The URL can be used to link to this page

Item D05BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 17, 2000 Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Division: Growth Management Department: Planning AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Second of two public hearings on a proposed amendment to the Future Land Use Map and a hearing on the corresponding proposed amendment to the Land Use District (Zoning) Map for applicant/property owner Ida Welborn requesting a future land use change from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) and a zoning change from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Suburban Commercial (SC) for property described as Lots 10 and 11, Resubdivision of Seaside, Section 14, Township 62 South, Range 38 East, at approximate mile marker 94.5, Key Largo. ITEM BACKGROUND: The first public hearing, or "transmittal" hearing was held on September 3, 1998, where the BOCC recommended approval of the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) amendment request. The Planning Department transmitted a draft FLUM ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for its consideration. The DCA has reviewed the proposed FLUM amendment and has no objections to the proposed amendment as transmitted. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION: The BOCC approved a resolution authorizing the Planning Department to transmit a draft ordinance that would amend the Future Land Use Map to the DCA for review. STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval TOTAL COST: None BUDGETED: Yes No COST TO COUNTY: None APPROVED BY: County Attorney X OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL: �f DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENTATION: Included X DISPOSITION: K. Marlene Conaway, To follow of Planning Management Not required — Agenda Item #• 200 Welborn/BOCC4/agendaFLUM.doc Map Amendment #M97120 IDA WELBORN FUTURE LAND USE AMENDMENT & ZONING AMENDMENT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KEY LARGO LIBRARY FEBRUARY 17, 2000 PROPOSED FLUM AMENDMENT RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM) MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL (MUIC) PROPOSED ZONING AMENDMENT IMPROVED SUBDIVISION (IS) SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL (SC) The proposal consists of a request by property owner, Ida Welborn, on behalf of the American Legion to amend the future land use and zoning designations on property described as Lots 10 and 11, Resubdivision of Seaside, Section 14, Township 62 South, Range 38 East, Key Largo, at approximately mile marker 94.5, ocean side. BOTH FLUM & ZONING AMENDMENTS RECOMMENDATIONS Staff. Denial October 16, 1997 Staff Report DRC: Denial October 21, 1997 Resolutions D23-97/D24-97 PC: Denial January 21, 1998 Resolutions P 11-98/P 12-98 BOCC: Remand to PC May 13, 1998 (to consider developer agreement) Staff: Denial July 6, 1998 Staff Report August 4, 1998 PC: Denial August 19, 1998 Resolutions P64-98/P65-98/P66-98 BOCC: Approval September 3, 1998 Resolution (without use of #337-1998 developer agreement) s as H �M�Fr ;fN��.f�► i 0 �� / +`q = i.'o�gy4 � G'P � NeTON w � �o iOjE^ >° •* � , _ �•�� KEY LARGO lip- 6+IA 4, � L �'Y•N ♦ c>i � �� NEWIMD NO it > � > I ��Mw>�rr�,W>mrM +L ►+ DDVE OR• ��g y Rl3� i N Street Map Monroe County ` 97 o23 1 "='/s mile • ' •1•j•{r •j•��/rr � t •I�LI.I�i �� • I rir �Iwlrrlr�w�rlrirwiriw�}i �e�i I I��lirr� M I f l r l !1 1 f 1• 1• I f l• I• I M �i• I• I T • 10 ( 7 I • I f ' I r �I1. / ustT Drava � /�` wON, r f r r. ` r N i 1 "=400 I. I • I N NWRM'1�1=4 1 • \_ Ni ,c \ ®S%MIF \ SC IS \!/ Ft" ' 1413 2324 Land se District Map Proposed Map Amendment Key: Largo M M : 94.5 Proposal: Property Description: Applicant Name: Ida Map # File Number : M97120 M97120 Ir 1 3 > Z i -{ ; * r . L" h1 � -mod W-VIP"17 N 1996 REDI Aerial Maps 92 /ZD F 'q 0 �3 1 "=300' "jw �::•-- - _.�. fir. SUBJECTLOTS PROPOSIDANIFRICAN lf,GJON HAIT ll-olo, I At�n junu are 2(�, 20(m ORDINANCE NO. -2000 AN ORDINANCE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE REQUEST BY PROPERTY OWNER IDA WELBORN TO CHANGE THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION OF THE 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR LOTS 10 AND 11, RESUBDIVISION OF SEASIDE, SECTION 14. TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AT APPROXIMATELY MILE MARKER 94.5, KEY LARGO, REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00491650 AND 004911660, FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM) TO MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL (M/C) WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners during a public hearing held on September 3, 1998 conducted a review and consideration of a request filed by applicant/property owner Ida Welborn on behalf of American Legion Post 333 for a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) change from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) for property described as lots 10 and 1 I, Resubdivision of Seaside, Section 14, Township 62 South, Range 38 East, MM 94.5 Key largo, Real Estate Numbers 00491650 and 004911660; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered the following information: (1) The report prepared by Director of Planning Timothy J. McGarry dated August 21, 1998 regarding the FLUM change; (2) The Planning Commission's Resolution No. P66-98 recommending denial of the FLUM change; (3) The applicant's presentation before the Board; and (4) The input received from members of the public. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners transmitted this as a draft ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs for its review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs made no objections, recommendations or comments regarding this proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held the second of two public hearings on the proposed amendment on February 17, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following Findings of Fact: (1) Sec. 9.5-511, MCC, states that the Board of County Commissioners may consider a land use change if at least one of the six criteria in that section is met. Sec. 9.5-511, MCC, also prohibits a change that negatively impacts community character. (2) The present FLUM designation is RM. (3) The applicant has requested a MC designation in order to accommodate the construction of an American Legion Hall on the site. (4) Goal 101 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan provides, inter alia, that Monroe County must manage growth to enhance the quality of life of residents and visitors. (5) Objective 101.3 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan provides, inter alia, that Monroe County must regulate non-residential development to serve the needs of the future population of the County. (6) Policy 101.4.5 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan states, inter alia, that the MC FLUM designation is to provide for commercial and nonresidential uses at intensities consistent with the surrounding community character. (7) The operation of an American Legion Hall on the site is a nonresidential use that accommodates the present and future recreational and social needs of those residents and visitors to the County who were willing to put their lives at risk when called by their Country. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following Conclusions of Law: (1) The applicant's requested FLUM change for the site to MC is consistent with the new issue raised in Finding of Fact No. 7 and thus constitutes authorization for the Board of County Commissioners to make such a change pursuant to Sec. 9.5-511 (d)(5), MCC. (2) The applicant's proposed American Legion Hall for the site is a nonresidential use consistent with a MC FLUM designation. (3) The change of the subject site's FLUM designation to MC is consistent with Goal 101 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan because the American legion Hall will enhance the quality of life of residents and visitors. (4) The change of the subject site's FLUM designation to MC is consistent with Objective 101.3 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan because the American Legion Hall will serve the needs of the future population of the County. (5) The change of the subject site's FLUM designation to MC is consistent with Policy 101.4.5 because the American Legion Hall is consistent with the surrounding community character and environment. (6) Therefore, the Planning Commission's Resolution No. P66-98 erroneously concluded that the applicant's request was inconsistent with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and land development regulations; now, therefore BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Board specifically adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated above. Section 2. Lot 10 and 11, Resubdivision of Seaside, Section 14, Township 62 South, Range 38 East, at approximate mile marker 94.5, Key Largo, are hereby designated Mixed Use/Commercial on Future Land Use Map, 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The official FLUM must be amended as described in this section. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 4. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 5. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the state land planning agency for approval. Section 6. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida but will not take effect until a notice is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission approving the ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the day of , 2000. Mayor Shirley Freeman Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent Commissioner Shirley Freeman Commissioner Nora Williams (ATTEST) Deputy Clerk ORDINANCE NO. -2000 AN ORDINANCE BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING THE REQUEST BY PROPERTY OWNER IDA WELBORN TO CHANGE THE OFFICIAL LAND USE MAP (ZONING) DESIGNATION FOR LOTS 10 AND 11, RESUBDIVISION OF SEASIDE, SECTION 14. TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH, RANGE 38 EAST, AT APPROXIMATELY MILE MARKER 94.5, KEY LARGO, REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00491650 AND 004911660, FROM IMPROVED SUBDIVISION (IS) TO SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL (SC) WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners during a public hearing held on September 3, 1998 conducted a review and consideration of a request filed by applicant/property owner Ida Welborn on behalf of American Legion Post 333 for a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) change from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) for property described as lots 10 and 1 I, Resubdivision of Seaside, Section 14, Township 62 South, Range 38 East, MM 94.5 Key largo, Real Estate Numbers 00491650 and 004911660; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners considered the following information: (1) The report prepared by Director of Planning Timothy J. McGarry dated August 21, 1998 regarding the FLUM change; (2) The Planning Commission's Resolution No. P66-98 recommending denial of the FLUM change; (3) The applicant's presentation before the Board; and (4) The input received from members of the public. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners transmitted this as a draft ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs for its review and comment; and WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affairs made no objections, recommendations or comments regarding this proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held the second of two public hearings for the future land use map amendment on February 17, 2000; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners also considered the corresponding proposed zoning amendment from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Suburban Commercial (SC) at the same two public hearings; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following Findings of Fact: (1) Sec. 9.5-511, MCC, states that the Board of County Commissioners may consider a land use change if at least one of the six criteria in that section is met. Sec. 9.5-511, MCC, also prohibits a change that negatively impacts community character. (2) The Board of County Commissioners adopted an ordinance changing the future land use map designation for the subject properties from Residential Medium to Mixed/Use Commercial. (3) The passing of an ordinance changing the future land use designation constitutes a new issue under Section 9.5-511, MCC. (4) The 2010 Comprehensive Plan indicates that the requested Suburban Commercial zoning district is consistent with the Mixed/Use Commercial future land use designation. WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following Conclusions of Law: (1) The requested zoning amendment meets the requirements of Section 9.5-511 and is consistent with the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONER OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Board specifically adopts the findings of fact and conclusions of law stated above. Section 2. Lot 10 and 11, Resubdivision of Seaside, Section 14, Township 62 South, Range 38 East, at approximate mile marker 94.5, Key Largo, are hereby designated Suburban Commercial on the Official Land Use District (Zoning) Map. The zoning map must be amended as described in this section. Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause or provision of this Ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this Ordinance shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 4. All Ordinances or parts of Ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 5. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the state land planning agency for approval. Section 6. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida but will not take effect until a notice is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission approving the ordinance. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held on the day of , 2000. Mayor Shirley Freeman Mayor Pro Tern George Neugent Commissioner Shirley Freeman Commissioner Nora Williams (ATTEST) Deputy Clerk "rxcry T C - :.1 AND LE U IENCY BY Attomey's Office STAFF REPORT TO BOCC FOR ITS FEBRUARY 17, 2000 HEARING MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: K. Marlene Conaway, Director of Plannin 4- RE: Proposed Future Land Use & Zoning Amendments for Ida Welborn/American Legion DATE: January 28, 2000 Background Ms. Ida Welborn, in 1997, applied for an amendment to the future land use map and zoning map for her property on Key Largo. Though not indicated on the application, Ms. Welborn's intent is to sell both the subject properties and adjacent lots to the American Legion. The American Legion hopes to use the site for its meeting hall. The proposal has been reviewed and considered at length by the Growth Management staff and Planning Commission throughout 1997 and 1998. Ultimately, on September 3, 1998, the Board of County Commissioners approved the request by directing staff to transmit a proposed Future Land Use Map (FLUM) ordinance to the Department of Community Affairs for its review and consideration. (For a more detailed summary of events, see chart attached to this page.) The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has reviewed the proposed FLUM amendment and offered no objections, recommendations or comments. Issue At this stage of the review process, the BOCC may elect to adopt, adopt with changes or deny the proposed ordinance that was transmitted to DCA. Given that the DCA had not objections and given the previous Board direction on this matter, the Planning Department presents the ordinance for approval at this time. In addition, the Planning Department presents a corresponding ordinance that changes the zoning designation for the subject properties. Attached to this report is a copy of the Planning Department's original staff report to the BOCC (dated January 26, 1998). It contains the detailed discussion of the proposal. In addition, while there has been tremendous public input presented at the various Planning Commission and BOCC meetings, this packet contains all the letters on file regarding the proposal. In addition, at any Commissioner's request, other previous staff memos and reports and Planning Commission resolutions will be provided to all board members. Recommendation Approval of the FLUM ordinance and Zoning ordinance. 1 4J "CY v d' Z 0 W 0 w i m O a 0 �i (99 bO O a v 0J O V4 bb v 94 O w O O CA i o s > a �a = w z O+ `a y ^W - O M p O° �l ot vEj "° �= w a ° a C o v a 00 � b -� Q ° cu ¢ O, ,� ° � a .c 5 ° O �1 A v w .. O . O N O N ° O" p U O U Cd bo O o M -0 . 7 a m 00 a to 0 GG 'C a a �a O. O a a O o a m lz p O CD O' a o a o O, y W N I. 'C r" y m p M tz .O %• v p a04 pp O c°i cu 0 a y o b a01 a O O, ca y U a �'' tC a o p V ° o O. & ,� o a° vim'.. $-- p " �+ �, ca. Oi v eOa �, o t~ rsw o a) ' �'tv . O U Z s -- �-r' 0 bt m o 00 o° ° a G 0 E nz o v ° a w U y by U .� '0 a •� -4.,, � 4� N° P. O O O o w C O U v a U o 0 O O U o v °a a� U v atOo va) O Ut3 v`° > o � Oo � � cu Q O O to & GLO ,� I "a O Q o, � y C O ac ° °° U U °pz a Uo Oam � ° p � a a o NO�U O O p vorR" pp O api o ca �. o a , + O. O S], a' "C3 o ^C p °p nz p .� �. a p bA 3 + p o y n a m 2 �� N Q ca p =� OU O v ,� y0 ++ a~+ a �a tea. O F }� U bA , to 0 O V w U U :" Q y a c. *� w t6ca O O O U ba0 O 'O i V a p— api v F. "Cf 'C api O .� `� O CS cu Q cu ,C� U C� Pl U o O O, U a�i Q a�1 �`�. a�'J O a� '5 V om td V 1:4 C" to Q r.O R- cb N U 7 Q m A ra. V� r�- , T-q r-c N N W O� e N u`00r ~ N 00 r-4 w ~ N N r- cn N r-4CA fn O Q ~ W cu 0 U U U u u u Q U Q G] v vim" v Q O� CC PO tko t b STAFF REPORT TO BOCC FOR ITS MAY 13,1998 HEARING MEMORANDUM TO: The Board of County Commissioners FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, AICP, Director of Planning RE: Welborn Future Land Use Map Amendment and Land Use District Map Amendment Request DATE: January 26, 1998 EXISTING FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: PROPOSED FUTURE LAND USE DESIGNATION: EXISTING ZONING: PROPOSED ZONING: PROPERTY INFORMATION: Property Owner. Ida Welborn Residential Medium (RM) Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Improved Subdivision (IS) Suburban Commercial (SC) Agent: Richard Hopkins, Blue Water Engineering & Design, Inc. Key: Key Largo Mile Marker: 94.5 Location Detail & Brief Property Description: The property is described as Lots 10 and 11, Resubdivision of Seaside, Section 14, Township 62 South, Range 38 East. The property is located on the south side of US-1 with the following real estate numbers: 00491650 and 00491660. Size: Lot 10 is 4,950-sq. ft.; Lot 11 is 4,950-sq. ft. Existing Use: The property is vacant. Existing Habitat: After a site visit, the Department of Environmental Resources determined that the existing habitat is disturbed with hammock. Land Use & Habitat on the 1985 Existing Conditions Aerials: The 1985 Existing Conditions Aerials show that the property is vacant and is classified as Tropical Hardwood Hammock (426). Neighboring land uses and character: (Please refer to the color existing land use map attached as Exhibit A.) To the north of the subject property, across US-1, is a large area zoned Suburban Residential (SR). The property located almost directly across the highway from the subject property is developed with a construction office and apartments (designated in red on Exhibit A). The majority of the lots located on the north side of US-1 appear to be vacant with hammock (designated in green on Exhibit A) except for one existing single family home (designated in blue on Exhibit A) and some other small scale nonresidential developments located further to the east (not shown on Exhibit A). Page 1 of 8 MAPAMENDMENTSMelbom/130CC30rept File #F97023 & M97120 To the south of the subject property is a parcel zoned Improved Subdivision and developed with a single family home (designated in blue on Exhibit A). The majority of the property located to the south of the subject property is developed with single family homes (blue areas on Exhibit A), except for Snapper's Restaurant (designated in red on Exhibit A). To the east of the subject property is a parcel zoned IS and developed with a ground mounted sign for Snapper's Restaurant (designated in green with a "(2)" on Exhibit A). Continuing to the east, is a vacant IS lot and an area zoned Recreational Vehicle (RV). This area to the east is developed with single-family homes and Key Largo Ocean Resorts (designated with red outline and blue lettering on Exhibit A). The property contiguous to the subject property to the west is zoned SC and currently supports a development, formerly known as the "Old Cotton Gin" (designated in red on Exhibit A). This is the structure the applicant seeks to use for an American Legion Post. The property, if used for retail purposes, has adequate area on the site for parking. However, the proposed use as an American Legion post increases the parking required on the property. The result of the increased parking requirement is that the property is too small to accommodate both the existing buildings and the required parking spaces. According to the property record card, one store, two buildings identified as warehouses, and apartments are located on this property. Further to the west, there are several lots zoned IS which are developed with a billboard and a mixed (commercial and residential) use. In summary, the immediate vicinity of the subject property can be characterized as primarily residential with a few small-scale commercial uses mixed in. The one exception is Snapper's Restaurant, located to the south of the subject property, which is a more intensive commercial use than the other existing uses. ZONING AND LAND USE HISTORY Pre-1986 Zoning: The pre-1986 zoning of the subject property was RU-1, single family residential. The uses permitted in the RU-1 district were single family dwellings, parks, and accessory uses. Consideration during the 1986 comprehensive plan process: The subject property was not specifically considered during the 1986 comprehensive plan process, but the adjacent properties were involved in rezoning requests. In Round 1, Lots 7-9, located immediately to the west of the subject property, were changed from IS to SC. Although staff recommended denial of the request, both the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners voted to approve the request due to the existing commercial use on the property. The Department of Community Affairs approved the request. In Round 2, Snapper Creek Trading requested to have Lots 4-6, 12-16, and 22 changed from IS to SC. The Planning Department recommended denial. At the Board of County Commissioners' meeting, Lot 22 was withdrawn from consideration and the Board voted to change only Lots 12-16 to SC. The request was ultimately denied by the Department of Community Affairs. Considerations during the 2010 comprehensive plan process: No specific consideration was given to the subject property during the 2010 comprehensive plan process. Consequently, the property was designated as Residential Medium (RM) on the Future Land Use Map to be consistent with the Improved Subdivision (IS) zoning. Page 2 of 8 MAPAMENDMENTSMelbom/BOCCstfrept File #F97023 & M97120 Map changes or boundary considerations since 1986: As mentioned above, Lots 7-9 were rezoned to SC during Round I of the 1986 comprehensive plan process. Additionally, Snapper Creek Trading has re -applied to change the zoning of Lot 22 (located to the south of the subject property) from IS to SC. This requested change would allow for a great deal of commercial encroachment into a predominately single family residential area. The applicant, based on the planning department's recommendation to deny the request, has tabled this application. ANALYSIS & RATIONALE FOR CHANGE (Pursuant to Section 9.5-511(d)(5) b): As part of any applicant -initiated zoning and future land use map amendment, a recommendation by the Planning Department to approve the land use change request must be based on the following: 1. A reason based on competent and substantial evidence, pursuant to Section 9.5-511, MCC, to change the land use from its current designation to the proposed one; and 2. The potential impacts of any development within the proposed category are compatible with the surrounding uses and community character; and 3. The proposed future land use and zoning changes are consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The applicant's sole reason for requesting the future land use and zoning changes is to provide additional parking for the proposed redevelopment of Lots 7-9. The applicant has provided no information to support any one of the five factors listed below, as required by Section 9.5-511, MCC. Changed projections: The applicant has not submitted any evidence of changed projections. There have been no changed projections, such as population projections, or an increased need for commercial property in Monroe County. Changed assumptions: The applicant has not submitted any evidence of changed assumptions. There have been no changed assumptions. Data errors: The applicant has not submitted any evidence of a data error. In fact, there has not been a data error in regard to this property. The property was zoned RU-1, single family residential, prior to 1986 and has remained vacant since the adoption of the 1986 comprehensive plan. New issues: None. Need for additional detail or comprehensiveness: None. IMPACT AND POLICY ANALYSIS: Comparison of development potential for the current and proposed land uses: The development potential involved with each possible designation is given below. These estimates do not consider any relevant bulk or environmental regulations that may apply. In parentheses, next to each use, is the development potential specifically for these two lots combined. Page 3 of 8 MAPAMENDMENTS/Welbom/BOCCstfrept File W97023 & M97120 Current RM future land use and IS zoning designation ♦ Detached single family (one (1) d.u. per lot = 2 units); ♦ Accessory uses; • Community and public parks (no FAR provided) (The IS zoning district does not have a designated open space ratio, therefore, open space requirements are based on the specific environmental conditions of each property.) Proposed MC future land use and SC zoning designations ♦ Low intensity commercial retail (0.35 FAR = 3,465 sq. ft.); ♦ Medium intensity commercial retail (0.25 FAR = 2,475 sq. ft.); ♦ High intensity commercial retail (0.15 FAR = 1,485 sq. ft.); ♦ Office uses (0.30 FAR = 2,970 sq. ft.); ♦ Institutional residential uses (5/acre = 1.13 units); ♦ Commercial apartments (6/acre = 1.36 units); ♦ Commercial recreational uses (0.10 FAR = 990 sq. ft.); ♦ Institutional uses (0.30 FAR = 2,970 sq. ft.); ♦ Public buildings and uses (0.30 FAR = 2,970 sq. ft.); ♦ Accessory uses; ♦ Outdoor storage areas not exceeding 25% of the gross area of the parcel (equals 2,475 sq. ft.); ♦ Hotels (10 rooms/acre = 2.27 rooms); ♦ Campgrounds (10 spaces/acre = 2.27 spaces, but parcel does not meet the minimum parcel size of five (5) acres, so this use would not be permitted); ♦ Parks and community parks (0.30 FAR = 2,970 sq. ft.); ♦ Marinas, Mariculture, and/or Heliports or seaplane ports. (The zoning open space requirement for the SC district is 0. As with IS, the environmental conditions would dictate the open space requirement.) The proposed change to SC may increase the development expectations of current or future property owners. Increasing development expectations is a risk and is inconsistent with the overall intent of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Compatibility with adjacent land uses and effects on community character: Under the current zoning, potential uses are compatible with the surrounding community character. However, the proposed SC designation would allow uses that are incompatible with the surrounding medium density residential neighborhood. The cumulative impacts associated with the commercial development potential of this site combined with the existing commercial development in the area would have negative effects on this predominately vacant and residential area. Objective 101.4 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that future development should be regulated in order to maintain the character of the community. In this case, the character of the community is predominately residential. While there are several lots designated as SC that are located off of Seaside Avenue (to the South of the subject property), the majority of these lots, excluding Snapper's, are undeveloped. Thus, the zoning maps may show a fair amount of Page 4 of 8 MAPAMENDMENTS/WelbomBOCCstfrept File #F97023 & M97120 commercially zoned land, but the existing uses in the area are predominately residential (please refer to Exhibit A, "Existing Land Use Map"). Although the subject property is adjacent to another commercial use, the commercial encroachment that would take place as a matter of right, if the subject property were to be changed to a commercial designation, jeopardizes the existing community character. The neighborhood has already been negatively impacted by Snapper's Restaurant. Any additional commercial development in the area would not maintain the residential character. Policy 101.4.5 states that the purpose of the Mixed Use/Commercial future land use category is to "provide for the establishment of commercial zoning districts where various types of commercial retail and office may be permitted at intensities consistent with the community character and the natural environment. Employee housing and commercial apartments are also permitted." This indicates that the development of commercial activities is not compatible within areas predominately developed with single family homes. Section 9.5-213, MCC, states that the purpose of the Improved Subdivision land use district is "to accommodate the legally vested residential development rights of the owners of lots in subdivisions." The surrounding property owners have a reasonable expectation that the value of their property will be maintained through the establishment of compatible land uses on adjacent properties. The development potential under the proposed SC zoning would allow uses that are not compatible with existing residential development and thereby decrease the value of the surrounding residential property. Policy 101.5.5 establishes criteria for evaluating development proposals under the nonresidential permit allocation system. The first criteria of this point system encourages the infill of existing commercial areas. The proposed zoning change would discourage commercial infill and would not protect the surrounding neighborhood from the effects of sprawling commercial development. Effects on natural resources: The proposed land use change would not, in itself, affect natural resources. However, the potential for development of the property would be increased, with a resulting loss of some hammock vegetation and wildlife habitat. Effects on public facilities: Roads: The proposed land use change would not significantly affect the level of service of US-1 in this area. This segment of US-1 is at level of service "A". Potable water: The proposed land use change is not expected to impact the demand for potable water. Stormwater: No net increase in stormwater runoff is expected as a result of this land use change since this change does not authorize any additional development, specifically construction or renovation. Section 9.5-293 requires all development to retain stormwater on site utilizing best management practices (BMP). Additionally, pursuant to Policy 1001.1.1, all projects shall be designed so that the discharges will meet Florida State water quality standards. The Environmental Resources Department at the time a building permit is submitted determines compliance review for these sections. In addition, Monroe County and the South Florida Water Page 5 of 8 MAPAM ENDMENTS/Welbom/BOCCstfrept File #F97023 & M97120 Management District, acting in accordance with Governor Chile's Executive Order No. 96-108, have entered an agreement to develop a stormwater management master plan. Wastewater: There are several programs and policies in place that address wastewater treatment throughout Monroe County: ➢ Policy 901.1.1 provides the following interim level of service for wastewater treatment plants and on -site disposal systems (OSDS): (1) effluent must be treated to advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) standards or as close as possible using the best available technology (BAT), and (2) the annual average daily flow cannot exceed 100% of the permitted capacity of the system. ➢ Ordinance #3-1997, adopted pursuant to Objective 901.2 and related policies, establishes: (1) an inspection and compliance program for OSDS, (2) requires that all (commercial and residential) cesspits be replaced, and (3) that all septic tanks be inspected and if necessary, upgraded to meet state standards. ➢ Policy 101.2.13 ties the inspection and compliance program to the County's rate of growth ordinance (ROGO). Neither the inspection and compliance program, nor the interim standards require a "development permit trigger" for adherence. Therefore, the requested land use change does not interfere with the implementation of these policies. Effects on redeve/opment(inrill potential: Both the Technical Document (Section 2.4.1, Future Land Use Concept) and Policy 101.5.5 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan discourage the historical pattern of strip development along US-1 that tends to degrade community character, fragment open space, and impede traffic flow. Objectives 101.5 and 101.7 (and their related policies) of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan encourage the direction of future commercial development and redevelopment into existing commercial areas. The concentration of commercial development in Key Largo is generally considered to be located around mile marker 100, not between mile markers 94 and 95. The nonresidential permit allocation system (Objective 101.5) addresses the amount and location of commercial development with the intent of curtailing strip development. The county is currently under a moratorium on nonresidential development that is directly related to the implementation of these policies. Until the county can implement the policies related to the appropriate amount and location of commercial development, land use changes that increase nonresidential development potential, especially for properties that are not in urban areas, are considered inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. Additionally, the planning department intends to develop additional commercial zoning categories that may be appropriate near residential areas and outside urban infill areas. One of these new zoning categories may be more appropriate for the subject property than the requested SC — MU/C designation. Based on this information, the proposed request would have negative effects on redevelopment/infill since the subject lots are vacant. Although the rezoning of these lots may allow for redevelopment of the adjacent property (Lots 7-9), it also expands the amount of commercial land available for development. Rezoning vacant land for commercial uses does not further the goals, policies, and objectives of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Page 6 of 8 MAPAMENDMENTSNVelbom/BOCCstfropt File #F97023 & M97120 FINDINGS OF FACT: 1. Pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and Section 9.5-511, Monroe County Code, the applicant must provide reasons consistent with the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations in order to warrant a land use change from the current designations. 2. The applicant's stated reason for the change is to construct a parking lot as an accessory use to the development located to the west of the subject property. The applicant has not provided any evidence to indicate that any of the following have occurred - a change in projections or assumptions, data errors, new issues, or a need for additional detail. 3. Policy 101.4.5 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that the Mixed Use/Commercial future land use category is to reinforce the development of commercial uses within established commercial areas. 4. Policy 101.4.22 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that the Suburban Commercial zoning district is to be applied to areas recognized as Mixed Use/Commercial on the FLUM. 5. The concentration of commercial development in Key Largo is generally considered to be located around mile marker 100, not between mile markers 94 and 95 where the subject property is located. 6. Objectives 101.5 and 101.7 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan encourage the redevelopment and development of existing commercial areas in order to curtail the proliferation of strip development along US-1. 7. Objective 101.4 of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan states that land uses shall be distributed to maintain the character of the community. 8. Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes requires that land use amendment decisions consider the full range of potential impacts that the proposed change would allow. Land use amendment decisions may not be based solely on a proposed project. 9. The traffic, noises, and visual impacts of an existing commercial use currently negatively affect the surrounding residential neighborhood. 10. The development potential of the subject property under the proposed zoning district (SC) would increase the density and intensity of the subject property, increase traffic generated to the area, and produce negative secondary impacts on surrounding residential development. 11. Monroe County is under a commercial moratorium until regulations are implemented that determine the appropriate amount and location of commercial development. 12. The planning department is amending the land development regulations and intends to create new commercial zoning categories that may be appropriate near residential areas and outside urban infill areas. Page 7 of 8 MAPAMENDMENTS/WelbomBOCCstfrept File #F97023 & M97120 CONCLUSIONS: The applicant has not met the burden of proof because no evidence was provided to indicate that a land use change is warranted. Additionally, redevelopment and reuse of the existing adjacent structure for other types of uses can occur without the amendment (Findings 1 and 2). 2. The subject property is not considered an established commercial area. Therefore, granting this future land use and zoning change would be inconsistent with the intent of the Mixed Use/Commercial category and the overall objective of the comprehensive plan to encourage infill (Findings 3 - 7). 3. The cumulative impacts from existing commercial development and the development potential associated with the proposed change will have a significant adverse effect on the residential character of the surrounding neighborhood of Seaside Subdivision (Findings 8 — 10). 4. Until the moratorium on commercial development is lifted and revised land development regulations are in place, commercial land use changes outside urban infill areas are considered inconsistent with the plan (Findings 11 and 12). RECOMMENDATION: The Planning and Environmental Resources Departments recommend DENIAL of the request to amend the Future Land Use Maps and the zoning maps from Residential Medium/Improved Subdivision to Mixed Use/Commercial /Suburban Commercial for the property described as Lots 10 and 11, Resubdivision of Seaside, at mile marker 94.5 in Key Largo, Florida. Page 8 of 8 MAPAMENDMENTS/welbom/BOCCstfrept File #F97023 & M97120 EXHIBIT A - EXISTING LAND USE MAP MAPAMEN DMENTS/Welbom/BOCCstfrepVexhibit File #F97023 & M97120 STAFF REPORT TO BOCC FOR ITS SEPTEMBER 3,1998 HEARING MEMORANDUM TO: Board of County Commissioners FROM: Timothy J. McGarry, Director of Planning`o DATE: August 21, 1998 SUBJECT: Request for Development Agreement and Land Use Change by Ida Welborn/American Legion; Lots 7, 8, 9, 10 and 11, Block 1, Seaside Subdivision, MM 94, Key Largo Overview At a public hearing to be conducted at 1:00 P.M., September 3, 1998, in Key Largo, the Board of County Commissioners will be asked to consider a request of Ida Welborn and the American Legion (applicant) to approve a development agreement for Lots 7-1 land a request for a change in Future Land Use Map designation from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) and a change in zoning designation from Improved Subdivision (IS) to Suburban Commercial (SC) for Lots 10 and 11 within Block 1 of the Subdivision. This public hearing is a continuation of the public hearing held by the BOCC on August 12, 1998, to allow the Planning Commission sufficient time to render its recommendations. At the conclusion of the public hearing, the BOCC will be asked to consider two actions: (a) denial or approval of the proposed Development Agreement with or without modifications; and, (b) approval of a resolution transmitting the proposed Future Land Use Map Amendment to DCA (which means approval of the change requested for both Future Land Use Map and Zoning designations) or denial of the applicant's land use change request. On August 19, 1998, the Planning Commission voted 4-0 to recommend denial of the development agreement and the land use change request. The Planning Department staff recommends approval with reservations of the development agreement and recommends denial of the proposed land use change request, unless the applicant is able to demonstrate compliance with Section 9.5-511 of the Monroe County Code and consistency with the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. documenVagendatwelbom&doc Public Hearing Agenda Items Two separate, but interrelated items, are scheduled for public hearing: (a) consideration of proposed development agreement; and, (b) consideration of requested change in future land use and zoning designations (land use change). The staff has scheduled consideration of the proposed development agreement as the first item, since this agreement serves to establish the framework for addressing some of the concerns related to the potential negative impacts resulting from the commercial rezoning of the two subject lots. Background At its June 10, 1998, meeting, the Board of County Commissioners remanded the applicant's land use change request back to the Planning Commission. The applicant's request had been recommended for denial by both the Planning Department and Planning Commission. In remanding the land use change to the Planning Commission, the Board of County Commissioners directed the Planning Department staff to work with the applicant in exploring the use of a development agreement in conjunction with the proposed land use change request to enable the proposed request to be favorably considered by the Board. The Planning Department staff assisted the applicant in preparing a development agreement, which required several revisions before a final draft could be prepared which the Department believed would be acceptable for providing a basis for a favorable reconsideration of the land use change. This final draft was submitted to the Planning Commission for consideration at its August 19, 1998, public hearing. Development Agreement in Conjunction with Land Use Change Request Significant issues related to the applicant's request for a land use change are: the potential adverse impacts on the residential neighborhood resulting from the commercial rezoning of the subject two residential lots; and the incompatibility with Comprehensive Plan policies of the possible expansion of unlimited commercial development along US 1 and intrusion of such development into residential areas. In considering requests for changes in future land use and zoning designations under Florida Statutes, the County is required to evaluate all possible range of uses of the property under the proposed designations. Under such evaluation, these outstanding issues create significant obstacles to any favorable consideration of the applicant's request without imposing limitations on the long- term future use of the subject properties. document/agenda/welbomldoc 2 It is clear from a review of Florida Statutes and case law, that the County can not approve a change in land use, in exchange for any limitations that the applicant may place on a property to be rezoned during the rezoning process. Neither may the County in its approval of a rezoning restrict this zoning by placing conditions on the future use of the subject property. This type of zoning is generally deemed by the courts to be "contract" zoning and is consider an illegal bargaining away of a municipality's police powers. Although little case law exists, a development agreement in combination with a proposed land use change is a possible way around the legal issue of "contract" zoning. This approach utilizes a development agreement that outlines specific actions to be undertaken by both the applicant and County and is intended to provide the framework for establishing a defensible legal basis for "conditional" zoning. [For a more in-depth discussion of the differences between contract and conditional zoning, please see staff memorandum to Planning Commission dated July 6, 1998, included in this agenda package.] Proposed Development Agreement The following significant elements of the proposed development agreement are germane to the consideration of the land use change request: o Restriction of the future use of Lots 10 and 11 to only meeting the parking and bufferyard requirements associated with principal use of Lots 7,8, and 9, through a restrictive covenant running with the land; o Requirement for 40 percent open space on Lots 10 and 11 combined; and, o Placement of limitations on principal use to minimize off -site impacts, including limitations on floor area and additional screening requirements above minimum requirements of the Code. In the proposed development agreement, the applicant proffers to make the County a party to the deed restriction running with property to ensure that the applicant and any future owners of the property adhere to restrictions on the two lots to be rezoned, even if the development agreement expires or is terminated. The deed restrictions on the property are to be recorded prior to the adoption of an ordinance by the County adopting the ordinance changing the future land use designation of the subject property. This approach is intended to constitute a "preceding" act, which may make it legally defensible as "conditional" zoning; however, insufficient legal precedent exists that clearly support such use of development agreements in this manner. document/agenda/welbomldoc 3 Proposed Land Use Change Request The development agreement provides only the framework for consideration of the future land use and rezoning request. Through the proffering of a restrictive covenant, It helps to address some of the specific planning concerns related to the intrusion of more intensive commercial development into a residential neighborhood and expansion of strip development within an area outside established commercial nodes; however, it does not address the two threshold tests which the applicant must meet in order for the BOCC to adopt any change in land use. The applicant must prove that its request meets any one of the six criteria listed in Section 9.5-511 of the Monroe County Code. Section 9.5-511 specifically states that: the "board of county commissioners may consider adoption of the ordinance enacting the proposed change based on one (1) or more of the following factors: (i) Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or boundary was based; (ii) Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); (iii) Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types, and natural features described in Volume 1 [technical document] of the plan; (iv) New issues; (v) Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or (vi) Data updates; however, in no event shall an amendment be approved which shall result in adverse community change of the planning area [neighborhood] in which the proposed development is located." The lack of sufficient space on the existing Suburban Commercial property to operate a legion hall and private club does not constitute a valid rationale for supporting a requested land use change under either the County Code or Comprehensive Plan. Furthermore, an applicant's value and contributions to the community are not material to the consideration of any change in land use designation. The second required test is consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. This threshold test is required by both Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Section 9.5- 511(a) of the Monroe County Code. documenVagenda/welbomldoc 4 Staff Recommendations The Planning Department's recommendations are as follows for the development agreement and land use change request: Development agreement The Planning Department recommends approval of the proposed development agreement with reservations. Although the Planning Department believes that the development agreement approach is the only viable one for providing an opportunity for the Board of County Commissioners to favorably reconsider the requested future land use and zoning change of the two subject lots, the staff has serious reservations about the possible precedent being established in the use of development agreements with deed restrictions to "conditionally" rezone properties. The Planning Department believes that the application of this legally untested approach, except in very limited and extraordinary cases, circumvents proper land use planning. In particular, the staff is concerned that helping to address this applicant's specific land use dilemma in this manner, may only result in broader problems for the Department and County in responding to land use requests from other property owners on US 1. [The staff is currently working on revisions to the land development regulations and eventually the Comprehensive Plan to address these problems in a comprehensive manner.] Land use request Unfortunately, the Planning Department must recommend denial of the proposed request for changes in the future land use and zoning designations for the subject properties, because the applicant has not fully demonstrate how its request meets any one of the six criteria listed in Section 9.5-511 or how the requested land use change is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. The Planning Department has little leeway to deviate from the evidence provided by the applicant and the policies and regulations in the adopted Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. However, the BOCC public hearing process and the wide latitude elected officials have to consider a range of issues in making policy and legislative decisions may serve to identify specific public policy reasons for supporting the requested land use change, including, most importantly, the land use change request's compliance with Section 9.5-511 of the Monroe County Code and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Planning Commission's Recommendations The Planning Commission's recommendations are as follows for the development agreement and land use change request: documenVagenda/welbomldoc 5 Development agreement. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed development agreement. The Planning Commission determined that the proposed approach would allow this and other applicants to negotiate or bargain for changes in land use designations outside the established planning and zoning process without meeting the requirements for approving land use changes contained in the Comprehensive Plan, Land Development Regulations, and Florida Statutes. The Commission believed that the use of development agreements and deed restrictions would therefore serve as a bad precedent and lead to further piecemeal circumvention of the established process and procedures. Land use change request. The Planning Commission recommended denial of the proposed land use change request. The Commission found that the applicant failed to demonstrate that it met any of the criteria spelled out in Section 9.5-511 and did not show how the proposed land use change was consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. In summary, the Planning Commission found no reasons to change its initial recommendation for denial of the request made in January 21, 1998. documenVagendatwelbomldoc 6 COUNTY OF MONROE MONROE COUNTY REGIONAL SERVICE CENTER 2798 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY D U 2 PLANNING DEPARTMENT -SUITE 410 k LS MARATHON, FL 33050-2227 (305)289-2500 3 Ivy MAP AMENDMENT APPLICATION The applicant must complete the following information for an application to be accepted for review (Please type or print all information). A) Property Owner's Name: L\->I\ YY t' Lt7)( KW Mailing Address: Street City \�&L0,1V �� State `� Zip Code -� t �_ Telephone: Office C5��)-gQL Home B) Applicant/ ent's Name Circle One): 1''1 it k � Mailing Address: Street C) `l_ � 9 v ' City �P �I�i 1e� State Zip Code O Telephone: Office c�-�1 �� Home ccc OCocc C Legal Description of ProReal Estate Numb y CA U 1 ` Key Street t�f er 1 + (bA niy Mile Marker` k Section _ Township Range Subdivision stNd', Y., 6e, Lot(s)1 0 t 11 Block_ Lots) Block " - in if not in a subdivision (attach additional sheet if necessary): E• bc f 1-I gmco -N951- 3018 Applicant's initiAls' D) E) F) G) H) I) Current Future Land Use Map Designation RL Proposed Future Land Use Map Designation —V' Current Land Use District Designation Z� Proposed Land Use District Designation Size of Parcel Jqq_ o 5 e - _ "\G 5 1y Existing Use: If the property is developed, describe, in general terms, the existing use of the property such as the type of use, number of residential units, or the gross floor area of the commercial development. Describe why the proposed zoning change or future land use map amendment is warranted. The Board of County Commissioners may consider approving the proposed change based on one or more of the following factors: 1. Changed projections (e.g. regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or boundary was based 2. Changed assumptions (e.g. regarding demographic trends). 3. Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in any section of the comprehensive plan. 4. New issues. 5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or, 6. Data updates, however, in. no event shall an amendment be approved which will result in an adverse community change of the planning area in which the proposed development is located (attach additional sheet(s) if necessary). ►j L, i � 1 � � � � � 1♦ Attach a photograph of the site (not an aerial). \applicat\flumapp.doc Revised: 3/ 18/96 �' I W-40m .>) Attach a map of the boundaries of the property, the existing future land use designation of the property, the existing zoning of the property, the zoning and designation of the surrounding properties. The Planning Department staff will be happy to help you with this when this application is submitted. K) Attach a typed list of all property owners within a 200' radius of the subject property. The list should be compiled from the current tax rolls located in the Property Appraiser's office. Also, please indicate the subdivision name, lot & block numbers for each address (use attached form). When a condominium is 200' of the property, each unit owner's name must be provided. L) Attach proof of ownership (i.e. copy of deed or tax bill). M) Attach a notarized letter from the owner authorizing the applicant or agent to seek the rezoning and to represent the owner. N) The application must be accompanied by the appropriate fee. The fee schedule is as follows: Amendment to the Future Land Use Map and Land Use District Map Amendment to the Land Use District Map Only :9',.850 $1^0 I certify I am familiar with the information contained in this application, and, to the best of my knowledge such information is true, complete, and accurate. I also certify I possess the authority to undertake the proposed rezoning. I e submis ion of false information may lead to denial or revocation of the requested g. Signature DZ Print Name STATE OF 04 COUNTYOF i i. " BEFORE ME this day ersonally appearedI 1� rdL 1E who is a wn to me r has produced as identification. Sworn to and subscribed before me this 247,'A day of Ma, Cam, , A.D. 19 _. NOTARY PUBLIC: Print: fQ J"" State of EJ / a My Commission Expires: OFFIUAL NOTARY SFAL CA.RLA R H0:,0`�".,,\N NOTARY nt'c' ? r`'A r1.ORIDA M C. + "� \applicat\flumapp.doc 3 Applicant's initi Revised: 3/ 18/96 I AUTHORIZE BLUE WATER ENGINEERING & DESIGN, INC. TO ACT AS MY PERMITTING AGENT FOR THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED BELOW: LOT BLOCK SUBDIVISION ADDRESS- ' r, BY: S I GNATUR L- PRINT NAME bA Lei-Oc( ) DATE 3- Z I '`1 C NOTARY: THE ABOVE IS PEZSONALLY KNOWN TOA4E-AND/OR HAS SHOWN AS IDENTIFICATION FL bf4 V48 Li(Y-/Lsc . MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: Hx 6anNE SSION / C60 =�Nonddkld ES: Ju21, 2WD N* I ""bm Notary MAP AMENDMENT OWNERS OF PROPERTY WITHIN 200 FEET LOT BLOCK RE# LOT BLOCK RE# NAME NAME STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE NAME RE# LOT BLOCK RE# LOT BLOCK RE# NAME NAME STREET ADDRESS STREET ADDRESS CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE \applicat\flumapp.doc 4 Applicant's initials Revised: 3/18/96 i I W O 7 r WEuBORN ID4 M 1AVEnhIEF FL LEGAL DESCRZj=4 8K 1 L7 11 CFASI/)E 701-97 kF" WP'.'O OR1��3-1,`68(J8) 7R1A01 [�iW- LAN� DATA O0***********xxxxxx*x*x»x»xxxxxxxx:x��xxxx»x»xxx=:x»^x/x�*�'x:x'xx LH USE F�GNT DEP7H :WE NOTES NBR.i/>ZTS T`/P RA77 17F k% '�![% `>�'l `||`'^� 07 010H 50 99I:7 H�lG�DORHUDD�.U�/\1 f- : �;:-;� i i. 1.D0O T]T4i- BRC A8.�. UF5 0 00/�0 LA^D v�!'UES 6,138 00.'0� VALUE CELEC7ED �********xx«x»***xxxv»*xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxvxxxxxx:xxxxrxxx»'`xxxx SPEOIFTED BY ERVIN A. HI&GS OK 01/11/7b VALUV MErHOn 1 COST/KARKPT00 VALUE 6,�88 �UH :�iUE �,1U3 HISTORY OF TAXABLE VALUEE ***»»*:»xx«:»x:�*xxxx�xxxxxxx^x*xxxy.'�»xx:xx:xxxxx [AX YEAR VALUE V4LUE ECUIPVALUE VAL/'/E BENVP2T :ALVE VALU[ 198l 7,091 D u .',091 0 D 7 091 l'y84 1985 4,4t.: 1986 1987 i988 4,4�� O O 1989 4,4S:�-- 1990 1991 ^ 4,92O 6,18 O O O O 2 4,9V0 6,:88 1992 1993 6,188 6,118 O O D �,'6B O 6,�98 � O O O 6.188 1995 6,189 0 0 �'1q� 0 0 6,18G 6,18�.'; 1`,96 6,18� O O 6'�88 O O 6,188 SALES HISTORY *****************xxxxxxx*xxxxxv»*xxxxxvxxxxxxxxxx»»*»x»xnxx*»»^ Q.R' O.R' SALE hNSTRUMENT TRANSFER 0UA| D BOOK PAGE DATE PR� 1106 420 O9.89 WD AARRAlTY 00QUA|-�F70D M rlV|.TTPiE P » FO,/ EQUIPMENT LIKES **x»*xxxxxx»*xxxo**xx*xx:xxx*xxxxxx:xxxxxxo*xxxx*xx*x»*:xx rYPE DE5CRIPT17N f UKTTT CN 707E nAR 7H,F�T [777 'nL1/E M oQnm2 O Q + •• - •• Coro.... .• . Co=; 2 ❑Corr T Ns T X -COTC C C T CC. . T, WN21 m m Cr O• r r+ . .. - rD r)..•• •• •• D I rrCLl •-•C^ S OmW I� I n- c o o T i c EEC= 000v r c .-. •-•ox ooOmO m 7, O ~-C .;G" 2 z S 22 O 222 2 /� D O rr7 Ll Cl Ll 0 1 E" 1 Ll Cl m T ...I m n -Ca \ Ll 2 Ul = x D L" m D •- m F --iD L)E �� OW 0 ❑Ocn O n D -CS D .-. y �• V W .-- S O 1102 2 D T O D r -0 CD c D tD m O 000-4-- r 1 mm CO D O i i 0� w •-- ODOrIA D D3 \ •• 1] T D ll l i T n ro O i D CO Zl O m -1 O ONDWO O O Ui NmmU)v) O Om-. Z7 P)•• D••ro I I ; n WWW ID ID tD2i tD(n I VO > Ll D S .. , •• D.. .. a .. .. .. mN_ O ( O V) j i .-•N i m 3 M LI T m L j 3 n n n N; w 2 D m i W. -OM ; 3 0; Ln Ll0 -0j x T a 3) rr; j a m 2 i ru \ Qo m C,nC T -r. -n -n ;DD m; DEN -• : O E m v)C r r r- r- ;xn rrr ; TC DID 1 ; 0 Ut OD000 jmD 2; ^V mV ; O U7DW(U� ;_r MIJWO; nOCr i m CD II II II II 11 ; --� { 3(OMZZ i vo M {217 r-mmc ;nz m; omV m } D 0 -- m mmM ZONWE ;Om vti —tool- •{ ; o u S7�D wCCrx im i OV I Or ; w D •'. 3 •-• NNtD U1N ; r 2; M, .-•MD i D C) m mmIn mmrOC iCD m; .•Cm U7x i W CMM .j r ru0 D•• •• •• •• NW•• •• •• + i7cm Z; NWWWM i tT M GC ❑LIWrJD I O iNG DDD• i O I a,0 j 31 r•• OOOmr, +•. tD+ ;•• •• •• CoN•• •• .. C ;LIJO WIDW C; tD lDD _MW W0ID 1)W T I TT j U1 U1 U12; 1 omru j E{ NN• U1tD r i r0 i ; R ❑OO�+i wl.. T i m !1 0 rmCOC7 ruDN DU1 ; N -+: U13DD ; i • O �• -•• N w Ow i O : OOOLo C/2 tD0 ; WDU n O W O C rum I i i i i rn M 0 -4 i \ O Cl)n i 0 - D O O I D\ m N CO I ; mTTI{ j nmru i omn 2 OC r D- Ln Ln ; ; nNWm ; 2r O O �- �- Ln Ut C O O ; j 3 D U1 ; OD o m 0 O O 2 O i V ; M; (1)w DtD } G-+ )P O D I O ; C)D i v I tD m } m Rl 0 n 0 O _nD N m I i�� NN ru 4 �• I ; m O 0 rC CO N i i *OD ••• mi VCtll] i VIZD n C CD 02 C i ; -+r NNN i MwCt i MAW 2 n n i U7 o U1 O i co Qt i D{ S --� O •-• I •-.O Gt i i y •• •• •• pb N•• •• •• + ; D ; r2 000-0; 000-a; -00 m3M i ; D SAD m 0 02 O iDO 2i vmV ; EQt i O 2D i2 Xi �+Ul j -coo m ;on j 2v i vo r i ; r .�r i mI ; wo O i o000i O�• i r Os y •• - .. •• w•• •• •• y N CV) irn 000ni lD ; cc m 0 ; h to N; TlD i D m Ino s + - s om i 0r ; T o00rns D j 3 r rm o *C— 000Si i mrn a I)n *Dm ir0 Yi i r m2 ;m 000mi i Ll 2n nm i i o00Sj {: j i zeal ON M i N i i c 0 V V O :w ,� ; w -• C i ; In W coo al i -•0 wWwD# i tD ty ; D maoa,r; i -10 D ; s s } s ; i-2 V c n D mmCCT-�3 Dr7 Ct m lD lD lD ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID ID IDw mm-- D O o -mamma-< C v lO ID ID ID W ID W m m m m m m m m DXU) m r «- U, wwwwwm0 ImE .- C mo.aww owm-imo J]wN m -+ n C y mn Cr r COOOC: O -- m S mmccml m Dv C Ozwro - •- T1 T, T 3 DD�-am r -�.. C /V m m rr, - 7r-nZD MM C) \ / O v r .- z m " Z m V) m W W W w w w N m m G m 3 m O x D WW Ww WLL'lD lD lD lDwwlD -JV cr m n 11J -+ IDO M -• m 2C r • DD-, -C • w 273) --mC m m mLl d �d LLt VID tD ID ID ID lDCO r2D m v x 3 mr-. UIUI-- 0Z1 cn mOO •-• --coo OOOOID :C cox r) O lD n T -cnm 00�-•ID CD Ti mmmWm C1E \ .zIZZ ]r Z000OOOC---- m D r V DO(n ODNOOC-- rn m SD Z M, C Z3 rG 3 Oo OOO -ar O r31 00000--m oT- rT r mm 2 j v M* OO000- c C # # U) +j NO �D X Q)C�Q)Q)C)Q)�NN NNN•--�--• C-C D # i �Uni C -a -2 mmmmmmmw------OtD tD O� DrD } i O i m -O ow m rOr : i mdi C3 mm SD mmmmmwwwoo--ozzw C=C 2 : i mlDi Zml T `"' •• mmmmmmwozmC) mood mm i i --i U,-- o(noo2 2r TO 4zsaz jdzwww•-•mwwm Ll (r) M i j C1# TTTTII-r- U)D (n 71 C) ; i ro : U Tat U1 LD LD W lD Uu m O Q { i O M 00000 D O C cni CO i -{zi m mr- d J] J) J] J] 00 -- r, i D 2 i i M W* : N V, 00000 w WLC'mw--w--".------------ c--i CO i i m> UI U7 U7 LJlWri -- Nm w lD UlwlD (JID tD ID �DWtD ID ID ID D3; mw a ; nwi 00000-- OM-JV�D�D --Z StZZ. Z.L a rmi CDi N i i O• > m: m: cc D -- -- -- �� r M, i D i 1 > � i i -M . T i \ : 0 i 0 i i SU) mI IW-.0 DZl O O O O o c O w w w w w N N N i CDi W " i i • 31 V m i i 2 i i -C -- m; )� D Ao Oom 0 o V O Z MO m C +• -- -- --• O lD C) W D'* r-U)} C i a V n N i i G) i i lD lD lD lD lD D i mMVVm 2)} r O D • • • 00000 D 2 O 0 mVlo--N alD 1D T--N--UI C)O� Cmj --D > i 2 i u1OMOO > -+ I wwO0IDowmwUIInm OWW mV,i --r } i = i --•> w0 WJIOlJl VVU1NV V O CWZ-- U)i rn WC • T j j i ; i i 2} } mZ) --rn Cr�WCD Tc-c�Ov .-.r Zm O d3 j mr3co i i L,> co EDE-- m cm W i m --m j 2)D• r: O2--0 i w } Ul # WWWWNDi D: D -O DmD M7 mJ) D 0 Z(ni S ; mO• C) i mCnm- O 0 moi O ; : i mi =I={ m -nm U)O : cccc : j i 000 0 O ; DDDD : i i C CU) m OOOOOOOOOOOOOOo - i m i rrrr i i Nr: O U, U)-) -- 0 # : cccc i > Ulm----Q)m} m mo 2 s cy i mmmm i > 0Nd0Ln d � m mi Dn } Lo"1VN to i i • • • • Lli m 3 3m m xi rO i i i 00000-} D DI 2 ruwmwruww mw m j CU) i i i Z i X m m0 U7 U7 Ul ll1 L'1 U7 lT li1 lP :_il 3 i M -1 i i > i W u .. T cmi i s s s 0) L•l�'1U1OOOOOOO 0000OOOOOO D-i r...i 3 D i i > i n Ei -aoNmID C•--; S I m 0000OOOO0000000 Co* m 4 --W V i j 0•••••04 00000 I r T2i x i wwzo i : -00000-4 00000 i s m: s •• wd--V i i s : D =j r s c cn m --0 s Z--In.) s s s x m O mmmmmmV vlwwwN D# --O : ZOM ; ; i m ------NNNmmO+C)•-OID C)w - . . . . . . . . . . . . . . cXi DDi w . i i # of X Z22Z2 Z x T ;o --rJd--wzww T•-w-Omm WWOWWONUIw OOMOW rmi Cri w z i : 0OO w 2 z > > i mi m m w z 00 V'JON V li 0 OW z TTj .- j \ \♦ j } • j m D i i NOO i > Ji i i i J,ww i i • Ci V0OD 2Z2Z2 WwLrI Voc i 00 UtDLn r- 00m WUtDCij O nD U i i s i m i ?� s s s s j s s s > > s s a s s i s s i s 3L m W O VI .-........-......r .................... t -a S 'n G n 2 O r r r -. �D C T O O • D 1D lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD lD U lD tD lD lD m D 2- - D O �• m 2 P m r a m \I C O O21r lD lD tD ID W lD 1D OD mmmODmmm DXtn m r .. ~ LTl 7C • m Ql U7 a W N .- y C G U' r D O IDmVQ1l77awN D n C Ocl OCo D m Om U' O '- m O S — In r x_ O G T 3 'i 7 CW OmC r �V m a L p O Z r O Gl 37 y 0 r m o M r D Oo O U1 2T Tl N P r { �-•'��-•��-•-•cDd aaa as OO -ZD m M 3 w O OGim D7 \ m CD 0LO mmmmCDmLnLpLnUiLliLnUliDlD COX m O n m N o• Dw-T -. (n n lD DD mmmmmmOtnU U1 U1U tn• m D D O m• �m Z Ir; W G O 10i N� - m m m} r i O tD -. i O 1, W i w m ' � i c n U� S i W Ql L� C O �- • 1 0 z O i O 2i DrD i i 3 O• Vmr • D D o r i i 3 m 2 i D+ �-• -� • _ m i cni C�-C 2 DD mi m i O E mzm i i 21n } ^p i •• i D M• 00000OOOOOOOOOO MU) c1 i i 7C .-. i � Mom- } S7 C i cl ♦ i m D Z i W LS— • D 3i to ; i �r O• D .,w • m O i mi m3i i i -+♦ V0 • i Z; 9D--4 i i nz Ti p m ♦ n 0 ; �� C(ni CO i i Om cni ME1) • p '0 . i r ♦ ♦ m i Na•-. • w P fN ♦ • C—i CO i i r Z• 0Cl { w < i O ♦ D 3• m.- ♦ • C D w• ifs m • O �n i O m♦ 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 r D} • • Z D D• n i O n D• C M• O ♦ ♦ N C d- • w >J • O �"♦ OZ♦ T• -- ♦ ♦ wO 'Dci LnOW • D i P O U1 i i ♦ i U• 2 i N D ♦ in /� mi CDi ul ♦ W ♦ N - ii m.T.� S7;;;i v+mmmvo-•caDaaaaaaaVV ♦ tzgi 11"4 ♦ OTTmOIV . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . - v♦ c ♦ 0 D •••CD J'J' ul OO nn OmmrnDn O� Oo -m9 �-m'm�-mcnr T<3NmmmmmmOUlUIUUOO .TC 2 V' � i ; V i cn—x i 3 C ; m; . m i i i ..Vm i Zr O i 2 0; • Ql < ♦ D 0 m 3 OC; i m3 i ram i -+ Di O^ ♦ -. 0 i r Dri m i WM i D• r i O Di Dcr } r.mO n i -� i 2 0 i -i �-• - i � n D i O O 0 2cni S i O• Gl i OD • m} ru—. • x. n C i �--mi mO; O i i -+r fU f O c"I ; .-TtD Z mmi ySi [nO ; GCG i D Uloi 1DOO i �-t U, D i ; O i DMZ i rr .-m} I D • Ul < i m mo; 000000000000000 T i rrr i D OMi Wes- • O, D i O CCC i r2 O�i Utz ♦ .-p i i i C i mmm i DO S i WO ♦ i m} Dn ♦ Oon i z 04 0al • 00 xi ro i ♦ on ♦ �I ♦ Vo mi Ccn i i r .-r, na i mO i 3Ci 3i ,-� ; i t D 00 ^fV i mO CUi \ i i Ccn on: nO i ^0 i C UDi D-+i 3 i i Vl to H• 3^ i D n i r .-. i D ; ♦ --.-. • In r ♦ 1, 1 i ODi 000000OOOOOO000 CO; :M i } T oln} .. c'1 } 3 c2; mZ; x i � i C�-- Oii i •- r i mom; : m i i Sm vi i ra i v : ; - ; ; r o —0: o: co moo i m O,04 i cl O i i mmmmv+maaaaaaavv CX; m i i oi; } Mo+ i ;....... D D i • i i < i i O N # i �•--��-.-WDaaaaaaOO r.4 .- i 00O ; Of ♦ i c 0 Cr; m Z i i mmmmmmUl lJ1OU1 t71 U1lT lD lD i moo : i i 'aV io ��; mmmmmmocnOM nLnM -- mmi m i \ \ i MD i : i 000 M c i i tnw .- i i woo i Q104 i Om m onm; i : \ \ \ i �- �-C; i o 1-' 0 m w00 i co co 3) i i V lD ♦ } i i i i i xD i OC mN N C m ; D r- co } rr T S 0M mD i+ D DZJgCr T mC N woom O 0m r -mOsrN D i m \ m m o 04 Z = s ms M ': �: 3) 3 O zmo m a Gl• S i l i rr 0Nom.-. mM *OD* •• m ; r i O D i } CD 0 � u i , c^ �x D O n D N M co ZCO D+ I } V ODroom C-C* m D m N D i 1"r D ODrt �1` n- Ct v �c • N c mj D ; D j cm = , 0 Gl 3 , D m j M 0 c-� Nmc t O 03 ZNxi O D mmlj xm o Ci 0 D Di _ ri O NN D3 i tCD SOD s O # O Z j O V j m : D-r ,.•Mj iwci } OD 1 j m j j r i , 0 i mi o� *00* ? i t �y # D# V } 'j i # D ; t 4 3 : t i t ► WON VV►-►+---►+►-►+w+►+`+ {-4x ►+ O• D tO ID CG CD CD CD ID tD CD tD CD ID CD CD CLI mD►. O OSr, IDIOtDtOtOtt Wmwwwwwww Dxw Ci A• m RMLndWr0+—O CCoVtntndWN A -+ N O A Mox { N D • ►+ O LIMN O m• -/ T o mmtnmtntnaaaaaaaVV cr x .............. Da.+ { ►+r+r+►+w+r+1y dd d+pd y0 0 r Z D O ow Coco Coco co co to Cn ON tntn m W W cox W DD mCDCoCoCo0DOtnt111ntntn("-u m D \ -4r- i W co mm; r to i W m c E �+i arm v z; For Ni C-C D Mi 000000000000000 R'0 M Ci S 3i D m i Z Zi -1 -/ i { I O -4i O m i O OZ4 c OZi D ONi r mTi .+ MI TTi .� i m i o i i 3 O+ 3 tDCi C CDi r Dr-4 4.1 ►+T i m T►+i r .+mi m mo; v a m m0i SD I .+r nm .• m m3 N C Co c ►. D 3 COODOOODOOCC000 ry cm m\ mminmmo�aaaaaaa.IV mo r N �--w—WAAAAAA00 cm mCoWCoCo mtntntntntncoco mttl mo Co coCoCoCoCo0t11111tn to to In ►+►+ N m 0 W m Z N mo TS 000000000000000 -4 m x in 3 cm a -+ r .+ 000000000000000 co mz tnmo+o+ounaaaaaaaV.� c .�.••.•.•.r.•toaaa.►aaoo r mcocococoaotntntntntntnt"W w c Co04DComCoOtntntnW00►+►+ m N c rn a m r 0 C .+ m T ►. N m m o r m w 0 { -r m m o D z D S CI i L N co az r co m.� 0 lD IT c D r 0%C . m Cos com x wo 0 x c ~ ro cc* m-4 \ 3 a s z m O m 0 m co C) z Orr O -+ 00 OCv \ Ox ► 0 3 om Omo D O x D D D T-d x x xD m 0 0 -. O to 2 m o 0-+0 D 3 w O c) m W of -+ 0 m x 0 m 0 W-+ o 0 Wx o .. 3 WN m A m M0 z •• mD z -Ir Oi o m ws i { i r =; CD W; s za x i NCI a• wo We !7 i N ON ; T{ r 3W a• r z►.o O• 0 ccc aaD rrr c C c mmm N N M1 m m moo coo CnoO coo WOO woo A00 -1 S o a OD • m -1 r W m 00 rr -m rZ o-4 =o 00 L•a o0 N N O .a.. V T ON c.. OS am v ry �e c .• m am r m 0 D r 0 m N c� x Cow v xwx -4 —W .. N 1 O oa z wm 1 0.. ; Vdr mm-4 CD- t.•OV wMO -0 wo ovm DID VQIN ; N V oaO room I \ wola to W NO►+ D M 1 "n► W TOV CO 00 3 I NN ..• x .im M\ error W.•a OVS C1 -0 Imo we tnn wv O \O 0M i �V 30 out J R7 O r 0 -� WE a dm m Om = om IV D m/..� m cZ xo r m D m r D 3 N x \ Z D O m v m 0 a 0 O W D w { O N V S N V� m 1 U, 03 0 .Co+rm O-In o O Omc) z 9m S S O zr o Di v m cm 'mo 0 0 c) C 0 .-�mt.6o o{►• a -� C m { D C3 -0 m I O 00 V o coo vO coo m ra to r al 0 Mtn ON c o Z � -1 trW �+ m 0Co b-4 v co V d D 3 zr s o_c mLA } mcm i DD O So i /V O� S cnm m ^ + m IcnD :+ D --�- aoa i-•cr CAC imaC m co cnOm O ;corm r 0 } n m it 0 } m D O } \ x v i Oi m m O Z 3 £ } } _ m ; i � D m s x, D 3 o zmcn 2 M. S } } r m mM OD } r; o D i s C C c')X 0 : 4` �D Ono om-* ,^ mm ZC0 a• 1 i v co r O(nco C -C} m a mina} 0-8 CD r } AA n� O c} V- +c c m} D s LTI Ong Ox x 0 3 m m i m 0 m cnO+Gi O 03 ZCDXi a mmIi O xm o c; 0 m Di r s cn m m O im - ; CD o s o - } �mvs m Di JT }..m; C *CDC* ;CD i } o r i s O m i 0, s Ei Z ;oo; s i �"♦ i C : M.y D ; V ; i � + 3 } ; f�i LETTERS OF SUPPORT AND OPPOSITION JUL-1--1996 08:31 -Al- 3RAJIE 51c 255 9�3-Gc F. Qt 2-0 Lam. Ltma-kyf- 04 T-C 4t*'S a �► ��c. 31".� t--P—k 'A L r TOTAL P.02 Richard J. Grosso General Counscl HNV'1RONIXZIN" I'AL & LAND LTa£ LAW CENTER Shepard Broad Law C'enter Nava SouIs"tera University 3305 Collage Avenue Ft. L"Aordaie, Florija, 33314 (954) 262 - 6140 • I A.X (954) 262.3832 July 14, 1998 VIA HAND DELIVERY Monroe County Placaing Commission c10 Mary IIansley Chairwoman Re: Proposed Rezoning and FLUNI amendment, American Lcgion, Key Largo scar Chairwoman Hansley and Members of the Planning Commission; I apologize for not being able to attend toda)"s Placating Commissior meeting to addren 'he Board direct!,•, but request that you accept the tullowing comments on behalf'of the 1:1orida Keys Lnvironinental Fund and the Upper Keys Citizens' Association. We appose the request to change the designation of the parcels from Improved Subdivision and Residential Aledium tU Suburban Cominercial and :14ixed Use Commercial for mob'• � I ViiS1.Il1S. Legal 1 Policy Issugg We fee; strongly that approving map amendments and rezonings on tltc strength of deed restrictions is a terrible precedent, &I'd one which is likely to be deemed illegal contract Zoning by the courts. Decisions concerning rezonings and plan- amendments must be based upon the potential range of uses allowed in the cztegory being sought, and not upon deed restrictions or other statements of intention to lima the range of allowable uses. Mr. McGarry raised this issue with the applicant by letter dated June 16, 1998, asking for the applicant to subinit legal argument to demonstrate that the proposal does not co-tstitute illegal contract zoning. We do not agree that the Second District Court of Appeals decision cited by the applicant's counsel is ci:her ar-spi:rable in the Third District, within which Monroe County lies, or granLs the categorical approval of the rezoning in exchange for deed restriction approach that counsel suggests. Based on the comments included in Mr. McGarry's memo of July 6 to the Commission, staff shares this concern. «'c respectfully sggest that the development agreement should not be approved unless and until Ccnulty legal staff ha%e provided a written analysis which demonstrates that it is indeed ,ebal under Florida law. This being said however, the County Code appears to clearly prohibit the use ol'a development agreement for this project. Section 9-5.142(a)(2) authorizes the use of development agrt!rments by the County "if... the development was t.►titially approved pursuant to a delleiui.7mant Order issiredprior to the effective date [of that section]. " 13as:d on the facts available to us, this proposal does not mcct these prerequisites, and thus, the use of development agreement is clearly not authorized. -�) 1n addition, the County does not have the authority to approve ofa Comprehensive Plan ar a Zoning Ntap amendment based on deed restrictions. The Code and the Plan expressly grant the County the authority to accept deed restr';c;ions for land aggregation and other purposes under the Rate of Growth Ordinance, and for Affordable Ilousing Projects, but no similar authority cxisLs for zoning or land use map amendments, As a matter of law, the clear implication is that ao such authority exists in this instance. See e.g. Tnty rhmie on in+1m7s_ Inc.yli(j an, 475 So.2d 674, 676 (Ma. 1985) (statute granting condominium association power to purchase condor;inium units implies that no otIler power to purchase real property exists). Additionally, the process of County staff negotiating deveiopment agreements with dcvelopmen, applicants prior to the approval or even ttte consideration of required land use map amendments by the Planning ComtrJssion or Board of County Commissioners effectively 2 prevents meaningful public participation in these decisions. '%"hen a Project comes before the Commission only after staff has "negotitited" everything from the plan amendment to the development agreement with the applicant, realistically, public comment at that point will have almost no impact on the ultimate decision. On the merit and substance of the request, it is inconsistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations for a number of reasons. The County cannot use a development agrccnicit to allow a deviation from applicable lard development regulations. Sec. 9.5.101, Monroe County Code. As y ou know, section 9.5- 511 of the LDR's establish the criteria for the approval of map amendments. This application does not demonstrate compliance with those criteria. There arc no changed projections or assumptions Born those upon which the existing designations are based. There are no data errors or updates. finally, there are no ttcu, issues and no need for additional detail or comprehensivencss in the rules that apply to this parcel. Nothing has changed to warrant a change to the residential designations that were previously placed on Lots 10 and 11. which are adjacent to existing single family homes. The project would however, result in an adverse cetrtmunity change in the relevant planning area, and as such, it is prohibited by the Land Development Code. The staff Mcmorandum prepared by Director of Planning McGarry on January 26, 1999 specifically addresses each of these issues and explains how the proposal is inconsistent with these criteria. We adgnt anti mrnr,,....e*- +U... � r • •••- -Y`•"war UACA• inCriiii:iiliUull. into our comments. The property is not within the segment of US 1 where corlmercial development is encouraged. As described by County planning staff, the immediate vicinity of the project is primarily residential. This proposed use would be inconsistent with that existing character and development pattern. As noted by County planning staff, the parking demands from this use exceed those from the previous use on the adjoLning panel. We support the recommendation of denial contained in Mr. McGarry's memorandum of July G, 1998. However, we cannot agree with the suggestion that a proposed dcQJ rvstrictior) that Would prevent any commercial use eseept parking would make the proposal consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Such an approach suffers from the contract or conditional zoning problems discussed above, and ignores the significant impact of traffic that the parking lots and associated use of the proposed facility, including the meeting hall and bar, will have in the area. Moreover, linking the lots to Use as a parking lot for the adjoining commercial use does not ev.n ncgin to address the issues cited by :vie, vlcGarTy in his previous recommendation of denial - namely, the allowance of strip commercial development outside ol'the existing conecntrdtion at mile marker 100, the lack of demonstrated rationale under the criteria in Section 9-5-511, thv inconsistency with the existing residcrtiaI development character, and the fact that the subject property is not an established commercial area. I greatly appreciate the opportunity to provide these comments, and ask that they be made part of the record of this proceeding. Sincerely, Richard Grosso 4 STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Helping Floridians create safe, vibrant, sustainable communities" LAN?ON CHILES DAMES F. MURLEY Governor Secretary July 14, 1998 Mary Hansley, Chairwoman Monroe County Planning Commission Hand -Delivered Re: Re -zoning and Development Agreement for American Legion Post 133, MM 94.5 Dear Chairwoman Hansley: It is my understanding that the American Legion wishes to up -zone the above property from Improved Subdivision to Suburban Commercial and that this matter will be heard again by the Planning Commission tomorrow. Further, that the applicant has proposed a development agreement, under the auspices of Sections 9.5-101 and 102, Monroe County Code, to accomplish the desired re- zoning. Under Subsection two of Section 9.5-102 it is required that, "(2) The development was initially approved pursuant to a development order issued prior to the effective date of this division or is proposed by another governmental entity." In my research, I have not been able to locate a development order for this site "issued prior to the effective date" of Division 5. The effective date of Division 5 was February 15, 1994. In the event that the applicant does have such a development order, we would greatly appreciate a copy of same. In the meantime, unless and until such an order is produced, the DCA cannot agree to the applicant's request for a re -zoning. Sincerely, 4 y Stoski 1 k_4� Planning Manager cc: Ken Metcalf 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALVAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 Internet address: http://www.state.fl.us/comaff/dca.html FLORIDA KEYS GREEN SWAMP SOUTH FLORIDA REtoVERY oFFia Area of Critical State Concern Field Office Area of Critical State Concern Field Office P.O. Box 4022 2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212 155 East Summerlin 8600 N.W. 36th Street Marathon, Florida 33050-2227 Bartow, Florida 33830-4641 Miami, Florida 33159-4022 "wl 4tTL"R121L�t3� 8-- Loma ,''se L,i, Cain" er, .(etc. 1,;.n ; r.w r f nn..enrr.., rn•ec.ttr Ft. Iwuneriale. Flor..L 33 �' a 40 - FAY (9-34) 252.11932 .. ,... r..:,,�,e, : �l..r:lw „m: i:,r p,.dv.•+ry.er.,iroi por<,,..nr rn 5r.riwr .i!/i:d!:i: ei r/.c rueen:�/ :ir.a,.a,L::.l.. Zklbmc! e•. nyf::aiei.»: tJ.r p.rLim ;:.[�.-x :...,.,r�.....r..r.J.....I/.,,..1,...• m.ca �.. Date: August 14, 1998 Number of pages including cover sheet:x 5- To: Monroe County Planning Commission c/o Chaim oman Mary Hansley Phone: (305) 289-2500 Fax: (305) ? Fy_ .-r3C, From: Jane Gordon / Richard Grosso ;Phone: (954) 262-6140 Fax: (954) 262-3832 Attached please fund Richard Grosso's letter regarding the Welborn/American Legion Development. Please admit this letter as part of the record on the upcoming hearing of this issue. Oziginal to follow via U-SE. mail. Thank -you. CONFTDEN, TTAL. The information contained in this fax is subject to ATTORNEY CLIENT privilege and is considered confidential. if you experience trouble receiving this fax please call the above number. Richard J. Grosso General Counsel & L.°�,7) USE L_ `7 `ENITER ilepa Brew Law Center '<o, a Soutbcasterr. 1_ ni, crsit� 330� College .k� enue E . Lauderdale, FloriL, 33314 (95+') 62 - 6140 • FAX (954) 2t)2-3832 August 14, 1998 Monroe County Planning Commission Chairwoman Man, Hanslev 2798 Overseas HlRhNvav, Suite 4I0 Marathon, Florida 33050-2227 Re: proposed Rezoning and FLI IN4 amendment, American Legion Development. Key Largo Dear Chainvornan Hanley and members of the Planning Commission: 1 Nvrite on behalf of the Upper Keys Citizens Association and the Florida keys Envirmunental Fund. We greatly appreciate the Planning Commission's consideration of the issues raised in my letter of July 14.. 1998, and the effort by County planning staff to address those issues. After revie«ring Director of Planning Timothy McGarry's memorandum of August 4, 1998. we believe; even more strongly that approval of either the proposed zoning map change or the Development Agreement would violate the County code and comprehensive plan. While I regretfully .All not 1,e able to attend the public hearing on August 19th due to the impending birth of my first child. we request that you consider the matters set forth herein and accept this letter into your record as relevant legal and policy considerations in addition to the points previously raised in our letter- of July 14. 1998. To summarize, those points are: * The terrible precedent that would be set by approving map amendments and rezonings on the strength of deed restrictions. This would likely be deemed illegal contact zoning. The County does not have the authority- to approve of a Comprehensive Plan or a Zoning Map amendment based on deed restrictions. As a practical matter. public comment and input will have little impact can the ultimate decision if the County staff negot.iare Development agreements with applicants prior to approval by the Plannine Commission. A Development Agreement cannot be utilized to allow deviation from applicable land development regulations. * The property at issue is not -within the segment of US 1 where commercial development is encouraged; indeed the proposed land use is inconsistent with the e\isting character and development pattern. There is a lack of demonstrated raronale for the proposed project under the criteria in Section 9-5-511. The Planning Department states that the proposed zoning change does not comply with the land development code and that a development agreement is the "only viable" approach to allow the rezoning. However, this is not a viable alternative if the development agreement is illegal. If the proposed land use is inconsistent with the land development code, we respectfully submit that it should be denied. Th.-re is no basis for the County to attempt to circumvent the code through some process that even County staff acknowledge is of questionable legal validity and adverse precedential value. We: think that staff s most recent memorandum reveals four independent reasons why the rezoning and development agreement must be denied. First, the findings and conclusions set forth in Mr. McGarn.'s August 4. 1998 memorandum clearly support only a finding that the rezoning would be inconsistent with County law. The memo expressly concludes that the applicant has failed to show how the proposal meets any of the five criteria for consideration under section 9.5-511. Specifically they indicate that lack of sufficient space on the txisting property does not constitute a valid rationale for supporting the requested land use change under the County Code or the Comprehensive Plan. This fact alone should require denial by the Planning Commission. In addition, as you already know, if a development agreement is utilized, two threshold tests must first be met for the Board of County Commissioners to approl, a the land use change_ First the applicant must still meet one of the five criteria in Section 9.5-511 of the code.. and second. the land use change must be consistent ',Mth the Comprehensive Plan. Planning staff has clearly concluded that neither of these threshold criteria have been rrct by the applicant. On this point, we agree Aith virtually all of Mr. McGarry's conclusions, and have great respect for his view of the matter. As an attorney- however, I must submit that if the proposed rezoning is not consistent With the Comprehensive Plan and the Land Development Regulations. then the Development Agreement designed to enable the rezoning must also be inconsistent with these requirements. Furthermore, sl:affackowledges that the differences between contract zoning and conditional zoning are "fuzzy at best", however that' go on to claim that this legal issue is addressed by the applicant's --voluntary proffering" of a deed restriction in the development 2 agreement that was recorded prior to the adoption of the ordinance approving the land use changes. Staff does not cite any cares to support this interpretation. We continue to believe that the Development . reement proposed by the applicant would constitute illegal contract zoning. Second. the County Land Development Regulations clearly do not allow the use of Development Agreement for this pt(�ject. As a matter of legal construction, Mr. McGanz,'s suggestion that a prior rezoning and a platting of the subject property constitute prior development approvals for purpose:; of Section 9-5.102(a)(2) is inaccurate. Under that section this particular development must have already received some initial approval. Any development order or permit not specifically allowing this development will not suffice_ Section 9-5.102(a)(2 authorizes the use of development agreements by the County: "if .. _ tJhg develornienr was initially approt cad pursuant to a developrnient order issued prior to the effective ,auto [of that section]. " This can only be referring to the development Ibig is the subject of the 12ro osed devellrment agreement. The reference to "initial approval" indicates that the particular development at issue must have already received some affirmative approval. For example, a development agreement would be authorized in a situation where a commercial plan amendment or zoning change has already been granted in the past and now all that is being sought is a site plan approval for that commercial development. In this case, the previous rezoning was from RU-I single family residential to Residential Medium (R.M). It was not for the commercial development contemplated by the proposed development agreement. Our construction of this section is the only one that is consistent with the terms of the County Code and the purpose of Florida' Development Agreement law, which is to provide assurances to a deg eloper that upon receipt of initial approvals, he or she may proceed in accordance witli existing ordinances and regulations. This removes uncertainties for a developer after they have. already invested energy in obtaining approvals for their specific development. Sections 163.3220-3243. Fla. Stat. It is not the purpose of Development Agreements to authorize initial approvals such as plan amendments and rezonings that do not othenvise comply with the law, or to circumvent the procedures Florida law has in place for maintaining control on development. Furthermore, while the proposed Development Agreem nt may be considered creative by planning staff. we do not believe it appropriate to use such experiments in an Area of Critical State Concern or a neighborhood for which careful future planning is required. Third, while Mr. McGam is correct that Florida law generally gives a county broad powers to canny on county government so long as such powers are not inconsistent with general or special lave, these powers mint still be exercised through duly adopted ordinances. Our point is that Monroe County's ordinances do not authorize the use of a development agreement or of deed restrictions in these circumstances. In order to authorize the approval of the proposed development agreement it would take an amendment to the Land Development Regulations by the Board of County Commissioners. Finally, the PlanninL Department clearly shares our concern about the precedent that the county would be establishing by linking a development agreement x.N•ith a land use change request in the n)aruter suggested by the app;.ieant's attorney. XVe would hope thatt the members of the Planninc Commission would a-*ree that it is unwise to inadvertently create a loophole that v,-ould allow future developer, to circumvent Monroe County's planning requirements. Vtliile public officials have a wide range of latitude in making policy and legislative decisions, these decisions must ultimately be consistent with sound public policy reasons. Ike respectfully submit that there exists no public policy reason. to support the requested land use change. Ve appreciate your consideration of these matters. Sincerely, Ri d Grosso, Esq. cc: Timothy J. McGarry, AICP Garth Collar. Esq. Andrew Tobin, Esq. Dagney Johnson WOMEN VETERANS WOMEN VETERANS ORGANIZATION, INC. PO BOX 498 +► BAY PINES. FL 33744 (813) 839-4201 or FAX (727) 521-9672 A PROUD HERITAGE August 17. 1998 Planning Commission ATTN: Judi Chambers (for All Planning Commissioners) Monroe County Planning Commission 2798 Overseas Highway. Suite 410 Marathon. Florida 33050 Dear Planning Commissioners: I am the Executive Vice President of the Women Veterans Organizations. Inc.. (WVO. Inc.) As Legislative Liaison of the organization, l have been tasked by our Board of Directors to write this letter. The purpose of this letter is to support American Legion Post # 333's request for 9900 square feet of parking space (five parking spaces). We would first like to provide you with information regarding our organization and then summerize our support for American Legion Post # 333. ABOUT THE ORGANIZATION.- WVO. Inc.. is a chartered not for profit organization in the state of Florida. The purpose of this organization is to provide an avenue for ALL military women and support staff who served (officer and enlisted) from every branch (active and reserve) national guard. ROTC, nurse cadets, et al, to unite forming a common bond of camaraderie. Empower all members through mutual support, respect, caring and sharing of our service experience, focusing on the positive aspects of women both past and present. WVO, Inc., serves as an advocacy and outreach women veterans organization. WVO. Inc. is unique because we provide information on ALL militar} organizations to its members and encourage participation. WVO. Inc.. currently has members in Florida. Georgia. South Carolina, Washington. D.C., the Republic of Haiti. Puerto Rico. California. New York and Ohio, lust to name a fe% states. Inquiries are coming in from as far awaN as Seattle, Washington. and other overseas military installations. Most importantly. WVO. Inc., represents over 93.000 women military veterans in the State of Florida. 700 - 1400 women veterans in Monroe County alone. SUMMARY OF SUPPORT FOR AMERICAN LEGION POST #333: We have received information from members of the American Legion Post # 333. (hereinafter the "Post"). regarding their request for 9900 square feet of parking space (five parking spaces ). This request was made by the Post to the Monroe County Planning Commission. From our understanding, your earlier recommendation to deny this request was rejected by the Board of County Commissioners. On August 19, 1998. this issue will come before you again to make a crucial decision on whether, the Post's request is granted. We can not imagine that Monroe County Planning Commission and its officials would consider putting veterans in the street over five (5) parking spaces. After a lenghty discussion with a representative from the Planning Commission Coordinator's office. we know that this has been an emotional community issue. Be assured that we are compassionate to the concerns of the citizens of Key Largo. Their concerns are reasonable. However, our question is whether the Key Largo resident's who complainted about the Post's request truly understand the purposes and goals of the American Legion? We do not believe they do. if the residents who complainted understood the primary function of the American Legion, there would NOT be an issue over five parking spaces. WVO, Inc., supports every Florida community that has an established American Legion. Further. WVO.Inc., totally supports the American Legion's local and national agendas. Many of our members are Legionaires. Therefore, we pledging our support for the Post. Many veterans have fought and died for our country in the name of freedom. Unfortunatel}, we are living in questionable times. Some of our American youth have lost respect for those who made great sacrifices for their freedom. One of our goals is to restore that respect and honor in our country. Please note that the American Legion has produced numerous young and great leaders in our local, national and worldwide communities. Many have become successful businesspersons, lawyers, doctors, state legislators and some even President of the United States. We do not see the Post as a major threat to the Key Largo community. What we do see is a major asset to the community. Hopefully, there will be a way to work this issue out with reasonable options for both parties. the residents and the Post. WVO, Inc., challenges the Key Largo community to support its local American Legion Post; bring their children to visit and participate in Post activities. The children of their community could learn valuable American history first hand from these local veterans. The experiences expressed by these heros are priceless. We live in the greatest nation in the world. We are a country of storytellers in which we pass down American traditions from generation to generation. What is a veteran? One who fought to preserve these traditions that we call inalienable rights and personal freedom. Americas children are our future and in order for them to understand their direction in life they must understand and appreciate American history. We owe them the teaching of this history. We know that the Planning Commission will do the right thing. Thank you for your time and consideration. I re in. j, Sh la .Chamberlain Executive Vice President cc: Pat Diehl Dyke Shannon. Adjutant. Florida American Legion Patty Spiedel. American Legion Post # 333 WVO. Inc. Board of Directors SENT BY: ;IRST STATE BANK KL; 8-18-98 11:2Gj Jun dne 71cl[e a�Ucoac��u� Kam; z5I,q jq� - i� i�c . Co m m WZaorn Ta,h ft - C, 6C Altuust 17. 1999 99 Planning: Commissioners N-lnniAIC ("UUMNi Dear C omissioncr: I his letter is on behalf of the ,Anlcrican Legion Post ii.>>j and their re -zoning l,sue. Not only and i itl favor of it, but i arts a tasidew of that neighborhood and would be g raLetijl io have an ocuanication like the •inter ican Legion be niv neighbor With their eumnzutlity 01ICn1CLl plutos phv they k%,ould clnh' he an asset to us The property they purchased has been it commercial piopei-ty li►r over 20 years, with the entrance and exit heing on and off of 11 S I it has become very run down and an eve sore;, with an illegal dumpsite on the 101. they want titr Marking It will only increase our areas property value in my ripinion 1 implore you to giant there their re -zoning request and let them be illy neighbor The% are not a bar such as Snappers, they are an American Legion whos' priority is thi. corntnunity and the children and elderly of 'Monroe Counrv. S i llCerell • ; J Ile A i + C ('t11r1.� l► i t �C t -Jr. to 1 LAURA LASIQS-=OLL ray c0W%1t6s1c% 0 Zr, -69.9: ' If Isu as tM rwe� +ua; .r+ t, b it it ti SEMI BY: ;--IRS-' 61AIC 0-11ON N,_1 0-10— 1 j '.: I', I I . I I 16 ; Cummm i b C) I I L Zi 1. J L I I L7- "I & Fri y W - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ) I /q 1) - Co 01 W7. kLbo rA,-, 3ak 1('C' �tA:biq :ff- 7 W" ivt; ii, L 'rr1'.vd i a L i It, p r I,, I.)., w Sly 41 d d r r- L; W v t� LY C L I w il('V W:A71t I' L! —A, .i AI r C -3 1-11 :It: t i I 141, L h c Ame r I c-; , ti q - t I : J jj'j I)*- t Ile i I- I dL';i:; I hL' would be LhV oili%, pr:sj!vrt-, dil-I'l-t L,Lo tllem in ;my way :)n Iv do I r10 r I ;.tvc -I k L I I i bur "I hav, L Litccj I Ile :JV d found them r.. Pejj(+rk)jjs ind vonmunif y oriL.mtt,-%1 i ' "LlI rilt!v W"kild hm moru of ZI-1 in cleaning ILI) Ole moss beside !:.-.c-- w!mld inri-eane my property v-'iluQ. it:; It iF, 71111 Llgi)r next ro an right and :4 building that IN nor •szily i tire:rmAurd, i)kL certainly a :orc' .A,iL CO :'Ur iirea. Th.-v azt- right un the highwuj &;:Lh m- oLher housc atext. ro Lhom 'OUL Mitiv. k "el'- belia I f I would ask YUU etivt- the", rhe Lr re —Zoning vo wL! if! Lhi'4 wren. A of 4 arcr vetaratin rhey're iil t-) OUCCO1113MIT11 t',' ri c: c., r v J. y K,L:itnoth Plrooknhire I Ocerlti VLeW Drivc Kc-y 1.:trgo, k'l 3303 MY Y cok*m.%$ cc 614706 7%6 IM o IPIMLS: E ex 'ftj AvvM'L'6.2Wt #40, Wd Thm ft� Pum L".dorm'Wa IL SENT BY: FIRST STATE BANK KL; 8.18-98 11 .21; du5 dZ4 nadee => � I19 qg ?IRA.�oM dry. J 1us�•u�t I '. 1 � 9"1 111anninsc Commissioners Moiirov County r)var C:onwisioner This letter is on behalf ofthe American l .c•`.,,ion Nast 4? 3 : and their re -zoning issue. Not 011iy ani I in favor of it, but 1 am a i c;sicfent of that ilei'hborho d and would bc• _L't ateful to hAve an organization like the Anicriciin Legion he tm• nrriuhhtir Wio) i ortimurtity oriented philu:-c+phy thc4 \&Multi he an asset 10 us. 'HIC lrrtpetty ilicy putchaacd has been a c,immerc:ial propertti' to.)( ever 0 ycat•, with the cutiance and exit being on and of} of I_ S I . It teas hc('orrtc. very run down and an eve sore. with an illeigal .lunipsite on the lot-j they wata Rn parking. it will only increase our areas prt)perty vahic in my opinion 1 Ii1lplll!'C ytllt t0 `U,i-'tnt them OlCir r�. 401!li111! 1CLIULS1 aril ICt them be my neighbu ?hey arc: rim a har such as Snappers, theyarc. an Aiturican I.et:ion \%Ilos' priol'ity is thus community and the children acid elderly of Nltmtue COUMV sincelely. LAURA =ARAOLL 161Y •^_•3%4U!S540y at CC 7601W pig— EXF+iiEH a. SENT BY: WJPS7 STATE BANK KL; ti-ld-tic I eu, 0�- W-- ---- -- IP1;7 .1; 7 A Tr i, A o P< FAX COVER SHEET 1-l'-ND TO N.-C)LA I L xl lfrgcr.1 I-,-I:fy ASAP i picj-,o c.c.-mmerit IJ/cj-,* tvvicw If-cryour filtormarioll I wai pages, SENT BY: =IRST STATE BANK KL; tS-lti-�Jtl 1' :GOj J1:7 tl7G 7=JGG =� Jvucooc...7u� nc. v • Auuust I 1999 Irlanning Commissioners X'10111' k: (:'nutty Dear C'omissioncr: I hip letter is on behalf of the American Le�;iot► Pom ii.1,13and their re -zoning i,tiue. \01 only ant I In favor (?t it, but I and a iesidem of that riciLhborhood and Would be tlratetlll to have an organization like the American Legion be my ncighbor With their community ocicutctl JAILiosophy they %wuld onlN. he an asset to uS The property they purchased has been it commercial property lbr over 20 years, with the entrance and exit heing on and off cif I. ► S I It has become very run down and an eye sore, ►with an illegal dumpsite on the lot, thev wata liar parking It will only increase our areas property value in !'fly 4-Ijiinic1TI I implore you to glattt them their re-zotli=% request and let them be my neighbor They are not a star such as Snappers, thev are an American Legion whos' priority i, this Corntnunity and the children and elderly of 1.10nror COuntv. Sincerer. Ile -A + C 'ram /A./ b i t:. 4. ,.. 447 - uuRA u►stes-=OLL MY COWJ"ic'• M 4C 'dGCS� � ":. . N� Mv'/NO rMl:rum,'ti:b:l.ffr...f'_ I .'Y..��t�• /��"�'_ 1st. .! t'11 - a ��--•_ �F,May i 7�lti� It•urt :� \?llr (ifsurpott fi?r wu 1ilCn(IS ill the Americanl.t`Fb1Gtt Coral Shores Bicentennial Pact 111 The. c oml Sh(ires Athletic Department remains High School greftfly In IIfelI &N Ir1r lhc•it (:rnitititit-Al :oIip ►rl cif mir nthletin and cc)'athictic 1)rugranu: '1'11ey llit.,,c cur)ttibutecl tht)ticanda cf dollars to uur 81PU01 told Highway Ctt,tl6c C)vCJ tlIv vtalti 1'U1l}iC.1'!))l?IC, they anaul>tliy %Clid Il:plC:St:ntatIVCS i0 jAVP.rtitCr. FL 3307o.21SU 1)t11101 1)a1'ticil)ttnts iti titu Ort)Y,.taltts Nhonn. (305) 853 3222 Assigance from ci?i):Inunity tt)C1t)liers and civic organiratiom is _ fox. (305! 853.32711 imperative tv caul firclY,liuns' ,urt•iva} 6'tivcu the nhxencc c>fcounty andlur Ur Ponny tiouaer Monroe Country School, mi ird funding Atr athletics, The Arrlerican Legion 1•11:ctpat is e1•Tectively bcl;titig us and evervot)e else in tilt; Community votl govern, ttt Ue'e K!rty A!1sittant 1`r!nr.gtat ACGC?fdlllt,l\'. 1 �ti'♦1t11t1 eticol.11-MLI.0 III1V WId r.}l cAinsidcration vois ri" "'t'^inirMpti"^" be able to offer t}tent ip fl-mr u-sning icytrests. h1v appeal is made on two t,urrtFut:uu tccmts: these are cicsr>1•itlg tip}Icy, anti t1iC lime}fi rvteGSSAry to reltx:ettc would ►tun Marlin 1tCl ativcly ill1pac1 I11ci1 annual cotutihutiuns to Coral Shores. Avol-001, 1•(InCiPal atttn�nt :,crvlce. ;.1051 653-3274 Res pully. bonny © / rnrMClUt ofGWiiil\CC (305) 11143 3230 It chard C Russlell rlichaid Russell niteti, m AMlttics Coral Sliore8 JUS)1 School . )::5) i1s,3 3236 u)t'CGiol ol' Athklics .tackle Moattrs Of6cr Managtnt v/ t - iala:�; �Lrilrtri7�r„ ,1�itl �I�'ic f��nv�q r(..kla�.t !n� ,� t.�'3r-�1:;i• `C"�,nn>'t�n�+Ise . l.�r SENT BY: FIRST SIAIC DAVIN NL, L a 1 r j L 110 1*1 & Ki y It -11, (.7o::i1rJf;:iimIer6. '--t,;inerh -:2rool—Ji-ire I ivu i It L ITn'.,:d i .1 L t: .1 : I .:I r .` .- d r r, .).; u11 A::-.,: 11. �:- i.,.-)-jot1 1"),:l Nly ia V;ow 7mAve. "y -).op,:r1,v Al tk-r COM I,: tiiql, LhC Amerl,..Il _Cur. ind their j.de;i:. L I pr.11-urt.t, dit-Ol't Lv Lo rhem -,n ;sity wjN; 'I would be Like nili-, N.-;i Only do I nor jj..tva .I prtll-j I i-11, i t1i L11i s blir -Ivcqt igated I i1c found them r.- I,v tnd community oriuiitt-,i of..,,,LInixzltloll. I ! .-ul rhey wi)mld bm more iii zi-: in c1caTiLng I&IJ Like nto..st; bc.0de rt.L- ;;Iiij w:mld increa!;c my property V-31L;C. A:; i C i t-- TI ' III L igl1r ttext ro in 1 1 legal 4;11 'Ilp si,�ht and ;i building that 1.,4 nor .!.ily ii i.iru (mzard, !'kIL certainly a ;orc- I L !,."tO OUr itrea. Th t: rat 0 1 I ary right on the highway y w:f.h m. I.Aher house. ii xt. I' Lh.n bUL Minh. 04 liveir 1.)ehalt I wnidd ask you ;.) j.)l1*,)s,' gi.ve sham rhL!L7- r*e-zoning so we V.11", :11! 014.14 :irLn. 06 11-14-1;e -31-C' VvLoratu; rhey're d1i .1A.,Sf-A to Ocean View Drive F1 3301/ r E13M. *sm j. cWAWM_6i_Y7 i MY Cok"SSIM 0 Cr, 614706 EXPIftS: AWM 26. 2001 04010"d Thm ftwy Puft Lp'.dW*VVxm SENT BY: =IRS' STATt OANK nL, b-lb-yb 1 .41 , O��j a-- I'lanrun;t (•0?111111issioners Monroe County Dear C omissiOlie1• This letier is on bellalfof the Amcric:an l q—jcm Post and their re -zoning issur. Not 0111y arty I in favor cif it, but I am aL resicicm cif that neiohl,i�� h<x�d and would �r grateful to have an or,-anizatton like the Anicric:an 1xitioan Ile 111v ne l.uhhor �kmirlluruty oriented hhik -ol?hy thwv woLjld ,ml.v be im Ilsset 10 uS. I'hc lii �:�hC:rty IIICy pulchmsed hus been a Ciimnlel•Cr;l1 pr()pertN' till 0%,C!' .10 yCats. with the cimance and exit being on and off (if 1_' S I . It has hccomv vcry run down and an eye. sore. with an illemal dumpsite on 111C lots they wala k(x parking. It will only increa.w our areas propefly vahic ►n my Opinio t, I Implore Vc7u t0 strant them their rig r(:ducst and Ire them be niv neighbor. They arc: not a bar such as Snappers, they are an American 1. eui(m Mio-�' priority is LWS CCIM11111nity and the c-hadren and elderly ()f•MionruC (•erne~ sinleltly. L.AURA L.ASKIS-CARAM : 4 b1Y ••^_•:.!NAI!SS;t)4 CC W-3c _ lab. ,Yr/ + . I EXPIHES ATM 9• .:ti:i t ;fe��U - •. �M!a .fie Y SENT BY: riH6; 0.a14f\ rl�, t5-10-wo . .&U, � W__ ____ __ ---------- I : Ic a r � " N -, t, .-.4 w. : I m.m I. uv i S, f vii-is . i hz4ve boc..:1 !v. I I I ;:;r, IT Awwric,"ji, Legioll. CW.Jv havc- T f'ound Lhe-.m t1-) 1)-, m Q?:,, jthh,)1-. but- cai:ing A11A tit "p!ki,;. A wo I I C! e r f 11 o 1.1 p o I pcoplk: wil" .10 [Mic,; f,:r thc. wren. cati-sing ao.y prublemS ir.. Ow 1'hc�; 'Kiep L0 rheatselv,.-:; and kt- L r 0. t lie i j- hittstnu.w; . Be.! rig 111101. ;);)[.1 0 f C.") t. 1 6 e il t r. i) C X T) 0 t L :- o U b L I I U I i d L h o m .4 1,; L I e I h t j r _--i L o i.s I I t: d o i ills t. I v an jis 34 P. L t f ('071131*.111, it v and t tie nai ghbo rhood . firiev (Iost' i 'u, rt :iiiyhody . They (IT11 V try r . help tis where chey can. a stil;-ill group, btit a vci)- ret;0t.L1L-1!Jt1l1 K,1 tniii. L hope y0ll will supptif-t th.om in their endcavvr, but I wil.1 nd:,:-i therri.,im 011v iivighboptloc,&. U*EIRA J cioliqaw MY commmm I Cc 67470 DUPM: AvWjM 29. =01 earwod Thrm "mv jvw. thlow STATE OF FLORIDA C'(',UiNTY OF MONROE SENT BY: =IRS' SIAlt MANN ^", O - 1 0 - Jo . . Gz' Ju:J o..- .....+mac -------_.... - .. may 9, 1998 near Commi:jsioners: 1 havr, been a neighbor Lo tho American legion for a long time. Theey have always been a considerate and caring neighbor. They really do a lot for ;-uch a :,mall amount of people that come therm. They have alway•.. heun £reiridly and helped in any way they r-an. P:vnn to the point of anki ng rue my opinion before they would finve an out -vide, event. I don't_ know why they did this as they are very low keyed. I mean Lh ey are mostly c0derly people and after A p.m. ttiry pretty much arcs all home and yone. I don't have any parking problems or anythi.nq with them and T have a businoca adjoining their pr.opcert.y. MoKt of the time there is only 5 10 cars in their parking aroa. Even on their events t:hPy only have tops 15 - 20 cars. 'They ara very respectful. arid quiet neighborm. I would encourage you to please help them in any Way you can. They really do a lot. It T was qualified to be a member i would. Sven though I am not a member, when I went thru my divorce they helped me in any way they could. xespecttully i P:ciward Mosher "", C.1'" s,rA'rE OF FLORIDA COUNTY OF MONROE ,•+� DENA J, CHAMPISNY ;; • A ,, MY C/iNMISSION / Or 671705 UPIRES. MpUN 26, 2WI r tud< eaThm Nowt' Pubk tbewwnl m SENT BY: =IRST STATE BANK KL; 8-18-98 1':29; 305 852 5522 => N7:79 F'M ' EN `+0RENSFh1 zN:p 4s ' 6015 s-1 so,t� FLORIDA LEGISLATURE DISTRICT 120-MONROE AND DADE COUNTY FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION SHEET DA'I'E: A1•"UENTION:A Ti ,�"A � ct / 411&11 ,aPCIsiPtc�. e � •� '1 t c) �l1 FAX NUMBER '. Z. I MY' PHONE NUMBER NUMBER OF PAGES( INCL. THIS SLEET) R ' MARKS .LLe,:.� f-1 5• 5 - , c �/.� l E' C' To t i G 714-W s RQA,,LA 'i42 hocr . t Esc T rtrcot tar � J sew A 4it MY FAX NU M BER (305) 45130145 E-mail: captdrkenra)aol.com�- SENT BY: FIRS' STATE BANK KL; 8-18-98 11:30; 305 852 5y22 => :iu�etiyz5.�o; sue; r j��t'f�� '�irh1�:, �'Er :�:'n`,_�'`�S-�1i5 ,;��;, 1.� ��. !. •1 rl�_ . %,,.j0UNTYqf MONROE KtY WR•(T rl.(3n(DAa 3J4e•y MPARTKNUT OF VETERANS AFFA 1 Uarvoy Government Canter 1200 Truman Avenue goY Went, WL 33V4u Ausubm 14, 2 Pq8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONEI w - • - MAYOR, Keith 0cug43ss. o+Strltt d MayOr ar0 TOM, JWX UlnnOn Nctnrs 2 ~WMne Harvey, 01scr+ct i �. Wrley Freeman, D+strtct 3 Mary Kay Re1Cn olStricr S � f 1 Attanl.ltla: eonroc County planning COmm.iBsion Dear Sir/Madam: I'ho Department of Veterans Affairs, Monroe t=owlLp silDAnrt n tlbo rc Zoning of the Aar•ricaw l,oPfoe I- "uOtat3on aey. Florida. ThP r raonias of Lba American Legion would buuefit the COMM:n-t by oiferins a obildrenx playground And axpanded parking. The Apr#rwh Lonion In a--n-prol'it Veterann organization th&t Conj trlbutow a lares portion or wrtu�iPo rooeivnd i.v 7.uCa1 charities and to t10 uUmmunrty _ hoRpectlu.11y yours, Char L ra1 ada Director AV OtN I b I: I I MO, 0 1 0*1 m 0-,., —, - ---, --- --- ---, --- ----------- co y p jr� c k ,6AJ AA FOOT NiF- NOT �,owjr,,cxrrr-xm rCTY 1-!1H John G. Hammerstrom 155 Cort Lane Tavernier, FL 33070-0860 Phone: 305 852 8722 Fax: 305 852 1940 .august 18. 1998 Monroe Count%, Planning Commission c o GIs. Mary Hansley. Chairwoman is fax - Dear Members of the Plannin: Commission: I plan to attend the Commission meeting on August 19. but in the event that I am not able to attend. "ould you please read this into the record. Could I further ask that your staff deliver a cope to the other members? I live within a mile of the proposed American Legion on L-S-1 and I believe that the zoning map change proposal associated with this property should be denied for numerous reasons. Among those reasons are the following: wh 1. The overwhelming preponderance of individual citizens from the surrounding neighborhood that have voiced an opinion on this matter at previous meetings are opposed to the zoning change. The speakers which have spoken in favor of the zoning change represent only one party —The American Legion. 2. The zoning change would alter the Community Character significantly. and in my opinion adversely. 3. A hither -traffic business in the area than the one it replaced would adversely affect my property value. 4. The complex manipulation of the law in the form of a deed restriction to accomodate this one zoning change would set a precedent. You could soon be faced with many arcane "conditional zoning" changes which —in the aggregate —would defeat the purpose of zoning. If this change were approved. future negotiated "conditional" proposals would be expected of staff and be more difficult to deny. 5. When the Planning Staff engages in extensive negotiations regarding wording of so-called "conditions," they have. by the mere fact of negotiating with the developer prior to the Commission decision, nullified the argument of a pre-existing condition. These negotiations are a work in progress. The intent of this provision is to accomodate static conditions, not to allow manipulation of the law to facilitate one special deal. It seems clear that what is really going on is Contract Zoning. 6. The extensive negotiations between the beneficiaries of the zoning change and the Planning Staff — outside of the public eve —raises grave concerns with this citizen. Such negotiations make the Planning Staff recommendations suspect. since they were partners in the creation of the proposal document. Staff's objectivity has been compromised. Linder these circumstances. the Commission can start to feel a sense of ownership also. The public is not well served by such private negotiations. 7. The American Legion has at their disposal an ease solution. Buy a property which meets the needs of their plans without a zoning change. Surely this is not the only property which would suit their needs. 8. The American Legion has a wonderful record of community involvement. and I commend them for their accomplishments. However, do not confuse sentiment and patriotism with sound planning. If you were to apply emotional values to such decisions, Mother Theresa or General Colin Powell could open a motorcycle repair shop next to your house. As a Retired U.S. Navy Commander (the equivalent of a Lieutenant Colonel for land lubbers) with 24 years of service, I am confident that denial of this zoning change proposal will not be viewed by the veterans of Monroe County as unpatriotic. Sincerely, John G. Hammerstrom R // V, �- -Play . Coma`. To. Planning Commission From: Blue Water Engineering & Design, Inc. agents for Ida Welborn/American Legion Date: August 18, 1998 Re: Response to Tim McGarry's memo dated 8/4/98 Per Section 9.5-511 (5)b (ii) the demographic trends has been to re -zone URM zoning to MC and URM zoning to INS. This trend has changed the US 1 frontage zoning from a non-commercial majority to a commercial major zoning. This general trend exists from approximately Ocean View Boulevard north to Key Largo Ocean Shores trailer park which leaves the minority of this distance residential zoning. The re -zoning of this property will not result in any adverse community changes due to the amount of commercial zoning in the area and the existing community operations which consists of three commercial business' off of US 1 and twenty-eight commercial business a mile in each direction from the subject property on both sides of US 1. Per Section 9.5-51 1 (a) the requested land use change should be taken into consideration as lots 7,8,and 9 are zoned commercial which contains the commercial buildings and was used for commercial retail and having lots 10 and 11 zoned IS would not allow this existing commercial entity to exist under the new comprehensive plan as it does not allow the accessory requirements for commercial use to be brought into compliance without lots 10 and 11 being zoned to allow accessory use to a commercial application. The planning department has all of the leeway to make their recommendation for this zoning change as it is the policy of the Monroe County Planning Department to require any commercial use change to be brought into the LDR requirements covering all of the aspects including open space ratios, parking, landscaping, US 1 landscaping, permitted US 1 connection with FDOT permits, and upgrading all existing cesspits and septic tanks to Florida Department of Health aerobic system or Department of Environmental Protection treatment plant. With the re -zoning of lots 10 and 11 it will allow these things to be brought into compliance according to today's LDR's. Concerning the planning departments staff problems referring to policy, plans, and guidelines it is the general consensus of the planning districts throughout the country that along Federal highways thru proposed residential areas that the natural buffers between the highway and residential is the highway frontage is zoned commercial than multi -family zoning and then residential zoning. Due to the narrowness of our islands these three zoning areas can not also be accomplished therefore it is a recommended policy that where the land area does not allow for multi -family zoning as an intermediate buffer that the US 1 frontage is limited and requiring landscaping and fencing between the two areas. Since this area is in a residential area and contains several high use commercial operations it would not adversely effect the existing community character. There has been several attempts to build residential units along US 1 and both areas have had serious economic problems to maintain the residences in this locale and are subjected to being emptied and unattended and deteriorated which then would have adverse community changes. THE FLORIDA SENATE Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100 SENATOR DARYL L. JONES 40th District August 18, 1998 RE: August 19, 1998 Monroe County Planning Commission Meeting Dear Planning Commission Members: COMMITTEES: Judiciary, We Chairman Commerce and Economic Opportunities Health Care Rules and Calendar Transportation Ways and Means, Sub. A (General Government) It is my pleasure to support the efforts of the Key Largo American Legion to have lots ten and eleven of its property, located at 94500 Overseas Highway, rezoned for commercial use. The rezoning of this site will enable construction of a parking area, in compliance with county regulations. Moreover, rezoning will help realize relocation efforts that have spanned the two years since the acquistion of this property. The relocation of the American Legion to a modern facility will enhance its abilities to continue its myriad of community outreach programs In addition, the new site will include a permanent memorial honoring the men and women who have served in our nation's armed services. The Key Largo American Legion should be afforded the opportunity to bring its investments to fruition and continue fulfilling its commitment to service. I urge you to give full consideration to rezoning the aforementioned sites. REPLY TO: O 9300 South Dadeland Boulevard, Suite 401, Miami, Florida 33156 (305) 442-6901 O 212 Senate Office Building, 404 South Monroe Street, Tallahassee, Florida 32399-1100 (850) 487-5127 In Monroe County 1-800-303-2988 TONI JENNINGS ROBERTO CASAS President President Pro Tempore Aug-18-g8 04:10P FL American Legion St HQ 1 407 299 0901 P_02 -G'P�2QI�IltP/2C C� •Jll3lrl�.Cz- August 18, 1998 Mr. Sullins Stuart FAXED TO (305) 296-7012 Monroe County Planning Committee Monroe County Government Dear Mr. Stuart: On behalf of the 120,000 members of the Florida American Legion and specifically the 3,171 members of the American Legion that reside in Monroe County, we would urge your favorable decision on the matters pending before you concerning Key Largo Post 333 of The American Legion. This Post was founded in November 1976. It has served the community, not only the veteran population but the youth of Monroe County, with many programs such as American Legion Boys State and Girls State, Scouting, Oratorical, ROTC, and School Medals. If this Post cannot occupy its new Post home, the community will suffer a tragic loss. According to the Veteran's Administration figures for the Fiscal Year 1997, there are 13,790 wartime veterans that reside in Monroe County. The Veterans Administration spends over 9.8 million dollars in compensation and pension and over $391,000 in readjustment and vocational rehabilitation funds. Insurance and indemnities funding for veterans also generate 1.4 million dollars into Monroe County. P.O. Box 547936 • Orlando, Florida 32854 -7936 - (407) 295 -2631 • FAX (407) 299 - 0901 E-Mail: fliegion0orl.mindspring.com Aug-18-98 04:10P FL American Legion St HQ 1 407 299 0901 P.03 - Page ?- August 18, 1998 Letter to Sullins Stuart The "business of veterans" is a term that we do not like to use; however, the veteran population does somewhat relate to industry and, thus, with the above figures the veterans of Monroe County bring $1 1,693,576.00 in revenue. The American Legion has been instrumental in assisting many of those veterans in obtaining their benefits. The Post provides transportation to veterans wishing to go to the hospital and the VA clinics. The matter of rezoning Lots 10 & l 1 are in compliance with your current land use standards and it would be consistent with other changes in land use that you have previously approved. The American Legion will clear the unsightly trash that continues to accumulate on this vacant property and it will be integrated into a consistently attractive area that the citizens of Key Largo will be very proud of. We do sincerely hope that you would look favorably upon their request so that they may proceed to have an American Legion Post home that is an asset to the community and to your citizens. For God and Country, Lawrence Strainge State Commander LSlds