07/20/1994SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT
THIS SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT is made and entered into this 2oth day of
July , 1994, by Joseph Farrugia and the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe .
County.
WHEREAS, on August 2, 1990, the Planning Commission of Monroe County
unanimously approved a preliminary development plan of a major development known as "Coral
Harbor," owned by Joseph Farrugia.
WHEREAS, on June 9, 1992, the Planning Commission determined that Coral Harbor's
final development plan was not in compliance with the conditional approval of the preliminary
development plan.
WHEREAS, on November 3, 1992, Joseph Farrugia sued the Board of County
Commissioners of Monroe County as a result of the County's denial of final development plan
approval for Coral Harbor.
WHEREAS, Joseph Farrugia and the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County ("Parties") desire to resolve the issues in dispute between them with respect to the
lawsuit filed on November 3, 1992.
NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the covenants and agreements herein
contained, the Parties agree as follows:
1. A three (3) year build -out of the major development known as Coral Harbor
("Project"). The first year shall be for the installation of the required project improvements,
consisting of the improvements as described in Appendix "A," which is attached hereto, with
the exception of the DNR approved channel markers and the perimeter docks with cleats as
stated in Paragraph 4 hereof. Build -out shall commence on the effective date of the first Monroe
County building permit issued to Joseph Farrugia, or his successors and assigns. The next two
(2) years following shall consist of two (2) phases of twelve (12) and/or twenty-four (24) units
per year and amenities for a total of thirty-six (36) units. All build -out tunes shall be tolled by
administrative appeals or stop work orders of building permits by any county, state, or federal
agency or individuals. This provision fulfills Condition 6b of the Preliminary Development Plan
Approval.
2. Application for a Monroe County building permit shall be made within one (1)
year of the effective date of this Settlement Agreement. Construction shall begin and continue
consistent with Section 9.5-115 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations adopted
in February, 1986, and effective in September, 1986. Said building permit applications shall
be reviewed under the Monroe County Land Development Regulations adopted in February,
1986, and effective September, 1986; however, where said regulations conflict with the specific
provisions of this Settlement Agreement and/or the specific conditions of the Preliminary
Development Plan Approval attached hereto as Appendix "B," the specific provisions of the
Settlement Agreement and/or the specific conditions of the Preliminary Development Plan
Approval shall control.
3. In the event Monroe County requires plat abandonment, Farrugia will make
application for abandonment within thirty (30) days of this Agreement. Time periods under
paragraph 2 will begin to run upon final approval of vacation of plat.
4. The Project shall be exempt from the Monroe County Rate of Growth Ordinance.
N
5. The finger piers shall be deleted from the boat basin design. Instead, the Project
shall install wooden perimeter docks with cleats along the upland perimeter of the basin or
cantilevered wooden perimeter docks with cleats extending from the uplands, or a combination
of both where appropriate, to provide access to boats moored in the basin.
6. The Project shall be considered terminated if any Monroe County building permit
issued to Joseph Farrugia, or his successors and assigns, "expires" as that term is defined by the
Monroe County Code in effect at the time the permit is issued.
7. The Project shall include deed restrictions which preclude any individual other
than the unit owners from using the boat basin.
8. Boat launchings into the boat basin from the subject property shall not be
permitted and shall be prohibited by deed restriction.
9. Application for the installation of the installation of the DNR approved channel
markers and perimeter docks with cleats shall be made no later than during the first year of
Project build -out. Channel markers shall be installed promptly upon the effective date of all
necessary permits, if and when issued. The perimeter docks as stated in Paragraph 4 hereof
shall be installed promptly upon the effective date of all required permits. The term "promptly"
shall be construed herein to mean within ninety (90) days of the effective date of all necessary
permits for the DNR approved channel markers, and after applicable appeal periods have run,
with the exception that administrative appeals or stop work orders shall toll the time required
for installation. This provision fulfills Condition 8b of the Preliminary Development Plan
Approval.
3
I
10. The Project shall limit all boats using the boat basin to a draft of less than two
(2) feet.
11. The requirement for a berm is deleted. Instead, a vegetated buffer shall be
provided consistent with Antonia Gerli's memo dated October 9, 1991, attached hereto as
Appendix "C." This provision fulfills Condition 2i of the Preliminary Development Plan
Approval.
12. A FDOT permit for access to U.S. 1 shall be part of submission of an application
for a Monroe County building permit. This provision fulfills Conditions 3c and 3d of the
Preliminary Development Plan Approval.
13. The Declaration of Covenants, Additions, and Restrictions shall be changed to
reflect condominiums or cooperative ownership only, and not townhouses.
14. Fuel dispensing, wholesale or retail, shall be prohibited in the Project.
15. Jet ski and/or boat rental shall be prohibited in the Project.
16. Except where a proposed condition herein expressly modifies a condition of the
Preliminary Development Plan Approval, all of the conditions of the Preliminary Development
Plan Approval remain binding upon Coral Harbor.
17. The conditions of the Preliminary Development Plan Approval determined to be
in compliance in the Revised Final Staff Report, dated June 9, 1992, attached hereto as
Appendix "D," shall remain in compliance provided no changes are made to the final
development plan, reviewed in the Revised Final Staff Report, for said conditions.
4
18. In light of the removal of finger piers from the final development plan and the
prohibition against boat launchings into the boat basin from the subject property, Conditions 8b,
8d, 8e, and 8f of the Preliminary Development Plan Approval are no longer applicable.
19. Each side shall bear their own fees and costs.
20. This Settlement Agreement shall be recorded in the Public Records of Monroe
County, Florida, and shall run with the property and shall be transferrable to Joseph Farrugia's
successors in interest, heirs, and assigns.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have signed and sealed this Settlement
Agreement on the date shown below.
Date:��i���1--�
Date: July 20, 1994
Date: July 20, 1994
e• �
JO H FARRUGIA
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY
LN
i.onaon, mayor
Attest: Danny L. Kohlage, Clerk
By:A.ij e. JIV,
Deputy Clerk
5
Appendix F
No certi f icate of occupancy shall Pae issued to any resido.ni i Al
unit in Coral Harbor until all required project improvements Are
certified by the project architect as substantially complete, oc
security reasonably satisfactory to Monroe County has been given to
provide payment of the anticipated cost of such improvement. Such
r..� security may take the form of a payment or performance bond, a rash
4..
escrow, or other security.
Maintenance of all required improvements is provided for unmer
the Declaration of Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions of Coral
Harbor (Appendix 1), including mandatory assessments And a
conservation easement.
Required project improvements are public utilities including
fire wells, channel markers, berms, buffers, landscaping And
fear. i ng intended to buf fer neighbors, improvements to US 1 requ i red
of the developer, access and
`;� trs�t,Ment plant.
JOE efiNuGrA,, OWNE
CORAL HARBOR
interior roadway, and the sewngge
DATE: -5'a
STA,rr OF FLORIDA )
Bill
COUNTY 0VP C
BEFORE M£, the undersigned authority, duly authorized to krike
tnowledgwments in the State and County aforesaid, appeared
_ who executed the forego
�9_ �document in my
presenc and whose driver license number is
SWORN TO and SUBSCRIBED befor on this
I LA 1992. '. o
No'PARY PUB C
My commission Expires:
r .)Tr Pua.ic srAtg
C�iISSIOC STATE FLORJDA
'U M3E® THRU GENERAL FEB. 6,1995
MfR/11 IA',, IMF.
}
7y a.
Plannina Department
RESOLUTION NO. b8-90
A RESOLUTION GRANTING APPROVAL- OF A MAJOR
DEVELOPMENT, BASED UPON THE PRELIMINARY
DEVELOPMENT PLAN, FOR A HOUSING PROJECT TO BE
KNOWN AS CORAL HARBOR AND TO BE LOCATED ON
ALL OF THE AMENDED PLAT OF MARATHON SHORES
SUBDIVISION, AND ALL OF BLOCKS 1 & 2, BEACH
LOT PARK (EXCLUDING BAY BOTTOM), SECTION 1
TOWNSHIP 66 SOUTH, RANGE 32 EAST, TALLAHASSEE
MERIDIAN, KEY VACA, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
LOCATED AT APPROXIMATELY MM 50.8, OCEAN
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission during a
regular session held on August 2nd, 1990, was agended to hear
the application for approval of a preliminary development plan
of a major development, continued from the January 18th, 1990
Planning Commission meeting, by Mr. Joseph Farrugia owner of the
proposed Coral -harbor development and James Hendrick, Esq. acting
as his agent; and
WHEREAS, the proposed development is proposed to consist of
nine (9) four (4) unit residential buildings, configured as two
(2) stories over parking, with a club house of 1,500 square feet,
also including a pool and deck, 34 boat slips; and a jogging
path; and
WHEREAS said proposed development is to be located on all of
the amended plat .of Marathon Shores Subdivision; and all of
Blocks 1 & 2, Beach Lot Park (excluding bay bottom), Section 1,
Township 66S, Range 32E, Tallahassee Meridian, Key Vaca, Monroe
County, Florida, and located at approximately MM 50.8, ocean; and
WHEREAS, the zoning, under the previous code was multi -family
residential (RU-3); while the currant land use designation is Sub
Urban Residential (SR); and
WHEREAS the developer will be requesting a vacation of the
above referenced amended plat of Marathon Shores Subdivision. (PB
3-58) consisting of 35 lots; and
pea;: x 8
Initials
WHEREAS, the Planning Commission was presented with informa-
=ion via the following:
1. The application submitted by the applicant; and
�. The file compiled by the Monroe County Development Review
staff; and
3. The file of the Planning Department compiled in regards to
the Planning Commission's public hearings on this matter; and
4. The staff reports from Ty Symroski, Development Review Coordi-
nator, the latest revision being dated July 30th, 1990, which
report was based upon the revised proposed development plans
dated June 13th, 1990; and
5. The letter from Rob Wolfe, Esq., Assistant County Attorney,
concerning the developer's right to continue with this proposed
development under the provisions of Division 3, Vested Rights, of
the Monroe Countv Code, Amended; and
6. The statement by Donald Craig, then Director of Planning,
affirming the fact that the developer had the right to apply for
an allocated density of 53 units under the provisions of Division
3, Vested Rights, of the Monroe County Code, Amended; and
7. The comments of Robert Smith, Senior Biologist for the Monroe
County Growth Management -Division; and
8. The presentation by Mr. Hendricks, Esq. agent for the develop-
er; and
9. The exhibits offered by the applicant's agent, Mr. Hendricks,
Esq.; and
10. The testimony offered during the public input portion of the
public hearing; NOW THEREFORE
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE PLANNING COMMISSION OF MONROE COUNTY,
FLORIDA, that APPROVAL is hereby granted to the Coral Harbor
preliminary development plan subject to the following conditions:
1. That the final development plan shall contain a revised park-
ing and driveway layout plan which shall specify and provide the
following:
a. Compliance with the parking requirements of two spaces
per unit; and
b. Two (2) additional parking spaces adjacent to the boat
basin for loading and unloading; and
z cooL�" U
MDCORHA.I9B/TXTDR �f 1 Initials /.
1
c. A design to maintain safe traffic speeds by installing a
meandering, curvilinear road; and
d. A design enhancement which will minimize the shining of
headlights into residential areas; and
e. Design enhancements whichwill accommodate the loading
and unloading of boats and provide adequate turning radii for
all trucks; and that
2. The final development plan shall include a landscape screen-
ing plan which shall:
a. Minimize the need for irrigation by sewage effluent
recycling; and
b. Mask the height of buildings; and
C. Maintain existing trees; and
d. Comply with current buffer yard requirements; and
e. Use at least 70% native plants; and
f. Shade the buildings; and
g. Minimize the visibility of the buildings and boat
basin from adjacent properties; and
h. Provide habitat for native wildlife; and
i. Provide for berms on the east and west sides of the
property which shall be designed to have a crown of at least
four (4) feet in height and ten (10) feet in width with 80%
opaque crown planting as per Section 19-127 of the previous
Monroe County Code; and that
3. The final development plan shall provide a highway access
management plan which shall include the following criteria:
a. That priority be given to achieving shared access; and
if such is not available, then the access plan should provide
driveway connections with all adjacent properties and eventu-
al shared access to the property to the east; and
b. A southbound left hand turn lane on US 1 at Aviation
Boulevard; and
C. Florida Department of Transportation approval for
the access to US 1; and
d. Florida Department of Transportation approval for the
left hand turn lane. If the Florida Department of Transporta-
3
MDCORHA.19B/TXTDR Initials
tion will not approve a left hand turn lane, then the lane
shall not be considered a required project improvement; and
that
;. The final development plan shall indicate a method for han-
dling solid waste which will facilitate the pick up efforts, maxi-
mize recycling, and minimize visual impact; and that
5. The final development plan shall show how electrical and
water demand will be minimized in compliance with the provisions
of the current Monroe Countv Code, Amended, to the maximum
extent possible, and to address the shading of the residential
units specifically; and that
6. The final development plan shall provide a construction man-
agement plan indicating construction phases and shall address:
a. How the applicant will protect existing trees; and
b. Methods to reduce all identifiable adverse impacts
associated with construction activity; and
C. Methods to assure project improvements are installed
prior to occupancy of any of the dwelling units; and
d. A transplantation plan for vegetation specified by the
county biologist which is presently located in areas to be
cleared; and
e. An invasive exotic vegetation removal plan; and
7. The final development plan will include a sewage treatment
plan which shall specify:
a. That the sewage treatment plant will provide tertiary
treatment with nutrient stripping; and that
b. The sewage treatment plant shall be available (at the
appropriate costs) and of a size sufficient to provide sewage
treatment upon development of the vacant tract along the
highway ; and that
C. If the owner of Trailer Ranch -By -The -Sea approves, and
if a legal contract can be negotiated that is in conformance
with all applicable County, State and Federal regulations,
then the sewage treatment plant shall be available and sized
to handle the sewage from Trailer Ranch -By -The -Sea; and
d. That the sewage treatment plant effluent shall be uti-
lized for irrigation purposes; and that
8. The final development plan shall provide:
ri
4 C001-Py
MDCORHA.I9B/TXTDR
initial:'
a. A method to limit, by physical means, access to the boat
basin and channel to vessels no larger than 23 feet in
length; and
b. Documentation of the controlling water depth; and
C. A channel marking plan which identifies the most desir-
able navigation channel; and
d. A tidal gauge that indicates the current depth of water
at the controlling point (most shallow) in that access chan-
nel; and
e. An aeration system for the boat basin which shall be
sufficient to keep the dissolved oxygen level within pre-
scribed state standards; and ,
f. Consideration of any other methods, in addition to aera-
tion, which might avoid the adverse impacts associated with
the boat dockage in the natural environment; and that
9. The final development plan shall specify what project improve-
ments are required; and that
10. The final development plan shall provide means to guarantee
the installation and maintenance of all required improvements;
and that
11. The final development plan shall not specify, a particular
use for the vacant tract along US 1; and that
12. The final development plan shall specify that any future
development of the vacant tract must comply with all current,
applicable laws in effect at the time when development of the
vacant tract is approved; and that
13. The final development plan shall provide that all on -site
lighting be in compliance with the provisions of Section 9.5-393
of the current Monroe County Code, Amended; and that
14. The final development plan shall provide a drainage plan in
conformance with the provisions of the current Monroe County
Code, Amended; and that
15. All permits for particular structures or activities shall be
obtained from any appropriate governmental agencies prior to
issuance of any Monroe County building permits; and that a permit
From the Florida Department of Transportation for the driveway
access, and that a permit from South Florida Water Management
District for the drainage plan shall be obtained prior to the
issuance of a Monroe County building permit for any of the dwell-
ing units; and that
5
MDCORHA. 1 9B/TXTDR
Initials
t:
6. There shall be no commercial use of the clubhouse and the
condo project itself shall be restricted from being used as a
"public lodging establishment" as defined by Florida law; and
Lhat
'7. At the time of submittal of the Final development plan, the
applicant shall also submit a copy of a.11 restrictive covenants
that are to be included in the recorded condominium document.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Planning Commission of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 2nd day of
August, 1990. -
PLANNING COMMISSION OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
gY
Chairman
Signed this Y day of ! .�,,. 199A .
MDCORRA.19B/TXTDR
n
6 C00[ply Initials
M E M O R A N D U M
To Sullins Stewart, agent for Coral Harbor RECEIVED
From: Antonia Gerli, Planner
NOV 0 1 1999
Date: October 9, 1991 PLANNING DEPT.
LAND USE DIVISION
Re Coral Harbor Development Conditions RY _
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
One of the conditions placed on the development of the Coral
Harbor project was the inclusion in the landscape plan of a four
foot high berm adjacent to the property lines on both sides of
the property.
The berm presents a problem for several reasons. First, the
landscaped area is only twelve feet wide at its widest point. In
some places, it narrows to only two feet. While the angle of
repose (the angle between the ground and the surface that a ma-
terial will maintain without a wall) varies from material to
material, it is usually assumed to be 33 degrees for most
predesigned cross sections. At this angle the cross section of
the berm would be a minimum of 14.5 feet. If the four foot high
berm is narrower than 14.5 feet it will require some type of
reinforcement to counteract the forces of erosion. In addition,
a four foot high berm that was narrow enough to fit in the
sideyards, would be unattractive and out of scale.
Second, the berm will channel runoff towards the adjacent proper-
ties, in excess of the amount of runoff that would be directed to
those properties, were Coral Harbor in its natural state. To
alleviate this situation, it will be necessary to construct a
swale between the property line and the berm. Since the berm,
alone, will not fit in the the area between the driveway and the
property line, it is obvious that the berm, together with the
swale, will not fit either.
Third, It will be more difficult to install, establish and main-
tain vegetation on the steep slope of the buffer, as it is now
required to be designed, than it will at the ground level.
Fourth, the required five foot high opaque fence will negate any
positive effects that the berm may have produced..
The Planning Department, together with the Extension Service,
proposes, as an alternative to the construction of the berm, a
landscape plan that will protect the community character of the
neighborhood and minimize any adverse impacts the proposed devel-
opment may have on the surrounding properties. Since much of the
surrounding properties remains as native hammock, the Coral Har-
bor project shall buffer the sidewards with vegetation indigenous
to a low hammock habitat. Where there is existing development on
�
4�
the adjacent properties, the amount of vegetation planted by
Coral Harbor shall be 150% of a ten foot wide Class C buffer, as
specified in Section 9.5-379, Monroe County Code, Amended. Where
there is no development on adjacent properties, the amount of
vegetation planted by Coral Harbor shall be that of the ten foot
wide Class C buffer.
SULLINS/TXTGERLIOctober 9, 1991
Page 2
0
MEM_0RANDUM
To The Planning Commission `_
Through Steve Ferris, Acting Development Review CoordinatorSE_�I
From Suzanne K. Lex, Middle Keys Planner 56
Robert Smith, Senior Biologist -�lr
Date June 9, 1992
Subject Coral Harbor - Final Development Approval of a
Major Development
Revised Final Staff Report
BACKGROUND
On 8/2/90, the Planning Commission unanimously approved a prelimi-
nary development plan of a major development known as Coral Har-
bor, owned by Joseph Farrugia and located on all of the amended
plat of Marathon Shores Subdivision; and all of Blocks 1 & 2,
Beach Lot Park (excluding bay bottom), Section 1, Township 66S,
Range 32E, Tallahassee Meridian, Key Vaca, Monroe County, Flori-
da, at approximately MM 50.8, oceanside. The plat of Marathon
Shores was vacated when the preliminary plan was approved.
The preliminary plan for the Coral Harbor development was re-
viewed under the Monroe County Code in effect in 1983. Section
6-236 of that Monroe County Code required that "the final develop-
ment plan shall conform substantially to the conditionally ap-
proved preliminary development plan.... The final development
plan shall reflect all special conditions subject to the condi-
tional approval of the preliminary development plan as well as
+.he applicable data and information required for final develop-
ment plans."
:section 6-237 states that "if the final development plan is sub-
:-,tantially in accord with the conditionally approved preliminary
development plan, fulfills all attached special conditions, is
complete and reflects all of the required certifications, the
zoning board shall approve the final development plan and the
chairman of the zoning board shall indicate such approval on the
final development plan by signing the certificate of approval."
On December 19, 1991 the Planning Commission resumed the review
of the Coral Harbor project for compliance on the project's final
development plan. At this hearing, the applicant requested a
continuance. This request was granted and a new hearing date was
scheduled for May 14, 1992. On the date of this hearing, May 15,
Page 1
hIDCORHA3 , 02/TXTDR, 060992, 91.101 A
1992, the applicant was once again granted a six week continu-
ance. This 6-9-92 Final Staff Report is a synthesis of previous
staff reports (dated 11-15-91, 12-09-91 and 4-22-92) and all
conclusions are based on the previous and current final submit-
tals, all additional information the applicant has provided and
the site, landscape, and drainage plans (final revision dates
5-28-92).
This report lists the conditions of the preliminary plan approval
and reviews the final development application for conformance to
those conditions.
Pursuant to your directive the development known as Coral Harbor
was reviewed for compliance with the conditions enacted by the
Planning Commission via Resolution #68-90. The following is a
summation of those conditions and comments as to whether or not
they have been met. This project should be reviewed by the Plan-
ning Commission pursuant to Monroe County Code.
Page 2
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR,060992,91101
1. That the final development plan shall contain a revised park-
ing and driveway layout plan which shall specify and provide the
following:
a. Compliance with the parking requirements of two spaces
per unit:
COMMENT: There are 36 (thirty-six) units and 72 (seventy-two)
parking spaces are provided.
CONCLUSION: The parking is in compliance.
b. Two (2) additional parking spaces adjacent to the boat
basin for loading and unloading:
COMMENT: Indicated on the site plan, adjacent to the marina
are two spaces, one which would provide sufficient area for
parking of a vehicle and trailer (9' x 40') and a second that
would accommadate parking for a vehicle (9' x 20').
CONCLUSION: The site plan complies with this condition.
c. A design to maintain safe traffic speeds by installing
a meandering, curvilinear road:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted documents (no date)
from Mr. Joseph E. Rice, Consulting Engineer/Planner support-
ing the proposed curvilinear design in conjunction with a
posted speed limit and special paving. Mr. Witkin, ASLA,
sustains this position in his 5-13-92 letter and recommends
that the paving design be a stamped concrete in cobblestone
pattern.
The revised site plan of 5-28-92 indicates that the speed
limit will be reduced to 15mph (detail signage "A"),
there will be a pedestrian crosswalk from the central
greenspace to the boat basin, (detail signage "B"), and
the cobblestone type paving will be located in the south west
corner.
CONCLUSION: The site plan is in compliance with this condi-
tion.
d. A design enhancement which will minimize the shining of
headlights into residential areas:
COMMENT: The site plan shows five foot high fences in those
areas of the property adjacent to existing residential devel-
opment. A typical design has been provided showing a shadow-
box design to be used. This would shield headlight glare to
the adjacent properties.
CONCLUSION: This item is in compliance.
3 �'(
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials __
2.
e. Design enhancements which will accommodate the loading
and unloading of boats and provide adequate turning
radii for all trucks:
COMMENT: There is a continuous walkway from the parking and
clubhouse and the buildings across the central green space
area. This will provide for easy pedestrian access.
CONCLUSION: This item is in compliance.
COMMENT: The radii has been marked at the northwest corner
to indicate a 55' radii, this is marked typical on the plans
and is supported in the 5-13-92 letter from Andrew Witkin.
CONCLUSION: The site plan complies with this condition.
COMMENT: As discussed in l.b. these marina parking spaces
for loading and unloading are indicated. Detail "C" of the
signage on the site plan identifies the use of this space
as "Loading and unloading 15 minutes".
CONCLUSION: This item is in compliance.
The final development plan shall include a landscape screen-
ing plan which shall:
a. Minimize the need for irrigation by sewage effluent
recycling:
COMMENT: The applicant has indicated that he will use a sub-
surface irrigation system which will comply with the stan-
dards required by the E.D.E.R.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
b. Mask the height of buildings:
COMMENT: The site plan shows trees placed both adjacent to
the buildings and at the property lines that may help to mask
the buildings, at maturity. Since no section drawings or
elevation drawings were submitted for final development ap-
proval, the height of the building cannot be ascertained with
certainty. The preliminary development was approved with a
section drawing showing that the residential buildings are
31.5 feet high. The landscape plan indicates that the canopy
and palm trees to be planted will range in height from ten to
twenty feet (10" to 20'). These are indicated on almost a
continuous border around the property.
4
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR
Initials
1
CONCLUSION: Item is in compliance based upon the planning
staff's beliefs that upon maturity the trees suffice as a
visual screen to the height of the buildings.
C. Maintain existing trees:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a plan which will main-
tain the existing trees which are located primarily on the
small oceanside island.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
d. Comply with current buffer yard requirements:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a revised landscape
plan which has widened the areas which were previously to
narrow to the requisite width.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
e. Use at least 70% native plants:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a revised landscape
plan which uses at least 70 % native plants.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
f. Shade the buildings:
COMMENT: Based on the landscape plan, plant material is
placed so that it will shade the building, when the plant
material has matured.
CONCLUSION: The application complies with this condition.
g. Minimize the visibility of the buildings and boat
basin from adjacent properties:
COMMENT: The 10-30-91 compliance statement asserts that the
five foot fence and plant material will minimize the -visibili-
ty of the buildings (31.5 feet high) and the boat basin. The
fence and landscaping may minimize the visibility of the boat
basin but it is doubtful that the visibility of the buildings
will be minimized by these measures until the trees have
matured. The 3-24-92 Compliance Statement asserts, and the
site plan reflects, that additional trees have been planted
to provide a continuous canopy.
5 1-
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials
44.
CONCLUSION: The applicant has complied with this condi
tion.
h. Provide habitat for native wildlife:
COMMENT: This condition has been adequately addressed.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
i. Provide for berms on the east and west sides of the
property which shall be designed to have a crown of at
least four (4) feet in height and ten (10) feet in width
with 8O% opaque crown planting as per Section 19-127 of
the previous Monroe County Code:
The applicant has provided detail on the Site plan and the
Drainage plan indicating the design of the four foot high
berm. A retaining wall will be used in the narrow areas to
support the berm and in wider buffer areas the berm will
slope across a twelve foot section. The landscape plan indi-
cates that the plantings will depict an 80% opaque condition.
CONCLUSION: The site and drainage plans indicate
compliance with this condition.
3. The final development plan shall provide a highway access
management plan shall include the following criteria:
a. That priority be given to achieving shared access; and
if such is not available, then the access plan should
provide driveway connections with all adjacent
properties and eventual shared access to the property to
the east:
COMMENT: Appendix D states that the owners of Trailer Ranch
By The Sea do not desire shared access. The site plan shows
provisions for shared access to the adjacent properties on
the east and west sides of the proposed development. This
issue was discussed at the 12-19-91 Planning Commission hear-
ing and the Commissioners are aware that joint access is not
a viable solution.
CONCLUSION: The applicant has attempted to comply with
this provision.
b. A southbound left hand tern lane on US 1 at Aviation
Boulevard:
6
tMCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials
COMMENT: A letter dated 5-13-92 from the Department of
Transportation to Sullins Stuart states that the current
five year plan does not include any upgrades to this intersec-
tion.
CONCLUSION: The applicant has attempted to comply with this
condition.
C. Florida Department of Transportation approval for
the access to US 1:
COMMENT: A copy of the Driveway plan, drawn by Petsche and
Associates and dated 9-06-91, has been provided to staff
and the original is on file in the Stock Island Planning
Deapertment. Two letters from the Department of Transporta-
tion, dated 5-13-92 from A.L. Majewski and 6-01-92 from In-
grid Leuchtenmueller, Assistant Permit Engineer, state that
no driveway application has been received by their agency.
The applicant has provided documents for conceptual review by
the Department of Transportation but has not applied for
driveway connection. Without a formal application access
approval can not be granted to the developer.
CONCLUSION: Access is not in compliance.
d. Florida Department of Transportation approval for the
left hand turn lane. If the Florida Department of Transporta-
tion will not approve a left hand turn lane, then the lane
shall not be considered a required project improvement:
COMMENT: A letter dated 5-13-92 from the Department of Trans-
portation to Sullins Stuart states that the current five
year plan does not include any upgrades to this intersection.
Since no formal application has been made to FDOT the Plan-
ning staff cannot determine if this is a warranted project
improvement.
CONCLUSION: This item does not comply with this condition.
4. The final development plan shall indicate a method for han-
dling solid waste which will facilitate the pick up efforts, maxi-
mize recycling, and minimize visual impact:
COMMENT: The Compliance Statement asserts that solid waste
will be picked up curbside. The site plan shows an area to
the front of the property that will be used for recycling.
This recycling area will be
opaque fence as well as two
VIII.(9.) of the Restrictions
screened by a five foot high
canopy trees and shrubs. Item
in the Declaration of Cove-
7
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials \`
1
nants, Conditions and Restrictions for Coral Harbor limit
improper disposal of solid waste.
CONCLUSION: The applicant has complied with this
condition.
5. The final development plan shall show how electrical and
water demand will be minimized in compliance with the provisions
of the current Monroe County Code, Amended, to the maximum
extent possible, and to address the shading of the residential
units specifically:
COMMENT: As per the compliance statement on the site plan
that "All development shall comply with 9.5-327 and Division
12 current Monroe County Code Amended", the applicant has
addressed minimizing electrical and water demands.
Section 9.5-327, potable water conservation standards, specif-
ically states that "all development shall make adequate provi-
sions for water conservation in accordance with the following
standards:
(a) Installation of toilets with a maximum flush of three
and five -tenths gallons;
(b) Showerheads and faucets with a maximun flow rate of
three gallons per minute at sixty pounds of pressure per
square inch as specified in the Water Conservation Act, sec-
tion 553.14, Florida Statutes.
(c) Independent water systems shall be encouraged whenever
permitted.
(d) The deed restriction #6 of the Declaration of Covenants,
Conditions and Restrictions for Coral Harbor which prohibited
clotheslines has been deleted, and is in compliance with
9.5-326(f).
(e) Bicycle racks, required by Sec. 9.5-326(b) have been
provided.
The applicant also states that water and electrical demand
will be minimized through the use of water conservation plumb-
ing fixtures, high efficiency electrical appliances, high
performance insulation, solar treated glass, overhangs and
shading through landscaping.
CONCLUSION: The application does comply with this condi-
tion. Detail has been shown on the site plan and item 16 of
the Covenant and Deed restrictions requires nay interior
8 r'
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR 1 Initials
1
remodeling to be in compliance with Section 9.5-327 Of Monroe
County Code Amended.
6. The final development plan shall provide a construction man-
agement plan indicating construction phases and shall address:
a. How the applicant will protect existing trees:
COMMENT: This topic is addressed in Appendix 'B' adequately.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
b. Methods to reduce all identifiable adverse impacts
associated with construction activity:
COMMENT: In the 3-24-92 Compliance Statement the applicant
provides the following documentation on methods to be taken
to minimize adverse effects; fencing and landscaping in-
stalled prior to construction; only construction areas will
be cleared and cleared areas will be watered and kept clean;
working hours from 7:30 a.m.- 6:00 p.m. M-F and 9:00 a.m. to
6:00 p.m. on weekends; and storage of materials and debris
not to be in proximity of neighbors.
CONCLUSION: This item is in compliance.
COMMENT: The applicant proposes the following phasing sched-
ule.
Phase I- All required project improvements and FDOT curb
cut. (Approved FDOT access and improvements)
Phase II- The clubhouse, tennis courts, 12 beach houses.
Phase III- Twelve (12) beach houses.
Phase IV- Twelve (12) beachhouses.
All project improvements to be completed within four
years.
Monroe County Code ,under the old and the current code, re-
quire that projects be started and completed within a given
time frame. A phasing schedule should be provided in accor-
dance with the following performance standards of Section
6-226 (a), " Construction of all major development projects
shall be iniated within one (1) year and completed within
two (2) years after approval of the final development plan
unless otherwise specified or approved by the zoning board.
it Section 6-226(f) then goes on to state that, " The appro-
priate reviewing body shall recommend to the zoning board any
reasonable special condition necessary to ensure that there
are no departures from the intent of this article. Because a
9
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR 1 Initials `�
major development project must be tailored to the .... and
neighboring uses, any special conditions for major develop-
ment projects cannot be inflexible."
CONCLUSION: The applicant is clearly not in compliance with
the requirements of 6-226(a) as construction would extend
over a four year period. By providing a phasing schedule the
applicant is in compliance with this condition. As the phas-
ing schedule proposes to commence construction within one
year of approval of the final development plan this is in
compliance with section 9.5-2 of Monroe County Code Amended.
The Planning Commission acting as the Zoning Board will have
to authorize a four year construction plan has required by
Monroe County Code section 6-226(f). Staff believes that a
four year phasing schedule may be in conflict with the Plan-
ning Commission's original intent in providing a construction
management plan that will minimize adverse effects.
C. Methods to assure project improvements are installed
prior to occupancy of any of the dwelling units:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a statement (Appendix
F) asserting that a certificate of occupancy will not be
issued until all required project improvements are certified
by an architect as substantially complete or security is
given to Monroe County to provide payment of the anticipated
cost of such improvement.
The 10-30-91 Compliance Statement asserts that project im-
provements include public utilities, channel markers, berms,
buffers, landscaping and fencing. The 3-24-92 Compliance
Statement asserts that the project improvements have been
expanded to include access improvements, US 1 improvements,
the sewage treatment system and interior roads.
The applicant has stated that he will give Monroe County a
performance bond or cash escrow to ensure the completion of
the improvements but has not submitted a sample improvement
guarantee. Section 626(e) of the old Monroe County Code
states that, "the applicant of a major development may be
required to provide a statement of financial responsibility
including the posting of a performance or surety bond payable
to the county, to assure the installation of project improve-
ments."
CONCLUSION: Appendix F has been amended to include these
additional project improvements and it signed and notarized.
This item is in compliance. No improvements guarantee or
statement of financial responsibility has been submitted as
required by Section 626(e) therefore the application does not
comply with this part of the condition.
10
MDCORRA3.02/TXTDR Initials �'
d. A transplantation plan for vegetation specified by the
county biologist which is presently located in areas to
be cleared:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a transplantation plan.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
e. An invasive exotic vegetation removal plan:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a plan which adequately
addresses invasive exotics.
CONCLUSION: In compliance
7. The final development plan will include a sewage treatment
plan which shall specify:
a. That the sewage treatment plant will provide tertiary
treatment with nutrient stripping:
b. The sewage treatment plant shall be available (at the
appropriate costs) and of a size sufficient to provide
sewage treatment upon development of the vacant tract
along the highway:
COMMENT: The applicant has indicated that they will use a
treatment plant that has the ability to provide tertiary
treatment with a nutrient stripping ability.
CONCLUSION: In compliance..
C. If the owner of Trailer Ranch -By -The -Sea approves, and
if a legal contract can be negotiated that is in
conformance with all applicable County, State and Feder-
al regulations, then the sewage treatment plant shall
be available and sized to handle the sewage from
Trailer Ranch -By -The -Sea:
COMMENT: The applicant has attempted to comply.
CONCLUSION: The applicant is not able to comply with this
condition.
d. That the sewage treatment plant effluent shall be uti-
lized for irrigation purposes:
COMMENT: The applicant has indicated that he will use a
subsurface irrigation system.
11 cc
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
8. The final development plan shall provide:
a. A method to limit, by physical means, access to the boat
basin and channel to vessels no larger than 23 feet in
length:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted within the declaration
of covenents language which restrict vessels greater than 23
feet in length.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
b. Documentation of the controlling water depth:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a survey which indi-
cates that several areas are as shallow as 1.5 feet. The
applicant currently has an application submitted to the
F.D.E.R. which is for dredging the channel to 5 feet deep.
The following sections of the Monroe County code, which were
in effect prior to the adoption of the existing land use
plan, would be pertinent:l) Section 19-111(b)(4) which re-
quires action by the Board Of County Commissioners for dredg-
ing. 2) Section 4-18 which establishes the Shoreline Protec-
tion Zone. 3) Section 4-21 (a) which denotes the need for a
zoning clearance. 4) Section 4-21 (d) which states that no
zoning clearance shall be approved without a written finding
of fact from the zoning board that the activity will not
adversely affect the shoreline protection zone. 5) Section
4-21 (e) which specifies that no zoning clearance can be
issued without the securing of a permit first from the
F.D.E.R. 6) Monroe County Coastal Zone Protection and
Coservation Element: Numerous sections of this element detail
the significant of the nearshore waters and the effect of
dredging on the nearshore waters.
The applicant has not secured the permits from the F.D.E.R.
or the B.O.C.C. as of this date and as such this item is in
conflict with all of the above code sections.
CONCLUSION: Not in compliance.
C. A channel marking plan which identifies the most
desirable navigation channel:
COMMENT: The applicant has indicated that he desires to mark
the channel, however he also wishes to deepen and widen the
existing channel, and as such could not fulfill this condi-
tion at this time.
12
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials
CONCLUSION: Not in compliance.
d. A tidal gauge that indicates the current depth of water
at the controlling point (most shallow) in that access
channel:
COMMENT: Same as the above.
CONCLUSION: Not in compliance.
e. An aeration system for the boat basin which shall be
sufficient to keep the dissolved oxygen level within
prescribed state standards:
f. Consideration of any other measures, in addition to
which might avoid the adverse impacts associated with
the boat dockage in the natural environment:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a water quality moni-
toring plan which would be adequate. Additionally submitted
are copies of brochures which deal with the protection of the
nearshore and offshores resources.
CONCLUSION: The staff believes that the water depths are to
shallow at this time to warrant approval of the dockage facil-
ity.
9. The final development plan shall specify what project improve-
ments are required:
COMMENT: The Compliance Statement asserts that project im-
provements include public utilities, channel markers, berms,
buffers, landscaping and fencing. The 3-24-92 Compliance
Statement includes improvements to U.S.1, access improve-
ments, the sewage treatment plant and the road interior to
the property .
CONCLUSION: The application does comply with this condition.
10. The final development plan shall provide means to guaran-
tee the installation and maintenance of all required improve-
ments:
COMMENT: The Covenant for maintenance assessments allows the
Board of Directors of Coral Harbor to levy both annual and
special assessment for the purpose of maintenance of improve-
ments.
13
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials �__
1
CONCLUSION: Since Appendix F has been signed and notarized,
and it can be considered a binding document that will ensure
the installation of the improvements and therefore this item
is not in compliance.
11. The final development plan shall not specify a particu-
lar use for the vacant tract along US 1:
COMMENT: The site plan states that the commercial parcel is
not part of this project and that all future development on
the parcel must comply with current regulation.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
12. The final development plan shall specify that any future
development of the vacant tract must comply with all current,
applicable lags in effect at the time when development of the
vacant tract is approved:
CONCLUSION: The site plan complies this condition.
13. The final development plan shall provide that all on -
site lighting be in compliance with the provisions of Section
9.5-393 of the current Monroe County Code, Amended:
COMMENT: The site plan states that all on site lighting will
comply with section 9.5-347 of the Monroe County Code. No
drawings of the proposed lighting are shown on the plan.
The site plan details the typical specifications and location
of the outdoor lighting. At sixteen feet in height and
cutoff type this is in compliance.
CONCLUSION: The site plan complies with this condition.
14. The final development plan shall provide a drainage plan
in conformance with the provisions of the current Monroe County
Code, Amended:
COMMENT: The applicant has submitted a revised drainage plan
which adequately addresses the drainage on site.
CONCLUSION: In compliance.
15. All permits for particular structures or activities
shall be obtained from any appropriate governmental agencies
prior to issuance of any Monroe County building permits; and that
14
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials S_!
a permit from the Florida Department of Transportation for the
driveway access, and that a permit from South Florida Water Man-
agement District for the drainage plan shall be obtained prior to
the issuance of a Monroe County building permit for any of the
dwelling units:
COMMENT: The 10-30-91 Compliance Statement asserts that the
applicant agrees to obtain all necessary permits.
16. There shall be no commercial use of the clubhouse and
the condo project itself shall be restricted from being
used as a "public lodging establishment" as defined by
Florida law:
COMMENT: The restrictions (Appendix I) have been revised and
item 7.a require all rentals of the unit be for six months
and one day. The restrictions also limit the use of the
property to residential uses. The restrictions have been
modified to state that the clubhouse cannot be used for com-
mercial purposes.
CONCLUSION: The applicant is in compliance with this condi-
tion.
17. At the time of submittal of the final development plan,
the applicant shall also submit a copy of all restrictive cove-
nants that are to be included in the recorded condominium docu-
ment.
CONCLUSION: The applicant has submitted the Declaration of
Covenants, Conditions and Restrictions for Coral Harbor and
has complied with this condition.
RECOMMENDATION:
PLANNING DEPARTMENT
Based on the complete application submitted by the appli-
cant, including the 5-28-92 revised site plan, the 5-28-92 re-
vised landscape plan and the 5-28-92 revised drainage plan;
Appendices A through N; and the additional materials and revi-
sions provided to the planning staff, the Planning Department
recommends that the application for final development approval be
denied by the Planning Commission (zoning board). The final
development plan does not fulfill all attached special conditions
as required by section 6-237(c).
15
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR l Initials.L_
1
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
The biologist recommends that the project be denied at this
time as no zoning clearance is present for the marina and chan-
nel. All of the subsections found within the Section 4-21 have
not been addressed at this time and would need to be prior to the
granting of the zoning clearance. All other aspects of the
project have met all code requirements from the environmental
perspective.
16
MDCORHA3.02/TXTDR Initials 71
1