Loading...
DOAH Case No. 91-1932GM ORC Reportt. STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS 2740 CENTERVIEW DRIVE • TALL•AHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY LAWTON CHILES Governor August 17, 1992 Secretary The Honorable Wilhemina Harvey Mayor, Monroe County 310 Fleming Street Key West, Florida 33040 Dear Mayor Harvey: The Department has completed its review of the Monroe County proposed remedial comprehensive plan amendment (DCA No. 92R1) relating to the Stipulated Settlement Agreement with the Depart- ment (DOAH Case No. 91-1932GM) which was submitted on May 27, 1992. Copies of the proposed remedial plan amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. The remedial plan is significantly improved from the 1990 Comprehensive Plan. The County is to be commended for the progress made in the revised plan. The proposed plan guided by the 25 issue policy document reflects the County Commission's commitment to growth management by recognizing the need to coor- dinate development with public facility and natural resource constraints. The County's progressive approach to limiting development by adopting an interim permit allocation ordinance and establishing a major land acquisition component for implemen- tation of the plan is also noteworthy. The County has made significant progress, but deficiencies remain and, the remedial plan does not meet all the requirements of Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes and the terms of the February 7, 1992 Stipulated Settlement Agreement. I am enclosing the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, issued pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, Florida Administrative Code. Under the terms of the settlement agreement, Monroe County has until October 16, 1992 to adopt the proposed remedial plan or adopt the remedial plan amendment with changes. The process for adoption of local comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s.163.3184, Florida Statutes, and -Rule 9J-11.011, Florida Administrative Code. EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 9 RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT Mayor Wilhelmina Harvey August 17, 1992 Page Two Within ten working days of the date of adoption, Monroe County must submit the following to the Department: Five copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendment; A copy of additional changes not previously reviewed; A copy of the adoption ordinance; and A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance. The above remedial plan amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct the compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. As a deviation from the current rule requirement above, you are requested to provide one of the five copies of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director of the South Florida Regional Planning Council to be consistent with recent legisla- tion. The regional planning councils have been asked to review adopted amendments to determine local comprehensive plan consist- ency with the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan. Your coopera- tion in this matter is appreciated. (The Department will be promulgating a rule revision in the near future to implement the new legislation.) If you have any questions, please contact me at (904) 488- 2356, Maria Abadal, Plan Review Administrator, at (904) 487-4545 or James Quinn, ACSC Administrator at (904) 488-4925 My staff is available, as the preparation report. CP/ac a priority, to work with the County to assist in of any changes recommended in the enclosed ORC Sincerely, Charles Pattison, Director Division of Resource Planning and Management cc: Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council Lorenzo Aghemo, Director of Planning Monroe County $I DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS FOR MONROE COUNTY AMENDMENT 92R1 August 17, 1992 Division of Resource Planning and Management Bureau of Local Planning This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010 INTRODUCTION MONROE COUNTY The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the Monroe County proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s.163.3184, F.S. Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one of the other state review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the state agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non -applicability pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(4), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non -applicability of the requirement and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments which follow the objections and recommendations section are advisory in nature. Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping, and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS MONROE COUNTY AMENDMENT 92R1 LEGAL EFFECT OF THE PLAN Objection The County noted on the front of the document "Changes to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Final Draft, February 1992" (Change Document) that due to time constraints, the changes identified in the document were prepared without the benefit of the official minutes of the meetings of the County Commissioners. The notation further stated that the Department would be notified of any differences between the Document and the official minutes as soon as the errors were identified. The Department received certified copies of the minutes of the Board of County Commissioners meetings/public hearings of May 15, 18, 19 and 21, 1992 on July 6, 1992; however, no differences between the "Change Document" and the minutes were included with the minutes. Based on these events, the Department has relied on the "Change Document" as being correct and this report has been prepared accordingly. Recommendation Should the County subsequently identify changes between the referenced Document and official minutes, the County must identify these differences as changes not previously reviewed by the Department. FORMAT REQUIREMENTS Comment Although most pages in the County's proposed comprehen- sive plan are numbered, those pages depicting tables and figures (in the Technical Document and the Policy docu- ment) are not numbered. These Documents need to be revised to number each page, including those pages which depict tables and figures. 1 DATA AND ANALYSES REQUIREMENTS Objection Many of the goals, objectives, policies, standards, findings and conclusions in the proposed plan are not based upon relevant and appropriate data. The best available data from federal, state and regional agencies, including the South Florida Regional Planning Council and the South Florida Water Management District, and existing technical reports have not been used in the formulation of the comprehensive plan and its supporting documents. [9J-5.005(2)(a)-(d)] Recommendation Include appropriate sources of data as the basis for developing the comprehensive plan and its supporting documents. Sources which should have been used include, but are not limited to the following: the North Key Largo State Land Study Committee report; the Final Land Protection Plan; the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge Plan; the USFWS Recovery Plan for the American Crocodile; the Monroe County existing conditions aerial map series (scale 1 in. = 200 ft.); referenced water quality studies and other studies cited throughout this report. GOALS. OBJECTIVES AND POLICIES 1. Objection The objectives and policies in the plan which only describe the contents of regulations to be adopted in the future or refer to land development regulations are inadequate._ Such objectives do not include the accomp- lishments to be achieved and the policies do not include the specific standards or guidelines which will be used to evaluate development and for basing development deci- sions upon plan adoption and to be utilized in the preparation of the more specific land development regulations which must be consistent with the comprehensive plan. The following Objectives and Policies defer their effec- tiveness to the adoption or revision of land development regulations: 101.1.2, 101.2.6, 101.5, 101.12.4, 101.14, 101.15, 101.16, 101.16.1, 101.18, 102.1, 102.3, 102.5, 102.6.2, 102.7.2, 102.9, 103.1.9, 103.2.3, 103.4.2, 104.3, 104.3.1, 104.4, 202.4, 202.4.1, 202.5, 202.5.1, 202.5.2, 202.6, 202.6.3, 202.12.3, 203.1, 203.1.1, 203.1.2, 203.2, 203.2.1, 203.2.3, 2-3.5.1, 203.5.2, KJ 205.2, 207.8.2, 207.8.5, 207.9.1, 207.9.4, 207.9.5, 207.9.6, 207.10.5, 207.12.6, 207:13.1, 208.3, 208.3.2, 212.5, 21216.1.11 and 217.3. [9J-5.005(6)] Recommendation Revise each such objective to include the accomplish- ments to be achieved and the policies to specify the implementation programs or activities the County will undertake to achieve the stated objectives. The objec- tives and policies must be based on relevant data and analyses. If the County also chooses to specify the content of the land development regulations in the plan, then the policies must clearly identify the guidelines and standards that are enforceable independently through the plan and those which the County will use in preparing the land development regulations. These guidelines and standards must be sufficient to provide an assessment of the adequacy of the plan in regulating land use by the County consistent with the Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C., requirements. VESTING PROVISIONS 1. Objection Objective 101.18 (Page 10, Change Document) defers the establishment of procedures for the determination of vested rights and the granting of beneficial use to the adoption of land development regulations. [s.163.3167(8) and s.163.3194, F.S. and Chapter 9J- 5.005(6), F.A.C.] Recommendation Revise the objective so that the general guidelines for the vesting and beneficial use procedures are established in the comprehensive plan. 2. Objection Policy 101.18.1 (page 2.1-18) provides that developments which have been issued a final development order or an unexpired determination by the Hearing Officer in accor- dance with the County's regulations shall be considered as vested. The policy does not specify that such develop- ment orders are vesting the property for density, con - currency, or a building permit. The provision for vesting by issuance of a final development order does not specify that the development must have commenced and is continuing in good faith. Also, the adoption by reference of the Hearing Officer provisions sets up a 3 system more lax than necessary to avoid a legitimate takings claim. [s.163.3167(8) and s.163.3194, F.S. and Chapter 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.] Recommendation Revise the policy to specify for what parameters the issuance of a final development order or unexpired determination under the County's regulations vests the development. Further, revise the policy to state that for such development order and determination to vest the development, development must have commenced and is con- tinuing in good faith meaning that quarterly inspections have occurred which demonstrate continued progress toward the completion of the project. Alter the language in the policy (or the referenced Monroe County code) to conform to the most recent judicial pronouncements on regulatory takings. 3. Obiection Policy 101.18.2 (page 10, Change Document) states that neither the comprehensive plan nor the land development regulations shall deprive a property owner of all bene- ficial use of the property. This policy does not.define "beneficial use" nor make the intent clear as to whether the policy intends only to avoid a taking of the property or also serve to relax protection requirements and land use and development criteria of the comprehensive plan and land development regulations. Further, the policy does not provide for acquisition as an option to granting of permits where funding is available, unless special circumstances exists, and it sets a system more lax than necessary to avoid a legitimate takings claim. (s.163.3161(5) and (6), s.163.3167(8) and s.163.3194, F.S. and Chapter 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.] Recommendation Revise the policy to define "beneficial use" as the min- imum use in order to avoid a taking and to clarify its intent in regard to proposed development being required to be undertaken consistent to the maximum extent with the provisions of the comprehensive plan and land deve- lopment regulations. Conform the language to the most recent judicial pronouncement on takings. The option for granting development permits under the beneficial use provisions shall only be exercised upon a showing that the granting of a permit is subjected to the Permit Allocation System such that any allowance is taken from the subsequent year's growth; and environmentally sensi- tive lands, as identified in Division 8 of the County's 4 existing land development regulations do not qualify for permits. CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM 1. Objection The proposed Concurrency Management System (CMS) (Policy 1401.4.5, pages 2.14-5 and 2.14-6 and Pages 72 and 73, Change Document) contains provisions to utilize the flexibility allowed by Rule 9J-5.0055(2)(c)l. through 9. for roads; however, these provisions are deficient as follows: a) the proposed CMS does not include guide- lines regarding the development regulations to be adopted to ensure that development orders and permits are issued in a manner that will assure that the neces- sary public facilities and services will be available to accommodate the impact of that development; b) the proposed CMS does not include guidelines for a monito- ring system which to evaluate adherence to to the adopted level of service standards. the schedule of capital improvements, and/or monitoring the availability of public facilities and services; and c) a clear designation of those areas within which the county will provide roadway facilities and services with public funds in accordance with the five-year capital improve- ments schedule is not included in the proposed plan because the plan erroneously states that none of the projects included in the Schedule for roads are needed to meet level of service standards. [9J-5.0055(2)(c)] Recommendation Revise the CMS to include guidelines for adopting deve- lopment regulations which, in conjunction with the schedule of capital improvements, ensure that development orders and permits are issued based on the availability of public facilities and services; to include the guidelines for monitoring the availability of public facilities and services, adhering to the adopted level of service standards and schedule of capital improvements; and include a clear designation of those areas within which the County will provide roadway facilities and services with public funds in accordance with the five- year capital improvements schedule. The County can revise the CMS for interpreting and applying level of service standards and the test for concurrency as follows: The County shall use the following guidelines for determining the availability of public facilities and 5 S services necessary to serve proposed development at the adopted level of service standards: [see attached examples] The County shall determine the availability of public development. 2. Obiection The monitoring requirements in Policy 1401.4.5 do not include the guidelines for the provisions that will be adopted for interpreting and applying level of service standards to applications for development orders or per- mits. The monitoring requirements state that the CMS will contain these provisions and will include a require- ment that the County prepare an annual report assessing the capacities of public facilities subject to the CMS, and that the Report will be used to monitor changes in the capacity of public facilities and levels of service based upon development activities and capital improvement projects completed during the previous year and projected for the next year. However, the monitoring provisions do not include guidelines for the criteria that will be used to assess the demands placed on public facilities by proposed developments as development applications are reviewed, in addition to the annual report. Guidelines are not included for determining when the test for concurrency must be met. Stating only that the concurrency test will be "... as early as possible in the development review process" is too vague. [91- 5.0055(2)(e)] Recommendation Revise the proposed Concurrency Management System to include the guidelines for the criteria that will be used to assess the demands placed on public facilities by proposed developments. Include guidelines for deter- mining when, or specify the point at which, the test for concurrency will be applied which must be at the time that density or intensity is established. See attached examples. 2 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Objection The Permit Allocation System is not supported by adequate data and analysis in the plan to demonstrate the need for limitations of growth and protection of natural resources and to further demonstrate that the permit allocations will adequately address those needs. [9J-5.006 (2) (b) and (2) (c) ] Recommendation Include adequate data and analysis to fully discuss and analyze all related factors, including hurricane evacu- ation which support limitations of growth consistent with the provisions of Chapter 163 and 380. These factors include environmental protection of water quality, especially the offshore reef waters, endangered species habitat protection and protection of public facility investments. Additionally, the signifance of reduced impacts on the newly created Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary should be noted. This infor- mation could include a narrative version of the preamble sections of the rate of growth Ordinance, Section 1 and 2 of Ordinance No. 016-1992 "Dwelling Unit Allocation Text Amendment". 2. Objection The proposed plan is based on facility carrying capacity, including the hurricane evacuation constraint, with lit- tle or no consideration for the environmental carrying capacity. [9J-5.006(2)(b) and (2)(c), (3)(b)l., 4. and 5 and (3)(c)l., 4., 6. and 7; 9J-5.012(3)(b)l., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6. and 10. and (3)(c)l., 2., 3., 7., 8. and 13.; 9J-5.013(2)(b)2., 3. and 4. and (2)(c)2., 3., 5., 6. 8. and 9. and Stipulated Settlement Agreement (SSA)] Recommendation Include data and analyses evaluating development limi- tations caused by facility carrying capacity including hurricane evacuation constraints and environmental carrying capacity. 3. Objection The future land use designations on the Future Land Use Map series fail to establish density/intensity thresholds 7 based on analyses of public facility and environmental carrying capacities as required by the Stipulated Settle- ment Agreement. Instead, the Map series relies on the existing zoning maps. The public facilities analyses project the impacts for only the 3,699 units proposed pursuant to the hurricane evacuation constraint. How- ever, the plan suggests that additional development may be permitted beyond the year 2002 if further roadway improvements are undertaken. Therefore, the analyses of public facilities must reflect the densities/intensities permitted by the Future Land Use Map series. The envir- onmental carrying capacity deficiencies result in a failure of the Future Land Use Map series to establish the density/intensity thresholds based on the need to improve water quality, habitat protection, protection of threatened and endangered species of flora and fauna, and protection of coastal resources located within the coastal high hazard area and units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. Rather than limiting densities and intensities as appropriate on the Future Land Use Map series, the proposed plan relies extensively on the Point Allocation System to discourage development that would impact these resources. [9J-5.006(3)(b)l., 4. and 5 and (3)(c)l., 4., 6. and 7; 9J-5.012(3)(b)l., 2., 3., 4., 5., 6. and 10. and (3)(c)l., 2., 3., 7., 8. and 13.; 9J- 5.013(2)(b)2., 3. and 4. and (2)(c)2., 3., 5., 6. 8. and 9. and SSA) Recommendation Revise the Future Land Use Map series to designate the areas where the identified natural resources are located as conservation areas or in a very low density residen- tial land use category or expand the analyses to include the public facility needs based on the Future Land Use Map series through the year 2010. Alternatively, the County can revise the Future Land Use map series to assign appropriate densities, intensities and land use categories to such sites and include a policy that the units allocated for the ten (10) years to the year 2002 are the total number of residential units that will be permitted through the year 2010 but that the County has made the policy decision to permit the twenty years of growth during the first ten years of the planning timeframe. Although the County has reduced densities by 50% in unplatted acreage, mapping errors still remain. Department staff will be available to assist the County in identifying and correcting these errors. 4. Objection Parcels from which development rights have been trans- 8 ferred have not been identified; confirmation has not been made that all appropriate deed restrictions have been filed; and a tabulation of development rights already purchased by the County has not been included. Preliminary recommendations made to designate both sender and receiver sites; expansion of the regulations pertai- ning to Transferable Development Rights (TDR's) to address transfer to and from commercial zones; and a structured tracking program for monitoring purposes have not been considered. The plan fails to define the role of the Land Authority with regard to TDR transactions. [9J-5.006(2)(b), (2)(c), (3)(b)l., 4. and 9. and (3)(c)l., 6. and 7., 9J-5.012(2)(b) and (2)(d), (3)(b)1. and 2. and (3)(c)l., 13. and 14., 9J- 5.013((1)(a) and (1)(b), (2)(b)4 and (2)(c)3., 5., 6. and 9. and SSA] Recommendation Include data and analyses describing the TDR system and recommendations for its effective implementation. In- clude objectives and policies to establish guidelines for the TDR program for implementing the program and for monitoring the program. Include a discussion of the Land Authority and its role in the TDR program and include objectives and policies to guide and define the role of the Land Authority. 5. Obiection The "Natural Features" map series, Maps 1 through 8, do not include for the non-federal "mainland" area: beaches and shores, including estuarine systems; bays, lakes, floodplains and harbors; wetlands; and minerals and soils. In addition, the map series is not identified as being the existing or future conditions maps. [9J- 5.006(1)(b)) Recommendation Expand the natural resource map series to include the mainland area of the County, depicting the beaches and shores, including estuarine systems; bays, lakes, flood - plains and harbors; wetlands; and minerals and soils located on the non-federal "mainland" area. Further revise the map series to identify the maps as existing or future conditions maps. The County could identify the map series as existing and future conditions maps; however, that can be accomplished only if the County intends to permit no alteration in the existing natural resources depicted on the map series. W 5. Objection Table 2.1, which depicts the approximate acreage in each existing land use category, does not include the general range of density or intensity of use in each land use category. In addition, the non-federal "mainland" area of the County is not included. Also, analysis of the character and magnitude of existing vacant or undeve- loped land in order to determine its suitability for development is not included for the non-federal "mainland" area of the County. [9J-5.006(1)(c) and 9J- 5.006(2)(b)] Recommendation Revise Table 2.1 to include the approximate acreage in each existing land use category on the mainland area of the County and to include the general range of density or intensity of each existing land use category. Distin- guish between mainland and non -mainland acreages. Expand the analyses to include the character and magnitude of the vacant or undeveloped land on the non-federal main- land area of the County in order to determine its suitability for development. 6. Objection Analyses of existing vacant to determine its suitability historic and archaeological [9J-5.006(2)(b)5.] Recommendation or undeveloped land in order for development in regard to resources are not included. Include County -wide analyses of existing vacant or unde- veloped land in order to determine its suitability for development in regard to historic and archaeological resources utilizing best available data including Land Authority Archaeological site surveys and other appro- priate studies. Goals, Objectives and Policies 7. Objection The following policies pertain to a Permit Allocation System: Policies 101.3.1 (page 2.1-4); 101.5.1, 101.5.2 and 101.53 (page 2.1-8); 101.5.4, pages 7, 8 and 9; Change Document 101.11.1 (page 2.1-15); 101.13.1 (page 2.1-16); 101.14.1 (page 2.1-17); 102.7.3 (page 2.1-25); 102.8.1 (pages 2.1-25 and 2.1-26); 102.9.1 (page 2.1-26); 103.1.1 (pages 13 and 14); Change 10 exemptions from the Permit Allocation System, could exempt all "... federally tax-exempt non-profit educa- tional, scientific, religious, social service, cultural and recreational organizations . .11 from the Permit Allocation System. These exemptions would be based upon "a finding that such activity will not adversely affect the hurricane evacuation objectives of the Comprehensive Plan". The policy does not clarify that all other provisions of the plan apply; therefore, this provision could result in adverse impacts on environ- mentally sensitive areas that need to be protected. In addition, the policy does not clarify that the exemption does not apply to any permanent or transient residential units. Further, the referenced adverse effect to hur- ricane evacuation is not defined. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6.] Recommendation Revise the policy to specify that all other provisions of the comprehensive plan apply to applications for development of the identified facilities; and that no permanent or transient residential units are permitted in conjunction with the facility. Define the intent that a finding of no adverse effect on hurricane evacua- tion means that no residential units will be permitted in conjunction with the facility unless approved through the Permit Allocation System. 9. Obiection Policy 101.4.1 (pages 4 and 5, Change Document), pertaining to densities permitted in the Residential Conservation land use category, relies on provisions in the County's land development regulations to determine the density of lands in the Residential Conservation land use category, specifically, the habitat analysis requirements. The habitat analysis requirements are not included in the plan nor analyzed in the data and analyses. In addition, the concept of net density has been deleted from Policy 101.4.1, therefore it is not clear how the habitat analysis will vary densities and intensities. [9J-5.006(3)(c)1. and 7.] Recommendation Revise the policy to include the general guidelines for the criteria that will be included or revised in the habitat analysis requirements of the land development regulations. Establish a separate policy under Objective 101.4 to specify that the density and intensity 'for each land use category shall be subject to the results of the habitat analysis required by Division 8 of the Land 12 i Document 103.2.1 pages 16 and 17; and Change Document 103.4.4 (page 2.1-37). These policies reference the Permit Allocation and Point System in regard to limiting growth and to protect specifically named natural resources. Many of the policies defer the effectiveness of the policies to the adoption or revision of land development regulations. The basis for the Permit Allocation System is not established in one set of policies which specify the positive and negative point values to be assigned for each charac- teristic of the site and the specific delineation regarding the areas subject to the point values assigned for endangered/threatened species is not included. Maps are not included which delineate habitat of endangered/threatened species. The protection of natural resources are not addressed in separate, stand- alone policies which specify allowable uses within and adjacent to those specific resources, based on the type of resource, the sensitivity of the resource and appro- priateness of the proposed development in and adjacent to the resource, based on the data gathered and the analyses performed in the support documentation in the plan. The policies which defer the effectiveness of the policies to the adoption or revision of land develop- ment regulations are Policies 101.3.1, 101.5.1, 101.5.4, 101.11.1, 101.13.1, 101.14.1, 102.7.3, 102.8.1, 102.9.1, 103.1.1, 103.2.1 and 103.4.4. [9J-5.006(3)(c)l. and 6.) Recommendation Revise the above -referenced policies to delete the numerous references to the Permit Allocation and Point System. Combine relevant policies to establish one objective/policy cluster which establishes the Permit Allocation System. Include in those policies the point values, both positive and negative, which will be applied to the characteristics of a site subject to a development application under review. Include habitat maps which delineate the areas subject to the point assignments for endangered/threatened species habitat and range. Write the policies in such a manner that the policies are effective upon plan adoption without reference to the adoption of land development regulations. Revise the policies which refer to specific natural resources, such as beach/berm systems, freshwater wetlands, salt marsh and buttonwood wetlands, to ensure that the permitted and prohibited uses, including densities and intensities, are specified. 8. Objection Policy 101.3.4 (page 4, Change Document), pertaining to 11 12. Objection Policy 101.4.14 (page 6, Change Document), states that the military commanders of the bases located on the lands designated in the "Military" land use category will be requested to follow densities and intensities established by the County. Neither density nor intensity is estab- lished for the Military land use category; therefore, the County has not established densities and intensities for the commanders to follow. In addition, the policy does not provide that the County will encourage the Military to coordinate with the County to be consistent with the plan. The Military uses should be consistent with the environmental design criteria established by the County and the County should participate to ensure consistency by reviewing and providing written comments on Federal applications. [9J-5.006(3)(c)7.] Recommendation Revise the policy to establish densities and intensities of use for the Military land use category. The County could establish maximum residential units per acre and types of uses which the Military has established.. Specify that uses on the Military lands must meet the environmental design criteria established by the County and that the County will encourage Military development that is consistent with the County's plan by providing written comments on Federal applications for development on the Military lands. 13. Objection Policy 101.4.15 (page 2.1-7), pertaining to the Conser- vation land use category, establishes a maximum floor area ratio of 0.20 which is not a compatible intensity for the conservation of sites "held primarily for the preservation of natural and historic resources and compatible recreational uses. [9J-5.006(3)(c)7.] Recommendation Revise the policy to establish a very low floor area ratio (FAR) for the Conservation land use category that is compatible with the protection of the resources on the Conservation lands such as 0.01 to 0.05 FAR. 14. Objection A policy has not been included to address the density allowed for submerged lands, mangroves, transitional 14 10. 11. Development Regulations, as amended. This should also reference the implementing land development regulations. Also, reinstate the net density provision in Policy 101.4.1, revise the policy or add a new policy so that any variable density must be subject to and be based upon the habitat analysis. Objection Policy 101.4.2 (page 5, Change Document), pertaining to uses and densities permitted in the Residential Low land use category, will permit golf courses in this category. Golf courses are not compatible with the habitat on these lands as described in the policy. [9J-5.006(3)(c)7.J Recommendation Revise the policy to establish a list of uses that are compatible with the habitat described in the policy, which uses do not include golf courses. Alternatively, revise the policy to specify that the golf course or any other use shall not intrude into the open space that is to be maintained in its natural undisturbed condition. Objection Policy 101.4.5 (pages 5 and 6, Change Document) and Pol- icy 101.4.6 (page 2.1-6), establish the uses, densities and intensities permitted within the Mixed Use/Commercial and Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing land use categories. These policies do not establish the composition or rela- tive proportion of each land use in the mix and the overall character and purpose of the land use mixes. The issues of compatibility and.functional relationships between uses are not addressed. In addition, Policy 101.4.6 establishes the residential density as 6 to 12 units per acre. This density is not compatible with a commercial fishing area. [9J-5.006(3)(c)7.) Recommendation Revise the policies to include the composition or rela- tive proportion of each land use in the mixes and the overall character and purpose of the land use mixes. Also, address the issues of compatibility and functional relationships between uses. Further, revise Policy 101.4.6 to establish a density compatible with a commercial fishing area. (See recommendation 7,. under Future Land Use Element in the Areas of Critical State Concern Consistency section of this report). 13 to weigh all criteria equally. Policy 101.5.6 refers to an annual review of the Point System under the Permit Allocation System as studies are completed. This policy is not acceptable because sufficient information is available on which to base positive and negative points in the Permit Allocation System without delaying until the studies are completed. It may be appropriate how- ever, to amend the plan and revise the land development regulations based on the results of the identified studies. [9J-5.006(3)(c)1., 2., 4. and 6.] Recommendation Revise Policy 101.5.4 to establish the positive and negative point values that will be used to evaluate the characteristics of a site subject to an application for a development permit. In conjunction with density/in- tensity thresholds, the Plan should include a point system that places greater emphasis on environmental protection by weighing the environmental criteria more restrictively than other less critical issues. Revise Policy 101.5.6 to specify that the Permit Allocation System will be reviewed annually as the identified studies are completed to determine that the point allocation of the PAS is appropriate. Specify that the comprehensive plan (and land development regulations) will be amended, as appropriate, based on the results of the studies. 18. Objection Policy 101.6.1 (page 2.1-12) pertains to establishing procedures for property owners who have been denied building permits to request that the Monroe County Land Authority purchase their land; however, the effectiveness of the policy is deferred to the adoption of land development regulations. [9J-5.006(3)(c)] Recommendation Revise the policy to establish the general guidelines that property owners who have been denied building permits must use when requesting that the Land Authority purchase their land and upon which the land development regulations will be based. The policy must be specific enough to demonstrate that the land development regula- tions will be consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. 19. Objection Policy 101.6.3 (page 9, Change Document) and Policy ESl 15. 16. 17. wetlands (saltmarsh and buttonwood habitat), and freshwater wetlands. [9J-5.006(3)(c)7.] Recommendation Include a policy to specify that no density or intensity of use will be allowed for submerged lands, mangroves, and transitional and freshwater wetlands. Objection Policy 101.4.16 (page 2.1-7), pertaining to the Regulated Conservation overlay category, bases the identification of wetlands on the Advance Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Program. The County should not rely entirely on this program until the definition of wetlands that is used to identify wetlands under the ADID Program has been established. In the event wetlands identified under this Program do not include the extent recognized by the State, the County should use another source for identi- fying wetlands in the County. In addition, the policy does not address the identification of disturbed salt - marsh and buttonwood wetlands. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6. and 7.] Recommendation Revise the policy to establish a definition of wetlands that is based on the state and local definition and to identify all wetlands in the program. Objection Policy 101.4.19 (page 6, Change Document) is not clear that density designations for the Residential Conserva- tion and Residential Low land use categories can be changed only because of scrivener's errors or incorrect habitat conditions identified on the existing conditions maps. Recommendation Revise Policy 101.4.19 as follows:"... to demonstrate that prior density designations were incorrect due to scrivener's/drafting errors or incorrect habitat conditions identified on the existing conditions maps." Objection Policies 101.5.4 and 101.5.6 (pages 7, 8 and 9 Change Document) pertain to the Permit Allocation System. Pol- icy 101.5.4, regarding the establishment of positive and negative points in the Permit Allocation System, seems 15 204.4.2 (pages 30 and 31, Change Document) state that because of the Florida Keys being designated an Area of Critical State Concern, the state should assume primary responsibility for providing funding to purchase lands rendered unbuildable by regulations. State laws do not permit the Department to obligate funds that have not been approved by the legislature; therefore, this provision in the policy is not appropriate. In addi- tion, Policy 204.4.2 establishes priority acquisition for wetland sites; however, upland sites are not addressed. (9J-5.006(3)(c)] Recommendation The County could include a policy to coordinate with the DCA to ensure that the Department continues to support enhanced land acquisition efforts in the Keys based on needs identified in the comprehensive plan. For example, the County should include a policy as follows: The County will coordinate with DCA to ensure the Department continues to support enhanced land accruisi- tion efforts in the Keys based on needs identified in the comprehensive plan This coordination shall ensure continued support of state acquisition efforts under CARL. Preservation 2000 and the Florida Communities Trust programs. The County and the Department will also support appropriate legislative changes which will have the effect of enhancing the Land Authority efforts throughout the County, and the South Florida Water Management District's acquisitions on Big Pine Key. Similarly, cooperation will continue with private acquisition efforts. such as The Nature Conservancy and the Florida Land and Sea Trust. The County could also include a policy to request DCA assistance in defending the approved comprehensive plan against lawsuits challenging its implementation on constitutional grounds. Also, include a policy that establishes the acquisition of upland sites as the priority. 20. Objection Objective 101.8 and Policies 101.8.1 through 101.8.4 (pages 2.1-13 and 2.2-14), pertain to nonconforming struc- tures and uses. Objective 101.8 uses the vague terms "reduce", "substantial investment" and "discouraging". Policy 101.8.1 defers the definition of the term "sub- stantial improvement" to the County's land development regulations; therefore, no guidelines are included in the plan for determining what constitutes a substantial 17 improvement. Policy 101.8.2 will require that a noncon- forming use changing to a different use conform to the district in which it is located but not that it must meet all other requirements of the plan. Policy 101.8.4 pertains to the issuing of permits for single-family dwellings which are nonconforming uses and which need substantial improvement. The policy will require the permitted reconstruction to comply with floodplain mana- gement standards; however, the policy refers to standards established in the County's land development regula- tions. The standards established in the land development regulations are not identified in the data and analyses nor in the policy. In addition, the policy does not require that the reconstruction meet all other require- ments of the plan. [9J-5.006(3)(b)3. and (3)(c)2.J Recommendation Revise the objective to revise or define the vague terms and Policy 101.8.1 to define "substantial improve- ment". Revise Policy 101.8.2 to specify that when a nonconforming use is changed to a different use, in addition to being consistent with the land use category in which it is located, the new use must meet all requirements of the plan. Revise Policy 101.8.4 to specify that the reconstruction must comply with the floodplain level of service standards established in the plan and with all other requirements of the plan. 21. Objection Policy 101.9.1 (Page 2.1-14), pertaining to concurrency for stormwater management facilities, states that the County will adopt land development regulations which include level of service standards for stormwater mana- gement. The policy does not specify that the standards to be adopted in the land development regulations will be the standards established in the plan for stormwater management facilities or that the land development regu- lations will be to implement the standards established in the plan. [9J-5.006(3)(c)4.) Recommendation Revise the policy to specify that the land development regulations will be to implement the standards estab- lished in the plan. 22. Objection Policy 101.12.1 (page 2.1-15) pertains to the adoption of a Concurrency Management System to ensure that facilities 18 23. 24. needed to provide utility services to new development are authorized at the same time that new development is authorized. The County's proposed Concurrency Management System (Policy 1401.4.5) does not address authorizing utility services at the time new development is author- ized; therefore, this requirement is not met. [91- 5.006(3)(c)3.] Recommendation Revise the policy to state the facilities necessary to new development at the same authorized. Objection that the County will approve provide utility services to time that new development is Policy 101.13.2 (pages 9 and 10, Change Document) pertains to the County transfer of development rights program. This policy is not supported by adequate and relevant data and analyses which describe the status of the program, the problems with the program, and proposed solutions as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, on which to base a revised program. The comprehensive plan policies do not provide clear guidance between the TDR program and the maximum permitted densi- ties established for the future land use categories. In addition, the policy defers the establishment of guide- lines for revising the program to the adoption of land development regulations. [9J-5.006(3)(c)7. and SSA] Recommendation Include data and analysis which describe the TDR program, problem areas and solutions upon which a revised TDR program will be based. Also, revise the policy or include an additional policy to explain the relationship between the TDR program and the maximum permitted densities established for the future land use categories. Objection Objective 102.2 and Policies 102.2.1, 102.2.2 and 102.2.3 (pages 2.1-19 and 2.1-20) refer to environmental design standards which will protect certain natural resources. The objective and Policy 102.2.1 defer their effective- ness to the adoption of land development regulations. Policies 102.2.2 and 102.2.3 pertain to revised "envir- onmental design criteria" in regard to protecting native upland communities and beach/berm resources, respec- tively. These policies are not supported by adequate 19 and relevant data and analyses which describe the exis- ting design criteria nor how the criteria will be revised to protect these areas. This information is not included in the policies. [9J-5.006(3)(c)l. and 6.] Recommendation Revise the objective and Policy 102.2.1 to be effective upon adoption be deleting the reference to land develop- ment regulations. Expand the data and analyses to include the relevant information from the County's land development regulations pertaining to environmental design criteria and include the environmental design criteria of the land development regulations by reference as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. 25. Objection Policy 102.6.1 (page 2.1-24) states that the County will incorporate the management plans for the Everglades National Park and the Big Cypress National Preserve into its comprehensive plan by reference by the date the plan is to be adopted. The management plans have not been described and analyzed in the data and analyses; therefore, it has not been demonstrated that the management plans meet the requirements of protecting the environmentally sensitive lands in the Park and Preserve. In addition, the policy should state that the management plans (if appropriate, based on analyses) are "hereby incorporated by reference". [9J-5.006(3)(c)6] Recommendation Include the referenced data and analyses and revise the policy as follows: By eeteber 167 19927 Monroe County hereby shall incorporates by reference into the Menree eounty Year eeie eamprehensive Plan the existing manage- ment plans for Everglades National Park (effective...) and Big Cypress National Preserve leffective...) 26. Objection Policy 102.8.2 (page 13, Change Document). This policy would have prohibited new bridges, causeways, paved roads and commercial marinas to or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The County did not include any data and analyses to support the deletion of this policy nor replace the policy with a new policy which addresses access to units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6.] 20 Uk 27. 28. 29. Recommendation Reinstate the policy, revised as follows: By eeteber 167199e7 Nno new bridges, causeways, paved roads or commer- cial marinas shall be permitted to or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System (CBRS). Objection Policy 102.8.6 (page 2.1-26) states that the County will coordinate with the Aqueduct Authority and the providers of electricity and telephones to "discourage" extension of these services to units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System. The activities which the County will undertake to execute the coordination and to discourage the extension of these services are not identified in the policy nor in the data and analyses. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6.] Recommendation Revise the policy to state that since new development is prohibited on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, the extension of new public facilities and utilities are prohibited. Objection Policy 102.9.2 (page 2.1-26) delays the identification of activities that cause or have the potential to cause adverse impacts on state and federal conservation lands to September 30, 1995. The County does not establish reasonable cause for delaying for this length of time. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6.] Recommendation Revise the policy to state that permitted uses on lands adjacent to state and federal conservation lands shall be only those permitted by the land use category designated on those lands. Objection Policy 103.1.7 (page 14, Change Document), states that the County shall "encourage" the completion and imple- mentation of a land management program for lands located within and adjacent to parks and conservation lands that are owned by the state and federal governments and which are affected by the County's policies regarding develop- ment on Big Pine Key. The policy does not specify the activities that the County will undertake to "encourage" the development of these land management programs and is 21 30. inconsistent with Objective/Policy cluster 102.9 which specifies that the County will undertake these activities. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6.] Recommendation Delete this duplicative policy to remove the inconsistency and vagueness. Objection Policies 103.1.8 (page 2.1-31) and 103.2.2 (page 2.1-33) state that the existing Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) in the County's land development regulations will be revised to give greater consideration to the habitat of species of special status. The policies are not supported by adequate and relevant data and analyses which describe the contents of the existing HEI nor the provisions that will be included in the revised regulations. Without these data and analyses (or specific guidelines regarding the HEI in the policies) the County has not demonstrated that the listed species will be adequately protected and that the land development regulations are consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6.] Recommendation Expand the data and information from the tions pertaining to include the Habitat lopment regulations comprehensive plan. 31. Objection analyses to include the relevant County's land development regula- the Habitat Evaluation Index and Evaluation Index from the land deve- by reference as part of the adopted Policies 103.1.10 (page 2.1-31) and 103.2.4 (page 17, Change Document) require that certain analyses be under- taken before plans are finalized for siting new public facilities to support development on Big Pine Key and North Key Largo, respectively; however, the effectiveness of the policies is deferred to the adoption of land development regulations. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6.] Recommendation Revise the policy to delete land development regulations analyses be undertaken prior 22 the reference to adopting to require that the to finalizing the plans. 32. Objection Policy 103.1.11 (page 15, Change Document), proposes to widen U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key to a three -lane rcadway. The County has not demonstrated how this roadway impro- vement is consistent with the protection of the Key deer. In addition, the County has not demonstrated that improvements more than deceleration lanes are necessary to relieve the localized traffic constraints without increasing the development expectations on Big Pine Key. [9J-5.006(3)(c)3. and SSA] Recommendation Revise the policy to limit the length of the three -lane sections to the length necessary for deceleration lanes. 33. Objection Policy 103.1.12 (page 15, Change Document), proposes tc undertake in conjunction with the Florida Department of Transportation, a feasibility study to determine the costs and environmental impacts of four-laning U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key. The study as proposed will consider an elevated roadway and a roadway at grade. Should the County deem it necessary to increase the capacity of US 1 on Big Pine Key, the traffic study should be limited to an elevated roadway with frontage roads and Key deer underpasses. [9J-5.006(3)(c)3. and SSA] Recommendation Revise the policy to state limit the study to assessing the feasibility of an elevated roadway with frontage roads and Key deer underpasses. 34. Objection Policy 103.4.1 (page 2.1-36) refers to existing land development regulations pertaining to habitat protection for the piping plover on Ohio Key. The policy is not supported by adequate and relevant data and analyses that describe the contents of the existing regulations nor the provisions that will be included in the revised regulations. Without these data and analyses (or specific guidelines regarding the regulations in the policy) the County has not demonstrated that the piping plover will be adequately protected and that the regulations are consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J- 5, F.A.C. [9J-5.006(3)(c)6. and SSA] 23 Recommendation Expand the data and analyses to include the relevant information from the County's land development regula- tions pertaining to habitat protection of the piping plover and include Section 9.5-478 of the existing land development regulations by reference as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. 35. Objection Policy 103.5.1, and Objective 103.5, (page 18, Change Document), pertain to the revision of land development regulations to address the issues in the focal point plans for the four Areas of Critical County Concern (ACCC) and to eliminate the ACCC designations from Holiday Isle, Big Pine Key, North Key Largo and Ohio Key. The policy and objective, together with Objectives 103.1, 103.2, 103.3 and 103.4 and their associated policies, discuss proposed regulations to address the issues related to the focal point plans and Areas of Critical County Concern for these four areas; however, the location of the ACCCs on each key are not identified and the existing regulations related to the ACCCs are not identified and analyzed in the data and analyses in the plan in order to demonstrate the appropriateness of those regulations in meeting the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. Further, the objectives and their attendant policies are inadequate to protect these areas as noted in Objections 18, 19 and 20 under the Future Land Use Element in the Areas of Crititcal State Concern Consistency section of this report. [91- 5.006(3)(c)6. and SSA] Recommendation Expand the data and analyses to include the relevant information from the County's land development regula- tions pertaining to these Areas of Critical County Con- cern. See the section of this report titled Consis- tency with Areas of Critical State Concern for policy recommendations. 36. Objection Policy 104.2.1 (page 18, Change Document), refers to land development regulations that pertain to design- ating historic resources on a Florida Keys Historic Register. The policy is not supported by adequate and relevant data and analyses that describe the contents of the existing regulations nor the provisions that 24 will be included in the revised regulations. Without these data and analyses (or specific guidelines regarding the regulations in the policy) the County has not demonstrated that the regulations are consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. [9J-5.006(3)(c)8.] Recommendation Expand the data and analyses to include the relevant information from the County's land development regula- tions pertaining to historic preservation and include Article VIII (Section 9.5-451 to 9.5-454) of the existing land development regulations by reference as part of the adopted comprehensive plan. Future Land Use May 37. Objection The Future Land Use Map series does not include the mainland area of the County and the land use categories designated for the area. [9J-5.006(4)(a)] Recommendation Expand the Future Land Use Map series to depict the mainland area of the County and assign the Conservation land use category to the area as recommended in the letter dated January 22, 1990 from Paul Bradshaw to Donald L. Craig. 38. Objection The Future Land Use Map series does not include natural resource maps that are identified as part of the Future Land Use Map series. [9J-5.006(4)(b)] Recommendation Include as part of the Future Land Use Map series, maps that depict location and extent of future natural resources in the year 2010. 39. Objection The Future Land Use Map series contains numerous parcels in the Keys that have not been designated in any future land use category. [9J-5.006(4)(a)] 25 Recommendation Revise the Future Land Use Map series to assign a land use category to all areas within the County. 40. Objection The comprehensive plan does not include a provision to resolve any apparent inconsistencies that may exist or result between the Future Land Use Map and densities and intensities allowed through the Permit Allocation System. [9J-5.005(5)(b)] Recommendation Revise the Future Land Use Map to include a DISCLAIMER on each sheet noting that all development is subject to the Permit Allocation System and that density or intensity designations may not be achievable due to allocation restrictions. 41. Objection Various changes to the Future Land Use Map series were made during the public participation hearings held by the County. These revisions have not been submitted to the Department for review. As a result there may be property boundary and land use designation changes which are not supported by adequate and relevant data and analyses and may be inconsistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan. [9J- 5.005(2) and (5)] Recommendation Include a series of errata sheets that identify the property boundaries and the corrected land use designation for all known mapping errors. 42. Objection The Future Land Use Map series designates land uses to areas that are inappropriate based on environmental characteristics and existing conditions. Recommendation Revise the Future Land Use Map series to assign appro- priate land use categories based on environmental characteristics and existing conditions. 26 COMMENTS 1. See the review prepared by the Florida Department of Natural Resources for corrections that need to be made in regard to the omission of and errors in the location and land use category of state-owned conservation lands. 2. Objective 101.19 (page 10 and 11, Change Document) refers to discouraging further platting of residential lots by' implementing Policy 101.18.1. It is not evident how implementing this policy will achieve Objective 101.19. The reference is likely in error and should probably reference Policy 101.19.1. The County should verify or correct this reference in the objective. 3. Policy 101.11.2 (page 2.1-15) refers to locating new public buildings within the Compact Community Center overlay category. This category was revised in Policy 101.4.17 to Compact Commercial Center; therefore, this reference is inconsistent with the land use category to be adopted and needs to be corrected. 4. Revise Policy 102.9.3 (page 2.1-27) to include Fort Taylor State Historic Site and Shell Key Aquatic Preserve. Revise Curry Hammock CARL project to Curry Hammock State Park. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Obiection The data and analyses regarding hurricane evacuation are deficient. The documentation provided for the calcula- tion of hurricane clearance times is inadequate and inconsistent with the plan's objectives and policies to reduce evacuation clearance times to 30 hours by 2002 and to 24 hours by 2010. The data and analyses should describe in detail the assumptions made and the method- ology used. The data and analyses regarding hurricane evacuation form the basis for limiting new residential development to 2552 units during the ten year planning period. Assump- tions in the data and analyses could drastically alter the permitted development. The plan does not include a policy to require that the County modify the data and analyses to describe changing assumptions and management techniques that the County will rely on for reducing clearance time based on a professionally accepted methodology. 27 The plan does not include data and analyses regarding the validity of the Card Sound Road improvements in reducing hurricane clearance times. The analyses indicate that seasonal occupancy rates vary between a high of 75 percent and a low of 45 percent during hurricane season. The methodology was based upon policy direction by the Monroe County Commission to use the 45 percent occupancy rate which does not represent the best available information for the peak functional population requiring evacuation during the hurricane season. The populations at risk with regard to the elderly, the handicapped and the hospitalized are not identified. The data pertaining to shelter spaces indicate a deficiency in the number of spaces available in Monroe County for Category 1 and 2 storms and in Dade County for Category 3 and higher intensity storms. No specific methods are identified for resolving these existing deficiencies in the number of shelter spaces available to evacuees. The persons living aboard vessels within the waters of the County are not addressed in regard to evacuation of these persons during a hurricane emergency. [9J- 5.012 (2) (e) 1. and SSA] Recommendation Revise the data and analyses to incorporate relevant information from the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Hurricane Evacuation Analysis Technical Memorandum (December 1991) prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan, Inc. and from Chapter 9 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Working Paper 2 concerning hurricane evacuation prepared by the County's consultants (dated November 1991). This evacuation analysis should be revised to utilize the peak seasonal occupancy rate of 75%. Identify criteria, and include a policy, for an annual evaluation of the assumptions upon which the clearance times have been based and to determine if the scheduled roadway improvements have been made. Any proposed changes to the assumptions upon which the clearance times are based or delays in scheduled roadway improvements will require a plan amendment to revise the hurricane evacuation time policies to prevent any increases in the clearance time. Include data and analyses regarding the validity of improving Card Sound Road and its use in reducing 28 clearance times. Information to address this issue may be available in the May 4, 1992 memorandum from Mr. Bob Harris to Mr. Don Lewis, both of Post, Buckley, Schuh and Jernigan (Hurricane Evacuaticn Issues Related to the Potential Improvements to Card Sound Road). Further revise the data and analyses to include the popu- lations at risk (elderly, handicapped and hospitalized) and to address resolving the need for shelter space for evacuees, including those living aboard boats. If the County believes that no shelter deficiencies exist, based on national standards, revise the data and analyses to demonstrate that adequate shelter space exists. Goals. Objectives and Policies 2. Objection Policies are included regarding coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to ensure that adequate capital improvements are scheduled as necessary to reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times to 30 hours by the year 2002 and to 24 hours by the year 2010. The plan does not, however, include a policy which addresses committed funding for improvements to the 1118- mile stretch" and "mile markers 80 to 90" improvements. In addition, Policy 1301.4.9 (page 2.13-6) references maintaining a clearance time of 30 hours which is in- consistent with the policies which establish 30/24-hour clearance time. [9J-5.012(3)(c)4. and 12., 9J- 5.015(3)(c)l., 9J-5.016(3)(c)l. and 9. and (4)(a) and SSA] Recommendation The County should include a policy to amend the plan's capital improvements schedule by June 1, 1997 to acknow- ledge either funding for improvements to the 1118-mile stretch" by the Florida Department of Transportion if the project has been included in the Five Year Plan for completion by June 1, 2002, or alternatively, commit County funding to complete the project by June 1, 2002. In addition, the County should include a policy to amend the plan's capital improvements schedule by June 1, 2002 to acknowledge either funding for improvements to "mile markers 80 to 90" by the FDOT if the project has been included in the Five Year Plan for completion by June 1, 2010, or alternatively, commit County funding to complete the project by June 1, 2010. Revise Policy 1301.4.9 to establish the amended dates. 29 3 . Obi ection Policy 202.8.3 (page 25, Change Document) pertains to no maintenance dredging being permitted where seagrass beds are located. The policy (nor other policies) does not address protection of areas where hardbottom communities that are also ecologically important marine habitat are located. [9J-5.012(3)(c)1., 2., 3. and 8.] Recommendation Revise the policy to state "No maintenance dredging shall be permitted within areas vegetated with seagrass beds or hardbottom communities except for maintenance dredging in public navigation channels." 4. Objection Policies 101.9.2 (page 2.1-14) and 202.10.3 (page 2.2-10) defer the establishment of level of service standards for quality and quantity of stormwater discharges to the adoption of a stormwater management ordinance. The poli- cies do not specify that the standards to be adopted in the ordinance will be the standards established in the plan for stormwater management facilities or that the ordinance will be to implement the standards established in the plan. In addition, Policy 202.10.3 does not identify the best management practices for erosion and sedimentation control that are referenced in the policy. Recommendation Revise the policies to specify that the stormwater management ordinance will implement the standards established in the plan. Identify the best management practices that are referenced in Policy 202.10.3. 5. Objection Policy 203.1.3 and 203.1.4 (pages 27 and 28, Change Docu- ment), pertain to the protection of mangroves and Policy 204.2.6 pertains to development adjacent to wetlands. The policies defer their effectiveness to the adoption of land development regulations. Policies 203.1.3 and 204.2.6 do not establish setbacks for mangroves and wet- lands, respectively. This deferral of the establishment of setbacks fails to establish guidelines in tr-.o plan for the protection of mangroves and other wetlands to some unknown future date. Both policies state that the definition of "development" shall be as defined in the County's existing land development regulations; however, since the definition is not included in the plan; it 30 cannot be determined if the County's definition is different from that established in section 380.04, F.S. Policy 203.1.4 defers its effectiveness to the adoption of land development regulations. [s.163.3164(5), F.S. and 9J-5.012(3)(c)l., 2. and S. and 9J-5.013(2)(c)3. and 6.] Recommendation Revise the policies to be effective upon plan adoption. Further revise Policy 203.1.3 to establish setbacks for mangroves or include the guidelines for the performance standards that will be used to establish setbacks. Include the County's definition of development in the plan. The definition must be consistent with section 380.04, F.S. 6. Objection Objective 203.2 and Policies 203.2.1 through 203.2.3 (page 28, Change Document), pertain to reducing the impacts of development on seagrasses. The objective and policies defer their effectiveness to the adoption of land development regulations. In addition, Policy 203.2.2 states that the County will continue to prohibit the location of docking facilities and piers over sea - grasses; however, the policy further states "and any exceptions if in concert with this goal". This provision provides for exceptions that are not identified; there- fore, the policy does not ensure the protection of seagrasses. Policy 203.2.6 is numbered as a second 203.2.5 and needs to be corrected. [9J-5.012(3)(b)1. and (3)(c)1. and 8. and 9J-5.013(2)(b)3. and 4. and (2)(c)3. and 6.] Recommendation Revise the objective and policies to be effective upon plan adoption. Revise Policy 203.2.2 to delete the exception cited. See also Objections/Recommendations numbers 4 and 5 in the Area of Critical State Concern Consistency section of this report. 7. Objection Policy 203.3.4 (page 28, Change Document), and Policy 203.6.2 (page 29, Change Document) state that the County shall continue to "protect, preserve and enhance the coral reef" and "continue to support the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary" Program. Policy 203.3.4 does not include the general guidelines that are included in the County's existing regulations to 31 09 8. Fly demonstrate that those regulations are consistent with the requirements of Chapter 163, F.S. and Chapter 9J-5, F.A.C. nor demonstrate that the coral reefs will be protected. In addition, the County does not commit to carrying out the recommendations of the Sanctuary Plan to ensure the protection, preservation and enhancement of the coral reefs. [9J-5.012(3)(c)l. and 8. and 9J- 5.013(2)(c)3. and 6.] Recommendation Revise Policy 203.3.4 to include the guidelines that will be utilized to protect the coral reefs. Revise Policy 203.6.2 to commit to implementing the recommen- dations of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Plan. Objection Objective 204.1 (page 2.2-21) references identifying "... potential wetland mitigation sites ..." which indicates that the County intends to permit development to destroy wetlands if other wetlands are created or improved. This approach does not ensure the protection of wetlands. [9J-5.012(3)(b)l. and 9J-5.013(2)(b)3. and 4.] Recommendation Revise the objective to delete the reference to identi- fying potential wetland mitigation sites consistent with other policies which specify that no developemnt shall be permitted in wetland areas. Objection The following policies that pertain to a Permit Alloca- tion System for residential and/or non-residential development to regulate the rate of growth in the County are vague: Policies 204.2.5 (page 2.2-24), 205.2.2 (page 2.2-27), 206.1.1 (page 2.2-33), 207.7.2 (page 2.2-39), 207.8.1 (page 2.2-42), 207.9.8 (pages 2.2-45 and 2.2-46), 207.10.3 (page 2.2-46), 207.12.3 (page 2.2-48), 216.1.1 (page 2.2-67) and 217.3.1 (page 2.2-75). [9J-5.012(3)(c)l., 2., 3., and 4. and 9J- 5.013(2)(c)5. and 6.] Recommendation Combine policies into one objective/policy cluster as recommended in the Future Land Use Element. 32 AL 10. Objection Policy 204.2.10 (page 2.2-24) states that after the functional assessment of wetlands is completed, the County will revise its land development regulations to include additional environmental standards pertaining to permitted uses, filling and setbacks. The policy does not indicate that the comprehensive plan will be amended to include the guidelines upon which the revised land development regulations will be based. [91- 5.012(3)(c)l. and 2. and 9J-5.013(2)(c)3. and 6.] Recommendation Revise the policy to state the comprehensive plan will be amended to include the guidelines upon which the additional environmental standards will be based. 11. Objection Policy 205.2.1 (page 2.2-27) defers the establishment of a requirement for a Habitat Evaluation Index to the revi- sion of the County's land development regulations and does not specify that the comprehensive plan will be revised to include the criteria and methodology used for evaluating the habitat on proposed development sites. Policy 205.2.5 (page 30, Change Document) uses the vague term "to the greatest extent possible" in reference to protecting native upland vegetation. Policy 218:1.1 (pages 40 and 41, Change Document), which establishes the requirement for the Environmental Impact Assessment, states in subparagraph d), that the EIA shall contain measures designed to reduce the identified impacts; however, the policy does not require that the Assessment ensure that all impacts to natural resources, public facilities, housing and historic resources are elimi- nated. Policy 205.2.6 (page 30, Change Document) which establishes minimum open space ratios for upland hammock, is not supported by data and analyses which describe the difference in "high quality" and "low quality" vegetative communities; although the text references a "Habitat Evaluation Index" that the County uses. In addition, the policy does not establish a definition for open space. [9J-5.003(63), 9J-5.012(3)(b)l. and (3)(c)1. and 2. and 9J-5.013(2)(b)3. and 4. and (2)(c)3. and 6.1 Recommendation Revise Policy 205.2.1 to delete the reference to the revision of the land development regulations so that the policy is effective upon plan adoption. Include a state- ment that the comprehensive plan will be revised to 33 Id. include the criteria and methodology used for evaluating the habitat on proposed development sites. Revise Policy 205.2.5 to establish the minumum open space ratios for upland hammock and include data and analyses (which can be taken from the County's 1986 plan) which describe the difference between high quality and low quality vegeta- tive communities. Revise Policy 218.1.1 to require that adverse impacts to natural resources, public facilities, housing and historic resources identified in the Assess- ment be eliminated. Revise Policy 205.2.6 to include a definition of open space consistent with the definition of open space in Rule 9J-5.003(63). 12. Obl ection Policy 207.8.6 (page 2.2-43) does not specify how the County will "support" management strategies of the state and the Marine Sancturary regarding the establishment of an oil response team for the Keys. Policies 207.8.7 (page 2.2-43) and 207.8.8 (page 33, Change Document) defer their effectiveness to the adoption of land deve- lopment regulations; defer establishing those regulations to 1993; and do not establish interim guidelines in the plan for the protection of marine turtles. None of the policies associated with the objective address protection of the manatee. [9J-5.012(3)(c)1., 2. and 3. and 9J- 5.013(2)(c)3. and 6.] Recommendation Expand Policy 207.8.6 to state that the County will amend its comprehensive plan after the completion of the Flor- ida Keys National marine Sanctuary Plan to specify how the County will assist in the implementation of the plan for an oil response team for the Florida Keys. Revise Policies 207.8.7 and 207.8.8 to delete the reference to adopting land development regulations so that the poli- cies are effective upon plan adoption and to include interim guidelines for the protection of marine turtles in the plan. Include a policy or policies that will ensure the protection of manatees. 13. Object ion Policies 207.10.5 (page 2.2-46) and 207.12.6 (page 2.2- 49) refer to revising the County's Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) to provide better protection to upland vege- tative communities and protected species. The policy is not supported by data and analyses which describe the existing HEI and does not include the general guidelines upon which the revised HEI will be based. [91- 5.012(3)(c)l. and 9J-5.013(2)(c)3., 5. and 6.] 34 Recommendation Revise the policies to include the guidelines for pro- tecting the upland habitats and include in the data and analyses a description and application of the existing Habitat Evaluation Index. 14. Objection Policies 103.1.5 (page 14, Change Document) and 207.13.4 (page 2.2-50) defer until September 30, 1993 and 1994 the identification of the freshwater lens systems and associated recharge areas on Big Pine and adjacent keys. The approximate location of some of the lenses have been identified; therefore, those that are known should be identified in the plan now, then the plan revised to include others as located. In addition, the policies do not identify the "special measures" or include the general guidelines that will be implemented to protect the recharge areas. [9J-5.012(3)(c)l.and 9J-5.013(2)(c)1., 5. and 6.) Recommendation Revise the policies to establish that the known freshwater lens systems and associated recharge areas are identified in the plan. Establish the general guidelines in the plan that the County will implement to protect these natural resources. 15. Objection Policy 212.1.2 (page 2.2-56) states that the County will adopt land development regulations which regulate existing and new shoreline development as recommended in a Shoreline Use Priorities Plan. The policy does not indicate that the comprehensive plan will be amended to include changes that may result from development of the shoreline uses plan and delays the implementation of the Shoreline Use Priorities Plan until one year after the plan is to be completed. [9J-5.012(3)(c)8.) Recommendation Revise the policy to specify that a plan amendment will be undertaken to include in the comprehensive plan the recommendations which result from the Shoreline Use Priorities Plan and commitment to implement those recom- mendations, as appropriate, based on those results. Establish a date for implementing the Priorities plan upon its completion and incorporation into the compre- hensive plan. 35 16. Objection Objective 212.2 and Policies 212.2.2 and 212.2.3 defer their effectiveness to the adoption of land development regulations. The definitions referenced in Policy 212.2.2 (altered shoreline, lawfully altered shoreline and unaltered shoreline) are not included in the com- prehensive plan. The permitted uses, impervious surface coverage, stormwater management criteria and other per- formance standards, listed in Policy 212.2.4 must be established in the comprehensive plan as the basis for the land development regulations to be adopted later. The references to stormwater management criteria are inappropriate; stormwater management must meet the level of service standards established in the Drainage Element. [9J-5.012(3)(b)l., 2. and 3 and (3)(c)l., 2., 3., and 8. and 9J-5.013(2)(b)2. and (2)(c)l. and 6.] Recommendation Include definitions for altered shoreline, lawfully altered shoreline and unaltered shoreline in the compre- hensive plan. Revise Policy 212.2.4 to establish the permitted uses, impervious surface coverage, stormwater management criteria and other performance standards in the comprehensive plan. Further revise the policy to specify that stormwater discharges must meet the require- ments of the stormwater management level of service standard adopted in the comprehensive plan. 17. Objection Policy 212.5.2 (page 38, Change Document), pertains to the minimum water depth at the location of docks. The policy does not _3dress such minimum depth at locations other than for marinas. The exceptions established in Policies 212.5.6 and 212.5.7 (pages 2.2-61 and 2.2-62) appear to negate the restrictions that are established in Policies 212.5.4 and 212.5.5 and that pertain to the location of docking facilities and piers over seagrasses. [9J-5.012(3)(c)l., 2., 3. and S. and 9J-5.013(2)(c)l. and 6.) Recommendation Revise Policy 212.5.2, or add additional policies, to establish minimum water depths at all docks, piers and other mooring facilities. Delete the exceptions in Policies 212.5.6 and 212.5.7 so that the provisions for docking facilities established in Policies 212.5'.4 and 212.5.5 are effective. 36 18. Obiection The County is proposing to adopt clearance time restric- tions which would reduce the current worst case clearance time of 35 hours to 30 hours by 2002 and to 24 hours by 2010. The County's proposal is outlined in Policies 216.1.1, 216.1.5, 216.1.16, 215.1.17 and 218.1.3 of the. County's proposed comprehensive plan amendment as invol- ving a combination of transportation improvements and a restriction in the total number of non -vested dwelling units issued on a yearly basis. The proposed plan does not include policies which ensure that additional development beyond the proposed allocation will not be permitted once the necessary improvements are completed. In addition, policies are not included which will halt development if the necessary improvements are not completed. [9J-5.012(3)(b)7. and SSA] Recommendation Include a policy to specify that increased facility capacity will not be used to increase development expectations. The comprehensive plan amendment should contain language which, if the assumptions contained in the proposal do not come to pass, would halt construc- tion of residential units pending a reassessment and subsequent comprehensive plan amendment. Such language is commonly used in Developments of Regional Impact. 19. Objection Under Policy 216.3.2 (page 2.2-71), the County will ini- tiate an intergovernmental agreement with Dade County to provide sufficient hurricane shelter spaces outside Monroe County; however, the policy delays initiating the intergovernmental agreement until September 30, 1993. In addition, the data and analyses do not demonstrate that adequate shelter spaces are available. [9J-5.012(3)(c)4.J Recommendation Revise the policy to specify that the County will initiate the agreement immediately. Revise the data and analyses to demonstrate how the County will ensure that adequate shelter spaces are available based on profes- sionally acceptable standards. 20. Obiection Objective 217.2 and Policies 217.2.1 through 217.2.6 (page 2.2-73) pertain to the development and implementa- 37 tion of a post -disaster recovery plan. Policy 217.2.4 defers its effectiveness to the adoption of land develop- ment regulations in regard to limiting redevelopment within the coastal high hazard area. None of the policies indicate that the comprehensive plan will be amended to include the results of the development of the post -disaster redevelopment plan. [9J-5.012(3)(c)5., 6. and 7.] Recommendation Revise Policy 217.2.4 to delete the reference to the adoption of land development regulations so that the policy is effective upon plan adoption. Add a policy to amend the comprehensive plan to include the guidelines that will be established in the post -disaster redevelop- ment plan for guiding development after a natural disaster. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Objection The., data and analysis and 5 year schedule of capital improvements do not include improvements to the 1118- mile stretch" included in FDOT's 5-Year Program. [91- 5.007(2)(b) and 9J-5.016(4)(a)] Recommendation Revise the data and analysis and 5-year schedule of capital improvements to address improvements to the 1118- mile stretch" included in FDOT's 5-year work program. 2. Objection The analysis of future traffic circulation system needs, which is based upon the calculated reserve capacity of U.S. 1, does not take into account the impacts of non-residential development on U.S.1. [9J-5.007(2)(b)] Recommendation Revise the analysis of future capacity of U.S. 1 to account for the impacts of non-residential development on the capacity of U.S. 1. 38 Goals. Obiectives and Policies 3. Objection An objective or policy is not included to retain the two-lane parts of U.S. 1 in undeveloped areas where physical or environmental constraints may affect the four-laning of U.S. I. Those undeveloped areas have not been described and identified. [9J-5.007(3)(b)2. and SSA] Recommendation Include an objective or policy which provides that the two-lane parts of U.S. 1 will be retained in undeveloped areas and a description of those undeveloped areas. 4. Objection The plan proposes three-laning and four-laning of sections of U.S. 1, including sections where those projects are not included in the Florida Department of Transportation's Five -Year Work Program. Specifically, the data and analysis, in both the traffic circulation and capital improvements elements, provide for the three-laning of U.S. 1 on two sections of Big Pine Key in year 92/93. This is inconsistent with the protection of Key Deer and their habitat, and inconsistent with the 5-year work program of FDOT. The plan does not demonstrate, as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, that these proposed roadway improvements are scheduled or planned in the FDOT five-year work program and are consistent with the environmental policies of the comprehensive plan. [9J-5.007(2)(b), 9J-5.007(3)(b)2., 9J-5.013(2)(b)4., 9J-5.013(2)(c)5., 6., and SSA] Recommendation Include a policy committing the County and Department to jointly petition FDOT to lower the speed limit on Big Pine Key to 35 mph. Include a policy that states that the County will only allow for intersection improvements and right turn deceleration lanes for access to specific properties, meaning the deletion of the proposed three laning. See also Critical Area Recommendation number 18. 39 5. Objection Policy 301.8.1 (page 43, Change Document) defers to the land development regulations and does not establish guidelines for shared driveway access, curb cuts and any other access management measures. Policy 301.8.1 also states that the County shall submit proposed access classifications to FDOT consistent with guidelines established in Chapter 14-97, F.A.C. However, the policy fails to establish guidelines for driveway connections to U.S. 1 and other roadways within the County. The proposal to minimize use of "new curb cuts" does not establish proper access standards. [9J-5.007(3)(c)2. and 9J-5.005(6)) Recommendation Revise the policy to include and establish guidelines for shared driveway access, curb cuts and any other access management measures for U.S. 1. The County can adopt more restrictive standards than required by FDOT provided that the guidelines are consistent. Given the critical function of U.S.1 in the Keys, a more conservative approach is warranted. 6. Objection Policy 301.7.1 (page 2.3-4) does not establish implementation activities for the acquisition and preservation of existing and future rights -of -way for the critical segment of U.S. 1 where widening to four lanes is required to reduce hurricane evacuation times. [9J-5.007(3)(c)4.] Recommendation Revise the policy to establish implementation activities for the acquisition and preservation of existing and future rights -of -way for the critical segment of U.S. 1 where widening to four lanes is required to reduce hurricane evacuation times. PORTS, AVIATION, AND RELATED FACILITIES ELEMENT Future Ports. Aviation, and Related Facilities Maps Objection All airport facilities and expansions, including clear zones and obstructions are not shown on the future transportation map or map series. Aviation Policy 501.1.1 (page 45, Change Document) states that the 40 County "shall establish" aviation related land uses adjacent to the airport and within twelve months after plan adoption, and will amend the land development regulations to permit such uses; however, land uses must be mapped at the time of adoption of the plan and any policies which affect the use of land must also be included in the plan at the time of adoption. Also, Aviation Policy 501.1.2 (page 2.5-1) indicates that land uses will be limited by regulations not based in the plan. Control surfaces around airports must be shown in the plan since their regulation affects the use of land. [9J-5.009(4)(a)1.] Recommendation Revise the future transportation map series to depict all airport facilities and expansions, including clear zones and obstructions. Comments A diagram (s) is not included to identify the points of ingress and egress for port and airport facilities for ground transportation nor for port and airport facility access to all other modes of surface and water transportation. The County should include a diagram to identify the points of ingress and egress for port and airport facilities for ground transportation. HOUSING ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Objection The following housing inventories are not included: an inventory taken from the latest decennial U.S. Census or more recent estimates which includes the number of dwelling units by monthly cost of owner -occupied units and rent or cost to income ratio; an inventory using data from the latest decennial U.S. Census, or more recent estimates, showing the number of dwelling units lacking complete plumbing, lacking complete kitchen facilities, lacking central heating, and overcrowded; and an inventory of the amount of housing construction activity (in number of years since the last decennial U.S. Census) affecting changes in the number of housing units within the local government's jurisdiction based on new construction, conversions, mobile home placements and removals. [9J-5.010(1)(a), (c), and (h)] 41 Recommendation Include the following housing inventories: an inventory from the latest decennial U.S. Census or more recent estimates which includes the number of dwelling units by monthly cost of owner -occupied units and rent or cost to income ratio; an inventory using data from the latest decennial U.S. Census, or more recent estimates, showing the number of dwelling units lacking complete plumbing, lacking complete kitchen facilities, lacking central heating and overcrowded (the inventory shall include an estimate of the structural condition of housing within the local government's jurisdiction, by the number and generalized location of dwelling units in standard and substandard condition and the methodology used to estimate the condition of housing); and an inventory of the amount of housing construction activity (in number of units for the years since the last decennial U.S. Census) affecting changes in the number of housing units within the local government's jurisdiction based on new construction, conversions, mobile home placements and removals. 2. Objection A projection of the anticipated number of households by size and income range derived from the population projections in 9J-5.005(2)(e) is not included; an analysis of the housing need of the anticipated . population by cost or rent is not included; and'an analysis of the portion of the housing need which can be projected to be met by the private sector within current market conditions by type, tenure, cost or rent, and income range of households served is not included. [9J-5.010(2)(a), (b), and (d)] Recommendation Include the following analyses: a projection of the anticipated number of households by size and income range derived from the population projections in 9J- 5.005(2)(e); an analysis of the housing need of the anticipated population by cost or rent; and an analysis of the portion of the housing need which can be projected to be met by the private sector within current market conditions by type, tenure, cost or rent, and income range of households served. 3. Objection Objective 601.1 (page 2.6-1) is not specific or measur- able as written and does not identify intermediate, short- 42 term accomplishments for the County to achieve for the provision of adequate and affordable housing. Policies 601.1.1 and 601.1.11 (pages 48 and 49, Change Document) are inadequate for the following reasons: a) Policy 601.1.1 delays until October 16, 1992 an assessment of affordable and special housing needs that should have been included in the plan. b) Policies 601.1.1 and 601.1.11 do not include principles and criteria guiding the location of housing for low- and moderate- income families that address supporting infrastructure and public facilities. c) Policies 601.1.1 and 601.1.11 are not adequately based on data and analysis because no justification is included in the plan for the 20% reservation of building permits annually for affordable housing and "affordable housing" is not defined by the policies. [9J-5.010(3)(b)1.,3., 9J-5.010(3)(c)5., 9J-5.003(61), and 9J-5.005(2)(a)] Recommendation Revise Objective 601.1, or include additional objectives, to provide specific, measurable, intermediate ends the County will achieve for the provision of adequate and affordable housing. Revise the policies, based on revised data and analysis, to contain implementation activities to establish principles and criteria guiding the location of housing for low and moderate income families, inclu- ding supporting infrastructure and public facilities. Provide justification for the amount of building permits to be set aside annually (20%) for affordable housing. Define "affordable housing." SANITARY SEWER SUB -ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Obiection The level of service provided by each wastewater treatment facility (package plants) is not included. [9J-5.011(1)(e)5.] Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to include the level of service provided by each wastewater treatment facility (package plants). 43 2. Objection Existing and projected sanitary sewer facility needs are not identified. [9J-5.011(1)(f)1., 2., and 3.] Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to include a facility capacity analysis, the general performance of existing facilities, and an analysis of problems and opportunities for the replacement, expansion and siting of new sanitary sewer facilities. Goals, Objectives and Poolicies 3. Objection Objective 901.2 (page 2.9-2) defers correcting deficien- cies in existing OSDS until after September 30, 1995, rather than having the deficiencies abated by 1995 as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. The policies associated with this objective discuss developing and adopting an inspection/compliance monitoring program for OSDS, package plants and wastewater treatment plants; however, the policies do not commit the County to inspecting such systems nor specifying how inspections will be made, by whom, frequency, nor responsibility for enforcement of systems found to be malfunctioning, and exempts all OSDS in operation less than three years from the inspection program, with no other criteria established for the exemption. In addition, in Policy 901.2.3 (page 59, Change Document) the County commits only to entering into an interlocal agreement with HRS to identify cesspools for replacement by September 30, 1995 and not abating their use by 1995. [9J- 5.011(2)(b)l., 9J-5.013(2)(b)2., 9J-5.013(2)(c)l., 5., and 6., and SSA] Recommendation Revise Objective 901.2 to state that the County shall abate existing OSDS facility deficiencies by September 30, 1995. Revise the policies associated with this objective to commit the County to inspecting OSDS, package plants, and wastewater treatment plants. Specify how the inspections will be made, by whom, the frequency of the inspections, and the responsibility for enforcement of systems found to be malfunctioning. A policy should be included that the County will require an annual operating permit for all on -site sewage dispo- 44 sal systems and mandate an inspection of the system at the time of (re)permitting. An annual operating permit could 1) ensure that each system is functioning as designed; 2) lead to detection and correction of all illegal systems currently in use (i.e., cesspools, drain - fields in contact with the water table, etc.); 3) provide ' revenues to operate the enhanced program; and 4) provide an enforcement mechanism since the permit can be revoked if not in compliance. The policy should further require that the County declare that failure to have an operating permit for an on -site sewage disposal system is prima facie evidence of the existence of a sanitary nuisance. This would simplify and speed enforcement actions and avoid issues related to inspector access to private property. Revise the policy(ies) to remove the exemption from this process related to all OSDS in operation less than 3 years and enter into an interlocal agreement with HRS to abate the use of cesspools by September 30, 1995. 4. Objection a) The plan does not include a policy requiring the abatement of septic tank usage by 1995 or establish a program to retrofit inoperative septic systems. b) The plan states that the County will determine who will participate in the preparation of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan by October 16, 1992; however, the Agreement stipulates that the parties to participate in this Master Plan will be specified in the remedial plan which is to be adopted by that date. c) No policies are included which specify that the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan will identify a stable, long-term funding source capable of implementing the plan; that Federal 201 studies will by utilized in identifying high density areas of the County where central sewer may be needed; and how the County will coordinate the development of the wastewater management plan with the FKAA, the FDER and the EPA. All of these activities are required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. d) Objective 901.4 (page 58, Change Document) does not specify that the objective of the master plan is to establish more stringent nutrient limiting standards as necessary to prevent degradation of nearshore waters. [9J-5.011(2)(c)1., 9J-5.013(2)(b)2., 9J-5.013(2)(c)1., 5., and 6., 9J-5.016(3)(b)l., 9J-5.016(4)(a), and SSA] 45 5. Recommendation Include a policy requiring the abatement of septic tank usage by 1995 or establish a program to retrofit inoperative septic systems. Specify in the remedial plan the parties who will participate in the preparation of the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Include policies which: identify a stable, long-term funding source to implement the master plan; specify that Federal 201 studies will be utilized in identifying high density areas of the County where central sewer may be needed; and specify how the County will coordinate development of the master plan with the FKAA, the FDER and the EPA. Revise Objective 901.4 to specify that the objective of the master plan is to establish more stringent nutrient loading standards as necessary to prevent degradation of nearshore waters. Objection Policy 901.1.1 (page 58, Change Document), which establishes interim level of service standards for OSDS and wastewater treatment facilities, is inadequate for the following reasons: a) The requirement for including design capacity and non-residential standards in the sanitary sewer level of service standard has not been satisfied: i) the interim level of service standard for quantity relative to wastewater treatment plants relies on the design capacity of the plant and includes no capacity per unit of demand, and the effluent water quality component "shall by determined by the ability of the wastewater treatment plant to meet the effluent quality and operational standards set forth in Chapter 17-600, F.A.C.", which does not establish a level of service standard; ii) the interim standards for OSDS rely on compliance with the "requirements of the most recent versions of Chapter 1OD-6 and Chapter 1OD-6, Part II, F.A.C.", which permits the plan to be self -amending and which includes no means for improving the level of treatment required of new on -site disposal systems and retrofit of existing systems that are malfunctioning; iii) the level of service standard established for OSDS does not require treatment "above and beyond" standards set by HRS and no level of nutrient removal, pollutant loading and discharge water quality is 46 Th included; iv) a level of service standard is not included for non-residential uses; v) the level of service standards for OSDS are not based on environ- mental carrying capacity which address nutrient loading to maintain the quality of nearshore waters; vi) the interim level of service standards for OSDS do not address density, depth to the water table, location nor other limiting factors to ensure the protection of surface and ground waters; and vii) the level of service standard does not establish acceptable interim standards for sewage effluent discharge. The plan does not establish nutrient limiting standards for new package plants and OSDS. Chapter 17-600, F.A.C., does not establish acceptable standards for nutrient loading. b) Policy 901.1.1 states, "Monroe County shall adopt the following level of service standards...", which implies that the level of service standards may not apply at the time of plan adoption. [9J-5.011(2)(c)2.a., 9J- 5.013(2)(b)2., 9J-5.013(2)(c)l., 5., and 6., and SSA] Recommendation In order to address the above objections, the County must establish interim criteria and guidelines with regard to the placement of OSDS. In new subdivisions and for lots platted prior to 1972 these could include: certification procedures at the time a lot is sold as a condition of the sale; setbacks from the water table; elevation of systems in areas of three foot saturation of soils. Additionally, the County could consider the establishment of a procedure that would require the following criteria to be met before a variance could be issued to include: minimum lot size; setbacks from waterbodies; elevation of systems; larger or "baffling" tanks; a provision that the variance is not transferable and would expire after one year if not utilized; limita- tions on the size of the structure which reduces the volume of wastewater; and limitations on fill in wet- lands confined to existing filled areas of the site for the placement of OSDS. The County should require that the effluent from all aerobic systems be tested for nitrogen and phosphorus as part of the isuance of an annual operating permit. This will allow some quantification of the amount of nutrients being discharged from such systems. Because most other on -site systems rely in part on the drainfield for treatment of the wastewater, it is not feasible to place this requirement on non-aerobis systems. The Monroe County Public Health Unit, which is a contra- 47 tual partnership between HRS and Monroe County, should have responsibility for enforcing the plan provisions and such ordinances. The County should coc+rdinate with HRS and the Monroe County Health Unit to draft such ordinances and to prepare amendments to the existing contract to specify the duties of the Unit in this program area. Sample collection and analyses for aerobic systems and legal support could also be performed by the Monroe County Health Unit. Replace the language, "Monroe County shall adopt..." with "Monroe County hereby adopts...". Comments Policy 901.4.7 (page 2.9-5) incorrectly references the completion of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan as September 30, 1995. This policy should be revised to be consistent with Objective 901.4, which requires that the master plan be completed by September 30, 1994. SOLID WASTE SUB -ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Objection The allocation of landfill capacity committed to Monroe County at the Broward landfill is not adequately demonstrated. Tonnage figures are not converted to volume as necessary to determine the adequacy of the remaining landfill capacity. [9J-5.011(1)(c) and SSA] Recommendation Identify the allocation of landfill capacity committed to the County at the Broward County landfill. Convert the waste disposal stream to volume and demonstrate that adequate landfill capacity exists. 2.- Objection a) A landfill capacity analysis addressing existing conditions, based on the facility design capacity, is not included for the five-year plan increment nor the long-range planning timeframe established in the plan. The data and analysis fail to demonstrate that adequate landfill capacity will be available to accommodate the County's projected waste generation. Furthermore, no projects or funding mechanisms are proposed for the 1995-2010 planning period to ensure adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available to serve 48 existing and anticipated development. Note: The County commits to selecting a long-term disposal and processing method by October 16, 1992; however, the data and analyses (page 9-10) state that the Request for Proposals initiated in December 1991 for septage, sludge and leachate treatment and disposal will include proposals for solid waste disposal, but such facilities are not listed with the scope of services for septage, sludge and leachate treatment and disposal. In addition, proposals to provide a technology or technologies for non -burn processing and disposal of solid waste, inclu- ding solid waste separation, recycling and disposal must be based on environmentally sound practices. b) The solid waste needs assessment is based on a population defined as the permanent population plus the seasonal residents, "the average number of seasonal residents in the unincorporated county on a yearly basis" rather than on the peak population figures as specified in the Agreement. [9J-5.011(1)(f)1. and SSA] Recommendation Include a landfill capacity analysis, for existing conditions, the initial increment of the planning period (5 years), and the remaining increment of the planning period (through 2010). In the absence of demonstrating that adequate landfill capacity exists throughout the long-term planning timeframe, the County could meet this requirement by ensuring that contractual agreements are in place with a service provider so that there is always at least five (5) years of landfill capacity available to meet the County's projected solid waste disposal needs. Utilize consistent and correct generation rates and pro- jections for the 20 year planning timeframe. Include projects or funding mechanisms to ensure adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available to serve exis- ting and anticipated development. Include a thorough analysis regarding the disposal of non-recyclables, sludge, septage, and leachate. Include policies which address the disposal of these wastes. Revise the solid waste needs assessment to use peak population figures as specified in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. 3. Objection An analysis of the general performance of existing facilities based on best available data, including the impact of the facilities upon adjacent natural resources is not included. (9J-5.011(1)(f)2.] 49 Recommendation Include the required analysis for the Long Key and Cudjoe Key landfills, which remain open for emergencies. Goals. Objectives and Policies 4. Objection The level of service standard established in Policy 801.1.1 (page 55, Change Document) is inadequate for the following reasons: a) a facility capacity standard has been added to the solid waste level of service standards; however, the level of service standard remains inadequately supported by data and analysis because the data and analyses indicate that the haul out standard, at 95,000 tons per year (tpy), is less that the current annual generation rate (between 83,342 tpy and 105,260 tpy), the projected 1997 generation rate (101,046 tpy) and the projected 2002 generation rate (103,937 tpy). The facility (landfill) capacity standard should be clarified, and the data and analysis revised, to demonstrate that the land- fill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the total waste stream to be disposed in landfills through the long-range planning timeframe (Year 2010). The Agreement specifically requires disposal capacity for five years. b) The level of service standard is not supported by data and analysis because the data and analysis fail to demonstrate that adequate landfill capacity will be available to accommodate the County's projected waste generation through the five-year and long-term planning timeframes. Furthermore, no projects or funding mechanisms are proposed for the 1995-2010 planning period to ensure adequate solid waste disposal capacity will be available to serve existing and anticipated development. c) Policy 801.1.1 states, "Monroe County shall adopt the following level of service standard...", which implies that the level of service standard may not apply upon plan adoption. [9J-5.011(2)(c12.b. and 9J- 5.005(2)(a) and SSA] Recommendation Clarify the facility capacity standard, and revise the 50 . data and analysis, to demonstrate that the landfill has sufficient capacity to accommodate the total waste stream to be disposed in landfills through the year 2010. In the absence of demonstrating that adequate landfill capacity exists throughout the long-term planning time - frame, the County could meet this requirement by ensuring that contractual agreements are in place with a service provider so that there is always at least five (5) yeart of landfill capacity available to meet the County's projected solid waste disposal needs. Revise the level of service standard based on the revised generation rates and include a landfill capacity analysis based on the new level of service standard using peak population figures. Amend the level of service standards to include a mini- mum of five years of landfill capacity. Revise the language in Policy 801.1.1 which states, "Monroe County shall adopt" with "Monroe County hereby adopts... 11. Include an analysis curbside recycling appropriate, based analysis of methods recyclables and the facility. Include these analyses. Objection of the current variable rate and address in policies as on the analyses. Include an proposed for processing need for a material recycling policies as appropriate, based for 10301 Policy 801.3.12 (page 56, Change Document) is not consis- tent with the need to protect environmentally sensitive areas and limiting public expenditures in CHHA. Recommendation Revise the policy to ensure that the siting provision for such facilities colmply with the natural resources protection requirements of the comprehensive plan and implementing regulations. 51 r DRAINAGE SUB -ELEMENT Goals. Objectives and Policies 1. Objection Drainage Policy 1001.1.1 (page 60, Change Document), drainage level of service standards, is inadequate for the following reasons: a) The policy does not indicate that the drainage level of service standards will apply to existing development. b) The drainage level of service standards are not identified as interim standards; do not address Best Management Practices for single-family development; and do not include an additional policy to amend the comprehensive plan to revise the level of service standards, as appropriate, based on the results of the Stormwater Management Master Plan. c) The drainage level of service standard does not specify that all standards are to apply to all development and redevelopment and that any exemptions or exceptions in these citations, including project size thresholds, are not applicable. d) Policy 1001.1.1 states, "Monroe County shall adopt the following level of service standards...11, which implies that the level of service standards may not apply at the time of plan adoption. [9J-5.011(2)(c)2.c. and SSA] Recommendation Revise Policy 1001.1.1 to replace the language "Monroe County shall adopt" with "Monroe County hereby adopts...". Identify Policy 1001.1.1 as an interim level of service standard. Revise the level of service standard to include the following: All standards in these citations are to apply to all development and redevelopment and that any exemptions or exceptions in these citations, including project thresholds, are not applicable. Infill residential development within improved residential areas or subdivisions existing prior to the 52 . adoption of this comprehensive plan must ensure that its post -development stormwater run-off will not contribute pollutants which will cause the runoff from the entire improved area or subdivision to degrade receiving water bodies and their water quality a stated above. Development and redevelopment projects which are not exempt from the South Florida Water Management District permitting requirements must also meet the requirements of Chapter 40-4 and 40E-40, F.A.C. (as these regulations exist at the time of adoption of this comprehensive plan). 2. Objection a) An objective or policy is not included to amend the comprehensive plan after the completion of the Stormwater Management Master Plan, to include and implement the recommendations of the stormwater plan in the comprehensive plan. b) The Five -Year Schedule of Capital Improvements identifies the funding for the joint Sanitary Sewer/Stormwater Management Master Plan as an "Enterprise Fund"; however, the data and analyses do not discuss an enterprise fund and the revenue sources are not identified for this "Fund". c) A stable, long-term funding source, such as a stormwater utility, for implementing the stormwater master plan is not included and is not identified as a component to be developed during the studies to be done for the master plan. [9J-5.011(2)(b)1., (2)(c)2., 9J- 5.016(3)(b)l., 3., 9J-5.016(4)(a), and SSA] Recommendation Include an objective or policy which provides the plan will be amended upon completion of the Stormwater Management Master Plan to include and implement the recommendations of the master plan in the comprehensive plan. Clearly identify, in the data and analysis and 5-Year Schedule of Capital Improvements, the revenue source for the master plan. Include a policy that.commits the County to establishing a stable long-term funding source, such as a stormwater utility, for implementing the stormwater master plan and identify it as a component to be developed during the studies to be done for the master 53 plan. This would include data and analysis, date of implementation for the utility fund and attendent policies to ensure a funding source in the event the stormwater utility fund is not implemented. POTABLE WATER SUB -ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Obl ection The data and analyses do not demonstrate that the preparation of the Potable Water Sub -Element was coordinated with the SFWMD and the FKAA to ensure consistency among the water use assessments in the remedial plan and the County consumptive use permit as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. [9J- 5.011(1) and SSA] Recommendation Demonstrate that the preparation of the Potable Water Sub -Element was coordinated with the SFWMD and the FKAA to ensure consistency among the water use assessments in both the remedial plan and the County consumptive use permit. Include analyses regarding the coordination of the water supply with the Cities and include policies which establish coordination mechanisms for distribution of the water supply between the County and the Cities. 2. Obiection The data and facility capacity analyses do not demonstrate how the provision of potable water is or will be linked directly to the proposed future land uses and how the County will ensure the availability of potable water concurrent with development as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. [9J-5.011(1)(f) and SSA] Recommendation Revise the data and analysis to demonstrate how the provision of potable water is or will be linked directly to the proposed future land uses and how the County will ensure the availability of potable water concurrent with development. 54 3. Objection The facility capacity analysis and projected demand included on pages 8-28 through 8-31 and Tables 8.15, 8.16, 8.17, 8.18 of the data and analysis (Technical Document) are inadequate because they do not project potable water facility capacity and need from the end of the first five years through the remaining increment of the planning period (2010). Also, Table 8.15 converts gallons/square foot/day, as well as gpd/capita; however, the conversion for non- residential capacity (gallons/square foot/day) to ERU's is not discussed. This conversion factor needs to be included and if the remaining capacity for non- residential uses is not intended to be shown as ERU's, then the table needs to be corrected or clarified. [9J- 5.oil (1)(f)1.c.] Recommendation Expand the data and analysis to include a facility capacity analysis that projects potable water facility needs for the initial increment of the planning period (at least five years in length) and the remaining increment of the planning period (through 2010). Include the conversion factor as stated above in Table 8.15. Goals. Objectives and Policies 4. Objection An objective is not included to prohibit waterwells in areas of freshwater lenses. In addition, the data and analyses do not adequately address environmental consi- derations for the use of waterwells in areas where freshwater lenses are located. 9J-5.011(2)(b)4. and SSA] Recommendation Include data and analyses which address the environmen- tal impacts should waterwells be used in areas where freshwater lenses are located. Based on the revised data and analyses, include an objective to prohibit waterwells in areas of freshwater lenses. 5. Objection The potable water level of service standard in Policy 701.1.1 (page 51, Change Document) is inadequate for the following reasons: 55 1 a) The water quality component of the level of service standards for potable water relies on water quality "as defined by the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation" without identifying the relevant legislation or rule that applies by section and page numbers. b) The County proposes to adopt a water conservation level of service standard; however, a policy is not included that commits the County to amending the plan to adopt the new level of service standard when reduced consumption levels are achieved. c) The overall level of service standard of 100 gallons per capita per day does not establish a raw water peak or maximum day level of service standard. A maximum peak day standard should reflect the total gallons to be pumped per day and be based on a sub - analysis of raw water usage that has been compiled and translated into a raw water average annual day flow level of service standard as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. d) The level of service standard is not adequately supported by data and analysis because the data and analyses do not indicate that the County coordinated with the Department, the FKAA and the SFWMD to develop a methodology for establishing the level of service standard that reflects water conservation efforts. The data and analyses indicate that the water conservation goal in Policy 701.1.2 relies solely on the FKAA to reduce the potable water consumption by reducing the water loss in transmission lines. No action is to be taken, or required, by the County except to "encourage" the FKAA in their efforts. Therefore, the level of service standard for water conservation should be based on anticipated water reductions as a result of both water conservation measures as well as efforts to reduce unaccounted for water loss as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. e) Policy 701.1.1 states, "Monroe County shall adopt the following level of service standards..." which implies that the level of service standard may not apply at the time of plan adoption. [9J- 5.011(2)(c)2.d., 9J-5.005(2)(a), and SSA] Recommendation Revise the potable water level of service standard (Policy 701.1.1) as follows: 56 Replace the language,"Monroe County shall adopt...1, with "Monroe County hereby adopts the following level of service standards... 11. Identify the complete FDER citation by relevant statute or rule, including section and page number. Include a policy that the County will amend the plan to adopt the new level of service standard when the reduced consumption levels are achieved. Include a raw water peak level of service standard or maximum peak day level of service standard. A maximum peak day standard should reflect the total gallons to be pumped per day and be based on a sub -analysis of raw water average annual day flow level of service standard. Establish coordination mechanisms between the County, DCA, FKAA and SFWMD for the development of the water conservation level of service standard. 6. Obiection The plan does not adequately address implementation activities for establishing and utilizing potable water conservation strategies and techniques as follows: a) A policy is included (701.9.1, page 2.7-6) to adopt a permanent irrigation ordinance; however, the guidelines upon which the ordinance will be based are not included in the policy nor other policies. The Policies should address the general guidelines that include the types of regulations that will be implemented such as the times and the length of times during which certain areas will be permitted to irrigate, the rate of flow or irrigation systems and a more restrictive limit on those irrigation systems which use potable water as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. b) Although a policy is included (701.9.1) to adopt a xeriscape ordinance, no guidelines are established in the policy (nor in other policies) on which the land development regulations will be based. For example, the policy or policies should address the proper placement of landscape material, water conserving irrigation practices, landscape maintenance and a monitoring program for implementation and compliance monitoring as specified in the Agreement. 57 c) A policy is included (701.9.1) to adopt plumbing fixture efficiency standards; however, the policy (nor other policies) does not include all the requirements for water conserving plumbing fixtures identified in the Agreement. The policies should address the use of ultra -low plumbing fixtures in all new and replacement construction as specified in the Agreement and limit the sale of fixtures to those that meet the specified standards. d) A policy is not included which specifically address the coordination of water conservation required by the SFWMD, including the recommendations from the District's finalized water conservation report. e) Policies are included which reference the FKAA's water leak detection program; however, those policies reference a reduction to 13% water loss whereas the Agreement infers that any loss above 10$ is to be addressed. [9J-5.011(2)(c)3. and SSA] Recommendation Include in the policy general guidelines for the irrigation ordinance as follows: the types of regulations that will be implemented such as the time and the length of times during which certain areas will be permitted to irrigate, the rate of flow or irrigation systems and a more restrictive limit on those irrigation systems which use potable water as specified in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Include guidelines for a xeriscape ordinance as follows: proper placement of landscape material, water conserving irrigation practices, landscape maintenance, and monitoring program for implementatior and compliance monitoring as specified in the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. Include, as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, a policy which requires the use of ultra -low plumbing fixtures in all new and replacement construction and limit the sale of fixtures to those that meet the specified standards. Include a policy which addresses the coordination of water conservation required by SFWMD, including the recommendations from the District's finalized water conservation report. 58 Include policies, in accordance with the Stipulated Settlement Agreement, for implementation of weak detection programs by utilities with unaccounted water losses greater that 10%. Include a policy that requires all new development to provide cisterns to reduce roof run-off and conserve water. 7. Objection The plan does not adequately address implementation activities for providing for future potable water facility needs as follows: a) A policy is not included that the County will seek an interlocal agreement with the FKAA to establish an allocation to be reserved for the unincorporated portion of the County as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. b) Policies are not included which specify that the county will seek (and how) equal representation on the water management district Board and equal consideration in water allocation as required by the Stipulated Settlement Agreement. [9J-5.011(2)(c)l. and SSA] Recommendation Include policies which provide that the County will seek an interlocal agreement with the FKAA to establish an allocation to be reserved for the unincorporated portion of the County and specify that the County will seek (and how) equal representation on the water management district board and equal consideration in water allocation. NATURAL GROUNDWATER A UIFER RECHARGE SUB ELEMENT Goals, Objectives and Policies 1. Objection Policy 1101.2.5 (page 63, Change Document) is contradictory as to how the land development regulations will address proposed development within the recharge area of freshwater lenses because it states that proposed development will be discouraged or prohibited. The terms discourage and prohibit are not synonymous, so it is unclear whether the County 59 -a proposes to discourage or prohibit development within these areas. [9J-5.011(2)(c)4., 9J-5.013(2)(b)2., 4., 9J-5.013(2)(c)l., 5., and 6.] Recommendation The County should revise the policy to indicate clearly how it proposes to protect recharge areas of the lenses: If the County will not prohibit development in these areas, then the policy should indicate the mechanism to be used for the purpose of discouraging development and regulating inappropriate land uses. The Permit Allocation System would be one means of discouraging inappropriate development, assigning negative points for development in these areas. RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Obiection The analysis of projected future needs for recreation sites, open space and recreation facilities is inadequate because it projects future needs through the year 2002, but not the long range planning timeframe, 2010. [9J-5.014(2)(b)] Recommendation Include an analysis of projected future needs for recreation sites, open space and recreation facilities through the year 2010 or coordinate the siting of recreational areas with the Land Authority. Clearly specify that the development to be allocated during the first ten years is the total development for the twenty year planning timeframe. 2. Obiection Future recreation facilities have not been depicted on the Future Land Use Map Series, within generalized service area boundaries. In fact, Policy 1201.2.2 (page 2.12.-2) delays the identification of recreation areas until 1995. [9J-5.014(2)(c)] Recommendation Revise the Future Land Use Map to depict future recreational uses within generalized service area boundaries. 60 Vk Goals. Objectives and Policies 3. Objection a) The resource -based level of service standard of 0.82 acre/1,000 functional population (Policies 1201.1.1 and 1201.1.2, Page 64, Change Document) is not supported by data and analyses and appears to have been calculated so that the 2002 demand would be met by the existing available land. The premise that the resource -based level of service standard should apply throughout the Keys and not within service areas is not acceptable. The activity -based level of service standard of 0.82 acre/1,000 functional population is not adequately supported by data and analysis. It appears that the level of standard adopted in the 1986 comprehensive plan has been converted from resident Population to the functional population and this does not constitute a professionally accepted and applied methodology. b) The level of service standards for recreational facilities (Policies 1201.1.1 and 1201.1.2) are not supported by data and analyses which identify the basis for and the adequacy of the standards. The data and analysis state that the residents were surveyed in 1989 to get an indication of the types of facilities the residents felt were not in adequate supply but the results of the survey do not appear to be the basis for the facilities standards. In addition, the analyses discuss the state guidelines recommended by the Florida Department of Natural Resources but state that the standards are adjusted to reflect the needs specific to Monroe County; however, the revised standards have not been used to establish level of service standards in Policies 1201.1.1 and 1201.1.2. c) The recreation and open space level of service standards (Policies 1201.1.1 and 1201.1.2) state, "Monroe County shall adopt the following level of service standards..." and "Monroe County shall seek to achieve a balance of neighborhood and community parks and to meet the level of service standard for activity - based beighborhood and community parks within service area boundaries as follows...,,, which implies that the level of service standards may not apply at the time of plan adoption. [9J-5.014(3)(b)4., 9J-5.005(20(a), and SSA] 61 Recommendation Revise the resource based level of service standard to be established by service area based upon a profession- ally accepted and applied methodology and the activity based level of service standard consistent with the DNR guidelines for the functional population. Alterna- tively, other professionally accepted standards could be utilized to support the adoption of an appropriate level of service standard. Replace the above language with "Monroe County hereby adopts...". INTERGOVERNMENTAL COORDINATION ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Objection This element is written in the tone that it is the responsibility of the external agencies to provide the intergovernmental coordination with the County rather than it being incumbent on the County to initiate the intergovernmental coordination mechanisms that the County identifies as being needed. In addition, the offices within the County administrative and political structures which will have the primary responsibility for the County to ensure the coordination processes are not identified. [9J-5.015(1) and (2) and (SSA)] Recommendation Revise the element to be written such that the County is the entity responsible for initiating and implementing the needed intergovernmental coordination mechanisms. Identify the County offices within the administrative and political structure which will represent the County during the coordination processes and have primary responsibility to ensure coordination activities are undertaken. 2. Objection The data and analyses do not include a discussion regar- ding intergovernmental coordination and state oversight as critical components of the Keys designation as an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC). An explanation of the purpose and intent of the ACSC designation is not included. [9J-5.015(1) and (2) and SSA] C=fa Recommendation Expand the data and analyses to analyze the intergovernmental coordination and state oversight as critical componendts fo the Keys designation as an Area of Critical State Concern, including an explanation of the intent and purpose of the designation. 3. Objection The effectiveness of existing coordination mechanisms that the County uses to coordinate with other entities are not evaluated. [9J-5.015(2)(a) and SSA] Recommendation Include an evaluation of the effectiveness of the existing coordination mechanisms which the County uses to coordinate with other entities. 4. Objection A thorough analysis of existing problems in the County which require significant intergovernmental coordination efforts to resolve is not included. Complete analyses are not included regarding land and water management; water quality issues; solid waste disposal; sanitary sewer collection, treatment and disposal; on -site sewage disposal; natural resource protection; affordable housing; traffic circulation; and hurricane evacuation. [9J-5.015(2)(b) and SSA] Recommendation Include complete analyses of existing problems in the County which require significant intergovernmental coor- dination efforts to resolve, including those regarding land and water management; water quality issues; solid waste disposal; sanitary sewer collection, treatment and disposal; on -site sewage disposal; natural resource pro- tection; affordable housing; traffic circulation; and hurricane evacuation. 5. Objection Analyses of the needs and opportunities, and the poten- tial solutions, are not included to address the need for internal consistency among plan elements; the need for increased intergovernmental coordination with the City of Key West regarding the issues of hurricane evacuation, 63 transportation, potable water, solid waste and the pro- posed permit allocation system; the need for increased intergovernmental coordination with the South Florida Regional Planning Council concerning regional and inter - jurisdictional issues, including, among others, hurricane evacuation and solid waste management; the need for increased intergovernmental coordination with the Florida Department of Health and Rehabilitative Services on regu- lation of on -site disposal systems to minimize impacts on natural resources; the need for increased intergovern- mental coordination with the Department of Environmental Regulation on water quality issues; the need for incre- ased intergovernmental coordination with the Department of Natural Resources and on establishing "green line" areas for state parks; on the marine sanctuary program the need for increased intergovernmental coordination with the Florida Department of Transportation on transportation issues, especially U.S.1; and the need to include relevant federal agencies in these discus- sions. The need for increased intergovernmental coor- dination with Dade County on issues including hurricane shelter spaces, the widening of the 1118-mile stretch" of U.S. 1 and improvements to Card Sound Road have not been analyzed as to the needs and opportunities and the potential solutions to these needs. These issues have been identified in the proposed remedial plan; however, no analyses are included regarding the specific means for resolving these issues through intergovernmental coordination mechanisms, stating only that the County "should coordinate with", "should develop an interlocal agreement", and the like. [9J-5.015(2) and SSA] Recommendation Include analyses of the needs and opportunities and the potential solutions which address the cited needs. 6. Objection The text states that the matrix attached to the element illustrates the "coordination responsibilities of each of the agencies referenced above by issues identified in subsequent sections of this Chapter"; however, this does not explain the significance of the matrix; how the County achieves coordination with the entities listed; and other relevant information for interpreting the matrix. [9J-5.015(2)] 64 Recommendation Include an explanation regarding the significance of the matrix, how the County achieves coordination with the entities listed and other relevant information for inter- preting the matrix. Goals. Objectives and Policies 7. Objection Policy 1301.3.1 (page 2.13-5) inappropriately relies on the Department "and/or" the South Florida Regional Plan- ning Council to ensure execution of an agreement among the County and its municipalities to evaluate levels of service, to allocate relative proportions of future deve- lopment, to monitor future development within the juris- dictions and mediating disputes regarding the allocation of future development. The Department nor the Regional Planning Council have the authority to effectuate inter - local agreements between local governments. [9J- 5.015(3) (c)2.] Recommendation Revise the policy to delete the reliance to the State and Regional Planning Council to execute the agreement. S. Objection Policy 1301.4.9 (page 2.13-6) states that the Coutny will coordiate with the Florida Department of Transpor- tation (FDOT) to ensure that U.S. 1 capacity improve- ments are included in FDOT's five-year plan to maintain hurricane evacuation clearance times at or below 30 hours beyond the year 2002. This policy is inconsis- tent with other objectives and policies whereby the County will reduce the clearance times to 30 hours by the year 2002 and to 24 hours by the year 2010. [91- 5.015(3)(c)l. and SSA] Recommendation Amend the policy to reduce clearance time to 30 hours by 2002 and to 24 hours by 2010. 9. Objection Objective 1301.7 and Policies 1301. (pages 69 and 70, Change Document) (page 70, Change Document) pertain 7.1 through 1301.7.14 and Policy 1301.7.15 to coordination 65 mechanisms "to identify environmental issues and protect natural resources". The objective defers to "identify[ing]" issues rather than resolving *fie Issues of which the County is aware. Policy 1301.7.E states that the County will "work cooperatively" with the Florida Department of Environmental Regulation and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers "to identify the environ- mental issues related to permitting of marinas, docking facilities, piers, mooring sites, hardened vertical shoreline structures, and dredging in the Florida Keys". The policy does not include guidelines for resolving the environmental issues through coordination with these agencies. Policy 1301.7.10 lists a number of programs that will be coordinated with certain other entities relative to "species of special status". One of the programs listed is the identification of offshore island rookeries and nesting areas where development will be prohibited. Policy 1301.7.12 states that the County will coordinate with the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority and private providers of utilities "to discourage extension of facilities and services to Coastal Barrier Resource Systems (CBRS) units". The policy does not specify how the County will coordinate with those providers. Policy 1301.7.13 states that the County will "encourage and participate in" developing "Pollution response plans and facilities" through its departments. The policy does not identify the "pollu- tion response plans and facilities" that need to be developed. [9J-5.015(3)(b)2. and (3)(c)l.] Recommendation Revise the objective and Policy 1301.7.6 to specify that intergovernmental coordination mechanisms will be imple- mented to resolve the coordination needs identified in the plan. The bird rookery and nesting sites must be identified in the comprehensive plan because t'zat desig- nation will affect the use of the property on the islands. Revise Policy 1301.7.12 to specify how the County will coordinate with those providers; however, the policy should specify that the County shall ensure through those intergovernmental coordination mechanisms that the prohibition of new development on units of the CBRS is not violated by the extension of facilities. Revise Policy 1301.7.13 to state that the County will require the relevant County departments to develop Pollution response plans and facilities. Identify the plans and facilities that are needed in the policy or in the data and analyses. 66 10. Objection Objective 1301.9 and Policies 1301.9.1 through 1301.9.6 (page 70, Change Document),pertain to coordination with city, state and federal agencies to make city, state and federally -owned park lands available for use by County residents. Policies 1301.9.3, 1301.9.4, 1301.9.5 and 1301.9.6 do not specify how the County "shall coordinate" with the Department of Natural Resources, the U.S. Navy, the National Park Service and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service to determine the potential for use of state -and federally -owned lands for neighborhood and community parks. [91- 5.015(3)(c)1. and 3.] Recommendation Revise the policies to specify how the County will initiate coordination with these entities. 11. Objection Policy 1303.1.2 (page 2.13-15) states that the County shall develop and maintain" what, in effect, are public participation procedures required by Chapter 163, Florida Statutes, and s.9J-5.004, F.A.C. The County's Public participation procedures were supposed to have been developed, adopted and implemented prior to the plan having been transmitted for review and subsequent adoption. Recommendation Revise the policy to clarify that the public participation procedures will be reviewed to ensure that residents are provided with the maximum opportunities to participate in the planning process. Based on that review, the County will revise the public participation procedures, as necessary, and amend the comprehensive plan to include those revisions. Comment Policy 1301.2.1 (pages 67 and 68, Change Document) specifies dates by which certain water quality improve- ment programs will be implemented by intergovernmental agreement. The policy includes dates that have passed and which will have passed before plan adoption; i.e., 119/30/9111, 115/3/92" and 119/30/92". If these programs have been or will be implemented before plan adoption, 67 the information gathered from the studies should be included in the comprehensive plan. If the dates are in error, they should be corrected. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS ELEMENT Data and Analyses 1. Obiection The Stipulated Settlement Agreement specifies that the plan shall include a comparison of the cost of histori- cally permitted growth against the cost of buying the developable land. This cost comparison is not included in the proposed plan. [9J-5.016 and SSA] Recommendation Expand the data and analyses to include a comparison of the cost of historic development against the cost of buying the developable land that would not be permitted to be built upon. The cost comparison must include the cost for providing public facilities (including roadway improvements; potable water facilities; sanitary sewer facilities for collection, treatment and disposal; solid waste disposal; stormwater management facilities; emer- gency management facilities; educational facilities; and public administration facilities) at the historic rate of development versus the cost for purchase of lands that will not be built upon at a value that is equitable, such as the taxable assessed value or the last sale value for properties sold within a specified period such as the last 5 years. 2. Obiection The data and analyses discuss proposed new or improved public educational and public health care systems and facilities; however, the impacts of those systems and facilities on the provision of infrastructure are not included. This is particularly significant because a new school is proposed on Big Pine Key where the level of service on U.S. 1 is near capacity. [9J-5.016(2)(d) Recommendation Expand the data and analyses to evaluate the impact of new or improved public educational and health care facilities on the provision of public facilities. 68 Goals, Obiectives and Policies 3. Objection Policy 1401.3.1 (page 71, Change Document) defers its effectiveness to the adoption of revised land develop- ment regulations. In addition, the policy does not establish the pro rata share of the costs necessary to finance public facility improvements necessitated by the development and that new developments will be assessed in order to adequately maintain adopted level of service standards. [9J-5.016(3)(c)8.] Recommendation Revise the policy to delete the reference to the adoption of land development regulations so that the Policy is effective upon plan adoption and specify that the County will allocate the costs of new public faci- lities on the basis of the benefits received by exist- ing and future residents. 4. Objection The 1995 date for completion of a Stormwater Management Master Plan cited in Policy 1401.4.9 (page 2.14-6) and for completion of a Sanitary Sewer Master Plan cited in Policy 1401.4.10 (page 2.14-7) are inconsistent with Drainage Element Objective 1001.3 and Policy 1001.3.1 and Sanitary Sewer Element Objective 901.4, which specify that the master plans will be completed by September 30, 1994. Policy 1401.4.10 is further inconsistent with Objective 901.4 because it states that the County "endor- ses" preparation of the Sewer Master Plan rather than that the County will complete the Plan. [91- 5.016(3)(c)9. and SSA] Recommendation Revise the policies to be consistent by revising the 1995 date to 1994. Further revise Policy 1401.4.10 to state that the County wil complete the Sanitary Sewer Master Plan. Monitoring Requirements Objection The Monitoring and Evaluation Matrices do not include criteria which provide a measure for monitoring the accomplishments of the cited objectives and policies. 69 In addition, there are provisions with revised policies. One exampl on page 4.6.1-1 of the Future Land references maintaining a hurricane time of 30 hours. Recommendation that are inconsistent e is the fourth item Use Matrix which evacuation clearance Revise the Matrices to include a means of measuring accomplishments listed in the objectives and policies in addition to dates. Revise the matrices as neces- sary, to be consistent with objectives and policies revised in response to this report. 70 AREAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN CONSISTENCY 1. Objection The proposed comprehensive plan is inconsistent with the Monroe County Area of Critical State Concern Principles for Guiding Development as indicated in the objections objections below. [9J-5.005(8)(g). s.163.3184(14) and s.380.05] Recommendation Revise the proposed comprehensive plan as recommended in each of the objections and recommendations cited below. FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT 1. Objection The plan does not specify that densities will not be allowed for submerged lands, mangroves, freshwater wetlands and transitional wetlands (salt marsh and buttonwood associations). [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b) Recommendation Include a policy which specifies that submerged lands, mangroves, freshwater wetlands, and transitional wetlands (salt marsh and buttonwood associations) will not be assigned density or included in density calculations. 2. Objection Policy 101.3 (page 2.1-4) provides for the allocation of 610,000 square feet of non-residential development between year 1992 and year 2002. The intent of this policy is to maintain the ratio of residential to non- residential permitting that occurred between 1986 and 1992. However, the policy is not supported by data and analysis that demonstrate the need to continue this permitting trend based on existing and market demand for non-residential development. [Chapter 380.0552(7) (a)(d)(h)(i) and 9J-5.006(2)(c)l, 2 and 3] Recommendation Expand the policy to require the completion of an economic base analysis by year 1995 in order to determine the demand for future non-residential 71 development and provide guidance for future land use decisions. The analysis should assess existing condi- tions and project future demand for non-residential land uses, by key or planning areas, based on existing land use relationships, vacancy rates and economic trends. By 1995, revise Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designations and proposed non-residential allocations based on the results of the economic base analysis. 3. Objection Policy 101.4.3 (page 5, Change Document) establishes the Residential Medium land use category for single family, suburban residential development, primarily within existing improved subdivisions. However, unimproved areas within these subdivisions have been included in this land use designation. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b)(c)(h) and 9J-5.006(4)(a) and 9J- 5. 005 (5) (a) and (b) ] Recommendation Revise the policy to state that the district shall be applied only to improved areas within existing subdivi- sions. Revise the FLUM to reclassify all unimproved areas within existing subdivisions to an alternate land use category, such as Residential Low or Residential Conservation, as appropriate. 4. Obiection Policies 101.4.4, 101.4.5 (page 5, Change Document) and 101.4.10 (page 2.1-7) allow for institutional residen- tial uses. However, it is unclear whether these uses will be regulated as residential uses, subject to hurricane evacuation constraints, or as commercial uses, exempt from the residential allocation process. Policy 101.4.4 establishes the density for these uses at ten rooms per acre while Policies 101.4.5 and 101.4.10 seem to regulate these uses as non-residential by controlling floor area ratios. Similarly, Policy 101.3.4 suggests that these uses will be regulated as non-residential. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(h)(1)] Recommendation Revise the land use classification policies to provide a consistent regulatory approach to control institu- tional residential development. Since these uses will potentially house evacuees, it would seem necessary to include these uses in the residential allocation. An 72 5. exception could be allowed if the institution tempor- arily houses Monroe County residents that would otherwise evacuate as part of the permanent resident population. However, facilities that house students or other transient visitors should be included in the residential allocation. Additionally "rooms" should be further defined in order to control occupancy and project anticipated impacts. The County should develop an equivalent residential unit (ERU) factor for the purpose of estimating impacts to clearance time and demand for public facilities. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(h)] Objection Policy 101.4.4 (page 5, Change Document) does not address the status of platted lots within existing, improved mobile home subdivisions. It is not clear whether platted lots will be addressed in the same manner as Residential Medium (RM) platted lots. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(h)] Recommendation Revise the policy to specify that existing mobile home parks and subdivisions will be regulated at one unit per platted lot. Objection Policy 101.4.5. (page 5, Change Document) establishes the mixed use/commercial land use category. According to the Technical Document, analysis on page 2.80, only 46-61 acres are required in this category to accommodate the proposed non-residential allocation based on floor area ratios of .3-.4. However, the FLUM allocates substantially more acreage to this category than required. Furthermore, the FLUM allocates a substan- tial portion of this acreage to environmentally sensi- tive hardwood hammocks, particularly in the Upper Keys. The FLUM does not adequately limit commercial uses and intensities within environmentally sensitive areas. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(c)(d)(f)(h)(i) and 9J-5.005(2) and (5) (a) and (b) ] Recommendation Revise the FLUM to restrict non-residential acreages to the approximate level necessary to accommodate the proposed allocation of 800,000 square feet. This reduction could be achieved by changing the Mixed 73 Commercial designations to an alternate category and/or by reducing proposed floor area ratios in order to increase the acreage required to meet the propc;::_d, allocation. It is recommended that the County consider the adoption of a third commercial category restricted to low intensity commercial uses that would be more consistent with rural/suburban community character and less obtrusive in environmentally sensitive areas. Less intensive floor area ratios, such as .10 or less, could be applied to this category in order to reduce potential impacts within pinelands and hammocks. These floor area ratios could then be transferable to more urbanized areas to promote in -fill and reduce commercial sprawl along US 1. (See comments related to TDR program). 7. Oblection Policy 101.4.6 (page 2.1-6) establishes the mixed use/commercial fishing category to maintain and enhance commercial fishing and related traditional uses supportive of the industry. This express purpose would seem to exclude other water related uses, such as dive shops, which do not directly support the industry but are currently allowed in many commercial fishing districts. Additionally, current regulations restrict densities within these districts to one unit per platted lot, or three units per acre for non -platted lands. The proposed policy does not specifically address the status of platted lands in these districts and instead provides for a density of 6-12 units per acre. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(h)) Recommendation Revise the policy to clarify whether other maritime or water related uses will be allowed. Revise the policy to limit density to one unit per platted lot within improved subdivisions and to 3 units per acre for non - platted lands. 8. Obiection Policy 101.4.19 (page 6, Change Document) does not define the criteria that the County will utilize to determine if an "error" in designation has occurred. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a) and 9J-5.005(8)(b), (c), (d) and (e)j 74 9. 10. Recommendation The policy requires more specificity to demonstrate that proposed map amendments will not be approved as map errors. Revise the policy to further clarify the procedures and criteria that will be utilized to identify and approve map corrections. The policy should specify that map corrections will be limited to designations that are documented as scrivener's errors/drafting errors and boundary adjustments required in order to correct habitat designations shown on the existing conditions maps. Additionally, include a series of errata sheets that identify the property boundaries and the corrected land use designation for all known mapping errors as defined herein. Objection Policy 101.5.4 (page 7, Change Document) establishes the basis for negative and positive point ratings in the point allocation system. The policy does not ensure that the infill of platted subdivisions which are not environmentally sensitive are given the highest priority for development. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(h)] Recommendation Amend Policy 101.5.4 to ensure that lots in infill sub- divisions are given the highest priorit for develo - P ment. Also ensure that the detrimental Y effect of development of platted lots which are within active CARL areas, areas previously designated as an ACCC or areas which would adversely affect the survival of endangered or threatened species are restricted through assignment of negative points. Objection Objective 101.8 (page 2.1-3) and the implementing policies do not adequately address non -conformities. The objective limits the definition of non -conformities to those uses and structures which are inconsistent with "community character" and the FLUM. The reference to community character does not clearly indicate how these uses and structures will be defined. Furthermore, Policy 101.8.1 suggests that no extensions of non- conforming uses, whether substantial or not, will be approved. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(h)(i)(k) and 9J- 5.006(3)(b)2 and 3) 75 Recommendation Revise Objective 101.8 to require that non -conformities comply with all provisions of the plan and regulations if substantial improvements are proposed. Revise Policy 101.8.1 to clarify how extensions of non- conforming uses will be regulated. See Recommendation 18, in the Future Land Use Element in the 9J-5 Section of this report. 11. Objection Policy 101.8.4 (page 2.1-4) provides for the reconstruc- tion of non -conforming single-family homes without regard for density, setbacks, height and other provisions of the plan and regulations. Furthermore, this policy seems to refer to non -conforming uses and structures interchangeably. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(h) (i)(k) and 9J-5.006(3)(b)3] Recommendation Revise policy to eliminate exemption for single-family homes. Distinguish between non -conforming uses and structures. 12. Objection Policy 101.12.4 (page 2.1-16) does not adequately define criteria for siting public facilities to limit public expenditures within environmentally sensitive areas and coastal high hazard areas (CHHA). [Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (b) (c) (e) (i) (k) and 9J-5.006 (3) (b) 4, (3)(c)6, 9J-5.012(3)(b)l, 5 and (3)(c)l, 2 and 7 and 9J-5.013(2)(b)3, 4, (2)(c)3, 5 and 6] Recommendation Revise the policy to establish minimum criteria for siting public facilities to demonstrate that public facilities will be prohibited within these areas except as necessary to ensure public health and safety. Any exceptions to this requirement should be justified based on a demonstrated need to address other equally important planning objectives. For example, Stock Island is located within the CHHA; however, substantial development already exists within this area at densities and intensities which necessitate centralized facilities. Therefore, reasonable justification exists to allow 76 further public expenditures in order to address other critical objectives such as improvements in water quality and limitations on inappropriate land use. 13. Obl ection Policy 101.13.2 (pages 9-10, Change Document) and supporting data and analyses do not adequately address problems related to the TDR program. The analysis on page 2-73 of the Technical Document inaccurately concludes that transfers can occur randomly among all land use districts and habitats. Furthermore, the analysis does not include an inventory and assess- ment of previous transactions as necessary to evaluate the effectiveness of the program. The future land use element does not address the issue of variable densi- ties nor indicate whether proposed density thresholds allow for maximum net densities previously utilized in the TDR program. The proposed density ranges are unacceptable if these densities are intended as alloca- ted densities as used in the 1986 plan because this would result in greater density allowances. (Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) (h) (i) (k) J Recommendation Revise the analysis to describe current program deficiencies in greater detail. Include an inventory and assessment of previous transactions. Modify the policy to provide guidance regarding variable densities and intensities, commercial transfers, sender and receiver site criteria, and tracking mechanisms. Commercial transfer should be authorized and encouraged in order to further protect environmentally sensitive lands. As previously noted, the FLUM designates substantially more commercial lands than the proposed allocation allows. This overallocation could be reduced by limiting floor areas within hammocks and pinelands and allowing the transfer of these floor areas to more urbanized areas. For example, a floor area ratio (FAR) of .10 or less could be adopted in hardwood hammocks and pinelands in conjunction with higher open space ratios in order to further protect the continuity of these habitats. The floor area could be transferable to the Commercial Overlay districts which could develop at a higher ratio than normally allowed by utilizing the transferable floor area concept. 77 ais At a minimum, revised sender and receiver site criteria should be adopted to ensure that all undisturbed habi- tats are defined as sender sites while scarified lands are treated as receiver sites. The current practice of simply transferring to a habitat of lower sensitivity should be discontinued. (i.e. transfers from high quality to medium quality hammocks). 14. Objection Policy 101.14.1 (page 2.1-17) relies solely on the point system to direct growth away from the coastal high hazard area (CHHA). However, given that 80% of the County is located within the CHHA, a substantial proportion of building applications will more than likely receive a sufficient point score to develop in the CHHA. Therefore, the policy does not adequately provide for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural disaster. (Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (h) (k) (1) ] Recommendation Revise the point system to provide progressively lower scores as topographic elevations decrease. Alterna- tively, a simpler approach would score V-zones substantially lower than A -zones. 15. Objection Objective 101.19 (page 10-11, Change Document) and implementing Policy 101.19.2 (page 11, Change Document) allow for further platting of residential lots and do not adequately ensure protection of existing habitat. (Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (b) (c) (d) (f) (h) (i) (k) ] Recommendation Revise the objective and policy to prohibit further platting of residential lots in areas of sensitive habitat. The policy should require the use of planned unit development (PUD) type designs allowing for curvilinear roadways, clustered housing, and zero lot line housing in order to reduce fragmentation of habitats. Alternatively, revise the policy to ensure that all platted lots are confined to the least sensitive habitat or portion of habitat on the site so that required open space can be preserved in a non - fragmented condition utilizing conservation easements. Include criteria for ranking sensitivity of habitats. 78 16. 17. 18. Objection Policies 102.2.1 (page 2.1-19) and 204.2.4 (page 2.2-23) allow for the placement of fill within disturbed wet- lands which does not adequately ensure the protection of wetlands and water quality. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(b) (e) (i) and 9J-5.006 (3) (c) (6) ; 9J-5.012 (3) (b) 1, (3) (c) 1, 2; and 9J-5.013()2)(b)2, 4, (2)(c)3, 6.] Recommendation Revise policies to prohibit the placement of fill for hdusepads and wastewater systems. Prohibit development within disturbed wetlands unless sufficient uplands/fill areas exist on -site to accommodate wastewater systems without need for an HRS variance. (See Recommendation 5 in Sanitary Sewer Element in the 9J-5 section). Objection Policy 102.3.2 (page 11, Change Document) and 205.2.3 (page 2.2-28) do not clearly state that all required open space must be preserved in a continuous, non - fragmented condition. Furthermore Policy 102.3.2 has been modified and now reads differently than Policy 205.2.3. (Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (b) (c) (f) ] Recommendation Revise the policies to be consistent. The following change is recommended for Policy 102.3.2: "...so as to avoid impacts on sensitive habitats and to provide for the preservation of all required open space in a conti- guous, non -fragmented condition." Include criteria for ranking sensitivity of habitats. Objection Big Pine Key ACCC Objective 103.1 and attendant policies related to the Big Pine Key ACCC fail to adequately address the needs of the Key deer as specified herein. Policy 103.1.1 (pages 13 and 14, Change Document) proposes to assign positive points for development on disturbed parcels on Big Pine Key. This would encour- age development in subdivisions such as Port Pine Heights that would result in additional vehicular trips through the range of the Key deer. 79 The FLUM designates substantial acreage on Big Pine Key for Mixed Use/Commercial development. This designation will potentially increase trip generation significantly on this segment of US1. Policy 103.1.2 (page 2.1-29) applied the Residential Medium land use designation to all IS districts. Unimproved areas within existing subdivisions should not be included under this designation. Policy 208.3.2 (page 2.2-52) fails to adequately protect the freshwater lens as necessary for the survival of the Key deer. The use of wells and new mining and expansion of existing mines should be prohibited until data is available to demonstrate that such activities do not impact the lens. Several policies state that the Habitat Evaluation Index (HEI) criteria shall be revised to further protect the Key deer but these policies do not specify how this will be accomplished. Furthermore, the point system fails to address protection of low quality pinelands even though nearly all pinelands currently rank as low quality. Several policies state that U.S. 1 will be three-laned to relieve traffic congestion. However, these policies are listed under objectives that require protection of the Key Deer. By three-laning U.S. 1, the effect of the policies will be to increase overall traffic speeds and allow additional development to occur on Big Pine Key. Neither of these results will further the protec- tion of the Key deer or enhance the quality of their habitat. Policy 103.1.10 does not adequately limit public expen- ditures in environmentally sensitive areas or ensure that proposed facilities will not adversely affect the viability of the Key deer. Several policies allow the construction of fences without adequate provisions to ensure that Key deer corridors are preserved. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b) (c) (d) (f) (h) (i) and 9J-5. 006 (3) (b) 4, (3) (c) 6; 9J- 5.012(3)(b)l; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3, 4 (3)(c)3, 5 and 6) Recommendation Revise the plan to limit future development in a manner that will ensure the viability of the Key deer. The plan should use a combination of techniques to reduce 80 development potential and associated impacts on Big Pine Key to the maximum extent possible, consistent with constitutional property rights. These measures would include density/intensity reductions; transfer of development rights away from the area; prohibitions against new and expanded public facilities, except where necessary for public health and safety; aggressive acquisition programs; a point system that is heavily weighted against development within the range of the Key deer, fence restrictions consistent with the recommendations of the Big Pine Key Fence Committee, prohibitions against new or continued mining and a program to phase -out continued use of wells on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. An objective should be included to reduce external trips to Big Pine Key from other surrounding Keys. Specific policies should be included that would prohibit uses that typically attract trips from large service areas. Similarly, public facilities that would attract trips to Big Pine Key should be prohibited. The County should include the three -lane proposal under Policy 103.1.12 (page 15, Change Document) to determine potential impact before committing to this improvement. Furthermore, the County must commit to the overpass as part of any proposed expansion of U.S. 1. Overall, the objective should be to develop alternative community centers and commercial uses on other Keys so as to reduce the external trips to Big Pine Key. (Also see related objections concerning MC land use category and TDR's) 19. Objection North Key Largo ACCC Proposed Objective 103.2 and related policies fail to adequately address the special needs of the North Key Largo ACCC. The proposed policies do not adequately direct development away from this critical area; limit public expenditures within this area or specifically address how endangered/threatened species will be afforded greater protection. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a) (b) (c) (f) (h) (i) and 9J-5.006(3) (b)4, (3) (c)6; 9J- 5.012 (3) (b) 1, 2, (3) (c) ; 9J-5.013 (2) (b) 3, 4, (2) (c) 3, 5 and 6.] Recommendation Revise applicable policies as follows: The point system should be heavily weighted against development 81 20. within all lands of this ACCC. Furthermore, signi- ficant density reductions should be required for all lands which are not part of a fully improved, and recorded subdivision. Similar to Big Pine Key, trans- ferable development rights should be used to transfer development rights from these areas in conjunction with an aggressive acquisition program targeted specific- ally at this critical area. Policies requiring revisions to the HEI criteria should specify how endangered/threatened species will be further protected. Policy 103.2.6 (page 2.1-34) should specify those objectives that will be implemented to protect the listed species. Objection Ohio Key ACCC Objective 103.4 and related policies require revision in order to ensure internal consistency. Policy 103.4.2 (page 2.1-36) states that Monroe County will prohibit new hotel, motel and RV development, yet Policy 103.4.1 (page 2.1-36) states that Monroe County will retain Section 9.5-478 from the existing regula- tions which allows these uses. The existing regulations allow fill within disturbed wetlands for RV spaces and campsites and therefore do not adequately protect the habitat of the piping plover. Policies 103.4.3 and 103.4.4 (page 2.1-37) do not suf- ficiently address the protection of the piping plover. Policy 103.4.3 only provides for support to USFWS. It does not state how the County will support the USFWS in its acquisition of the wintering grounds of the piping plover. Policy 103.4.4 suggests that Monroe County will only discourage activities that will adversely impact the piping plover. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b) (e) (f) (h) (i) (k) and 9J-5.006(3) (b)4, (3) (c)6; 9J- 5.012(3)(b)l; 9J-5.013(2)(b)3, 4, (3)(c)3, 5 and 6.] Recommendation Revise policies to delete reference to existing regulations. Revise FLUM to designate the site as "Conservation", allow for only passive recreational activities, and limit fill in disturbed wetlands. Revise Policy 103.4.3 to specify that Monroe County 82 will provide funding assistance to USFWS to provide for the acquisition of this site by 1995 or target this area for acquisition under local programs. 21. Objection The natural resources maps do existing natural conditions. (b)(c)(f) and 9J-5.006(1)(b) Recommendation not adequately depict (Chapter 380.0552(7)(a) and 9J-5. 012 (2) (b) ] Incorporate the 1 inch = 2000' existing conditions maps and the 1 inch = 200' aerial conditions maps as base- line data for existing natural conditions in the adopted portion of the plan. Include a disclaimer statement that the natural resources maps are generated and that habitat designations are subject to verifica- tion through field inspections. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT 1. Objection Policy 202.10.5 (page 2.2-10) and other related poli- cies authorize new mining or expansions of existing mining sites. (Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (b) (c) (e) (f) ] Recommendation Revise these polices to prohibit new mining and expan- sion of existing mines, except where incidental to the restoration of the sites. Require restoration/closure plans for all existing mining sites that are currently active. Restoration plans should comply with DNR restoration requirements or similar performance standards. 2. Objection Policy 203.1.2 (page 27, Change Document) allows man- grove trimming in order to provide limited ingress/ egress and visual access to adjacent water bodies and does not ensure protection of mangroves. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b)(e) and 9J-5.013(2)(b)4 and (2) (c) 6] 83 Recommendation Revise Policy 203.1.2 to establish trimming limitations in conjunction with design guidelines for shoreline structures. Further, trimming for visual access should be prohibited. 3. Objection Policies 203.1.4,.204.2.2, 212.2.1, 212.2.2 and 212.2.4 (pages 2.2-22, 2.2-57 and 2.2-58) and other related policies address shoreline development. However, these policies do not provide sufficient direction to ensure that shoreline vegetation will be adequately protected. Policy 203.1.4 applies to only mangrove vegetation while other policies defer issues related to construc- tion within the shoreline setback. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b)(e); 9J-5.012(3)(c)8J Recommendation Revise policies to ensure that shoreline vegetation is adequately protected along both manmade and natural shorelines. Provide specific guidelines that address allowable uses, limitations on clearing, maximum setback coverage, and construction design as discussed and supported by members of the Florida Keys Interagency Management Committee. The following standards are recommended: 1) Structures within shoreline setbacks and submerged lands shall be limited to docks, piers, decks, walkways and utility pilings. All structures shall be elevated. 2) Only "T" configuration designs should be allowed except where such structures would preclude lawful navigation of the waterway. Walkways and accessways shall not exceed 5' and shall be perpendicular to the shoreline. 3) Where "T" designs are not feasible, a parallel structure may be permitted provided that the structure does not exceed 20% of the parcel's shoreline frontage or 20 feet in length, whichever is less. Parallel structures shall not exceed 5' in width. Removal of mangrove or transitional vegetation shall not be permitted where it is possible to confine the structure to an existing cleared area. 84 4. 5. W 4) An additional 100 square feet of the shoreline setback may be utilized for elevated decks or gazebos provided that the structure is setback at least 10' from MHW, no land clearing is involved, and drainage is adequately addressed. Objection Policy 203.2.1 (page 2.2-15) specifically addresses docking sites and mooring sites and does not adequately protect seagrass beds. It is not clear whether this language prohibits fishing piers, swimming platforms or other structures that extend beyond mean high water (MHW). In practice, these structures become docking facilities. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b)(e) and 9J- 5.012 (3) (b) 1, (3) (c) 1 and 9J-5.013 (2) (b) 4, (2) (c) 3 and 6j Recommendation Revise policy to specify that no structure shall be allowed to terminate over seagrasses. Objection Policy 204.2.7 (page 29, Change Document) has been revised to require coordinated agency review rather than requiring State and Federal permits prior to issuance of County permits. [Chapter 380.0552(7) (a) (b) (c) (e) (f) (i) ) Recommendation Expand policy to reinstate and Federal permits prior permits in addition to the agency review. Objection the requirement for State to issuance of County requirement for coordinated Policy 205.2.6 (page 30, Change Document) does not adequately address protection of disturbed habitats. Subsection (f) applies an open space ratio of .20 for disturbed lands. Disturbed habitats should be afforded a higher level of protection than completely scarified land. Additionally, the proposed vegetation maps do not differentiate between scarified lands and disturbed habitats(3) . (Chapter 380.0552(7) (a) (b) (c) (f) and 9J- 85 Recommendation Revise policy to state that the "disturbed" category shall apply only to scarified lands. Disturbed upland habitats should be afforded greater protection by defining those habitats as low quality. This would also assure that clustering policies direct development to the scarified portion of disturbed properties containing habitat. A disclaimer statement should be printed on the existing conditions maps to advise the public that the maps are generalized and that habitat designations are subject to verification through field inspections. 7. Objection Policies 212.2.1 (pages 36-37, Change Document) and 212.2.2 (page 2.2-57) establish shoreline setback requirements for altered and unaltered shorelines. However, these terms are not defined and therefore, wetlands and water quality are not protected. (Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (b) (e) and 9J-5.012 (3) (c) 1 and 9J-5.013(2)(c)6] Recommendation Revise policies to require a 50' setback on "open water shorelines" as measured from MHW or the landward extent of the mangroves, whichever is more restrictive. The only exception to this requirement should be for open water shorelines that have been functionally altered by the construction of vertical bulkheads. A 20' setback as measured from MHW should apply only to canals, basins and functionally altered shorelines as defined herein. S. Oblection Policy 212.2.4 (page 2.2-58) requires a berm along all artificial waterways and does not ensure fringing shoreline vegetation will be protected. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b)(e)] Recommendation Revise policy to specify that berms shall not be raised where shoreline vegetation is present. M. 9. Objection Policy 212.5.4 (page 2.2-61) limits the length of docks and similar structures to 100 feet from MHW on open shorelines and further restricts dockage within confined waterways to avoid navigational impediments. However, the policy allows for a variance in the event that a hardship would result from the application of this provision. The criteria or basis for such a hardship is not defined. Furthermore, it is likely that any such hardship would be self-created and thus not acceptable as a basis for a variance. [Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (b) (e) ] Recommendation Revise the policy to delete reference to a variance procedure. Variances should be limited to bulk regulations in accordance with standard criteria which establish the requirements for the issuance of variances. TRAFFIC ELEMENT 1. Objection Policy 301.1.2 (page 42. Change Document) establishes Level of Service (LOS) "C" for U.S. 1 based on the methodology developed by the U.S. 1 Task Force. The Task Force methodology relied on a number of critical assumptions in order to calculate reserve capacity and project remaining development potential for each segment. However, the policy does not establish procedures to refine and calibrate the assumptions and methodology on a periodic basis. Additionally, the policy does not provide sufficient guidelines to ensure that the methodology and implementing regulations address trip assignments to individual and adjacent segments. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(h) and SSA] Recommendation Expand the policy to provide for an annual assessment of the methodology by the U.S. 1 Task Force. An annual report should be prepared by the Task Force which summarizes the results of the travel runs, adjusts future allocations and recommends refinements to the methodology, if deemed necessary. Revise policy to provide guidelines to specify how the implementing 87 2. 3. ordinance will address segments resulting from of development. Objection trip assignments to individual single-family and other types Objection 301.6 (page 2.3-3) requires that the County's transportation plans comply with State and Federal regulations that require protection of environmental resources. However, policies are not included to require coordination with State and Federal permitting agencies to ensure that County plans are reviewed by these agencies. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(b)(c)(f)(i) and 9J-5.015, 9J-5.012(3)(c)14 a-d] Recommendation Include policies to require that Monroe County coordi- nate with the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers, Department of Environmental Regulations, Department of Natural Resources, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and other appropriate agencies. The policy should require that the County provide capital improvement plans to all appropriate permitting agencies for review on an annual basis. Additionally, the policy should establish procedures to ensure that permitting agencies review all proposed plans for roadway improvements in the County. Objection The traffic element and related land use policies do not direct development away from areas with marginal or limited reserve capacities on U.S. 1. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(h)] Recommendation Include a policy to require that the point system, established by Objective 101.5, limit impacts to defi- cient roadway segments. The point system should assign positive points for development that will be served by segments with surplus capacity and negative points for projects that will be served by marginal segments. Marginal capacity may be defined as segments which are projected to exceed capacity within three years. 88 4. Objection The traffic element does not address the proposed three-laning of U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key. Policy 103.1.11 provides for the three -laving of U.S. 1 in order to relieve traffic congestion on U.S. 1 but does not address coordination with USFWS, FGFWFC and other permitting agencies. Policy 103.1.11 appears to be inconsistent with Objective 301.6 which requires coordination with appropriate State and Federal agencies. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(a)(c)(f)(i) and 9J- 5.015(3)(c)3 and 9J-5.012(3)(c)14] Recommendation Revise policy 103.1.11 (page 15, Change Document) to require that Monroe County coordinate with USFWS, FGFWFC and other appropriate agencies to ensure that the project is consistent with Management plans for the Key deer. SANITARY SEWER ELEMENT 1. Objection Policy 901.1.1 (page 58, Change Document) establishes interim level of service standards for package plants and on -site disposal systems. However, the proposed standards do not require further reductions in nutrient levels and does not include standards above and beyond those established by HRS. Additionally, the permanent levels of service are intended to only maintain rather than improve nearshore water quality. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e)(h) and SSA] Recommendation Revise interim level of service standards for package plants to limit total nitrogen content to 3 mg/1 and total phosphorous content to 1.0 mg/l consistent with those established for Tampa Bay. Revise interim level - of -service standard for on -site disposal systems con- sistent with South Florida Regional Planning Council comments to prohibit use of OSDS at densities greater than 2.5 units/acre, except within existing subdivi- sions approved prior to 1972. Revise the reference to permanent level -of -service standard to require improvement of water quality. 89 2. 3. M Objection Objective 901.2 (page 2.9-2) defers correction of existing facility deficiencies to September 1995. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e)] Recommendation Revise objective to require the replacement of these facilities by January 1, 1995. Objection Policy 901.2.1 (pages 58-59, Change Document) proposes an inspection program to identify and replace cesspools and inoperative septic tanks and package plants. However, the policy does not specify inspection procedures, agency responsibilities or implementation schedules. Additionally, it is not clear that the proposed surcharge will provide adequate funding to maintain the program. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e)] Recommendation Revise policy to require replacement of cesspools and inoperative septic tanks and package plants by January 1, 1995. Specify inspection procedures, agency responsibilities and implementation schedules. Also specify certification procedures at the time lot is sold that require adequate on -site sewage disposal is available. Revise analysis to demonstrate that the proposed surcharge will provide adequate funding to implement the program on an continuing basis. Objection Policy 901.2.3 (page 59, Change Document) does not require the replacement of unpermitted cesspools by 1995. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e)] Recommendation Revise policy to require replacement of by January 1, 1995. The analysis should cost of replacing cesspools and identify mechanism for inclusion in the policy. all cesspools estimate the a funding 90 5. Obiection Policy 901.5.7 (page 2.9-7) prohibits use of OSDS in any buttonwood, saltmarsh, or wetland. However, the policy does not address use of OSDS in disturbed wetlands. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e)] Recommendation Revise policy to specifically prohibit use of OSDS in disturbed wetlands unless sufficient uplands/fill , areas exist to accommodate the OSDS. The policy should also state that Monroe County will not approve fill within disturbed wetlands and shall coordinate with HRS to discourage variances to Chapter 1OD-6, Part II, F.A.C. 6. Objection Goal 901, Objective 901.4 (page 59, Change Document) and implementing policies do not require the improvement of ground, nearshore and offshore water quality. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(e) and 9J-5.011(2) (b) 5, (2) (c) 5; 9J-5.012 (3) (b) 2, (3) (c) 1, 2; and 9J-5.013 (2) (b) 2, 4, (2) (c) 6] Recommendation Revise goal, objective and policies to require that Monroe County improve existing water quality. Objective 901.4 should specify that the wastewater plan will recommend water quality LOS standards designed to substantially reduce existing nutrient loading. DRAINAGE ELEMENT 1. Objection Policy 1001.1.3 (page 2.10-2) does not address the need for best management practices or design guidelines for single-family development. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e)(h)] Recommendation Expand policy to specify appropriate B.M.P's and design guidelines for single-family development. 91 2. Objection Policy 1001.3.1 (page 61, Change Document) does not require that the stormwater Master Plan analyze funding options or provide a financially feasible implementation schedule. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e) and SSA] Recommendation Expand the policy to require that the stormwater Master Plan address funding strategies and include a recommended implementation schedule for capital improvements required by the plan. 3. Objection The drainage policies do not require that the County amend the drainage element, including adopted levels of service, based on the recommendations of the Stormwater Master Plan. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e) and SSA] Recommendation Include policies to require that the County amend the drainage element, including adopted levels of service, as necessary based on the recommendations of the Stormwater Master plan. 4. Objection The drainage element does not include policies that provide required specificity to reduce stormwater run- off. Additionally, the policies do not address the need for public education. [Chapter 380.0552(7)(e)(h) Recommendation Include policies to prohibit impervious surfaces, except where necessary to accommodate large service vehicles. The policies should require the use of pervious materials for the driveways, landscaping and other design features. Use of plastic underliners such as Visqueen should be strictly prohibited. All new development should be required to provide cisterns to reduce roof run-off and conserve water usage. Addi- tionally, the policies should address the need for public education by requiring the dissemination of educational pamphlets. 92 RECREATION AND OPEN SPACE ELEMENT 1. Objection Policies 1201.1.1 and 1201.1.2 (page 64, Change Document provide aggregate level of service (LOS) standards and service area standards for neighborhood and community parks. Therefore, the acreage and facilities required to maintain LOS for each type of park are not already defined. The policies address the two types of parks interchangeably; however, state and nationally recog- nized standards establish significantly different standards for the two types of parks. The National Park Service and Florida Park Service recommend specific service areas, acreage requirements and popu- lation thresholds for regional, community, neighborhood and mini parks. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(h) and 9J- 5.014(2), (3)(b)3, (3)(c)4 and 9J-5.005(3)] Recommendation Revise policies to establish independent level of service standards for neighborhood and community parks. Utilize professionally acceptable standards for service areas, acreage requirements and facility needs or provide reasonable justification for less stringent standards. 2. Objection Policies 1201.2.1 (page 2.12-2) and 1201.8.1 (page 65, Change Document) provide for the use of park facilities which are not owned or controlled by the County. The County cannot rely on these facilities to meet LOS requirements unless these facilities will be available for use by County residents on a full time basis. The County cannot rely upon facilities that will be shared with users from other jurisdictions, unless the population for both jurisdictions are considered in the calculation of facility demand. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(h) and 9J-5.014(2) and 9J-5.005(3)] Recommendation Revise policies to state that the County will not rely upon joint use facilities shared with other jurisdic- tions for the purpose of meeting LOS standards until interlocal or intergovernmental agreements are executed which demonstrate that the facilities will be available on a full time basis for County residents and that the 93 KM populations for both jurisdictions have been included in calculating facility demand. Until such agreements are executed, the County cannot rely upon other entities' facilities in order to eliminate existing deficiencies or meet future LDS requirements. Objection Policy 1201.2.4 (page 2.12-3) addresses the siting of activity based parks. The policy requires mitigation for "disturbances" to sensitive natural resources including undisturbed wetlands. However, mitigation guidelines are not included. Additionally, it is unclear if this policy is intended to exempt County projects from applicable regulations such as fill restrictions. (Chapter 380.0552 (7) (a) (b) (c) (e) (f) (i) ] Recommendation Revise the policy to require that County projects comply with environmental design criteria and other regulations that will apply to development activities in the County. Specify mitigation guidelines. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT ELEMENTS 1. Objection Policy 1401.4.9 (page 2.14-6) related to the Stormwater Management Plan is inconsistent with revised Objective 1001.1.6. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(e)] Recommendation Revise Policy 1401.4.9 to require implementation of the Stormwater Master Plan by September 30, 1994. 2. Objection Policy 1401.4.10 (page 2.14-7) does not commit funding as necessary to ensure completion of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan by September 30, 1994 as required by Policy 901.4. It is also unclear whether the Stormwater and Sanitary Master Plans will be combined. Table 3.1 (CIP) and sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 in the Capital Improvements Implementation appendix indicate that the two studies will be combined. (Chapter 380.0552(7)(e) and SSA] 94 Recommendation Revise Policy 1401.4.10 to commit adequate funding to ensure completion of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan by September 30, 1994. Revise Policy 901.4, Table 3.1 and sections 3.1.4 and 3.1.5 to include consistent information as to whether the master plans will be separate studies or a combined study. Also, include a provision to commit adequate funding to complete the studies whether combined or undertaken separately. 95 STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONSISTENCY 1. The proposed comprehensive plan for Monroe County does not further the following policies of Chapter 187, Florida Statutes, the State Comprehensive Plan: a) Policy (5)(b)3., affordable housing; b) Policy (7)(b)24., hurricane evacuation; c) Policy (7)(b)25., to protect property and lives from the effects of natural disasters; d) Policy (8)(b)l., to ensure the safety and quality of drinking water; e) Policy (8)(b)2., to protect water recharge areas; f) Policy (8)(b)5., to ensure that development is compatible with water supplies; g) Policy (9)(b)9., to protect aquifers from depletion and contamination; h) Policy (8)(b)10., to protect surface and groundwater quality and quantity; i) Policy (8)(b)ll., to promote water conservation; j) Policy (8)(b)12., to eliminate the discharge of inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater run-off into waters of the state; k) Policy (8)(b)13., to identify and develop alternative methods of wastewater treatment, disposal and reuse of wastewater to prevent degradation of water resources; 1) Policy (9)(b)3., to avoid the expenditure of funds that subsidize development in high -hazard coastal areas; m) Policy (9)(b)4., to protect coastal resources, marine resources and dune systems from the effects of development; n) Policy (9)(b)6., to encourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources; o) Policy (9)(b)7., to protect and restore long-term 96 productivity of marine fisheries habitat and other aquatic resources; p) Policy (9)(b)10., to give priority in marine development to water -dependent uses; q) Policy (10)(b)l., to conserve forests, wetlands, fish, marine life and wildlife; r) Policy (10)(b)3., to prohibit the destruction of endangered species and protect their habitats; s) Policy (10)(b)11., to expand local efforts to provide recreational opportunities to urban areas, including the development of activity -based parks; t) Policy (12)(b)3., to improve the efficiency of traffic flow on existing roads; u) Policy (13)(b)11., to identify, develop and encourage environmentally sound wastewater treatment and disposal methods; v) Policy (14)(b)3., to require that disturbed areas be reclaimed to productive use; w) Policy (14)(b)5., to prohibit resource extraction which will result in an adverse effect on environmentally sensitive areas; x) Policy (16)(b)6., to consider, in land use planning and regulation, the impact of land use on water quality and quantity, the availability of land, water and other resources to meet demands; y) Policy (20)(b)12., to avoid transportation improvements which encourage or subsidize increased development in coastal high -hazard areas or in identified environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands, floodways or productive marine areas; and z) Policy (22)(b)3., to maintain the environment as one one of the state's primary economic assets. [91- 5.021] Recommendation Revise the proposed comprehensive plan to include specific, measurable objectives and specific implementing policies supported by adequate and relevant data and analyses, that are consistent with 97 and further the above -referenced policies of the State Comprehensive Plan. REGIONAL POLICY PLAN CONSISTENCY 1. The County's proposed comprehensive plan does not further the Comprehensive Regional Policy Plan for the South Florida Region regarding the following regional goals and policies: a) Regional Policy 19.1.1, affordable housing; b) Regional Goal 35.1, reducing hurricane evacuation clearance times; c) Regional Policy 35.1.15, public shelters; d) Regional Policy 35.1.21, encouraging development outside of high -hazard areas; e) Regional Goal 37.1, adequate potable water supply and protecting potable water resources; f) Regional Policy 38.1.1, wastewater treatment; g) Regional Policy 38.1.3, permitting new septic tank systems only in areas where density is no more than 2.9 unit per acre; h) Regional Goal 39.1, protecting wetland systems; i) Regional Goal 40.3, to eliminate the net loss of coastal wetlands; j) Regional Goal 41.3, to maintain native coastal vegetation; k) Regional Policies 41.3.3 and 43.1.6, mitigation for impacted wetlands; 1) Regional Policy 46.1.1, encouraging recreational facilities in areas where they are lacking; m) Regional Policy 46.1.3, limiting access to environmentally sensitive lands in parks; n) Regional Policy 47.1.9, adequate capacity for transportation facilities; o) Regional Goal 51.2, reducing the amount of improperly treated wastewater; 98 p) Regional Goal 53.1, mining and mine reclamation; q) Regional Goal 57.1, providing adequate facilities; r) Regional Goal 58.1, land use compatibility with adjacent uses and the environment; s) Regional Goal 59.1, availability of adequate infrastructure; t) u) Regional Policy 63.1.9, concurrency for roadway improvements; and Regional Policy 64.1.7, protecting transportation corridors and right-of-way. [9J-5.021(1)) Recommendation Revise the proposed comprehensive plan to include specific, measurable objectives and specific implementing policies supported by adequate and relevant data and analyses, that are consistent with and further the above -referenced goals and policies of the Regional Plan for South Florida. Comments See the review prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning Council for additional comments. SOURCE: LAKELAND CONCURRENCY MANAGEMENT SYSTEM [Adopted Plan] i CC)NC=ZXCY KAKAGZy.=T •YITLX The Growth Kanagement Act, and all local government comprehensive plans prepared in conformance with the Act, require that public facilities and services necessary to support proposed development occur concurrent with the impacts of such development. policies throughout this comprehensive plan require that the issuance of development orders be contingent upon the availability of adequate public facilities at acceptable levels of service, howdependent uponessful review andementation of such monitoringprocedures establish eolicies sll tablished the dependent p city. CONCVARUCY XAN*AGEXENT BYSTYX V RP08Z AItD OSILAVIZW In response to the need to review all proposed development and monitor capacity and level of service for all public facilities and services to ensure that concurrency is maintained, the City of Lakeland is establishing a personal computer based concurrency management system. A concurrency Managerent System Guide has been developed to assist developers and other interested parties in understanding the process for requesting concurrency determinations or obtaining concurrency certificates. The key elements of this guide are outlined within this section of the future Land Use Element. These administrative procedures along with the computer based monitoring system will ensure that policies relating to concurrency are successfully implemented. The City of Lakeland, like all other local governments in the state of Florida, must ensure that certain public facilities and services needed to support development are available at the time the impacts of development occur. It is the Concurrency Management System which will ensure that the impact of development will not degrade the levels of service adopted in the pint 1990 • 20= for public facilities and services. n5/2n/92 The City, therefore, requires a concurrsncy review be made with applications for development approvals and a Certificate of Concurrency issued prior to development. If the application is deemed concurrent, a Certificate of Concurrency will be issued by the Community Development Department. If the project requires any other development permit, a copy of the Certificate of Concurrency will be included with any future application. for a development permit. A separate Concurrency review will not be required for each development permit for the same project. Concurrency review addresses only the availability of facilities and capacity of services and a Certificate of Concurrency does not represent overall development approval. If the application for development is not concurrent, the applicant will be notified that a Certificate cannot be issued. The burden of showing compliance with the adopted levels of service and meeting the concurrsncy test will be upon the applicant. ' The Community Development Department will direct the applicant to the appropriate staff to assist in the preparation of the necessary documentation and information. The City of Lakeland, Community Development Department will review applications for development and a development approval will be issued only if the proposed development does not lower the existing level of service (LOS) of public facilities and services below the adopted level of service in this plan. A project will be deemed concurrent if the following standards are met: 1. The necessary facilities and services are in place at the time a development permit is issued; 2. The development permit is issued subject to the condition that the necessary facilities and services will be in place concurrent with the impacts of development; 3. The necessary public facilities and services are guaranteed in an enforceable development agreement to be in place concurrent with the impacts of development. In addition to 1. through 3., above, roadways and mass transit facilities will be deemed concurrent based on the adopted five-year Capital improvements Program as outlined below: 1. The five-year Capital Improvements program and the Capital Improvements Element of the Lakeland Comprehensive Plan: 1990- 000 are financially feasible. As permitted by Section 9J-5.055 (2)(e)1., Administrative Code, Concurrency determinations will include transportation projects included in the first three years of the Florida Department of Transportation rive -Year Work Program. 2. The five-year Capital Improvements Program includes improvements necessary to correct any identified facility deficiencies and maintain adopted levels of service for existing and permitted development. 3. The five-year Capital Improvements Program is a realistic, financially feasible program based on currently available revenue sources and development orders will only be issued if the public facilities necessary to serve the development are available or included in the five-year schedule of capital improvements. 4. The five-year Capital Improvemants Program identifies whether funding is for design, engineering, consultant fees, or construction and indicates, by funded year, how the dollars will be allocated. 5. The five-year Capital Improvements Program identifies the year in which actual construction of roadway or mass transit projects will occur and only those projects schedulad for construction within the first three years of the City of Lakeland or rlorida Department. of Transportation five-year programs will be utilized for concurrency determination. 6. A plan amendment will be required in order to eliminate, defer or delay construction of any roadway or mass transit facility or service which is needed to maintain the adopted level of service standard. 7. Land development regulations, to be adopted no later than November 1, 1991, will support this plan and further ensure that development orders and permits will only be issued when public facilities and services at adopted levels of service are available concurrent with the impacts of development. o. No later than November 1, 2991, the City of Lakeland will have a personal computer based monitoring system in place to support the adopted Concurrency Management System enabling the City to determine whether adopted levels of service and scheduled capital improvements are being adhered to and ensuring acceptable monitoring of the availability of public facilities and services. 9. The Lakeland Comprehensive Plan: 192o-2000 clearly identifies all facilities and services.to be provided by the City of Lakeland with public funds in accordance with the adopted five-year Capital Improvements Program. A concurrency test will be lade of the following public facilities and services for which level of service standards have been established in this plan: (1) Roadways (2) Potable slater (3) Wastewater (4) Solid waste (b) Drainage (6) Parks and Recreation (7) Kass Transit The concurrency test for facilities and services will be determined by comparing the available capacity of a facility or service to the .demand created by the proposed project. Available capacity will be determined by adding together the total excess capacity of existing facilities and the total capacity of any new facilities which meet the previously defined concurrency standards and subtracting any capacity coxmitted through concurrency reservations or previously approved development orders. CONCURAEHCY DLTMZIMTION PROCLDCRLs An applicant may wish to determine quickly if there is sufficient capacity to accoaa►odate their project. The Community Development Department staff will make an informal non -binding determination of whether there appears to be sufficient capacity in the public facilities and services to satisfy the demands of the proposed project. The staff will then make a determination of what public facilities or services would be deficient if the development were approved. There are certain development actions which are ineligible to receive a concurrency reservation because they are too conceptual and, consequently, do not allow an accurate assessment of public facility impacts. These development actions include land use amendments to the comprehensive plan and rezoning requests. Development actions of this type will receive a non -binding concurrency determination as part of the project review process. Any concurrency determination, whether requested as part of an application for development action or without an application for development action, is a non -binding determination of what public facilities and services are available at the date of inquiry. The specific procedures for receiving a concurrency determination for each level of service facility are outlined below. CONCMMENCY DITIMI:aTION - R0ADWAYS 1. The City of Lakeland will provide level of service information as set forth in the Lakeland Conprehenaivg plan• soon 2nnn If the preliminary level of service information indicates a level of service failure, the developer has two alternatives: a. Accept the level of service information as set forth in the comprehensive plan; b. Prepare a more detailed Highway Capacity Analysis as outlined in the E12hwav Capacity Manual, special Report Zd?.3 (1985) or a Speed and Delay study following the procedures outlined by the Florida Department of Transportation, Traffic Engineering Office in its Manual for Vniforn Trafic studies. 2. If the developer chooses to do a more detailed analysis, the following procedure will be followed: a. Planning staff will provide the developer with the acceptable methodology for preparing the alternative analysis. b. The developer will submit the completed alternative analysis to planning staff for review. c* planning staff will review the alternative analysis for accuracy and appropriate application of the methodology. 3. If the alternative methodology,. after review and acceptance by the Planning staff, indicates an acceptable level of service where the comprehensive plan indicates a level of servicefailurs, the alternative methodology will be used. 4. If the developer is at the application stage for the project, this alternative methodology can be used to obtain a Concurrency Determination - Roadways. This Concurrency Determination - Roadways is a non -binding determination that, at the date of application, adequate roadway facility capacity and levels of service are available. S. If the developer is at the final approval stage for the project, this alternative methodology can be used to obtain a Certificate of Concurrency, the specifics of which are set forth in the Concurrency Management System Ordinance. 6. Any proposed development generating more than 750 trips a day will be required to provide a trip distribution model in addition to the requirements outlined above. CONCURRENCY DNTERKINATION - loTABLt *ATRR 1. The City of Lakeland will provide level of service information as set forth in the Lakeland COz+2rehPneiye Plan! 1990.2000, Z. it the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would not result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service vas available at the date of application or inquiry. 3. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was not available at the date of application or inquiry. CONCMINCY DETERXINATION - WASTEWATER 1. The City of Lakeland will provide level of service information as set forth in the Lakeland Conprehensive Plan! i940-2o0Q� Z. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would not result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was available at the data of application or inquiry. 3. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was not available at the date of application or inquiry. CONCMRLNCY DETERXINATION - /OLID WROTE 1. The City of Lakeland will provide level of service information as set forth in the Lakeland Comprehensive Plan• 1990-2eoo• Z. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would not result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was available at the date of application or inquiry. 3. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was not available at the date of application or inquiry. CONCVRRENCY MTMINATION - DAAIXAOE 1. The City of Lakeland will provide level of service information as sat forth in the Lakeland CCU rehansive Plant 1990-2000 �. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would not result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was available at the date of application or inquiry. 3. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was not available at the date of application or inquiry. CONCVAA=NCY DETLRXINATION - PARIS AND RECREATION I. The City of Lakeland will provide level of service information as set forth in the Lakeland Ccnerahen.siya Plan! i99o-2c0o 2. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would not result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was available at the date of application or inquiry. 3. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was not available at the date of application or inquiry. CONCCRRENCY DETERKINATION - MASS TRANSIT 1. The City of Lakeland will provide level of service information as set forth in the Lakeland Cotrgreh.nsivp plan• 1990-2000 2. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would not result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was available at the date of application or inquiry. 3. If the level of service information indicates that the proposed project would result in a level of service failure, the concurrency determination would be that adequate facility capacity at acceptable levels of service was not.availabls at the date of application or inquiry.