K. Growth Management
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: March 21, 2007
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes No ~
Department: Marine Resources
Staff Contact: George Garrett
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Presentation of alternative strategies and a request for further
direction for working waterfronts preservation policy and "No-Net-Loss" ordinance development.
ITEl\1 BACKGROUND: In March 2006 the HOCC accepted the Monroe County Marine
Management Strategic Plan which outlined strategies for preservation of working waterfronts. In
September 2006 the BaeC approved the development of a Working Waterfronts Preservation Master
Plan designed to refine and implement those preservation strategies, including the development of a
No-Net-Loss ordinance. Staff from the County, the Regional Planning Council, and Center for Urban
and Environmental Solutions at F AU wiII briefly discuss progress and strategies for completing the
Working Waterfronts "No Net Loss" Ordinances and request BaCC input on the desired approach for
completing the project.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
Direction to staff to develop a No-Net-Loss ordinance for working waterfronts.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
NfA
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Request direction on strategies for Working Waterfronts "No-Net-Loss" ordinance development.
TOT AL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes
No
COST TO COUNTY:
N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty N/ A
OMB/Purchasing N/A
Risk Management N; A_
DOCUMENTATION:
Included
x
Not Required_~~~~~_~
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 11/06
tNo Net Losst
Policy Development Report
Background:
In 2006 the Monroe County BaCC directed staff, in coordination with consultants from the
South Florida Regional Planning Council and Florida Atlantic Universitis Center for Urban and
Environmental Solutions, to develop strategies to preserve working waterfronts and water-
dependent uses, including a 'No Net Loss' policy.
Preserving working waterfronts is an important and increasingly urgent goal for Monroe County.
The rapid rise in property values and subsequent redevelopment of waterfront properties into
non-water dependent uses is endangering the economic viability of the water-dependent
industries that have always been a core part of Monroe County's economy and its character.
Preserving working waterfronts requires changes to the County's Comprehensive Plan (Comp
Plan) and the Land Development Regulations (LDRs) which support and implement the Comp
Plan. After reviewing the current provisions of the Comp Plan and supporting LDRs, staff has
drafted new Comp Plan language that encourages preservation of the working waterfront,
including commercial fishing and other water-dependent uses. Land Development Regulations
were reviewed to identify potential inconsistencies in permitted uses within the various land use
districts which could allow conversion to non-water dependent uses. The majority of the
County's working waterfronts are located within several land use districts: Marine Industrial
(MI), Mixed Use (MU) and Suburban Commercial (SC). Within each of these districts
numerous non-water dependent uses are permitted as-of-right, or as minor or major conditional
uses, providing a potential mechanism for conversion.
Project Update:
Staff is drafting amendments to the LDRs which reflect the preservation objectives to be added
in the Camp Plan and to bring the list of permitable uses closer to the primary intent of the land
use designation. At the same time staff is attempting to balance the more restrictive nature of the
amendments by proposing development incentives designed to enhance commercial fishing and
other working waterfront uses. Examples of more restrictive changes could include no longer
allowing motels of over 50 units, shifting some development from minor to major conditional
use permit status, or making recreational marinas an accessory use to eommercial fishing uses.
Examples of incentives that could be allowed include affordable housing units, flexibility in
regards to non-confonning structures, relaxing setback requirements for commercial fishing, or
reducing parking requirements at marinas.
Staff is now developing options for "no net loss." What follows is a range of options from more
restrictive to less restrictive for the Board's consideration. The options developed provide a
range of restrictions and protection balanced with responsible mixed use development. Upon the
Board's direction, staff will further refine the option or combination of options chosen. When
that recommendation is made the proposed changes will be taken through the process of County
hearings and recommendations (Development Review Committee, Planning Commission, and
the BaCC) and subsequently to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review.
The No Net Loss Concept:
"No Net Loss" (with regard to working and recreational waterfronts) is a principle by which
governments strive to balance the need to preserve public access and maritime services which
benefit the public with the property owner's desire to change to non-water dependent uses which
could subsidize or otherwise provide greater revenue potential depending on changing market
conditions. No Net Loss policies can represent a compromise between redevelopment and
preservation. The following diagram illustrates the types of facilities considered to be working
waterfronts in the Florida Keys.
Working Waterfronts
Public Access
Facilities
Marine Service
Facilities
Commercial Fishing
Facilities
Boat
Ramps
Marinas
Boat
Yards
Other
Services
Fish
Houses
Comm. Fishing Vessel
Dockage
Potential Draft tNo Net Loss' Options: (described in detail on the following pages)
#1 100% No Net Loss- Version A
#2 100% No Net Loss- Version B
#3 50% Preservation
The following incentives could be applied as appropriate to enhance some of the above options:
· Provide intensity bonuses which encourage developers to provide public access/amenities
. Allow intensity bonuses to add limited non-water dependent uses on properties already
developed at 100% intensity for water dependent uses
· Provide expedited development approval or fee waivers to dcvelopers in exchange for the
provision of additional public access or other development beneficial to the community
· Allowance for non-water dependent uses if watcr dependent uses are transferred to
another suitable site
· Setback provisions requiring that non-water dependent uses be located other than
adjacent to the shoreline
· Payment into a Working W aterfrontMitigation Fund to be used for purchase of land or
development rights in exchange for a reduction of working waterfront services and/or
public access
Option #1
100% No Net Loss- Version A
Prohibit the conversion of all water-dependent, working waterfront uses on waterfront
commercial properties. This policy would apply to any Land Use District. In addition to
prohibiting the reduction of water-dependent land use intensity, the type of use sha1l not be
allowed to change. The goal is to ensure that not only does the level of service remain, but also
that the type of service remains. This option focuses on the concerns for loss of commercial
fishing dockage throughout the Keys.
Details:
. The number of working waterfront facilities cannot be reduced
· The development intensity of marine services cannot not be reduced (i .e. number of boat
lifts, fish houses, etc.)
. The number of slips cannot be reduced
· The type of use cannot change (a boatyard must remain a boatyard, a fish house must
remain a fish house, commercial fishing vessel dockage must remain as commercial
fishing dockage, etc.)
Additional incentives may be provided to offset the use restrictions and intensity limitations:
· Provide intensity bonuses to allow non-water dependent uses as needed (which could
allow the intensity to exceed 100%)
· Provide a reduction in water-dependent uses only if the those uses are transferred to an
appropriate alternate site
Option #1 Pro and Con
I Pros
,Ensures no loss of development
I intensity or changes in the type of
I
water-de endent uses
May enable current use valuation for I May be vulnerable to takings challenges I
I tax purposes I
I Greatly limits diversification and I
I ~ revenue sources I
I~~ I Transfer of uses to alternate sites may .
! ! not be realistic
~ Intensity bonuses could enable I
~_~~_~~__~__ i development}n excess of 1 09J~)ntensity I
I Cons
Restricts property rights
Option #2
100% No Net Loss- Version B
Prohibit the conversion of all water-dependent, working \vaterfront uses on waterfront
commercial properties. This policy would apply to any Land Use District. While this option
ensures that working waterfront development intensity is not reduced, it does not make a
distinction between water dependent uses; thus allowing the conversion from one type of
working waterfront use to another. While ensuring that a water-dependent use(s) remain, it does
allow the property owner to change uses among water-dependent uses, for example, from a fish
house to a marina, etc. This helps provide some flexibility for property owners to respond to
changes in the economy by adapting land uses and revenue sources.
Details:
. The number of working waterfront facilities cannot be reduced
· The development intensity of water-dependent marine services cannot be reduced (i.e.
boat lifts, fish houses, etc)
. The number of slips provided for working waterfront uses cannot be reduced
Additional incentives may be provided to offset the use restrictions and intensity limitations:
· Provide intensity bonuses to allow non-water dependent uses as needed (which could
allow the development intensity to exceed 100%)
· Provide for a reduction in water-dependent uses on specific sites only if those uses are
transferred to an appropriate alternate site
Option #2 Pro and Con
Pros
I Ensures no .Ioss of water-dependent
, uses or serVIces
May enable current use valuation for
tax u oses
I Allows some flexihility to chang'
uses
Cons
Restricts property rights, but to a lesser
de ree
May be vulnerable to takings challenges !
Limits diversification and revenue
sources
Transfer of uses to altemate sites may
not be realistic
Intensity bonuses could enable
development III excess of 100%
intensity
,
I~~
I
,
i
I
Option #3
50% Preservation
This option provides a compromise between preserving water dependent uses and allowing non-
water dependent uses to be developed at the desire/need of the property owner. The ordinance
language would ensure that working waterfront elements (services, slips, etc) are continued
while allowing a limited amount of non-water dependent development Policies would allow the
current as-of-right, minor and major conditional uses to continue, provided that no more than
50% of the land llse intensity is devoted to non-water dependent uses.
Details:
· Marine services (working waterfronts) cannot be reduced to less than 50% of the land use
intensity
· Current as-of-right, minor, and major conditional uses would continue to be allowed
Option #3 Pro and Con
I Pros Cons
Provides the diversification that Potential loss of some
I owners desire waterfront intensity
Enables property owners to respond I May be vulnerable to (partial)
to changing market conditions I challenges
Allows managed redevelopment .
I
working I
I
,
takingS)
!
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: March 21, 2007
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No -X-
Department: Planning and Env. Resources
Staff Contact Person: Aref Joulani/Jose Papa
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction to staff, based on a request from the Planning
Commission to begin investigation and conduct public workshops to analyze possible amendments to
the Big Pine/No Name Key Community Master Plan. Staff further requests direction on which items
need to be included as part of the discussion based on input the BOCC may have received from
residents of Big Pine Key/No Name Key.
This item is continued from the January 17,2007 meeting.
ITEM BACKGROUND: At the December 6, 2006, Planning Commission meeting, staff was
requested by members of the Planning Commission to investigate possible amendments to the Big Pine
Key Community Master Plan.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The Big Pine Key Master Plan was approved and
adopted by the BOCC in August 2004.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: NI A
ST AFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff seeks direction.
TOT AL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes N/A No
COST TO COUNTY:
N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
N/A
REVENUE PRODUCiNG: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Arty N/A
OMBlPurchasing NI A
Risk Management _Nt A_
DOCUMENTATION:
Included -.-L..
Not Required ~
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #