2. How high does my community require to boil
If the building is in a high -risk zone (beginning with the letter "A" or "v"), there is a required minimum elevation for
construction. Many communities have a requirement to build even higher. This is called a "freeboard requirement."
3. What are Advisory Base Flood Elevations sB and how will they affect
ABFEs sometimes are issued after a major flooding event when FEMA has more current flood hazard data available
than exists in the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps in a given area. ABFEs are provided to communities as
a tool to support them in recovering in ways that will make them more resilient to future storms.
. Is there a chance I could into a new flood zone
r have a higher Base Flood Elevation in the future?
FEMA is working to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps nationwide. If your
community has outdated maps, the new ones could show your home in a higher
risk area or with a higher BFE.
5. How close am I to a high -risk flood area?
Flood risk changes over time. If you are near a high -risk zone, you might want to rebuild
in a way that would comply with that zone in case maps change in the future.
6. How might my flood risks change in the future?
Physical changes can affect how much water reaches flooding sources, how far the water spreads when floods
occur, and the manner in which buildings are exposed to a flood. In addition, new data gathering and modeling
technology allows FEMA to identify and map flood hazard areas more accurately now than in the past.
Exhibit 16
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND
LAND DEVELOPEMNT CODE AMENDMENTS
(Deletions are sti4eken *4ettgh and additions are underlined.)
Planning Commission recommendations are shown with deletions in blUC with a
l and. additions in 17lUC with a clo��ble ��ncic �l�n,�e
E. C ., fc a.I1 E. ��' c,t, €,a..}i €, a..ir_ 6��0. .,'� 3 r.=�C, ,. w, _ z.t�ct.�,� a,ll e. .+.,,�. , 5 ,3vC �,,E,.,�
Policy 101.5.30 •2
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment,
Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet.
Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of
any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or
steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only, chimneys,
radio and/or television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus; utility poles and/or W
transmission towers, and certain antenna supporting structures with attached
antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall anv of the exclusions W
enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed
the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies
101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. N*4Ns will be allowed €af appoi4eHanesto
boiki+ig ., tFa- siE)+Z efs andat or siR4 nr stmetofes. In the case of airport
districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef_ a Lyated master planned communitv which is inaccessible to the
surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may
include non -habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings,
widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30,
but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This
exception shall not result in a building together with anv architectural decorative
feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community
of 100 or more acres in area subiect to a master elan or other development order
approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is
operated and maintained by the community including the provision of
comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within Uj
its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates
development standards and monitors development requests by its members.
Exhibit 16
Policy 101.5.32
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt
Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height
Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general
welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards;
protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and
private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for
flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising
flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a
maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to
allow la fully cxistin buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet
above FEMA base flood elevation awc fic�c�crc�t�c�w lclt exc cttcw c�E
....
maximum of three (3 f���...��c��c...tl�c 3w mmfc�c�t 1��� 1�t l���z�t s1�a11..bc...i�rc��� ed to
......... .. ....... ..... ................................... ...... ......... . ........
a110 w iew (new construction or substantially improved)b i1dii tc vc�l � t�r�1v
cicvatc.,u.1 to three (31 feet above FI A base flood elevation... These cxcenflc�rig
are in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood
insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for
recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception
result in a new build ia ��e�. �w�� � ���a��������� lei ��t c�f......E�ct and a la filly
.x-i.st=l-building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet.
Policy 101.5.33
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt
Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height
Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot
height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare, allow
adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property
from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to
flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects
and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance
premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved,
redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE)
provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40
feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity,
floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For
lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height
of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of
County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum
approved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval.
The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the
maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the
maximum approved heir
Exhibit 16
Sectim
H&L
- Definition,
words. terms wid
("O"Ac-,".
1have
the incOngs ascHbed to Two
it exce!")t
comext
a"',
.......... . . ......... . ............................. . . . . . . i , u
1- hiloy-cIlor As c I -, o 11 c",
....................................M.. . s................
urOLUKI 1VC1 In 011C01walls. or
... .. .. ..
. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . : ............. . . . . . . . ........... ..................... . ..................... . ................................... . ................. t -100"'i", t il-,-'r floo"A
. ................................. ......... ""o f'I --i"I'll, ,� . ................................................................................................................ . . . . ...................................................
............... ...............
I C v C I s, I n j J, c-"'t � q dh"pgjjjj I v C s I fit'
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .............. .........................
......... . ........ ... . . . . . . ..... . . .............. .. .. .. .
r 1 t 1
----------- L KKK ANIC111 ................ ............. ...... . ....
. ....................................................................................... . . . . I. . . . . . . . . . . .
.............. .wylur
..................e...i h at
.. . .. . ...
Sec. 130-187. MaGmum ImAghl,,.
-
22
"40 SMICIUre or buildhig shall be "011h."""t exceeds a of,35
EO
i fur clhi vicys: s1mrcs mid or st MY FRICIAMS Will be a1JW,,1-c-','C, 1 11 01H .,,,,,IIRICILI ,-,S
w"""""d, a""i-id, or PUITC uses mly: radjo ai-idor imicium:
too
11agpoics: solar !")0,11,11"Ic-,""", ai-id, or -i d
ainclum sup!")orJ",,,H,,t,,,7 sIl-LICIUrcs Will attached ammum wid or collocadons as
E
11
permitted it chalur F x be allowed Ar I I
0
""I ....... ..... .............. ""i ............ . . . . ........... ......
. ...
>
I, i
..
.............
o xv c v c r. I i o 11 11 a 11 v o f t 11 c-", c-", x c, I t I I o c", t I c-", I .tad d I tads11 A 11
mistruccl to permil aliv halvilic or usable space to exceed
n i I i a i I o i....... d A 1 110 11 c I C s 11 -(J? 11 aj -i d '11 (J? 11 5 �I f.
............ -5
d is c a s c of a i 11) o ri d I s i r i c i k tee c I w l'it I i,,,, t 1, t t I l j I h C
x c, I o u n i c ra i c d t 111 C Ct I o ""'mt
CL
E
0
... 1
. ................................................................................................... . . . . . . ...... . . . ........................................... 7 ...................
a !rid, to the sunpullb, A has a ChAnct
UO,
............................................................................................................................................ . . . . . . ......... S'!"L ------------------------------------------------------------
.... ......... . . . . . . ....... . ... .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. .. .. .. . .. .. .. .. ....
C, 0 1`111 .. . . . . . . . . . ....... ........ ..........................................................................................................................................
. ..................................................... .......................................... . . .. ..... "t
CcQLm
Rues shalf",,,mit 5 exceed the It SLIA
...........................................................................................................................................................................
�X
r - - 11 I L 11`11 I i
...................................................................................................................
C1 L I I d, C I -0
. .............. ...........
"I'l""I'll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",,,'ll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",'ll""I'll""I'll",,'ll""I'll'll""I'll""I'll",",,,,,� .. ..............
E
Cx
Reud-40--five-t-,
Exhibit 16
I cl,
I, Iw.II, i I, d "'10 ,,, 'I 1 .`1
3, 1 � 0 cb�,,, d 0 1 "I'll" c,
................................................................................................................... . . ............................................................. I ................................................................................................................
X C, c
i tat FFMA 3- %
11 1 " " , "" 1, 1 00d F "I"'On t, 3, 1 " I 'I I X c, - fi', -,"0,
I For M"I"Ni,
t I I cl, 1 j c, '11111 0 1 t I "'i
al w
cXcccd fll�,
Lai "I'd C1,1111", "'I I 11'1111II U IIIII
d 30"1".
. ......................... ..............
0 '1"i ,,, 'I t ,,, 'I 1 0 1 " c" C, fZ"', 0 "'111 1
------------------------------------------------- 1 X I I ---------------------------------
f 0 1 t,l 11 1.,'.,,.. 1 '11 "'1 , 'I I
---------------------- - - - - - - - - - - - -
---------
I'
.....................................................................................................................................
I ... . ............................ .....................................................................
. ..........................................
of' -"ColunIll, ................................................................................................
Lail"Id"I"Inu 38 1�cct
"'I'M or two
(2) habitable floors,
'11 "111 i "I'l
X c, o 1 0
Al
11'1111II [) 1' 0 "1"11,',, of' Lm "I'd C11111"
...........................................................
03H, 1 1 t I I 101 1 t I "I"i I C1 2 1 , -----------
'd 0 1' nN
.............. .... ... ...... . .................................... ............................................................................................ ................. ...... . . . . . ................
111 0 0 1 1
I I H
. .............. .............. j ....... . .
J 0 J, )ro--jdgd w new 1,61d c
.......... . .. ...................................................... 1oc,-,,,j,,
............. . ............................. ..................................... .rc
111, 11 E,Or FFAIA floo'd zonl�,,,
.................................... I ................
C, I d �, d 0 1 """ c, " 11 1 f I I
........... I .................... ............... ............... . ....................................................... ........... ............................... I .......................................................................... ......... ............... .......................................................
.. . ................................. . ............................................................................................................................................................................. . . . ............................................................ -1 .................................. . .. . ............................ ..
cf. I � c cf c-", c 1 i" I --,cf Or "0 flic-", J—d FFAIA '30"1"
I Dro
j,") c
........................................................... ...... . .................................................................................................
1") 10 cby,,d Lai 11111,11d"I'llintl do,,,,��,,, no"'i X c, 'I I t I 'I I
....... .......... ................."."....-.......... "'I0'l""I'll""I.'..l.l.'..l.l."..."I .I'l. .l"..."...I.'.l..l."...,.l.I....................................................1....1"",...,,., .'..............................�.....,..............................."................................................................................................... ..............................................L........a........i ....L......c.......... ..........................1 ............."".....J.,...........f..
'
S."iid1 Lai ...IIlt,do.....11,I,,d
.......
f floor Lmdcfin�,,a n —101o"", ( loor "m floor
. .......... .. .. .. .. .. . .............. ...... ...................... ... . ................ . ................. . ................................................................................ J .............................
5
X c, 1 0 0 11 X I I t I """ I I Pjvtllll 0 11, 1 n
......... ...................................................................................................................................................... ................ . ................. ................. - . . .. .................................................................................................................
'MICI 10 n,ic'e't fll�, S11....'j—d FFAIA ..................... . ..................... 11,11 � '1111,110 LU IIIII J,�1"I"QlAl
. . ............................................... ................................... - -----------------------------------------
0'
....................... ...................... o�,,,Ju',"dl 0 1 11�, 10 t I
.................... . . ... . ........................................................................................ 1 . . .....................................................................................................................................
11111'10�� 10 uvicct '301", 13, t III," I cfil"nu�,,, no"'i "'to N11,
....................... .......... .. ......... ---- — ---------------- .................... ......... I ..... . .................................................... . ..........................................................................................................
. ........... ........ . ......................................... ........... ............................ ......................................................................................................................................................................................................
v
0 0 lllinu�X c, d t I
.. . ................................ . . . .................................................................................................................... ......................... ............... ....... .................... . . ...........
I
I'
Exhibit 16
V0�)roj o, ,
�
....
...............0.......
0
or cl�,
k'' C)j, I III, 11; I'M 1 1 o
....... . .. ...... 11111111111.�,j ........ . ........... .................................. . . . .................................................................................................... .......
CL
I"
ll.i................
0=
........... . . .........................................)............M.................
0
illl'
"oC"
cc IC l
.. .. .. .. .. ..
0
4-
I a For Lai IC1,1111",
. .............. ................. . . ......................................................................................................
I[ r or "0 uvicct 1 oll, t 1 1' 1 c-", I C o c'iix
.................. .............. . . . . ................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... .
CL
u
Lan �,,,-ffl J�'1.1,11,111j�',."
..... .
X
. .............. ................... . . . ................................................................................................... ............................................................... . . . . . . . . . . . .... . . . ..... . .......
10 �'C '0 �,,,l 11 0 1, �l o I c, t a n c,' (' i I'll I
. .............. . ... . .................................................................. . ..........
ull 1 5 f i", oit 1, 1 j 1 j
. ............................................................. .. . . ........................................................... ..t.. . . . ..................................................... . ..................
on 01C, fi",-�,d I w",-
........................................................................................................
h-, n1l, c, 11 1, C, I I "'I", c, o f 1 0 �o -l", Cj' t Ci
.. . ......... ......................................................................................................................................... . ......................
1 t I c I o f I X u Lall"'Icill"nu 'r-id llk",-, Cloffloffl,"', 'm floo'd
CD
.................... .. . ................................... ........................................................... . . . ......................................... . .. . ...................................................................... ........................................................
04
,-, I'll I I d,', 0 1
....................... .h... .. .. .. .. . ...................................... ......... ....... . ........... ........ . .......................................
2- 1
.............. . ............................................................................................................................................. . . .................... .....................
0
cl t o t 11 t I I o f, O't 11
.... ......... - - ------- . ........................................
o f I "'i o I t I 0 cl,
................... ... . ...............................................................................
pp
f, t 11 r F)� Lai' I cl, u 11 ul n llin floo'd
ODO
U)
............................................................................... . . . ..................... . .. . ...................................................................................................................................................................
c I c o 11 t o p t I c, "I"n I t I
. . . . ... . ....................................................
m 01 fi�,-,,'Ald Ofl
........... ............................... ........... ....... ............... . . . . . . ....... . .......................... ........... J .. . ........................ . ..............................................................
f " ( " o ,,, 'I I ,, ,, I t t "j c, 11 " """ "", � " """ c, i
C1,1111", O't i
,o
....... . ............................................................................ ..................................................................................................... - -----------------------------------------
C, 1 0 , I I I , " , , ",
............ ....................................................................................... ..... .. . . . . ... . -] ... . .................
r tn "I"' 0� f"I'al", �,l of c, I I o 11 � o t I
IMH........... . .... .. ...
I
A
ao
D
rn
J
N
(D fTl N D
0 o n 'rn
O 0 O J
0 N N
m mcrD
0 ET D 'rn
O O O' N
C, N N
M
Examples:
Height Measured from Crown of Road
rn
eight = cn
5ft
A
eight = aM
7ft
A
eight = v
Oft
rn
at
D
rn
eight = c0
5ft
D
rn
eight = o
7ft -
D
rn
eight =
Oft -
D
rn
N
I� Tlrzl�
TL5
T(L��
D
rn
N
O
CD M N D
0 o n 'rr,
m mcrD
oon'm
.ac<> N
i
Examples:
Height Measured from Crown of Road
D
rn
eight = 41
5ft
D
rn
eight =
7ft
N
eight =
Oft
D
rn
a�
eight =
5ft
eight =
7ft
co
eight =
Oft
I� Trllzl�
T-L5
lc�,
Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County
FEMA Flood Zone
Number of
% of total
% of total
# of Private-
Parcels
Vacant Parcel
X
1,935
3.40%
462
0.2 PCT ANNUAL
5.16%
0
CHANCEFLOOD
�4
HAZARD
999
1.76%
165
o
AE 5
1
0.00%
-
AE 6
1,964
3.46%
95
AE 7
8,996
15.83 %
296
o
N M
o
AE 8
14,824
26.08%
2,699
0
AE 9
11,272
19.83 %
1,916
AE 10
6,835
12.02%
1,098
83.48%
AE l l
2,983
5.25%
326
AE 12
121
0.21%
12
AE 13
418
0.74%
5
i�,
� o
o �,
AE 14
36
0.06%
-
AE 15
3
0.01%
-
AE 16
1
0.00%
-
VE 9
5
0.01%
1
3 story
VE 10
327
0.58%
67
VEII
11019
1.79%
272
VE 12
1,443
2.54%
265
VE 13
1,069
1.88%
127
o
VE 14
11815
3.19%
52
VE 15
352
0.62%
52
�
o
VE 16
31
0.05%
7
10.76%
2
VE 17
33
0.06%
0
VE 19
5
0.01%
-
VE 20
1
0.00%
-
VE 21
8
0.01%
-
0
VE22
7
0.01%
-
VE 23
1
0.00%
-
o
o ro
VE 24
1
0.00%
-
0
VE 26
2
0.00%
-
OPEN WATER
10
0.02%
2
total parcels
56,843
7,921
Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County.
The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA
Zones.
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From, Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schem.per, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: May 17, 2015
Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND
TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY
101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE
FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES
10L5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT
LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR
REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO
THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE;
PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
Meeting: May 26, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015
I. ' REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the
height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by
a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non -habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions
to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and
create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or
employee/workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median
income categories on properties designated as tier 3.
The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners
File 2015-006 Page I Of 9
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was
held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County
2030 Comprehensive Flan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this
hearing was continued to October 7, 2014.
The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to
consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan)
to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to
December 10, 2014, to discuss the following:
• Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work onheight policies for addressing
the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features,
flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts daring the regular
December BOCC meeting.
• BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -awned offshore islands. Staff to
present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting.
A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as
Exhibit 1.
During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed
height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the
Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Flan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the
existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height
limit policy and process it as a separate amendment.
DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to
allow for extensive public review and cornrnent. The information provided in the staff report and
comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a
future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process.
The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24,
2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
FIL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
10
In unincorporated Monroe County, h6& and rude are defined as follows:
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of ally
structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires anchor steeples on LO'
structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna, CD
04
flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna
supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of V
airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated k
w
in this section shall not apply.
File 2015-006
Page 2of9
GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction,
next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground
surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe
County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre -construction
boundary surveys with elevations, pre -construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates
and/or other optical remote sensing data.
Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of: height = the vertical distance
between grade and the highest part of'any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly
adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to
the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in
measuring the vertical distance of the structure.
Height ixinit
Clow, rat € o-Ad 5f€. Crown of the road
Notural El-varlor • f.
rnp,ar sen lool
AE 5'
...w= 21 of fall needed to reach 5fi
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been
made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code
(Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating
a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features.
For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public
hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection
NOTE: See exhibits for additional information related to flood protection andfreeboard.
File 2015-006 Page 3 of 9
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are str-icken4kFeugh and additions are underlined.)
Policy 101.451630
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County
shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet.
Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure
including mechanical equipment but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for
institutional and/or public uses onl • chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; fla ales• solar
apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures
with attached antennas and/or collocations.r
Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are
owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United
States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the turbines comply relevant State and
federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act Mip-ratory Bird Treaty Act,
Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and National Environmental Policy Act Applications by
a public utility proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height shall require a public
hearing before the Board of County Commissioners and a BOCC Resolution suppggj4 the
proposal and specifying the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any county permit or
Uproval. Applications proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height within the MIAI
overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment
In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a master planned community of 100 or more acres in area which is gated,
isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character,
buildings may include non -habitable architectural. decorative features (such as finials rails
widow'_s walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101 5 30 but such features shall not
exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or any
architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet
As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more
acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the count where
public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community
includin)Z the provision of com rehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and
services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates
development standards and monitors development requests by its member
Policy 101.5.32
By XXXX date Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Re¢ulations which provide a
Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 (height limit not exceeding a maximum
height of 40 feet, to promote public health safety and general welfare; minimize public and
private losses due to flooding-, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards
File 2015-006 Page 4 of 9
protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize future expenditures of Public
funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events-, mitigate rising flood
insurance prciniums; and reduce flood insurance rates by facilitating/improving the County's
Community Rating System score. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of
five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to voluntarily
elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection
minimize flood damage reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of
public funds for recovery from flood events
LDR. Section XXX;
As provided in Policy 101 5 32 buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the
FEMA base flood elevation BFE may exceed the 35-foot height limit as follows:
1. For new buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum
re aired BFE an exception of up to three 3 feet above the 35-foot height limit may
be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be a maximum of three (3)
feet and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no
event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height; and
2. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35-foot hei ht
limit and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit may
be permitted. The amount of the hei hg t exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet,
and shall be.no greater than the amount of elevation necessary -to meet BFE plus u
to three 3 feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing
building be elevated to exceed a total building height of 40 feet-,
3. No exception shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet- and
4. No exception shall be provided to properties located in an AE 10 or 4'E 10 or. greater
FEMA flood zone.
Policy 101.5.33
As of the effective date of this policy, a lawfully established existing building which exceeds the
35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, may b. e repaired improved or reconstructed to meet
required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building is limited to the lawfully
established existing intensity, floor area density and type of use For buildings that are proposed
to exceed a total height of 40 feet a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners
shall be re uired prior to issuance of an county permit or a royal. A BCCC resolution shall
specify the maximum approved height.
LDR Section XXX-
As provided in Policy 101.5.33 lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot
height limit may be repaired improved or reconstructed to meet the FEMA BFE provided
the building is limited to the lawfully established existing, intensity, floor area, density and
type of use.
File 2015-006 Page 5 of 9
A Flood Protection ,Height Exception for a lawfully established existin buildin
exceeding the 35-foot height limit shall be rovided as follows:
1. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE an
exception of up to five 5 feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall
be --a- maximum of five (5) feet and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation
necessary to meet BFE; and
2. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that
are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE but
will require a height exception of more than five (5) feet a public hearing before the
Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any count ermit
or approval. The BOCC shall consider:
a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel.
b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood damage and the
effects of such damage on the property owner•.
c. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others,
d. The availability of alternate solutions; and
e. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood risk- result in
additional threats to public safety; result in extraordinary public expense- create {
nuisance or cause fraud on or victimization of the public
A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height
A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources,
Policy 217.1.4
Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting
structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The
Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable
interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code.
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community
Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9
rating.
Policy 217.1.6
Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to
promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements r-
File 2015-006 Page 6 of 9 E
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
Objective 601.3
By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing
and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites.
Policy 601.3.2
The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and
County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe,
decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods.
B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys
Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute.
For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the
principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as
a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions.
(a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local
government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern
designation.
(b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds,
wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
(c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater- wetlands, native tropical
vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and
their habitat.
(d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development.
(e) Lirniting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys.
(f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and
ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys.
(g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
(h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major
public investments, including:
1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
5. Transportation facilities;
6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties;
8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
(i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and
replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal
facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and -�
disposal systems.
0) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of
wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as
File 2015-006 E
Page 7 oi''�
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or
manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan.
(n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the
Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles
for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.)..
Specifically, the amendment furthers:
Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and
enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with
the public interest; overcome present handicaps, and deal effectively with future problems that may result
from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive
planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public
health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools,
parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and
protect natural resources within their jurisdictions
163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies
for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the
area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and
strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to
ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the
principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued
to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the
inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those
programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the
comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and
development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development
and use regulations,
Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the .Board of County Commissioners, the
Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and
04
process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and
the Planning Commission,
The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
File 2015-006 at
Page 8 of 9
public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board
of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the
testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may of may not recommend transmittal to the Florida
Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then
reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon.
receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments
with changes or not adopt the amendment.
VIII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
5. Excerpt of CRS Coordinator's Manual, pages 430-10 through 430 15
6. FEMA Lowest Floor Elevation Fact Sheet
T www.floodsinart.gov basic info on insurance and flood risk
8. What is Freeboard? www.dnr.maryland..2ov/CoastSmart
9. Using Freeboard to Elevate structures above Predicted Floodwaters — Massachusetts Office of
Coastal Zone Management
10. Floodplain Management in Florida Quick Guide, pages 1 -28
11. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC
meeting (side by side comparison)
File 2015-006
Page 9 of 9
•
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Policy 101.5.30
In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County
shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. HeigLt is defined as the vertical
distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but
excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only;
chimneys; radio and/or television antennas, flagpoles; solar apparatus, utility poles and/or
transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or
collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to
permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as
specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.533._Ex-ceptions�an �o ^",..-.oa r
awid- edhe-- stF:uetwes. In the case of airport
districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 3 5 -foot height limitation.
Policy 101.5.31
For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the
surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may
include non -habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings,
widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but
such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall
not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a hgi&
that would exceed 40 feet.
As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of
100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved
by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and
maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private
utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a
homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and
monitors development requests by its members.
Policy 101.5.32
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, N11 111-Oe C LMIN shall adov I .and
Development Regulations which provide a Flood I'm[ectimi llcigN F' ce' tc�
Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safely igid t lion
to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazard! -::Protect property, From floodirl4� and
minimize damages; minimize public and private losses clue to lloodhig. mimmize
future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovga from
flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums A Flood Protection Height
Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be
provided to allow 1 uFu 1_ xa,tj buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3)
feet above FEMA base flood elevation; and ajlol_ttlotixiiorf
—__
rraxana_`ilre_etsle 35®aot lht limit �laall __roidj1
�? z (new construction or substantiaily improved) �€ o � � M N(dUntarHy vatQ u
s) tti e ?) feet sb,s� '^,_@v', 13f1;��:4a.C,'�'�'ttYti.ffi he. In order to
_ _
promote flood protection, minimize flood damage reduce flood insurance premiums
and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events In no
case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in aniew = uikiina ec_ c's,14- a
_ i-axi -mkm hei�l;t ol_' 38 iect, J �z_4�vv f'Uh exisiin-building exceeding a maximum
height of 40 feet.
d,.
- ----�-----
�'_-
i i at E.-r E
-AE a we
Current 'code
buill m BFE -i-Y
A:-:: 3 11 — a 6J,,)
ili: w 'KE +:31,
lBF -T
Policy 101.5.33
Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe
County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which
provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully
established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height
limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare,•
allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other
hazards: protect property from flooding and minimize damages;
minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize
future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects
and for recovery from flood events: and mitigate rising flood
insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building
may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet
required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the
building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40
feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully
established intensity, floor area, building envelope floor to
floor height), densi j and type of use. For lawfully established
existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of
40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and
the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review
and specify the maximum approved height prior to issuance of
any county permit or development approval. The Planning
Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on
the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a
resolution specifying the maximum approved height.
current code
bu11t at SFE
Current ce
bull -tat E
current code
built at &FE +3,
AE 10/ V ice,
ngk-
%vith: helght exceptlo
bunt a! HCE L3,
'F,Pg e
NOR Br
d F-E fh%-�d Zones aad n-nMI'tT
'S"praft,
v-.4cant pwc1l's in uamie Orpolate'd counry
kLMA Flood Zone
Number of
of total % of tam[
0 Of Prh=mte=
Parcels
1 - Acaarparceis
x
01 FCTX
1,7*-UAL
I-0-
U -E- MUM
CHA—NC F FLOOD
HALkRD
2i
AE S
2
AE 6
ol" 0-rce Oj fo,
kE
1543%
In 0C
AE 9
i 4 -S 2 4
Uwn �C
AE
72
Al 10
e
32
AB 2
A
"N k
31, h, cd
MW
'LU
of Ai uV�
3 1,44-
1
iF-
'R�
-17F 14
S, -
-----------
12
nn'e'e-c
0' 2
7E I
�'i B)"", 'ho -o�
70%
0
----------
�TZ 19
K
15, w
A
v
VE
noo' o'
fie, 24
OPEN
vu
AM15*
tjI
Board of County Commissioners
April 12th,2017
Marathon Government Center
Mayor Neugent and Commissioners, I am Deb Curlee Vice President of Last Stand and I am speaking
today on behalf of Last Stand.
Last Stand supports creating mechanisms that would allow existing and new homes to be raised above
Base Flood Elevation as protection against sea level rise and increased flood insurance premiums.
However, we are opposed to blanket exceptions for the 35 foot height limit.
We support raising of an existing building to add voluntary clearance(free board) to the BFE provided
that:
a.) there is a special mechanism in the code for approval;
b) for each foot of voluntary clearance you add beneath the building, you can add one foot over the 35-
foot height with a maximum of three additional feet;
c.) the total height of the raised building shall not exceed 38 feet in elevation; and
d.) the space created under the first floor must be non -habitable space with usable space dedicated only
to storage or parking.
For new buildings we are opposed to the exception of the 35 foot height limit to add 3 feet of voluntary
clearance (freeboard). We believe that new buildings can adhere to the 35 foot height limit and also
provide two stories over parking while adding voluntary clearance to the BFE.
We support the grandfathering of non -conforming height limits to certain buildings in Monroe County
provided:
a.) the need for the redevelopment of the building is involuntary and the use remains the same;
b.) the new building's height cannot exceed that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA,
along with any additional voluntary clearance (freeboard) above BFE must be equal or less than the
height of the old non -conforming building; and
c.) the footprint of the new building must be the same or smaller than the footprint of the original
building.
Last Stand is opposed to the exception for decorative elements to the 35 foot height limit in Ocean Reef
because of concerns that a precedent will be established for other gated communities in the rest of
Monroe County.
As currently proposed, Last Stand is opposed to the exception to the 35 foot height limit for affordable
housing in Monroe County. The complex issue of affordable housing and its location needs to be
addressed separately and comprehensively.
Last Stand thanks the commissioners and the staff for the hard work on these issues and for choosing to
continue the item to allow for input from residents in the upper keys.
Tha you,/
De �ee Vice President Last Stand