Loading...
02/04/1991 Special UU 0 5 5 Special Meeting Board of County Commissioners Monday, February 4, 1991 Key Colony Beach " A Special Meeting of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners convened at 10:00 a.m. on the above date at the City Hall in Key Colony Beach. Present and answering to roll call were Commissioner Earl Cheal, Commissioner Douglas Jones, Commissioner Jack London, Commissioner John Stormont, and Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey. Also present were Danny Kolhage, Clerk; Randy Ludacer, County Attorney; Tom Brown, County Administrator; County Staff; members of the Press and Radio; and the general public. All stood for the Invocation and Pledge of Allegiance. MUNICIPAL SERVICE DISTRICT Division Director Charles Aguero and County Attorney Randy Ludacer addressed the Board concerning pro- posed Change Order No. 2 with Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. concerning Cudjoe Key Landfill in the amount of $260,559.64. Commissioner Jones discussed a letter from the Department of Environmental Regulation dated December 18, 1990 concerning the project and the use of materials. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to approve Change Order No. 2 with Ground Improvement Techniques, Inc. concerning Cudjoe Key Landfill in the amount of $260,559.64. During discussion, motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to add the language "after the fact". Roll call vote on the motion to amend was unanimous. Roll call vote on the origi- nal motion as amended was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes No Yes Yes Yes Motion carried. COUNTY ADMINISTRATOR The Board discussed their previous action to cancel the lease with the Truman Annex Company for certain property r- near Jackson Square in Key West. Commissioner Stormont objected to the item being added to the Agenda. Chairman Harvey called for a Special Meeting on this date at 4:45 p.m. to discuss the Board's action concerning the offer to purchase property near Jackson Square from Pritham Singh. UU lJ 5 6 DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT Bob Herman, Division Director, addressed the Board and discussed procedures for the development of Board policy and the scheduling of future Public Hearings on those policy recommendations. The Board then proceeded to discussion of the "Comprehensive Plan Policy Issues" dated January 30, 1991 (attached hereto and made a part hereof) which set out Policy Questions numbered 1 through 25 and the individual Recommendations for each. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones that the Board will discuss each of the Questions in numerical order, three rounds, not to exceed five minutes per Commissioner per round, and that there would be no public input at this time. Dagny Johnson of the Upper Keys Citizens Association and Bob Herman addressed the Board. Motion carried unanimously. QUESTION #1 Should we continue to base this plan on historical growth rates or do we want decreased growth? Should we base our growth on a carrying capacity? If so, what type of carrying capacity? Public facility? Hurricane evacuation? Water quality? Coral reef? Endangered species? Who will conduct this analysis? Will they do it before or after the plan is due? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to delete the words "but within six months and five years, respectively" from the end of the first paragraph of Recommendation #1 and insert the following words in lieu thereof: "based on consultants' recommendations and latest technology." Roll call vote was unanimous. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to add the following at the end of Recommendation #1: "Before a number of units of development has been selected, then the consultant will identify additional facilities needed and the associated costs compared against the cost of the land if it were purchased." Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No No Yes Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to add the following at the end of Recommendation #1: "All data used for interpretation in this plan will be scientifically proven." UU U57 Roll call vote was unanimous. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to adopt Recommendation #1 as amended. Roll call vote was una- nimous. - Mayor Harvey read a letter from the Department of Community Affairs about the fact that a representative from the Department would be present at the Public Hearing sche- duled for 5:00 p.m. on this date. The Board recessed for lunch. * * * * * The Board reconvened with all Commissioners pre- sent. The Board agreed to limit discussion to two to three minutes. QUESTION #2 Will we "maintain or reduce" hurricane evacuation times? Using what methods? Will we coordinate our population densities with our hurricane evacuation plan? What is an acceptable hurricane evacuation time? 36 hours? Dennis Henize of the National Weather Service addressed this issue. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to delete the words "30 hours by the year 2000" in the third paragraph of Recommendation #2 and insert the following words in lieu thereof: "24 hours by the year 2010." Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No No No Motion failed. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Recommendation #2 as written. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: r-- Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey No No Yes Yes Yes Motion carried. UU 0 5 8 QUESTION #3 Will we limit growth to that amount for which we can provide facilities? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to amend to add the following at the end of Recommendation #3: ----- "--Investigate the consideration of level of service for optional services under F.S. 163.317(7)" and to adopt Recommendation #3 as amended. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #4 Do we want to regulate septic systems beyond what is currently allowed by HRS? If so, to what extent? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to amend to delete the first sentence of the second paragraph of Recommendation #4 and insert the following in lieu thereof: "Request the consultants to provide a design for passive systems with the highest level of nutrient removal at 60%." and to then adopt Recommendation #4 as amended. During discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Motion was then made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to delete the first sentence of the second paragraph of Recommendation #4 and insert the following in lieu thereof: "Direct the consultants to prepare a comparison between mechanical and passive systems based upon performance, reliability and cost." and to then adopt Recommendation #4 as amended. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #5 Do we want to join FKAA in the development of a sewer master plan for the Keys? If so, when and how will we contribute? Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Stormont to deny Recommendation #5. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #6 Do we want to complete the engineering studies for a drainage master plan for the county? If so, when? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Recommendation #6. Roll call vote was unanimous. UU U t> 9 QUESTION #7 What will we do if the FKAA cannot meet the County's potable water needs? Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Jones to adopt the following Recommendation #7: - "Develop and recognize other systems which utilize other water supplies for other than human ingestion. liTo further ensure that the potable water supply will be sufficient to meet demand, the County should also: "l) Change its potable water level of service for per capita water provi- sion to a level that more accurately reflects both permanent and seasonal population usage. This level of service must be agreed upon by the County, SFWMD, and FKAA. "2) Seek an interlocal agreement with FKAA regarding allocations reserved for unincorporated Monroe County. "3) Become more involved with SFWMD to ensure that the Keys continue to receive equal representation on its Board, and equal consideration in water allocation. "4) Seek safe, viable alternative water sources and make provisions for their use in the County's land development regulations. II Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #8 Do we want to require more water conserva- tion? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Mayor Harvey to amend to insert the words "and replacement" after the word "new" in the third line of subparagraph 4) of Recommendation #8 and to add the following new sentence at the end of that subparagraph 4): "To limit the sale of new toilets, shower- heads and faucets to meet the standards set out herein." -- and to then adopt Recommendation #8 as amended. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #9 How will we dispose of our solid waste once the Waste Management contract is up? UU 0 60 Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Stormont to adopt Staff's Recommendation #9. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal to amend to delete the words "that is capable of achieving an acceptable reduction rate and handling at least the waste generated north of the 7-mile Bridge" in the second sentence of subparagraph 1). The amendment was accepted and made part of the original motion. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #10 Do we want to fund and implement a comprehensive recycling program? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Mayor Harvey to amend Staff's Recommendation to insert the following before the subparagraph beginning "--Fund and": "--Develop RFPs for all viable methods of recycling within the parameters of what the law allows." and to then adopt Recommendation #10 as amended. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Yes Commissioner Jones Yes Commissioner London Yes Commissioner Stormont No Mayor Harvey Yes Motion carried. QUESTION #11 Do we want to adopt the FDOT standard of LOS C for US-l? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to amend Paragraph 1 of Recommendation #11 by inserting the following words at the end thereof: "per the interim methodology." Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes Yes Yes No Motion carried. Motion was then made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to amend the last paragraph so as to now read as follows: "The County should adopt a Future Land Use Map that recognizes non-development generated traffic and Policies and Goals should address recognition of causative factors." Roll call vote was taken with the following results: UU U 6 1 Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes No No Yes No Motion failed. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Cheal acknowledging that this question has been completed by the Board. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey No No No Yes No Motion failed. The Board recessed for a Special Meeting. * * * * * The Board reconvened with all Commissioners pre- sent. I DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Board returned to further consideration of Question #11. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Mayor Harvey to approve Paragraphs 2 and 3 with the amendment to add the words "at fair market value" at the end of the fourth line of the third paragraph. During discussion, the motion was withdrawn. PUBLIC HEARING A Public Hearing was held on a proposed Ordinance adopting and transmitting the amended Comprehensive Plan to the Florida Department of Community Affairs. Proof of publication was entered into the record. The County Attorney read by title only. Mark Rosch addressed the Board. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to allow five minutes per speaker. Roll call vote was unanimous. The following persons addressed the Board: Maria Abadal of the Department of Community Affairs, Pat Walker of the South Florida Water Management District, Jim Murley of 1000 Friends of Florida, E. Dwyer of Big Torch Key, George Kundtz, Joan Tucker of Little Torch Key, Joel Rosenblatt, Alan Maxwell of Sea Critters, George Schroder of Key Largo. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to add -- the following: "WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners hereby recognizes that the Plan is inadequate and does not conform to Florida law and does not convey the intent of the Board;" During discussion, Commissioner Stormont offered an amend- ment to add the following at the end of the proposed clause: UU 0 62 "however, the intent is to protect its legal and statutory rights by adoption;" After further discussion, the motion was withdrawn. Motion was then made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Stormont to add the following language to the proposed Ordinance: "The Commission, although recognizing that there are currently deficiencies in the Plan, is enacting it due to deadlines imposed upon the Board and intends to continue the process of amendment." Roll call vote was unanimous. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal to amend the effective date based upon the approval pursuant to Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida Statutes. During discussion, motion was withdrawn. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Stormont to adopt the following Ordinance as amended. ORDINANCE NO. 002-1991 See Ord. Book No. 26 which is incorporated herein by reference. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes No Yes Yes Yes Motion carried. DIVISION OF GROWTH MANAGEMENT The Board returned to further consideration of Question #11. Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Jones to amend Paragraph 3 of Recommendation #11 so as to now read as follows: "The County should adopt a Future Land Use Map that recognizes non-development generated traffic." Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes Yes Yes No Motion carried. and seconded by #11 as amended. results: Motion was then made by Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones to adopt Recommendation Roll call vote was taken with the following Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes Yes Yes No Motion carried. UU 0 6 S QUESTION #12 How many lanes of traffic on U8-l do we want? Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Jones to amend to delete the last sentence of -- Staff's Recommendation #12. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes Yes Yes No Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to approve Recommendation #12 as amended. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes Yes Yes No I Motion carried. QUESTION #13 Will we "limit public expenditures that subsidize development in coastal high hazard areas?" Will we direct population growth away from these areas? If so, how? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Recommendation #13. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #14 Will we continue to allow development in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands? Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to approve Recommendation #14. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #15 Will we link development decisions to water quality? If so, how? -- Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to amend the last sentence of the Recommendation so that it now reads as follows: "Monroe County should link its develop- ment decisions to water quality by hiring recognized professionals to develop a carrying capacity in order to achieve compliance with F.S. 380.021 and the Federal Clean Water Act." UU U 6 4 and to then adopt Recommendation #15 as amended. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #16 What pattern of land development will the Future Land Use map show? * a continuous strip of development along US-l? * nodes of development along US-l, with some new nodes? * nodes of development along US-I, but no new nodes? Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to amend Recommendation #16 by deleting the next to last sentence thereof beginning with the words "The urban core," and adding the following sentence at the end of the paragraph: "Define all allowances and permissibility to be controlled by surrounding character of development (community character) and carry the premise into Question #18." and to then adopt Recommendation #16 as amended. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes Yes Yes No Motion carried. QUESTION #17 What densities and intensities will the Future Land Use map show? Should the existing zoning maps continue to serve as Future Land Use maps? Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to amend the first sentence of Recommendation #17 by inserting the word "all" between the words "and" and "carrying" and to change the last word of the first sentence to "capacities" and to add at the end of the Recommendation the following: "No consideration is ever to be made to a variable density factor." and to then adopt Recommendation #17 as amended. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #18 Will we link our future land uses to demonstrated need? If so, how shall we designate vacant land that is not necessary to meet our future residential and non-residential needs? UU 0 6 5 Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to amend Recommendation #18 to now read as follows: - "Future land uses must be linked to demonstrated need and all carrying capacities and justification. The designation of vacant land not required to meet future needs will be achieved by the consultant, and will be based on a legally defensible method of tying development potential to cost, whether the cost of public facility, the cost of environmental degradation, and demonstrated by the applicant that need and justification exists. The distribution of future land uses should provide owners of land (vacant and otherwise) with a realistic guide on which to base their development expectations. Consultant should make recommendations on land uses without negative economic impacts. Properties rendered unbuildable should be purchased, preferably by federal and state agencies." and to then approve Recommendation #18 as amended. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #19 Will we retain the Future Land Use Concept maps? Will we link them to the Future Land Use maps? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Recommendation #19. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #20 Will we adopt land use policies for the Big Pine Key, North Key Largo, Holiday Isle and Ohio Key ACCCs? Will these policies address public facility provision; types, densities, intensities of use; and protection of environmentally sensitive land? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to amend Recommendation #20 to insert the following words before the word "finalize" in the second sentence: - "complete economic and environmental carrying capacity as the basis to" and to then approve Recommendation #20 as amended. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commisioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes Yes No No UU 0 6 6 Motion carried. QUESTION #21 The Future Land Use maps must show all future recreation and redevelopment sites. Where will they be located? -- ! Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to insert the following words at the end of the first sentence: "based on established build-out and carrying capacities" and to then approve Recommendation #21 as amended. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #22 How will we "eliminate or reduce" non- conforming uses? Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to change the "Background" section by changing the last starred "*" clause so that it now reads as follows: "*if destroyed, allow reconstruction or reuse in conformance with community character." and to amend the Recommendation by adding the following at the end thereof after the words IIpolicy Document": ", so as to reflect the Commission's new direction." and to then approve Background and Recommendation #22 as amended. Roll call vote was unanimous. QUESTION #23 Which areas of the County will be TDR sender sites? Which areas will be receiver sites? Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Mayor Harvey to amend the Recommendation to delete everything following the first sentence and to then approve Recommendation #23 as amended. Roll call vote was unani- mous. QUESTION #24 What is "affordable housing" in the Keys? Single family? Multifamily? Where should it be located? How much should we have? Who will provide it? Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Commissioner Cheal to approve Recommendation #24. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ISSUES A Position Paper Prepared by the Monroe County Growth Management Division January 30, 1991 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY ISSUES A Position Paper Prepared by the Monroe County Growth Management Division January 30, 1991 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1 Issues 1. Population Growth and Carrying Capacity........ .... ....2 2. Hurricane Evacuation................. .......... .... ....5 3. Concurrency............................................ 8 4. Septic Systems........................................ 10 5. Sewer Mas ter Plan..................................... 12 6. Drainage Master Plan................ ....... .... ..... ..13 7. Potable Water. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .15 8. Water Conservation........ . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .18 9. Solid Waste.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .20 10. Recycling............................................. 25 11. Traffic Level of Service.......... ..... ........ .... ...27 12. Four-laning US-I....... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .29 13. Development in the Coastal High Hazard Area.... ..... ..30 14. Development in Saltmarsh and Buttonwood Wetlands... ...31 15. Linking Development to Water Quality.. ......... .... ...33 16. Land Development Pattern........ ..... ......... ..... ...35 17. Densities and Intensities of Land Use.......... .... ...37 18. Linking Future Land Use to Demonstrated Need..... .....38 19. Retaining the Future Land Use Concept Maps..... ..... ..39 20. Areas of Critical County Concern...... ........ ..... ...41 21. Recreation Facilities and Redevelopment Areas. ..... ...42 22. Non-Conforming Uses........ ........... ........ ..... ...46 23. Transferable Development Rights. ....... ... .... ...... ..48 24. Affordable Housing. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .50 25. Preparing Data Inventories.................... ....... .51 INTRODUCTION Monroe County is in the process of preparing a comprehensive plan to meet the requirements of Chapters 163 and 380 of the Florida statutes. In August of last year, Monroe County transmitted the proposed Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 1990-2010 to the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) for review under these statutes. On December 6, 1990, the County received an Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report from the DCA outlining the plan's inconsistencies with state law. Some of the DCA's objections pertain to technical issues that are appropriate for the county's staff and consultants to address. For example, the County staff has revised the format of the plan and provided additional data on potable water supplies in accordance with the DCA's objections. The DCA report also includes objections to various County policies, or the lack thereof. For example, the DCA objected to the County's level of service standard for roads and the lack of densities and intensities for future land uses. As an elected body, only the Board of County Commissioners has the authority to establish or amend County policy. It is appropriate for County staff to make recommendations regarding county policy, but it is up to the Board to decide whether to accept the staff recommendation. With this in mind, the Growth Management Division prepared a list of policy questions stemming from the DCA's objections to the comprehensive plan. Upon receiving the policy questions on December 18, 1990, the County Commission directed the Growth Management staff to prepare this position paper containing recommendations for each of the policy questions. The County Commission will discuss and consider this position paper during a workshop on February 4, 1991, at Key Colony Beach City Hall at 10:00 AM. The public is encouraged to attend this meeting. Resolution of the policy issues is critical to the comprehensive planning process. until the questions are answered, the County cannot bring the plan into compliance with the State requirements. 1 QUESTION #1 Should we continue to base this plan on historical growth rates or do we want decreased growth? Should we base our growth on a carrying capacity? If so, what type of carrying capacity? public facility? Hurricane evacuation? Water quality? Coral reef? Endangered species? Who will conduct this analysis? Will they do it before or after the plan is due? BACKGROUND The proposed comprehensive plan is based on the assumption that the county's historic growth rates will continue. The plan gives level of service standards for traffic, solid waste, potable water, drainage, sewage disposal and parks and recreation facilities. The plan requires, through concurrency, that these facilities be in place at the adopted standards concurrent with the impacts of development. The plan does not limit the expansion of any facility, with the exception of traffic facilities. In order to accommodate the traffic volumes projected for 2010, some links of US-1 must be widened to six lanes (see Technical Document, p. 10-41). However, policy 1.4.2 of the Traffic Circulation element limits the capacity of US-1 to four lanes. By adopting this policy, the County has already limited future growth below the 2010 projection. Like the policy limiting US-1 to four lanes, the plan's concurrency requirement could also reduce future development (see Policy Document, policies 1.4.5 and 1.4.6, page 2-104). In accordance with Policy 1.4.6, the County must withhold development approvals within areas served by inadequate facilities. While the plan itself does not limit the expansion of solid waste, potable water, drainage, sewer, or park facilities, the physical or financial limits of expanding these facilities could restrict growth via the concurrency requirement. Due to the unusual geography, special public facility needs, and unique environmental resources in the Keys, Monroe county has fewer options for providing public facilities than the rest of Florida. The term "carrying capacity" refers to the maximum amount of growth an area can accommodate within the bounds of certain constraints. The type of constraint defining the capacity could include a millage rate of 10 mills (financial); the capacity of a water main (physical); the ability of the coral reef to withstand nutrient loading (environmental); or a community's acceptance of a six-lane highway (community character) . Technicians can determine an area's carrying capacity, but it is up to the policy makers to choose the type and extent of the constraints. For example, an environmental consultant could estimate the number of lots the County can allow to develop, if the County commission selected nearshore water quality as the type of constraint and "Class III standards" as the extent of the constraint. Should the County decide to base the plan on a carrying capacity, pUblic facilities provide a good starting point. Since much of the necessary data is already available, a qualified consultant could likely complete a public facility carrying capacity within several months. In the meantime, staff has prepared a preliminary estimate of the carrying capacity of the public facilities listed below. These estimates will change as a more rigorous analysis is conducted; they are intended to provide the Board with general guidance only. Facility* 1990 Remaining Capacity in Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Per Year Hurricane Evac Traffic Potable Water Solid Waste Recreation Drainage Sewage 2655 2500 to 5000 2650 to 4650 o or not a constraint not a constraint not a constraint not a constraint 133 125 to 250 130 to 230 o or N/A N/A N/A N/A ------------------------------------------------------------ *See subsequent topics for a more detailed discussion of each of these facilities. For comparison purposes, the County currently permits about 400 dwelling units per year. The hurricane evacuation capacity is based on a target evacuation time of about 30 hours by the year 2000. The solid waste capacity is highly dependent on the type of disposal method assumed. If the County resumes incineration and landfilling activities in 1995, landfill capacity is inadequate to serve the eXisting population over the next twenty years. If the County extends the haul-out contract to cover the 20-year horizon, capacity will be adequate. If the County continues to grow at historic rates, in spite of these constraints, the time will come when growth must suddenly halt, thereby disrupting the local economy. If, on the other hand, the County recognizes these constraints well in advance and acts to slow the rate of growth accordingly, the chances of an abrupt halt are minimized and the associated economic impacts will be more gradual. 3 Environmental carrying capacities will be more difficult to establish. The only specific constraint offered here addresses wetlands (see Question #14), where the argument is made that we have already reached our wetland carrying capacity. Water quality carrying capacity is also discussed (see Question #15) but a specific carrying capacity cannot be determined at this time. There are experts available to perform analyses of the environmental carrying capacity. However, due to the limited data available, an environmental analysis may take up to five years to complete. RECOMMENDATION Monroe County should not base its comprehensive plan on historical growth rates. Instead, the County should establish population projections based upon carrying capacity analyses of the Florida Keys. The County should hire expert consultants to complete a carrying capacity analysis of both public facilities and the environment. The public facility analysis should include hurricane evacuation needs and should be completed before the plan is finalized. The environmental analysis should address, at a minimum, water quality concerns, the coral reef, and endangered species. The two types of analyses should be completed as soon as possible, but within six months and five years, respectively. Prior to completion of the environmental analysis, the plan's growth rates should reflect the public facility with the least available capacity. Following completion of the environmental analysis, the plan's growth rates should reflect any additional environmental constraints. The densities and intensities on the Future Land Use map should be adjusted to reflect the resulting population projections for 2010. The map should provide the citizens with a realistic gUide on which to base their development expectations. The plan should also establish the general guidelines for a permit allocation system to extend the capacity of the limiting facility over the plan'S 20-year horizon. By anticipating the cumulative effects of population growth, rather than reacting in crisis fashion once the restrictions due to concurrency are triggered, the County can promote fairness and predictability in land development in the Keys. QUESTION #2 Will we "maintain or reduce" hurricane evacuation times? Using what methods? Will we coordinate our population densities with our hurricane evacuation plan? What is an acceptable hurricane evacuation time? 36 hours? BACKGROUND state regulations (Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)7, F.A.C.) require the County to maintain or reduce hurricane evacuation time (as measured in clearance time). To achieve this, population densities must be coordinated with the County's evacuation plan. If the county chooses to reduce its clearance times, rather than simply maintaining them, the county must decide how much of a reduction should take place. The probability of predicting the location where a hurricane makes landfall varies the hurricane's distance from shore. At twelve hours before landfall, for example, the National Weather Service (NWS) may say that the chance of a given location being hit by a given storm is 60 percent. By NWS standards, a clearance time of twelve hours or less is ideal, since the decision to evacuate can take place when there is a fair amount of certainty as to where the storm will hit. As clearance time increases, the decision to evacuate is based upon a lower level of certainty regarding the storm landfall location. According to the NWS, a twelve to sixteen hour clearance time is not ideal but is still fairly acceptable. Once clearance time exceeds 24 hours, real problems with evacuation planning occur. Therefore, clearance times for any given community should, at a minimum, be less than 24 hours and ideally twelve hours or less. While Monroe County cannot achieve the NWS recommendation of twelve hours, it can reduce the chance of an evacuation order being issued in a "false alarm" situation. Under the most likely scenario, the clearance time for Monroe County is 34 hours. This is the absolute worst clearance time in the state, and perhaps in the country. So, by NWS standards, evacuation decisions in Monroe County must be made when a great amount of uncertainty still exists as to the location of storm landfall. The question then becomes, can the County maintain or reduce hurricane clearance time and still allow growth? The Department of Transportation estimates completion of four-laning of the eighteen-mile stretch by the year 2000. Completion of this project is presently the only action that will result in any significant reduction of the hurricane clearance time. This is an important point. 5 Without this project, the County would have no opportunity to reduce clearance times, and could only maintain hurricane evacuation by stopping growth immediately. The eighteen-mile stretch project will reduce the County's estimated clearance time by approximately seven hours under the most likely evacuation scenario. Therefore, in order to maintain the current clearance time of 34 hours, the County must ensure that future development consumes no more than the seven-hour leeway provided by these roadway improvements. It is possible to provide a rough estimate of the corresponding number of dwelling units this would allow, while noting that this estimate fails to consider the locational distribution of the additional development. A general rule of thumb is that each hour of clearance corresponds to roughly 2,000 persons or 885 dwelling units. Under the scenario of maintaining the clearance time at 34 hours, a total of 6,195 dwelling units could be accommodated over the next twenty years (309 dwelling units per year). For comparison, the comprehensive plan presently allows about 12,000 additional dwelling units to accommodate a projected population based upon historical growth rates (see Technical Document, page 14-32). Assuming that expansion of the eighteen-mile stretch will not be completed before the year 2000, and that the County continues to issue permits at the present rate of 400 per year, the clearance time would continue to increase to an estimated 39 hours until the year 2000, when it would decrease to near the present level. Since the goal is to maintain the clearance time at the present level over the planning period, the County would presumably still be in compliance with State law. The State has no concurrency requirement for hurricane evacuation. If the County wished to do so, however, it could control the rate of this initial ten year increase in clearance time through a permit allocation system. The reduction of clearance times is a different case. Using the same assumptions as above, if the County were to stop approving development tomorrow, the seven hours gained by four-laning the eighteen-mile stretch would improve the clearance time from 34 hours to about 27 hours. The County cannot significantly reduce the time below 27 hours, without using County funds to four-lane additional portions of US-1. As a third alternative, the County may wish to pursue a compromise between maintaining the present clearance time (34 hours) and achieving a seven-hour reduction through a no growth scenario (27 hours). A "halfway point" of 30 hours would still reduce the level of uncertainty regarding the location of storm landfall when an evacuation order is issued. Under this compromise scenario, Monroe County could 6 accommodate about 2,655 additional dwelling units over the next twenty years, or about 133 units per year. The table below presents a comparison of the three scenarios. It should be noted for all of these scenarios that the capacity in total number of dwelling units applies to the entire Keys, including incorporated cities. Clearance Standard Total Dwelling Units Dwelling Units Per Year 34 hours 30 hours 27 hours 6,195 2,655 o 309 133 o RECOMMENDATION Monroe county is responsible for protecting the health and safety of its citizens. The County cannot ignore the additional injuries and loss of life that would result from allowing its clearance time, which is already the longest in the state, to grow even longer. With respect to hurricane evacuation, the County must recognize that the benefits of population growth come at the expense of the safety of the existing residents. Each new resident adds about 2 seconds to the overall clearance time; each single family home about 4 seconds. Critics may argue that, in the face of such long clearance times, most residents will refuse to evacuate. Recent behavior studies refute this assertion. More importantly, the County should recognize a fundamental right of every resident and visitor to have the opportunity to save his or her life by evacuating. Anything less would leave the County morally--if not legally--liable for the resulting deaths. The comprehensive plan should include an objective of reducing the 1990 hurricane clearance time from 34 hours to 30 hours by the year 2000. This objective represents a reasonable compromise between no reduction in clearance time and no additional development. To implement this objective, the plan should include a policy establishing a development permit allocation system to control the annual rate of population growth. An allocation system of this type is a legitimate exercise of the county's police power, since it bears a rational relationship to protection of public health and safety, and has withstood legal challenges in Sanibel and other local governments. QUESTION #3 Will we limit growth to that amount for which we can provide facilities? BACKGROUND Chapter 163, Florida statutes, mandates that local governments choose "levels of service" (LOS) for six public facilities: roads, sanitary sewer, stormwater, potable water, solid waste, and parks and recreation. The statute's concurrency requirement states that, once LOS standards are established, local governments cannot issue development orders or permits if the development will reduce the established levels of service. The costs of expansion, upgrading or siting new public facilities thus form a major constraint to development in areas with inadequate facilities. Likewise, technological and environmental constraints which limit the siting of and methodologies for public facilities must also be considered. If these limitations on public facilities cannot be overcome, then development must either slow down or stop until the public facilities can once again adequately serve the proposed development. The DCA's ORC report raises objections to the level of service standard in every public facility element of the plan. Had there been densities and intensities identified on the Future Land Use map, the DCA would have likely objected to them, because the plan fails to show how the County will provide the facilities necessary to support future land uses. RECOMMENDATION There are a number of reasons why the County should limit growth to that amount for which it can provide facilities. First, adequate facilities are necessary to protect the public health, safety, and welfare. Second, the failure to do so fuels unrealistic development expectations, ultimately leaVing property owners in a "concurrency trap," Last but not least, State law requires it. To ensure that development does not exceed public facility capacity, the County should: --Limit population growth and the densities and intensities on the Future Land Use Map to levels consistent with County's ability to prOVide adequate public facilities (see Questions #1, 2, 4, 6, 7, and 12 for further detail). 8 --Revise the level of service standards for potable water, Traffic, and Drainage; --Add a facility capacity standard to the solid Waste LOS; and --Add design capacity and non-residential standards to the Sanitary Sewer LOS. QUESTION #4 Do we want to regulate septic systems beyond what is currently allowed by HRS? If so, to what extent? BACKGROUND conventional septic tank systems in the Keys are inadequate in treating sewage and also contribute to nearshore nutrient loading, both because of present system design and because of Monroe county soil/topography conditions (see Technical Document, pages 7-16 and 7-17). It is for these reasons that state agencies strongly recommend against the continued use of conventional on-site septic systems (ORC, p. 191; DER comments, p. 29 of 114). A recent survey indicates that county residents agree that there are water quality problems in the Keys (see Question #15). The county commission has already opted for a mandatory nutrient removal level for on-site disposal systems of sixty percent (see Policy 1.1.1, policy Document, p. 2-63,). This standard exceeds that required by the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative services (HRS). The sixty percent level was based upon the present nutrient removal capability of alternative on-site disposal systems (see Technical Document, pages 7-20 through 7-24). Previous actions by the County Commission recognize that centralized facilities are appropriate for some higher density areas and should be contemplated as part of the overall provision of adequate sewage disposal facilities (see Technical Document, p. 7-26; Policy Document, pp. 2-66 to 2-68). Regulation of sewage disposal systems consists of two phases: permitting and monitoring. If the county requires sewage disposal standards above and beyond those set by HRS, the county will have to enforce those standards. The County's role in permitting could be limited to requiring those systems capable of meeting the county standards. Once permitted, monitoring the systems will prove more difficult, as it would require on-site inspections of underground tanks. In fact, the County code (Section 9.5-294) already requires inspection of septic systems every three years, but the regulation has never been implemented. 10 RECOMMENDATION In order to address water quality concerns, the County should regulate sewage disposal above and beyond the standards set by HRS. Implementation should take place via both interim and permanent standards. As an interim standard, the county should retain the plan's standard of 60% nutrient removal. Based on the realistic capabilities of on-site systems, this standard would increase the costs of development, but would not place a readily identifiable cap on development. Ultimately, the County should base its standard on the environmental carrying capacity analysis recommended in Question #1. If nutrient loading into the County's nearshore water proves to be the limiting environmental constraint, the resulting permanent standard for sewage disposal could lead to a cap on development. '.1 QUESTION #5 Do we want to join FKAA in the development of a sewer master plan for the Keys? If so, when and how will we contribute? BACKGROUND state law requires the county to provide adequate sewage treatment facilities concurrent with the impacts of proposed development (9J-5.0055(2)(a)). Therefore, if the County wants to meet its water quality goals, it must determine whether or not centralized systems in any areas of the Keys are necessary. A sewer master plan showing the type and extent of sewer facilities planned throughout the Keys is required in order for the county to be able to ensure compliance with the water quality carrying capacity. The FKAA has the enabling legislation to implement plans for sewage collection and disposal in Monroe County and can create sewer districts subject to approval by the County Commission (see Technical Document, page 7-11 for discussion). The FKAA's regulation of future public sewer facilities and the County's regulation of future development make it imperative that these two agencies join in formulating a future master plan. RECOMMENDATION The development of a sewer master plan for the Keys should be a joint effort between the FKAA and the County. The plan should be developed based upon existing water quality data showing known problem areas and upon a preliminary water quality goal. The plan should then be updated within five years upon of the results of continued water quality monitoring. Therefore, the County should initiate preliminary meetings to develop a plan as soon as possible (this year). The sewer master plan should identify the location and type of facilities needed, both centralized and on-site. Centralized facilities must then be provided by the local government concurrent with the development proposed for that area. If the FKAA does not pay for such facilities, the county must do so, either through a sewer impact fee, special taxing district or other method. The costs of on- site facilities should continue to be borne by private developers. Drafting of the master plan should be initiated in 1991 and the plan should be updated according to improved data within five years. In the meantime, the'two agencies should begin to tackle the question of criteria for establishment of sewer districts and how the systems will be funded. 12 QUESTION #6 Do we want to complete the engineering studies for a drainage master plan for the county? If so, when? BACKGROUND state law requires that the County provide adequate drainage facilities concurrent with the impacts of development (Chapter 9J-5.0055, F.S.). The County has very little data on the existing natural and manmade drainage facilities in the county. Although drainage is in general reasonably good, there are numerous sites with inadequate drainage facilities within the county. The improvements to us 1 completed by the Department of Transportation were provided with drainage facilities, however, very few other publicly owned properties (i.e. rights-of-way) have been planned for drainage. For individual sites, the current County Code requires 100% on-site retention for new development and for redevelopment. In addition, the county, along with state agencies has formulated a Stormwater Management Ordinance to address drainage for new developments. The details of this ordinance have yet to be finalized, however. In the Comprehensive Plan a Stormwater Master Plan is proposed, to be completed by 1995, which will assess the problem areas of the County, preserve natural drainage features, and specify engineering solutions to existing deficiencies. The County has received a South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) grant to cover at least a portion of the costs of the necessary studies. The DCA objects to the lack of specific actions in the comprehensive plan that will lead to the completion of the Stormwater Master Plan by 1995 (ORC p. 77, obj. 12). Likewise, DCA objects to the lack of specificity in the Drainage level of service standards (ORC p. 78, obj. 14, and p. 198, obj. d), and to the incomplete inventory and evaluation of existing drainage facilities in the comprehensive plan (ORC p. 198, objs. b & c). In order to assess the existing conditions, to regulate future drainage facilities, and to apply the laws of concurrency to drainage facilities as required, extensive engineering studies must be completed. With the data available at present, the County cannot accurately assess whether or not our drainage facilities comply with the concurrency laws. It is clear that in order to comply with state law, the Stormwater Master Plan and its requisite engineering studies must be completed. If the County applies the current Code properly, once the Stormwater Management Ordinance is completed on-site retention problems should be resolved for new developments. The Master Plan should therefore focus on the drainage deficiencies and needs for publicly owned properties and rights-of-way. The timing of the Master Plan's completion is also questioned. DCA objects to the postponement of the completion of the inventory of existing drainage facilities, the engineering studies and the development of the Master plan to 1995 (ORC p. 199, objs. g & h). RECOMMENDATION To comply with state concurrency laws and ensure adequate drainage facilities, the county should complete the engineering studies for the stormwater Master Plan. utilizing the SFWMD grant, engineering studies including an assessment of the existing drainage conditions and an identification of potential engineering solutions should be initiated within the next year so that the Master Plan can be completed prior to 1995. 14 QUESTION #7 What will we do if the FKAA cannot meet the County's potable water needs? BACKGROUND The supply of potable water available to the Keys is not infinite. The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) controls the quantities made available to local water utilities in order to preserve the freshwater supply in the Biscayne Aquifer. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) receives an annual allocation from SFWMD, issued for five or ten year periods in a Consumptive Use Permit (CUP). The County, however, has no formal commitment from FKAA or SFWMD to guarantee a potable water supply for the county's population. Nor does the County have a commitment from FKAA to allocate a set portion of its supply to the unincorporated County. Therefore, the County must consider how potable water needs will be met if FKAA's current CUP permit, which expires in 1995, is not renewed or increased. The DCA has also raised this question (ORC report, p. 83, objection 7). Although some alternative sources of potable water exist in the Keys, none are viable for the large scale production necessary to serve the current and projected population. cisterns and reverse osmosis plants are possible, but expensive. Neither the quantity nor quality of groundwater in the Keys is good enough to make large scale use of wells a viable potable water alternative. Some wells exist in the county, but due to the limited size of freshwater lenses, large scale well use would lead to saltwater intrusion. Big Pine Key has one of largest freshwater lenses in the Keys, yet if, for example, wells were used as a major potable water source extracting several thousand gallons per day, the island's supply of freshwater would soon be exhausted even during the wet season. The quality of water from wells is not considered to be potable directly from the ground either. In fact, groundwater in the Keys has been classified by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation as Class G-III, "having no reasonable potential as a future source of drinking water" (Rule 17-3.403(1)). As a result of these quantity, quality, and cost constraints, there are no feasible alternatives to FKAA-supplied water that could meet the needs of the entire county. Limited alternative potable water .supplies put the County in a potentially precarious position. South Florida has a history of droughts and public water supply shortages. As the region's population continues to grow, the threats of !45 drought, saltwater intrusion, and increasing demands by all aquifer users will likely lead to intergovernmental competition, as has occurred in the southwest region of the nation. Faced with a finite water supply, SFWMD may deny future requests from FKAA for increased allocations. For these reasons the County cannot assume that FKAA's future CUP allocations will continue to increase. While the County cannot control future CUP allocations, the county can exercise some control over consumption of the current allocation. The current allocation is for 5.56 billion gallons per year, an amount the SFWMD has determined will be sufficient for five years, based on the continuation historic growth rates. Water conservation is a necessary component of any plan to limit water consumption. The County should therefore adopt the water conservation guidelines mandated by the south Florida Water Management District (see Question #8 for further details). However, the per capita water consumption rates in the county are already well within the range recommended by the SFWMD, reflecting good conservation practices. An increase in water conservation efforts alone cannot be expected to balance out the increases in water supply that would be demanded by a population growing at historic rates. The best way for the County to ensure that adequate potable water will be available for the twenty-year horizon of the comprehensive plan would be to limit water consumption and stretch the five-year supply into a twenty- year supply. In order to reduce consumption by this amount, the County must grow slower than it has historically. The five-year water permit is based on the assumption that the County's population will grow by 6,000 permanent residents, or a functional population increase of 10,500. These figures provide a rough estimate of the amount the County can grow without exceeding the allocation of water. At 2.26 people per household, the County could allow between 2,650 and 4,650 dwelling units to be built between 1990 and 2010, or about 130 to 230 dwelling units per year. This preliminary analysis does not take commercial uses into account, since data on commercial water consumption is not currently available. It also ignores water consumption increases due to development in Key west, Key Colony Beach, and Layton. RECOMMENDATION The concurrency requirements of Chapter 163, F.S. and the county's existing land development regulations require that all development be served by potable water. The FKAA provides the only county-wide source of potable water in the Florida Keys. In the event that the FKAA cannot meet the 16 County's potable water needs, development will be forced to utilize alternative sources, such as cisterns, wells, and reverse osmosis plants. While these alternatives are feasible in some cases, they do not provide a reliable basis on which to plan the County's future. Where these alternatives are not feasible, the county would have to impose a moratorium on new development. As a local government responsible for the public health, safety, and welfare of it citizens, Monroe County should base its comprehensive plan on population growth rates that do not outstrip the FKAA's ability to provide potable water. At present, the FKAA's five-year CUP allocation is 5.56 billion gallons per year. The County has no guarantee this amount will ever increase. To further ensure that the potable water supply will be sufficient to meet demand, the county should also: 1) Change its potable water level of service for per capita water provision to a level that more accurately reflects both permanent and seasonal population usage. This level of service must be agreed upon by the County, SFWMD, and FKAA. 2) Seek an interlocal agreement with FKAA regarding allocations reserved for unincorporated Monroe County. 3) Become more involved with SFWMD to ensure that the Keys continue to receive equal representation on its Board, and equal consideration in water allocation. 4) Seek safe, viable alternative water sources and make provisions for their use in the County's land development regulations. QUESTION #8 Do we want to require more water conservation? BACKGROUND Water conservation is an area in which the County has made significant progress. However, given the fact that the County cannot assume that FKAA will continue to receive increases in its consumptive Use permit (see Question #7), every effort must be made to conserve as much water as possible. The land development regulations require the installation of low volume plumbing fixtures, require landscaping with 70% native species, regulate landscape installation, and require the preservation of natural vegetation. In addition, the FKAA has a conservation- oriented rate structure, is replacing old distribution pipes to decrease water loss, has a public education program, and is enforcing the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) permanent water restrictions. The effect of these programs has been a decrease in per capita water use over the last few years. The SFWMD recommends a gallons per capita per day (gpcd) consumption rate of approximately 125. When the permanent and seasonal populations are taken into account, the rates within the FKAA service area were 128 gpcd in 1989, and 109 gpcd for 1990. Monroe County water consumption rates are well within the range acceptable to SFWMD, reflecting reasonable water conservation efforts. Nevertheless, due to uncertainties regarding the Biscayne Aquifer's ability to continue to supply all of south Florida's water supply needs, both SFWMD and DCA suggest more stringent water conservation measures. In July 1990, SFWMD identified six mandatory water conservation measures to be implemented throughout the south Florida. Three of these will be implemented by FKAA. The other three fall within the County's jurisdiction. They are: 1) Limiting lawn irrigation to the hours of 5:00 pm to 9:00 am. (A permanent irrigation ordinance is suggested; some exceptions are allowed.) 2) Requiring the adoption of xeriscape landscape ordinances. 3) Requiring the installation of ultra-low volume plumbing fixtures in all new construction. For an estimate of the cost of these new programs for the consumer, see the FKAA Water conservation Plan. The DCA has reinforced SFWMD's position in the ORC report, stating that the plan should "provide measurable 18 policies which are consistent with all six components of SFWMD's regional water conservation policies (ORC p. 230, obj. i). Furthermore, the DCA objects to the level of service listed in the Potable Water element as not reflecting water conservation measures (ORC p. 81, obj. 3). DCA also requires more specific and measurable County policies regarding water conservation (ORC p. 85, obj. 14), and requires the County to outline specific implementation plans for water conservation (ORC p. 91, obj. 29). RECOMMENDATION To comply with SFWMD guidelines and to adequately respond to DCA objections to the comprehensive plan, the County must: 1} Revise its Level of Service for potable water to a per capita consumption rate that reflects water conservation efforts, and that uses a methodology agreed upon by FKAA, SFWMD, DCA and the County. 2) Enact permanent irrigation regulations that limit lawn landscape irrigation, or form an agreement with FKAA to implement such an ordinance. 3) Revise the landscaping guidelines in the land development regulations to enact more comprehensive xeriscape policies. This would mandate proper placement of landscape material, water-conserving irrigation practices, standards for water- conserving landscape maintenance, and establish- ment of a monitoring program for code implementa- tion and compliance. 4) Change the regulations for low volume plumbing fixtures to require ultra-low volume fixtures. All new construction should have plumbing fixtures installed to meet the following standards at 80 pounds per square inch: Toilets--1.6 gal/flush; showerheads--2.5 gal/min. and faucets--2.0 gal/min. . 9 QUESTION #9 How will we dispose of our solid waste once the Waste Management contract is up? BACKGROUND waste Management Inc. (WMI) will haul out all the wet garbage, yard waste and construction debris that is generated within the Municipal Service District through 1995. This contract was signed because the County could not meet the solid waste needs of the current population with existing solid waste facilities. While short-term solid waste needs have been met with the WMI contract, no policy has yet been set for resource recovery, volume reduction and disposal of solid waste once the contract ends. The County could continue to haul out all of its solid waste. Besides this option, at best, the County can meet its waste disposal needs for 10 years after the WMI haul out contract ends in 1995. At worst, if no other disposal options can be found, even with the assumption of substantial volume reduction and recycling, the county will exhaust the remaining capacity at Cudjoe landfill by 2001 regardless of the growth pattern. Meeting the long-term needs of the County will be difficult and costly, and even more so if the population continues to grow at historic rates. Solid waste management capabilities do indeed limit the rate of population growth for which the County is able to adequately provide. Since state concurrency laws require that solid waste facilities be available concurrent with the impacts of development, the available solid waste processing and disposal options must be considered in balance with the ability of the County to generate revenues to pay for each option (see Question #3 for further discussion of this state requirement). The cost of some options available to the county may be prohibitive enough to warrant a reduction in the growth rate. The exact level to which development should be limited to assure solid waste facility concurrency cannot be identified at this time. Several factors affect the County's ability to meet its solid waste management needs after 1995. The following items address the status of some of these factors. --The role of Crawl Key for solid waste management is still undefined. It has been purchased to provide a site for waste disposal facilities, but a conservation easement prohibits landfills and incineration. Plans for a septage treatment plant are being drafted. A Materials Recycling Facility is 20 being considered for the site as well. Other volume reduction and disposal facilities are also possible for Crawl Key. The Solid Waste Task Force has recommended sending out a Request for Proposal for solid waste processing and disposal facilities at Crawl Key. This is not being pursued at present. --Of the existing landfills, only the CUdjoe Key expansion will be open past 1995, with a remaining capacity of 120,000 cubic yards. The Long Key landfill has an estimated 80,000 cubic yards of remaining capacity, but it is operating on a consent agreement. As the haul out gets underway, the consent agreement will likely expire. --The permits for MSD incinerators will expire in 1992. The high cost of retrofitting the incinerators with the mandated pollution control devices, along with public opposition to burn technologies make the future use of incinerators improbable (see the Technical Document, p. 9-18 through 9-23). --No site for an additional landfill has been selected, although a county-wide evaluation process has been completed. --The Board has adopted a policy to implement a mandatory, county-wide, curbside recycling program, and has adopted the state-mandated recycling goal of 30% of the total waste stream. The first phase of the program was initiated in Marathon where the County is now providing curbside collection services to about 5000 residences. --Since the creation of a Solid Waste Authority was rejected in the November election, negotiations with the City of Key West have not progressed regarding possible processing of MSD waste at the Montenay facility. Public opinion is mixed regarding appropriate methods for solid waste management in the Keys. In a 1990 survey, Monroe County residents were asked which solid waste facilities they think are appropriate for the Keys. Their answers were: 74% - landfilling 28% - incineration 16% - other 34% - compo sting 13% - waste-to-energy The survey also asked, liTo avoid creating another landfill in the Keys, how much more would you be willing to pay for garbage disposal outside the county?" The responses were: .-, ., 37% - $0, but I'm in favor of haul out 34% - $0, because I don't object to another landfill in the Keys 19% - $5 more per month 6% - $10 more per month 5% - over $10 per month With the above limitations in mind, estimates of the service life of MSD facilities have been calculated. Four scenarios have been developed to analyze the effects of a range of variables on the length of service life remaining for the existing landfills. All of these scenarios make some important assumptions. They are: --30% of the total solid waste stream will be recycled every year beginning with 1995. --Volume reduction will take place (either through incineration or other means) that reduces solid waste by 75%. --No capacity in the landfills will be reserved for emergencies, such as hurricanes or fires. --All non-combustible construction debris will be disposed of in a Class III landfill (none exists in the county at present). --The county will continue to grow at historic growth rates. The additional assumptions for each scenario, and the year in which the County will exhaust its landfill space are listed below. Additional Year Capacity Scenario Assumptions Will Be Reached 1 No haul out after 1995. 2001 Cudjoe landfill used for disposal of all MSD waste. 2 No haul out after 1995. 2004 Both Long & Cudjoe landfills used (Consent agreement signed for Long Key) . 3 Waste from north of 7-mile Bridge is 2005 hauled out or disposed of at Crawl Key. Lower Keys & Key West waste landfilled at Cudjoe (in exchange for incineration at the stock Island Montenay facility). 4 All waste is hauled out, either unlimited with or without volume reduction. An out-of-county disposal site is always available. 22 In summary, the County's solid waste management will be at a critical stage after the haul out contract ends in 1995. The option providing the most capacity is a total haul out (Scenario 4). However, costs may be prohibitive. By 1995 the County will be paying $90 per ton for the haul out, with further cost increases likely. Most importantly, this option assumes that there will be an out-of-county landfill within a reasonable transporting distance that is willing to take Monroe County trash. This is a dangerous assumption; landfills in other parts of the nation have already begun to refuse waste from outside of their jurisdiction. other alternatives being considered by the Solid Waste Task Force concentrate on resource recovery, or the recovery of materials or energy from the waste stream. The Task Force is considering a combination of composting or pelletizing with recycling. The implementation of these options at Crawl Key could potentially eliminate the need for haul out, and for the siting of additional Class I landfills in the county. These options could also allow the remaining capacity at the Cudjoe landfill to be reserved for emergencies. In addition, pelletizing might eliminate the need for separate county-wide curbside recycling pickup, since recyclables are separated as part of the pelletizing process. Further research is necessary, however, before a method can be selected. RECOMMENDATION Due to the limitations described above, the County must: 1) Continue to reduce its solid waste stream. A volume reduction site that is capable of achieving an acceptable reduction rate and handling at least the waste generated north of the 7-mile Bridge should be constructed at Crawl Key. A method that not only reduces volume but also recovers resources should be sought. To further conserve its disposal capacity, the County should improve the volume reduction rate to greater than the 75% currently achieved by incineration, if technologically possible. 2) Achieve the state-mandated recycling goals by 1995. The County should also improve its recycling rate beyond that mandated by the state. Up to 65% of the solid waste stream is potentially recyclable. Increasing the recycling rate to greater than 30% would extend the life of the existing landfills (see Question #10 for further discussion). If haul out is chosen as a long-term method of solid waste disposal, the contract should include incentives for recycling. .~? '.~ 3) Investigate the feasibility of initiating an interlocal agreement with the city of Key west to process Lower Keys trash at the Montenay waste-to- Energy facility. 4) Limit population growth to a reasonable level (see Question #1 for further details). 5) provide for an alternate means of disposal that does not depend on conventional landfills by 2001. Crawl Key and other sites should be considered, as well as the haul out of the residue formed after volume reduction. 6) Reserve some capacity in disposal facilities, either in the cudjoe Key landfill or an alternative disposal site, for emergencies. 24 QUESTION #10 Do we want to fund and implement a comprehensive recycling program? BACKGROUND The state has mandated that each county reach a 30% recycling goal by December 31, 1994. No more than half of this amount can be met with the special wastes: construction debris, yard trash, white goods and tires. In addition, at least 50% of each of the recyclable materials, newspaper, aluminum, glass, and plastic bottles generated in the county must be recycled by the end of 1994. The county is also required to negotiate with its present garbage collection franchises to contract for recyclables pickup before it considers other public or private alternatives. Although the law is vague regarding the enforcement of these requirements, the state may impose sanctions if the County does not meet the recycling goals. The County is making progress towards these recycling goals, but it has a long way to go. Between July 1989 and July 1990 17% of the municipal solid waste stream was recycled. Over 25% of the aluminum cans generated in the county are being recycled as are 12% of the special wastes (15% is required), but very little of the other materials are being recycled. See the Technical Document, p. 9-12 for more data on recycling. The Board of County Commissioners had at one time endorsed a 40% recycling goal, but later diminished it to a 30% recycling goal. The Board has also endorsed the recommendation of the Solid Waste Task Force Advisory Board to implement a county-wide, mandatory, curbside, variable rate recycling program. Yet the recycling budget for the current fiscal year was severely cut. In a 1990 survey, 49% of the county residents said the county should encourage recycling through curbside pickup. 45% supported reducing the standard garbage fee, 43% endorsed neighborhood recycling centers, 43% endorsed can and bottle deposits, 33% supported community education programs, and 27% endorsed mobile recycling centers. Clearly there is a willingness to recycle among the county's residents. The new haul out plan, however, fails to provide an incentive for recycling because it forces an increase in garbage collection rates whether or not citizens recycle. In summary, recycling must be made more assessable and more acceptable to both residential and commercial units in order to meet the state mandated goals by 1994. The county must commit to a comprehensive recycling program in order to 25 increase public awareness of and participation rates in recycling. RECOMMENDATION The County must: --Fund and implement a mandatory, variable rate, curbside recycling program county-wide as soon as possible, but at least by 1994. --Begin negotiations immediate~y with the seven garbage collection franchises in the county so that a decision regarding the methods, facilities, possible phasing, and staffing or contracting for recyclables processing can be made within the next six months. --If the County chooses to handle recycling in-house, proceed to build the proposed Materials Recycling Facility on Crawl Key. --Either re-establish the County's recycling goal of 40% or increase the percentage further. This recommendation is due to the severely limited solid waste disposal facilities within the county and the high cost of waste haul out (see Question #9 for further discussion of this issue). 26 QUESTION #11 Do we want to adopt the FDOT standard of LOS C for US-1? BACKGROUND section 9J-S.00S5(1)(d), F.A.C., requires local governments to adopt standards compatible with the FOOT standards "to the maximum extent feasible." Where a deviation occurs, the local government must provide justification for the deviation. Rule 9J-5 specificallY recognizes justifications that achieve other important state planning goals and policies. The previous county commission directed staff to prepare the plan based on LOS D, consistent with the county's current land development regulations. Accordingly, policy 1.1.1 on page 2-87 of the plan's Policy Document establishes LOS D as the county standard. Page 10-21 of the Technical Document provides justifications for the deviation, based on: 1) FDOT funding insufficient to maintain LOS C; 2) FOOT's designation of US-1 as a "policy constrained" roadway; 3) the protection of property rights; and 4) avoiding additional development in high hazard and environmentally sensitive areas. The FOOT, the DCA 163 review team, and the DCA 380 review team all objected to the county's standard of LOS D. (See ORC report p. 8, objection #2; p. 181, objection "a"). Two predominant perspectives have emerged from the debates over a level of service standard for US-1. Given that there are no alternative routes to US-1, should we: 1) allow maximum use of the facility? (i.e. lower the LOS standard) 2) Or protect the operation of the facility? (i.e. raise the LOS standard) The Planning Commission recommended a standard of LOS C. There was no consensus on the Transportation Committee as to what the standard should be. A 1989-90 survey of Keys residents indicated 63% felt traffic congestion was a problem on US-1. A task force consisting of representatives from the county, the DCA, and the FDOT is currently examining how to best measure the level of service on US-1. The task force's preliminary analysis is summarized below. This analysis 27 will change as additional information is collected and does not consider the effects of planned improvements. US-1 LOS Task Force Preliminary Analysis Reserve Reserve Capacity Capacity Standard (trips) (dwelling units) LOS C 16,000 2,500.... or 5,000....- LOS D 69,000 10,800- or 21,600-.... Notes: -Assumes an equal mix of residential and non-residential development. --Assumes all capacity will be devoted exclusively to residential development. RECOMMENDATION US-1 provides the lifeblood of the Florida Keys. It is therefore vitally important to preserve the free movement of people and goods along this, the county's only arterial. Does this only arterial warrant the same FDOT standard applied to less critical roads throughout the state? Yes. The County should adopt a standard of LOS C. The County has spent the last two years contesting the FDOT's methods and standards associated with level of service. The County has spent very little time addressing the improvements needed on US-1, partly because there was no consensus as to whether level of service problems existed, and if so, where they existed. The County has been successful in forming a multi-agency task force consisting of FDOT, DCA, and County staff, who are working together to develop a customized methodology for measuring level of service in the Keys. However, neither the FDOT or the DCA have ever wavered on the question of what the standard for US-1 should be. The time has come to stop fighting the LOS C standard itself and direct our attention and resources to the actions necessary to maintain that standard. The County should adopt a Future Land Use Map that provides the citizens with a realistic guide on which to base their development expectations. Properties rendered unbuildable by the standard of LOS C should be purchased, preferably by federal and state agencies. ." ~~ QUESTION #12 How many lanes of traffic on U5-1 do we want? BACKGROUND If historic growth rates continue, all segments of U5-1 that are currently four-laned will have to be six-laned by the year 2010 (see Technical Document, page 10-41). When presented with this information, the previous County Commission chose to limit U5-1 to four lanes, as recommended by the Planning Commission (Policy 1.4.2, Policy Document, p. 2-89). The rationale behind this policy included concerns about: 1) the feasibility of accommodating six lanes within the limited land mass of the Keys; 2) dramatic changes in the character of the Keys; 3) impacts on existing development; and 4) increased development pressures due to increased accessibility. Opponents to the policy expressed concerns about: 1) limiting the options available to the County; and 2) the corresponding reduction in development potential for property owners. The FDOT raised no objection to this policy. While the FDOT has no formal position on the issue of six-laning U5-1, several staff members have questioned the feasibility of such a project. The DCA raised no objection to this policy. However, the DCA did object that the Future Land Use densities and intensities were not adjusted to reflect this policy. (5ee ORC report p. 184, objection "k.") The Transportation Committee generally opposed the six- laning of U5-1, but the position was not unanimous. RECOMMENDATION The County policy of limiting U5-1 to four lanes should remain in the plan. The County should reduce densities and intensities on the Future Land Use Map to provide the citizens with a realistic guide on which to base their development expectations. Properties rendered unbuildable by this poliCY should be purchased, preferably by federal and state agencies. 29 QUESTION #13 Will we "limit public expenditures that subsidize development in coastal high hazard areas?" Will we direct population growth away from these area? If so, how? BACKGROUND state law requires the County to limit public expenditures that subsidize development permitted in coastal high-hazard areas (CHHA) and to direct population concentrations away from the known or predicted CHHA (9J- 5.012(3)(b)5 and 6). The County must do this by limiting development in the CHHA and relocating or replacing infrastructure away from these areas (9J-5.012(3)(c)7). The present comprehensive plan establishes the CHHA as FEMA designated V-zones. However, the DCA objected to this designation and called for the establishment of the Category I storm surge Impact Area as the CHHA (ORC, p. 102). The most obvious action that would limit development in the CHHA would be to reduce density. According to the DCA's recent report, "Coastal Infrastructure Policy Implementation Update, Report Number Five" (March 1, 1990), allowance of any additional development or expansion of infrastructure in the CHHA is undesirable. However, in view of the extent of the CHHA in Monroe County, a restriction on further development would effectively create a moratorium situation. Limiting density is considered to be the most reasonable course of action at this time. In addition, specific measures such as prohibiting platting of new subdivisions, prohibiting new or expanded infrastructure in designated Coastal Barrier Resource Act areas or other appropriate areas, and prohibiting development in wetlands would be acceptable measures towards complying with state law. RECOMMENDATION The County should comply with state law by limiting development within the CHHA. This should be achieved through limiting overall density in the county and, at a minimum, prohibiting new or expanded facilities and/or development in COBRA areas and undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. In addition, Policy 1.4.2 on page 2- 122 of the Policy Document, which links additional subdivision plats to a demonstrated need for the additional lots, should be strengthened to prohibit the platting of new subdivisions. 30 QUESTION #14 Will we continue to allow development in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands? BACKGROUND state and regional law and policies place wetlands protection as a high priority in accordance with established federal policies. The DCA stronglY urges in the ORC report that wetlands protection be increased, going so far as to say that "...policy should limit development to scarified and previously filled areas" (ORC, p. 207). As discussed in the Technical Document (pp. 3-40 through 3-46), there are many reasons for the trend towards wetlands protection in the last twenty years. Wetlands are generally viewed as ecosystems whose productivity is directly valuable to man. They are generally intolerant of even minor physical alterations (water pollution, water diversion, soil compaction, etc.). On the whole, federal, state and local governments have found the impacts of development on productive wetlands to be unacceptable. Monroe County basically has not changed its current wetlands policy under the recently adopted comprehensive plan. parcels of wetland marsh are currently allowed to develop to 15% of their area. There is no current or proposed policy to offset this loss of wetlands. As of 1990, the Florida Keys is estimated to have about 6,500 acres of undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands remaining. Of these, about 2,000 acres are owned by state and federal agencies and presumably will not be disturbed. The other 4,500 acres are vacant privatelY owned land. Under current policy, 15% of this, or 675 acres of marshlands could potentially be lost directly. Indirect impacts of development such as alteration of tidal flow, etc. are measurable only on a site-by-site basis. For that reason, 15% is a minimum estimate of wetlands loss because in some cases development of the 15% could alter tidal flow over the entire parcel, resulting in a total loss greater than 15%. Most of the undisturbed salt marsh in the Florida Keys has been placed within the SparselY settled, Native Area, and Suburban Residential land use districts. Under these districts, densities of 0.5, 0.3, and 1.0 units per acre are allowed in wetland marsh areas. Assuming, for sake of simplification, that all of the wetlands could build to 0.5 units per acre, the vacant privately owned wetlands in the Keys could potentially accommodate about 2,250 dwelling units. It should be noted that most (about 85%) of these undisturbed wetlands are located in the Lower Keys outside of existing improved subdivisions. Many are not easily 31 accessible from existing roads; therefore, 2,250 dwelling units is considered to be a liberal estimate of what could realistically be developed in these areas. Over the past four years, some of these inaccessible areas have served as TDR sender sites. RECOMMENDATION Throughout the state and the nation, the direct loss of undisturbed productive wetland marsh areas is deemed unacceptable. Likewise, indirect impacts of development on undisturbed wetland marshes are also unacceptable. Therefore, Monroe County should not allow development in undisturbed salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands. 32 QUESTION #15 Will we link development decisions to water quality? If so, how? BACKGROUND public op1n10n shows that people generally believe that there are existing water quality problems in the Keys. Most people think that land development in the Keys adversely affects the nearshore water quality and coral reefs. Therefore, the public considers water quality a problem, and believes that development contributes to that problem. In addition, specific adverse effects of development on water quality have been demonstrated in recent studies. The primary environmental impact of concern is nutrient loading and, secondarily, sedimentation/turbidity effects (see Technical Document, pages 3-9 through 3-19 for a full discussion). The recently adopted comprehensive plan includes at least one specific policy to reduce nutrient loading by requiring a minimum of 60% removal of nutrients, including total phosphorous and total nitrogen, from wastewater which is discharged from on-site systems. Since septic systems are a development-related impact, it can be assumed that there is already existing direction to write policies linking development decisions to water quality. In order to do this, monitoring efforts must be coordinated and a continual monitoring network formed. This is imperative. The policy to coordinate these efforts and expand the network where needed has already been adopted in the recent comprehensive plan (see policy Document, Policy 1.2.1, page 2-2). Once monitoring efforts are consolidated into one continually updated picture of water quality patterns in Keys waters and mapped on the GIS system, problem areas will emerge. The next step is linking the specific water quality problem in an area to development. This is difficult because the problem will inherently be due to a cumulative effect of several developments in that area. Direct (discrete) and indirect (cumulative) sources of water quality degradation can be identified and tied to the existing development after analysis of the water quality and land development data by experts. The County must then decide upon the water quality goals it wants to achieve. Only then can an environmental carrying capacity based upon water quality be set. The water quality goal should first address overall environmental quality--namely, abatement of pollution and nutrient loading which is documented as entering outstanding Florida Waters waters at a higher or faster rate. Secondly, 33 the chosen goal should address nuisances, namely abatement of pollution that is localized and not necessarily entering offshore waters at a perceivable rate, but is undesirable to residents. Abatement of any possible sources of deterioration of marine resources is of primary importance to the Keys people and economy as a whole. The experts will help us to decide on dictating realistic water quality standards and calculating expected cost. RECOMMENDATION Monroe County should immediately (in 1991) implement the coordination of a monitoring network and map water quality trends on the GIS. Monroe County should link its development decisions to water quality by hiring experts to develop a carrying capacity in order to achieve the County's desired water quality goals. 34 QUE5TION #16 What pattern of land development will the Future Land Use map show? * a continuous strip of development along U5-1? * nodes of development along U5-1, with some new nodes? * nodes of development along US-1, but no new nodes? BACKGROUND The previous direction of the Board in August was to retain the existing zoning maps as the Future Land Use map. The land development pattern which will result from the current zone configurations will be a continuous strip of development along US-1; in most cases the development will be commercial. The exception to this will be areas consisting solely of mangroves and freshwater wetlands. A 1990 survey addressed the issue of commercial development along US-1. The percentages of responses following question are shown below: which pattern of commercial development do you favor? to the A "strip" of businesses along the length of U5-1 Businesses limited to certain pockets along US-1 Let the market decide where businesses locate other No opinion 6% 53% 33% 7% 3% The County should contain development to areas which are already developed and have public service provision. In planning jargon, this is called "clustering.1I The County should allow residential development to continue within existing improved subdivisions. However, commercial and industrial development should be limited to areas where they already exist. Some of the positive aspects of clustering such development in the Keys include: *minimizing the number of access points on US-1; *maximizing public service provision; *preserving existing open space; *promoting infill of partially developed areas; *promoting redevelopment of defunct structures; *promoting "identity" of town center; and *enhancing visual appeal from U5-1. RECOMMENDATION Monroe County should implement the lIurban coresll and "commercial centers" shown on the Future Land Use Concept maps by designating specific boundaries on the Future Land Use map within which additional commercial and industrial 35 development can locate. Certain of these areas are also appropriate for higher density multifamily development, which could meet the need for affordable rental housing for employees of the nearby businesses. Overall, densities and intensities should be increased in the urban cores, commercial centers and redevelopment areas to offset some of the density reductions anticipated in preservation and rural/native areas. The urban core, commercial centers and redevelopment areas should be able to accommodate higher densities/intensities than less developed areas and should be designated TDR receiver sites. Eventually, design guidelines specific to each of these areas may be developed to strengthen its visual character. 36 QUESTION #17 What densities and intensities will the Future Land Use map show? Should the existing zoning maps continue to serve as Future Land Use maps? BACKGROUND The previous direction from the Board was to retain the existing zoning maps as the Future Land Use map. However, densities and intensities were not specified on the map itself, or in the policies pertaining to the map, as required by 9J-5, F.A.C. The ORC report objected to this omission (ORC pp. 25-26, objections 35-37). RECOMMENDATION The densities and intensities shown on the Future Land Use map must reflect public facility capacity and carrying capacity. The County should not retain the existing zoning map as the Future Land Use map, since it does not provide an accurate representation of the capacity of public facilities to support additional development. The Future Land Use map must provide Monroe County citizens with a realistic guide upon which to base their development expectations. Properties rendered unbuildable should be purchased, preferably by federal and state agencies. 37 QUESTION #18 Will we link our future land uses to demonstrated need? If so, how shall we designate vacant land that is not necessary to meet our future residential and non-residential needs? BACKGROUND The county is required by the state to analyze the amount of vacant land needed to accommodate the projected population (9J-5.006(2)C). The gross acreage required in each land use category, at stipulated densities, must be calculated. As pointed out in the comprehensive plan, existing subdivisions can easily accommodate the twenty year residential demand, with a sizable surplus remaining in the year 2010, even at historical growth rates. The current recession has already affected the amount of new commercial development in the County; current commercial vacancy rates seem significant, although exact figures are not available. Therefore, vacant areas with commercial and residential development potential have been over-designated, given the anticipated demand at historical growth rates. Given the national and local economic picture, the county should attempt to accurately portray the future land development pattern to inform property owners of actual development expectations. Once a consultant comes on board and determines the most legally defensible method of tying cost to development potential (whether environmental cost or public facilities cost), then the protection of property rights may be addressed. Downzoning will likely take place in some areas, which raises the issue of compensation. Acquisition is one possibility; however, the solutions cannot be determined before the problem is defined. RECOMMENDATION Future land uses must be linked to demonstrated need. The designation of vacant land not required to meet future needs will be achieved by the consultant, and will be based on a legally defensible method of tying development potential to cost, whether the cost of public facility provision or the cost of environmental degradation. The distribution of future land uses should provide owners of land (vacant and otherwise) with a realistic guide on which to base their development expectations. 38 QUESTION #19 Will we retain the Future Land Use concept maps? Will we link them to the Future Land Use maps? BACKGROUND The Plan adopted for transmittal to DCA did contain the Future Land Use Concept maps; however, the Future Land Use maps adopted by the Board did not relate to the Concept maps at all. Objectives and policies relating to the Concept maps are still contained in the Policy Document of the Plan (see pp. 2-119 through 122). The series of three Future Land Use Concept maps provide a general overview of the future development patterns in the County; they are a way of taking in the big picture at a glance, which is more difficult to achieve with nine separate map sheets. They were originally linked to the Future Land Use maps presented with the 4th draft of the comprehensive plan. (The BOARD replaced the Future Land Use map with the current zoning maps prior to transmittal to the state.) The Concept maps are general, while the Future Land Use maps were more specific. The categories shown on the Future Land Use Concept maps, and explained within the text of the Technical Document (see pp. 14-38 through 14-42; see Map 14.2 in the back of the Map Document), are outlined below. * Each Key has an overall character designation, such as Rural/Native or Suburban, relating to the future population density and magnitude of future development; * Where appropriate, specific areas are designated for commercial development which reflect the type and scale necessary to serve the adjacent population. In areas designated Urban and Suburban, "Urban Cores" and "Commercial Centers" depict these commercial nodes. These nodes already contain some commercial development. * Historic Districts are shown for four areas which contain significant historical or archaeological resources. These resources must be protected; a preservation ordinance is proposed to achieve this. * Redevelopment Areas were previously shown on the Future Land Use Concept maps, but were deleted by previous Board direction. The original areas proposed contain substandard and non-conforming structures and, in some cases, non-conforming uses. They also contain most of the affordable housing in Monroe County. By 39 designating these as redevelopment areas, the County can improve the value of the land through physical improvements to the structures, the quality of life for residents and the potential for receipt of federal and state grants. See the question relating to redevelopment areas for a more detailed discussion. * A County Entryway is shown at the County line on US-1, to define the actual entry into the Florida Keys. The widening of the 1S-mile stretch would allow the establishment of a pull-off for cars and recreational vehicles, which would serve as an educational stop for visitors. The placement of a kiosk with maps, brochures and lodging information would allow visitors to learn about eating, lodging, fuel and recreational opportunities, as well as the fragile resources within the Keys. Coordination with DOT, DNR and local chambers of commerce is recommended. The Future Land Use Concept maps promote the idea of clustering development. This is a realistic and effective way of continuing to meet development expectations, while maximizing efficiency of public service provision and preserving tracts of open space. other benefits include promoting infill of partially developed areas, encouraging redevelopment of defunct structures, strengthening the identity of certain Keys' "town centers," minimizing the number of access points on US-1, and improving the visual aesthetics of development along US-1. RECOMMENDATION The County should retain the Concept maps and integrate them into new Future Land Use maps which accurately reflect future population distributions, public facilities capacity and the potential for future development. ~o QUESTION #20 Will we adopt land use policies for the Big pine Key, North Key Largo, Holiday Isle and Ohio Key ACCCS? Will these policies address public facility provision; types, densities, intensities of use; and protection of environmentallY sensitive land? BACKGROUND Big pine Key. The previous Board adopted, by motion, the "3A" plan sponsored by CARES, overturning the Planning Commission'S recommendation for the "modified 1A" plan. Since formatting and revisions of 3A by the consultant, Sedway cooke, the plan is currently being reviewed by citizen groups. The plan will be re-submitted to the Board for adoption approximately 3-4 weeks after receipt from citizen's groups. North Key Largo. The North Key Largo Habitat Conservation plan has not yet reached the Board. It has been submitted to the Planning commission twice, but no decision has been made. The inventory of acquisitions needs to be updated by the Growth Management Division, and the entire Habitat Conservation plan re-submitted to the planning commission within the next 90 days. Holiday Isle. The 1990 Holiday Isle ACCC Focal point plan was submitted to and accepted by the Board last summer. The Focal point plan will be adopted by the Board after certain conditions have been met by the developer. As of this date, all conditions have not been met. Ohio Key. Development restrictions addressing the allowable uses within the Ohio Key ACCC are contained within the current land development regulations. These regulations adequately protect the resources within the ACCC, and will be carried over verbatim into the proposed land development regulations. Both the DCA 163 and 380 review teams objected to the omission of specifics regarding the ACCCs (ORC p. 12, #16; p . 20, # 21; p . 21, # 2 3; p. 176, ( dd) ) . RECOMMENDATION The ACCCs must be addressed within the comprehensive Plan. The county must move forward and finalize the Big pine Key and North Key Largo plans if the comprehensive plan is to be accepted. Failure to act on these ACCCs will doom the plan to non-compliance. 41 QUESTION #21 The Future Land Use maps must show all future recreation and redevelopment sites. Where will they be located? BACKGROUND The previous direction from the Board was to remove any designated recreation and redevelopment sites from the Future Land Use Concept maps, and the Future Land Use maps contained in Draft 4 of the Plan. Any identified redevelopment areas were also stricken from the analysis portion of the element. Rule 9J-5 requires the County to analyze the estimated gross acreage needed for future land uses, including recreation, and to analyze the need for redevelopment. The DCA objected to the omission of future recreation sites on the Future Land Use maps, and the omission of an analysis of the need for redevelopment in the County (ORC p. 33, #57; and p. 179, (00)). A brief discussion of recreation fac~lities and redevelopment areas is given below. Recreation Facilities Respondents to a 1990 survey were asked which, if any, types of additional recreational facilities were needed in the County. Seventy-four percent felt that additional recreational facilities were needed; support was strongest for bicycle/jogging paths, community parks and teen centers. Of those respondents who felt additional recreational facilities were needed, sixty-seven percent felt user fees were the way to pay for the new facilities. The County contains ample open space for passive use in the form of water and low-lying mangrove areas, as well as thousands of acres of state and federal parklands. Collectively, the County contains over 1.2 million acres of designated recreation and open space, almost 13,000 acres for each resident and visitor. This guarantees that the level of service for these facilities, which is 3 acres per 1,000 persons, will likely never be exceeded. However, local residents have been vocal about the need for active recreation facilities for both their children and themselves. The priority for older residents is continuous bike/jog paths, while residents with children prefer active recreation facilities (i.e., ballfields, picnic/play areas, community parks). The following table sets forth the existing County active recreation facilities available to residents in the three generalized areas of the Keys. ~2 Region 1990 Population Available Recreation Facilities Upper Keys 33,558 2 ballfields 2 play areas Middle Keys 23,929 1 ballfield 1 basketball court 2 tennis courts Lower Keys 35,177 1 ballfield 1 volleyball court 1 play area While it is acknowledged that schools in the Upper and Middle Keys do allowed limited public use of their recreational facilities and some allowances for seasonal residents can be made, the fact remains that a shortage of active recreation facilities exists in Monroe County. The positive aspects of acquiring lands for future recreation use include increased quality of life for residents and, over time, the increased value of the land itself, as vacant land becomes increasingly scarce. Although the acquisition costs could appear somewhat formidable, funding is available from state and federal sources, as well as the County Land Authority. While the image of the Keys is that of one big playground, the reality is that many residents do not have access to minimally adequate active recreation facilities. The Comprehensive Plan recommends acquisition of land for community park sites over the next nine years, as discussed in the Recreation and Open Space element (Technical Document, pages 11-21 through 11-25), and the Policy Document contains objectives and policies directed towards this end (pp. 2-93, 94). Ideally, these sites should be located in areas not presently served by any recreation facilities. At a minimum, these acquisitions should be adjacent to significant permanent resident populations, be large enough for future expansion and should not have direct access to US-1, to minimize visitor influx into residential areas. Staff has identified six potential parcels that could meet the requirements noted here. The process of acquiring some of these parcels has already begun. 43 Redevelopment Areas Often, the word "redevelopment" is taken to mean "demolition." This is not the case. It is always less expensive to redevelop an existing site and buildings than to demolish and/or start from scratch. Redevelopment programs allow communities to integrate newer development and planning concepts into already developed areas which may be experiencing elevated vacancy rates, be plagued by substandard or deteriorated structures or have other community concerns, such as affordable housing. Some of these concepts may be the provision of community green space, pedestrian walkways, implementation of design guidelines or gradual conformance with setbacks and height restrictions. Some of the positive aspects of redevelopment are as follows: *encourage infill development of under-utilized areas; *designation within Comprehensive Plan improves potential for federal and state grants for implementation; *encourage elimination of non-conforming uses; *encourage renovation of dilapidated or non-conforming structures; *allows provision of amenities not considered when originally constructed (i.e., affordable housing, recreation facilities, open space); *prevent alteration or demolition of historic structures; and *improve visual aesthetics, for residents and visitors. Four redevelopment areas were proposed in the fourth draft of the proposed Comprehensive Plan, and were shown on the Future Land Use Concept maps. These areas are Stock Island, Sands subdivision on Big Pine Key, "The Rock" in Marathon and Hibiscus Park on Key Largo. All warrant redevelopment consideration, but the concerns differ somewhat. One common concern, however, is affordable housing; all of these areas contain significant amounts of the total affordable housing in the County. 44 RECOMMENDATION We must plan for future redevelopment and recreation facility needs. Areas within the County which would benefit from redevelopment designation are: Hibiscus Park, "The Rock", Sands subdivision on Big Pine Key and Stock Island. Additional analysis should be conducted on each of these areas, with policies written to foster the implementation of redevelopment plans for each area. Future recreation facilities must also be identified and shown on the Future Land Use maps. Parcels which meet the necessary criteria have been identified by staff on the following keys: Key Largo; Plantation Key; Marathon; Big Pine; Lower Sugarloaf and Stock Island. 45 QUESTION #22 How will we "eliminate or reduce" nonconforming uses? BACKGROUND Nonconforming uses are defined in section 9.5-4 of the current land development regulations as "any use lawfully being made of any land, buildings or structure, other than a sign, on the effective date of this chapter or any amendment thereto, rendering such use nonconforming, which does not comply with all of the standards and regulations of this chapter, or any amendment thereto." The discussion here focuses on nonconforming use, not structures, signs or lots. The Land Use element of the Policy Document contains objectives and policies relating to nonconforming uses, as required by 9J-5, F.A.C. However, the DCA objected to Policy 1.1.1 (viii), page 2-119, as being inconsistent with the intent of the other objectives and policies relating to nonconforming uses. Subsection viii of Policy 1.1.1 shields uses which are incompatible with the designated land use from being labeled nonconforming. It contradicts Subsection ii of the same policy, in addition to Objectives 1.4, 1.5 and 1.6 and their related policies. Both the DCA 163 and 389 review teams found that these contradictions created an internal inconsistency within the Plan. The purpose of designating land use districts is to establish areas of compatible uses. This protects property values and protects residents from exposure to undue noise, noxious smells or hazardous materials. The logical compromise between an existing nonconforming use and the predominant use within a land use district is to allow the use to remain, but: *prohibit its expansion; *prohibit change to another nonconforming purpose; *if abandoned, prohibit resuming the use; and *if destroyed, prohibit reconstruction or reuse except for a purpose permitted in the land use district. This safeguards the existing nonconforming use for the life of the business or residence, but also provides for eventual compatibility of uses within the district. It allows the community to guide future development without denying an individual the continued use of his/her property. '~6 RECOMMENDATION The current land development regulations address nonconforming uses as listed above. The County should integrate the current provisions into the Comprehensive plan, and remove any conflicting language from the policy Document. 47 QUESTION #23 Which areas of the county will be TDR sender sites? Which areas will be receiver sites? BACKGROUND The County has a TDR program in place which addresses the transfer of residential development rights in order to protect environmentally sensitive lands. The TDRs move freely among all land use districts, with no designated receiver sites. Ideally, the program should direct development away from sensitive natural resources towards less sensitive areas by stipulating those areas which may receive TDRs. Both the public and the developer benefit; the former since service extension outside of urbanized areas is minimized and fragile lands are preserved, and the latter since the right to develop at a higher density than allocated is granted. The Technical Document of the comprehensive plan recommends the designation of urban, urban core and redevelopment areas (shown on the Future Land Use Concept maps) as receiver sites for TDRs, with all other Concept map areas acting as sender sites. This strengthens the objective of directing development toward developed, heavily populated areas with greater infrastructure capacities, and away from vacant and sensitive areas. Discussions with the Land Authority uncovered some problems with the existing TDR regulations. One, discussed above, is the lack of designated receiver sites. The County property appraiser should be informed as to receiver sites so that taxes may be adjusted accordingly. A Suburban Residential parcel without development rights should be taxed less than one which retains development rights, due to development expectations. Another problem is the difficulty in monitoring partial and total transfers from parcels. The current system includes fractional development rights which, in the absence of a structured monitoring program, are understandably difficult to track. The Land Authority has been in contact with the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy, a well-known urban and regional planning "think tank." The former director, Dr. B. Chinitz, is currently on sabbatical teaching at FlU, and has expressed continued interest in assisting the County in refining its TDR program. Provided funding assistance is available from the state, the County should endorse this effort. The DCA objected to the omission of designated TDR receiver sites within the comprehensive plan (ORC p. 175, 48 objection bb), since they were referenced in the Concept plan discussion. RECOMMENDATION A complete analysis of the status of the TDR program is needed to identify weaknesses and potential improvements. This analysis should include, at a minimum, a listing of parcels from which development rights have been transferred, confirmation that all appropriate deed restrictions have been filed, and a tabulation of development rights already purchased by the County. A few preliminary recommendations, given the scenario presented under the Future Land Use Concept maps, include designation of both sender and receiver sites for TDRs, expansion of the regulations pertaining to TDRs to address transfers to and from commercial zones, and a structured tracking program for monitoring purposes. 49 QUESTION #24 What is "affordable housing" in the Keys? Single family? Multifamily? Where should it be located? How much should we have? Who will provide it? BACKGROUND An affordable housing study was performed by the Plantec corporation for the County's Affordable Housing Study Committee in 1987. Subsequent meetings of subcommittees have been held since then, with the latest report dated January 1990. This report generally recommended additional studies to answer those questions posed above. Provisions for affordable housing are contained in the current land development regulations. While these provisions stipulate details about the actual parcel to be developed for affordable housing, the question of the type, location and quantity appropriate to the County is not addressed. Although policies addressing the provision of affordable housing are contained in the Housing element of the Policy Document, the DCA objected to the lack of specific direction for attaining affordable housing in the County (ORC pp. 45-46, #9; p. 49, #17). RECOMMENDATION The provision of affordable housing within the County must be addressed within the comprehensive plan. However, the analysis of the Affordable Housing Task Force is incomplete and does not yet provide a basis for a decision at this point. The consultant should address the type, location and amount of affordable housing needed to meet the needs and deficiencies for the timeframe of the plan. 50 QUESTION #25 Do we want to collect the data necessary to perform land use planning, i.e., land use inventories, groundtruthed vegetation inventories, water quality monitoring, marina surveys, and inventories of eXisting sewer and drainage facilities? Who will collect this information? Who will pay for it? BACKGROUND state law requires that the county base its plan upon the "best available data". Collection of new data is not required. However, it has become obvious that the eXisting data has limitations for realistic and responsible planning purposes. In some cases, historic data are not available at all; one example is water quality monitoring information. However, the state still requires the County to address water quality concerns. A 1990 survey showed that most County residents agree that land use planning and control of development is important to the quality of life here. In order to plan, the County must base its decisions on adequate data. Failure to do so will result in a plan that is not legally defensible. Collection and analysis of data should be conducted by both County staff and consultants. Where the required analysis is beyond the professional expertise of County staff, the County should rely on consultants. RECOMMENDATION Monroe County must collect the additional data needed for land use planning. Collection and analysis should be undertaken by both County staff and contracted consultants. It will be paid for with a combination of state and local funds. 51 UU 067 Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes No No Yes Motion carried. - QUESTION #25 Do we want to collect the data necessary to perform land use planning, i.e., land use inventories, groundtruthed vegetation inventories, water quality monitoring, marina surveys, and inventories of existing sewer and drainage facilities? Who will collect this information? Who will pay for it? Motion was made by Commissioner Stormont and seconded by Commissioner Jones to approve Recommendation #25. Roll call vote was unanimous. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. * * * * * - -- UU U 6 8 Special Meeting Board of County Commissioners Monday, February 4, 1991 Key Colony Beach A Special Meeting (called earlier this same day) of the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners convened at 4:45 p.m. on the above date at the City Hall in Key Colony Beach. Present and answering to roll call were Commissioner Earl Cheal, Commissioner Douglas Jones, Commissioner Jack London, Commissioner John Stormont, and Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey. Also present were Danny Kolhage, Clerk; Randy Ludacer, County Attorney; Tom Brown, County Administrator; County Staff; members of the Press and Radio; and the general public. The Board entered into a discussion concerning the proposed purchase of the Truman Annex property. Commissioner Jones discussed the Board's previous action cancelling the lease with Truman Annex. He and the County Attorney indicated that they had received information that the lease had been assigned and that their action to cancel may have been inappropriate. Motion was made by Commissioner Cheal and seconded by Commissioner Jones to rescind the Board's previous action cancelling the lease with Truman Annex concerning property near Jackson Square in Key West. Roll call vote was taken with the following results: Commissioner Cheal Commissioner Jones Commissioner London Commissioner Stormont Mayor Harvey Yes Yes Yes No Yes Motion carried. Motion was made by Commissioner Jones and seconded by Mayor Harvey to postpone further cconsideration of the proposed purchase. Motion carried unanimously. There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. * * * * *