Item C2
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 3. 2008
Division: Coun1;y Attorney
Bulk Item: Y':ll;
No -1L
Staff Contact: Bob Shillinger x3470
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A public hearing to approve an Ordinance of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
adopting amendments to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan pursuant to a compliance
agreement with the Department of Community Affairs (DCA) regarding working waterfronts.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
The working waterfronts Comprehensive Plan amendment was adopted by the BOCC (Ordinance 008-
2008) and rendered to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) on February 4, 2008. Upon
completion of its review, in a letter dated March 31, 2008, the DCA issued its notice of intent to find
the amendment not in compliance. DCA determined that all but five of the adopted objectives and
polices met the requirements of Chapter 163, Part n, (F.S.), for compliance, as defined in F.S.
163.3184(1)(b). Since that time the County and DCA have been involved in a compliance agreement
negotiation process. This ordinance will adopt the amendments to the comprehensive plan in
accordance with the parameters set forth in the compliance agreement.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
June 2008, BOCC gave staff direction to negotiate a settlement of the administrative challenge over the
proposed amendments adopted in February 2008.
February 2008 - Final adoption of the Comprehensive Plan amendment for y;orking waterfronts.
September 2007 - Approved transmittal of a Comprehensive Plan amendment for working waterfronts.
September 2006 - Directed staff to enter into an inter-local agreement with South Florida Regional
Planning Council to develop a Comprehensive Plan amendment for working waterfronts.
CONTRAC~~GREEMENTCHANGES: wa
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes -1L No
COST TO COUNTY:
N/A
SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes
No
AMOUNT PER MONTH_ Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty ---L OMBlPurchasing _ Risk Management_
DOCUMENTATION:
Included
Not Required_
DISPOSITION:
AGENDA ITEM #
L.a.
Revised 11/06
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY GROWTH MANAGEMENT DMSION
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Roman Gastesi, County Administrator
From: Andrew Orner Trivette
Growth Management Division Director
Date: November 25, 2008
RE: 2008-01 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Remedial Amendment Proposal
The intention of this memo is to provide additional background and detail concerning the
proposed remedial amendment for Monroe County's 08-01 2010 Comprehensive Plan
Amendment.
Back2round
In 2005, the Legislature passed House Bill 955 entitled Waterfront Property which
becam~: Chapter 2005-157 of the Laws of Florida. This Act amended F.S.
163.3177(6)(a), by requiring that all coastal counties amend their comprehensive plans to
include regulatory incentives and criteria that would encourage the preservation of
recreational and commercial working waterfronts. The Act also amended F.S.
163.3178(2)(g) to require that the coastal management element of the Comprehensive
Plan include strategies that will be used to preserve recreational and commercial working
waterfronts.
Monroe County began the discussion of preserving working waterfronts in 2005 and
contracted with the South Florida Regional Planning Council to draft a Marine
Management Plan for a total cost of $99,000.00. The completion of this plan identified
the severe economic pressures being applied to traditional working waterfront uses to
redevelop as more economically viable uses. In an effort to protect these disadvantaged
uses the County again contracted with the South Florida Regional Planning Council
(SFRPC) to produce a Working Waterfronts Preservation Plan and a Marina Siting Plan
for a total cost of$180,000.00 in September of2006. This contract instructed the SFRPC
to produce the necessary land development regulations and comprehensive plan
amendments to implement a protection strategy for working waterfront uses.
In March of 2007 the BOCC participated in a workshop aimed at dealing with the most
central concept of the proposed preservation program, ''No Net Loss". The SFRPC led
the BOCC through a series of options, 1 through 3, which began with the most restrictive
option ''No Net Loss". Option 2 allowed the use ofa property to convert to another water
dependent use. Option 3 allowed for 50% of the use to be redeveloped without a
preserv'ltion restriction. The BOCC provided instruction to implement a preservation
strategy based on the third option which included a revised percentage and incentives to
keep and/or expand working waterfront uses.
I\l~'e ]
Based on this direction, staff presented proposed amendments to the Marine and Port
Advisory Committee (MP AC) in April of 2007 with a special workshop on the proposal
in May of the same year. The amendment package was also presented to the
Development Review Committee in May. The Planning Commission held its first of
three (3) public hearings in June of2007.
The BOCC conducted a public hearing to transmit the amendment package on September
19, 2007, at which time the Board was presented with three (3) options for transmittal, an
amendment as prepared by staff, an amendment as revised by the Planning Commission
and an amendment which contained elements of both. The BOCC transmitted the
amendment as revised by the Planning Commission. The County received the
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report from the Department of
Community Affairs (DCA) on December 7, 2007. The Growth Management Division
prepared a response in an attempt to address many of the concerns raised by the DCA.
On February 4, 2008 the BOCC adopted the amendment package which would be the
2008-0 I submission with revisions entertained from the floor at the adoption hearing, one
of which deleted the concept of ''No Net Loss". This amendment package was found not
to be in compliance by the DCA on March 31, 2008.
The DCA's finding of ''Not in Compliance" triggered an administrative hearing on the
amendment unless the County chose to withdraw it. The County opted to pursue the
hearing, and the BOCC instructed staff to pursue settlement prior to the hearing date. In
an effort to fulfill this instruction, staff now presents the attached remedial amendment
and settlement (compliance) agreement.
The proposed remedial amendment is the product of Seven (7) individual parties
negotiating terms of the originally adopted amendment over a period of eight (8) months.
These negotiations consisted of numerous conference calls and in person meetings with
all of the subject parties, some of whom were granted status as interveners and others
who participated as interested parties.
Remedial Amendment EXDlained
The amendment proposes the creation of a new Future Land Use Category (PLUM) for
an area of Stock Island known as Safe Harbor. This new PLUM is to be called the Deep
Port Harbor District and is a change from the previous PLUM category for that area
which is currently named Industrial. The more specific Land Use Map Designation is
Maritime Industrial. In application, the PLUM category (comprehensive plan) serves as a
broad category under which the more specific land use designations and land
development regulations fall.
Characteristics ofthe Deep Port Harbor Future land Use Category
1. Allowed Uses
This amendment allows for residential development, both affordable and market
rate, as well as transient and commercial development. The only difference
proposed in these allowed uses between the two PLUM categories is the
allowance of transient uses (hotel/motel). It is important to note that current
regulations do not allow transient development within the more broadly applied
M 0 n I 0 e COil nt v G 1 U I,iy t II :>1/1 Ll 11 (l ~~ L: 11l ~ 11 t D 1 VIS Ion
Industrial FLUM category. The Land Development Regulations do provide for
the development of transient uses in the more specific Maritime Industry Land
Use District. This amendment would correct this inconsistency through
allowance of such uses in the newly created Deep Port Harbor FLUM category.
2. AHf1l11ed Density
Allowed density is defined in two (2) ways, allocated and maximum net density.
Allocated density is the density to which an applicant is entitled through the land
use district and FLUM category. Maximum net density is similar to a bonus
provision in that the primary method to achieve this higher density allowance is
through the transfer of development rights from another property effectively
retiring those rights. An applicant proposing desired uses such as affordable
housing is also allowed to build to maximum net density without the use of
transferable development rights.
Existing density table:
FIlIIlII Land U.. DwItIos and InIIndios
FuI1Ie lar<I Use CaIegory .4JoolIed~ Maldn1.m Net DensiIy Moiir<Im krtensIly
And (ceracrel (oerbuldableacrel 1Icor....lllIiol
1ncIJsIrIO(I) 100 2<11 0.25-0.60
ftar<lMlzml1!l) 0 I>lIA
Proposed density table:
Futul'f' Laut1 Use DtDsltirs and InteusUies
Futm'e Land Use All.tated Density (pe.' Maxlmnm Net DensUy Maximum
Caltg.'"y Aud IlIUt') (pe.. buildable a<1"e) Iukuslty (0....
C.n'''p.u(UU~ IInarllnO)
Z.nllll!
Deeo POlt Harbor 1 du (nmrket rate) 2 du (market rate) 0.35-0.60
flm:!.l 5 du 7 du
rDPH zOllill~) (11 ffol"dnhlp/workforcel inffor.d~hlp/workfol'cel
emDlovee) employee )
12 IIllit. (oublic lod2in2) 15 nnit. (oublic ladoine)
The proposed density for this new FLUM category does not by itself pose a
significant increase or even a change from what is currently allowed to the area
through the Industrial FLUM category. The proposal includes allowing 1 market
rate dwelling unit per acre and allows for as much as .60 floor area ratio (FAR -
using the total area of the parcel and applying the floor area ratio renders the total
allowable commercial square footage for that parcel) which is consistent with
that which is allowed currently.
The significant change to allowed density for this district is a special provision for
affordable/workforce housing of 5 dwelling units per acre as a separate allowance
from market rate dwelling units and the provision of 12 public lodging units per
acre. These provisions are not extreme when we consider the current allowance
for transient development under the current Maritime Industry Land Use District:
[\101]101.' ('Otlllt) (JIU\\ ill i\ldnc~g~Jl-'C'J11 [)JVlS10n
Land US9 Allocated M9X. Net
Density Density O.S.R.'
District and Us. (rooms/acre) (roomslbuildabl. ac/'9)
Maritime Industrl9S:
Hotel 10.0 115.0 10.0
Q. Terminology - Public Lodging Unit VIS Rool1lS
The Momoe County code currently uses the word "room" when describing
a hotel unit. That term is defined in the LDRs. This definition restricts
the length of stay to not more than 30 days and also includes the restriction
on unit construction. This restriction stipulates that one hotel or motel
room may be a single room or suite and may include a kitchenette but not
more than one and one-half(Il/2) baths and one (1) bedroom and one (1)
living area.
This proposed amendment uses the term public lodging unit and defines
this unit as not exceeding three (3) bedrooms with a maximum of 1700
square feet.
3. Public Lodging Development
A public lodging facility is a transient use, and simply another term for
hoteVmotel for the purposes of applying Momoe County regulations. Currently
Monroe County has a moratorium on the development of new transient units.
This moratorium has been in place since 1996 and originally expired 2006.
However, the BOCC has consistently granted an annual request to extend the
moratorium for a period of one year. The basis for the moratorium is a lack of
methodology to account for new transient unit allocations in the Rate of Growth
Ordinance (ROGO) system. Staff is currently working on a plan to remedy the
moratorium and should have it ready for BOCC consideration during 2009.
The proposed remedial amendment requires that a public lodging facility be
developed by transferring existing transient units from one location to another,
including from within the municipalities. This transfer is governed by a process
in use by the City of Marathon and requires a conversion ratio dependent on what
type (number of bedrooms) of unit is being transferred and what type of unit is
being constructed. This transfer process includes three scenarios, a straight
transfer between the same types of units (equal numbers of bedroom), a 10%
penalty in the number of units to transfer a one (1) bedroom unit to develop a two
(2) bedroom unit, and a 15% penalty to transfer a one (1) bedroom unit to
construct a three (3) bedroomlbathroom unit.
In practice this would mean that if proposing a transfer of one hundred (100) one
(1) bedroom units, an applicant could construct one hundred (100) one (1)
bedroom units, or ninety (90) two (2) bedroom units, or eighty-five (85) three
bedroom units or a combination thereof
I) l~..!.l ...J.
4. Working Waterfront Uses Preservation
The proven methodology for preserving a use that is no longer economically
viable or that is being driven out of a community due to regulatory pressure
and/or market forces is the provision of incentives for the continued maintenance
and enhancement of the disadvantaged use.
This amendment contains numerous incentive measures for the continued
maintenance and enhancement of the working waterfront uses found in this area
of Stock Island. The following addresses the incentives which are only available
to the proposed Deep Port Harbor FLUM category properties.
a. Building Height
The proposed amendment includes a prOVISion which allows the
maximum building height of 35 feet to be measured from the base flood
elevation for projects proposed with the Deep Port Harbor FLUM
category. Base flood elevation is the minimum elevation to which FEMA
requires a habitable first floor to be established to be considered above
flood level. This elevation varies dependent on the area of Monroe
County being considered and the characteristics of the property. In this
area of Monroe County base flood elevation varies from eight (8) feet to
fourteen (14) feet.
In practice this would allow total building heights to range from between
43 feet and 49 feet from grade to peak of roof. This additional height is
intended to facilitate additional commercial space between the grade
elevation and the first floor. Residential units cannot be constructed below
base flood. Commercial square footage is allowed below base flood if
special flood proofing measures are included in the construction
techniques.
b. Permitting Restrictions
Monroe County Land development regulations include restrictions on port
facility construction including dimensions and construction methodology.
Variances from these restrictions are allowed through a minor conditional
use approval as a "special approval". This amendment waives the
requirement for the special approval if the property is located within the
proposed Deep Port Harbor FLUM category and the applicant has
received all applicable approvals from state and federal agencies, i.e. DEP
and Army Corps of Engineers. A Monroe County building permit would
be required.
c. Non-Conforming Structures
Monroe County land Development Regulations require that a non-
conforming structure that is damaged to the extent of requiring repair in an
amount exceeding 50% of its value the structure must be brought into
compliance with all regulations. The proposed amendment provides an
exemption from this requirement for non-conforming structures within this
Deep Port Harbor FLUM Category.
Pd~L' ~
II. Protection of Commercial Square Footage
Much of the commercial square footage within the current Maritime
Industrial Land Use Category was constructed as industrial use or
commercial fishing use. These two (2) uses are exempted from the Non-
Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) and, as such, if the use
changes from these two (2) types of use, the applicant would be required
to receive NROGO allocations for the buildings in question.
The proposed amendment recognizes the hardship this would cause
property owners within the Deep Port Harbor PLUM Category and allows
for lawfully established commercial square footage to be considered
NROGO exempt regardless of the proposed use.
e. Separate Calculation of Densities
Density calculations are calculated considering the amount of the property
consumed by a use. This prevents "double" or "triple" dipping property
area when determining the amount of allowed development on one (1)
parcel.
This proposed amendment allows for separate calculation of allowed
development through density application in three separate categories, non-
residential, public lodging, and residential. In application this would
allow for an applicant within the Deep Port Harbor PLUM category to use
the entire square footage of a property to calculate development potential
regardless of other development occupying space on the property.
This flexibility allows for additional use development on a parcel
dedicated to waterfront uses that are not economically viable to subsidize
their maintenance and expansion.
f. Skilled Labor Workforce Housing
Currently any housing deemed affordable by Monroe County is required
to meet all the requirements of affordable housing pursuant to Monroe
County code. These include residency requirements and income
restrictions. In return for these concessions, the required ROGO
allocations for the development of affordable residential housing is
provided by a separate pool with significantly less competition than the
market rate allocation pool.
The proposed amendment identifies a segment of the workforce associated
with waterfront uses that is skilled labor. Due to the demand for this
unique subset of the traditional workforce, the pay scale is augmented
beyond those requirements typically applied by Monroe County. The
proposed amendment allows for the development of skilled labor
workforce housing which meets residency requirements but is exempted
from income restrictions. This housing type will be required to receive
allocations from the market rate housing pool, but will be counted toward
P(l~~e ()
satisfying inclusionary housing requirements for affordable housing. Only
thirty percent of the required affordable housing may be for this skilled
labor force. Inclusionary requirements are triggered if the development
proposal includes 10 or more public lodging units.
Working Waterfront Uses Preservation - Density Revisited
As stated above a proven method of incentivizing the preservation of a use that is no
longer economically viable is to provide additional density for a land owner to develop a
new use that is fmancially sound which can, in turn, support the enhancement and
maintenance of the traditional use. In this case the traditional use is the working
waterfi-ont use.
1. Density Bonuses
The proposed remedial amendment includes a robust density bonus section. This
section includes:
a. 80-60-25 Bonus Waterfront Parcels
An applicant proposing to provide boatyard services as a primary use or
public access along 70% of the waterfront and to construct or enhance the
dockage along the waterfront shall be eligible for a density bonus of 80%
to the allocated density for public lodging units and a 60% bonus to the
allocated density for income restricted affordable housing and a 25%
bonus to the floor area ratio of .35.
An applicant proposing to provide at least 50% of the parcel proposed for
development as working waterfront uses or port facilities and include as a
principal use commercial fishing, boatyards, warehouses and other
traditional maritime uses may utilize a density bonus of 80% to the
allocated density for public lodging units and a 60% bonus to the allocated
density for income restricted affordable housing and a 25% bonus to the
floor area ratio of .3 5.
Application
This program would boost the allowed density for public lodging units
from 12 units per acre to 21.6 units per acre. It would facilitate the
development of 34.56 units on a 2 acre parcel. Without the bonus, the
parcel would be entitled to only 19.2 units.
The program would augment the allowed density for affordable housing
from 5 dwelling units per acre to 8 units per acre. A two acre parcel
would be entitled to 12.8 units utilizing this bonus provision and 8 units
without the bonus.
The floor area ratio would increase from .35 to .6 which would allow for
the construction of 52,272 square feet of commercial floor area.
b. Commercial Fishing Presen>ation Bonus
An applicant proposing to deed restrict, in perpetuity, the property for the
!>dgl' /
use of commercial fishing and the accessory uses associated with
commercial fishing such as trap storage, shall be eligible for a density
bonus to both public lodging and affordable housing densities of 80%
which may be transferred to any parcel within the Deep Port Harbor
FLUM category.
Application
The program would augment the allowed density for affordable housing
from 5 dwelling units per acre to 9 units per acre. A two acre parcel
would be entitled to 14.4 units utilizing this bonus provision and 8 units
without the bonus. It would also allow the public lodging density to
increase from 12 units per acre to 21.6 units. It would facilitate the
development of 34.56 units on a 2 acre parcel. Without the bonus, the
parcel would be entitled to only 19.2 units.
The transfer provision would allow for the owner of the above described
two (2) acre parcel to transfer the total allowable density under the bonus
program to another parcel. If the receiving parcel were also a two (2) acre
parcel the total development potential of the parcel after transfer and
receiving a bonus on its own merit would be 69.12 units for public lodging
and 27.2 affordable housing units.
2. Density Minimums and Maximums
The amendment includes both density minimums and density maximums. The
density minimums are to ensure a balanced, mixed use development in the FLUM
category and are required to comply with state statutory requirements for the
creation of a mixed use land use category. The density maximums are designed
to protect against over development of the area through the use of density bonuses
and other incentives provided in the amendment. The density maximums are 800
public lodging units, 306 affordable units, and 49 market rate units without a cap
on commercial square footage. These maximums are unlikely to be realized due
to open space requirements and site constraints.
Milital'V Coordination
This proposal contains several policies regarding military coordination by Monroe
County in connection with development within the proposed Deep Port Harbor FLUM
category. Earlier versions included a county-wide military coordination element in an
attempt to address statutory requirements. These efforts were not successful. However,
the proposal mandates that the County initiate the process of adopting a county-wide
military coordination element within ninety (90) days of the effective date of the remedial
amendment.
The proposed initiatives include ensuring development compatibility through noise
attenuation, lighting restrictions, and prohibitions on visual hazards, electronic
interference, and bird attractors. Real estate disclosures are also a component of this
proposal. These disclosures would be required when affected real estate changes hands
through lease or sale as well as during development approval. These disclosures will be
required only within the Deep Port Harbor FLUM category.
PdLl;C ~
These concessions do not require the County to acknowledge the Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Study (AlCUZ) as an official document for use by County staff.
Staff Discussion
The issue of working waterfront preservation began with the discussion of traditional
working waterfront and the accessory uses to that industry. The BOCC heard much
discussion over the looming failure of the industry, dear to many as a hallmark of Monroe
County's waterfront past, due to economic pressure and regulatory interference. This led
the state and its coastal communities to pursue legislative action to assist in the
preservation of the industry through regulatory incentives.
The proposal provided includes a robust incentive package which I have outlined as
simply as possible above. However, at the conclusion of this three (3) year process, we
as a staff are disappointed that we have fallen short of the initial goal of preserving this
waterfront industry throughout the County. We take solace in particular components of
the proposed amendment which address this community issue, even though it applies to
only one specific area of the County.
The question before the commission today is three fold. Is the preservation of working
waterfront in one area of the County enough? Are regulatory incentives an appropriate
measure to address market fluctuations? Will this amendment promote the vision of
Stock Island identified by its residents?
This amendment centers on the redevelopment of one area of Stock Island and does little
to promote the continuance of working waterfront uses throughout the rest of Monroe
County. While most will agree that Stock Island is the heart of traditional working
waterfront uses, typically identified as boat yards, commercial fishing and their accessory
uses, the expanded statutory definition of working waterfront includes many other types
of properties. The discussion of working waterfront preservation was altered through the
revision of the state's definition of working waterfront to include things such as
commercial and recreational marinas and public lodging facilities. Staff supports the
concept of working waterfront including transient uses, when they are inherently
dependent on the waterfront. This proposal includes adequate linkage between the
resourc:e of the waterfront and the transient facility as the use. However, we remain
concerned over the specificity of this amendment and are not sure if it adequately
satisfies the statutory requirement to amend our regulations to encourage preservation of
working waterfront uses.
Regulatory incentives such as density bonuses, height increases, and lessened
development restrictions are a proven method of creating a needed community use
throughout the nation and the state. The proposal includes an excellent package to
encourage the preservation of these working waterfront uses and also successfully
provides the necessary development incentives to facilitate enhancement and creation of
these types of uses. The density and height of uses have historically been of great
concern to the residents of this County. However, as with affordable housing, we cannot
adequately address the situation without the proven tools to do so. Staff supports the
proposed density and bonus language as provided, however we are concerned about the
M 0 11 lOt:' Co U II t Y G I o'^ t 11 i\1 cl n d 2 e III t' 11 t l) I 'v I S I 0 II
potential for over development particularly as it could occur with commercial
redevelopment.
This last point brings to light the discussion of compatibility with the vision for the
community by the community. The Stock Island Livable CommuniKeys Plan provided
little indication that high density uses should be prohibited from the area. The plan also
failed to directly address the issue of transient uses. Instead the plan centered on
protecting what was then known as working waterfront uses and eliminating the pressures
placed on that use through sound development regulation. The plan discusses the
allowance of hotels as a use and suggests that the use either not be allowed or that the use
be more clearly linked to the waterfront.
StalT Recommendation
In conclusion, Staff is very hesitant to olTer a recommendation as many of these
questions are appropriately answered by the BOCC as the policy maker for the County.
However, in light of the level of incentives provided within this proposal, consistent with
the pn:vious direction from the BOCC, we recommend approval of the remedial
amendment. Staffs' support for the proposed remedial amendment is premised on the
inclusion of many concepts originally recommended by staff to address the issue of
working waterfront preservation.
BOCC Outions
The Board has 4 options to choose from:
a) Approving the Compliance Agreement and the Remedial Amendment as
proposed;
b) Approving the Compliance Agreement but rejecting the Remedial Amendment as
proposed and directing staff to negotiate modifications with the stakeholders;
c) Rejecting the Compliance Agreement and proceeding to hearing on the original
amendment. The hearing, which is scheduled to commence on December 16th,
would focus on the version adopted on February 4, 2008, not the remedial
concepts proposed here.
d) Rejecting the Compliance Agreement, withdrawing the original amendment, and
giving staff direction on whether to restart the comprehensive plan amendment
process from the beginning.
l'.i~'e ] IJ
ORDINANCE NO. - 2008
AN ORDINANCE OF THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE MONROE
COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PURSUANT TO A
COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS ACCORDING TO FLA. STAT. g163.3184;
AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND mE
CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
REGARDING RECREATIONAL AND COMMERCIAL WORKING
WATERFRONTS; AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
AND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO CREATE mE DEEP PORT
HARBOR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY; ESTABLISHING
ALLOWED USES AND DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA FOR THE DEEP
PORT HARBOR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND WORKING
WATERFRONT PRESERVATION AND ENHANCEMENT
INCENTIVES INCLUDING A DENSITY BONUS PROGRAM AND
SPECIAL DEVELOPMENT CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING
FUTURE LAND USE GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES
RELATED TO COMPATIBILITY OF DEVELOPMENT WITH
MILITARY INSTALLATIONS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY
AND REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO mE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY
AFFAIRS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held a public hearing on
September 19, 2007 for the purposes of transmitting to the Florida Department of Community
Affairs, for review and comment, a proposed amendment relating to recreational and commercial
working waterfronts to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, on February 4, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners adopted
Ordinance No. 08-2008 adopting amendments to the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
related to recreational and commercial working waterfronts (the "Plan Amendments>>) and
submitted the same to the Department of Community Affairs for review (DCA Number 08-1);
and
1
WHEREAS, on March 32, 2008, the Department of Community Affairs issued a Notice of
Intent and Statement of Intent finding that the Plan Amendments were not in compliance with the
requirements of Chapter 163, Partn, Florida Statutes; and
WHEREAS, the Department of Community Affirirs initiated a formal administrative proceeding
before the Division of Administrative Hearings regarding the Plan Amendments, and several interested
parties intervened; and
WHEREAS, the parties have negotiated in good faith in an effort to resolve the
objections to the Plan Amendments and to preserve the County's recreational and commercial
working waterfronts; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2008, the Board of County Commissioners approved a
Compliance Agreement under which the County Commission agreed to consider for adoption the
Remedial Plan Amendments attached to the Compliance Agreement; and
WHEREAS, the Remedial Plan Amendments amend the Future Land Use Element and
Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive
Plan to address recreational and commercial working waterfronts; create a new future land use
category known as the Deep Port Harbor ("DPH") category; designate property in Safe Harbor
on Stock Island as Deep Port Harbor by amending the Future Land Use Map, a map of which is
attached as Exhibit A; establish uses, densities and intensities for the Deep Port Harbor category;
and adopt II goal, objectives and policies to address coordination with military installations and
to ensure compatibility of land uses adjacent to or in close proximity to military installations in
the County, giving appropriate weight and consideration to the safety and private property rights
of the citize:ns of Monroe County; and
z
WHEREAS, the designation of a portion of submerged land and Tier m uplands in Safe
Harbor as the Deep Port Harbor future land use category will facilitate and encourage the
revitalization of Safe Harbor into a modem mixed use port that will enhance the economic well-
being of Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, on December 3, 2008 the Board of County Commissioners held a duly
advertised public hearing to receive public input, consider the recommendations of the County's
Growth Management Department, and consider adoption of the Remedial Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners has received and considered all public
input as well as the Department of Community Affairs' Notice of Intent and Statement ofIntent,
County stuff comments and recommendations, and other relevant information regarding the
Remedial Plan Amendments; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners finds and determines that the
Remedial Plan Amendments are internally consistent with the Monroe County 2010
Comprehensive Plan, are consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida
Keys Area of Critical State Concern as ta whole, comply with the requirements of Chapter 163,
Part IT, Florida Statues, and further the public health, safety and welfare of the citizens of
Monroe County.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
[Amendments are presented in st..ikethrellgB to indicate deletions and underline to indicate additions to text.
All other words, characters, and language of this subsection remain un-amended.]
Section 1. Recitals. The foregoing recitals are incorporated into this Ordinance.
3
Goal 101
Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. [9J-5.006(3)a]
*****
Objective 101.4
Monroe County shall regulate future development and redevelopment to maintain the
character of the community, strengthen and diversify economic resources, and protect the
natw'al resources by providing for the compatible distribution of land uses consistent with
the designations shown on the Future Land Use Map. [9J-5.006(3)(b) 3]
Policy 101.4.5
The principal purpose of the Mixed Usel Commercial 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 which are
consistent with the community character, the natural environment and orderly and
balanced growth. Employee housing and commercial apartments are also
permitted, along with other permanent residential development compatible with
the mix of uses allowed.
The maintenance and enhancement of economically viable commercial fishing,
and traditional water dependent and water related uses such as retail, storage, and
repair and maintenance shall be encouraged within this land use category
(pursuant to Goal 219 ofthis Plan).
.
This land use category is also intended to allow for the establishment of mixed
use development patterns, where appropriate. Various types of residential and
non-residential uses may be permitted; however, heavy industrial uses and
similarly incompatible uses shall be prohibited. In order to protect
environmentally sensitive lands, the following development controls shall apply
to all hanunocks, pinelands, and disturbed wetlands within this land use category:
L only low intensity commercial uses shall be allowed;
2. a maximum floor area ratio of 0.10 shall apply.
Policy 101.4.7
The principal purpose of the Industrial land use category is to provide for the
development of industrial, manufacturing, warehouse and distribution uses. Other
commercial, public, residential, and commercial fishing-related !~'!;;U!l";l1dU!i:ll
a\lli~
Policv 101.4.18
The principal pumose of the Deep Port Harbor fDPHl land use catelZorv is to
provide for the development and redevelopment of areas suitable for water-
dependent Dort and maritime uses such as seaport. marina. boatYard. commercial
fishinlZ. watercraft/vessel repair and water-dependent manufacturinlZ and service.
Port uses include recreational and commercial workinlZ waterfront uses: however.
commercial passenlZer cruise ships with a draft of 25 feet or lZreater are prohibited.
1111 412008
4
Other commercial. public. park. utilities (includiPg wastewater treatment plants)
and transient residential uses such as public lodging units are allowed. A public
lodging unit is a transient residential use that shall consist of no more than 3
bedrooms. A""~II~J;.tU!;~~J)J.l!lIi&JJ:!,\l1i.lq,'u.\W1J;I!.!JlI~tg4~~!1dJ~.QJL!MllJjt"bJil~lI.il'
r4i!illijjq\!t!l..l(II!;lrI\Jf"f:l..I!..ll\'4l~,J.:X.I1I!b.Ii,J.:..lp.!lgij!gJ!lm rmtl.lQJ..f~rJw!lJ;LQ(!
11llbitpJl.!.e..""lh;.~<.t!jllijilmt!.!..~!mi\l;~.J~L!I.(!.!t!Ltlp'f.f. .&l.l!!1!. Jm!)m'.!ol!!~iJlJ.L 1.111i~
'f!@JI.I,~c~~."17.mklll!!1A!li!tl:,,.a.i.!.;'!:l!!lLIDtilln!\lj.i!!l!J.1I.rcJ~~,.,Permanent market
rate residential. as well as emplovee housiP!! and workforce housin!! that is
accessory to principal water-dependent uses. are also allowed. This land use
category shall consist onlv of harbor areas capable of accommodating vessels of
fifteen (5) foot draft and one hundred (00) foot length to!!ether with cootiguous
Tier III upland areas. Building height in the DPH future land use category shall be
measured from Base Flood Elevation ("BFE") as defined bv the federal Flood
Insurance Rate Maps.
To complv with the mandate of Rule 9J-5.006(4)(c) F.A.C.. which requires an
apllropriate mix of residential and nonresidential uses. and to preserve
commercial working waterfront uses. the followim! mix of uses shall be reauired:
1. No less than fiftv percent (50%) of each parcel. illcllldilliUi!!Ill!~At
~, proposed for redevelopment shall be utilized for working
waterfront uses or port facilities as defined in F.S. Sections 315.02(6)
and 342.07.
2. In order to encoura!!e preservation of traditional maritime uses such as
commercial fishing. boatyards. warehouses. nautical stores. and other
port uses. no development order shall be issued that would result in
reduction of the percentage of total upland area developed with
traditional maritime uses to less than thirty percent (30%), 10 order to
assure compliance with this provision. Monroe County shall reauire
each aoplicant for development approval to redevelop more than one
upland acre within the Deep Port Harbor future land use category to
submit an inventory of (a) the traditional maritime uses and other
workiPg waterfront uses in existence within the Deep Port Harbor
category at the time of development application submittal and (b) the
net increase or decrease of each of those uses if the development
application were granted.
3. There shall be iP place prior to redevelopment of more than fiftv (50)
percent of the upland llI'elL comprisin!! the DPH future land use
category :
a. no less than forty (40) percent of the upland comprising the Deep
Port Harbor category shall be developed with nonresidential
working waterfront uses or port facilities. as defined in F .S. Sec.
315.02(6) and 342.07 includin!! but not limited to docks.
11/1412008
5
commercial fishing facilities. commercial seafood facilities. trap
storage. shipping. facilities to serve ocean-going vessels. marine
research. boat maintenance and repair. and marine transportation
facilities: and
b. no fewer than 100 residential or public lodging units.
RaGa allocations for the development of state-licensed public lodging facilities
mav be accomplished through transfer or competition within the Monroe Countv
RaGa 0001. Transfer shall be governed through the following procedure:
RaGa allocations for the development of state-licensed oublic lodging facilities
mav be accomplished onlv throU\!h the transfer from:
a) a lawfullv established state licensed oublic lodging facilitv or
b) a lawful Iv established recreational vehicle oark within Monroe Countv or
c) a municioal division of Monroe Countv with a resolution from the sending
local government.
Public lodging facilities shall be develooed through the transfer of RaGa exemot
units. orovided that thev are lawfullv existinll and can be accounted for in the
Countv's hurricane evacuation model. Contingent uoon the future adoption of a
Monroe Countv comDrehensive olan amendment to revise the Permit Allocation
Svstem to allocate a oercentage of residentiall!fowth to transient units RaGa for
oublic lodging facilities mav also be obtained throue:h comoetition within the
Monroe Countv Permit Allocation Svstem. ..
A residential dweIline: unit <RaGa') allocation mav be obtained and transferred
from (a) a lawfullv established State-licensed oublic lodginll facilitv in
unincorporated Monroe Countv currentIv serviced by a seotic system or a orivate
oackage olant that does not meet 2010 standards (b) a lawfully established State-
licensed oublic lodging facilitv in any municioalitv in the Florida Kevs tl1rJlHl:!b&
!X~1t!tM!!l4r!IJ!!-tl!t."J~flldil!JL~l!!,g.ID'.mlgl!:I1.J. or (c) a lawfully-established
recreational vehicle oark within Monroe Countv or a municioal division of
Monroe Countv tllliljJ1dlA..rt'J5D.l!JJi.!la(t:.lI!tlJl\f,~t.!!J,lit!g,IJ)J.:III"gjj:l:.elJnIllmt
A residential dwelling unit <RaGa) allocation transferred to the DPH Future
Land Use Category for deyeloDment of a Dublic lodlring unit may be redeyelooed
at the following ratios:
1. one n) bedroom. two (2) bedroom. or three (3) bedroom oublic
lodlring units may be develooed bv transferrine: allocations from
units having an eauivalent number of bedrooms without a
reduction in the number of transferred units:
2. two (2) bedroom oublic lodging units mal' be develooed at the rate
of ninety oercent (90%) of the one (n bedroom units being
transferred: and
11/1412008
6
3. three (3) bedroom Dublic lodging units may be deyeloDed at the
rate of eighty-fiye Dercent (85%) of the one (I) bedroom units
being transferred.
Policy 101.4.19
To ensure compatibility of develoDment in the Deep POlt Harbor category with
nearby NAS Key West. the County shall reauire that:
1. In areas identified bv NAS Key West as being within noise contours of
65 dB DNL and above. sound attenuation that complies with the
following standards shall be reauired: in DNL 65-69. an outdoor to
indoor noise level reduction of at least 25 dB: in DNL 70 and above. an
outdoor to indoor noise level reduction of at least 30 dB.
2. All lights or illumination used in coni unction with street. Darking. signs
or use of land and structures shall be shielded or otherwise arranged and
ooerated in such a manner that it is not misleading or dangerous to
aircraft ooerating from NAS Key West or in the vicinity thereof.
3. No oDerations from any deyelooment or land use in the Deep Port Harbor
category shall oroduce smoke. glare or other visual hazards to any usable
runway atNAS Key West.
4. No ooerations from anI' develooment or land use ill the DeeD Port Harbor
category shall produce electronic interference with navigation signals or
radio communication between the airfield at NAS Kev West and any
military aircraft.
5. New land uses that are ootential bird attractors and that NAS Key West
advises would create a safety risk to oilots and members of the oublic
shall be orohibited or restricted.
6. A notice disclosing the fact that a Darcel is located in an area that may be
affected bv NAS Kev West aircraft noise shall be affixed to all sales and
rental contracts. lease agreements for leases greater than three months.
and develoDment orders aoolicable to any Darcel within the DeeD Port
Harbor catel!:Ory on Stock Island. Receiot of the notice shall be
acknowledged in writing by the reciDient. and cooies of all such
acknowledgements shall be Drovided to NAS Kev West and Monroe
County. Nothing in this Dolicv or the regulation adooted oursuant hereto
shall imoair the validity or enforceability of any sale. transfer. or lease. or
contract for the sale. transfer. or lease of any interest in real prooertv. nor
shall anything in this Dolicv or the regulation adoDted Dursuant hereto be
deemed to create a defect in the sale. transfer. or lease agreement. In
additi on. the notice shall be affixed to all lI~ds_.!!J!!Lqj!lg.,J;r"'!~\,.jil!!!S
1!1IilMllr.S. in the DPH land use category.
11114/2008
7
L4Atsubdivision plats and conditional use aporovals granted after adootion
of this Ilolicv for orooerties in the Deep Port Harbor category sball
contain a provision or notation indicating that all or a Dortion of the
IlroDertv is in an area that mav be affected bv NAS Kev West aircraft
noise.
8. No modification. condition 01' reslIiction. other than the above. on anv
olan amendment. land development regulation. 01' develooment order
recommended by NAS Kev West shall be required if its inclusion in a
olan amendment land develooment regulation. or development order
would constitute a taking of orooertv or would inordinatelv burden an
existing use of real propertv or a vested right to a soecific use of real
Dropertv under the Bert 1. Harris Act.
No later than 90 days after the effective date of this policv. Monroe County.
military installations in the Countv. and the slate land planning agency shall
initiate the comprehensive plan amendment orocess for adoption of a
comprehensive plan amendment establishing County-wide policies for
coordination with militarv installations and to establish criteria to ensure the
compatibility of develooment with adiacent or closelv proximate military
installations as reQuired bv Fla. Stat. Sections 163.3175 and 163.3177(6)(a).
The comprehensive 1llan amendment process shall be initiated bv an initial
meeting to negotiate the terms of such policies. and such meetings shall
continue thereafter until the plan amendment is adolltild bv the County.
...
Policy 101.4.21
Monroe County hereby adopts the following density and intensity standards for the future land
use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and described in Policies 101.4.1 _
101.4.ll.: [9J-5.006(3)(c)7].
FutUl"e Land Use Densities and Intensities
Fulul"e Land Use Allocated Density (per Maximnm Net Density Maximum
Category And aCI"e) (pel' buildable acre) Intensity (floor
Corresponding al"ea ratio)
Zonin...
Agriculture (A) o du N/A 0.20-0.25
(no directly o rooms/spaces N/A
corresoonding zoning)
Airport (AD) Odu N/A 0.10
(AD zoning) o rooms/soaces N/A
Conservation (C) Odu N/A 0.05
(CD zoning) o rooms/spaces N/A
1111412008
8
.
Education (E) o du N/A 0.30
(no directly o rooms/spaces N/A
corresnondin~ zoning)
Industrial (I) I du 2 du 0.25-0.60
(I and MI zoning) o rooms/spaces N/A
DeeD Port Harbor 1 du (market rate) 2 du (market rate) 0.35-0.60
@'ill 5 du 7 du
(OPH zoning) {~j)pr.!I!!/lJ~/workforce/ (l1!l)!!~!J.!ll!l/workforcel
emDlovee) emplovee)
12 units (Dublic lodging) 15 units (public lodging)
Institutional (INS) o du N/A 0.25-0.40
(no directly 3-15 rooms/spaces 6-24 rooms/spaces
corresDondin~ zoning)
Mainland Native 0.01 du N/A 0.10
, (MN) (MN zoning) o rooms/spaces N/A
Military (M) 6du 12 du 0.30-0.50
(MF zoning) 10 rooms/spaces 20 rooms/snaces
Mixed 1-6 du 6-18 du 0.10-0.45
Use/Commercial 5-15 rooms/spaces 10-25 rooms/spaces
(MC)(g)
(SC, UC, DR, RV, and
MU zoning)
Mixed Approx. 3-8 du 12du 0.25-0.40
Use/Commercial o rooms/spaces o rooms/spaces
Fishing (MCF)(g)
(CFA, CFV(c), CFSD
zonin~)
Public Facilities (PF) Odu N/A 0.10-0.30
(no directly o rooms/spaces N/A
corresDonding zoning)
Public o du N/A 0.10-0.30
Bnildings/Grounds o rooms/spaces N/A
(PB)
(no directly
corresnondin~ zoning)
Recreation (R) 0.25 du N/A 0.20
(PR zoning) 2 rooms/sDaces N/A
Residential 0-0.25 du N/A 0-0.10
Conservation (RC) o rooms/spaces N/A
I (oS and NA zoning)
Residential Low (RL) 0.25-0.50 du 5 du 0.20-0.25
(SS(d), SR, and SR-L o rooms/spaces N/A
zoning)
Residential Medium approx. 0.5-8 du (l N/A 0
(RM) dulIot) N/A
11114/2008
9
(IS zoning) o rooms/spaces
Residential High (RH) approx. 3-16 du (1-2 12 du 0
(IS-D(e), URM(e), and dullot) 20 rooms/spaces
UR(f) 'zoninJ,) 10 rooms/spaces
Notes:
Ca) "N/A" means that maximwn net density bonuses shall not be available.
(b) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the
maximum net densities bonuses shall not be available.
(c) The allocated density for CFV zoning shall be 1 dwellil1g ul1it per lot Bl1d the maximum net density bonnses shall
110t be available.
(d) Maximum net density bonuses shall not be available to the SS district
(e) The allocated density for IS-D and URM zoning shall be 2 and I dwelling units per lot, respectively and the
maximum net density bonuses shall not be available.
CI) The maximum net density for the UR district shall be 25 for units where an units are designated as affordable
housing.
(g) For properties consisting of hammocks, pinelands or disturbed wetlands within the Mixed Use! Commercial and
Mixed. Use/ Commercial Fishing land use categories, the floor area ratio shall be 0.10 and the maximum net
residential density bonuses Dot apply.
(11) Uses under the categories of Agriculture~ Education. Institutional, Public Facilities. and Public Buildings and
Uses, which have no directly corresponding zoning, may be incorporated into new or existing zoning districts as
appropriate.
(i) The Maximum Net Deasity is the maxhnum density allowable with the use of TDRs.
(j) In the DPH Future Land Use catel!OlV. density and intensity bonuses allowed under Policy 219.1.2 .are additional.
(1<) Notwithstandinl;!: the above densities and intensities the maximwn develooment in the DPH Futw"e Land Use
Categorv includiruz incentives and bonuses shall be flOJL.J.utn.I DubHe lode.ine. mits 306
4f1.u.r~19k.lci.workforcelemolovee housinll. units and 49 market rate units.
(1) In the DPH future land use catel!orv the ODen soace ratio shall be a..m.inim,um ttfO:20 (20%) unu..ro.nsiSlt1,!'lt "'.w,
t1llLO-'H~!L'i1uu:!t.I!tiIlli1',\n"~IUS fur hahi.tnUult.'-. .
* *' *'
Goal 212
Monroe County shall prioritize shoreline land uses and establish criteria for shoreline
development in order to preserve and enhance coastal resources and to ensure the continued
economic viability of the County. [9J-5.012(3)(a); 9J-5.013(2)(b)2]
...
Objective 212.4
By Janmuy 4, 1998, Monroe County shall complete an analysis of the need for additional
marina facilities and shall develop criteria for marina siting which shall meet or exceed
sMe standards. [9J-5.012(3)(b)1,2 and 3; 9J-5.013(2)(b)2]
...
Policy 212.4.4
Applicants for development approval of marinas with three (3) or more slips,
other than marinas in existing harbors located in the Deeo Port Harbor Future
Land Use CategOIV_ shall meet the following:
1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria (See Policy 212.4.3); and
11114/2008
10
2. Monroe County's dock siting critetia (See Objective 212.5 and related
policies); and
3. criteria of Rule 17-312 Part IV and Rule 18-21.004, F.A.C. [9J-
5.012(3)(c)I,2,3 and 8; 9J-5.0I3(2)(c)1 and 6]
Pursuant to the inherent maritime characteristics of the Deep Port Harbor IDPH)
Future Land Use Categorv. a\lplicants for development approval for marinas and
port facilities in the DPH Future Land Use Categorv mal' obtain a County
building permit as of right for the construction of marinas and port facilities.
including docking facilities of any dimension. uPon presentation of required
permits from state and federal regulatorv agencies having iurisdiction to authorize
that development. and pavment of the aoplicable building permit fee.
.. *
Policy 212.4.7
Applicants for a permit to develop a new matina or expand an existing marina
facility shall obtain necessary permits from all applicable state and federal
regulatory agencies prior to issuance of a County permit. [9J-5.0l2(3)(c)1,2,3
and 8; 9J-5.0I3(2)(c)1 and 6]
*. *
Policy 212.5.4
The following restticlions shall apply to all structures built over or adjacent to
water (including but not limited to boat docks, fishing piers, swimming piers and
observation decks). exceot the submerged lands in the Deeo Port Harbor Future
Land Use Categorv lving outside the Main Shios Channel:
1. the maximum permitted length of docks shall be commensurate with the
shoreline width of the land parcel at which the dock is located, subject to a
maximum length of 100 feet from the mean low water line;
*.*
Goal 213
Monroe County shall ensure adequate public access to the beach or shoreline. [9J-5.012(3)(a);
9J-5.0I3(2)(a)]
Objective 213.1
Monroe County shall maintain and increase the amount of public access to the beach or
shoreline consistent with the estimated public need and environmental constraints. [9J-
5.o12(3)(b)9]
II114/2008
11
Policy 213.1.1
Monroe COlUlty shall complete a Pu blic Access Plall for lUIillcorporated Monroe
COlUlty. The Public Access PIIlll shall estimate the existing capacity of Illld need
for the following types of public access facilities:
1. public access poin1s to the beach or shoreline through public Illllds;
2. public access points to the beach or shoreline through private Illllds;
3. parking facilities for beach or shoreline access;
4. coastal roads and facilities providing scenic overlooks;
5. marinas;
6. boat ramps;
7. public docks;
8. fishing piers; Illld
9. traditional shoreline fi.shing areas. [9J-5.012(3)(c)9]
Policy 213.1.2
Monroe COlUlty shall adopt Land Development Regulations which:
1. implement recommendations of the Public Access PIIlll;
2. provide for the enforcement of public access to beaches renourished at
public expense by prescription, prescriptive easement, or any other legal
means;
3. provide for the enforcement of public access requirements of the Coastal
Zone Protection Act of 1985;
4. specify standards for trllllsportation and parking facilities for beach Illld
shoreline access;
5. include environmental design criteria which reflect environmental
constraints. [9J-5.012(3)(c)9]
6. ensure adequate public access to public facilities including boat ramps,
docks, and fishing piers and bridges. [F.S. 342.07 (2006)].
* "'*"''''
1t!14/2008
12
Goal 219 -- Community Character and P,'eservation of Recreational and Commercial
Wol"ldng Waterfl"Onts
It is the intent of the County to preserve and enhance the working waterfront identity and
character of the Keys, and to promote the responsible and economically viable management of
its coastal area.
Objective 219.1
Monroe County shall implement a strategy that provides regulatOlY incentives and
criteria to encourage the preservation and enhancement of recreational and economically
viable commercial working waterfronts.
Policv 219.1.1
The Countv shall take a oroactive role in encour8l!:ing the maintenance and
enhancement of communitv character. and economicallv viable traditional uses on
the waterfront through adherence to the following key tenets of working
waterfront preservation:
1. Protect the working waterfront bv establishing that commercial fishing
activities are comoatible with other working waterfront uses including
water dependent uses. pursuant to Florida Statute 342.07.
2. Recognize the important role of boatvards and other maritime service
facilities. and encourage the maintenance and enhancement of water-
deoendent SUODort facilities.
3. SUODOr! the continuation of orograms that orovide historical and
educational information and training in the marine and commercial fishing
industries.
4. Supoort mixed use development adiacent to marinas which Drovides a range
of services and activities for boaters and their families. including
restaurants. shoos. and other activities for residents and visitors.
5. Encourage oublic access and creation of oublic soaces in the redevelooment
of marine facilities through the orovision of pedestrian access along the
shoreline. orotection of view sheds. and creation of oublic ooen soace.
giving due consideration to public safetv concerns.
6. Establish that non-conforming structures that are lawfullv established and
located within the DeeD Port Harbor Future Land Use categorv and the
Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing Land Use categorv. as indicated on the
Future land Use map mav be rebuilt if dama~ed or destroved. orovided
that they are rebuilt to the preexisting use building footprint and
configuration without increase in densitv or intensitv of use. consistent
with FEMA reouirements.
1lI14/2008
13
7. Protect l.l9.!u:!~~i4~n!iJlLsquare footage within the Deep Port Harbor land
use categOlV through the entitlement to NROGO exempt redevelopment of
11I!Vl!l,l1x.s,,'!!1!Wj~l!t!l square footage.
8. Provide working waterfront development incentives within the Deep POll
Harbor Future Land Use categOlV through the separate calculation of non-
residential intensitv and residential densitv.
9. Recognize the hardship for maritime uses to complv with standard
regulations for parking requirements bv allowing shared parking facilities
located within walkin!! distance of a water-based transportation facilitv to
satisfv off-street parking requirements.
10. Provide opportunities for and encoura!!e development agreements and
inter-local agreements governing the use of public and private waterfront
lands which promote the goals. obiectives and policies of the
Comprehensive Plan.
I!. Establish that the development or redevelopment of public lodging
facilities exceeding 10 rooms or 10 public lodging units will require
compliance with the inclusionlllV housing requirements.
12. Recognize the necessitv of a skilled maritime industries labor force and
their inherent income requirements by providin~. that within the DPH
Future Land Use cate!!orv the terms "emplovee housing" and "workforce
housing" shall mean honsing to accommodate recreational and
commercial working waterfront emploYees who !!enerate a minimum of
70% of their income from an emplover with a Monroe Countv
occupational license. Seventv percent (70%) of all required affordable
housing shall complv with affordable housing income restrictions. Thirtv
percent (30%) of required affordable housing built as emplovee or
workforce housin!! for a particular development maY be permitted for
skilled maritime industries labor without regard to income level. however
the requirement for 70% of the applicants' income to be derived in
Monroe Countv shall applv. Market rate residential dwelling unit
allocations shall be required for the emplovee or workforce housing
portion of the required affordable housing that does not complv with all
affordable housing income restrictions and shall count toward the
inclusionlllV housing requirements.
Policv 219.1.2
The strategy to protect and enhance recreational and commercial working
waterfronts shall include the following actions:
I. Prioritv for shoreline development shall be !riven to water-dependent uses.
In order to prevent the loss of existing commercial harbor frontalZe to
11/1412008
14
exclusive residential use. no approval mal' be issued for permanent
residential uses. excluding emplovee/workforce housi11lr. along anI'
waterfront area which maintains at least four (4) feet at mean low water at
the shoreline. However. in the Deep Port Harbor Future Land Use
Category water-dependent facilities such as public lodging establishments
mal' be constructed along the waterfront on anI' parcel that provides
commercial. recreational and/or public boating access to marine and
coastal waters.
2. Public/Private investment for properlv preservation. either through
purchase of properlv or purchase of the development rights to the
properly.
3. In the Deep Port Harbor Future Land Use category. the Countv shall
provide land use intensitv and densitv bonuses to encourage development
that provides public access to the shorelines and waters of Monroe Countv
and to encourage preservation or expansion of recreational and
commercial working waterfronts. fI:ifrr tlla IllIlllISJ.l:!tacl,,Jm~ dala
W!llIllilu!jb~-<!!,D o''!''.llLtluLexistjwuLntkal!lt.aniL)rJldiinlL)l'Ale.-f''onJ
!!!~".M!l=blt_Uml!i.!.\Cd..ljL.thIl....cIlUn.I:I'...ID....a....furm.a.t.Jl.l:J:e..ta hie tIl t~
ll'1..1I-!lr.~~!lL!!!lY_fll!D.oiJIlLW!:lWjm:._ The bonus program ll\lplicable to
the Deep Port Harbor Future Land Use Categorv shall include the
following incentives:
a. A develOpment application for redevelopmenf of a waterfront parcel
within the Deep Port Harbor Future Land Use Category that proposes
both
(I) to ]lrovide boatvard services as a principal use of the parcel. or to
provide public access to marine and coastal waters. including without
limitation boatil1ll access throU!!h a marina open to the public. along at
least seventv percent (70%) of the parcel's water frontage: and
(2) to construct port facilities that will substantiallv improve the
dockage capacitv of the parcel proposed for development.. bv
expanding dockage. measured in linear feet of piers. docks. and
wharves. to no less than one hundred fifty percent 050%) of the
dockage existing on the propertv as of the date of adoption of this
policv resulting in a ratio of no less than 200 linear feet of dockage
per one upland acre.
shall be entitled to a public lodging density bonus of 80% and a densitv
bonus of 60% f!lJ:),lII:JJ,llI~~t..r!.!:J,I1\!,,J!,lr!'~d_,!hle--J!!U.lSiMl!. and shall be
further entitled to an intensitv bonus of 25% for nonresidential uses.
ulwl~li.J.-!L_the"J)t~'L-"~ll_i!I_I~jlli.~y J.lHA,U,. The term "expanding
dockage" as used in sub-parallraph 5.a(2) above includes not only
construction of new docks and ]liers but also the substantial imorovement
11/14/2008
15
of existing wharves. ~.~"lt.!lIl~. ,!Il(t.,J~\I!;l.\l\lt~ and the addition of finger
piers. bol\ards or pilings to facilitate mooring of vessels.
b. A development application for redevelopment of non-waterfront parcels
within the Deep Port Harbor Future Land Use Categofl' that prODoses to
utilize no less than fifty percent (50%) of the parcel for working
waterfront uses or port facilities as defined in F.S. Sections 315.02(6) and
342.07. and to include as a Drincipal use @ the Darcel one or more
traditional maritime uses such as commercial fishing. boatv ards.
warehouses. nautical stores. Dr other port uses shall be entitled to .1bl!!IWir
lm!Jlli!g~j!.!~~J~!p.~<1fJ!.Oolo. a'I~1.\J.t~~i:bt" b.lllli!~!l"/tl.h!;lll~orn~
rr.lliritt~~!1l.!fJ!IID..~il\,g,_-an.d=lULjm!'.!WJ.~.J!.IlI!!J!L,I!L],ii%_lig
llimrl~id(.'llJ:iAI..u.~4mlt~.llljllf._(w'~J':4.~jll.l'JlJll;y_ll!,.k!,~l~
c. To encourage DreservatiDn of commercial fishin!! use. a development
aDPlication to redevelop a parcel of land within the Deep Port Harbor
Future Land Use Cate!!DfI' shall entitle the aDPlicant to a Dublic lodllinll
and llu,J!ffm:lI.llbl(.' (inrom,' remictedl llimsilll! densitv bonus of 80%
i!.IdJ.lltiUlt...alIll1;ll.tfJI .l~nsilv. transferable to any parcel within the Deep
Port Harbor Future Land Use CatellOfl'. provided that the application
meets the following criterion:
The application secures commercial fishinll use of a parcel of land
within the Deep Port Harbor Future Land Use Categofl'. bv
recorded dedication in perpetuitv. In order to meet this criterion.
the principal use of the dedicated parcel must remain in perpetuitv
commercial fishinll: includinll such activities and facilities as
dockalle for fishing vessels. loadim! docks and bavs trap stOflll!e
fish processinll. fueling. icelrefril!eration plants. fishing Diers. and
sale of seafood products, d!!l.1l uses that SUPDOrt commercial
fishing. such as seafood restaurants and markets. and public
access structures.
This bonus shall be derived from. but Olav not be utilized in the
development of. land dedicated tD and used for commercial fishinll. The
dedicated parcelnsed to secure this bonus shall be ineligible for award of
a bonus under (a) or (b\. abDve.
d. The bonuses awarded as provided in sub-sections a throUllh c above
shall apply to. but shall not be derived from. development of a public
lodlling establishment. The nonresidential intensitv. Dublic lodginll
densitv. and lIffru:dJlhllLhouSinll densitv of the land to which the bonus
aDDlies shall each be seDaratelv calculated. without deductiDn of land area
occuDied by or designated for another use or uses. and shall be based on
the densities and intensities found in the Table of Densities and Intensities
located within Policy 101.4.21.
11114/2008
16
Policy 219.1.3
The County shall not vacate, diminish, or otherwise impair publicly-owned
pathways, sidewalks, roads, ends of roads, parking areas, docks or boat launching
facilities, and other access points that are currently used, or susceptible to use by
tl1e public to access thfl shorelines.
Policy 219.1.4
The County shall collaborate and coordinate with Keys municipalities, mainland
coastal counties and municipalities, and State and Federal agencies on issues
affecting recreational and commercial working waterfronts. To accomplish this,
the County shall:
1. Participate in The Waterfronts Florida Partnership Program. This
program helps participating communities develop a plan to revitalize,
renew and promote interest in their waterfront districts;
2. Ensure consistent and coordinated implementation of the Stock Island
Livable CommuniKeys Plan and the Comprehensive Plan, LDRs, and
other activities designed to preserve the working waterfront.
3. Coordinate with the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) to
implement the recommendations of the 2006 Recreational Boating
Access in Florida State Parks study to increase recreational boating
access within the state p~ks located in Monroe County.
4. Coordinate with municipalities in Monroe County and Miami-Dade
County, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) / Area
of Critical State Concern Program, the Florida Department of
Transportation, NOAA! Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary,
Everglades National Park, Biscayne National Park, and Florida Sea
Grant.
****
Objective 219.7
To protect and increase the extent of publicly owned access to its shorelines and
navigable waters.
Policy 219.2.1
The County shall inventoIY the waters of Monroe County to determine
appropriate sites for one or more public anchorages and mooring fields iliat shall
be available to the boating public on a first come, first served basis.
11/14/2008
17
Section 2.
Severability. Ifany 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 3.
ReDeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secreaty of
the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Department of
Community Affairs or Administrative Commission finding the amendment is in compliance with
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida at a special meeting of said Board held on the 3"' day of December, 2008.
Mayor George Neugent
Mayor Pro Tem Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner Kim Wigington
Commissioner Heather Carruthers
Commissioner Mario Di Gennaro
(SEAL)
Attest: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By:
By:
Mayor
Deputy Clerk
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
APPROVED AS T ORM:
M '
SUSAN M. G SLEY
ASSISTA~O~; ~g
Date '7f
18
NOTICE OF SPECIAL BOCC MEETING
NOTICE OF ATTORNEY-CLIENT CLOSED SESSION
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING
TO CONSIDER
A COMPLIANCE AGREEMENT AND AMENbMENTS TO
THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
REGARDING THE WORKING WATERFRONT
CONTINGENT UPON APPROVAL BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS at th8!r reguJar1y scheduled meeting on Nl1ieni:llf 19, 2008, a S\*bll Meellng of
the Board IMR be held on Wednesday, December 3. 2008 beginning at 10:QO A.M. in the HaM)'
Government center, 1200 Truman Avenul, Key west, Monroe COUnty, Aorlda. At IhEI Special
MeeUna, pursuant to Seclion 288.011(8), Aor1da statutes, 11'1 A\tQmey-CIlent Closed s.ion will be
held 10 cll1c1llS penc!ilg rlligalion In the mailer of Depadmed of~ A/fIlIS v. Manmt County,
tl IlL. DOAH 08-2035. Folbwing Ih8Atlomq-Clent Closed Session. theBoard IMII consider proposals
to reg.J1a1e the UH of land Yoilhln lBlincospcmted Morroe county.
^ PUBliC HEARING wi take place gO December 3, 20031110;00 AM~ or IS soon IheJ"Nfter as I1lIY be heard, at
Harvey Govtmment Center, 1200 Truman Avenue, Key West, Monroe COunty, florida torevlewe1\d reeeive pl4l1
comment for the foUll'M1'd Items:
1. CONSIDFIlATlllN 01' A COMPliANCE AGREEMENT WlTH THE DfPARTBT Of COMIIUNnY AFFAIRS CONCERNING THE
Y!AR 2OQ8.01 MEHtlMEt{TS TO MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 CONPREHENBtYE PLAN RELATING TO THE WORKING WA.
TERFRONT,INCLUDlNG SlIT HOT UMIJEDTO CREATION OF A NEW fUTURE LAND USE MAP DfSIGNATION CALLED OfEP
PORT HARBOR AND WORKING WATERFRONT PRESERVATION AND ENKANCEMENT JM~IVES INCLUDING A DEN6fl'(
BONUS PROGRAM AND SpecIAL OEVELOPM!NT COHSIDEftAnoNS.
2. AN aRDlHAN~E OF THE MOHAm: COUNTY BOARD nF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING AMENDMENTS TO THE
MONROt! COUNl"t 2010 COMPREHENllIVE PLAN PURSUANT 1'0 A COMPUANCE AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARrMENT Of
cOMMUNITY AFfAIRS ACCORDING TO RA.It'AT, 1103.3184; AMENDING THE MI.m: LAND USE ELEMftrr AND THE CON.
SERVATlON AND COASTAL MAIfAGEIlENT ELEMENT REOARDlNO RECRfAnoNAL AND COMMERCIAl WORKING WATER-
FRONtS; AMENDING THI! FMURE LAND USE El.!MI!N1' AND THE FIJTlIR! LAND USE MAP TO CREt.TE THE DEEP PORT
HARBOR FtmlRE LAND USE CATEGORY; esTABLISHING ALLOWED USES ANb OEVaOPMEHT CIUTERIA. FOR THE DEEP
PORT HARBOR FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY AND WORKHO WATEItFROHT PRESERVATION ANO EJIlAHCEMENI' INCEN-
TIVEt INCLUDNGA oENSJJY BONUS PROGRAM AND SPECIAL DEVB.OPIlENT CONSIDERATIONS; ADOPTING MURE LAND
USE GOAL, OBJECTIVES AND PDUCIES RELATeD TO COMI'ATlBL/TY OF OEV8.QPIIENT wrTH MLlTARY INSTALLATIONS;
PROV1DING FOR SEVERABILITY AND REPEAL OF IN:CONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR ~MlTTAL TO THE DE-
PARTMENTOF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
TIu ~unIIQ IS bq held., aa:crdllnce willi \IwJ pnl'I'lSlOIIacf Sedian 95-511 althe Monroe CMm\yCodl,Ir'ldChlp~ 125.66 and
163.3197, of Ihe Flcwlde Slaluln. Copier 01 !he I.'fOpCl8Id dJq.. .,. M1JbIe allhe Pklnr'ing Oeperfmenl olI'lteS In MBmthon tnd
Plllnlllioo'M/mdll(lnormalbUSlnesshDlnaIMiOlllnellWllW.monfCleCOlJrRj-lI,gov
P\lrsUanllo Fbrida Sl8lute 2&i.0105, thlCOUnly befetJy ll(h'iIe51M pWIc lhllt. ifl F*90n decides to lIppuIlII)' dIlcillloolllld& by Ihis
CMlmmlOllwilhlttpedlollPJmll!llCClllldlMdalibrneelirQor/lthNmg, lheVmusleftfllllelbal\tlevelbalinreccrdofllle~
11lg II madII, whk:h I'lll:Udll'dudelllllllel~rnllll)'8I'ldeWlince I4'0Il whlcll lllelpplllll isbesed AOAAlIlislanCe' Anyoi'llilneedll'lg speaaI
assiIlanctalllll: BoMdolColrltfCcimmlssbnel1 HeariI'Q We lell disabililyahouldlOOnlacllhePlaooing Oeparlmenl by 5 PM on NoYem-
ber2tl,:2008I$.2000
Inset
"
Monroe co~.n .
1 >"J$r~
V ..... ;~.,.
I l;I:: U.s., .
---.. ...~ \.<
~'/,;:
Y1
~~l
~
And""rew Orner Trivette, Director
Growth Management Division
2798 CNarseas Highway, SlJte 410
Maralhon, Florida 33050 (305) 289-2500
i
Ol(I!!;Y ~2!!~E
(:305) 294-4641
Monroe County
Board of County Commissioners
Office of the County Administrator
The Historic Gato Cigar Factory
1100 Simonton Street, Suite 205
Key West, FL 33040
(305) 292-4441 - Phone
(305) 292-4544 - Fax
.(i).
-==ta~
~.
MEMORANDUM
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMr......ONERS
Mayor George Neugent, District 2
Mayor Pro Tern Sylvia J. Murphy, District S
Kim Wigington, District 1
Heather Carruthers, District 3
Mario Di Gennaro, DislJict 4
TO: County Commissioners, Clerk of Courts & County Attorney
FROM: Connie Cyr, Aide to County Administrator
DATE: December 1, 2008
SUBJECT: Comments from Naval Air Station
Please fmd enclosed a docUlllent that was received at by office from Naval Air Station Key West with
regards to the ordinance that will be presented at the December 3, 2008 meeting.
Naval Air Station Key West
Comments
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
December 3,2008 Meeting
Ordinance
Presented by
CAPT. Steven W. Holmes
Commanding Officer, NAS Key West
The proposed ordinance was reviewed for consistency with Florida law, the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan, and the land use planning documents listed below.
. Chapter 163.3175 (I) - Florida Statutes
. Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) - Florida Statutes
· Chapter 380.0552 (d), (t), (h)(4). (k), and (I}- Florida Statutes
. Chapter 9J-5 - Florida Administrative Code (F AC)
. Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan
. Goal 101
. Policy 101.2.6
. Policy 101.7.7
. Objective 101.8
. Goal 1301
. Objective 1301.1
. Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan, Volume 1
. Strategy 1.1
. Action Item 1.1.1
. Strategy 1.3
. Action Item 1.3.4
. Strategy 2.1
. Action Item 2.1.1
. Harbor Preservation/Redevelopment Intra-island Corridor Enhancement Plan, Stock
Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan. Volume 11
. Goal I
. Strategy 2
. Action Items
. Goal 2
. Strategy 6
. Goal 4
. Strategy 2
.Action Items
. Goal 5
. 1977 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study
2007 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones Study Update
2
Executive Summary
Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West is the Navy's premier East Coast pilot training facility for
tactical aviation squadrons. NAS Key West supports operational and readiness requirements for
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, National Guard units, Federal
Agencies, and Allied Forces. The Navy's mission in Key West is to maintain the flexibility and
capacity to support current national defense requirements. The Navy has had a presence in the
Florida Keys for 185 years, and injects over $635 million annually into the Momoe County
economy. NAS Key West is currently exploring others ways to contribute positively to the local
economy.
Any plan to increase residential density near NAS Key West is alarming, because "it is possible
that residential encroachment on the base could be an incrementally increasing factor in future
decisions concerning base closures. In the meantime, residential encroachment will likely affect
operations at the base and impair its value, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness." Toppino's, Inc. VS.
DCA (2004 DOAH). Encroachment is defined by the Navy as "any non-Navy action planned or
executed which inhibits, curtails, or possesses the potential to impede the performance of Navy
activities." The Navy is not only concerned about current operations, but those involving new
aircraft as well. "Residential encroachment limits the flexibility of air stations to conduct
operations." Toppino's case. The Office of Economic Adjustment recognizes zoning and land
use controls as one of the most effective tools in preventing encroachment / incompatible use.
The Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Study is a recognized zoning tool that
recommends no residential development in the 65 DNL (day-night average) and higher noise
contours. Ibe AICUZ recommendations are consistent with reports and studies conducted by the
Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), FAA Southern Airports Division, Federal Interagency
Committee on Aircraft Noise (FICAN), and other local, state and federal organizations. The
proposed comprehensive plan amendment creates a Deep Port Harbor (DPH) future land use
designation that potentially increases permanent residential density within the 65 - 74 DNL noise
contours of NAS Key West by 600% and adds 800 transient residential units where none are
currently permitted. The amendment is inconsistent with Florida's principles for guiding
development. Moreover, the proposed amendment states the need for additional affordable
housing, afforded by the DPH category initiative, but it has not sufficiently demonstrated this
need. Finally, the principal purpose of the DPH category can be met by current zoning.
To preserve the mission capability of NAS Key West, land use adjacent or proximate to the
installation needs to be compatible with its military operations. Military combat aircraft create
high noise. Residential development is not compatible with high noise. "No amount of sound-
proofing of buildings will reduce noise outside buildings." Toppino's case. Many existing
commercial and industrial uses near NAS Key West are not affected by military operations nor
do these uses negatively impact military operations. The objective of both the Navy and Momoe
County should be to seek solutions that result in compatible land use. The goal of the Navy in
Key West is to work with Momoe County to ensure the public's health, safety, and welfare, and
to protect and preserve NAS Key West's mission capability.
3
Navy Signifcance, Objectives, and Concerns in Monroe County
Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West is the Navy's premier East Coast pilot training facility for
tactical aviation squadrons. NAS Key West supports operational and readiness requirements for
Department of Defense, Department of Homeland Security, National Guard units, Federal
Agencies, and Allied Forces. The Navy's mission in Key West is to maintain the flexibility and
capacity to support current national defense requirements. The Navy has had a presence in the
Florida Keys for 185 years, and injects over $635 million annually into the Monroe County
economy. NAS Key West is exploring others ways to contribute positively to the local economy.
To preserYl~ the training viability of NAS Key West, land use adjacent or proximate to the
installation needs to be compatible with its military operations. Military combat aircraft create
high noise. Residential development is not compatible with high noise. "No amount of sound-
proofing of buildings will reduce noise outside buildings." Toppino's, Inc. vs. Department of
Community Affairs, 2004 Fla. Div. Adm. Hear. LEXIS 1614, at *8. Many of the existing
commercial and industrial uses near NAS Key West are not affected by military operations nor
do these uses negatively impact military operations. The objective of both the Navy and Monroe
County should be to seek solutions that result in compatible land use. The goal of the Navy in
Key West is to work with Monroe County to ensure the public's health, safety, and welfare, and
to protect and preserve NAS Key West's mission capability.
Any plan to increase residential density near NAS Key West is alarming, because "it is possible
that residential encroachment on the base could be an incrementally increasing factor in future
decisions concerning base closures. In the meantime, residential encroachment will likely affect
operations at the base and impair its value, efficiency, and cost-effectiveness." Toppino's, at *8.
Encroachment is defined by the Navy as "any non-Navy action planned or executed which
inhibits, curtails, or possesses the potential to impede the performance of Navy activities." The
Navy is not only concerned about current operations, but those involving new aircraft as well.
"Residential encroachment limits the flexibility of air stations to conduct operations." Toppino 's,
at *8. The Office of Economic Adjustment (OEA) recognizes zoning and land use controls as
one of the most effective tools in preventing encroachment and incompatible development.
Amendment's Inconsistency with Noise Studies' Recommendations
The Department of Defense (DoD) developed a planning tool to help communities detect
encroachml."Ilt and recommend land use controls to promote compatible development with
military air stations. This planning tool is the Air Installation Compatible Use Zones ("AICUZ")
program, which is modeled after the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) program that arose
from the Noise Control Act of 1972. The public's health, safety, and welfare, and compatible
land use art: the principal goals of the AICUZ Study and applicable to Key West.
The density table associated with proposed Policy 101.4.21 indicates a significant increase in
residential (permanent and transient) from the existing Industrial (I) future land use designation.
The properties located within the proposed Deep Port Harbor (DPH) future land use designation
at issue are within the CNR 2 (60 - 69 DNL (day night average)) of the 1977 AICUZ Study and
within the 60 - 74 DNL of the 2007 AICUZ Study. The AICUZ studies recommend no
4
residential development in areas with noise in the 65 DNL or higher. A portion of the 1977
AICUZ Study recommendations have been adopted into the Monroe County Land Development
Regulations. The 2007 AICUZ Study uses approved DoD modeling to measure current aircraft
noise and flight patterns. These AICUZ recommendations are consistent with numerous reports
and studies conducted by the FAA, FAA Southern Airports Division, Federal Interagency
Committee on Aircraft Noise (FICAN), and other local, state, and federal organizations. The
analysis and recommendations are nationwide in scope. Many of the air installations are located
in urban areas with higher background noise and indoor living practice unlike Key West.
Accordingly, compatibility guidelines are sometimes modified at the local level to address a
specific local noise environment. The 55 - 65 DNL is also an area where people can be
negatively affected by aircraft noise. This area should be considered a buffer zone that may be
impacted by higher noise levels if operations increase or aircraft change in the future.
Although residential development is not recommended in the 65 - 69 DNL, the AICUZ Study
and similar documents allow residential uses in the 65 - 69 DNL if a community study
determines no other viable development options and ensures high noise mitigation. Specifically,
sound attenuating construction should be required to provide an outdoor to indoor noise
reduction level (NLR) of 25 dB. The 25 dB NLR assumes all windows and doors will remain
closed and the use of air conditioning year round. NLR construction criteria will not eliminate
noise problems outdoors. Outdoor living is an integral part of the Florida Keys lifestyle.
It should be noted that while most commercial and industrial uses are compatible when located
in the 65 DNL and higher, portions of these uses such as offices, retail areas, and restaurants may
require the use of sound attenuating construction methods.
Amendment Lacks Data and Analysis
The Data and Analysis (DA) provided to DCA, in February, with the earlier version of this
comprehensive plan amendment did not provide the required analysis of the existing or proposed
affordable housing developments in the general vicinity of Stock Island, nor was analysis
provided showing the lack of viable alternatives for affordable housing developments. A
thorough analysis of existing, proposed, and vacant properties outside the 65 DNL and higher,
the AIUCZ Study, would show sufficient development potential for affordable housing
alternatives. A review of affordable housing developments that are existing, under construction,
or in the development review process from Big Coppitt Key to Stock Island show a significant
number of affordable housing units. It is acknowledged that some of these developments are
also located in the 65 DNL, which further indicates a lack of coordination with NAS Key West
and the need for compatibility criteria county-wide.
The proposed amendment states the need for additional affordable housing, afforded by the DPH
category initiative, but it has not sufficiently demonstrated this need. Currently on Big Coppitt
Key, a Habitat for Humanity, 18-unit affordable housing development is under construction.
Habitat for Humanity has submitted an application for an additional 12 units on Big Coppitt Key,
but has asked for up to five years to construct the development. This long period indicates that
the current need may not be sufficient to begin construction immediately. In addition to the Habit
5
for Humanity development, a private developer is proposing an 18-unit affordable housing
development on Big Coppitt for a total of 48 affordable housing units on Big Coppitt.
There are several affordable housing developments existing and under construction on Stock
Island. Thl..Te are 76 existing affordable housing units on Stock Island and 89 under construction
at this time. The 89 unit development includes 22 market rate units as part of the final phase of
development. There will be a total of 165 affordable housing units on Stock Island. Stock Island
and Big Coppitt are within four miles of each other. There will be a total of 213 affordable
housing units in relative close proximity of the proposed DPH properties which should meet the
needs of the proposed future development and are consistent with the current zoning categories.
There are a number of studies showing the decline in the size of the workforce in Monroe
County as a result, in part, of the 9.2 percent decline in the county's population between 2000
and 2007.
Based on the remedial amendment, the principle purpose of the DPH category is to provide for
the development and redevelopment of areas suitable for water dependent, port and maritime
uses such as seaport, marina, boatyard, commercial fishing, watercraft/vessel repair, and water-
dependent manufacturing and service and include recreational and commercial working
waterfront uses. Most of these uses are currently permitted in the Maritime Industries zoning
district. It would be more appropriate to amend existing regulations to accommodate uses such
as seaports rather than create a unique zoning category for this area of Stock Island.
Amendment is Inconsistent with Florida Encroachment Law
Chapter 163.3175(1) FS states that the Florida Legislature finds that incompatible development
of land close to a military installation can adversely affect the ability of the installation to carry
out its mission and can threaten public health, safety, and welfare. This statute also recognizes
the positive economic impact military installations have on a local economy and further "finds it
desirable for the local governrnents in the state to cooperate with military installations to
encourage compatible land use, help prevent incompatible encroachment, and facilitate the
continued presence of major military installations in this state."
This legislation and Chapter 380.0552 FS (Principles for Guiding Development) acknowledge
the significant positive impact NAS Key West makes on the local economy as well as the need
for protecting this substantial public investment. The Florida Defense Industry - Economic
Impact Analysis estimates the 2007 economic impact of NAS Key West on Monroe County's
economy to be $635 million. NAS Key West represents approximately five percent of the
Monroe County workforce and represents approximately seven percent of the total county
earnings. The average earnings per military job are approximately $30,000 greater than the
average per capita income for Monroe County. It should be noted that the military civilian jobs
are stable at a time when the job market is declining in Monroe County.
There are properties affected by this amendment that are within 64 - 74 DNL of the 1977 AICUZ
Study and 60- 74 DNL of the 2007 AICUZ Update, and the public health, safety, and welfare of
the residents in these high noise areas are at risk as well as the mission at NAS Key West. The
proposed amendment could adversely affect the operations of NAS Key West's Boca Chica
6
Field due to the increased residential (over 800 percent increase for transient and 600 percent for
permanent) densities that will be permitted to locate within the 1977 AICUZ noise contours and
2007 AICUZ footprint.
The 1977 AICUZ Study, 2007 AICUZ Study Update, FAA, FICAN and others have identified
impacts related to compatible land uses and the impacts of noise on the surrounding environment.
The FAA and AICUZ studies have identified land uses that are normally compatible and those
that are not normally compatible. Residential uses are not considered compatible by the FAA for
the 65 DNL and higher noise contours.
The FAA, FICAN, and AICUZ studies group the adverse effects of noise exposure on people
into three general groups: 1) degradation of health; 2) attitudinal reactions; and 3) activity
interferenc~~. Interference with human activity includes sleep interference; speech interference
(difficulty in hearing a normal conversation); and interference with outdoor activities. Sound
attenuation can provide a reduction of outdoor to indoor noise; however, this implies that all
windows and doors are closed and air conditioning must be used full-time, year-round. Such
measures do not mitigate impacts on outdoor and indoor-outdoor living and activities. Thus,
sound attenuation and other sound mitigation in high noise areas fail to preserve and protect the
types of activities that are a major attraction and benefit of the Florida Keys lifestyle.
In addition to AICUZ-related incompatibility issues, urban development creates other
encroachment issues that may, for example, interfere with radio frequencies or impact non-
aviation training missions. The negative impacts on NAS Key West created by the proposed
ordinance make it inconsistent with the intent of Chapter 163.3175, FS or Chapter 380.0552, FS.
Policy 101.4.19 does not meet the minimum requirements of Chapter 163.3175, FS. This policy
is restricted to the Deep Port Harbor (DPH) Future Land Use category and does not provide for
coordination with NAS Key West as required by the statute.
Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) F.S. states in part; .....The future land use plan shall be based upon
surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required to
accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the area; the character of
undeveloped land; the availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services; the need for
redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of nonconforming
uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community; the compatibility of uses on
lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations; ..." The Data and Analysis (DA)
for the proposed amendments does not adequately address or support an increase in population
growth (US Census Bureau data indicates a 9.2 percent decline in population for Monroe County
between 2000 and 2007), hurricane evacuation, concurrency issues (potable water, highway
capacity, etc.), the housing needs associated with the such growth, the need for redevelopment,
the elimination of non-conforming uses which are inconsistent with community character, and
most importantly the compatibility of uses in close proximity to NAS Key West. The DA does
not address the potentially negative economic impacts to the community (loss of jobs, revenue,
etc.) should the Navy or other military organization be required to reduce their mission capability
because of the continued encroachment of incompatible use granted permits by Monroe County.
7
The DA submitted to DCA does not take into account the increased pressures on marine
industries, commercial fishing; and the working waterfront with the increased residential
densities. Commercial fishing is an important part of the Monroe County economy. Stock
Island ranks nationally on a consistent basis for a high volume of seafood products landings.
Stock Island is homeport for most of the county's crawfish industry. The DA states the need for
additional affordable housing, but has not sufficiently demonstrated this need. As stated
previously, there will be a total of 213 affordable housing units, existing and proposed, in close
proximity of the proposed development. This inventory should meet the most of the needs of the
proposed future development.
Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) F.S. further states: "The future land use plan element shall include
criteria to !be used to achieve the compatibility of adjacent or closely proximate lands with
military installations." The ordinance proposes some criteria specific to the DPH future land use
district. The issues of incompatible residential development proposed in the DPH district have
been previously discussed and are contrary principles of this statute. Policy 101.4.19 does not
adequately address the issue of compatible development or provide adequate compatibility
criteria for those properties located in the 65 DNL and higher in the 2007 AICUZ Study Update.
This policy is specific to the DPH future land use district and does not address the compatibility
criteria on III county-wide basis as required by this statute.
It is strongly recommended that the Real Estate Disclosure statements be recorded in the Monroe
County Public Records, similar to those required by the Escambia County Land Development
Code. The Disclosure should notifY property owners and occupants: I) which noise level
contour the property is located; and 2) require appropriate site design and the use of sound
attenuation construction methods to reduce the noise impact on uses within 60 DNL and higher
noise contours for both Key West International Airport and NAS Key West Boca Chica Air Field.
The disclosure should also note that these sound attenuation measures do not mitigate noise
outdoors. Outdoor living is a part of the Florida Keys lifestyle and will be greatly affected by
noise. In addition to the Disclosure Statement the following information should be provided
property owners: I) AICUZ information (similar to affordable housing deed restrictions) on the
Monroe County Property Appraiser's Record Card for affected parcels; 2) AICUZ noise contours
on the GIS maps on the Monroe County Property Appraiser's website (Escambia County, Florida
provides this service at htto://ims.co.escambia.fl.us/zoniml flu/viewer.htm).
In addition to AICUZ-related incompatibility issues, urban development creates other
encroachment issues that may, for example, interfere with radio frequencies or impact non-
aviation training missions. If the encroachment creates a severe enough impact on the operations
of the military installation, it may be required to change or significantly limit its operations and
mission. (Please see attached "Encroachment Challenges")
The Monroe: County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is inconsistent with Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) F.S.
which requires "Local governments required to update or amend their comprehensive plan to
include criteria and address compatibility of adjacent or closely proximate lands with existing
military installations in their future land use plan element shall transmit the update or amendment
to the department by June 30, 2006." The County has not met this requirement. The statute
provides an opportunity for Monroe County to coordinate with the military and more specifically
8
NAS Key West to address encroachment and compatibility issues. Such amendments could
address the issues identified in these comments.
We understand the County is obligated, in part, under Chapter 380.0552 Florida Statutes,
(Principles for Guiding Development) to protect the well-being of its citizens, it economic
diversity and viability; its resources and heritage, as well as public investments such as NAS Key
West. The proposed amendment does not comply with the following specific principles.
(d) "To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
economic development"
The amendment is inconsistent with this principle because of the increased residential densities
which will place pressures on property owners to convert their properties to a residential use.
This will impact the economic vitality of the commercial fishing and marine-oriented industries
negatively.
As previously discussed in detail there will be adverse impacts to the operations of NAS Key
West due to the increased residential densities permitted to locate in the AICUZ noise contours.
In addition to AICUZ-related incompatibility issues, urban development creates other
encroachment issues that may impact military operations. If the encroachment creates a severe
enough impact on the operations of the military installation, it may be required to change or
significantly limit its operations and mission. The Florida Defense Industry - Economic Impact
Analysis estimates the 2007 economic impact ofNAS Key West on Monroe County's economy
to be $635 million. NAS Key West represents approximately five percent of the Monroe County
workforce and represents approximately seven percent of the total county earnings. The average
earnings per military job are approximately $30,000 greater than the average per capita income
for Monroe County. NAS Key West is exploring others way to contribute positively to the local
economy.
(g) "To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys"
There are numerous military installations and sites throughout the Florida Keys. The US Navy
has had a presence in the Key West and the Florida Keys dating back to 1823 when a Naval Base
was first established to counteract piracy. The US military, specifically the Navy, is an intrinsic
part of Monroe County's history. It is common for military personnel to retire and become a
permanent part of the Florida Keys after being stationed in the Florida Keys.
(h)(4) "To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
proposed major public investments, including: Naval Air Station Key West";
The proposed significant increase in residential densities within 65 - 74DNL of the 2007 AICUZ
Study Update poses a risk to the public health, safety, and welfare of the residents and poses an
adverse impact on NAS Key West's ability to carry out its mission. NAS Key West has a
facilities plant replacement value over $712 million, which is a significant public investment in
addition to the $635 million impact on the local economy.
(i) "To limit the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the
Florida Keys."
9
A portion of the DPH district is within the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). Federal
regulations as well as the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan prohibit public investment in
infrastructure serving properties within a CHHA.
(j) "To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the
Florida Keys"
It is an appropriate goal to provide for affordable housing in a variety of land use districts,
however as previously stated, it is inappropriate to place housing in high noise areas.
(k) "To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event
of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post-disaster reconstruction plan"; and "To protect the
public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida
Keys as a unique Florida resource."
The impacts on the potential increase in densities, population and vehicles on hurricane
evacuation were not considered in the DA. Development in the county has an effect on
hurricane evacuation which affects all jurisdictions in Monroe County and could affect the
developmerlt potential of the other jurisdictions. This hurricane evacuation issue warrants being
addressed as part of the required DA.
(I) "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and
maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource."
Local government is mandated to protect the health, safety and welfare of its residents. If the
proposed amendment becomes effective, there will be a significant increase in residential
densities in a high noise area. As previously discussed, living in a high noise area poses risks to
the public's health, safety, and welfare.
The County's desire to significantly increase residential densities in an area where such uses
have not been permitted for over 20 years and to provide affordable housing is not outweighed
by its obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare; to enhance the quality of life; to
protect the County's economic well being; or protect public investments. We maintain that the
proposed comprehensive plan amendment when reviewed for consistency with the Principles for
Guiding Development, as a whole, is not consistent with the intent of the Principles as a whole
and more specifically those provisions identified above.
Chapter 9.r-S.003(90) FAC defines a comprehensive plan policy as the way programs and
activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Goal 101 of the Monroe County 2010
Comprehensive Plan is one of the goals which this ordinance implements. Goal 101 specifically
states the County shall manage growth to ''to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors...." If the proposed amendment becomes effective and permits
increased residential densities in a high noise area it will create public health, safety, and welfare
concerns and will affect the County residents' and visitors' quality oflife.
Chapter 9JS-006(3)(c)2 FAC requires amendments to the future land use element to provide for
compatibility of adjacent uses. Chapter 9J-5.003(23) defines "compatibility" as "a condition in
which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each other in a stable fashion
over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively impacted directly or indirectly by
10
another use or condition." The proposed amendment creates a compatibility issue for both the
residential uses and military installation. These uses negatively impact each other. The
proposed amendment does not enhance the quality of life or ensure the safety of residents and
visitors due to compatibility issues. In addition to potential compatibility issues with military
installations, there may be compatibility issues between commercial fishing and residential uses
which are typically incompatible due to noise, odor, and hours of operation.
It could be argued that the County would be remiss, in terms of public health, safety and welfare,
if they knowingly permitted housing, specifically, affordable housing within the higher noise
level areas, contrary to their adopted regulations. It could also be argued that it is discriminatory
to relegate affordable housing to those areas which have public health, safety and welfare
concerns, such as areas with high noise levels, high volumes of vehicular traffic, etc. The term
the Navy (U. S. Government) uses regarding this type of development is contrary to the
principles of "Environmental Justice" (as defined by U.S. EPA) which the Navy is particularly
sensitive to guard against.
The proposed amendment does not appear to be consistent with the following Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan goals, objectives and policies.
MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal 101
Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. [9J-5.006(3)a]
If the proposed amendment becomes effective the significant increases in residential densities in
the high noise contours of the NAS Key West AICUZ will create public health, safety, and
welfare concerns and will affect the County residents' and visitors' quality oflife.
Policy 101.'7.7
Monroe County shall coordinate redevelopment efforts with interested citizens' groups, the
Monroe County Housing Authority, the Monroe County Sheriff's Department, and other
appropriate local, state and federal agencies.
Objective 101.8
Monroe County shall eliminate or reduce the frequency of uses which are inconsistent with the
applicable provisions of the land development regulations and the Future Land Use Map, and
structures which are inconsistent with applicable codes and land development regulations. [9J-
5.006(3)(b)3]
Goal 1301
Monroe County shall promote and encourage intergovernmental coordination between the
County; the municipalities of Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Layton; the Counties of Dade
and Collier; regional, state, and federal governments and private entities in order to anticipate
and resolve present and future concerns and conflicts. [9J-5.015(3)(a)]
Objective 1301.1
11
Monroe County shall establish or maintain coordination mechanisms to ensure that full
consideration is given to the impacts of development allowed by the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan upon the plans of adjacent municipalities, adjacent counties of Dade and
Collier, the region, the State and the Federal Governments, as well as the impacts of those
entities' plans on the County. [9J-5.015(3)(b)I, 2 & 3]
Stock IslandlKey Haven Livable Communi Keys Master Plan, Volume I
The proposed amendment appears to be inconsistent with the Stock Island/Key Haven Livable
CommuniKeys Master Plan, Volume 1. The CommuniKeys Plans are area specific plans that are
adopted by the HOCC as part of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The objectives
of the Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan, Volume I, as listed in the
finding of fact of Ordinance 010-2007, approving the plan are: "preserve affordable housing,
preserve commercial fishing, enhance the community fishing character, provide a community
center, improve public facilities, improve regulations that improve the community without
creating a financial burden on the individual, and maintain the single family neighborhood
character of Key Haven."
The proposed ordinance does not support the preservation of maritime industries, commercial
fishing or the enhancement of the community fishing character. The Master Plan also states
"63% of the community agree or strongly agree that there is a need to protect the commercial
fishing industry. Commercial fishing is permitted in both the Maritime Industrial zoning
classification and the Mixed Use District, but is under pressure as those zones also allow for non-
commercial fishing uses, as well as residential uses." The original intent of the comprehensive
plan amendments was to protect and preserve working waterfront, but instead has increased the
residential densities many times over, therefore placing increased pressure on the remaining
commercial fishing uses.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment appears to be inconsistent with the following
strategies and actions.
"Strategy 1.1 - Maintain existing commercial and industrial uses.
Action Item 1.1.1 - Create an overlay district in appropriate areas to only permit
workforce/affordable housing in conjunction with permitted commercial and light industrial
uses."
The amendment permits increased permanent and transient residential densities in areas where
these uses have not been permitted for over 20 years. Permanent and transient residential units
compete with existing commercial and industrial uses and puts pressure on property owners to
convert historical uses to permanent or transient residential uses.
"Strategy 1.3 - Acquire waterfront property, prl'ferably with existing infrastructure to support
commercial fishing.
Action Item 1.3.4 - Amend the Land Development Regulations to eliminate the list of permitted
uses that are not consistent with the purpose of the zoning district."
The proposed amendment permits increased permanent and transient residential densities in
districts where these uses have not been permitted for over 20 years. Permanent and transient
12
residential units compete with existing commercial and industrial uses and puts pressure on
property owners to convert historical uses to permanent or transient residential uses.
"Strategy 2.1 - Encourage a mixture of commercial and residential development by preserving
adequate supply of appropriately zoned land for commercial and residential usage. ... Action
Item 2.1.1 - Initiate and complete a land use classification reevaluation plan for Stock Island."
This is important to the military and the community because a land use classification study will
ensure that the area has the appropriate mix of uses, but more importantly the study will identifY
uses that are compatible and will support the goals of the Stock Island/Key Haven Livable
CommuniKeys Master Plan. Volumes I and II. A land use classification study will identifY those
uses that should not be permitted because of incompatibility with existing or new industrial uses
or located in the noise contours associated with public airports, such as Key West International
Airport, or military air fields such as Boca Chica Field.
Harbor PreservationlRedevelopment Intra-island Corridor Enhancement Plan, Stock
Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan, Volume II
The proposed amendment appears to be inconsistent with the Harbor
Preservation/Redevelopment Intra-Island Corridor Enhancement Plan, known as the Stock
Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan. Volume II. Volume II as adopted by the
BOCC in May 2007 and is currently under review by the State of Florida Department of
Community Affairs (DCA). Volume II specifically encompasses the working waterfront area of
Stock Island known as Safe Harbor and Peninsular.
While the proposed comprehensive plan amendment affects the entire Monroe County, they were
specifically drafted to implement Volume II and be applicable to the Safe Harbor and Peninsular
properties. The Master Plan states "The Safe Harbor area of Stock Island has access to one of the
only deep-water harbors in the Keys, and serves as a major center for the County's commercial
fishing industry. Clearly the intent of these policies is to ensure the long-term preservation and
sustainability of the working waterfront elements of this area." The "vision" for the Master Plan
is stated as a "Place that ... fosters a sustainable, local economy consisting of a working
waterfront and a distinctive mix of commercial and industrial activities that complement the
community... ." The proposed comprehensive plan amendment does not appear to support the
intent or vision of Volume II of the Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan.
Volume II of the Master Plan further states the two areas (Peninsular and Safe Harbor) include
approximately 118 of upland and 96 acres of bay bottom for a total area of 214 acres. The
amendment proposes an increase in permanent residential densities is from 1 dwelling unit per
acre to a potential of 18 dwelling units per acre using maximum net density. Transient
room/spaces are not currently permitted in the MI district and are proposed to be up to 25
rooms/spaces per acre using maximum net density. If the existing water oriented uses ceased on
part or all of these two properties, the potential for residential (transient and non-transient) is
significant. While it is unlikely parcels affected by the increased densities will be able to build
out to the maximum allowable due to the constraints of ROGO; this amendment represents a
significant increase in residential densities in the noise contours NAS Key West and Key West
International Airport. It should be noted that the area described as Peninsular is located in the 70
13
DNL and higher noise contour. Safe Harbor is located in the 65 - 75 DNL noise contours for
NAS Key West and the 60 - 64 DNL noise contours for Key West International Airport.
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment does not appear to be consistent with Volume II's
following "Plan Principles": Preserve the working waterfront; Revitalize the port area while
improving its physical setting; accommodate a diversity of water-oriented activities and people;
and Respect and reinforce the heritage and character of the community."
The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is generally inconsistent with the following goals,
strategies, and actions of the Harbor Preservation/Redevelopment Intra-Island Corridor
Enhancement Plan;
"Goal 1: Provide Space for a working waterfront and its supporting industries. ... Strategy 2:
Maintain and protect maritime industrial and water-dependent uses from encroachment and
displacement by incompatible or non water-dependent uses. Action Item: Consider amending
the Land Development Regulations to eliminate from the list of permitted uses under the
Maritime Industries District (MI), those that are not clearly consistent with the purpose of the
zoning district including: . . . vacation rentals and hotels." "Strategy 3: Encourage the
development, renovation, and improvement of existing marine industrial facilities to meet
current and future needs."
The proposed amendment permits increased permanent and transient residential densities in
districts where these uses have not been permitted for over 20 years. Permanent and transient
residential units compete with existing commercial and industrial uses and puts pressure on
property owners to convert existing maritime uses to permanent or transient residential uses.
The addition of these uses is clearly inconsistent with Strategy 2 and its Action Item. The
strategies associated with this goal strongly support the concept of "No Net Loss" which was
eliminated from the ordinance and the preservation ofthe maritime industries in Monroe County.
This goal supports both the 1977 AICUZ Study and 2007 AICUZ Study Update by reducing
residential (transient and non-transient) uses within the AICUZ.
"Goal 2: Preserve commercial fishing." Strategy 3 under Goal 2 states: "Encourage the
preservation and enhancement of existing commercial fishing uses in the port area."
NOAA Fisheries statistics indicate that Key West (Stock Island) is ranked 12th nationally for
commercial fishing landings. Uses such as commercial fishing or maritime uses should be
encouraged rather than residential (transient and non-transient) uses. An increase in residential
densities puts greater pressure on property owners to change the uses of their properties from
maritime and commercial fishing uses to residential uses. Commercial fishing is vital in
maintaining County's diversity and economic base. Additionally, commercial fishing and
residential uses are typically incompatible due to noise, odor, and hours of operation. This goal
strongly supports the concept of "No Net Loss" which was eliminated from the ordinance.
This goal supports both the 1977 AICUZ Study and 2007 AICUZ Study Update by reducing
residential (transient and non-transient) uses within the AICUZ.
14
Goal 2, Strategy 6 encourages affordable housing to support the commercial fishing and seafood
industries.
The proposed amendment is not consistent with this strategy as it supports the use of permanent
and transient dwellings in the proposed DPH area where it has not been permitted previously.
The proposed increase in densities is significant. The proposed amendment permits increased
permanent and transient residential densities in districts where these uses have not been
permitted for over 20 years. Permanent and transient residential units compete with existing
commercial and industrial uses and puts pressure on property owners to convert existing
maritime uses to permanent or transient residential uses. The increase in transient residential
densities is contrary to encouraging affordable housing. The increase in non-affordable housing
densities puts pressure on developers and property owners to build permanent and transient
housing, thereby competing with affordable housing for limited land resources.
However, the increase in affordable housing, if located in the 65 DNL noise contour or higher, is
not supported by the 1977 AICUZ Study or 2007 AICUZ Study Update. Affordable housing
located in the 60 - 64 DNL should be constructed with the appropriate sound attenuation
construction methods and should also include a Real Estate Fair Disclosure notice as proposed in
both the 1977 AICUZ Study and 2007 AICUZ Study Update documents. It could be argued that
the County would be remiss, in terms of public health, safety and welfare, if they knowingly
permitted housing, specifically, affordable housing within the higher noise level areas, contrary
to their adopted regulations. It could also be argued that it is discriminatory to relegate
affordable housing to those areas which have public health, safety and welfare concerns, such as
areas with high noise levels, high volumes of vehicular traffic, etc. The term the Navy uses
regarding this type of development is contrary to the principles of "Environmental Justice" which
the Navy (U. S. Government) is particularly sensitive to guard against.
The Navy is not opposed to the development of affordable housing or providing incentives to
increase development of affordable housing in Monroe County. It is estimated that 75 percent of
the 3,300 (active duty military personnel and civilians) employed by the military rent or own in
the local markets. The goal of the Navy and other military organizations is to work
cooperatively with Monroe County to protect military installations from the encroachment of
incompatible uses and ensure affordable housing is located in such areas that protect the public
health, safety, and welfare.
Goal 4 is to "Revitalize the port area while improving its physical setting and appearance." An
Action Item under Strategy 2 of this goal states "Continue to work with the Naval Air Station at
Boca Chica, through the AICUZ process, to determine an optimal mix of uses for Peninsular,
including housing where possible, and amend the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning as necessary
to reflect and encourage the resulting mix."
This item clearly recognizes the potential effects to public health, safety and welfare by placing
residential uses (transient and non-transient) within the 65 DNL and higher as shown in the 2007
AICUZ Study Update. It also recognizes that Monroe County and the Navy/military need to
work together to prevent the continuation of encroachment issues that negatively impact the
residents of Monroe County and NAS Key West. This goal supports both the 1977 AICUZ
15
Study and 2007 AICUZ Study Update by promoting the marine-oriented businesses and
industries rather than increasing residential (transient and non-transient) uses with the AICUZ.
GoalS speaks to the diversification of the marine-oriented economy. The strategies and action
items for Goal 5 include: "expanding employment opportunities in a broad-range or marine-
oriented businesses and industries, including marine sciences and research, etc." and provided a
balanced mix of uses to accommodate existing and new marine-oriented businesses and
industries along with supporting uses.
The original intent of the comprehensive plan amendment was to protect and preserve working
waterfront, but instead has increased the residential densities many times over, therefore placing
increased pressure on the remaining marine-oriented and commercial fishing uses. The
amendment, as approved, permits increased permanent and transient residential densities in
districts where these uses have not been permitted for over 20 years. Permanent and transient
residential units compete with existing commercial and industrial uses and puts pressure on
property owners to convert historical uses to permanent or transient residential uses. The
strategies associated with this goal strongly support the concept of "No Net Loss" which was
eliminated from the ordinance.
16
ENCROACHMENT CHALLENGES SYNOPSIS
The types of encroachment sources, described and defined below are drawn from various studies
and reports of Navy and non-Navy actions that have occurred which have had an impact on
training and test activities. Although not all encompassing, these potential sources of
encroachment need to be examined to determine if they exist at an installation, range, military
training routes (MTR), special use airspace (SUA) or operation areas (OPAREA). Once a
potential challenge is identified, it should be analyzed to determine the potential impacts and
constraints imposed.
Urban Development (population growth) - As communities grow toward the boundaries of
installations, ranges, OPAREAs, and beneath MTRs and SUAs, land use development could
become incompatible with the Navy's mission. Incompatible development can seriously
compromise the quality of the Navy's training and test mission requirements. Urban development
may not surmount to an immediate threat, but continued incompatible development could present
a long-range threat to the mission. Urban development may also damage habitat needed for
wildlife to survive, making the installation or range the only available habitat in the area.
Airborne noise - The central issue of airborne noise is the impact, or perceived impact, on
people, animals (both wild and domestic), structures, and land use.
Competition for air space, land, and sea space - The Navy owns, controls, or uses resources,
that need to be available to accomplish testing and training missions. These resources must be of
sufficient size and quality to provide effective training and testing. Public pressure to share or
relinquish some of these resources may inhibit the Navy from accomplishing its training and test
objectives, or inhibit anti-terrorism/force protection programs.
Competition for scarce resources (oil, gas, minerals, potable and irrigated water, and ocean
access) - Community pressure to gain access to valuable resources located on land or sea that
Navy owns or controls may affect Navy's ability to use this land or water for training or test
objectives.
Threatened and Endangered Species - Restrictions for the purpose of protecting threatened or
endangered species can reduce the value of an installation, range, or OPAREA for testing and
training by limiting the types of permissible activities in terms of composition, magnitude, or
timing.
Maritime issues (Marine Mammals, Endangered Species, Fish Habitats, Coral Reefs, Coastal
Zones, Sanctuaries, and other marine protected areas) -- Regulatory or permit requirements
protecting ocean resources cumulatively affects the Navy's ability to conduct training exercises
or testing in the marine environment.
Ordnance.. Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)/Munitions -- Application of various environmental
laws to munitions training, demolition, disposal, or testing activities could have severe and
adverse impacts on readiness.
17
Safety Arcs and footprints (Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) Arcs, Surface
Danger Zones, Weapons Safety Footprint Areas) - Land adjacent to installations and range
safety zones, including land within the installation or range, may not be suitable for certain types
ofland use or economic development purposes.
Frequency Spectrum - The competition for available frequency spectrum may lead to a
reduction in available spectrum for training and developmental/operational testing activities. The
lack of spectrum may decrease the effectiveness of exercises by restricting the number of war-
fighting systems that can participate. As the potential for residential and commercial
encroachmt.'Ilt increases, so does the risk of increased RF emitters and receivers, which could
result in Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) problems between Navy systems and public or
commercial systems.
Air Quality - Impacts to training and test missions in non-attainment areas, and conformance
with individual State Implementation Plans (SIPS), may restrict existing mission requirements or
preclude execution of new missions, as well as deployment and use of new weapon platforms.
Water Quality - Discharge permit requirements and timelines and/or prohibited or restricted
access to wetlands and/or their buffer zones can restrict existing mission training, preclude or
restrict integration of new technology/weapons systems into existing missions and training or
preclude future growth and execution of new missions in amphibious, riverine, estuarine and
other salt and fresh water related missions.
Interpretation of HistoricaIlEnvironmental regulations - Regulatory or permit requirements
may affect training and testing activities. Other non-Navy actions may affect Navy's current
regulatory or permit requirements under these regulations.
Interagency Coordination (e.g., Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM), Bureau
of Reclamation (BaR), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), and
State equivalents) - Navy often uses land controlled by another Federal or State agency. The
types of allowable uses and restrictions are often the result of negotiations between the parties or
subject to the other Federal agency's policies and regulations. These restrictive uses can limit
training and testing activities.
Legislative initiatives that restrict training or testing activities - Congress may enact legislation
that directly or indirectly limits the Navy's flexibility to conduct training or testing activities.
18
~l
-
(,,~
~cJ,
kt
I:) It(\..,
November 26, 2008
RE: Speeial Meeting December 3, 2008 - Safe Harbor Development ~ '
-~ -.
In regard to the latest agreement on the Safe Harbor development, I am again bewildered by the
"fast track" that this project seems to be on within our county government. This development,
along with it's myriad of changes, bas a history of rearing its ugly head at times when most
residents are planning their holiday travels. It is obvious that meeting the developer's schedule
out weighs the public's concerns. Let us review the cballenges that face Momoe County if our
commissioners approve such language on December 3.
Safe Harbor Develooment
The original Safe Harbor Development was conceived at a time when real estate values within
our county were at an all time high. Presently, our county faces decreased tax revenues and
escalating property taxes due to plunging real estate values. CompoUnding this devaluation with
high-end developments and marina projects facing foreclosure will ultimately cause our tax base
to crumble. It also had the dubious distinction ofbeing approved by the majority of our past
BOCC in less than 3 min\lteS - And without any public vetting.
Why now? The only individuals that have viewed this project are either the projects developers
or their consultants. It bas morpbed into numerous versions and without public input. I ask you,
do you feel informed enough to vote responsibly on this item? Do you believe in your heart, that
the development has been open and transparent in its planning, overall changes and vetting?
Our growth mBnllgement director rushed the last version of this agreement to the BOCC in
October. Excuses and changes were made vocally after Mr Trivette added 340 lines of new
verbiage and eHmin"te<J 46 lines of existing verbiage and one chart. Luckily, after public out
cry, the item was withdrawn. So I guess my first question is, whom does Trivette work for? The
taxpayers or the developers? The latest version includes 309 lines of additions and the same
number of deletions.
To date, the public has been limited to a 4.5" X 6" black and white rendering in the County's
newspaper notice. A project, which has had frequent changes on density, occupancy, design and
infrastructure support, should be vetted in a public forum. Was that not part of the voter's
mandate back in November? Or will the citizens again be subject to 3 minutes of review and 3
min\lteS of public input. Why can't the developers offer the citizens a chance to review the
project in a setting that eliminates duress or confrontation?
Today, the reality is a proposed development that has mmphed into a creature that is
indistinguishable from its original design.
The Navv
The Navy's approval of this development's DEEP PORT HARBOR designation and included
condensed noise based restrictions is a feeble attempt to eliminate the intent and the public
vetting of the formal 2007 AICUZ.
The NAS Key West 1977 AICUZ document has been codified by Momoe County. Under the
particulars outlined within that document, NAS Key West has always retained the right to
comment on any development within Momoe County. Momoe County has always extended the
"powers of comment" based upon the 1977 AICUZ document and continues to provide this
option to comply with FL Statutes 163.3175 and 163.3177. Additionally, NAS Key West's 2007
AlCUZ document has not been codified and has been found to be suspect in its declarations.
Federal investigations are still pending on the 2007 AlCUZ process and no County action
involving NAS Key West or US Navy requests should be considered until the completion of
these investigations are made public. IfMomoe County government amends any existing land
use regulations based upon any 2007 AlCUZ military processes or documents, it may increase
the County's financial exposure and liability to affected citizens and their property.
FL Statutes 163.3175 and 163.3177 also imply that military (Navy) procedures have been
followed and performed in accordance with Monroe County, State of Florida, US Federal
Agency laws and DOD regulations. In this case, Monroe County citizens and it's government
are justified in delaying any proposed actions on any NAS Key West resolutions until such time
that federal investigations and documents requested through FOIA actions are delivered and
reviewed.
Noise Areas
In December 2007, at the regular BOCC meeting, residents of abutting areas ofNAS Key West
were promised by a unanimous vote of commissioners that no further action of any land use
regulation would be allowed unless the Navy conducted physical noise monitoring surrounding
NAS Key West. The BOCC and the public rejected the Navy's use of 20-year-old computer
software in determining sound levels created by the FIS Super Hornet aircraft.
Furthermore, Rule 9J-5 of the Ftoridtl Administrative Cotk does IIOt allow the adoption of any
third party research, either ill whok or JHIrl, lIS a refet'9l:e 10 constrru:t, adopt or alter any
County reguhllion. Reference IIIIIterial and studia IfflISt be requested andfunded through
Monroe County RFPs if the conel.ions tIN iIIcorpol'llled ill Monroe County decisions.
T.IJtrint! Of Real Estate Prooertv
The additional Navy request that properties within this DPH are be "tagged" is an outright
attempt to begin "tagging" all properties surrounding military mqallations. And what is the
definition of a "military installation"?
Webster defines those words as including systems, mechanisms, equipment or machinery? Once
the Navy has their toe in the door, would private pr<>pelty in close proximity to a government
telephone switch in Key Largo be subject to "tagging"? The Navy's use ofbroad descriptions is
definitely suspect. Their main purpose is to eliminate the rogue AlCUZ and ''tag' properties at
will. The county would be involved with major taking cases based upon this activity.
Tagged real estate property throughout the U.S. continues to show a reduction in value up to
30%. Imagine the demand by Monroe County property owners in requesting that appraisal
values of their property be reduced by that amount. Can the base of real estate values throughout
our county sustain such a reduction in revenue? How would you make up that revenue from real
estate values?
FYI: Current HUB real estate doc:uments address this problem _d allow for the
declaration of unusnal conditions that would affect the value of your real estate post sale.
Safe Harbor Area ponnl_tio.
It is well known that Stock Island houses a majority of Hispanic citizens that will be affected by
this development. The issue of Social Bigotry, in regard to the changing of the Navy's flight
paths, is a question that still has not been resolved. What I don't understand is that no public
notices of any kind have been printed in Spanish. Why? Even the voting ballots are printed in
Spanish. Why eliminate a class of citizens, that will be most affected, because of their failure to
understand the EngH.:h language?
Affordable Hoallinp
I will be brief. Considering that Monroe County has paid over US$500,OOO.OO to our infamous
consultant, we now need to change the definition of affordable housing. The developers are
requesting the removal of income ceilings as an affordable housing requirement. That is just
ludicrous.
In conclusion, I would appreciate your review of these points prior to voting on this item agenda.
The public needs to understand what the developers are proposing through a venue that allows
questions and answers. It is only fair.
Thank You,
Paul S. CaNSO
108 Star Lane
Key West, FL 33040
305-296.2469
-<
N
:J
Q..
E
t.U
~
-<
;"~,
~
;:J
o
E-
Ud
>
~
Q
-<
U
-<
t.U
~
-
E-
-
~
-<
~
:.'7'
II! _,:_.* ;.;;-... .,_.;~....
' '.:.e:;si':'.oi"r
.,.cit~.._::;~~
, ~ -=--='.
.~:
-
::...-
-~~
~.
"'''_.,~!
~
"
~.
....,
"""""
,
g:
o
:=
en
~
0=:
~
/
;""',
<
en
-
t
<
Ud
~
t..)
o
Q
~
Q..
~
f-c
"""'~
+
---
<
N
j
c...
-J
-
<
~
~
Ud
E-
UJ
~
0:=
<
~
~
U
9
'-
--.-
,
- ../
,
~
't
~...
~..>
<,
- ,
".:>
.,
".,-
\..-"
\,
'.~
.,
~
-
-
.
~
~
UJ
o
:S
-J
-
>
I
/4
t
.~~
" f
'fL. ^.J
/
....',...i
?
-~+
~
/'. f
r--'- ,;,
/"w'
T
"
, .
........"
'-.
- "
'''',
{
';"".
-'"";:.,1'
lL-
..." "">
/'~ ,,,
\.
'.
0".
r
'\
,
;....-.
~.
1..',
_A.
f'4'
\....
i ,t'
;~
i
/' I _~
$,' ,
l' "
1(_-
pY
'-
\
'\~
\\_~'::'...._-,....
'---.~-
-
p
if
.
"-....-..--......-.-
- -.----
","'W..__
-----=
-
i
..
~
~
Q
0=:
-<
o
CQ
Q
;""~,
:s
rJ:j
-
:9
o
"
,'''.
.,,'
UJ
o
Q
9
o
;""~,
-
=
rn
-
(J...
Q
;,...,..,
j
rn
-
9
o
0(
t ,/ (
~ ~ L,
'" - .:' <.
"- 1.(-,
"- r ~
'\,;,-,
..........
.
.
/'
, '
v
,.,;:..........'"'"'-.-.
-