The URL can be used to link to this page

Item B8 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 13, 2011 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes_ No X Department: Planning & Environmental Resources Staff Contact Person: Christine Hurley, AICP, Director of Growth Management AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners transmitting to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies an ordinance by the Monroe County Board Of County Commissioners amending Policy 101.20.2 to add Section 6 incorporating the Lower Keys Liveable CommuniKeys Plan into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by reference. ITEM BACKGOUND: The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.20 identifies the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program as a planning program designed to address community needs while balancing the needs of all of Monroe County. Policy 101.20.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan directs Monroe County to develop a series of Community Master Plans which shall include specific criteria, including close coordination with other community plans ongoing in the same area and setting out twelve principles to direct developmment of master plans. The County has adopted four Livable CommuniKeys Master Plans (LCPs) that have been incorporated into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by reference: 1) Big Pine Key and No Name Key LCP; 2) Tavernier LCP; 3) Stock Island/Key Haven LCP; and 4) Key Largo LCP. The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan is the product of the Livable CommuniKeys program as outlined in Objective 101.20 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Upon adoption, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan will become part of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. PREVIOUS RELEVANT COMMISSION ACTION: N/A CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH: N/A Year APPROVED BY: County Attorney OMB / Purchasing Risk Management DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # l yl \ if 1 / 1H 3 4`'• 5 6 7 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 8 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 RESOLUTION NO. -2012 10 11 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 12 COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE FLORIDA STATE LAND 13 PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD 14 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICY 101.20.2 TO ADD 15 SECTION 6 INCORPORATING THE LOWER KEYS LIVABLE 16 COMMUNIKEYS PLAN INTO THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 17 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REFERENCE. 18 19 20 21 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public 22 hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency for 23 review and comment a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive ,,,,. 24 Plan as described above; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board 27 of County Commissioners support the requested text amendment; 28 29 NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 30 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 31 32 Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of 33 the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance for adoption of the 34 proposed text amendment. 35 36 Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed 37 amendment to the State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in 38 accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes. 39 40 Section 3. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required 41 transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment. 42 43 Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this 44 resolution to the Director of Planning. 45 c, 46 P. 1 of 2 1 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 3 Florida, at a special meeting held on the 13th day of February, 2012. 4 5 Mayor David Rice 6 Mayor pro tem Kim Wigington 7 Commissioner Heather Carruthers 8 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy 9 Commissioner George Neugent 10 11 12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 14 15 16 BY 17 Mayor David Rice 18 19 (SEAL) 20 21 ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK 22 23 L . 24 DEPUTY CLERK M NROE COUNT • , tORNEY 25 ' TO FORM " Date: cOr P. 2 of 2 if 1 y 3 51 ' 4 : . 5 6 ORDINANCE NO. -2012 7 8 9 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 10 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICY 101.20.2 TO ADD SECTION 6 11 INCORPORATING THE LOWER KEYS LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS PLAN 12 INTO THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY 13 REFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE 14 REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR 15 TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING 16 FOR THE FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN 17 EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE 18 MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 19 20 21 22 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.20 identifies the 23 Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program as a planning program designed to address community 24 needs while balancing the needs of all of Monroe County; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan is the product of the Livable 27 CommuniKeys program as outlined in Objective 101.20 of the Monroe County Comprehensive 28 Plan; and 29 30 WHEREAS, Policy 101.20.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan directs Monroe 31 County to develop a series of Community Master Plans which shall include specific criteria, 32 including close coordination with other community plans ongoing in the same area and sets out 33 twelve principles to direct developmment of master plans; and 34 35 WHEREAS, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys residents approved the following 36 vision statement: The Lower Keys will remain a low - density, primarily residential community, 37 with a strong social fabric. We protect, preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low 38 density, wildlife and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community 39 cherishes conservation and recreatation lands and the strict growth management regulations. We 40 seek to renew our commerical areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our 41 infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and control 42 growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life; and 43 44 WHEREAS, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan will be adopted as part of the 45 Comprehensive Plan; and 46 P. 1 of 4 1 WHEREAS, On November 29, 2011, the Monroe County Development Review 2 Committee considered the proposed comprehensive plan amendment; and 3 4 WHEREAS, On January 24, 2012, the Monroe County Planning Commissiom 5 recommended that the the BOCC transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the 6 Florida State Land Planning Agency; and 7 8 WHEREAS, On February 13, 2012, the Monroe County Board of County 9 Commissioners held a public hearing and voted to transmit the proposed comprehensive plan 10 amendment to the Florida State Land Planning Agency; and 11 12 WHEREAS, On , the Florida State Land Planning Agency submitted 13 its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report to Monroe County which stated 14 that the Agency does not identify any objections or comments related to important state 15 resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendment if it is adopted. 16 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 18 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 19 20 Section 1. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows: (Deletions 21 are stFisk-eft4lifeugh and additions are underlined.) 22 L 23 Policy 101.20.2 24 The Community Master Plans shall be incorporated into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan as a 25 part of the plan and be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following 26 Community Master Plans have been completed in accordance with the principles outlined 27 in this section and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners: 28 29 1. Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, dated 30 August 2004 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 18, 31 2004 is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term 32 Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the 33 Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the 34 meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. Amended by 35 Ordinance 020 -2009. 36 37 2. The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for Tavernier Creek to Mile Marker 97 dated 38 February 11, 2005 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 39 16, 2005 is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term 40 Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objective in the 41 Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the 42 meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 43 44 3. The Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Plan Volume I is incorporated L 45 by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in this Master 46 Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term P. 2 of 4 1 Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for 2 implementation are synonymous. 3 4 4. Volume Two (2) of the Stock Island and Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master 5 Plan titled Harbor Preservation/Redevelopment and Corridor Enhancement Plan dated 6 November 2005 and incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 7 The term Strategies in this Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the 8 Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the 9 meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 10 11 5. The Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by reference into 12 the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to 13 the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is 14 equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for implementation are 15 synonymous. 16 17 6. The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by reference into 18 the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 19 20 21 Section 2. Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is Attached hereto and 22 incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. 23 24 Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this 25 ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by 26 such validity. 27 28 Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby 29 repealed to the extent of said conflict. 30 31 Section 5. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the Florida 32 State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. 33 34 Section 6. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida 35 but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Florida State Land 36 Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in 37 compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any applicable appeal 38 periods have expired. 39 40 Section 7. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to 41 the numbering in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and shall be 42 incorporated in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 43 44 45 L. 46 P. 3 of 4 1 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 3 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2012. 4 5 Mayor David Rice 6 Mayor pro tem Kim Wigington 7 Commissioner Heather Carruthers 8 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy 9 Commissioner George Neugent 10 11 12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 14 15 16 BY 17 Mayor David Rice 18 19 (SEAL) 20 21 ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK 22 23 • 24 DEPUTY CLERK 25 • P. 4 of 4 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan EXHIBIT 1 L DRAFT LOWER KEYS (MM 14.2 - 29.0) LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS PLAN `,. Prepared By: Citizens and Residents of the Lower Keys and Monroe County Growth Management Division With Assistance from Consultant: HDR, Inc. 2202 N. West Shore Boulevard, Suite 250 Tampa, Florida 33607 L January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan L Vision Statement 1 "The Lower Keys will remain a low - density, primarily residential community, with a strong social fabric. We protect, preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, wildlife and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community cherishes conservation and recreation lands and the strict growth management regulations. We seek to renew our commercial areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of lie." L January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Executive Summary Monroe County's Livable CommuniKeys Program is a community -driven planning process that addresses the individual needs of the island communities in the Florida Keys. The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) covers the area between Mile Markers (MM) 14.2 and 29, excluding the offshore islands. This includes Saddlebunch Key, Lower Sugarloaf Key, Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key, Big Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, and Little Torch Key. The Lower Keys LCP process, which started in November 2006, engaged the community in a comprehensive planning process, determined important island features, identified issues affecting these conditions, and identified community issues related to future development activities. The Lower Keys LCP's foundation was established through public input at workshops where community participants identified their perceptions and desires for the Lower Keys. Based upon the discussion in the public meetings and by reviewing responses received via e -mail, the following community vision statement was identified: Vision Statement 1 "The Lower Keys will remain a low - density, primarily residential community, with a strong social fabric. We protect, preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, wildlife and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community cherishes conservation and recreation lands and the strict growth management regulations. We seek to renew our commercial areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life." The consensus goals identified by the community were: Future Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Character Goal 1: Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Keys, and maintain and encourage commercial revitalization along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community character includes the cultural /traditional heritage, physical character, and scale of the businesses that serve the local community in the Lower Keys area. Conservation and Coastal Management Goal 2a: Monroe County shall manage conservation lands, reduce exotic species, and continue natural lands acquisition for conservation in the Lower Keys. Goal 2b: Monroe County shall develop and implement programs to improve water quality in canals and the nearshore environment. L ES-1 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Transportation Goal 3: Monroe County shall improve multi -modal transportation services and implement programs specifically designed for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians along U.S. 1 and appropriate collector roads in the Lower Keys. Housing Goal 4: Monroe County shall pursue locations, solutions, and partnerships to establish a affordable housing base for Lower Keys residents and workers. Public Utilities /Services Goal 5: Monroe County shall provide adequate public facilities to serve existing and future needs of the Lower Keys planning area while promoting conservation measures where appropriate. Recreation and Open Space Goal 6: Monroe County shall maintain existing recreational facilities and seek opportunities for active and passive land -based recreation as well as expand public shoreline access for water -based recreational activities within the community. Public Participation in the Planning Process Goal 7: Monroe County shall continue to support and encourage citizen involvement and monitoring of Lower Keys LCP. Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint /Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are an important part of this plan and are an integral part of the Lower Keys LCP. Pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S., the terms goals, objectives and policies have the following definitions: Section 163.3164 (10), F.S. states: "Goal" means the long -term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. Section 163.3164 (33) F.S. states: "Objective" means a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. Section 162.3164 (36), F.S. states: "Policy" means the way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. L ES -2 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan L P' The Lower Keys LPC Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been modified to be consistent with these statutory definitions. L L ES -3 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. SUMMARY OF THE LCP PROCESS 16 3. BASIS OF THE LOWER KEYS LCP 19 4. FUTURE LAND USE, ECONOMIC DEVEOPMENT COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT 21 5. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT 32 6. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 36 7. HOUSING ELEMENT 39 8. PUBLIC UTILITIES /SERVICES ELEMENT 44 9. RECREATION ELEMENT 52 10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ELEMENT 58 11. IMPLEMENTATION 60 12. APPENDIX A -1 Figures Figure 1 Lower Keys LCP Plan Area 3 Figure 2 Developed Land Map 8 L. Figure 3 Land Cover Map 15 Figure 4 Future Land Use 23 Figure 5 Vacant Privately -Owned Land 24 Tables Table 1 Developed Lands 7 Table 2 Population Demographics 9 Table 3 ADID Habitat 12 Table 4 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 13 Table 5 Highest - Ranked SWOT 17 Table 6 Vacant Privately -Owned Land 22 Table 7 Lower Keys Housing Units 1990 -2000 40 Table 8 Lower Keys ROGO Allocations 41 Table 9 Crime in Florida — Monroe County 48 Table 10 Lower Keys Schools 49 Table 11 Recreation Lands /Facilities in Lower Keys 54 L 1 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Acronyms AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment BPAS Building Permit Allocation System EMS Emergency Medical Service FAC Florida Administrative Code FDLE Florida Department of Law Enforcement FDOT Florida Department of Transportation • FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority FLUM Future Land Use Map FWS Fish & Wildlife Service GIS Geographic Information System LCP Livable CommuniKeys Plan LOS Level of Service MCC Monroe County Code MM Mile Markers NROGO Non - Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance PAED Planning Area Enumeration District ROGO Rate of Growth Ordinance ROW Right -of -Way SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SWOT Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats L 11 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan (lor 1. INTRODUCTION Monroe County's Livable CommuniKeys Program is a community -driven planning process that addresses the needs of the island communities in the Florida Keys. The Lower Keys LCP covers the area between MM 14.2 and 29, excluding the offshore islands (Figure 1). This includes Saddlebunch Key, Lower Sugarloaf Key, Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key, Big Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, and Little Torch Key. The Lower Keys LCP process, which started in November 2006, engaged the community in a comprehensive planning process, identified areas of community concern, to County planning policies, regulations, and public investment plans. ' . MARATHO - t' -.00. ' '' ro ect Locat10 ; } ,; > ile Marker 14.2 - ' ' f lh 411 \ : III ;016.1/4.0 4viiX ,,,,, IFil Y 4 i A LY ' i I t #1 4 1IF • IL ... a) Y ,,,: P s - s i %? Figure 1. Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Planning Area. Relationship to 2010 Comprehensive Plan The County's 2010 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993 and became effective in its entirety in 1997. It contains the County's guiding goals, objectives, and policies for implementation of the state mandated growth management actions through the year 2010. The Comprehensive Plan applies throughout the unincorporated County and is implemented (Iiir uniformly based upon the local community conditions. 3 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan The Lower Keys LCP does not replace the County's Comprehensive Plan but is adopted into the comprehensive plan and provides elements on the specific needs of the local community and identifies actions to meet those needs. The County's Livable CommuniKeys Program and content of the LCP master plan development are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.20.1, which states: "Monroe County shall develop a series of Community Master Plans. Master Plans will be developed in accordance with the following principles: 1. Each Community Master Plan will contain a framework for future development and redevelopment including the designation of growth boundaries and future acquisition areas for public spaces and environmental preservation; 2. Each Community Master Plan will include an Implementation Strategy composed of action items, an implementation schedule, and a monitoring mechanism to provide accountability to communities; 3. Each Community Master Plan will be consistent with existing Federal and State requirements and overall goals of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to ensure legal requirements are met. While consistency with the goals of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan is paramount, the 2010 Plan will be updated and amended where appropriate; c or 4. Each Community Master Plan will be closely coordinated with other community plans and other jurisdictions to ensure development or redevelopment activities will not adversely impact those areas; 5. Each Community Master Plan will include appropriate mechanisms allowing citizens continued oversight and involvement in the implementation of their plans. Through the Community Master Plans, programs for ongoing public involvement, outreach, and education will be developed; 6. Each Community Master Plan will include a Capital Improvements program to provide certainty that the provision of public facilities will be concurrent with future development; 7. Each Community Master Plan will contain an environmental protection element to maintain existing levels of environmental protection as required in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan; 8. Each Community Master Plan will include a community character element that will address the protection and enhancement of existing residential areas and the preservation of community character through site and building guidelines. Design guidelines for public spaces, landscaping, streetscapes, buildings, parking lots, and other areas will be developed through collaborative efforts of citizens, the Planning Department, and design professionals reinforcing the character of the local community context, 9. Each Community Master Plan will include an economic development element addressing L current and potential diversified economic development strategies including tourism 4 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan management. The preservation and retention of valued local businesses, existing economies, ` and the development of economic alternatives will be encouraged through the process; 10. Each Community Master Plan will contain a transportation element addressing transportation needs and possibilities including circulation, safe and convenient access to goods and services, and transportation alternatives that will be consistent with the overall integrity of the transportation system not resulting in negative consequences for other communities; 11. Each Community Master Plan will be based on knowledge of existing conditions in each community. The Planning Department will compile existing reports, databases, maps, field data, and information from other sources supplemented by community input to document current conditions; and 12. Each Community Master Plan will simplify the planning process providing clarity and certainty for citizens, developers, and local officials by providing a transparent framework for a continuing open dialogue with different participants involved in planning issues ". Relationship to State Legislation The County's Comprehensive Plan is required by Florida Statute and is compliant with the required format and content listed in Chapter 163, F.S. -The Lower Keys LCP will be adopted as an amendment to the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Florida Division of Community Planning (FDCP) will review the amendment for compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Prior Livable CommuniKeys Plans The Monroe County Livable CommuniKeys Program began in July 2000 with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Since then Monroe County has completed four LCPs. The communities that have participated in the CommuniKeys process are as follows: Key Largo The Key Largo LCP was completed by Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in 2006 and was adopted by Board of County Commission on May 21, 2007. The planning area includes MM 97 to 107. Tavernier The Tavernier LCP was completed by Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in 2004 and was adopted by Board of County Commission on July 4, 2004. The planning area included Tavernier Creek Bridge to MM 97. Big Pine and No Name Key The Big Pine and No Name Key plan began in the spring of 2000. The residents worked with Monroe County to develop a Master Plan for their community. The Plan was adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 18, 2004. 5 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan ( Stock Island and Key Haven The LCP for Stock Island and Key Haven were completed by in 2003 and includes corridor enhancements and a visioning element. The Plan was adopted by Board of County Commission on May 21, 2007. Historic Context The Florida Keys contains about 800 islands; only 40 of which are currently occupied. There are not many sources of fresh water found in the Keys. A freshwater pipeline was built in 1942 and was enlarged in 1982 to meet the growing population demands. Transportation was another critical element in the development of the Keys. The Florida Keys were not physically connected to the mainland and thus were not easily accessible for development. The Florida East Coast Railroad line was built in 1906 -1912 and greatly aided the travel capacity to the Keys. U.S. Route 1 (Overseas Highway) through the Keys aided in the development process. With the construction of U.S. 1 and a transportation network that consisted of roads, ferries and bridges the Keys were ready for land speculators and developers. Limited improvement occurred until the post World War II era, when the water pipeline from Florida's mainland brought fresh water all the way to Key West. At around the same time, electricity became available through a private enterprise. Population increases started occurring as public infrastructure and mosquito control became prevalent in the 1950s. The only extant historic resource in the Lower Keys is the Perky Bat Tower located on Sugarloaf Key. The tower, in private ownership, was built in 1929 to help control the mosquito population on Sugarloaf Key. The tower was ineffective because the bats never occupied the structure as envisioned. Apparently once the tower was completed, bats were shipped into the Keys but upon their release flew back to where they came from. Perky Bat Tower (11, 6 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Current Conditions Development Patterns According to data from the County Property Appraiser's office, only a small percentage of the total land area in the Lower Keys is developed only 1,829 of the study area's 18,808 acres is identified as improved and nearly 86% of the developed area is in residential use. Approximately 1,564 acres of the developed area are in residential use, 118 acres are in commercial, 87 acres are in industrial use, 13 acres are in institutional use, and 37 acres are in use for utilities (Table 1). Table 1— Developed Lands Category Acres Percentage Residential 1,564 86% Commercial 118 6% Industrial 97 5% Institutional 13 1% Utilities 37 2% Total Developed Lands 1,829 100% Source: Monroe County Property Appraiser (2011) Note: Developed Lands include publicly and privately owned parcels identified by the Property Appraiser's office as improved. Unimproved parcels include both vacant and conservation lands. As with most of the Florida Keys, commercial development is focused on the U.S. 1 corridor with residential neighborhoods of varying densities extending north -south along collector and local roads. Commercial land uses, broadly defined as those areas associated with the buying and selling of goods and /or services, are generally concentrated as strip development along the US -1 corridor. The majority of the planning area's commercial businesses serve the tourism and local residential markets (a more detailed assessment of existing land uses is included in Section 4). L 7 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan . , mint 1 . ili p ff§=1.46 UP , „,.. ..„,..— :•i,, tn. , \ 0 8tS; f> iirq I.- .7i 2 4 .....__._ „, 12 , 221 g L 1 1 e I I ' ,,. , .„, , . . (.17 III , - ,- vff\ ,,,-----,,----',-':-.----,------,------,------ . ::,.... 1 • , , . , , . •:, ,.., '10 ,•„, ,. .- -.._. I I >, cu o P 0 2 1 8 January 2012 Draft f ower Keys (MM 14.2 - 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan c ss, Population & Demographics The demographics for unincorporated Monroe County are derived from the Technical Document Monroe County 2010 -2030 Population Projections, prepared March 15, 2011 by Keith & Schnars, P.A., and Fishkind and Associates. The permanent population series is the latest published by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates. Permanent residents are people who spend all or most of the year living in Monroe County, and as such, exert a relatively constant demand on all public facilities. Seasonal population figures are the number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. They are composed of the tourist population and residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal population has a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like roads and solid waste. The 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year through the twenty year planning horizon. Table 2 Population Demographics Monroe County Functional Population Projections, 2010 -2030 • Countywide Population Projection Year Permanent Seasonal Functional 2010 76,887 78,401 155,288 2015 77,600 79,800 157,400 2020 76,900 82,151 159,051 2025 76,200 84,503 160,703 2030 75,500 86,855 162,355 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc.; Fl Keys Aqueduct Authority; Univ. FL BEBR, PS 156 and annual estimates Functional Population Projections by Sub -Area , 2010 -2030 Functional Population Year Unincorporated Monroe Lower Keys Middle Keys Upper Keys County Total 2010 39,645 2,183 28,980 70,808 2015 40,181 2,212 29,370 71,763 2020 40,592 2,234 29,668 72,494 2025 41,003 2,256 29,966 73,225 2030 41,414 2,278 30,265 73,957 Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections 9 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Unincorporated Monroe County Distribution of Permanent Population Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Total Population 1990 44% 3% 52% 100% Population 2000 42% 3% 55% 100% Population 2009 41% 3% 56% 100% Population 2014 40% 3% 57% 100% Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc.; I -Site online demographic database The Monroe County 2010 -2030 Population Projections, prepared March 15, 2011 by Keith & Schnars, P.A., and Fishkind and Associates, indicates a loss in permanent population with likely replacement through an increase in seasonal residents Fishkind & Associates estimates that while permanent population decreases at an average rate of less than one percent every five years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every five years; resulting in a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. Overall, functional population or total population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of less than one percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period. L 10 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 - 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan (kw The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 demographic information related to population and housing on March 17, 2011. The following tables provide summary information for Monroe County and the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been included for comparison purposes. The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) declined by 8% ( -6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010. Total housing units increased by 1,147 units or 2 %. The number of occupied units decreased by 2,457 units or 7 %. Vacant units increased by 3,604 units or 22 %. Census Census Change % Change 2000 2010 POPULATION City of Key West 25,478 24,649 -829 -3.25% City of Marathon 10,255 8,297 -1,958 - 19.09% City of Key Colony Beach 788 797 +9 1.14% City of Layton 186 184 -2 - 1.08% Village of Islamorada 6,846 6,119 -727 - 10.62% Unincorporated Monroe County 36,036 33,044 -2,992 -8.30% Total Population (Uninc. County & Cities) 79,589 73,090 -6,499 -8.17% HOUSING UNITS City of Key West 13,306 14,107 +801 6.01% City of Marathon 6,791 6,187 -604 -8.89% City of Key Colony Beach 1,293 1,431 +138 10.67% City of Layton 165 184 +19 11.15% Village of Islamorada 5,461 5,692 +231 4.23% Unincorporated Monroe County 24,601 25,163 +562 2.28% Total Housing Units (Uninc. County & 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22% Cities) Total housing units (Uninc. County & 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22% Cities) Occupied housing units (Uninc. County & 35,086 32,629 -2,457 - 7.00% Cities) Vacant housing units (Uninc. County & 16,531 20,135 +3,604 21.80% Cities) Vacant housing units (Uninc. County & 32.02% 38.16% Cities) L 11 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan . 4. Environmental Setting The planning area is underlain by Key Largo Limestone, formed from ancient reefs and made up of mostly very porous material. The Lower Keys are known as the Oolitic Keys because they are primarily composed of oolites, small spherical grains of calcium carbonate cemented together to form a limestone. Geological and biological processes that date to the Pleistocene Period were instrumental in forming the reefs and the Florida Keys of today. Melting glaciers raised sea levels, resulting in submerged conditions over much of the Florida peninsula and all of the Florida Keys. The warm temperatures and shallow waters typical to the Keys provide ideal conditions for the growth of coral reefs, which predominate along the Keys island chain. According to the County's Advanced Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Program, the main types of habitat in the planning area are saltwater wetlands and uplands consisting of hammock, pinelands, grasslands, and ridge/hammock (Table 3, Figure 3). Saltwater wetlands are the predominant land cover type, with 14,358 acres or approximately 70% of the area's acreage. Uplands account for approximately 12% or 2,534 acres. Table 3 -ADID Habitat Habitat Types Acres % of Total t i, Developed 2,038 10% Exotics 71 >1% Freshwater Wetland 276 1% Saltwater Wetland 14,359 70% Upland 2,534 12% Water 1,143 6% Total Acres I 20,421 1 100% Source: Monroe County GIS (ADID FMRI maps, 1991) Note: Acreages are based on delineations of land cover and do not match the developed lands and land use acreages reported in other sections of the plan. L 12 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan The planning area provides potential habitat for many threatened and endangered species listed below (Table 4). Table 4 - Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Common Name Scientific Name Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas Atlantic loggerhead Caretta caretta American alligator Alligator mississippiensis American crocodile Crocodylus actus Eastern indigo snake Drymachron corais Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Atlantic hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate Atlantic Ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempi Southern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Artic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Bachman's warbler Verivora bachmanii Silver rice rat Oryzomys argentatus Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium Lower keys marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris Source: Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 13 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Development Context and Constraints The amount and pace of development in the County is managed through a Building Permit Allocation System (BPAS) consisting of a complex system of planning policies and programs, and implemented by the residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and its companion NROGO (non- residential). Together, ROGO and NROGO are designed to implement growth management policies in the Comprehensive Plan by limiting the number of permits issued in each of the three planning areas (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys). Other factors constraining development in the Lower Keys include concurrency with State requirements, such as maintaining a minimum Level of Service (LOS) C along U.S. -1. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code require each segment of the highway maintain a LOS of C or better. The LOS criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S. 1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important consideration on this multipurpose highway. However, the determination of the median speed on a segment is a more involved process than determining the overall level of service since different segments have different conditions. Segment conditions depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. There are six segments in the Lower Keys CommuniKeys Planning Area (from mile marker14.2 (kor to mile marker 29). Segment 4: Saddlebunch, Mile Markers 10.5 -16.5 Segment 5: Sugarloaf, Mile Markers 16.5 -20.5 Segment 6: Cudjoe, Mike Markers 20.5 -23.0 Segment 7: Summerland (23.0 -25.0) Segment 8: Ramrod, Mile Markers 25.0 -27.5 Segment 9: Torch, Mile Markers 27.5 -29.5 The 2011 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, prepared by URS Corporation Southern, indicate Segments 4 through 8 has a LOS B and Segment 9 is a LOS A. Compared to last year (2010) study results, Segments 4 and 5 resulted in positive LOS changes, increasing from a LOS Ctoa LOS B. See also Appendix A, B, C, D, E, & F which are an important part of this plan. They define each of these segments in more detail. They point out the similarities and differences of each community. These Appendices are the meat of this report. They are an integral part of this Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan just as the US -1 Corridor Enhancement Plan from MM 14.2 - MM 29 is. L 14 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan III rr . . .. --- ._ .._. 4 ,./..,07 ..... o ,� v , n ,s x.7 1E Ztito A 4 asP it il � m� "ye 5, � v .3 'F g c .0 ; Es o iS z ..d t, r 1 r ag W LJ S LL Ul J 7 - �. =1111 1 I jj . _ m...�y�.Ory �- L C , rr er • is • e ... , is : !1 r J > r r * 1 • f . '4 ' .:',;. , I1 c i i -� B N ' \ • . tAlk %■ — '14 F • . 1 mn. \, , • , ,.. ,t, .„. ,..., • v,,,,„ , iiis' ,......., ... S r = Y " ,. 15 January 2011 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan tkir 2. SUMMARY OF THE LCP PROCESS The Lower Keys LCP was developed with multiple opportunities for public participation which are outlined below. Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews, conducted at the outset of the project, identified specific issues and/or concerns of businesses and residents. The interviews were undertaken to gauge the level of interest and sensitivity to growth management issues in the planning area. The input received provided insight into important community issues. E- Newsletters /Announcements Several e- newsletters and announcements were sent to property owners and residents in the Lower Keys. The newsletters and announcements described the planning process, summarized the existing conditions, notified owners of upcoming public workshops, kept the public informed of the progress of the planning process, and directed them to the County's website for further information and postings. Website Monroe County included project updates for the Lower Keys LCP on its website (http://www.monroecounty-fl.gov/). Public Workshops Five public meetings were held between November 2006 and September 2010. Each meeting was held within the planning area, legally noticed, and made available for all interested persons to attend. • Visioning Workshop. The visioning workshop was held on November 14, 2006. This workshop focused on gathering a vision for the Lower Keys area. Through a facilitated exercise, the attendees identified and ranked the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) that affect the planning area (Table 5). This SWOT analysis helped to develop a picture of the community's perceptions, identify issues to be addressed in the plan and establish a vision statement for the Lower Keys LCP. L 16 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Table 5 - Highest-Ranked Strengths, Weaknesses, g esses, Opportunities, and Threats Strengths Weaknesses • No high density development; • Lack of canal and culvert green space maintenance /flushing • Nature Preserve; Wildlife Refuge; • Overdevelopment/speculative development Nature - wetlands, & wildlife that displaces people • Strong Social Fabric • Illegal dumping and clearing/general trash and debris Opportunities Threats • Remain low density /limit • Over development /changes and development & franchises/keep inconsistencies in LDR affecting height, greenspace density, future development/attracting more • Buy more land for preservation tourist developments and nature parks • Overall water quality /canals, near • Bike paths /Overseas Trail to shore /sewers /grow sponges to improve improved and maintained /use Old • High taxes and property insurance SR as trail • Goals Workshop. The second workshop was held December 12, 2006. Through a facilitated exercise, the attendees worked on developing goals for the Lower Keys LCP. The exercise built upon the results of the first visioning workshop, the existing conditions, and the County's Comprehensive Plan. The goals identified by the community are the basis of the LCP and are listed and discussed later in this document. • Individual Key Workshops. In January and February 2007, the County held individual workshops by Key with the communities of Baypoint- Sugarloaf, Cudjoe, Summerland, and Ramrod- Torches. The workshops provided the public with additional opportunities to review and provide further direction on the goals for the Lower Keys. • Findings Workshop. The third public meeting occurred March 13, 2007. During this meeting, the project team reviewed the existing conditions, the major goals, objectives, and policies resulting from the previous workshops, and discussed how these major findings were to be incorporated into the Lower Keys LCP. • Public Presentations of Draft. A public workshop was held at Sugarloaf Elementary School on September 26, 2010. During this meeting, County staff solicited community issues and concerns based upon geographic area. These issues have been summarized and are addressed in the updated draft. A final public workshop is planned for the fall of 2011 prior to the review of the final draft LCP by the Development Review Committee, Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners. L 17 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan LOWER KEYS LCP PROCESS CHART Stakeholder Interviews/Public Input Workshop 1 Nov. 13 -14, 2006 Strength Weakness Opportunities & Threats Analysis Summary of Strengths Weakness Opportunities & Threats Draft Vision Statement Public Input Workshop 2 Dec. 12 -13, 2006 Present Vision Statement/Goals Exercise Revised Vision Statement /Summary of Community Goals Community Workshops held by Key Jan. — Mar., 2007 tL Comments and Additional Community Goals by Key Revision of Goals Statements /Initiate Draft Objectives and Policies Cor Public Input Workshop 3 March 13, 2007 Review Planning Area Statistics/Draft Objectives and Policies J Revision of Objectives and Policies Draft Lower Keys LCP Presentation of Draft Plan to Lower Keys Residents Oct. -Nov., 2007 Revision of Objectives and Policies Draft Lower Keys LCP Presentation of Draft Plan to Lower Keys Residents Sept. 2010 Revision of Objectives and Policies Draft Lower Keys LCP L Presentation of Draft Plan to Lower Keys Residents Nov. 2011 Final Lower Keys CommuniKeys Plan 1 18 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 3. BASIS OF THE LOWER KEYS LCP The Lower Keys LCP's foundation was established through public input at workshops where community participants identified their perceptions of and desires for the Lower Keys. Vision Based upon the discussion in the public meetings and by reviewing responses received via e-mail to the County's website, the following community vision statement was identified: Vision Statement 1 "The Lower Keys will remain a low - density, primarily residential community, with a strong social fabric. We protect, preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, wildlife and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community cherishes conservation and recreation lands and - strict growth management regulations. We seek to renew our commercial areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs except for sewage . Ultimately, we manage and control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life." Format of Master Plan Elements The Lower Keys LCP addresses seven Master Plan Elements. For each element an introductory discussion provides a context for understanding the current conditions and the community needs, followed by the goal(s) objectives, and policy items necessary to accomplish each goal. The Lower Keys LPC Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been modified to be consistent with the following statutory definitions. Section 163.3164 (10), F.S. states: "Goal" means the long -term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. Section 163.3164 (33) F.S. states: "Objective" means a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. Section 162.3164 (36), F.S. states: "Policy" means the way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix G were prepared to identify which 19 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. The consensus goals identified by the community were: Future Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Character Goal 1: Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Keys, and maintain and encourage commercial revitalization along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community character includes the cultural /traditional heritage, physical character, and scale of the businesses that serve the local community in the Lower Keys area. Conservation and Coastal Management Goal 2a: Monroe County shall manage conservation lands, reduce exotic species, and continue natural lands acquisition for conservation in the Lower Keys. Goal 2b: Monroe County shall develop and implement programs to improve water quality in canals and the nearshore environment. Transportation Goal 3: Monroe County shall improve multi -modal transportation services and implement programs specifically designed for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians along U.S. 1 and appropriate collector roads in the Lower Keys. Housing Goal 4: Monroe County shall pursue locations, solutions, and partnerships to establish an affordable housing base for Lower Keys residents and workers. Public Utilities /Services Goal 5: Monroe County shall provide adequate public facilities to serve existing and future needs of the Lower Keys planning area while promoting conservation measures where appropriate. Recreation and Open Space Goal 6: Monroe County shall maintain existing recreational facilities and seek opportunities for active and passive land -based recreation as well as expand public shoreline access for water -based recreational activities within the community. Public Participation in the Planning Process Goal 7: Monroe County shall continue to support and encourage citizen involvement and monitoring of Lower Keys LCP. 20 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4. FUTURE LAND USE, COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary Like many areas of Monroe County, communities in the Lower Keys LCP planning area contain a wide range of intensities and patterns of land use. Covering approximately 18,774 acres, the planning area includes large tracts of undeveloped lands, including property under public ownership or protected through conservation easement; pockets of low density residential use; moderate to higher density residential development concentrated in improved subdivisions; and strips of commercial, industrial, and institutional development along stretches of U.S. 1. A brief summary of land use and development conditions influencing the livability and sustainability of the Lower Keys communities follows. Land Uses Developed Lands. According to Property Appraiser data, approximately 9% or 1,829 acres of the land within the planning area are used for residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Of the total identified as developed, 1,564 acres are used for residential, 118 acres are used for commercial, 97 acres are used for industrial, and 13 acres are used for institutional. In addition to these categories of use, the Appraiser's data lists another 167 acres as being used for rights -of -way and utilities. Lands in residential use, which account for approximately 86% of the developed area, are comprised primarily of single family houses in improved subdivisions and on parcels in rural settings. Mobile homes on individual parcels and multifamily dwellings with less than 10 units per building occupy 169 acres or 9% of the total acreage in residential use. Commercial land uses account for a little over 6% of land uses in the developed area. According the Appraiser's data, these commercial uses include mobile home and RV parks, hotel and motels , and the private airport on Lower Sugarloaf Key. Other commercial uses, including retail outlets, plant nurseries and gardens stores, restaurants and cafes, and small office buildings, account for the remaining acreage identified as being in commercial use. As with many other areas in Monroe County, commercial uses in the Lower Keys planning area exist in sites fronting U.S. 1. Industrial and institutional uses account for a little over 7% of land uses in the developed area, with approximately 97 acres identified as being in industrial use and 13 acres in institutional uses. Industrial uses include gravel pits, open storage areas, light manufacturing, food processing and warehousing operations. Institutional uses include churches, private clubs, and private schools. Government & Miscellaneous Lands. In addition to the above uses, the Appraiser's data c r, identifies land uses in government and miscellaneous categories. These data identify 12,024 acres of land in public ownership and 209 acres in miscellaneous categories including rights -of- 21 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan way, submerged lands, and utilities. Lands in the government category account 63% of the total planning area and are subdivided into to several categories including county -owned lands, state - owned lands, and federally -owned lands. The data do not distinguish between conservation lands and sites used for public facilities (e.g. post offices, libraries, and fire and police stations, and public offices) but the vast majority of land in this category is undeveloped and planned for conservation. Privately -Owned Vacant Lands. The Appraiser's data also identifies 2,636 acres (14% of the total planning area) as vacant, privately owned land. These lands include vacant lots in improved subdivisions, vacant parcels in rural areas, vacant commercial and industrial parcels, and vacant unimproved parcels identified for acquisition for conservation. Of these 2,636 vacant acres, only 350 acres or 13 % is identified as appropriate for medium to high density residential development or commercial development under the County's Comprehensive Plan. As indicated in Figure 4, Table 6 below, 241 acres of vacant privately -owned lands are designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as appropriate for Residential Medium use, 47 acres are designated for Residential High use, 57 acres are designated for Mixed Use /Commercial, and 5 acres are designated for Mixed Use /Commercial Fishing. Table 6 — Vacant Privately -Owned Land by Future Land Use Category FLUM Designation Acres of Vacant Land (by Residential Medium 241.22 Residential High 47.1 Mixed Use /Commercial 57.72 Mixed Use /Commercial Fishing 5.17 The following maps (Figure 5) indicated vacant privately -owned lands by Future Land Use Category. Development Capacity. Assuming future residential development occurs in the pattern and intensities called for under the Comprehensive Plan and at the rate anticipated under the residential and non - residential permit allocation systems, there appears to be a sufficient amount of land designated to support both residential and non - residential development. cos 22 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan M ?Ntffllf - -` ' ‘ f`' III 4 _ 14 3 a 1 iii14U III 1 11'v ; .�: s �.. t�� Y i _ lif 6 ■ g 34 s C5°, 2 `9 ' 1111i! - � . �� E -'- 1° '• 31111 111 1 � o f 1 `. ir , a✓edp. ..._ .�. tl'� doi ad a mi r N a .., yyK � * A. ? p: 7 i r fl' C to f, A s # r . — ....1 r �d ail 0 , of 2 J� Z t » , LL \ s \U , Y � \ \ 1 p N f! \ .. i i \ iii // 1 Or * • IP s a Y 23 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan (WV 4e4 : ' — 4- Cudjoe Key , „ ... . Sugarloaf Keys ° ''''‘,4, ■-"*. .4-.., - A ^ — _ I . t s Saddlebunch . . 4 . Key V 7' ..S. • .1, '§its. krAwaltri , 3 „..„...............7: ),....."''' .4 19 (44 .. -. . i :.; • ' ..:*) ' 4 ripip..4,4 1 , 23. 1 , . .... , .1 • . . 14 ..< < . . '<....- ., ..': 14 .-, ... ...,, Figure 5 — Vacant Privately-Owned Land Designated for Medium or High Density Residential and Mixed 1 - Use Commercial ws — . s 4 Awe lit Summerland Key = '2 8 iPS.....111r,•■•••?,5 iime......................, 2€ . ...1.- • 1 K .._ , .,. P5 k.4 v Ramrod Key -. 24 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Economic Development The Lower Keys LCP planning area serves primarily as a bedroom community supporting more mature and intensely developed employment centers and commercial areas in Stock Island, Key West, and the Upper Keys. The commercial development that currently exists in the project area is scaled to serve the needs of year round and seasonal residents, visitors, and a modest number of tourists staying in the planning area and traveling along U.S. 1. The Lower Keys have not been identified as having the potential to attract or support large -scale employment generating uses, nor has the community expressed an interest in seeing such uses introduced. Community Centers. Future economic activity in the planning area will be focused in a few key locations along U.S. 1, with the following general areas having the greatest potential to provide for the daily needs of local residents, visitors, and tourists: • Lower Sugarloaf Key (MM 16 -17) • Cudjoe Key (MM 22 -23) • Summerland Key (MM 24 -25) • Ramrod Key (MM 26.5 -27.5) While the quality of design and character of development is uneven in these areas, each has the potential to better serve local needs and reinforce community identity. With the right policy and regulatory tools in place — guidelines for new development and redevelopment, public space improvements called for in the U.S. 1 Corridor Enhancement Plan, and enhanced support for small, locally -owned businesses —these areas can evolve into more attractive, accessible centers of community life. The general policy direction for the enhancement of existing commercial areas was set forth in the Technical Document of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. According to the report, area designations "will be used in conjunction with the Point System to discourage urban sprawl," protect natural resources, and enhance the character of the community "by encouraging infill development in established commercial areas." Since the Technical Document was completed the concept has evolved into the Community Centers initiative and has become an important part of the LCPs prepared for Tavernier and Key Largo. The County recognizes the special nature of Community Centers identified in the LCPs and supports the creation of area specific regulatory strategies and design standards to achieve local objectives. Over the past few years, the County has worked with local stakeholders to create policies and standards to ensure individual projects meets local needs, contribute to the creation of compact, walkable destinations, encourage businesses that serve the local community, and enhance the unique character of individual communities. Non Conformities. The market potential of many older commercial sites may be limited because some aspect of the operation is not in full compliance with current County plans, policies, and regulations. Non - conforming status may result from a variety of conditions — parking may be inadequate, setbacks and landscaping may not meet current standards, existing uses may not be permitted, or the intensity of development may be higher than is currently 25 January 1011 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan allowed. While sites with non - conformities may continue in their current state and use, the non- conforming status may be a barrier to reinvestment and improvement. Non - conformities may limit changes in use, investment in modest improvements and additions, rebuilding after damage by fire or storm, and affect the owners and tenant's ability to procure insurance and financing. Community Character Perceptions of the character of Lower Key's communities are influenced in a number of important ways. The distribution and intensity of land uses plays a central role, as does the integrity of natural areas and vegetation; the quality of development along U.S. 1; the views from causeways and bridges; and the quality and consistency of site, landscape, and building designs. Throughout the planning process, the public has raised concerns about the scale and quality of recent development, both along U.S. 1 and within existing neighborhoods. Two important factors may contribute to the community's sense that this recent development is "out of character" with the Lower Keys: early manifestations of County growth policy and the build out of improved subdivisions. Before current growth policies were enacted, development occurred in a dispersed pattern, with housing less concentrated and commercial uses spread along the U.S. 1 corridor. With the County's growth policy designed to focus investment in developed areas, high intensity uses are locating in visually prominent areas, such as vacant lots in improved subdivisions and undeveloped sites in commercial areas along the U.S. 1 corridor. Consequently, virtually all new non - residential development occurs in highly visible locations. The level of concern over "out of character" development is also influenced by the approaching pp g build -out of older established neighborhoods. As growth policies have channeled residential development to improved subdivisions, residents are losing the benefits of lots held vacant for the past 20 -30 years, which include informal access to private open space is being lost, views to the water are closing, and small patches of native vegetation are being removed. The cumulative effects of the County's growth policies combined with the build out of older neighborhoods may contribute to the sense that growth is not sufficiently well managed and the qualities that attracted residents to the Lower Keys. Rural densities, natural beauty, and access to nature are threatened. Though the rate of growth in the Lower Keys planning area has declined in the past 20 years, resident awareness of it is much greater. Analysis of Community Needs Rate of Growth. Community members raised questions about the projected rates of residential and non - residential growth in the Lower Keys. Participants in community workshops expressed concern about the possibility that more than the fair share of development was being allocated to the Lower Keys which could negatively affect the character of development along the U.S. 1 corridor and in established neighborhoods. The relatively large scale and density of recently constructed residential and non - residential projects were cited often as examples of what the community considered inconsistent with their vision for the future. L 26 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan C ry. Preservation of Sensitive Lands. The public expressed support for the continued use and refinement of the Tier System along with state, county, and private efforts to conserve, through acquisition or regulation, sensitive natural areas, wildlife habitats, and native vegetation. Workshop participants expressed interest in preservation both on ecological grounds and as a way to protect the scenic qualities that contribute to the Lower Keys unique character and sense of place. Neighborhood Conservation & Improvement. Preserving the livability and attractiveness of existing neighborhoods and residential areas was a primary objective of participants in the planning process. Residents expressed concern about the effect of several issues —the scale and character of new resident development, the influence of cut - through and tourist traffic, etc. —on their neighborhood's quality of life. Quality of Commercial Districts. Many participants in the planning process expressed an interest in improving the quality of existing commercial areas along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community members called for the enactment of design standards, the improvement of access and parking, the preservation of native vegetation, and the revitalization of older and neglected properties. Small Business Retention & Development. Encouraging businesses that serve the local community was another objective promoted by participants in the planning process. Residents value the small scale and unique offerings of local businesses and want to ensure their continued presence along the U.S. 1 corridor. Cow 27 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal Goal 1: Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Keys, and maintain and encourage commercial revitalization along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community character includes the cultural /traditional heritage, physical character, and scale of the businesses that serve the local community in the Lower Keys area. Objective 1.1 Monroe County shall continue to manage the rate of residential and non - residential growth in the Lower Keys to maintain adequate levels of service and ensure a balance of land use to serve the existing and future population. Use of the Tier System as the primary means to conserve natural L areas, focus state and county acquisition programs, manage growth in transition areas, and guide development to areas most appropriate for new infill development and redevelopment. Policy Item 1.1.1: Monroe County is recommended to conduct an analysis, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, to determine the Lower Keys "fair share" of projected residential and non - residential growth based on assessments of the availability of appropriate sites for development (vacant, unconstrained lots in improved subdivisions, vacant sites along U.S. 1, and developed properties deemed appropriate or prone to redevelopment), the existing and projected demand for commercial services, and the community's desire to support and improve existing businesses that serve the local community. Policy Item 1.1.2: Monroe County is recommended to conduct a market analysis, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, to determine the extent to which the daily and weekly needs of Lower Keys residents can be met locally. The study should include the following: • an analysis of the demand for retail goods and professional /personal services generated by existing and future residents; • an assessment of existing commercial, professional, and personal services; • identification of imbalances in existing supply and demand; and cr. • recommendations for addressing identified imbalances through economic development initiatives, planning policies, and land development regulations. 28 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Policy Item 1.1.3: Based on the outcome of the Fair Share and Market analyses �r identified in the previous policies, Monroe County shall identify property specific revisions to the FLUM categories and Land Use District Map. Policy Item 1.1.4: To increase awareness of potential development and redevelopment activity periodic reports will be provided to the Lower Keys community summarizing the number, location, and type of development applications received and accepted for review. Policy Item 1.1.5: Monroe County will encourage individuals seeking minor and major conditional use approvals to meet with neighboring property owners and representatives of community groups prior to the submittal of permit applications. Objective 1.2 Monroe County shall continue to use the Land Use District Map and Future Land Use Map categories to regulate land use by type, density, and intensity. Policy Item 1.2.1: Monroe County shall continue to recognize the FLUM categories and land use districts as the primary regulatory tools for evaluating development proposals. Policy Item 1.2.2: Monroe County shall continue to implement the Florida Keys Area of State Critical Concern and height restriction policies specified within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Code. L Policy Item 1.2.3: Monroe County shall limit the height of any structure or building to a maximum of 35 feet. Objective 1.3 Monroe County shall evaluate the effectiveness of existing neighborhood conservation efforts, and, if necessary, revise existing or prepare new policies, procedures, and programs to conserve, stabilize, and improve conditions in existing neighborhoods. Policy Item 1.3.1: To maintain the rural character of existing neighborhoods, improved subdivisions, and lands along the rights -of -way of local roadways, Monroe County shall prepare and adopt standards limiting clearance of existing native vegetation, including vegetated areas with little value as wildlife habitat, and requiring mitigation where clearance is deemed unavoidable. Policy Item 1.3.2: Monroe County will explore the feasibility of enacting design guidelines to ensure new development and redevelopment in and adjacent to existing improved subdivisions is compatible in scale and character with surrounding properties. The guidelines, if deemed feasible, may address the following: • conservation of existing and establishment of new native vegetation and buffers; • limits on impervious surfaces; Coy • building placement, massing, and height; • enclosure of building areas below base flood elevation; and 29 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan • location and screening of parking areas, mechanical equipment, and trash receptacles. Policy Item 1.3.3: Monroe County will work with residents and neighborhood organizations to identify properties with code violations and work with owners to bring properties into compliance. Policy Item 1.3.4: Monroe County will ensure that residential design guidelines, if enacted, do not create a financial burden on property owners. Objective 1.4 Monroe County shall encourage programs and initiatives to promote the retention of existing and the creation of new businesses along the U.S. 1 Corridor that serve the local community. Policy Item 1.4.1: Monroe County will review and evaluate the land use designation of lawfully- established non - conforming non - residential land uses and structures and determine if changes in planning policy or land development regulations are appropriate to encourage rehabilitation, improvement, and modest additions. Policy Item 1.4.2: Monroe County will adopt policies to discourage the continuance of nonconforming uses determined in the review to be inappropriate for the area in which they are located. Policy Item 1.4.3: M onroe County will y 11 conduct an analysis to determine the redevelopment potential of obsolete residential and non - residential structures with U.S. 1 frontage in areas designated on the FLUM for Mixed Use Commercial development. Policy Item 1.4.4: To protect the viability of existing businesses and prevent additional strip commercial development along U.S. 1, Monroe County is encouraged to not support the designation of new commercial land use districts outside areas currently designated Mixed Use /Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Changes in the existing boundaries of the Mixed Use /Commercial land use category may only occur as part of the Community Center designation process. Policy Item 1.4.5: Monroe County is encouraged to not support the establishment of gaming facilities within the Lower Keys LCP study area. Objective 1.5 Monroe County shall conduct an evaluation to determine the extent of areas along the U.S. 1 corridor for compact mixed use development and prepare changes in policy and land development regulations to encourage appropriate investment, conserve natural areas, support businesses that serve the local community, and ensure compatibility with adjacent residential areas. L 30 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Policy Item 1.5.1: The following areas designated as Mixed Use Commercial on the FLUM may be evaluated to determine their potential for designation as Community Centers. • Lower Sugarloaf Key (MM 16 -17) • Cudjoe Key (MM 22 -23) • Summerland Key (MM 24 -25) • Ramrod Key (MM 26.5 -27.5) As part of the Community Center evaluation, Monroe County will work with residents and property owners to assess existing conditions and development potential, identify opportunities for new development and redevelopment, and define standards to ensure new development and redevelopment furthers goals for the creation of walkable, mixed use centers serving neighborhood needs. Policy Item 1.5.2: Where designation of a Community Center is deemed appropriate, Monroe County shall work with the community and FDOT to confirm the appropriateness and scheduling of capital improvements recommended in the U.S. 1 Corridor Enhancement Plan. Improvements may include land acquisition to support the creation of affordable housing, landscape and streetscape improvements in public rights - of -way, conservation of native vegetation, creation of new or improvements to existing public spaces, the removal of billboards, or the provision of public access to the water. Policy Item 1.5.3: Where designation of a Community Center is deemed appropriate, Monroe County shall amend the Land Development Code to adopt an overlay district providing standards for the following: • land uses and development intensity • affordable and workforce housing • site design, lighting, and landscaping • access and parking • pedestrian and bicycle circulation • building placement, massing, form, and scale • architectural character • outdoor storage • buffers to residential areas The amendment to the Land Development Code overlay district shall be adopted concurrently with the approval of appropriate zoning changes. L 31 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan S. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary Approximately 77% (15,778 acres) of the parcel coverage in the planning area is saltwater wetlands, freshwater wetlands, or submerged lands (water). The remaining 23% (4,643 acres) is classified as developed, uplands, or containing exotic species. The upland areas make up 2,534 acres (12 %) of the planning area and consist of hammock, pinelands, and ridge/hammock (See Section 1, Table 3). Due to the significant development restrictions associated with undisturbed wetlands, native upland communities become more vulnerable to development. The Lower Keys provides potential habitat for many endangered species including several species of turtles, the American alligator and crocodile, the Eastern indigo snake, several species of birds, the silver rice rat, the Key deer, and the Lower Keys marsh rabbit. A full list of species can be found in Section 1, Table 4 of this report. Acquisition of tropical hardwood hammock and wetlands in the area is actively ongoing. As funding allows, the State of Florida and Monroe County are actively acquiring environmentally sensitive parcels. The State of Florida has added over 6,000 parcels throughout the Keys to their priority acquisition list under the Florida Forever Program. These parcels are in the Natural Resource and Conservation areas identified as environmentally sensitive through the ROGO point system and coincide with the Tier I areas mapped through the Tier System. The Tier Lor System was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2005. Monroe County adopted the Tier System and Tier Overlay District Maps into the Land Development Regulations in March 2006. The Department of Community Affairs published final orders in June 2006, approving the ordinances. The final orders were challenged in July 2006, and the amendments, with a few modifications, came into effect on January 2, 2008. In addition to direct acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands, Monroe County has addressed their protection through numerous regulatory means including limiting clearing of habitat and requiring mitigation for removal of native plants. The Tier System is designed to continue these restrictions while simplifying the process. The improvement and maintenance of good water quality is a primary goal within the planning area as it has been throughout the Florida Keys. Establishment of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in 1990 was in large part a response to studies indicating a decline in water quality and the health of the coral reef tract along the Keys. Monroe County, in conjunction with state and federal agencies, has worked to implement programs and regulatory strategies to help improve water quality. Strategies include the adoption of master plans for sewage treatment and stormwater runoff, the elimination of illegal cesspits, improved stormwater management requirements for site development, and the planning of central wastewater collection and treatment. There are nine sanitary sewer service providers serving 15 associated service areas located Lor throughout the County. For the most part, service areas within incorporated areas coincide with the limits of incorporation. The four service areas served by regional service providers within 32 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan c ry incorporated areas include the Village of Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, City of Marathon, and the City of Key West; the City of Layton is served by FKAA. Within unincorporated Monroe County, there are five regional service providers: North Key Largo Utility Corp., Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District, Key West Resort Utilities Corp., Stock Island and FKAA. FKAA provides service to seven of the 15 service areas previously identified. Regional systems are regulated through FDEP, and are subject to the same State and Federal regulations. Because each regional service provider is accountable for compliance, responsibility for service areas within incorporated areas typically falls with the municipality they serve. With the exception of the City of Layton that is served through FKAA, each municipal and private provider is independent of one another. Analysis of Community Needs Tier System/Acquisition. Numerous parcels within Tier I lands were submitted to the State of Florida and added to the Florida Forever priority acquisition list. The County should track the State's progress in purchasing these lands within the planning area. Additionally, the County should identify Tier III -A (Special Protection Areas) lands providing green space on US -1 and elsewhere or that may be restored to enhance and expand existing habitat. Threatened and Endangered Species. The adoption of the Tier System is intended to provide for protection of habitat while streamlining the assignment of points for ROGO and directing growth to the most appropriate locations. Habitat Management. One aspect of land acquisition and habitat protection that presents a difficulty in the planning area is the management of acquired lands. Due to the proliferation of platted subdivisions and roads, acquired parcels may form a fragmented patchwork of mixed habitat and disturbed areas. These areas are difficult to manage due to increased resource and manpower requirements and the fact that access /disturbance factors are almost impossible to control in some areas. In the Florida Keys, major habitat management activities include the removal of trash and debris, the removal of invasive exotic vegetation, restoration of habitat through mainly through topographic restoration, and maintenance of parcels in an exotics -free condition. Water Quality. The County is currently addressing the impacts of development on water quality through the implementation of the wastewater and stormwater master plans for the Florida Keys. The County should track the progress of these activities and ensure timely implementation within the planning area as well as coordinating these actions with design and roadway improvements called for in the Lower Keys/US -1 Corridor Enhancement Plan. 33 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 2a Monroe County will continue to manage conservation lands, reduce exotic species, and continue natural lands acquisition for preservation in the Lower Keys. Goal 2b Monroe County will continue to develop and implement programs to improve water quality in canals and the nearshore environment. Objective 2.1 Monroe County will continue to implement the Tier System Land Use District Overlay Maps for the planning area depicting the locations of Tier I, Tier III, and Tier III -A (Special Protection Areas) lands as described in Comprehensive Plan Policy 105.2.1 Policy Item 2.1.1: Monroe County will continue to use the Tier System as the basis for setting acquisition priorities with in the planning area that considers wildlife and plant habitat and restorable area first, Policy Item 2.1.2: Monroe County will partner with neighborhood groups to identify, acquire, and manage lots and parcels in Tier I and Tier III -A (Special Protection Areas) with fragments of hammock. Objective 2.2 Monroe County shall create and implement a management strategy for County -owned acquisition lands aimed at maintaining and restoring native habitat or meeting community planning objectives. Policy Item 2.2.1: Monroe County will monitor acquired lands and provide contact information to the public in order facilitate expedient responses to complaints and property - related problems such as illegal dumping, clearing, or camping. Policy Item 2.2.2: Monroe County will establish management goals and objectives for the various types of lands inventoried and evaluated under Policy Item 2.2.1. The goals and objectives may be aimed at natural resources management, public safety (wildfire minimization), public access management, and other opportunities. I 34 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Lor Policy Item 2.2.3: Monroe County will include opportunities for habitat restoration in the land acquisition management plan. Policy Item 2.2.4: Monroe County should ensure that the design of Monroe County's facilities further site management and restoration goals. Objective 2.3 Monroe County policies and regulations shall continue to be implemented regarding the removal of exotic and invasive species and the conservation of native species. Policy Item 2.3.1: Monroe County will conduct a review of their existing policies and regulations and identify opportunities to ensure conservation of native plant species in Tier III -A (Special Protection Areas) and Tier III lands subject to development. Policy Item 2.3.2: Monroe County will expand education programs encouraging the removal of exotic and invasive species. Objective 2.4 Monroe County shall continue to ensure the implementation of the County's stormwater and wastewater master plans in order to improve water quality within the planning area. Policy Item 2.4.1: In the preparation of stormwater and wastewater plans, Monroe County shall ensure that resident's concerns regarding nearshore water quality and circulation are addressed. Policy Item 2.4.2: Monroe County shall insure that the Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan is implemented regarding the control of non -point source discharges that may affect nearshore water quality. L 35 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Car 6. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary The inventory of existing roads, bridges, and facilities for the Lower Keys (MM 14.2 -29) includes U.S. 1 and numerous County- maintained collector and local roads. U.S. 1 is a State facility functioning as a major arterial and providing direct access to numerous commercial services. Throughout the planning area, U.S. 1 is primarily a two -lane roadway with the exception of MM 24 -25 which has a center turn lane. There are 13 U.S. 1 bridges and one signalized intersection at MM 19.5 on Upper Sugarloaf Key at Crane Blvd. This road must meet State concurrency requirements for traffic LOS C. The Florida Keys concurrency standard is speed -based rather than volume based and requires that, at a minimum, an overall average speed of 45 miles per hour (mph) be maintained over the entire length of the island chain (from MM 112.5 to MM 4 on Stock Island) and that any individual segment (24 total) not fall below 45 mph average speed. Any reserve speed (difference between median speed and the LOS C standard) is used to calculate additional roadway capacity and correspondingly additional development along those segments. There are six segments in the Lower Keys CommuniKeys Planning Area (from mile marker14.2 to mile marker 29). Segment 4: Saddlebunch, Mile Markers 10.5 -16.5 Segment 5: Sugarloaf, Mile Markers 16.5 -20.5 L Segment 6: Cudjoe, Mike Markers 20.5 -23.0 Segment 7: Summerland (23.0 -25.0) Segment 8: Ramrod, Mile Markers 25.0 -27.5 Segment 9: Torch, Mile Markers 27.5 -29.5 The 2011 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, prepared by URS Corporation Southern, indicate Segments 4 through 8 has a LOS B and Segment 9 is a LOS A. Compared to last year (2010) study results, Segments 4 and 5 resulted in positive LOS changes, increasing from a LOS C to a LOS B. Monroe County maintains 100.35 miles of roads and seven bridges between MM 14.2 -29. These include both collector and local roads which must meet a LOS D established by the County's Land Development Regulations. The County's Seven Year Roadway and Bicycle Plan identifies a number of paving projects for many of the roads within the planning area, as well as paving of several bicycle paths in Summerland Key. • There is bus service provided by the Lower Keys shuttle which runs from Key West to Marathon. The City of Key West Department of Transportation (KWDOT) which operates: o Key West Transit (KWT) with four fixed -route bus routes serving the City of Key West and Stock Island; o The Lower Keys Shuttle providing service in the southern portion of the County from kbor the City of Marathon to the City of Key West; and o The Key West Park -N -Ride at The Old Town Garage. 36 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan ( IN0 The shuttle connects with Dade - Monroe Express in Marathon to provide p e bus service from Key West to Florida City (mainland Miami). Scheduled stops within the planning area are in Bay Point, Sugarloaf, Cudjoe Key, and Summerland Key. There is also one bus stop on Ramrod and one on Little Torch Key. Ridership data has not been analyzed. Sidewalks and curb ramps are infrequent along U.S. 1 in the planning area. The Overseas Heritage Trail (OHT) which runs parallel to U.S. 1 throughout most of the Keys, is yet to be completed in the planning area. This is a limiting factor for both pedestrian and bicycle activity in the Lower Keys (MM 14.2 -29). A small portion of the OHT has been competed at the southern end of the planning area on Saddlebunch Key. Construction of the remainder of the trail from MM 16.5 — 29.9 is scheduled for construction in late 2011.. The following historic bridges have been reconstructed to be used as part of the OHT: Park Channel Bridge at MM 18.7, Bow Channel Historic Bridge at MM 20.2, Lower Sugarloaf Bridge at MM 15.5. Kemp Channel Bridge at MM 23.6, and South Pine Channel Bridge at MM 29 are scheduled to be renovated in 2012. . Concurrent to the Lower Keys LCP, the County contracted with Carter- Burgess, Inc. to prepare the U.S. 1 Corridor Enhancement Plan. The US -1 Corridor Enhancement Plan encompasses the same study boundaries as the Lower Keys LCP and examines opportunities for establishing a consistent look and feel for US -1 in each community. Specific issues addressed in this study include bicycle and pedestrian needs and safety, roadway conditions, better defined vehicular access areas, traffic flow, maintenance of or absence of landscaping, quality of the built environment and the scale of development. Analysis of Community Needs Much of the community's discussions on transportation needs were related to improving the US- 1 corridor in the planning area. The comments focused on additional bus stops, bus shelters, turn and merge lanes, repaving, and completion of the OHT. These issues are addressed in depth in the U.S. 1 Corridor Enhancement Plan as indicated above. Beyond the U.S. 1 corridor, community members expressed interest in increasing the number of designated bike routes along collector roads and the provision of bus service and shelters along select collector roads. There were no specifics discussions regarding where these services would be appropriate. Residents of the Torch Keys have indicated they do not want any additional signs or improvements that would increase non local vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic into their community. The Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association has asked for right and left acceleration lanes at the intersection of Sugarloaf Boulevard and US 1. They also asked for this intersection be made a "T" instead of a four way intersection. Maintenance of safety is very important to the Sugarloaf Shores HOA and these issues are recommended to be considered by the Florida DOT when developing US -1 corridor improvement plans. L 37 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan c or Goals, Objectives, and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint /Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 3 Monroe County shall encourage multi -modal transportation opportunities and implement programs specifically designed for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians along the U.S. 1 corridor and selected collector roads in the Lower Keys. Objective 3.1 Monroe County will review engineering and design efforts to implement projects proposed by FDEP and FDOT within the Overseas Heritage Trail and U.S. 1 Corridor. Policy Item 3.1.1: Monroe County should refer to the recommendations in the Lower Keys US -1 Corridor Enhancement Plan when reviewing proposed FDOT improvements located within the U.S. 1 Corridor. Policy Item 3.1.2: Monroe County should refer to the recommendations in the Overseas Heritage Trail Master Plan when reviewing proposed FDEP Greenways and Trails improvements located within the U.S. 1 Corridor. Objective 3.2 Monroe County shall explore the feasibility of providing public transportation along collector roadways within the Lower Keys planning area (MM 14.2 -29). Policy Item 3.2.1: Monroe County will work with Key West Transit Authority to determine potential ridership and economic viability of increasing or reducing the service area of the Lower Keys Shuttle to include select collector roadways within the Lower Keys planning area (MM 14.2 -29) Objective 3.3 Monroe County shall continue to improve the bicycle /pedestrian environment on local and collector roads in accordance with the community's desires, the County Bicycle- Pedestrian Master Plan and the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail Master Plan.. Policy Item 3.3.1: Monroe County will work with the Lower Keys residents to identify, develop, and seek funding for bicycle /pedestrian routes to link residential areas to parks, (a. schools, and commercial areas. 38 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 7. HOUSING ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary The Lower Keys planning area has experienced an increase of 1352 housing units between 2000 and 2010, according to the US Census. This represents a 34% increase, more than twice the percent increase experienced countywide during the same time period. As these statistics indicate, the planning area has seen significant housing growth. Much of the increase results from the continuing build out of existing improved subdivisions. According to the County's population projections, this rate is expected to continue. Eventually, it is expected that the pace of infill development will slow as the inventory of vacant lots declines, with units created through redevelopment representing an increasingly greater share of total development activity. Owner - occupied and vacant housing units accounted for the bulk of the new units added in the planning area. According to the Census only 108 rental units were added to the inventory between 1990 and 2000. The percentage of overall vacant housing in the Lower Keys has increased by 45% as compared to 31% countywide. Of the vacant housing found in the planning area, the largest percentage was attributed to seasonal residences. The US Census Bureau classifies seasonal residences under vacant housing since a primary residence is being counted as occupied elsewhere. As a percent of total vacant housing, seasonal housing stayed the same during the ten year period while the County saw an increase of 13% (see Table 7). L 39 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Table 7 - Lower g Keys Housing Units 1990 -2000 Lower Keys (Census Tracts 9715 and 9716) Monroe County 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change 1990- 1990 - Number Percent Number Percent 2000 Number Percent Number Percent 2000 Total Housing Units 3,592 na 4,532 na 26% 46,215 na 51,617 na 12% Occupied Housing Units 2,512 100% 2,963 100% 18% 46,312 100% 48,272 100% 4% Owner occupied 1,961 78% 2,378 80% 21% 33,583 73% 35,086 73% 4% Renter occupied 551 22% 585 20% 6% 12,729 27% 13,186 27% 4% Vacant Housing Units 1,080 100% 1,569 100% 45% 12,632 100% 16,531 100% 31% For rent 80 7% 154 10% 93% 2,010 16% 1,663 10% -17% For sale 104 10% 90 6% -13% 943 7% 759 5% -20% Not occupied 73 7% 34 2% -53% 560 4% 304 2% -46% Seasonal 740 69% 1,082 69% 46% 7,928 63% 12,638 76% 59% Other 83 8% 207 13% 149% 1,191 9% 1,177 7% -1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 Due to the limitation on the amount of growth the County could absorb based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, on June 23, 1992, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016 -1992, creating the Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System, known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. ROGO was developed as a response to the inability of the road network to accommodate a large -scale hurricane evacuation in a timely fashion. It is used as a tool to equitably distribute the remaining number of permits available both geographically and over time. ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys (the Keys) within 24 hours. The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12 -month period beginning on July 13, 1992, (the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one -year periods. The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has been controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 016 - 1992). 40 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan The BOCC adopted Ordinance 09 -2006 which revised ROGO _ p OGO and adopted Ordinance 11 2006 which revised NROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive point system. The Tier System changed the service areas (or subareas boundaries) mentioned in the Introduction. The boundaries are the basis for the scoring of NROGO and ROGO applications and administrative relief The ROGO subareas are the Lower Keys, Upper Keys, and Big Pine / No Name Keys. The NROGO subareas are 1) Big Pine / No Name Keys and 2) the remainder of unincorporated Monroe County. The residential ROGO allocations (LDR, Section 138 -24) break down the number of available dwelling units per year, per subarea. Table 8 - Lower Keys ROGO Allocations Subarea Number of Allocations Market Rate Upper Keys 61 Lower Keys 57 Big Pine Key & No Name Key 8 Total Market Rate 126 (00 Affordable Big Pine / No Name Keys Very low, Low & Median income 1 Moderate Income 1 The remainder of unincorporated Monroe County Very low, Low & Median income 35 Moderate Income 34 Total Affordable 71 Overall Total Per Year 197 Affordability of housing for working residents in the Florida Keys has received significant attention in the last few years. Monroe County's comprehensive plan and land development regulations have defined affordable housing and provided some incentives for its development. These regulations were aimed at providing housing for lower wage earners such as service workers, unskilled laborers, minimum wage earners and single -earner households. The annual income for these workers has historically met the criteria to allow them to qualify for affordable housing as defined in the MCC. The most that a single household can earn and still qualify for affordable housing is 120% of the county's median monthly household income. irr 41 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Housing availability for workers earning more than 120% of the e median county income has been decreasing steadily over the last few years. Households edging out of the affordable category include professional salaried workers, skilled workers /tradesmen and two - income households. With the recent rapid changes in the real estate values in the Florida Keys the typical dry -lot single family home often purchased by this group is now out of their projected affordable price range based on income. The availability of moderately low mortgage interest rates especially over the past few years and the controlled allocation of permits for new residential units in the Keys have combined to make house prices increase at alarming rates. The recent downturn in the economy has resulted in an increase in unemployment and a decrease in the availability of mortgage loans. It is clear that household income for the "workforce" group has not experienced a concurrent increase at a rate sufficient to qualify them for basic housing, even with the lower interest rates. The availability of 100% financing, no down payment, and other such options available in this volatile market make for an unstable situation for these families even if they qualify. Units qualifying as "affordable" under the MCC must meet regulations listed under Section 9.5- 266 and other sections of the MCC. Not the least of these regulations is the requirement for the affordable unit to remain affordable for at least 99 years restrictive from the time it is established. The term "workforce housing" is commonly used to refer to housing units that employees working in Monroe County could qualify to purchase or those units which are currently owned by members of the County's workforce. The market -rate housing that the existing workforce has been utilizing has no such restrictions and is now being lost. Units that were purchased by members of the workforce prior to the dramatic increase in housing prices are being sold at the highest possible market price. Houses sold at the highest market price will not likely be available to new members of the workforce who may not be able to purchase the unit at the higher market price. Analysis of Community Needs Creation of Affordable Housing. Virtually all of the housing units owned or rented by the resident workforce in the Lower Keys are not deed - restricted affordable housing. Consequently as housing values have increased in recent years, the stock of housing affordable to lower or moderate income residents has declined. In addition, a number of previously affordable units, such as mobile homes, have been demolished and replaced with new market rate housing. To ensure the availability of housing for the resident workforce in March of 2006 the County passed Ordinance No. 009 -2006. The Ordinance limits affordable /workforce housing to Tier III properties, expands the covenant for housing to remain affordable at least 99 years, and provides incentive for affordable /workforce housing through ROGO. 42 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 4 Monroe County shall pursue locations, solutions, and partnerships to establish an affordable housing base for the Lower Keys residents and workers, while also ensuring compatibility between new and existing residential development. Objective 4.1 Monroe County shall promote the preservation and improvement of the existing stock of affordable housing in the Lower Keys LCP planning area. Policy Item 4.1.1: Monroe County will conduct an inventory of the existing deed restricted affordable and workforce housing stock within the Lower Keys planning area (MM 14.2 -29), including government housing, units that are legally bound to affordable standards, neighborhoods and developments that have traditionally housed workers, and employee housing (both on and off employer premises). Objective 4.2 Monroe County shall encourage affordable and workforce housing in areas identified appropriate for higher intensity commercial, mixed -use, and residential development. Policy Item 4.2.1: Monroe County will evaluate the effectiveness for existing affordable housing incentives and identify, if appropriate, revising or creating new incentives to promote the development of affordable and workforce housing. Policy Item 4.2.2: Monroe County will conduct an analysis to identify sites for affordable and workforce housing in areas identified in the FLUM as residential high and mixed - use /commercial land use. Policy Item 4.2.3: Monroe County will consider, as part of the Community Center designation process, the provision of affordable housing as part of mixed use development. Policy Item 4.2.4: Monroe County is encouraged to require new developments in areas designated for higher density mixed use development to supply or fund employee, affordable and workforce housing in return for receiving new dwelling unit or commercial floor space allocations. 43 January 1011 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 8. PUBLIC UTILITIES /SERVICES ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary Potable Water. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in Monroe County. FKAA's primary water supply is the Biscayne Aquifer, a shallow groundwater source. The FKAA's wellfield is located in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in south Miami -Dade County. The FKAA's wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater in the State, meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Laws protect the wellfield from potential contamination from adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality standards and requirements. The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the FKAA's Water Treatment Facility in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8 million gallons per day (MGD). The primary water treatment process is a conventional lime softening/filtration water treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer. The secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment plant and is capable of producing 6 MGD from the brackish Floridan Aquifer. This RO water treatment system is designed to withdraw brackish water from the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source, which is approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treated L to drinking water standards. The new RO water treatment plant provides added capability to limit Biscayne aquifer withdrawals and is designed to meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment system provides an additional 6.0 MGD of potable water. The product water from these treatment processes is then disinfected and fluoridated. The FKAA treated water is pumped 130 miles from Florida City to Key West supplying water to the entire Florida Keys. Including overlapping coverage, the FKAA maintains 187 miles of transmission main at a maximum pressure of 250 pounds per square inch. The transmission pipeline varies in diameter from 36 inches to 12 inches. The FKAA distributes the treated water through 690 miles of distribution piping ranging in size from % -inch to 12 inches in diameter. There are two saltwater RO water treatment systems in Monroe County. One is in Marathon and the other is in Stock Island. Both are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalinization plants have design capacities of 2.0 and 2.0 MGD of water respectively. The annual average daily demand is 16.21 MGD and thee maximum monthly water demand in Monroe County is 533.26 MG which occurred in April of 2010. Preliminary figures and projections for 2011 indicate a slight increase to an annual average daily demand to 16.54 MGD and an increase in maximum monthly demand to 563.33 MG as compared to 2010 figures. FKAA has a 20 -year Water System Capital Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water treatment, transmission mains and booster pump stations, distribution mains, facilities and L ow structures, information technology, reclaimed water systems, and Navy water systems. 44 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan In 1989, FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program to replace approximately 190 miles of galvanized lines throughout the Keys. FKAA continues to replace and upgrade its distribution system throughout the Florida Keys and the schedule for these upgrades is reflected in their long -range capital improvement plan. The FKAA's Water Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of approximately 38,240 feet of water main during fiscal year 2011. Sanitary Sewer. The sustainability of the marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys (the "Keys ") is dependent upon clear water with low nutrient loading. Treatment of sewage and the disposal of wastewater within the County historically have been accomplished through septic tanks, on -site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), and small to intermediate sized privately -owned wastewater treatment package plants. With expansion and growth, regional systems consisting of treatment plants and centralized sewer have been built providing a greater level of collection and treatment. Several sewer districts, both private and municipal, have been formed to service more densely populated areas. Notwithstanding the above accomplishments, the Keys face the challenge of obtaining adequate funding sources to implement the extent of regional systems required to meet guidelines established by State and federal mandates. To further complicate the issue, in more sparsely populated areas, advanced methods of treatment are not generally economically feasible. Regulatory pressure and the implementation of numeric nutrient criteria increase the complexity of providing proper treatment of sewage. Current wastewater treatment practices, combined with severely limited soils and high land use densities result in increased potential for ground and L surface water contamination. The treatment of sewage and the disposal of wastewater within the planning area have historically been accomplished either through on -site treatment and disposal using septic tanks and drain fields or through intermediate sized, privately -owned wastewater treatment package plants. The Comprehensive Plan requires that sewage treatment in the Florida Keys meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) criteria in the Keys by 2010. In December 12, 1995, the Administration Commission found the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan not in compliance and ordered facilitated rulemaking/mediation to address outstanding issues. In July 1997, the Administration Commission proposed Rule 28- 20.100, F.A.C., which introduced the concept of the Work Program requiring the following activities as it relates to wastewater: • Continued construction of wastewater facilities in hot spots begun in previous year. • Design and construction of additional wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with the schedule of a wastewater master plan. • Implementation of the FKCCS to establish development standards ensuring that all new development not exceed the capacity the ecosystem's ability to sustain impacts. • Complete elimination of cesspits. • Complete central wastewater facilities by July 1, 2010. Nor In April 2010, the Florida Senate and House approved SB 2018 extending the deadline for compliance to the end of 2015, and postponing fines and potential liens against property owners. 45 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan In addition, the bill authorized $200 million of State funding for improvements; however, the source of funding remains unresolved. Meeting the 2015 extension requires a detailed financial plan to implement necessary plant and infrastructure improvements. The funding gap, which has already stretched the County's capacity for debt service, continues to broaden due to a delayed revenue stream resulting from delays in design and construction of new systems. Subsidizing costs is consistent with County's policy. Detailed construction plans must be complete and ready when future funding becomes available. Solid Waste. In 1990 Monroe County entered into an agreement with Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) to transport solid waste out of the County to the contractor's private landfill in Broward County, Florida Monroe County has continued to contract with Waste Management (WMI). The contract authorizes the use of in -state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately five (5) years of guaranteed capacity. Analysis shows that there is adequate capacity for solid waste generation through 2012. Solid waste is collected by franchise and taken to the three historic landfill sites, which serve as transfer facilities. At the transfer stations, the waste is compacted and loaded on Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) trucks for haul out. Recyclable materials, including white goods, tires, glass, aluminum, plastic bottles and newspaper are included as part of the solid waste haul out contract. A recent (2009) amendment to the contract includes WMI and the County's commitment to increase the annual recycling rate to 40 percent by 2014. The historical solid waste generation values for Monroe County show a steady increase of total solid waste generation between the years 1998 -2001. During the period 2002 - 2006, the County's solid waste generation was significantly higher. These higher values do not correspond to normal solid waste generation trends within the County and in actuality result from a cluster of outliers. The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions (greater consumption of goods and services) and storm events that cause a significant amount of over generation due to debris. Furthermore, during the period of 2007 -2008, an economic recession affected solid waste generation, significantly reducing standard trends for generation growth. Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 5.44 pounds per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) and establishes a haul out capacity of 95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs. The Comprehensive plan requires sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of three years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development of use. The Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC), in compliance with State concurrency requirements, require that, "...sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least three years from the projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (LDC, Section 114- 2(a)(2)). This regulation went into effect on February 28, 1988, and serves as a level of service (LOS) standard for solid waste disposal. 46 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan The LDC also requires that solid waste management plans be completed p pleted before any proposed development of a Major Conditional Use is reviewed by the Growth Management Department. Solid waste generation rates and capacity assessments must be submitted for review and coordination with the Public Works Division. Fire and Rescue Services Public safety facilities include the typical services needed for community protection and safety. The following services are provided: • Sheriff. The County Sheriffs Office provides Law Enforcement service to all of the Florida Keys. According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) 2010 Total Crime Index, the reported annual crime rate decreased in the Florida Keys between 2009 and 2010 by 6.2 %. Table 9 - Crime in Florida - Monroe County Sumrnar\ of UCR Data County 2009 2010 % Change Population 77,925 76,887 -1.3 Total Arrests 6,801 6,672 -1.9 Total Index Offenses 4,445 4,115 -7.4 Violent Rate 531.3 442.2 -17.0 Non - Violent Rate 5,172.9 4,909.8 -5.1 Index Rate 5,704.2 5,352.0 -6.2 http://www.fdle.state.fl.us • Fire Service. Volunteer Fire Rescue Stations #10, #11, and #13 serve the planning area. Station #10 is located on Sugarloaf Key at MM 17. Station #11 is located at MM 20 on Cudjoe Key and Station #13 is located MM 30.5 on Big Pine Key. Monroe County Fire Rescue indicated they were adding new fire wells throughout the County including three or four in the planning area. • Emergency Management Services (EMS). Monroe County's EMS Department serves as the central public information source for any planning area emergency and acts as coordinator in disaster situations. One major function of EMS is hurricane preparedness and emergency evacuation of residents. EMS has designated the Lower Keys as Evacuation Zone #2. Sugarloaf School serves as the emergency evacuation shelter for Category 1 and 2 storms. L 47 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan C . Schools The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools located throughout the Keys. School Board data includes both unincorporated and incorporated Monroe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three middle /elementary schools, and six elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer labs, bus service and a cafetorium that serves as both a cafeteria and an auditorium. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. The Monroe County school system is divided into three (3) sub - districts. Sub - district 3 covers the Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school (Key West High), one middle school (Horace O'Bryant Middle School), one elementary /middle school (Sugarloaf School), and five elementary schools (Gerald Adams Elementary, Glenn Archer Elementary, Poinciana Elementary, Montessori Elementary School, and Sigsbee Elementary School). Table 10 —Lower Keys Schools ACTUAL ACTUAL LOWER KEYS 2010 -2011 2010 -2011 2014 -2015 SCHOOLS 2009 -2010 (From Bahia Honda to CLASSROOM FULLTIME UTILIZATIO FULLTIME Key West) CAPACITY STUDENTS N PROJECTION KEY WEST SENIOR 1,431 1,338 94.00 1,338 HIGH HORACE O'BRYANT 1,038 707 68.00 964 MIDDLE GERALD ADAMS 652 441 68.00% 440 GLYNN ARCHER ELEMENTARY 598 257 43.00% 0 POINCIANA ELEMENTARY 641 612 95.00% 611 SIGSBEE ELEMENTARY 522 228 44.00% 0 SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY 1,215 745 61.00% 740 MONTESSORI ELEMENTARY 90 90 100.00% 140 TOTAL 6,187 4,418 71.41% 4,233 During the 2009 -2010 school year, the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate for the Lower Keys was 6,187 students and the Capital Outlay of Full -Time Equivalent (COFTE) was 4,418. In the Lower Keys, the projected growth utilization rate for the years 2014 -2015 is 4.20 %. Enrollment figures for the 2010 -2011 through 2014 -2015 school years indicate there is adequate capacity for the Lower Keys Monroe County school system. Residents have indicated 48 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan that it is imperative that underutilized school facilities be made more available for community use. Analysis of Community Needs A review of the existing Lower Keys planning area conditions and the 2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment report identifies the following trends: • Enrollment figures for the 2010 -2011 through 2014 -2015 school years indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. Including the private Montessori Charter School, the overall 2010 -2011 utilization is 71.41% of the school system capacity. • The 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year through the twenty year planning horizon. • A public sanitary sewer system will continue to be needed and is included in the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. • The Fire Marshall identified the need for additional staff and the potential for upgrading the Cudjoe fire station facility sometime in the future. I , • Funding is needed to repair and upgrade the Sugarloaf Volunteer Fire Station. to, 49 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint /Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 5 Monroe County shall provide adequate public facilities to serve existing and future needs of the Lower Keys planning area while promoting conservation measures where appropriate. Objective 5.1 Monroe County shall implement the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Policy Item 5.1.1: Monroe County shall install a sanitary sewage treatment system in accordance with the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Components may include centralized or cluster facilities for collection and treatment. Efforts should be made to ensure that these facilities be developed on disturbed and /or scarified uplands or 4 1lior in existing rights -of -way. Policy Item 5.1.2: Monroe County shall confirm that the projected sewage treatment requirements for the planning area are consistent with the final development plan adopted pursuant to the Master Plan. Objective 5.2 Monroe County shall ensure the provisions of the Stormwater Master Plan are implemented and enforced for existing storm water management and improve upon systems where necessary, including canals. Policy Item 5.2.1: Monroe County will implement stormwater treatment systems in accordance with the Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Any facilities installed for centralized collection and treatment should be developed on disturbed and /or scarified uplands or in existing rights -of -way. Objective 5.3 Monroe County shall investigate and encourage programs to promote water reuse, water conservation, and solid waste clean -up and recycling programs within the planning area Policy Item 5.3.1: Monroe County shall continue to provide programs to promote water reuse, water conservation, solid waste clean -up, and recycling opportunities within the Lower Keys LCP planning area. 50 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan L Policy Item 5.3.2: Monroe County will seek funding to educate and create new programs, where appropriate, to encourage water reuse, water conservation, solid waste clean -up, and recycling opportunities within the Lower Keys LCP. Objective 5.4 As part of the development and redevelopment efforts in the planning area, Monroe County shall ensure that fire suppression facilities meet the standards set by the Monroe County Fire Marshall. Policy Item 5.4.1: Monroe County will identify priority fire safety needs based on the Monroe County Fire Rescue Services assessment report and work with the FKAA to include priority areas into their work plan. cor L 51 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 9. RECREATION ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary County -owned conservation lands have been acquired over the years through land purchases by the Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA), land purchases by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), and the dedication of ROGO lots to the BOCC. These properties are located throughout the Keys, are undeveloped, and generally have parcel sizes of one acre or less. In many cases they are near or adjacent to larger conservation properties owned by the State or federal government. Many of the properties originally acquired by MCLA and the BOCC have been conveyed to the State or federal government. As of September 30, 2010, the inventory of conservation lands in Monroe County titled in either MCLA or the BOCC totaled approximately 1,400 acres. Resource -based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources and cannot always be near population centers. Therefore, when determining the Level of Service (LOS) for this type of facilities, Monroe County includes the entire unincorporated County for this calculation. The activity -based recreational facilities that are inventoried include facilities and activities such as baseball /softball, football/soccer, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic tables and picnic tr pavilions, volleyball courts, handball /racquetball courts, equipped play areas, multi -use areas, benches, tracks, piers, bike paths, boat ramps, fishing, swimming, swimming pools, barbeque grills, shuffleboard courts, beaches and restrooms. Additionally, other recreation uses and facilities are indicated such as historic structures, bandshells, dog parks, skateboard facilities, aquatic parks, museums, and concessions. Cr 52 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan (11w, Table 11 - Recreation Facilities in Lower Keys PARK NAME KEY MILE TOTAL ACTIVITIES LOCATION MARKER ACRES National Key Big Pine to 15 to 30 9,200 Nature Trail, Deer Wildlife Sugarloaf Visitor's Center Refuge Great White Big Pine Key to 20 7,600 Beach, Great Heron National Key West White Heron & Wildlife Refuge Other Birds' Habitat, Fishing Bay Point Park Saddlebunch Key 15 1.58 Play Equipment, Volleyball, Picnic Tables, Trail, Basketball, 2 Tennis Courts, Pavilions, Soccer Nets Ramrod Key Park Ramrod Key 27 2.4 Beach, Swimming L Public Boat Ramp Little Torch Key 28.5 0.1 Boat Ramp Sugarloaf Key Sugarloaf 19.5 37 2 Elementary /Middle Baseball /Softball School* Fields, play equipment, 3 Public Boat Ramp W. Summerland 25 Public Boat Ramp Key Public Boat Ramp Little Torch Key Public Boat Ramp Public Boat Ramp Cudjoe Key 21.2 Public Boat Ramp The County Comprehensive Plan establishes level of service standards (LOS) for parks and recreation facilities to ensure there are adequate facilities to support existing and future populations. These standards are listed in the Comprehensive Plan and represent the minimum amount of recreation areas /facilities that should be provided by the County. The standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1000 people. This is divided equally between resource -based and activity -based recreation with each having a required LOS of 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population. The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity -based recreational land found at educational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. As of May 2011, a total of 98.98 acres of developed resourced -based and 118.25 acres of activity -based recreation areas either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board. 53 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan C ar Analysis of Community Needs Community input suggested that there was a desire to improve and better manage the recreational resources available to the residents. Participants in public workshops expressed a desire to be involved in decisions regarding the improvements and acquisitions in their neighborhoods and Keys. For example, many Torch Key residents said they do not want signs directing to people to existing recreation areas or improvements to these areas that might draw nonresidents to their neighborhood. The Overseas Heritage Trail was a frequent topic of discussion and a much awaited and desired amenity (addressed in the Transportation Element). Improved access to conservation lands with possible boardwalks and walking trails were suggested, where appropriate. However it was noted that many of these areas may not be appropriate for public access and further evaluation as to what is allowed on these lands should be undertaken before encouraging use of these resources. Swimming access, roadside parking, and additional neighborhood parks were also desired by many residents. (lbw ( lbw 54 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 6 Monroe County shall maintain existing recreational facilities, seek opportunities for active and passive land -based recreation, and expand public shoreline access for water -based recreational activities within the Lower Keys community. Objective 6.1 Monroe County shall improve existing recreational facilities in need of maintenance throughout the Lower Keys planning area. Policy Item 6.1.1: Monroe County will implement the parks and recreation recommendations of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan within the planning area (lior including improvements on undeveloped county owned recreation lands. Policy Item 6.1.2: Monroe County will identify and utilize available resources and potential funding opportunities for capital improvement projects to enhance parks and recreation facilities, services, and operational support. Policy Item 6.1.3: Monroe County will advocate responsible stewardship of natural resources through the development of an interpretive education program within active recreational areas. Policy Item 6.1.4: Monroe County will coordinate with State and Federal agencies, non- profit organizations, as well as other private and public entities to ensure that active recreational opportunities are being provided to all users, in conformance with standards adopted by the American Disabilities Act. Objective 6.2 Monroe County shall work with communities who desire neighborhood parks and recreational opportunities to encourage the acquisition of appropriate parcels. Policy Item 6.2.1: Monroe County will identify locations and prioritize land acquisition for small local parks in neighborhoods, which do not have, but desire public recreational facilities in their communities. 1 55 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Objective 6.3 Monroe County shall promote the use of existing and future conservation areas to provide passive recreational opportunities, while remaining sensitive to the natural resources and residential character of the Lower Keys LCP planning area. Policy Item 6.3.1: Monroe County will identify conservation areas appropriate for quality passive recreational activities where consistent with overarching environmental conservation responsibilities. Policy Item 6.3.2: Monroe County will prioritize future acquisition of conservation lands to maximize the preservation of scenic vistas, undeveloped views. Policy Item 6.3.3: Monroe County will identify and provide trail systems that connect existing and future conservation areas to the greatest extent practical. Policy Item 6.3.4: Monroe County will, where appropriate, design and establish trail improvements to blend with the natural environment while incorporating best management practice to protect the natural resources. Policy Item 6.3.5: Monroe County will work with interested residents to provide low - impact amenities at public access points within their neighborhoods or Keys. IL Policy Item 6.3.6: Monroe County will advocate responsible stewardship of natural resources through the development of an interpretive education program within conservation areas. Objective 6.4 Monroe County shall increase public shoreline access which offers opportunities for safe and diverse water -based activities while protecting the integrity of the natural environment and the community's residential character. Policy Item 6.4.1: Monroe County will conduct a study to identify potential shoreline access points and parcels within the planning area. Policy Item 6.4.2: Monroe County will prioritize the acquisition of recreational lands, with shoreline access given a priority between MM 14.2 and MM 29. Policy Item 6.4.3 Monroe County will coordinate work and activity with other agencies and groups, including but not limited to the Florida Keys Overseas Paddling Trail Program, Monroe County Marine Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and the DEP Division of Recreation and Parks, to further ensure harmony and consistency with the overall IL protection and preservation of beaches and shoreline within the county. 56 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan O Policy Item 6.4.4: Monroe County will work with the private sector to acquire, maintain and improve shoreline access for the public. Policy Item 6.4.5: Monroe County will implement appropriate mechanisms for regulating boating activities located within 300 feet of county owned public land with shoreline access in order to provide appropriate location for diverse water -based recreation activities and to ensure public safety and environmental protection. IL 57 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS Current Conditions Summary The Lower Keys LCP process included extensive public involvement through public notices, e- mail, County website, interviews, press releases and workshops. Many of the ideas expressed and the resulting goals formulated will take continued direct involvement from the community to be implemented. Analysis of Community Needs Continued community involvement is needed to update and implement the plan. Input from the community will be needed during future study and design efforts and direct partnering with the community may be needed to implement some identified policy items. 58 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 7 Monroe County shall continue to support and encourage citizen involvement and monitoring of the Lower Keys LCP. Objective 7.1 Monroe County shall provide updates to the community on all aspects of the Lower Keys LCP implementation and the status of public projects in the planning area. Policy Item 7.1.1: Monroe County will continue to distribute information through press releases, e-mail and the postings on the County web site regarding status of the Lower Keys LCP and upcoming meetings for relevant community topics. Policy Item 7.1.2: Monroe County will continue to provide speakers to civic and service organizations to discuss the Lower Keys LCP issues. Objective 7.2 Monroe County shall establish a committee to advise the Planning Commission on project proposals within the Lower Keys LCP planning area, especially on the US -1 corridor. Policy Item 7.2.1: A Lower Keys LCP advisory committee shall be formed consisting of five to seven members to include representatives from the business community, the general citizenry, and design professionals to serve as volunteers reviewing and commenting on plans for projects and improvements within the planning area and to implement the draft Lower Keys US -1 Corridor Enhancement Plan. 1 59 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 10. IMPLEMENTA HON The implementation of the Lower Keys LCP will require the commitment and continuous attention of the County and the Lower Keys community. Implementation can be separated into the following three categories: Update, Continue, and Enforce Existing Policies and Regulations. Throughout the Lower Keys LCP, a number of objectives and policies identify the need for updating, continuing, or enforcing existing County policies and regulations. These activities should occur on an ongoing basis as part of the County's regular processes and procedures. They do not require additional studies to be implemented and can occur with little or no change to existing procedures. Implementation of these objective and policy recommendations is ongoing. Conduct Specific Analysis and Studies. Additionally, a series of policies in the plan identify the need for further evaluation, analysis, or studies. These activities may be conducted by County staff or outside consultants, depending on the areas of expertise and availability of funds for such work. Wherever possible these activities should be completed within one to three years from adoption of the Lower Keys LCP as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan t or Implement Master Plan and Studies. Finally, there are policy statements within the Lower Keys LCP which require implementation of existing or pending master plans or plans resulting from studies and analysis identified in other policy statements within the document. These policies should be implemented as indicated in their respective reports or within three years of completion of any identified studies or analysis. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Appendix F is a table that summarizes the issues raised at the September 20, 2010 Public Workshop, with staff recommended solutions that address each issue. This will serve as a reference for a follow up public workshop to be held on November 2, 2011 at the Sugarloaf Volunteer Fire Department. FINAL REVIEW PROCESS Following the November 2, 2011 Public Workshop, the final draft of the Lower Keys LCP will be scheduled for review by the Monroe County Development Review Committee. This will be followed by a public hearing to be conducted by the Monroe County Planning Commission, who will make a recommendation to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC will hold a public hearing to recommend transmitting the Lower Keys LCP to the State Land Planning Agency. The State Land Planning Agency then prepares an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report to Monroe County that identifies any conflicts with significant State facilities, resources, or statutory requirements. The BOCC then holds an adoption hearing following the receipt of the ORC report. The Lower Keys LCP with then be IL, incorporated into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by reference, having the full legal standing of the comprehensive plan. 60 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 12. APPENDIX A. Goals, Objectives, and Policies by Island Subarea, Page A -1 B. Lower Keys Workshop 1— Results of SWOT Voting, November 14, 2006, Page A -7 C. Draft Vision Statement and Comment, December 12, 2006, Page A -9 D. Goal Exercise Workshop 2, Page A -10 E. Results of Individual Community Workshops, January — February, 2007, Page A -12 F. Public Workshop Comments, September 28, 2010, Page A -17 G. Recommended Actions to Address Public Workshop Comments, Page A -22 H. Public Workshop Comments, November 2, 2011, Page A -42 Appendices A through H are an important part of this Plan. They define each of the Plan's segments in more detail. They point out the similarities and differences of each community. These Appendices, together with the Goals, Objectives and Policies, define the community vision for the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan. The Lower Keys LCP community has expressed the need to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has consequently identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Cudjoe, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs; however, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Keys LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. A4 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan III Appendix A Goals, Objectives and Policies by Subarea Future Land Use Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal1 X X X X X X Objective 1.1 X X X X X X Policy 1.1.1 X X X X Policy 1.1.2 X X X X Policy 1.1.3 X X X X Policy 1.1.4 X X X X X X Policy 1.1.5 X X X X X X Objective 1.2 X X X X X X Policy 1.2.1 X X X X X X Policy 1.2.2 X X X X X X Objective 1.3 X X X X X X Policy 1.3.1 X X X X X X IL, Policy 1.3.2 X X X X X X Policy 1.3.3 X X X X X X Objective 1.4 X X X X Policy 1.4.1 X X X Policy 1.4.2 X X X Policy 1.4.3 X X X Policy 1.4.4 X X X Objective 1.5 X X X Policy 1.5.1 X X X Policy 1.5.2 X X X Policy 1.5.3 X X X (iv A -2 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan III Goals, Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Conservation and Coastal Management Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal 2a X X X X X X Goal 2b X X X X X X Objective 2.1 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.1 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.2 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.3 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.4 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.5 X X X X X X Objective 2.2 X X X X X X Policy 2.2.1 X X X X X X Policy 2.2.2 X X X X X X Policy 2.2.3 X X X X X X IL Policy 2.2.4 X X X X X X O bjective 2.3 X X X X X X Policy 2.3.1 X X X X X X Policy 2.3.2 X X X X X X Objective 2.4 X X X X X X Policy 2.4.1 X X X X X X L A -3 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan III Goals, Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Transportation Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal 3 X X X X X Objective 3.1 X X X X X Policy 3.1.1 X X X X X Policy 3.1.2 X X X X X Objective 3.2 X X X X X Policy 3.2.1 X X X X X Objective 3.3 X X X X X Policy 3.3.1 X X X X X Goals, Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Housing Element tr Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy GoaI4 X X X X X X Objective 4.1 X X X X X X Policy 4.1.1 X X X X X X Objective 4.2 X X X X X X Policy 4.2.1 X X X X X X Policy 4.2.2 X X X X X X Policy 4.2.3 X X X X X X Policy 4.2.4 X X X X X X 4111 A -4 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 0 Goals, Objectives and Policies by Geographic y Area Public Utilities /Services Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal X X X X X X Objective 5.1 X X X X X X Policy 5.1.1 X X X X X X Policy 5.1.2 X X X X X X Objective 5.2 X X X X X X Policy 5.1.2 X X X X X X Objective 5.2 X X X X X X Policy 5.2.1 X X X X X X Objective 5.3 X X X X X X Policy 5.3.1 X X X X X X Policy 5.3.2 X X X X X X Objective 5.4 X X X X X X (illor Objective 5.41 X X X X X X 4110v A -5 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan III Goals, Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Recreation Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal 6 X X X X X Objective 6.1 X X X X X Policy 6.1.1 X X X X X Policy 6.1.2 X X X X X Policy 6.1.3 X X X X X Policy 6.1.4 X X X X X Objective 6.2 X X X X X Policy 6.2.1 X X X X X Objective 6.3 X X X X X Policy 6.3.1 X X X X X Policy 6.3.2 X X X X X Policy 6.3.3 X X X X X Policy 6.3.4 X X X X X Policy 6.3.5 X X X X X (iv Policy 6.3.6 X X X X X O bjective 6.4 X X X X X Policy 6.4.1 X X X X X Policy 6.4.2 X X X X X Policy 6.4.3 X X X X X Policy 6.4.4 X X X X X Policy 6.4.5 X X X X X Goals, Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Public Participation Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal 7 X X X X X X Objective 7.1 X X X X X X Policy 7.1.1 X X X X X X Policy 7.1.2 X X X X X X Objective 7.2 X X X X X X Illy Policy 7.2.1 X X X X X X A -6 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan III Appendix B Lower Keys Community Workshop 1 Results of SWOT Voting November 14, 2006 V Strengths rows Weaknesses 'Opportunities ' rrr� Threats roans w• No high denelitY development that displaces 1 development 29 people Buy more land for �errvafon ( 21 'Over aevelopme1i 38 -- -- elg 2 social fabric ;Change of iletgnt and density - - �� ... i ° Damaged •t� mall 14 , Dike paths 15 •reguYalrms 21 'Use of sctad to txmrrpamfiee i Tarpon Creak unsafe due to lads/Nes and adult Slow alma rate 12 - - _..._...._ k i9YTm 9 12 r Ftrl development of an bred I orargra�`n mangroves 10 ed /wen ht room 19 Future 4 Lad of light pollution 11 peons al abadoned homes 8 .Revamp lodge and Mall : 12 trot consistent wiel current LOR 4 15 I Lack of buffering along US 1 i (MM23i bud generally alalg IQrkYoe to remain low to no Developments that attract too 5 Nature Preserve 11 • commercial -__ ... _.. i . _ _..�. 8 !development 11 many tourists 14 J Blocked coned' at US 1 and Contra population daintily b 7 Invasve plant and anima] 'sego 6 Nature 8 wsWfe ,' 8 Sugafbpf 7 remain law 10 spates - 73 1 Business closures due to loss - ,..._. _ 71/18dlffg Refuge workforce housing and storage g8 ..._.,____� 8 tack of maintenance am/ 7 1 Put eledrrc Ines undegro*Ed 9 ' nicerS for contractors equipment l 12 IBa ypa t has 3 waterfront Isis e __'_ Loa commerci eppea rep commercial that could become a park w/ 8 development 7 entrance 6 ] boat ramp 7 Take* and property tnsarance 11 • S OM SR 4A - 7 i Cut mangroves s m Tarpon Lack of dean water d population de r!n9. ...._. 6 Creek for safety_ .. 7 zeta too big ..._ e Parking control le presidentat Redesign traffic patterns sting k tack of enforcement of current 101Sun kekted by wesands 7 area 6 US 1 for cars and bikes .-_ _ _..'__ _ �.. _ 5 tAw- Banally mixed volt, . - i 'Let business Mulct employee .... 6 . n�aborl>t 11 green apace 6 Lack of s ci mwater and sewer 6 Ihousig easier 5 rises 5 .. -. No dean ha m way - - -- - 12 Real character 8 L*dt of bike trans along US 1 6 - happy eY Y we are _... _ >_.. .. 5 Maintain low — ". - --- densdyi9reenspace and tight pollution from US 1 and 13 School and Sparta Reidy 6 No fire hydrants -- 6 j01arader of USl. ' 4 co mmeroal development _ 4 � ' 14 fh/ in - le residents f !Nomads fa seawalls too .. _ • 5 Route 1 - Traffic 5 U mit franchise development 4 • . -.. -. to obtain 4 15 Low Walk reees Heritage Trail lo be -__ and 9... _.... - ,... 5 Ove iLack et rfa bus flop _ -- 5 lmpro o area mamtamed g � gew 4 6a(mp Rd /Blimp base 10 16 Overseas herdiege traN ! 5 No public boat 5 become nature ark - } . r?!�!L_. p 1 3 Natural h*dht destruction 4 Increase recreational — '".....' "_ 17 Canty park ateaypo.ro 4 • Trash and dumping .... 4 opportunities 3 ! Fear of tike and wildfire 4 9 Zoning and Speeding along US 1 and Open aflvert at Sugarloaf Blvd • i 18 density 4 Blimp Rd 4 and RI 1 3 Apenoes not waning for LCp 3 19 quipsf omes amty h 4 Motor traffic i ssue m all areas 4 Central Sewer incases .n ta.ets and _. ,.� _ ....._. 3 increases 5 Lack of County response to Preserve existing affordable ; Dedlning water qualify in targfer 20 near access 4 aezen yarns 3 houellg ' 3 and near share 3 21 VOW view torn US 1 3 Speeding on Sugar Loaf Blvd_ 3 '•-p We" 2 ! o MJb a_�1 txtnarcracy 3 State, Fedeval. County - - - }-- Adequate leaking agencies not working well 22 A da Too marry parUtme man- v�asiatl 2 together 3 Shrimp farm properly __..__. ? • 3 Good 23 inlet pr to Key ` Mega dumping particularly in 1 Late property on east shore 3 Not a sot of government 2 conservation areas 3 of S1Nhmenand could b ark + 2 __. 2 9 _ . P Erosion and storms 24 eying aa help us 2 I Laic of protected atom 3 Landscape Song US 1 4 25 house - "- -- i ,Sewer rag 1 pant ode 2 19sis Oki SR as trail 2 light windstorm insurance i PWafic padre near dump/Wafer Parcelled lade of respect from 26 Deep water access 1 -. flnva *ve eo0l C c plants 2 treatment plant in udjoe .... 1 BOCC and staff. commissioners l Lad of tmormalon regarding ..,_ ry ^ 2 ^..rnry. 27 Diversity of business 1 . central sewer plan 2 Traffic contra .` -- -- - - __. 1 Cw t o 1 Poor water management and More Sequent nus seance antl • ` K � -- -"" 1 28 Logs of outdoor reaea3on sleet flow along Crane Bird 2 4oeller 1 o6 access to fi Reelarant/De5/Babys - .- -. _._. _s .. Okra_ er"^9 1 _. . . 29 29 Coffee do Bayparn Not _. enough Mflfer . - .. 2 Control our ore _ 1 Last of h Tate Ught on Upper _ _.. _ . _ 'Y _ health care srdces 1 increase open water arrest N Lack of alellri{tae alien hrmcane . . . _ _ _ 30 SGL t Lack Of flow- tnfOUg}t amens 2 USL 0 recovery 0 allow downstairs enclosures ". 31 al Unresponsive County send ces 2 ' for affordable hou enforcement 0 Ladc of law 0 paths Silk pas non ewstent from _ Cambeanwestward along U5. 32 1 33 Noparka - Z - - latlt of tea *ante 0 Ught poauaon and energy l � wasie f rom atMetfe Reid at - _ 35 adhod • Uses on Blvd. and absentee 1 *f 36 Owners 1 3T No good usable boat ramps a waterfront access 1 Vacant nn-dawn oommercra( III 38 blaldn g .._...._ 1 • - 3. 41 Playground equipment _- __ -._ - -- -- - -- __.._._.. - .- Too far from fire deparenenI - 0 - -" .' Oongea8en at Dlcna lJ$ 1 0 0 _.__ _.___�____ _ _Voting Grand Totals. _ 174 -.__. 178 _ 188 rn • 212 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan III Lower Keys Community Workshop 1 Consolidated Results of SWOT Voting November 14, 2006 ■ 1 Voting ( Voting I Voting Voting Strengths Totals ;Weaknesses rams Opportunities j Totals Threats Totals Over development/changes and inconsistencies in LDR affecting No high density Remain law density/limit height, density, future development, green Lack of canal and culvert development & development/attracting more 1 space 3-5 maintenance /flushing 26 franchises/keep greenspace 34 tourist developments 93 Nature Preserve; Wildlife Overdevelopment/speculative Overall water quality /canals. Refuge; Nature, development that displaces Buy more and for preservation near shore /sewers /grow 2 wetlands, & wildlife 34 people 22 and nature parks 24 sponges to improve 34 Illegal dumping and Bike paths/Overseas Trail to Bearing /general trash and improved and maintained /use Hight taxes and property 3 Strong Social Fabric 13 debris 21 Old SR as trail 23 insurance 18 Damaged strip Increase recreactional malls/unappealing commercial opportunities/more parks and Invasive plant and animal exotic 4 Low crime rate 12 entrances 20 boat ramps 13 spedes/iguanas 15 • Lack of stomiwater, sewer, Business closures due to loss of and fire hydrants /sheet flaw workforce housing and storage 5 Lack of light pollution 11 and odor problems 18 Revamp lodge and Mall 12 areas for contractors equipment 12 Traffic issues and speeding Use of school for communities Low commercial along US 1 and many other activities and adult Lack of enforcement of current 6 development - adaquate 9 areas 16 ed /gym/weight room 12 regulations 5 Lack of buffering along US 7 Old SR 4A 7 1 /generally along commercial 10 Put electirc lines underground 9 Sign and pole pollution 5 Make the development of Lack of safe and protected employee /affordable housing Light pollution from US 1 and 8 Rural character 6 bus stops 8 easier 8 commercial development 4 Control traffidredesign Parking control in pedestrian patterns along US 1 for cars Permits for seawalls too 9 School and Sports Fields 6 areas 6 and bikes 7 complicated to obtain 4 Cul mangroves on Tarpon 10 Furl -time residents 5 Lack of hike trails along US 1 6 Creek for safety 7 Natural habitat destruction 4 11 Low traffic and quiet 5 No public boat ramp 5 Solutions for wastewater 5 Fear of fire and wildfire 4 County unresponsive with 12 Overseas heritage trail 5 services and to citizen voices 5 Shrimp farm property 2 Agencies not waiting for LCP 3 State, Federal, County agencies not working well 13 County park at Baypoint 4 together 3 Landscape along US 1 2 Multi- agency burearcracy 3 Existing zoning and More frequent bus service and Too many part-time non - vested 14 density 4 Invasive exotic plants 2 shelters 1 people 3 bike pams non - existent from Carribean westward along US Perceived lack of respect from 15 Single - family homes 4 1 2 Control our own destiny 1 BOCC and staff, commissioners 2 Increase open water access in 16 Water access 4 No parks 2 USL 0 Cost of living 1 Light pollution and energy waste from athletic field at Allow downstairs enclosures 17 Water view from US 1 3 school 1 for affordable housing 0 Closing off access to fishing 1 Good proximity to Key Mess on Blvd. and absentee 18 West 2 owners 1 Lack of health care services 1 Not a lot of government No good usable boat ramps or Lack of services after hurricane 19 trying to help us 2 waterfront access 1 recovery 0 Vacant run -down commercial 20 Affordable housing 1 building 1 Lack of law enforcement 0 21 Deep water access 1 Playground equipment 0 Lack of fire hydrants 0 22 Diversity of business 1 Too far from fire department 0 23 Lots of outdoor recreation 0 Congestion at Dons US 1 0 Restaurant/Deli/Baby's 24 Coffee on Baypoint 0 1 rattic Light on Upper 25 SGL 0 Voting Grand Totals = 174 I 128 126 1 212 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Appendix C Draft Vision Statement and Comments — December 12, 2006 Draft Community Vision Statement: The Lower Keys will remain a rural community, with a strong social fabric. We protect, preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community is committed to acquire land for conservation and recreation, establish and adhere to strict growth management regulations, and renew our commercial areas. Our infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life. Community Comments: • Affordable housing is missing from statement • Maintain height limitations • Is rural the best term for this community lib. • Economy of Keys is based on tourism — need to balance with those who live here • Essentially a residential community • Census determined this area to be "rural" — check definition • How many full -time residents in the Lower Keys — what is the composition of community • Acquiring land for conservation takes it off the tax roles and causes huge tax increases to residents and business owners. This is not the vision of the community • The land preserved is not always usable. Conserving and providing • Preserve commercial business and grow small business • Need affordable /workforce housing to keep commercial • Acquiring land as a goal should be the burden of the visitors not the residents • Maintain spaces between homes and height restrictions — be more specific about restricting these things • Sentence 2 add — wildlife habitat and open space • Sentence 2 change - to low residential density • Sentence 2 add — acquire and manage recreational opportunities • We are a varied community not just residential • Mile marker 21.5 on the Atlantic side has a very dense 11 unit housing project formally a trailer park — how did this happen. We are leaking density • Natural areas /wetlands undeveloped land is already paying very low taxes prior to their acquisition. Snowbirds non homesteaded property taxes more than compensate for the removal of the natural areas off tax roles A -9 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4.0 Appendix D c — N c� 0 co = N '= O E o - O 0 E a3 f3 C.) >, CA a3 N to ` Y E. N _ v �c E as Q U ° ca E a3 0 = o Q) m - 0 t N O O_D N o rn O U D CL 0 u C c2 is E E 0 - .a c d 0 oo — -L c c �/ — d c L_ � O -C O O . y .0 O O' Q) �i U. t O - Q . � - O . co T � Y co N cn c w 0 -o 1-7, -V-3 O 2 % m a) a. as a3 Z = co LE 'c w a w b ° ca co • • • • • • • c cn O 2 6 E . E U ea N a) d a) (6 c CD C c9 T (f� $ c c m as V c O O . n a3 E N - -- ° E , C O . c 0, 2 N E c •5 O _ .L.. N T - O v y c > O p as cn N c o y -Fa . '0 N cz - t m 4 '0 Ta cn c' in o `55E Q `o m E vi o a a m w w c a o O v " i 7 `y o x c. — 0 ° E a co rnp � -o c o c ° m $� a L ova a y E° m 5 a3 ° 's .� c 0 as c � T g $ Y 0 l f o as m 0 >' ° m t as l 2 E m o E 2 L E 0 . A g a22i Y m c a� o o 'F . � ' '- ,- > co E co a3 0 .c a) - 'T O d c S 0 a) t o_ a7 O a) ,0 v m w t o w m L E o m° c , >, - o . o 5 E U a i o-o 6 g U ° ns U m 0 U° m a> v) �. a c o 75 co m a° > E E a 6 2. 2 � . In_ 3 o - 61 M 6 E i. E z a' V 3 �.N C7 ° o P., y w°� O • • • • • _ _ • • • • • • • 0 w a> m 'O ea T .to O O] ( O) .N o) O ° a� C > -o m E v b ° 0 n a) .� m o 0) o co J o ° c o ' ° co o° . o a3 C c S - O N Q) - O ° aJ t C ° Q) L Q d N C m C CD . o) 4) a) 0) G 0 0 9 . 4 E .x c O V '� = p c ' a' U . O C ._ v> 'x fl a) o)= CO Q' c O E N U �. c 0 .�' c N .c C m a T as �i w a� Q C n v c xx a ` ) O 2 a> O c _ - O L c — U N Z C m O> a3 O cum, C L O o v' 2 c o> m t a3 c Pa) a E c o � v� o c' > L o o o a` � n- a m .c 5 cn m e N a> o c ._ — CO N o .a Q- .N Q) aa c E n ° c n c . N a 3 E a o Cr E U a m a) o a U a) m a c t 0-E M o co a) E U o �' } o a d a m M n. Q o_ t Y s M-o M a Q 3 2 a> t w ° c° ai _o W a m LJJ • • _ - • • • • • • • • • - o o 2 c c 0) . co a) n3 n3 (� O w .- to 'p S m m c n -'`' m `s T a' cn �' S c ci, 0 N o f N N ° -O U - 0 c O 0 Y _ 0 N O 1 6 2 O ■ Q L X °' c a) . (� L c O c-.) -° c 1 h .' CO Q S t a7 OJ N N E a� 0 9 Ez- m -° 2 ° 0M-0 ° c° o 1:3 - D � y mas = o E -� > c o o c m 0 a3 t co a) , - E o O N a o O L- c E `7 CU 0 j � N O 4) N a3 m to N N d . 0 ( � J N O' O 1 o O O U N `7 a) L z_ E O C a > o C Q t U 0 E a' N a) L to a) a' °. _ a' O c E o c p o- 0> w o m `o a o p a., o c3 as o g mE'm g �U.g.a M -or EMU _lo or _s= so ° fin • • • • • - - - -- • -. -. _ft _ • _- _ it_ _ • - • • CO w + o= = m m m _ c c ea co N ° v ° ' O c ° a N C rn o a 0 MI .° ' a) E c o w 0 2 o 2 N tC fa_ w al E L E E o . c o c o o o a E c ` o _> `o d O 2 c . X a 6 i E ° rn � 0 a m = . co E cis °= c c c 0 N L d t6 a� a ' . a ° ' c c o c a a t5,0 CJ o o a) U L 2 U o aS c a3 (0 - U a) cu N Y c o f ° a > c a . ° Q as ° ` . E o as o a Y _ O U w E D O n _ m m . E E E ¢ ° v E E° •_ • • • • • - — N • E . 0 - - CD N a) a3 �' c = = a7 O U to c a3 o 0) L o� �° o L = a7 cn — a ), C N QJ C a) • _N )C C - - as - as vi 0 _= co O c O CC o > W ca E > m o _� N N o c sa a) - J - Q C E V T L ,- C t' 0 C -° 'U CU N C 0) - O E a5 'N ° U a ` O c d 0) - O c O a c E c 2 c C c a3 h : a7 D3 J • ♦♦ = E' 3 Q- chi 0, ° m °' t a o ° E o ° > u, V LL y '- a3 4) c C m O L Ep a7 a) N 0 Q O a3 >t O a) h � co O L m �« CC5 p O n N o m Q Y 0 a a) <n CL N ' o° w U Z - o S r) a3 w< E u) E 2 o o r N ' S Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan C a O C o) N U d O_ 0 a) o O __ V ° 0 — co u -6 6 N .n -0 - N c cu a) - 0 c a ° m' n o m o a = a) = o - 0 Y t N N= a) - O CA ° - 477 = a °- N c O c O c E N c 0 -° a7 y ca n E c o V 0 N d v G. ° I a� > °) E c o V a) c °) L o c- V N O a) m= E E o a) v o 0 0 o a a E ° $ CL 03 E Q C N CO CZ as E o_ 8 l' 0 ca :_c_' GT o J N • • • • • o_ v c a? Q GC c c7) ° o a ° a�a U a) L_ n a rn a) a ) m 6 o o E 0 • C c O 0) O 7 .0 L Y C co y . U C O ' m N a) c V •. I N = o a) ca > N .0 t� a E rn `�, � - I CI) D c 0 m E a; c c _ °' o as 7 y co c L 'o E _Cl > °7 as c Y o o a 0 ca . o o a. m o $ o 2 u 0 o >, - o o- E o a co c = ) a c = a� n a 5 .°_ o° m c ' rn t >. m ) E g N c = o o a9 E o' o _ rn o co > aan°'Nc ° °m E EziL ..= c n V 0 .&3 ` o c ° 0O$ ~ E - O am c) .0 • • • • • • • • • • rn o).0 a) C a ) 0) O ,„.><- .x N , E `o "w 2 1 - a O N N E E 0 2 N .0 O E 0 a) d a) o) - C -4 O T co ci, C -- o. o ° o a - o 0 E 0 o c °) a "0 E a ° o_, o a co = c = E o o 0 = o � a E c ° o N L o L 0 co n 2 a) .._. (b o_ -o ° C N - > c n. o az o 0 (� N N -0 0 a) Q 'O c N a) z N. O c3 "O a) I O N a3 T m > a) V) a) 0 d , <1) N> C E' a) a N N W 'D C 0 O - a 0 - O 6.— N ' O x '(6 N= a) N 0 15 . o o Q o (a . - El.'s -o c a) E a F z6 N Ti- � m m t 3 a • • • • • • a) 8 c = C L = o N O c E E d N CL t Y Q N N - C O 0 O N N Q) N N C7 LS a) O c V E 0- to t N �� ° mE ° I C N N Vi c a) 0 Q) c o -re, E (0= a ` ) ° c E -EC is a N 0 U O co O c -° = u N i L O w o ¢ C) m _ ss -Z • • • • _ __ ___, _ _ ( 8 v) N c U O O N a_ c U O_ p CV C ' E -0 o)._.. a) C O c c _ U d t o n c - o c) 0 c E cS o a) E- N CV C E N c . E o 0 a, or, E o �- E t o E o 0 0 ) � p 0 00 (Q 5 0J x O O a) O tr., Y . °) a) . N > C R C N Q) 2 n) _ ° ns a m Z c m o U a) L iT N cJ Q N N a C N Q) .� C 01 d a) ca t 0 c � c3 n 0 ° a) 0 c= 0 . o ro - CA L Tu. o o a m . _ N `o . - ' v E o o a o) a) C7 4 a _ o c ca ° o -0 o_c o °-c > c o E o 03 V w e as m ° w o N w .E ° cn °_c a) 0 r< L y� N N - c I N -2 N O C '-' 0. - 0 a) - N O O .a• Mt _ E a3 O c -0 L o a) .� (O U V " cn O o> o m C • t ° - E _° O 0 8 N J a) c c z:, a -o on c ` . a3 is E c o ) . � -° L ) 7 a) a c E o ) E o ai .� o ° o L 0 E ism v N W (6 ' RI O t O f� N O N� (6 ° o N E w D1 a) - a) 07 N t_ III m o E a > i m 5 E in 0 u o co o o c E ° E c 0 a) v °) ° U NMI J - o.c Y ° �� M 2 3z w( _w a 0_ U o as N • • • • • • • • = a - 0 8) O U a) tikW [ V 0 a z = Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan II/ Appendix E Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan Results of Individual Community Workshops January — February 2007 Future Land Use Baypoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Recognition of decreasing land and trying to squeeze more development into areas • Clarify downstairs enclosures rules • Clarify rules for duplex development • Maintain 35' height limit • Use Route 1 as dividing line between commercial and residential uses • Continue to encourage protection of native plantings /landscaping (especially along US -1 corridor) • Maintain existing rules of development • Enforce existing rules Cudioe 41 , • Maintain 35' height limit (clarify -how to measure) • Leave 35' height limit alone • 35' above sea -level • Leave zoning as is • Architectural guidelines (if any should be consistent with community character of surrounding neighborhood) • No higher density than what is existing • Enforce existing zoning regulations Ramrod and Torches • Architectural Guidelines for commercial development in Ramrod Key • Better landscaping along right -of -way (Ramrod) • Impervious area — need to address • Maintain community character ( #1) (Ramrod) • Keep densities and allocations the same • More clarity on site specific density • Tighter conditions on development Car A -12 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Summerland • 35' measured from existing grade (natural grade) (not from US -1) • Keep height • Maintain community character • Enforcement of existing laws regarding clearing of native flora and mangroves • Architectural Guidelines (not needed) • Encourage small business Conservation and Coastal Management Baypoint to Upper Sugarloaf • County support for better water flow and improved water quality • Coordinate with other agencies to improve water quality Cudioe • Enforce existing regulations - for native plantings Ramrod and Torches • Promote all items in listed on large board • No hurricane shelters o NO UPGRADE • Public Input • Once a year growth management workshop Summerland • Choice of evacuate vs. stay • Promote conservation of sponges to improve water quality • Better control of exotic species such as: iguanas Housing Baypoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Identify /protect available affordable housing • Maintain single - family character of sugarloaf A -13 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan L Cudioe • Keep low density • Maintain existing density • Address data needs for affordable housing issue Ramrod and Torches • Limit affordable housing near employment centers • Little Torch — limit mixed use density • Affordable housing should mix income levels (very low, low, moderate) • Address affordable housing need for elderly (not adequately addressed) • No mother -in -law units (Ramrod) • Protect mobile homes as site of affordable housing • Promote land, trust ownership model • Promote multi -unit affordable housing near transportation facilities Summerland • More government involvement in affordable housing • Encourage affordable housing on -site • County needs to continue to look for affordable housing sites • Re- examine allocation of permits for housing • Target employment centers as site for affordable housing Public Utilities and Services Baypoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Education program on converting septics to cisterns • Promote use of gray water for irrigation Cudioe • Program for bulk trash and recycling. Need goal statement regarding recycling • Promote lighting standards /guidelines Ramrod and Torches • Move forward faster with sewer project (Little Torch) • Promote graywater use • Clarify /develop regulations • Incentives for cisterns is incentive for mosquitoes A -14 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan car • Long -term collector roads — place underground • Recycling program and hazardous waste program (education, enforcement, free dump days) Summerland • Stormwater maintenance around (east and west shore and ocean dr.) • Fire Hydrants! • Graywater Reuse — promote • Bury power lines • Promote cleanup of canals Recreation Open Space Baypoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Promote bike path on one side of highway only • Careful consideration of location of parking for bike path • Create careful balance between inviting tourists into residential areas • Identify recreational areas • Limit use of Loop Road • Encourage bike /ped bridge for safer use of path Loy Cudjoe • Passive, natural parks (limit) Ramrod and Torches • Better signage for recreation areas • Improve public water access • Improve maintenance in recreation areas (esp. swimming hole — N. Ramrod) • Maintain public boat ramps Summerland • No complaints • Light pollution needs to be addressed Transportation Baypoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Promote left and right turn lanes A -15 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan • Promote safer bus stops Cudjoe • Spanish Main and entrance to Venture Out — need safety improvement (bicycle path) Ramrod and Torches • Promote carpooling programs • Examine infrastructure for level of service • Address transportation needs for elderly and disabled (more flexibility and better service) • Examine possible agreement with cab companies to provide service for elderly Summerland • Provide bike /ped amenities on Caribbean • Improve existing bike path on Oceanside of US1 • Identify possible location for bike /ped facilities away from US -1 • Drainage improvement needed along US -1 L A -16 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Appendix F Public Comments Lower Keys Liveable Communikeys Plan Public Workshop September 28, 2010 Sugarloaf Elementary School Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association (letter submitted 6/2009) 1) Give a high priority to highway safety and traffic management. 2) Sound barrier between U.S. 1 and the homes on the Oceanside. 3) Reestablish services at Sugarloaf Commercial Center (maintain existing zoning). 4) Service road at the commercial center. 5) Improve stormwater runoff at U.S. 1 and Sugarloaf Boulevard (unplug the canal). 6) Coordinate wastewater plans with U.S. 1 road plans. 7) Identify communities that are governed by rental requirements (28 days +more). 8) Place utilities underground. 9) Repair Sugarloaf Firehouse. Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association (9/2010) 1) No significant increase in density or land use change (secondary priority). 2) Achieve the wastewater mandate (secondary priority). 3) Address climate change (secondary priority). 4) Install electric vehicle charging stations. 5) Install elevated parking areas at the bridge approaches. 6) Account for changes in the economy, real estate market, and budget. 7) Prioritize the plan elements. 8) Give each community a section in the plan to address community specific issues. 9) Form community advisory committees. 10) Minimal growth — low density, height limits, limited commercial development (Primary Priority). 11) Traffic safety — traffic Tight at Sugarloaf Boulevard (Primary Priority). 12) Integrate the LCP and Corridor Enhancement Plan (Primary Priority). 13) No impacts to safety (Primary Priority). 14) Put bike /ped enhancements on the bayside where amenities are. 15) Renovate /relocate fire station (Primary Priority). 16) Establish a community advisory group for the Sugarloaf Community Center Overlay (Primary Priority). 17) Protect existing non - conforming commercial uses (as in draft LCP). 18) Commercial development targeted toward community needs. 19) Firehouse needs help. 20) Improvements to the entrance /exits near Sugarloaf Lodge. A -17 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 21) Limit transient rentals in existing residential area from Loop Road to Refuge barricade on State Road 939 -A. 22) Separate section of LCP for each community. 23) Form Community Advisory Groups now. 24) Prioritize policy items to do things that can be done now. 25) Examine the usage of donated property off Sugarloaf Boulevard (was to be used for parks and community area). Speaker will email a description of the location. Citizens Not Serfs (9/2010) 1) Prohibition of high rise hotels and condos. 2) No intensification of commercial /mixed use development. 3) Reevaluate affordable housing in each affected community. 4) Height restrictions and other concerns included in the LCP. Define low density residential. 5) Clarification and examples of specifications. 6) Maintain current community character. 7) County land authority property on Cudjoe was habitat for white crowned pigeon. Do not use for high density residential (Habitat for Humanity project). There is an issue with the entrance /exit. 8) Examine clearing limits and enforcement. 9) Type of commercial development addressed. 10) Enforce the code 11) Affordable housing and other development density should match density of adjacent area. 12) Examine limiting long term residential in commercial zone. 13) Put affordable housing near employment centers. Middle and Big Torch Key Residents (9/2010) 1) No industrial development or zoning. 2) No public recreational access. 3) No added foot or bike paths. 4) No public recreational facilities. 5) Do not direct tourists to Middle and Big Torch Key by signs, maps, or publicly funded information. 6) Treat Middle and Big Torch separately from Little Torch /other Keys. 7) No change. 8) No additional or improved signage. 9) No improvements to recreational access. 10) No enhancement of tourism. 11) No directing traffic to Middle or Big Torch. 12) Reduce sign pollution on Middle Torch Road and Dorn Road. 13) Maintain 35 foot height limitation throughout the county. 14) Add fire hydrants on State Road in Little Torch. 15) Put in dinghy docks and mooring fields. A -18 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Summerland Key Businesses and Property pe ty Owners (letter to Papa 2007) 1) Accept real input from the community. 2) Dollar limit on permits ($3,000). 3) Allow any use for the side setbacks if agreed to by adjoining businesses. 4) Replace special Master of Code Enforcement with regular citizens. 5) Correct past bad decisions. 6) Create attractive professional business center with common sense rules. 7) Create citizen review committee comprised of local property owners. 8) Discuss usage /allow dock slip rental on canal including charter and commercial fishing boats. 9) Allow sign for tourist related services (charter and commercial fishing). 10) Make it easier to get permits. 11) Put a French drain system on the south side of U.S. 1. 12) Change present rules to fit our needs. 13) Let us meet with the planning department prior to changes that affect our property. 14) Allow easy construction of employee housing on existing properties (paystub only). 15) Different rules for affordable and employee housing. 16) Use crown of U.S. 1 as building height starting points except on bridge approaches. 17) Allow 8 foot high finished and painted concrete wall in front of storage lots. Murals could be optional. 18) Cooperation from Planning Department regarding businesses and in achieving what people in the area want. 19) Dedicated turn lane on U.S. 1 extended to the west end of the island. 20) Summerland is a business oriented island. 21) Let us use 100 percent of our property. 22) Canal south of U.S. 1 should be the only rear property buffer. 23) No additional vegetation on south side of U.S. 1. 24) No shared driveways for businesses. 25) Self policing — establish our own code enforcement group. 26) Allow self regulation. 27) Allow A -frame signs. 28) Develop a beautification plan. Summerland Key Residents (9/2010) 1) Standardize signs on U.S. 1. 2) Maintain vision of the Communikeys Plan. 3) More landscaping. 4) Protect existing non - conforming commercial uses (as in draft LCP). 5) Streamline permitting process as opposed to "making getting permits easier ". 6) Use the quarry at the north end of Niles Road as a park. 7) Conservation lands and donated lands used for mitigation should remain for conservation in perpetuity. 8) Need a timetable for exotics removal. A -19 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan 9) Need a timetable for canal dredging to remove hurricane debris. 10) Maintain method of setting building height starting point. 11) Follow the code. Upper Sugarloaf Residents 1) No high density residential at the school or commercial district. 2) Specify density that keeps with the character of the community. 3) Maintain Crane Boulevard as a paved road for use by residents and visitors. 4) Add a community center with pool behind the school. 5) Publix on Upper Sugarloaf at the Leisure Club site. Saddlebunch 1) Zero Growth 2) Extend 45 mph speed limit. Ramrod Key 1) Electricity distribution substation (lines downed by boats knock out Ramrod's power). Encourage Keys Energy to address this issue at Pine Channel. 2) Get rid of the historic Flagler bridges. 3) Employee housing over commercial building and over parking Tots. 4) Put employee housing near jobs. Cudjoe Key 1) Blimp Road Keys Energy housing — maintain current density for housing (zoned industrial). Baypoint 1) Maintain status quo RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Appendix G is a table that summarizes the issues raised at the September 20, 2010 Public Workshop, with staff recommended solutions that address each issue. This served as a reference for a follow up public workshop that was held on November 2, 2011 at the Sugarloaf Volunteer Fire Department. L A -20 5. 0 T R = / 4-, % $ % / 7 2 \ ® _c 7 W \ >. c �E § e 3 $ / � 0 0 \ / / 2 E E 0 . ». 2 L. ■ ƒ 2 - m CL \ s- § k \ k CD u c / $ u 0 q c c E G �/ c \ / u / / 0 oa 2 . _ � E . e $ 2 ± \ 76 2 > cu > 0 6 ® 0 E - _ 0 ® D CC C ƒ C 0 Lt.) g ® tc« q I. » c c o g 1 - 4-7 , ° ° f f / } ,# y - / \ r \ + o c k _� c ƒ : \ 0_ a. 2 a) ( \ c £ / 7 R 2 2 = = q \ % w .- k Ln 2 e _ / f + 0 m c ^ D CI CO C W % 2 t \ e 0 § • \ \ k w E $ c .I-' / \ » % 2 g e % E % § / [ m / f V to 4- / - / 7 # m / / - « q c .g \/ u e #\ u 2 § 2 } E ) 2 E E ƒ 2 2 \ / 0 j / % / o / m m / % 0 ® 0. m ¥ % m Li-) g ° ° ° 0 0 0 R 2 G Q e e e k / > a o ° tA Cn \ 2 0 2 , 0 q CV in \ § E a' ® tie 0 O § E '- X / ® U 0 E z k d $ u ■ 2 ° \ 3 g a. 2 < a $ C m _c - C u\ m Q = t > a \ 3 2 ƒ ƒ . g = a 2 0 Q) _ 0 \ / \ co ) / :.= e _ � �� w c U 2 / To \ 0-M W °- E y $ % 4- 2 / / 2 E R §ƒ k •[ \ u m ¥ E U U > o o Q U% c # o-0 o a) x u 0 Q co = y ' - E \ / 2 2 / 3 # § / CU / ° tO tri 2 tr, n - \ _ ° � J - . + ° 2 C w u 0 0 0 o 0 ° m o C v) c % / ro -0§ f t 2$ •± \ ca a a • k/ E ƒ / y ) \ u 0 \ >- E • c u °° v o u o E v _ - • E • - >- 2 > t _c: o — \ F O. E ' k .2 0 < I < U U w O w \ - § § 2 / \ / CU & D u c on cr, 2 \ $ $ - g R g 0 = / - Q) D D _ D = f .g = _ e y e JD k _O _o NI � a CL _ IN § a Q ■ c co ° % u fa 4- \ ° . co • / CU - 0 ) \ \ 2 / / ƒ = % % u c / m \ I 2 « _ • - 2 ° # - / U \ / ° / o \ -lo _E • m E ro :— u cu c c%) ° > E 2 c 3 / • \ E ' 7 ¥ f a ƒ • ) / / c f ._ u o - ƒ 0 4 ƒ / u y NI 0 03 0 01 / q Cr') o ¥ - ® Ni Ni Ni In 0 r o \ X ° ri _ c Sa § § ._ o % �� 0 ° / CC o ? b u -o C e • • 2 ° 2 t g ' Dk ro \ E \ E 2 .- u / / / 7 E 2 2 _O CN/ •U Cu w ro / 2 E o a) / y / R 2 F E co x & u 0 e 2u °/ « E a -C \ o4- + 0 $% 0 k 2 $ 2 g « o 0 ° % u ° 2 0 \ / o -o \ / ) / c \ $ 2 = \ u « $ .@ 2 .e k m w = o k ® o /# w 4- c J 2 F 0 § 3 0 _ E 2 0 2 c -0 V)/ c 0 /•- \ E _ ® 0. e ro > 4, 0 § . a c c 0 / ' � c m c v, o o§ 2 u E / 2 m E E (A § _c 2 ° I- 0 U ro - 0 c 03 vi ra W 0 g 0. / c c % - 0 c c Q. g ro 0 - c ° 0 ._ - 0 \ V") co _ E E 0 c m u 2 0 g / LU UJ / f E / O 7 = .e M k 0 % C 0- Cn § / « % u p e ± m ' / > ƒ > 0 ' R 2 m t % 4 '> 0 • ro m = E , § ' ) / & E a = _ ra _ { CU - 0 2 f£ m E E/ \ £ ° f _ \ / CU 0 o k \ 0 k \ : \ / 0 OJ u \ o ° 2 .g V).e E E 2_c u ƒ 7 2 } \\ CO 0. 0 0 ° 9 % . E % / 0 $ \ E c {.[ / / « 3 b ® o • 2 -4-' u_ G N f f 0 m @ 0 e e g 0 0 c g e e Ni ^ rsi ® rsi ,,... % k L 0 g C y >- .� k 2\ 2 m A U £ 2 ¥ u 4 .\ -o I c o ± 0 \ o ± = k ° 5 g ' E as w - 0 LL % k a 4 \ L 2 5 E § -o E _c 2 c 3 ® 2® / E E \ U / • ° \ ® o ° \ & v / > CD I c E £ Q as •/ v / \ ./ uj / _•-• E / c ± / W / § #> -0 m-0 c 0 2 0 g 3 0 > / u 2 / f/ 2 \ 9 2 3 \ 7$ o 0 • ® ° § G 0 m R \. / 0 3 < ° § % / o §/ k/ • c/ 2 y t. 2 \ C E -0 c 0 • \ r % c \/ % 2 0 E �= 0 2 E � # o o/ t F m 7 E E .> 2 c cc -0//$ m r E 0 G) 9 y u a _C . 0 g .- til ro 3 = w 0 o 0 C u 1- e £ - L/1 / -0 \ d -c \ 3 ® / - 0 = c V/ u c -D 0 g c ? \ \ f c -' ® c a •- 2 0 0 0 ® as / \ / j . % 0- ± e k % k u _o \ c 2 _0 D 2 ° ƒ w ¢ \ % % ® # ° ° u > ru 4- C ° _c ' c 3 § § 9 h/ u / o cu § 0 E ° § & = c / 2 /\_ f/\ 0 c E 0- E a) c to E U \ a) w E { • / \ ƒ / \ CU u-0 o CU ± co o E _ _ / °•- z:s ( u 2 k J\ \ '= 0 2 2 E • o u 2 0 . o U f ro 2 f ° c a) 0 e c U ° ec w � 0 % N1 q Cr) .71- q % Ni Ni & 6 Ni � % k \ 0 g � > t 7 m CU 3 E & k f // 0 E / E # ° u y VI E Ni Ni Ni 0 0 r U 3 c 0 0 0 « % o / k a) o » -0 ° . \ 0 .0 - - o ƒ C ° 3 ® < o & o 0 v C o_ E 2 E 0 c CL 4- U E o_ _ E E E u u o / o a, u / F / 0 0 0 y 3 m ƒ .» n 0 0 0J / % ° ) u \ VI y\ m 0) e I ® -c m m w v) - o m c ° ° o ± WO \ \ / ) / ) c ° 3 ° \ E \ 2 3 a. / _ _ 0 — c E u_ — 2 2 O \ \ Z 4-, \ G LL % \ c o .c � 0) 0 ± \ 0) ® / 2 < U 0 £ / E » 0 4 - a ƒ /ZS C � / 0 � -0 E f 2 _ ) 7. @ E » t cu ru X { \ } \ ' 2 \ C 0 0 ƒ / - c 2 0 ® U k \= & ° o w� 0 0 $ 0 = 0. m -C = o c « /$ E § c am L- E 2 0 0 E 2 -° u @ E °§ u 2 m o E %_C = o® G / E 2 o k k / ' / / \ ° 0 ® / \ / % / 2 \ o ƒ §- k E 0 3� / 0 u cu % ® ƒ 2 NI i 00 al q / Cr) # L e 9 q q " « Ni & & 6 & & -' % j c g o. » v cu C -0 o 7 © j '� / \ '47, / .° c E '0 = + a -1 C¥ C =- 0 C m E \/ _o ƒ y CD 2 C �� ± 2 2 / ƒ k \ _ CL ƒ . g • / - o • • o ° o m co J \ 0 � 2 \ 7 % D. o » E E Q E as g \ m / • .-/ 2 7 2 f • \ 2 73 - § > > \ ) > / / Q 2 u = / y $ 2 § • - E .@ E . E 2 2 q _ / . E . E / E C � ro 2 y U = E 3 y\ y 4-, u 3 U ® / ® U < / ƒ 4-, 4-, f E E E E E / / / ) 0 W / f \ / = / 2 2 0 S -0 as ro I % i 2 — 2 0 / 0) ro _ _ _ _ = e % 9 LL LL § � < % \ m 0) I \ - QJ _ .� \ £ 4-, E 2 CL VI 0 CU § 2 y 2 >, / ƒ \ 0 \ : § \' 0 2 g{{ o 0) g s- RS o 2 \ y F \ % • ' • 2 \ § c/ 7 ro o w$ E cƒ/ c // C z { / > § E ƒ C 0 & ® - % k \ e u 0 U @/ = To y / / ' ƒ ° 0 Q) { / 3 E 0 u • / o y \ U u e m o 0 0 0 0 0 rn m a % % / 0) / k 2 \ / G U o Q ¥ . ) > $ \ g \ 0 E / � ° © £ Q o o c ' u 2 E co o E £ 3 k§ E $ o / ° / ° / 0 7 2 \ 2 ° © 3 » 3 g • - ' > • - ) a) a) c c . / . W " • 0 / / g -0 \ \ \ -0 @ \ E o • o / 3 ± ® g ° E o E E n § E \ _ u % \ a § c y E V) o o % E u s u 5 2 2 U # 3 E / oc E .@ @ . � 2 E w ° Z ° u o m / / \ Ln $ / u k = ) ° E o ° o _ CO .e U .e CU . o @ y c - / v « - NJ c / \ O 2 2 c c c c c c o u \ E E a, ° f 0 0 u u u D I 2 ° a) o -0 v / c u f -D 73 - 0 _ c c c ¥ £ - 0 - 0 ru —I -J -J = k co 2 L. � y @ / _ = W = x t LL LL U $ 4-, / G w LL Q \ 2 / \ Q in \ / � / \ / o c ƒ co / ° ' / = e 2 c / 2 E 2 o g\ E ) / % E / S E c j 7 ./ ® �� ° c » & 0 o c ® 2 ° o § \ § U k o L_ / ) + U e e o c _ a" Cli L _ E { f ƒ C ° \ ƒ . > o c \ \ v\ o t • 2 0.° E 2 I n a) _c § 2 E[ 0 0 / li .- u r 3 2 1- 2% \/ X ± u o 2 LU -o < 2 y NI o NI ? o o q q % « % ¥ ¥ % � / k j 0 R E L L o s O v 0 C C �O v +J v) N v O • O n O vt i (-// C tL N Q1 L- N U + � O U C L C 4_, QJ t]0 4 ' C a-.+ L C U 0 E o -' v o v v E 0 v E cu au v O v) v0 - + O a +r M3 -0 0 4 +J 0 ) v 41 U QJ Y C L a L C U ut O C C �"' CU L CD a .L r>3 - a O �, CU °' '- a CO v X b. 0 C L U c 4- O N O t]O 0 ,Q C p L L U L a C a 0 a s QJ CU 4J O v O Q- ' a s a U t= CC Q- 1- a In = L 4J Q' in ^ v `^ a o a v) ++ v 4 O : t 4- H V) , O N -C -I-, 4- N C C to CIO C v) U (B U CD CU 0 ( 9 V1 O tq _ = Y t0 VI) CD 41 - 0 C d 0 C C �J O o v1 -0 O a CL O 0) J O C i a C C v = IA 0 O LL Q Y Y 4..' a- C N f0 D RS a fB d a N n ti n h0 a1 t]O O j. ' C • Y C }' Y • U C U O o 3 .p Q O E -C C •i L i- f4 O Q1 p a E O p U N a vi u v O H O p CO >- " C v v p a0 p ` 4J U 4 = U m a C C O C E U 0 ' - O a _ N to C O Q _o -p Q 'O Z O p -0 7 } vi -0 a..) N O > O O O "a a v - a Z Z Z O vl w o C 0 - >" o� _o NI ("NI O O O O d' r 4 4 4 1 to y m 13 N 4. 4J Y L O "a C O fir.. q 4 CU c -o CU .VI 4- a v co t 0 "' 0 0 0 0 -tea ro C v, *� 4-:u 0 E Ir 4t 4 o ra 4 >.'.- 0 0 0 0 V) • N - , '� +, a) a) _Q l e + , + , 4, ro L vi L C U v 0 0 c E c-a v 0 ro Q Q Q Q v v C o. U ,./) -a 'a -a -a • 'O c VI Q) - -0 � a a) a) a) v a) L L 0 ro • a _c }' "a - 0 - 0 - o L u a U -a O C y ., c6 C c c c a_, c cc. V , t c v a) a) cu 4' 0 0 c (13 1 o L. E E E E - E 0 ° •c •� 0 0 0 0 L c° W > O v) U U 0 0 ° 7 E C+ 'A v v v v c 3 0 v in cc o ) 0 > C ra = aJ E a) v CD *6 E ( " 3 0 u v 0) Ln a) v 3 0 0 V) V) Ln V) +- L "a E c c c o 4, o ro U v) G J a) a) 0 L) c as ro v1 N Q Q C 0 a) D D D LI) VI O - 0 ro D - a -0 C C ++ O +J c C c a) a) ro (o L - a ro ro co Q 0 _) Q C O O 0 a, v, J L L) v -a a Q c a O c C c C +' ,_ v +-, +, +., co co ro c a a a a v, N u_ 4- Ll LL L L - Y F - a) O L L v1 LL (o f0 n a, CL a Z Q ti v c +, a cu m L O O L N O � O S ° C r6 +J a S.- 0 + 4J +, v L O • c a a) O ) a) E c 0 c 4 O '+� t 0 CO a) ) pp a) ro 4J r0 F O 0 - 0 4 - , t CU 5 c ` h aL O O rcs O > O -0 - ro cu on m r O r6 aJ N +-' V •- Q v b.0 O •.� O a O v C L !1 C i L L m 0 ti 2 v O 0 O `n Q rya 0 Q) h0 O U ,-C:) +., I Z .4:.-+ a a v vi C a to u CU a v aJ v ro O O~ J Z z 0 rII --� z o■ = N N O O O O O ti N e) O 2 0 (NJ > E$ / ) E o 0 m 2 / if, / \ ,.„Cl) c c / y u m E 2 W g g ®_ \ j . vs / \ / 0 / / L a £ / 2 ° o - 0 O. - 0 W C- 0 2 2 v) C cu / ° c u § § i § c < # E / ° c E 2 <$ 0 E E O c e E E .4:: u Y 0 f - I E \ ° o u E E o o / E , u k E ° ƒ ƒ \ o. E ro ..Y � ° / / 0 E 0 § / 0 \ _ c / CL 0 = u u o ƒ \ c -D 2 ro a Lh O / f% c c . g -0 .- 2 2 ® / / / f f ƒ / . / / o = u / \ CL Z \ o e \ +-, £ o > o c c 0 c E E • t / 4-, ? § o 0 U >" CU 4- § 2 y c VI \ E ° o/ t e c >@ o \ 2 # \ c 0 k /\ a E \ -0 • ¢.g g E o u £ . 5 § U £ rti a �� - 0 E / � « CI \ ft ° E u / c c ƒ / .E E % u - e e / q - c a, 2 / o J U 0 °\ / o a < c ° / y N1 q o o 0 o q ¥ « a a w m a a J r. G fp o k o E c 0 E � 2 / q 2 tri 0 q VI c C / 00 N NI \ a 0 0 0 E v c 0 . g t R > $ ' / © 7 « / / / / ° r 2 \ 2 -1 c o - y -D � m / ° C U E § $ % ) E E / E \ ' = E E E >. 0 2 ' V 0 0 0 0 > J - k CC / v 0 O a, 0 C $ $ 0 V) .0 v) ® ƒ / 1- 0 ° ° ° ° ° k D 0 / / CL ƒ ro c c u -D � - E . 4. - : 0. 2 § k k . f 0 % -J --/ 1 ® CU ± ± a, / % U = _ . e CL \ \ 0- > .e = LL LL LL / W CL � / m k % % ® c > 10 0 ( / 7 ƒ \ / / ° • % C > c % 2 / % a « \ 2 k 0 2 0 , -/ / c ° / 5 ) o \ $ : )/ a \ / 0 5 0 t t 0 > / \ E C ° 2 4 / / ° m 2 g / / / % / / 0- \ : E5 ° \ / _ oi U 2 / \ k \: // / \ \ LL u c 0 6 s1 0 0 » E ¥ 7 .2- -c.) E — 2 k fp o 0 O. u L. m 7 § -c m 0 0 00 0 0 q ® a � j 0 g i' �c:-- CU CU / { 0 / o dr / W ® e = 2 c c o " / / E o c 4- / c m e # E % U o Q t\ '47, 0 j C U 2 « 4- , 4._, 7 $ 2 c o ° E o \ k > $ E: 0 0 c o \ 2 3 \ / % { ) u c c 2 w E \ E 3 E 2 E $\ E c e u u 3 2 0 / E ©\ a) ƒ a§ $ Q) E E E 3 c cc e E 2 $ \ u 2 E ° ) m . E ƒ 0 0 $ / g ƒ \ a_ 0 2 * ca_ 0 - -0 E .g u 0 \ ƒ • o 'f c to ® cu 0 ro c D % = c 0. 2 '- ƒ } 0 •- 0 .- u 2 0 \ %� ro k / / . g a a _ -0 § ƒ \ LL < cn cu ' ƒ _c ,a $ \ c ° 2 § f k �� 1-i \ E a) 3 ® - ® E . e .E _ 2 E \ E # [ / 7 f // f o ƒ j 0 2 £\ c 0 $% \ ƒ 2 = E q 2 •- o % \ g 0 / .g -c r / 0 ° \ ƒ J _j \ s § / \ 0 ,..) E / _o #\ U - J ® 7 \ o/ t o c 7 k � ' ® 2 ° ® f f f ƒ k 2 a. \ o E a) • °- c °– u o c E 7 c U ° 2 D = • 2 / _ ro co u� ^ .c M dr NI - - N CO Lri ¥ a a e a a � % k } c g . 0 0 0 3 2 2 w & A q c = m 3 3 6 a a a/ ƒ 9 / ƒ § / / ® 4 .g E m 4 � 0 0 0 0 § - k / / < 0 / 2 0 -0 2 « 2 k 0 W o o \ g R o / E 2 2 2 > 5 § 2 C o ° Q Q ) O/ .g E_ E \ u E E E ƒ ° E E E E 0 2 d E 0 ® 0 0 0 0 y v , o E U � e ° u u I u o a) cc ƒ u g U 0 e 0 o u cC »'§ ° cc o. / � \ $ a u a g m u u c o ° 0 ° ° ° k \ -0 / co k k k k D / m 0 E / @ / W / W • • 2 _ _ _ = 2 co ® \ / / / LL LL 0 N,111111/ 0 \ / LL U. \ R 2 cn / \ 4-, e / . \ w 0 2 = Z ° 2 D> _ D J . E fa �� k v o 0 / o §/ R3) . U \ k 2 R 0 %/ 2 .e °= / A - 0 2 0 4-' ^ \ m w 0 c •- / / I c g $= £ E 7\ c o m \ 0 \ \ § / \ = 0 \ 2 \ ° 0 o 0 t © 0 c 0 4 \ 0 m 2 2 0 J m ev r-I q NJ q q m 3 " a / a / " k j 0 g w \ $ 3 0 / c vi E cu 00 � -® 4 w c = 0 6 ° 0 0 E u 0 k / E c § / \ / $ / 2 c E 0 >, _ < \ CO m ' m u§ t CU a c » ra © -o > c 2 c ° 8 $ % c 2 • o g 2 _c c > c % E \ \) E -0 0 c 8 ° E 5 I e U c E NJ 0 0 U 2 C E 0 0 0 g a, = u _ ° / \ E f J 0 / k u W v) « o f \ E I- C < f ° ° 2 m m / § % — a \ 2 \ / '0 / / o ® k k = f f 0 % 2 _ = c 0 W \ LL LI- ® ƒ ƒ +4, \ o LL Z / G k % / 0 ® ri u _ u c C c / � � § j 6 0 0 '0- 2/ t \\ E E m e k \ \ - bp E k \ « 2 / 2 v) to c 0 0. CU o/ 1 2 ƒ 0. n:s IN f \ / \ • • - \ / / _ c E o u E § 2 0 k 2 §\ c 3 QJ i 5 c 2 m 0\ CZ) 0 y 0 y NI CO 0 0 0 ell 0 fy vi w 3 a / ° LD a a 2 .5 } CU 2 E ' \ J in sNitarQ kci U _0 c a O ,O C v L p C - +, +J + J .� Oc 4- U v O 3 CD • - - 0 (0 L E lD U U L E N C 44, > ;+ C O QJ C L p > L L (0 L C i , U O � C O ±-:._ Q QJ M> c C v c +-' L ut p L cu aJ U o +, C L v .4-'.._ U O E C Q o OD (0 N O O 4- - O U C v C a � QJ aJ O C "3 U E U C ++ (0 f0 L •5 o 4) " c Q o CU QJ U v1 C O C U U QJ N U QJ +• aJ C + ' 4 J CU 0 E a-+ L L 4 L C aJ '^ >, L O C J +_' 0) E 'a C CU C O v O - 0 3 L M v 0. aJ aJ c +J U a, v O c 'A o L c o v CC o (0 a i71 a (0 U C O CL Q C Q p -C C L CD L -0 (A O C H N ro v1 a L 4- U L • 2 oo ro 0 v) v c 0 no (0 h i \ C a v `^ c IA c Q�J CD a) aJ \ � D .O D O - D Q cu Q "p C - } - Q c/ I C > C C - ° C J v J L J t t0 C J J C Q Q1 v v) - v) J as O C p D 0 L LJ CU aJ = 0 � v � +c,, 0 a LL LL U- 7 4 LL `rr,. Z a 1.r) CI LL m Q VI - a L _ c aJ c L r0 ` O (0 C L +J p O > 0 L O - � v v C "- > to O -Flo O U C O N > ra 0 " O • L aJ aJ L L L ' L VI 0 (0 0 QJ aJ a1 • Z (0 C 'a p > , � , +- L -a +-' C p U `^ W V Q O C L a v O " a (0 L p v _c v a O a '� Q _ a 4- ' C 4A L VI • ` QJ f6 C C QJ ++ U QJ 4A (O C '5 C 4 L (0 i c ^Q� C i QJ .O p O. (0 +, E C U i 3 QJ • cu NJ (9 f0 L a L ++ to (13 L +� L C C dq O QJ ra QJ O C C , vi p c E 'J 't_'' O O ++ + cu - L L • (0 +, L 0 z aJ p --■ 0 U z QJ '' - a U c E aJ N L N z v O LID N 0 N. co d lD 0 0 rO e `-i lD tD lD O O L to ++ Q N � L : C CU j Q Ce — 0 n _c • % S- 2 9 , / u - c \ § _ ® / ° - o ® / k 0 2 2 u u_ y $ % 2 > E.g -c ° g • c 2 0 - c ro 2 . _ k u = G J / i & E 2 \ 0 . ± ° % E $ > c o e f -o U >— . c 0 / ° 4- k 0.2 2 / 2 d } o -o a o 0 0 E u 0 ƒ § f3 ) ± \ ° o 9 ( 2 / 0 / k 0 / / ° } k \ \ � e z q 2 k Q • / ® > § 4- ° 0 0) o § 3 % G - \ C CO k • •- _E. •/ \ o y E ° § E U« E 7 m o 0 E o ) 0 a = f 2 § > g -c '- c N ro \ / / • -0 .5 3 C1.2 CZ) 2 (?,3 z CD 0 0 ¥ � � \ 0) \ � \ � � % CD / 2 c - 0 to k 3 0 % \ c / m / ° \/ 2 K CU CO Q)\ / ° o Q § c 2 c E» \ k O 2 g - ' 2@ 2 x / / / k k 2 / u .e y 2 \ .g { u >, / . -/ \ƒ 0 _ \ e = R .4.' E E E o a) ) e ° ° ° ® c a u fs / E 3 / E - \: 2 § c -a - a u E y g u O 2) ° cc / o 2 / ° E k $ c ro o q E ° 2 3 E o .e Cl_ ° - 0 C 2 C c CIO / 7 k / = \ $ a a a, 2 a v) / c = ro CV 0 c E c c f / \ 2 2 2 = _0 o a @ / / \ = E m = = = z c i 0 \ 4-, N o LL LL < / ° f § c � _ 2 u % / \ > t 0 ° " 0 Z ▪ o £ e c % c 0 / J \ / \ / ? » u 0 . c c — c c a . £ � n • _ ro = \ 13 z / • - c / • 0 � a, ° S � o r. • E 2 v ro% o% -c % a •) g 2 e 0 0 w u. _ a m ? f 2 Eƒ/ 2/ t \ t E C 0 E ' - 3 t » (13 _ / ° > ƒ / 2 f E ° \ E / 9 u 0 % 0 \ \ _C e o o o 0 - 6 9 ° o ai ai 0 ¥ >. \ 2 q o 0 c . § 0 t o c Q co ® o o o _ . ei Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Appendix H Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan Community Meeting at Sugarloaf Fire Station November 2, 2011 Community Comments Regarding the Recommended Actions (Appendix G): 2.05 Comment: Need elevated parking at bridge approaches for hurricane events. Response: The Florida Keys Scenic Highway, together with FDOT and DEP Greenways and Trails are developing parking areas near the pedestrian bridges. These designs do not address elevated parking to accommodate people who want to use these as safe havens for their cars when there is a hurricane. 2.20 Comment: Road /entrance improvements near Sugarloaf Lodge (safety concerns). Response: FDOT is monitoring. 5.05 Comment: Why are certain comments included — what do the comments mean? Response: All comments that were discusses at the 9/26/10 community meeting were identified and addressed. They do not necessarily mean that there was community agreement for each comment New Comment: Summerland needs more fire hydrants and better drainage Response: The draft Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report is recommending that a county -wide fire hydrant needs study be conducted. Drainage issues are reviewed by the Project Management Division. 10.0 Comment: Affordable housing no longer an issue. Response: The LCP policies have been amended to reflect current housing conditions and anticipated needs. A -38 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Sugarloaf Shores HOA Comments: Comment: Concerned that issues addressed in the Appendix are an important portion of the report. Response: A paragraph will be added that states that the Appendix is a vital part of the LCP. Comment: Housing Goal 4 needs to be revised. There is not an aggressive need for affordable /workforce housing. Add permanent housing. Response: This has been amended. Comment: Vision needs to be revised. Do not have sewers yet. Response: The Vision statement was developed by community consensus and should remain. Comment: Corridor Plan should be implemented; right and left hand turn wanted. Response: Transportation improvements are not part of the scope of the LCP. Comment: Page 42; Update housing costs from 2006 values. Response: 2010 Census data not yet available. Comment: Page 44; Delete aggressive and permanent. Response: Amended as suggested. Comment: Page 49; Community Usage of schools. Response: Need interlocal agreement between Monroe County and the school system regarding the use of public school facilities by the community. Comment: Page 60; Options for traffic control at Sugarloaf. Response: County is coordinating with FDOT. Comment: Page 72; Insure implementation. A -39 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2 — 29.0) Livable CommuniKeys Plan Response: County staff will refer to the LCP when reviewing proposed development applications and land use changes within the study area. Staff will also engage the community as part of the review process. Cudjoe: Too much industrial infrastructure on Cudjoe. Examples: Solid waste sites, blimp site, regional waste water treatment plant on Cudjoe. Community input process does not address community needs and wants. Environmental impact and industrial look to Cudjoe. Need measured approach to how infrastructure is placed. Venture Out installed a bubbling system that caused weed to collect in canals causing water quality issues. Shared resource use with the Monroe County school system to use resources after hours. Ramrod: There is a high density area and boat basin. What is the zoning? Response: Commercial Fishing Village. Upper Sugarloaf: Gate at Crane Boulevard Don't have many parks. County owns the road used be residents as a park resource. The County should not tear up or abandon the road. A -40 1 2 3 (. 4 MEMORANDUM 5 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 6 We strive to be caring, professional and fair 7 8 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 9 10 Through: Mayte Santamaria, Assistant Planning Director 11 12 From: Mitchell N. Harvey, AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager 13 14 Date: January 27, 2012 15 16 Subject: Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan 17 18 Meeting: February 13, 2012 19 20 I. REQUEST 21 The proposal is a request by Monroe County Growth Management Division to amend Policy 22 101.20.2 of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Lower Keys Livable 23 CommuniKeys Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. 24 25 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 26 The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan program provides Monroe County citizens with the 27 opportunity to create a vision document that reflects the unique needs and qualities of their 28 community. There are presently four Livable CommuniKeys Master Plans that have been 29 incorporated into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by reference: 1) Big Pine Key 30 and No Name Key; 2) Tavernier; 3) Stock Island/Key Haven; and 4) Key Largo. These Livable 31 CommuniKeys Plans (LCP) provide guidance to County staff when reviewing proposals for 32 land use changes within the LCP study area and when reviewing ROGO applications and 33 development applications.. The Lower Keys LCP focuses on the specific needs of the local 34 community and identifies actions to meet those needs. 35 36 The County's Livable CommuniKeys Program and content of the LCP master plan 37 development are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.20.1, which states: 38 39 "Monroe County shall develop a series of Community Master Plans. Master Plans will be 40 developed in accordance with the following principles: 41 42 1. Each Community Master Plan will contain a framework for future development and 43 redevelopment including the designation of growth boundaries and future acquisition 44 areas for public spaces and environmental preservation; 45 46 2. Each Community Master Plan will include an Implementation Strategy composed of • 47 action items, an implementation schedule, and a monitoring mechanism to provide 48 accountability to communities; 1 1 2 3. Each Community Master Plan will be consistent with existing Federal and State 3 requirements and overall goals of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to ensure legal 4 requirements are met. While consistency with the goals of the 2010 Comprehensive 5 Plan is paramount, the 2010 Plan will be updated and amended where appropriate; 6 7 4. Each Community Master Plan will be closely coordinated with other community plans 8 and other jurisdictions to ensure development or redevelopment activities will not 9 adversely impact those areas; 10 11 5. Each Community Master Plan will include appropriate mechanisms allowing citizens 12 continued oversight and involvement in the implementation of their plans. Through the 13 Community Master Plans, programs for ongoing public involvement, outreach, and 14 education will be developed; 15 16 6. Each Community Master Plan will include a Capital Improvements program to provide 17 certainty that the provision of public facilities will be concurrent with future 18 development; 19 20 7. Each Community Master Plan will contain an environmental protection element to 21 maintain existing levels of environmental protection as required in the 2010 22 Comprehensive Plan; 23 24 8. Each Community Master Plan will include a community character element that will cy 25 address the protection and enhancement of existing residential areas and the 26 preservation of community character through site and building guidelines. Design 27 guidelines for public spaces, landscaping, streetscapes, buildings, parking lots, and 28 other areas will be developed through collaborative efforts of citizens, the Planning 29 Department, and design professionals reinforcing the character of the local community 30 context; 31 32 9. Each Community Master Plan will include an economic development element 33 addressing current and potential diversified economic development strategies including 34 tourism management. The preservation and retention of valued local businesses, 35 existing economies, and the development of economic alternatives will be encouraged 36 through the process; 37 38 10. Each Community Master Plan will contain a transportation element addressing 39 transportation needs and possibilities including circulation, safe and convenient access 40 to goods and services, and transportation alternatives that will be consistent with the 41 overall integrity of the transportation system not resulting in negative consequences for 42 other communities; 43 44 11. Each Community Master Plan will be based on knowledge of existing conditions in 45 each community. The Planning Department will compile existing reports, databases, 46 maps, field data, and information from other sources supplemented by community input 47 to document current conditions; and 48 2 1 12. Each Community Master Plan will simplify the planning process providing clarity and 2 certainty for citizens, developers, and local officials by providing a transparent 3 framework for a continuing open dialogue with different participants involved in 4 planning issues ". 5 6 Lower Keys LCP: 7 8 The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) covers the area between Mile Markers 9 (MM) 14.2 and 29, excluding the offshore islands. This includes Saddlebunch Key, Lower 10 Sugarloaf Key, Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key, Big Torch Key, 11 Middle Torch Key, and Little Torch Key. The Lower Keys LCP process, which started in 12 November 2006, engaged the community in a comprehensive planning process, determined 13 important island features, identified issues affecting these conditions, and related the stated 14 desires of the community to future development activities. 15 16 The Lower Keys LCP's foundation was established through public input at workshops where 17 community participants identified their perceptions and desires for the Lower Keys. Based 18 upon the discussion in the public meetings and by reviewing responses received via e-mail, the 19 following community vision statement was created: 20 21 "The Lower Keys will remain a low - density, primarily residential community, with a strong 22 social fabric. We protect, preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, wildlife 23 and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community cherishes 24 conservation and recreation lands and the strict growth management regulations. We seek 25 to renew our commercial areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our L ., 26 infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and 27 control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life." 28 29 The consensus goals identified by the community are: 30 31 Future Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Character 32 Goal 1: Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density 33 community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Keys, and maintain and 34 encourage commercial revitalization along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community character includes 35 the cultural/traditional heritage, physical character, and scale of the businesses that serve the 36 local community in the Lower Keys area. 37 38 Conservation and Coastal Management 39 Goal 2a: Monroe County shall manage conservation lands, reduce exotic species, and continue 40 natural lands acquisition for preservation in the Lower Keys. 41 42 Goal 2b: Monroe County shall develop and implement programs to improve water quality in 43 canals and the nearshore environment. 44 45 Transportation 46 Goal 3: Monroe County shall improve multi -modal transportation services and implement 47 programs specifically designed for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians along US 1 and 48 appropriate collector roads in the Lower Keys. 3 1 2 Housing 3 Goal 4: Monroe County shall aggressively pursue locations, solutions, and partnerships to 4 establish a permanent affordable housing base for Lower Keys residents and workers. 5 6 Public Utilities /Services 7 Goal 5: Monroe County shall provide adequate public facilities to serve existing and future 8 needs of the Lower Keys planning area while promoting conservations measures where 9 appropriate. 10 11 Recreation and Open Space 12 Goal 6: Monroe County shall maintain existing recreational facilities and seek opportunities 13 for active and passive land -based recreation as well as expand public shoreline access for 14 water -based recreational activities within the community. 15 16 Public Participation in the Planning Process 17 Goal 7: Monroe County shall continue to support and encourage citizen involvement and 18 monitoring of Lower Keys LCP. 19 20 Current LCP Revisions: 21 Public comments expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the 22 community character of all the islands included in the Lower Keys LCP separately. Each 23 subarea has unique qualities and needs. Staff determined it would be impractical to create six 24 subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. Therefore, in order to further 25 community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each island subarea, tables 26 (Appendix A) were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of 27 the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. The six island subareas are: 28 Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. 29 A public meeting was held on September 26, 2010 at Sugarloaf Elementary School and a 30 summary of those comments are listed in Appendix F of the LCP. Appendix G of the LCP 31 recommends actions to address these issues. A follow up meeting was held on November 2, 32 2011 at the Sugarloaf Fire House. A summary of those issues are included in Appendix H of 33 the LCP. 34 On November 29, 2011, the Development Review Committee held a public meeting to review 35 the Lower Keys LCP. Two members of the community attended who supported the LCP in 36 general, but requested that a policy be included to limit building height to 35 feet. Policy 1.2.3 37 was added to the draft LCP which reinforces the County's 35 -foot height limit for the Lower 38 Keys LCP planning area. 39 On January 24, 2012, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public meeting to 40 review the Lower Keys LCP. Public comments expressed concerns about restricting future 41 gambling facilities. Staff has revised the LCP to add Policy 1.4.5 which recommends that 42 gaming facilities not be supported in the Lower Keys LCP area. The Planning Commission 43 discussed concerns related to references in the LCP regarding small businesses, since there is 44 currently no definition of small business in the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 1, Objective 1.1, 45 Objective 1.4 and Objective 1.5 have been amended in response to the Planning Commission's 4 1 discussion by supporting businesses that serve the local community and are compatible with 2 adjacent residential areas. The Planning Commission was also concerned about water quality 3 and the protection of nearshore waters. Staff has added Policy 2.4.2 to insure the 4 implementation of the Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan to control non -point source 5 discharges that may affect nearshore water quality. The Planning Commission unanimously 6 approved a motion to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the 7 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to the State Land Planning Agency with the 8 recommended revisions. 9 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 10 The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows, (Deletions are 11 stfickeri—difeugh and additions are underlined) including the LCP adopted by reference, 12 attached as Exhibit A to the staff report: 13 14 15 Policy 101.20.2 16 The Community Master Plans shall be incorporated into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan as a 17 part of the plan and be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following 18 Community Master Plans have been completed in accordance with the principles outlined in 19 this section and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners: 20 21 1. Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, dated August 22 2004 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 18, 2004 is 23 incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the 24 Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term • 25 Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for 26 implementation are synonymous. Amended by Ordinance 020 -2009. 27 28 2. The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for Tavernier Creek to Mile Marker 97 dated 29 February 11, 2005 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 16, 30 2005 is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term 31 Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objective in the Comprehensive 32 Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy, the meanings and 33 requirements for implementation are synonymous. 34 35 3. The Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Plan Volume I is incorporated by 36 reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in this Master Plan is 37 equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is 38 equivalent to the term Policy, the meanings and requirements for implementation are 39 synonymous. 40 41 4. Volume Two (2) of the Stock Island and Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan 42 titled Harbor Preservation /Redevelopment and Corridor Enhancement Plan dated 43 November 2005 and incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The 44 term Strategies in this Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the 45 Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the 46 meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. c 47 5 1 5. The Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by reference into the 2 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the 3 term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the 4 term Policy, the meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 5 6 6. The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by 7 reference into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 8 9 10 IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE 11 PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING 12 DEVELOPMENT 13 14 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and 15 Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the 16 amendment furthers: 17 18 Objective 101.20 19 Monroe County shall address local community needs while balancing the needs of all 20 Monroe County communities. These efforts shall focus on the human crafted environment 21 and shall be undertaken through the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program. 22 23 Policy 101.20.1 24 Monroe County shall develop a series of Community Master Plans. Master Plans 25 will be developed in accordance with the following principles: ,, 26 27 1. Each Community Master Plan will contain a framework for future 28 development and redevelopment including the designation of growth 29 boundaries and future acquisition areas for public spaces and environmental 30 conservation; 31 32 2. Each Community Master Plan will include an Implementation Strategy 33 composed of action items, an implementation schedule, and a monitoring 34 mechanism to provide accountability to communities; 35 36 3. Each Community Master Plan will be consistent with existing Federal and 37 State requirements and overall goals of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to 38 ensure legal requirements are met. While consistency with the goals of the 39 2010 Comprehensive Plan is paramount, the 2010 Plan will be updated and 40 amended where appropriate; 41 42 4. Each Community Master Plan will be closely coordinated with other 43 community plans and other jurisdictions to ensure development or 44 redevelopment activities will not adversely impact those areas; 45 46 5. Each Community Master Plan will include appropriate mechanisms 47 allowing citizens continued oversight and involvement in the L y , 48 implementation of their plans. Through the Community Master Plans, 6 1 programs for ongoing public involvement, outreach, and education will be 2 developed; 3 4 6. Each Community Master Plan will include a Capital Improvements program 5 to provide certainty that the provision of public facilities will be concurrent 6 with future development; 7 8 7. Each Community Master Plan will contain an environmental protection 9 element to maintain existing high levels of environmental protection as 10 required in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan; 11 12 8. Each Community Master Plan will include a community character element 13 that will address the protection and enhancement of existing residential 14 areas and the preservation of community character through site and building 15 guidelines. Design guidelines for public spaces, landscaping, streetscaping, 16 buildings, parking lots, and other areas will be developed through 17 collaborative efforts of citizens, the Planning Department, and design 18 professionals reinforcing the character of the local community context; 19 20 9. Each Community Master will include an economic development element 21 addressing current and potential diversified economic development 22 strategies including tourism management. The preservation and retention of 23 valued local businesses, existing economies, and the development of 24 economic alternatives will be encouraged through the process; 25 %k 26 10. Each Community Master Plan will contain a Transportation Element 27 addressing transportation needs and possibilities including circulation, safe 28 and convenient access to goods and services, and transportation alternatives 29 that will be consistent with the overall integrity of the transportation system 30 not resulting in negative consequences for other communities; and 31 32 11. Each Community Master Plan will be based on knowledge of existing 33 conditions in each community. The Planning Department will compile 34 existing reports, databases, maps, field data, and information from other 35 sources supplemented by community input to document current conditions; 36 and 37 38 12. Each Community Master Plan will simplify the planning process providing 39 clarity and certainty for citizens, developers, and local officials by providing 40 a transparent framework for a continuing open dialogue with different 41 participants involved in planning issues. 42 43 44 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the 45 Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute. 46 47 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that 48 plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the 7 1 principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or 2 applied in isolation from the other provisions. 3 L 4 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so 5 that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of 6 critical state concern designation. 7 (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, 8 seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. 9 (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, 10 native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune 11 ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. 12 (d) Ensuring the maximum well -being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound 13 economic development. 14 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the 15 Florida Keys. 16 (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural 17 environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic 18 character of the Florida Keys. 19 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. 20 (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost - effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and 21 proposed major public investments, including: 22 23 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 24 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 25 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; ,. 26 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 27 5. Transportation facilities; 28 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 29 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned 30 properties; 31 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and 32 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. 33 34 (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, 35 maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage 36 collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation 37 and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. 38 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and 39 operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 40 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served 41 by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. 42 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of 43 the Florida Keys. 44 (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the 45 Florida Keys. 46 (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the 47 event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan. L 8 1 (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and 2 maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. 3 4 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent 5 with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any 6 Principle. 7 8 9 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida 10 Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: 11 12 Chapter 163.3177, F.S. Required and optional elements of the comprehensive plan studies 13 and surveys; Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(1)(f), F.S: 14 15 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan; studies and surveys. - 16 (1) The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and 17 strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, 18 and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the 19 plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a 20 consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive 21 plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles 22 and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the 23 local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be 24 initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent 25 manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations L 26 in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, 27 and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the 28 comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land 29 development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and 30 predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful 31 guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. 32 33 (j All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments 34 shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government 35 that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and 36 other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. 37 To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary 38 indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan 39 or plan amendment at issue. 40 41 42 Chapter 163.3181, F.S. Public participation in the comprehensive planning process; 43 Section 163.3181(2), F.S: 44 45 (2) During consideration of the proposed plan or amendments thereto by the local 46 planning agency or by the local governing body, the procedures shall provide for broad 47 dissemination of the proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public 9 1 hearings as provided herein, provisions for open discussion, communications programs, 2 information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. 3 4 5 6 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 7 8 Staff recommends approval. 9 10 11 VI. PROCESS 12 Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, 13 the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a 14 contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of 15 Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the 16 Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. 17 18 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission 19 shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning 20 & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony 21 given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and 22 findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing 23 to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers 24 the staff report, staff recommendation, Planning Commission Recommendation, and the • 25 testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to 26 the Florida Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to the State Land 27 Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, 28 Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the 29 County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not 30 adopt the amendment. 31 32 VII. EXHIBITS 33 A. Draft Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan proposed for adoption 34 B. BOCC Adoption Ordinance L 10 ( BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: February 13, 2011 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes_ No X Department: Planning &Environmental Resources Staff Contact Person: Christine Hurley.AICP, Director of Growth Management AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of a resolution by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners transmitting to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies an ordinance by the Monroe County Board Of County Commissioners amending Policy 101.20.2 to add Section 6 incorporating the Lower Keys Liveable CommuniKeys Plan into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by reference. ITEM BACKGOUND: The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.20 identifies the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program as a planning program designed to address community needs while balancing the needs of all of Monroe County. Policy 101.20.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan directs Monroe County to develop a series of Community Master Plans which shall include specific criteria, including close coordination with other community plans ongoing in the same area and setting out twelve principles to direct developmment of master plans. The County has adopted four Livable CommuniKeys Master Plans (LCPs) that have been incorporated into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by reference: 1) Big Pine Key and No Name Key LCP; 2) Tavernier LCP;3)Stock Island/Key Haven LCP; and 4)Key Largo LCP. The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan is the product of the Livable CommuniKeys program as outlined in Objective 101.20 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Upon adoption, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan will become part of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies. PREVIOUS RELEVANT COMMISSION ACTION: N/A CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH: N/A Year APPROVED BY: County Attorney OMB/Purchasing Risk Management LL DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required l DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM# Lam k/ 2 : 4 • 5 6 7 MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA 8 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 9 RESOLUTION NO. -2012 10 11 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 12 COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE FLORIDA STATE LAND 13 PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD 14 OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICY 101.20.2 TO ADD 15 SECTION 6 INCORPORATING THE LOWER KEYS LIVABLE 16 COMMUNIKEYS PLAN INTO THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 17 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY REFERENCE. 18 19 20 21 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public 22 hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency for � 23 _ _review and comment a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive r 24 Plan as described above; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board 27 of County Commissioners support the requested text amendment; 28 29 NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 30 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA: 31 32 Section 1: The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of 33 the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance for adoption of the 34 proposed text amendment. 35 36 Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed 37 amendment to the State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in 38 accordance with the provisions of Chapter 163.3184, Florida Statutes. 39 40 Section 3. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required 41 transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment. 42 43 Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this 44 resolution to the Director of Planning. 45 Ihr 46 P. 1 of2 [ 1 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 3 Florida, at a special meeting held on the 13th day of February,2012. 4 5 Mayor David Rice 6 Mayor pro tern Kim Wigington 7 Commissioner Heather Carruthers 8 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy 9 Commissioner George Neugent 10 11 12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA 14 15 16 BY 17 Mayor David Rice 18 19 (SEAL) 20 21 ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK 22 23 Ihm/ 24 DEPUTY CLERK MONROE COUNT 25 ,/ APPROyEDTO FORM EY- Dare: 12xa_l L P.2 of 2 L 1 111r z 3 = _ 4 5 _ . 6 ORDINANCE NO. -2012 7 8 9 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY 10 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING POLICY 101.20.2 TO ADD SECTION 6 11 INCORPORATING THE LOWER KEYS LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS PLAN 12 INTO THE MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN BY 13 REFERENCE; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE 14 REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR 15 TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING 16 FOR THE FILING WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN 17 EFFECTIVE DATE; AND PROVIDING FOR THE INCLUSION IN THE 18 MONROE COUNTY 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN. 19 20 21 22 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Objective 101.20 identifies the 23 Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program as a planning program designed to address community 24 needs while balancing the needs of all of Monroe County; and 25 26 WHEREAS, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan is the product of the Livable 27 CommuniKeys program as outlined in Objective 101.20 of the Monroe County Comprehensive 28 Plan; and 29 30 WHEREAS, Policy 101.20.1 of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan directs Monroe 31 County to develop a series of Community Master Plans which shall include specific criteria, 32 including close coordination with other community plans ongoing in the same area and sets out 33 twelve principles to direct developmment of master plans; and 34 35 WHEREAS, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys residents approved the following 36 vision statement: The Lower Keys will remain a low-density, primarily residential community, 37 with a strong social fabric. We protect, preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low 38 density, wildlife and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community 39 cherishes conservation and recreatation lands and the strict growth management regulations. We 40 seek to renew our commerical areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our 41 infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and control 42 growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life; and 43 44 WHEREAS, the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan will be adopted as part of the 45 Comprehensive Plan; and k 46 P. 1 of 4 1 WHEREAS, On November 29, 2011, the Monroe County Development Review ilarr 2 Committee considered the proposed comprehensive plan amendment; and 3 4 WHEREAS, On January 24, 2012, the Monroe County Planning Commissiom 5 recommended that the the BOCC transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the 6 Florida State Land Planning Agency; and 7 8 WHEREAS, On February 13, 2012, the Monroe County Board of County 9 Commissioners held a public hearing and voted to transmit the proposed comprehensive plan 10 amendment to the Florida State Land Planning Agency; and 11 12 WHEREAS, On , the Florida State Land Planning Agency submitted 13 its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report to Monroe County which stated 14 that the Agency does not identify any objections or comments related to important state 15 resources and facilities that will be adversely impacted by the amendment if it is adopted. 16 17 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 18 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA: 19 20 Section 1. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows: (Deletions 21 are and additions are underlined.) 22 23 Policy 101.20.2 24 The Community Master Plans shall be incorporated into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan as a 25 part of the plan and be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following 26 Community Master Plans have been completed in accordance with the principles outlined 27 in this section and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners: 28 29 1. Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key, dated 30 August 2004 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 18, 31 2004 is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term 32 Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the 33 Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the tern Policy; the 34 meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. Amended by 35 Ordinance 020-2009. 36 37 2. The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for Tavernier Creek to Mile Marker 97 dated 38 February 11, 2005 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 39 16, 2005 is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term 40 Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objective in the 41 Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the 42 meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 43 44 3. The Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Plan Volume I is incorporated ( 45 by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in this Master `r 46 Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term P.2 of 4 1 Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for kr 2 implementation are synonymous. 3 4 4. Volume Two (2) of the Stock Island and Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master 5 Plan titled Harbor Preservation/Redevelopment and Corridor Enhancement Plan dated 6 November 2005 and incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 7 The term Strategies in this Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the 8 Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the 9 meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 10 11 5. The Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by reference into 12 the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to 13 the tern Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is 14 equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for implementation are 15 synonymous. 16 17 6. The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by reference into 18 the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 19 20 21 Section 2. Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is Attached hereto and 22 incorporated herein as Exhibit 1. j 23 li/ 24 Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this 25 ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by 26 such validity. 27 28 Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby 29 repealed to the extent of said conflict. 30 31 Section 5. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the Florida 32 State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. 33 34 Section 6. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida 35 but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Florida State Land 36 Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in 37 compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any applicable appeal 38 periods have expired. 39 40 Section 7. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to 41 the numbering in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and shall be 42 incorporated in the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. 43 44 45 ` 46 P.3 of 4 1 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 3 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of ,2012. 4 5 Mayor David Rice 6 Mayor pro tem Kim Wigington 7 Commissioner Heather Carruthers 8 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy 9 Commissioner George Neugent 10 11 12 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 13 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 14 15 16 BY 17 Mayor David Rice 18 19 (SEAL) 20 21 ATTEST: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, CLERK 22 23 lbw 24 DEPUTY CLERK 25 kale P.4 of 4 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan EXHIBIT 1 DRAFT LOWER KEYS (MM 14.2 - 29.0) LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS PLAN Prepared By: Citizens and Residents of the Lower Keys and Monroe County Growth Management Division With Assistance from Consultant: HDR, Inc. 2202 N. West Shore Boulevard, Suite 250 Tampa, Florida 33607 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable Communikeys Plan Vision Statement I "The Lower Keys will remain a low-density,primarily residential community, with a (( strong social fabric. We protect,preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, `r wildlife and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community cherishes conservation and recreation lands and the strict growth management regulations. We seek to renew our commercial areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life." ihr January 20(Z Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 411100 Executive Summary Monroe County's Livable CommuniKeys Program is a community-driven planning process that addresses the individual needs of the island communities in the Florida Keys. The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) covers the area between Mile Markers (MM) 14.2 and 29, excluding the offshore islands. This includes Saddlebunch Key, Lower Sugarloaf Key, Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key, Big Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, and Little Torch Key. The Lower Keys LCP process, which started in November 2006, engaged the community in a comprehensive planning process, determined important island features, identified issues affecting these conditions, and identified community issues related to future development activities. The Lower Keys LCP's foundation was established through public input at workshops where community participants identified their perceptions and desires for the Lower Keys. Based upon the discussion in the public meetings and by reviewing responses received via e-mail, the following community vision statement was identified: Vision Statement 1 "The Lower Keys will remain a low-density,primarily residential community, with a strong social fabric. We protect,preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, wildlife and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community cherishes conservation and recreation lands and the strict growth management regulations. We seek to renew our commercial areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life. " The consensus goals identified by the community were: Future Land Use,Economic Development, and Community Character Goal 1: Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Keys, and maintain and encourage commercial revitalization along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community character includes the cultural/traditional heritage, physical character, and scale of the businesses that serve the local community in the Lower Keys area. Conservation and Coastal Management Goal 2a: Monroe County shall manage conservation lands, reduce exotic species, and continue natural lands acquisition for conservation in the Lower Keys. Goal 2b: Monroe County shall develop and implement programs to improve water quality in canals and the nearshore environment. ES-1 January2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Transportation Goal 3: Monroe County shall improve multi-modal transportation services and implement programs specifically designed for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians along U.S. 1 and appropriate collector roads in the Lower Keys. Housing Goal 4: Monroe County shall pursue locations, solutions, and partnerships to establish a affordable housing base for Lower Keys residents and workers. Public Utilities/Services Goal 5: Monroe County shall provide adequate public facilities to serve existing and future needs of the Lower Keys planning area while promoting conservation measures where appropriate. Recreation and Open Space Goal 6: Monroe County shall maintain existing recreational facilities and seek opportunities for active and passive land-based recreation as well as expand public shoreline access for water-based recreational activities within the community. Public Participation in the Planning Process Goal 7: Monroe County shall continue to support and encourage citizen involvement and monitoring of Lower Keys LCP. Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Appendices A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H are an important part of this plan and are an integral part of the Lower Keys LCP. Pursuant to Chapter 163, F.S., the terms goals, objectives and policies have the following definitions: Section 163.3164 (10), F.S. states: "Goal"means the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. Section 163.3164 (33)F.S. states: "Objective" means a specific,measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. Section 162.3164 (36), F.S. states: "Policy"means the way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. ES-2 January2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4111, The Lower Keys LPC Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been modified to be consistent with these statutory definitions. ES-3 January 20)2 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION 3 2. SUMMARY OF THE LCP PROCESS 16 3. BASIS OF THE LOWER KEYS LCP 19 4. FUTURE LAND USE, ECONOMIC DEVEOPMENT COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT 21 5. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT 32 6. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT 36 7. HOUSING ELEMENT 39 8. PUBLIC UTILITIES/SERVICES ELEMENT 44 9. RECREATION ELEMENT 52 10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ELEMENT 58 11. IMPLEMENTATION 60 12. APPENDIX A-I Figures Figure 1 Lower Keys LCP Plan Area 3 Figure 2 Developed Land Map 8 Figure 3 Land Cover Map 15 Figure 4 Future Land Use 23 Figure 5 Vacant Privately-Owned Land 24 Tables Table I Developed Lands 7 Table 2 Population Demographics 9 Table 3 ADID Habitat 12 Table 4 Federally Threatened and Endangered Species 13 Table 5 Highest-Ranked SWOT 17 Table 6 Vacant Privately-Owned Land 22 Table 7 Lower Keys Housing Units 1990-2000 40 Table 8 Lower Keys ROGO Allocations 41 Table 9 Crime in Florida—Monroe County 48 Table 10 Lower Keys Schools 49 Table 11 Recreation Lands/Facilities in Lower Keys 54 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Acronyms AWT Advanced Wastewater Treatment BPAS Building Permit Allocation System EMS Emergency Medical Service FAC Florida Administrative Code FDLE Florida Department of Law Enforcement FDOT Florida Department of Transportation FDCA Florida Department of Community Affairs • FKAA Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority FLUM Future Land Use Map FWS Fish &Wildlife Service GIS Geographic Information System LCP Livable CommuniKeys Plan LOS Level of Service MCC Monroe County Code MM Mile Markers NROGO Non-Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance PAED Planning Area Enumeration District ROGO Rate of Growth Ordinance ROW Right-of-Way SFWMD South Florida Water Management District SWOT_ Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats 11 lanuary2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 1. INTRODUCTION Monroe County's Livable CommuniKeys Program is a community-driven planning process that addresses the needs of the island communities in the Florida Keys. The Lower Keys LCP covers the area between MM 14.2 and 29, excluding the offshore islands (Figure 1). This includes Saddlebunch Key, Lower Sugarloaf Key, Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key, Big Torch Key, Middle Torch Key, and Little Torch Key. The Lower Keys LCP process, which started in November 2006, engaged the community in a comprehensive planning process, identified areas of community concern, to County planning policies, regulations, and public investment plans. MARATHON Project Location Mile Marker 14.2 - 29 • r,r.f,r.t . 1rrr.9rh !k•:t the.. /} BAHIA HONOR hit, t r f;" StanE PARK e` ; LOWER KEYS erkt1/4,wnr � '(I1:10 k) AO ;11li N• 4t 41*r , • or KE W E • FORT T#CF(AfY TAYLOR FilC SITE Figure 1. Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Planning Area. Relationship to 2010 Comprehensive Plan The County's 2010 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993 and became effective in its entirety in 1997. It contains the County's guiding goals, objectives, and policies for implementation of the state mandated growth management actions through the year 2010. The Comprehensive Plan applies throughout the unincorporated County and is implemented uniformly based upon the local community conditions. 3 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan kir The Lower Keys LCP does not replace the County's Comprehensive Plan but is adopted into the comprehensive plan and provides elements on the specific needs of the local community and identifies actions to meet those needs. The County's Livable CommuniKeys Program and content of the LCP master plan development are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.20.1,which states: "Monroe County shall develop a series of Community Master Plans. Master Plans will be developed in accordance with the following principles: 1. Each Community Master Plan will contain a framework for future development and redevelopment including the designation of growth boundaries and future acquisition areas for public spaces and environmental preservation; 2. Each Community Master Plan will include an Implementation Strategy composed of action items, an implementation schedule, and a monitoring mechanism to provide accountability to communities; 3. Each Community Master Plan will be consistent with existing Federal and State requirements and overall goals of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to ensure legal requirements are met. While consistency with the goals of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan is paramount, the 2010 Plan will be updated and amended where appropriate; 4. Each Community Master Plan will be closely coordinated with other community plans and other jurisdictions to ensure development or redevelopment activities will not adversely impact those areas; 5. Each Community Master Plan will include appropriate mechanisms allowing citizens continued oversight and involvement in the implementation of their plans. Through the Community Master Plans,programs for ongoing public involvement, outreach, and education will be developed; 6. Each Community Master Plan will include a Capital Improvements program to provide certainty that the provision of public facilities will be concurrent with future development; 7. Each Community Master Plan will contain an environmental protection element to maintain existing levels of environmental protection as required in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan; 8 Each Community Master Plan will include a community character element that will address the protection and enhancement of existing residential areas and the preservation of community character through site and building guidelines. Design guidelines for public spaces, landscaping, streetscapes, buildings, parking lots, and other areas will be developed through collaborative efforts of citizens, the Planning Department, and design professionals reinforcing the character of the local community context, 9. Each Community Master Plan will include an economic development element addressing �r current and potential diversified economic development strategies including tourism 4 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan management. The preservation and retention of valued local businesses, existing economies, and the development of economic alternatives will be encouraged through the process; 10. Each Community Master Plan will contain a transportation element addressing transportation needs and possibilities including circulation, safe and convenient access to goods and services, and transportation alternatives that will be consistent with the overall integrity of the transportation system not resulting in negative consequences for other communities; 11. Each Community Master Plan will be based on knowledge of existing conditions in each community. The Planning Department will compile existing reports, databases, maps, field data, and information from other sources supplemented by community input to document current conditions; and 12. Each Community Master Plan will simplify the planning process providing clarity and certainty for citizens, developers, and local officials by providing a transparent framework for a continuing open dialogue with different participants involved in planning issues". Relationship to State Legislation The County's Comprehensive Plan is required by Florida Statute and is compliant with the required format and content listed in Chapter 163, F.S. -The Lower Keys LCP will be adopted as an amendment to the existing Comprehensive Plan. The Florida Division of Community Planning (FDCP) will review the amendment for compliance with the applicable statutes and rules. Prior Livable CommuniKeys Plans The Monroe County Livable CommuniKeys Program began in July 2000 with an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan. Since then Monroe County has completed four LCPs. The communities that have participated in the CommuniKeys process are as follows: Key Largo The Key Largo LCP was completed by Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in 2006 and was adopted by Board of County Commission on May 21, 2007. The planning area includes MM 97 to 107. Tavernier The Tavernier LCP was completed by Monroe County Department of Planning and Environmental Resources in 2004 and was adopted by Board of County Commission on July 4, 2004. The planning area included Tavernier Creek Bridge to MM 97. Big Pine and No Name Key The Big Pine and No Name Key plan began in the spring of 2000. The residents worked with Monroe County to develop a Master Plan for their community. The Plan was adopted by the 411/ Board of County Commissioners on August 18, 2004. 5 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Stock Island and Key Haven 40„, The LCP for Stock Island and Key Haven were completed by in 2003 and includes corridor enhancements and a visioning element. The Plan was adopted by Board of County Commission on May 21, 2007. Historic Context The Florida Keys contains about 800 islands; only 40 of which are currently occupied. There are not many sources of fresh water found in the Keys. A freshwater pipeline was built in 1942 and was enlarged in 1982 to meet the growing population demands. Transportation was another critical element in the development of the Keys. The Florida Keys were not physically connected to the mainland and thus were not easily accessible for development. The Florida East Coast Railroad line was built in 1906-1912 and greatly aided the travel capacity to the Keys. U.S. Route 1 (Overseas Highway) through the Keys aided in the development process. With the construction of U.S. 1 and a transportation network that consisted of roads, ferries and bridges the Keys were ready for land speculators and developers. — Limited improvement occurred until the post World War II era, when the water pipeline from Florida's mainland brought fresh water all the way to Key West. At around the same time, electricity became available through a (se private enterprise. Population increases started occurring as public infrastructure and mosquito control became prevalent in the 1950s. The only extant historic resource in the Lower Keys is the Perky Bat Tower located on Sugarloaf Key. The tower, in private ownership, was built in 1929 to help control the mosquito population on Sugarloaf Key. The tower was ineffective because the bats never occupied the structure as envisioned. Apparently once the tower was completed, bats were shipped into the Keys but upon their release flew back to where they came from. Perky Bat Tower 4 4ho 6 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable Communixeys Plan /.111/ Current Conditions Development Patterns According to data from the County Property Appraiser's office, only a small percentage of the total land area in the Lower Keys is developed only 1,829 of the study area's 18,808 acres is identified as improved and nearly 86% of the developed area is in residential use. Approximately 1,564 acres of the developed area are in residential use, 118 acres are in commercial, 87 acres are in industrial use, 13 acres are in institutional use, and 37 acres are in use for utilities (Table 1). Table 1—Developed Lands Category Acres Percentage Residential 1,564 86% Commercial 118 6% Industrial 97 5% Institutional 13 1% Utilities 37 2% Total Developed Lands 1,829 100% Source: Monroe County Property Appraiser(2011) Note: Developed Lands include publicly and privately owned thW parcels identified by the Property Appraiser's office as improved. Unimproved parcels include both vacant and conservation lands. As with most of the Florida Keys, commercial development is focused on the U.S. 1 corridor with residential neighborhoods of varying densities extending north-south along collector and local roads. Commercial land uses, broadly defined as those areas associated with the buying and selling of goods and/or services, are generally concentrated as strip development along the US-1 corridor. The majority of the planning area's commercial businesses serve the tourism and local residential markets (a more detailed assessment of existing land uses is included in Section 4). L 7 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan �.. .. -k-t--- V piiTh i l!il ) itilintrk, gg J :ill! J Y I T 9 m U U IJC, J@.y i Y o v t .,.:. gliP • ,. .... • ? Y ..„ : . . ....,... .. _, . r, l� I13 . , , ,., _,„., , . ,‘,.: . . , 2. '"1J Ill ' 11 { L''- ` a O c9 kC c Pi n j . \ .--� -5 \<,.. . _y i N C T QI 2 III r .. 8 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan th Population& Demographics �I The demographics for unincorporated Monroe County are derived from the Technical Document Monroe County 2010-2030 Population Projections, prepared March 15, 2011 by Keith & Schnars, P.A., and Fishkind and Associates. The permanent population series is the latest published by the University of Florida, Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). Functional population is the sum of seasonal and permanent population estimates. Permanent residents are people who spend all or most of the year living in Monroe County, and as such, exert a relatively constant demand on all public facilities. Seasonal population figures are the number of seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. They are composed of the tourist population and residents spending less than six months in the Keys. The seasonal population has a higher cyclical demand on public facilities like roads and solid waste. The 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year through the twenty year planning horizon. Table 2 Population Demographics Monroe County Functional Population Projections,2010-2030 Countywide Population Projection Year Permanent Seasonal Functional 2010 76,887 78,401 155,288 2015 77,600 79,800 157,400 2020 76,900 82,151 159,051 2025 76,200 84,503 160,703 2030 75,500 86,855 162,355 Source:Fishkind&Associates,Inc.;FI Keys Aqueduct Authority;Univ.FL BEBR, PS 156 and annual estimates Functional Population Projections by Sub-Area,2010-2030 Functional Population Year Unincorporated Monroe Lower Keys Middle Keys Upper Keys County Total 2010 39,645 2,183 28,980 70,808 2015 40,181 2,212 29,370 71,763 2020 40,592 2,234 29,668 72,494 2025 41,003 2,256 29,966 73,225 2030 41,414 2,278 30,265 73,957 Source:Fishkind&Associates,Inc.,2010,Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections 9 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Unincorporated Monroe County Distribution of Permanent Population Upper Keys Middle Keys Lower Keys Total Population 1990 44% 3% 52% 100% Population 2000 42% 3% 55% 100% • Population 2009 41% 3% 56% 100% ' Population 2014 40% 3% 57% 100% Source: Fishkind& Associates,Inc.; I-Site online demographic database The Monroe County 2010-2030 Population Projections, prepared March 15, 2011 by Keith & Schnars, P.A., and Fishkind and Associates, indicates a loss in permanent population with likely replacement through an increase in seasonal residents Fishkind & Associates estimates that while permanent population decreases at an average rate of less than one percent every five years, seasonal population increases at an average rate of 2.57 percent every five years; resulting in a shift in population from permanent to seasonal. Overall, 411/ functional population or total population for the unincorporated County will increase at an average rate of less than one percent, every five years, in the twenty year planning period. 10 January2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan iir The U.S. Census Bureau released 2010 demographic information related to population and housing on March 17, 2011. The following tables provide summary information for Monroe County and the incorporated municipalities. Information from the 2000 Census has been included for comparison purposes. The permanent population for the Florida Keys (unincorporated and incorporated) declined by 8% (-6,499 people) from the year 2000 to 2010. Total housing units increased by 1,147 units or 2%. The number of occupied units decreased by 2,457 units or 7%. Vacant units increased by 3,604 units or 22%. Census Census Change %Change 2000 2010 POPULATION City of Key West 25,478 24,649 -829 _ -3.25% City of Marathon 10,255 8,297 -1,958 -19.09% City of Key Colony Beach 788 _ 797 +9 1.14% City of Layton - 186 184 -2 -1.08% Village of Islamorada 6,846 6,119 -727 -10.62% Unincorporated Monroe County 36,036 33,044 -2,992 -8.30% Total Population (Uninc. County&Cities) 79,589 73,090 -6,499 -8.17% HOUSING UNITS City of Key West 13,306 14,107 +801 6.01% k CityofMarathon 6,791 6,187 -604 -8.89% City of Key Colony Beach 1,293 1,431 +138 10.67% City of Layton 165 184 +19 11.15% Village of Islamorada 5,461 5,692 +231 4.23% Unincorporated Monroe County _ 24,601 25,163 +562 2.28% Total Housing Units(Uninc. County& 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22% Cities) _ Total housing units (Uninc. County & 51,617 52,764 +1,147 2.22% Cities) - Occupied housing units (Uninc. County& 35,086 32,629 -2,457 -7.00% Cities) Vacant housing units (Uninc. County& 16,531 20,135 +3,604 21.80% Cities) % Vacant housing units (Uninc. County& 32.02% 38.16% Cities) iiir 11 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CammuniKeys Plan Environmental Setting The planning area is underlain by Key Largo Limestone, formed from ancient reefs and made up of mostly very porous material. The Lower Keys are known as the Oolitic Keys because they are primarily composed of oolites, small spherical grains of calcium carbonate cemented together to form a limestone. Geological and biological processes that date to the Pleistocene Period were instrumental in forming the reefs and the Florida Keys of today. Melting glaciers raised sea levels, resulting in submerged conditions over much of the Florida peninsula and all of the Florida Keys. The warm temperatures and shallow waters typical to the Keys provide ideal conditions for the growth of coral reefs, which predominate along the Keys island chain. According to the County's Advanced Identification of Wetlands (ADID) Program, the main types of habitat in the planning area are saltwater wetlands and uplands consisting of hammock, pinelands, grasslands, and ridge/hammock (Table 3, Figure 3). Saltwater wetlands are the predominant land cover type, with 14,358 acres or approximately 70% of the area's acreage. Uplands account for approximately 12%or 2,534 acres. Table 3 -ADID Habitat Habitat Types Acres % of Total -- - Developed 2,038 10% Exotics 71 >1% Freshwater Wetland 276 1% Saltwater Wetland 14,359 70% Upland 2,534 12% Water 1,143 6% Total Acres 20,421 100% Source: Monroe County GIS (ADID FMRI maps, 1991) Note: Acreages are based on delineations of land cover and do not match the developed lands and land use acreages reported in other sections of the plan. 46. 12 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan ( The planning area provides potential habitat for many threatened and endangered species listed fir' below (Table 4). Table 4 -Federally Threatened and Endangered Species Common Name Scientific Name Atlantic green turtle Chelonia mydas Atlantic loggerhead Caretta caretta American alligator Alligator mississippiensis American crocodile Crocodylus actus Eastern indigo snake Drymachron corals Leatherback turtle Dermochelys coriacea Atlantic hawksbill turtle Eretmochelys imbricate Atlantic Ridley turtle Lepidochelys kempi Southern bald eagle Haliaeetus leucocephalus Roseate tern Sterna dougallii Artie peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus Bachman's warbler Verivora bachmanii Silver rice rat Oryzomys argentatus Key deer Odocoileus virginianus clavium Lower keys marsh rabbit Sylvilagus palustris Source: Monroe County Comprehensive Plan 13 January2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuneKeys Plan Development Context and Constraints The amount and pace of development in the County is managed through a Building Permit Allocation System (BPAS) consisting of a complex system of planning policies and programs, and implemented by the residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) and its companion NROGO (non-residential). Together, ROGO and NROGO are designed to implement growth management policies in the Comprehensive Plan by limiting the number of permits issued in each of the three planning areas (Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys). Other factors constraining development in the Lower Keys include concurrency with State requirements, such as maintaining a minimum Level of Service (LOS) C along U.S.-1. The Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code require each segment of the highway maintain a LOS of C or better. The LOS criteria for segment speeds on U.S. 1 in Monroe County depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. Segment speeds reflect the conditions experienced during local trips. Given that U.S. 1 serves as the "main street" of the Keys, the movement of local traffic is also an important consideration on this multipurpose highway. However, the determination of the median speed on a segment is a more involved process than determining the overall level of service since different segments have different conditions. Segment conditions depend on the flow characteristics and the posted speed limits within the given segment. There are six segments in the Lower Keys CommuniKeys Planning Area (from mile marker14.2 to mile marker 29). Segment 4: Saddlebunch, Mile Markers 10.5-16.5 Segment 5: Sugarloaf, Mile Markers 16.5-20.5 Segment 6: Cudjoe, Mike Markers 20.5-23.0 Segment 7: Summerland(23.0-25.0) Segment 8: Ramrod, Mile Markers 25.0-27.5 Segment 9: Torch, Mile Markers 27.5-29.5 The 2011 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, prepared by URS Corporation Southern, indicate Segments 4 through 8 has a LOS B and Segment 9 is a LOS A. Compared to last year (2010) study results, Segments 4 and 5 resulted in positive LOS changes, increasing from a LOS C to a LOS B. See also Appendix A, B, C, D, E, & F which are an important part of this plan. They define each of these segments in more detail. They point out the similarities and differences of each community. These Appendices are the meat of this report. They are an integral part of this Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan just as the US-1 Corridor Enhancement Plan from MM 14.2- MM 29 is. 411/ 14 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(AIM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 6 dr - `fr . ,,,,nar . App. ,ff- .. . 0 ,:, Y 1 • . r ..., , ,4—. i • + z4 bo AIL 2.5 t N \�g s cr Ellin 1I - c . f 1. E ', '/ ~ r ' E 1 ' „ + _ .r I .? • _ • Ali r - r 0.46110" 11 000 r` , Yr " I -, e ' I 1 • 1,,I) i 4' } m • `► �t, ,, „. ,,:'; i -. lik. , , I 104 . �A 100. � wr R '' I ( ,„ ...,,, ...„ ..-.., . if .. 15 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan L2. SUMMARY OF THE LCP PROCESS The Lower Keys LCP was developed with multiple opportunities for public participation which are outlined below. Stakeholder Interviews Stakeholder interviews, conducted at the outset of the project, identified specific issues and/or concerns of businesses and residents. The interviews were undertaken to gauge the level of interest and sensitivity to growth management issues in the planning area. The input received provided insight into important community issues. E-Newsletters/Announcements Several e-newsletters and announcements were sent to property owners and residents in the Lower Keys. The newsletters and announcements described the planning process, summarized the existing conditions, notified owners of upcoming public workshops, kept the public informed of the progress of the planning process, and directed them to the County's website for further information and postings. Website 4 Monroe County included project updates for the Lower Keys LCP on its website fir' (http://www.monroecounty-fl.gov/). Public Workshops Five public meetings were held between November 2006 and September 2010. Each meeting was held within the planning area, legally noticed, and made available for all interested persons to attend. • Visioning Workshop. The visioning workshop was held on November 14, 2006. This workshop focused on gathering a vision for the Lower Keys area. Through a facilitated exercise, the attendees identified and ranked the strengths, weaknesses, opportunities, and threats (SWOT) that affect the planning area (Table 5). This SWOT analysis helped to develop a picture of the community's perceptions, identify issues to be addressed in the plan and establish a vision statement for the Lower Keys LCP. 16 January 1012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4111, Table 5 - Highest-Ranked Strengths,Weaknesses, Opportunities, and Threats Strengths Weaknesses • No high density development; • Lack of canal and culvert green space maintenance/flushing • Nature Preserve; Wildlife Refuge; • Overdevelopment/speculative development Nature- wetlands, &wildlife that displaces people • Strong Social Fabric • Illegal dumping and clearing/general trash and debris Opportunities Threats • Remain low density/limit • Over development/changes and development& franchises/keep inconsistencies in LDR affecting height, greenspace density, future development/attracting more • Buy more land for preservation tourist developments and nature parks • Overall water quality/canals, near • Bike paths/Overseas Trail to shore/sewers/grow sponges to improve improved and maintained/use Old • High taxes and property insurance SR as trail • Goals Workshop. The second workshop was held December 12, 2006. Through a facilitated exercise, the attendees worked on developing goals for the Lower Keys LCP. The exercise built upon the results of the first visioning workshop, the existing conditions, and the County's Comprehensive Plan. The goals identified by the community are the basis of the LCP and are listed and discussed later in this document. • Individual Key Workshops. In January and February 2007, the County held individual workshops by Key with the communities of Baypoint-Sugarloaf, Cudjoe, Summerland, and Ramrod-Torches. The workshops provided the public with additional opportunities to review and provide further direction on the goals for the Lower Keys. • Findings Workshop. The third public meeting occurred March 13, 2007. During this meeting, the project team reviewed the existing conditions, the major goals, objectives, and policies resulting from the previous workshops, and discussed how these major findings were to be incorporated into the Lower Keys LCP. • Public Presentations of Draft. A public workshop was held at Sugarloaf Elementary School on September 26, 2010. During this meeting, County staff solicited community issues and concerns based upon geographic area. These issues have been summarized and are addressed in the updated draft. A final public workshop is planned for the fall of 2011 prior to the review of the final draft LCP by the Development Review Committee, Planning Commission, and Board of County Commissioners. L 17 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable Communikeys Plan L LOWER KEYS LCP PROCESS CHART �r Stakeholder Interviews/Public Input Workshop 1 Nov. 13-14, 2006 Strength Weakness Opportunities&Threats Analysis Summary of Strengths Weakness Opportunities&Threats Draft Vision Statement Public Input Workshop 2 Dec. 12-13, 2006 Present Vision Statement/Goals Exercise Revised Vision Statement/Summary of Community Goals -J.-- Community Workshops held by Key Jan.—Mar.,2007 Comments and Additional Community Goals by Key Revision of Goals Statements/Initiate Draft Objectives and Policies Public Input Workshop 3 March 13, 2007 Review Planning Area Statistics/Draft Objectives and Policies Revision of Objectives and Policies Draft Lower Keys LCP Presentation of Draft Plan to Lower Keys Residents Oct:Nov., 2007 Revision of Objectives and Policies Draft Lower Keys LCP Presentation of Draft Plan to Lower Keys Residents Sept. 2010 Revision of Objectives and Policies Draft Lower Keys LCP Presentation of Draft Plan to Lower Keys Residents Nov.2011 Final Lower Keys CommuniKeys Plan c 18 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan [ 3. BASIS OF THE LOWER KEYS LCP fir' The Lower Keys LCP's foundation was established through public input at workshops where community participants identified their perceptions of and desires for the Lower Keys. Vision Based upon the discussion in the public meetings and by reviewing responses received via e-mail to the County's website, the following community vision statement was identified: Vision Statement 1 "The Lower Keys will remain a low-density,primarily residential community, with a strong social fabric. We protect,preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, wildlife and open space, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community cherishes conservation and recreation lands and-strict growth management regulations. We seek to renew our commercial areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs except for sewage. Ultimately, we manage and control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life. " Format of Master Plan Elements The Lower Keys LCP addresses seven Master Plan Elements. For each element an introductory discussion provides a context for understanding the current conditions and the community needs, followed by the goal(s)objectives, and policy items necessary to accomplish each goal. The Lower Keys LPC Goals, Objectives, and Policies have been modified to be consistent with the following statutory definitions. Section 163.3164 (10), F.S. states: "Goal" means the long-term end toward which programs or activities are ultimately directed. Section 163.3164 (33) F.S. states: "Objective"means a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. Section 162.3164 (36), F.S. states: "Policy ' means the way in which programs and activities are conducted to achieve an identified goal. Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, BaypointlSaddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix G were prepared to identify which 19 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. The consensus goals identified by the community were: Future Land Use,Economic Development, and Community Character Goal 1: Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Keys, and maintain and encourage commercial revitalization along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community character includes the cultural/traditional heritage, physical character, and scale of the businesses that serve the local community in the Lower Keys area. Conservation and Coastal Management Goal 2a: Monroe County shall manage conservation lands, reduce exotic species; and continue natural lands acquisition for conservation in the Lower Keys. Goal 2b: Monroe County shall develop and implement programs to improve water quality in canals and the nearshore environment. Transportation Goal 3: Monroe County shall improve multi-modal transportation services and implement programs specifically designed for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians along U.S. 1 and appropriate collector roads in the Lower Keys. Housing Goal 4: Monroe County shall pursue locations, solutions, and partnerships to establish an affordable housing base for Lower Keys residents and workers. Public Utilities/Services Goal 5: Monroe County shall provide adequate public facilities to serve existing and future needs of the Lower Keys planning area while promoting conservation measures where appropriate. Recreation and Open Space Goal 6: Monroe County shall maintain existing recreational facilities and seek opportunities for active and passive land-based recreation as well as expand public shoreline access for water-based recreational activities within the community. Public Participation in the Planning Process Goal 7: Monroe County shall continue to support and encourage citizen involvement and monitoring of Lower Keys LCP. 20 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4. FUTURE LAND USE, COMMUNITY ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND COMMUNITY CHARACTER ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary Like many areas of Monroe County, communities in the Lower Keys LCP planning area contain a wide range of intensities and patterns of land use. Covering approximately 18,774 acres, the planning area includes large tracts of undeveloped lands, including property under public ownership or protected through conservation easement; pockets of low density residential use; moderate to higher density residential development concentrated in improved subdivisions; and strips of commercial, industrial, and institutional development along stretches of U.S. 1. A brief summary of land use and development conditions influencing the livability and sustainability of the Lower Keys communities follows. Land Uses Developed Lands. According to Property Appraiser data, approximately 9% or 1,829 acres of the land within the planning area are used for residential, commercial, industrial, and institutional uses. Of the total identified as developed, 1,564 acres are used for residential, 118 acres are used for commercial, 97 acres are used for industrial, and 13 acres are used for institutional. In addition to these categories of use, the Appraiser's data lists another 167 acres as being used for rights-of-way and utilities. Lands in residential use, which account for approximately 86% of the developed area, are comprised primarily of single family houses in improved subdivisions and on parcels in rural settings. Mobile homes on individual parcels and multifamily dwellings with less than 10 units per building occupy 169 acres or 9%of the total acreage in residential use. Commercial land uses account for a little over 6% of land uses in the developed area. According the Appraiser's data, these commercial uses include mobile home and RV parks, hotel and motels , and the private airport on Lower Sugarloaf Key. Other commercial uses, including retail outlets, plant nurseries and gardens stores, restaurants and cafes, and small office buildings, account for the remaining acreage identified as being in commercial use. As with many other areas in Monroe County, commercial uses in the Lower Keys planning area exist in sites fronting U.S. 1. Industrial and institutional uses account for a little over 7% of land uses in the developed area, with approximately 97 acres identified as being in industrial use and 13 acres in institutional uses. Industrial uses include gravel pits, open storage areas, light manufacturing, food processing and warehousing operations. Institutional uses include churches, private clubs, and private schools. Government & Miscellaneous Lands. In addition to the above uses, the Appraiser's data ( identifies land uses in government and miscellaneous categories. These data identify 12,024 acres of land in public ownership and 209 acres in miscellaneous categories including rights-of- 21 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan ihr way, submerged lands, and utilities. Lands in the government category account 63% of the total planning area and are subdivided into to several categories including county-owned lands, state- owned lands, and federally-owned lands. The data do not distinguish between conservation lands and sites used for public facilities (e.g. post offices, libraries, and fire and police stations, and public offices) but the vast majority of land in this category is undeveloped and planned for conservation. Privately-Owned Vacant Lands. The Appraiser's data also identifies 2,636 acres (14% of the total planning area) as vacant, privately owned land. These lands include vacant lots in improved subdivisions, vacant parcels in rural areas, vacant commercial and industrial parcels, and vacant unimproved parcels identified for acquisition for conservation. Of these 2,636 vacant acres, only 350 acres or 13 % is identified as appropriate for medium to high density residential development or commercial development under the County's Comprehensive Plan. As indicated in Figure 4, Table 6 below, 241 acres of vacant privately-owned lands are designated on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) as appropriate for Residential Medium use, 47 acres are designated for Residential High use, 57 acres are designated for Mixed Use/Commercial, and 5 acres are designated for Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing. Table 6—Vacant Privately-Owned Land by Future Land Use Category FLUM Designation Acres of Vacant Land ------- --- Residential Medium 241.22 Residential High 47.1 Mixed Use/Commercial 57.72 Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing 5.17 The following maps (Figure 5) indicated vacant privately-owned lands by Future Land Use Category. Development Capacity. Assuming future residential development occurs in the pattern and intensities called for under the Comprehensive Plan and at the rate anticipated under the residential and non-residential permit allocation systems, there appears to be a sufficient amount of land designated to support both residential and non-residential development. ghor 22 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan wr,,,,,,,c- ----- ---------- ----- (WffHIIIL'" N ..r. i , ,,,, , ,.. 1111,. e. i E • dde W zsidi 4140 N • 311 111111 1� _ � - r , • ��'I ,mo t'" ,\ (} ,,, -,,,,,,. ‘, ,. , ,.....„. .). lb . --,..., A r ..._ ,. - ,,— All .. :.., , ,,,,. . ,,, iff I 46, .„------?. Ir l" .- le t , . . 1 \ ..-.. ' 1 X \ .• r , till , .n I r ` r 1 \ 1 * • 1 .„....._t 40 , Y I t ♦ t` 161 0 40i 23 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 410 wr y s _ Cudjoe Key . • 3tt -Y- Sugarloaf Keys , 1e 7 ,./1r Saddlebunch •' �'.•N. I; Key �� r. `'� •� � rrJ r ^'� • cr.! _ ONO �j • ' it 19 r � ` v .y ._ / .err' , ,,' ®iAt.r i�. '40' ii. 1 say Figure 5—Vacant Privately-Owned Land Designated '' for Medium or High Density Residential and Mixed Use Commercial .7 • 'Summerland ,�,' ,r� • Key _ , ..v.._it "...----------'-'4 , '_4.:it.:tr4u.::t. 2r, } lr0 ,y` Ramrod Key • 24 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Economic Development The Lower Keys LCP planning area serves primarily as a bedroom community supporting more mature and intensely developed employment centers and commercial areas in Stock Island, Key West, and the Upper Keys. The commercial development that currently exists in the project area is scaled to serve the needs of year round and seasonal residents, visitors, and a modest number of tourists staying in the planning area and traveling along U.S. 1. The Lower Keys have not been identified as having the potential to attract or support large-scale employment generating uses, nor has the community expressed an interest in seeing such uses introduced, Community Centers. Future economic activity in the planning area will be focused in a few key locations along U.S. 1, with the following general areas having the greatest potential to provide for the daily needs of local residents, visitors, and tourists: • Lower Sugarloaf Key(MM 16-17) • Cudjoe Key(MM 22-23) • Summerland Key(MM 24-25) • Ramrod Key(MM 26.5-27.5) While the quality of design and character of development is uneven in these areas, each has the potential to better serve local needs and reinforce community identity. With the right policy and �.... regulatory tools in place—guidelines for new development and redevelopment, public space improvements called for in the U.S. 1 Corridor Enhancement Plan, and enhanced support for small, locally-owned businesses—these areas can evolve into more attractive, accessible centers of community life. The general policy direction for the enhancement of existing commercial areas was set forth in the Technical Document of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. According to the report, area designations "will be used in conjunction with the Point System to discourage urban sprawl," protect natural resources, and enhance the character of the community "by encouraging infi11 development in established commercial areas." Since the Technical Document was completed the concept has evolved into the Community Centers initiative and has become an important part of the LCPs prepared for Tavernier and Key Largo. The County recognizes the special nature of Community Centers identified in the LCPs and supports the creation of area specific regulatory strategies and design standards to achieve local objectives. Over the past few years, the County has worked with local stakeholders to create policies and standards to ensure individual projects meets local needs, contribute to the creation of compact, walkable destinations, encourage businesses that serve the local community, and enhance the unique character of individual communities. Non Conformities. The market potential of many older commercial sites may be limited because some aspect of the operation is not in full compliance with current County plans, policies, and regulations. Non-conforming status may result from a variety of conditions— thir parking may be inadequate, setbacks and landscaping may not meet current standards, existing uses may not be permitted, or the intensity of development may be higher than is currently 25 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan allowed. While sites with non-conformities may continue in their current state and use, the non- conforming status may be a barrier to reinvestment and improvement. Non-conformities may limit changes in use, investment in modest improvements and additions, rebuilding after damage by fire or storm, and affect the owners and tenant's ability to procure insurance and financing. Community Character Perceptions of the character of Lower Key's communities are influenced in a number of important ways. The distribution and intensity of land uses plays a central role, as does the integrity of natural areas and vegetation; the quality of development along U.S. 1;the views from causeways and bridges; and the quality and consistency of site, landscape, and building designs. Throughout the planning process, the public has raised concerns about the scale and quality of recent development,both along U.S. 1 and within existing neighborhoods. Two important factors may contribute to the community's sense that this recent development is "out of character" with the Lower Keys: early manifestations of County growth policy and the build out of improved subdivisions. Before current growth policies were enacted, development occurred in a dispersed pattern, with housing less concentrated and commercial uses spread along the U.S. 1 corridor. With the County's growth policy designed to focus investment in developed areas, high intensity uses are locating in visually prominent areas, such as vacant lots in improved subdivisions and undeveloped sites in commercial areas along the U.S. 1 corridor. Consequently, virtually all new non-residential development occurs in highly visible locations. The level of concern over"out of character" development is also influenced by the approaching build-out of older established neighborhoods. As growth policies have channeled residential development to improved subdivisions, residents are losing the benefits of lots held vacant for the past 20-30 years, which include informal access to private open space is being lost, views to the water are closing, and small patches of native vegetation are being removed. The cumulative effects of the County's growth policies combined with the build out of older neighborhoods may contribute to the sense that growth is not sufficiently well managed and the qualities that attracted residents to the Lower Keys. Rural densities, natural beauty, and access to nature are threatened. Though the rate of growth in the Lower Keys planning area has declined in the past 20 years, resident awareness of it is much greater. Analysis of Community Needs Rate of Growth. Community members raised questions about the projected rates of residential and non-residential growth in the Lower Keys. Participants in community workshops expressed concern about the possibility that more than the fair share of development was being allocated to the Lower Keys which could negatively affect the character of development along the U.S. 1 corridor and in established neighborhoods. The relatively large scale and density of recently constructed residential and non-residential projects were cited often as examples of what the community considered inconsistent with their vision for the future. kir 26 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Preservation of Sensitive Lands. The public expressed support for the continued use and refinement of the Tier System along with state, county, and private efforts to conserve, through acquisition or regulation, sensitive natural areas, wildlife habitats, and native vegetation. Workshop participants expressed interest in preservation both on ecological grounds and as a way to protect the scenic qualities that contribute to the Lower Keys unique character and sense of place. Neighborhood Conservation & Improvement. Preserving the livability and attractiveness of existing neighborhoods and residential areas was a primary objective of participants in the planning process. Residents expressed concern about the effect of several issues—the scale and character of new resident development, the influence of cut-through and tourist traffic, etc.—on their neighborhood's quality of life. Quality of Commercial Districts. Many participants in the planning process expressed an interest in improving the quality of existing commercial areas along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community members called for the enactment of design standards, the improvement of access and parking, the preservation of native vegetation, and the revitalization of older and neglected properties. Small Business Retention & Development. Encouraging businesses that serve the local community was another objective promoted by participants in the planning process. Residents value the small scale and unique offerings of local businesses and want to ensure their continued p.cbcssce along the U.S. 1 corridor. 27 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal Goal 1: Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Keys, and maintain and encourage commercial revitalization along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community character includes the cultural/traditional heritage, physical character, and scale of the businesses that serve the local community in the Lower Keys area. Objective 1.1 Monroe County shall continue to manage the rate of residential and non-residential growth in the Lower Keys to maintain adequate levels of service and ensure a balance of land use to serve the existing and future population. Use of the Tier System as the primary means to conserve natural areas,focus state and county acquisition programs, manage growth in transition areas, and guide development to areas most appropriate for new infill development and redevelopment. Policy Item 1.1.1: Monroe County is recommended to conduct an analysis, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, to determine the Lower Keys "fair share" of projected residential and non-residential growth based on assessments of the availability of appropriate sites for development (vacant, unconstrained lots in improved subdivisions, vacant sites along U.S. 1, and developed properties deemed appropriate or prone to redevelopment), the existing and projected demand for commercial services, and the community's desire to support and improve existing businesses that serve the local community. Policy Item 1.1.2: Monroe County is recommended to conduct a market analysis, as part of the Comprehensive Plan Update, to determine the extent to which the daily and weekly needs of Lower Keys residents can be met locally. The study should include the following: • an analysis of the demand for retail goods and professional/personal services generated by existing and future residents; • an assessment of existing commercial, professional, and personal services; • identification of imbalances in existing supply and demand; and ( • recommendations for addressing identified imbalances through economic development initiatives,planning policies, and land development regulations. 28 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Policy Item 1.1.3: Based on the outcome of the Fair Share and Market analyses identified in the previous policies, Monroe County shall identify property specific revisions to the FLUM categories and Land Use District Map. Policy Item 1.1.4: To increase awareness of potential development and redevelopment activity periodic reports will be provided to the Lower Keys community summarizing the number, location, and type of development applications received and accepted for review. Policy Item 1.1.5: Monroe County will encourage individuals seeking minor and major conditional use approvals to meet with neighboring property owners and representatives of community groups prior to the submittal of permit applications. Objective 1.2 Monroe County shall continue to use the Land Use District Map and Future Land Use Map categories to regulate land use by type, density, and intensity. Policy Item 1.2.1: Monroe County shall continue to recognize the FLUM categories and land use districts as the primary regulatory tools for evaluating development proposals. Policy Item 1.2.2: Monroe County shall continue to implement the Florida Keys Area of State Critical Concern and height restriction policies specified within the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan and the Monroe County Land Development Code. Policy Item 1.2.3: Monroe County shall limit the height of any structure or building to a maximum of 35 feet. Objective 1.3 Monroe County shall evaluate the effectiveness of existing neighborhood conservation efforts, and, if necessary, revise existing or prepare new policies, procedures, and programs to conserve, stabilize, and improve conditions in existing neighborhoods. Policy Item 1.3.1: To maintain the rural character of existing neighborhoods, improved subdivisions, and lands along the rights-of-way of local roadways, Monroe County shall prepare and adopt standards limiting clearance of existing native vegetation, including vegetated areas with little value as wildlife habitat, and requiring mitigation where clearance is deemed unavoidable. Policy Item 1.3.2: Monroe County will explore the feasibility of enacting design guidelines to ensure new development and redevelopment in and adjacent to existing improved subdivisions is compatible in scale and character with surrounding properties. The guidelines, if deemed feasible, may address the following: • conservation of existing and establishment of new native vegetation and buffers; • limits on impervious surfaces; L • building placement, massing, and height; • enclosure of building areas below base flood elevation; and 29 January2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan • location and screening of parking areas, mechanical equipment, and trash receptacles. Policy Item 1.3.3: Monroe County will work with residents and neighborhood organizations to identify properties with code violations and work with owners to bring properties into compliance. Policy Item 1.3.4: Monroe County will ensure that residential design guidelines, if enacted, do not create a financial burden on property owners. Objective 1.4 Monroe County shall encourage programs and initiatives to promote the retention of existing and the creation of new businesses along the U.S. 1 Corridor that serve the local community. Policy Item 1.4.1: Monroe County will review and evaluate the land use designation of lawfully-established non-conforming non-residential land uses and structures and determine if changes in planning policy or land development regulations are appropriate to encourage rehabilitation, improvement, and modest additions. Policy Item 1.4.2: Monroe County will adopt policies to discourage the continuance of nonconforming uses determined in the review to be inappropriate for the area in which they are located. Policy Item 1.4.3: Monroe County will conduct an analysis to determine the redevelopment potential of obsolete residential and non-residential structures with U.S. 1 frontage in areas designated on the FLUM for Mixed Use Commercial development. Policy Item 1.4.4: To protect the viability of existing businesses and prevent additional strip commercial development along U.S. I, Monroe County is encouraged to not support the designation of new commercial land use districts outside areas currently designated Mixed Use/Commercial on the Future Land Use Map. Changes in the existing boundaries of the Mixed Use/Commercial land use category may only occur as part of the Community Center designation process. Policy Item 1.4.5: Monroe County is encouraged to not support the establishment of gaming facilities within the Lower Keys LCP study area. Objective 1.5 Monroe County shall conduct an evaluation to determine the extent of areas along the U.S. I corridor for compact mixed use development and prepare changes in policy and land development regulations to encourage appropriate investment, conserve natural areas, support businesses that serve the local community, and ensure compatibility with adjacent residential areas. kirr 30 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Policy Item 1.5.1: The following areas designated as Mixed Use Commercial on the PLUM may be evaluated to determine their potential for designation as Community Centers. • Lower Sugarloaf Key(MM 16-17) • Cudjoe Key(MM 22-23) • Summerland Key(MM 24-25) • Ramrod Key(MM 26.5-27.5) As part of the Community Center evaluation, Monroe County will work with residents and property owners to assess existing conditions and development potential, identify opportunities for new development and redevelopment, and define standards to ensure new development and redevelopment furthers goals for the creation of walkable, mixed use centers serving neighborhood needs. Policy Item 1.5.2: Where designation of a Community Center is deemed appropriate, Monroe County shall work with the community and FDOT to confirm the appropriateness and scheduling of capital improvements recommended in the U.S. 1 Corridor Enhancement Plan. Improvements may include land acquisition to support the creation of affordable housing, landscape and streetscape improvements in public rights- of-way, conservation of native vegetation, creation of new or improvements to existing public spaces, the removal of billboards, or the provision of public access to the water. 4111, Policy Item 1.5.3: Where designation of a Community Center is deemed appropriate, Monroe County shall amend the Land Development Code to adopt an overlay district providing standards for the following: • land uses and development intensity • affordable and workforce housing • site design, lighting, and landscaping • access and parking • pedestrian and bicycle circulation • building placement, massing, form, and scale • architectural character • outdoor storage • buffers to residential areas The amendment to the Land Development Code overlay district shall be adopted concurrently with the approval of appropriate zoning changes. 31 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 5. CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary Approximately 77% (15,778 acres) of the parcel coverage in the planning area is saltwater wetlands, freshwater wetlands, or submerged lands (water). The remaining 23% (4,643 acres) is classified as developed, uplands, or containing exotic species. The upland areas make up 2,534 acres (12%) of the planning area and consist of hammock, pinelands, and ridge/hammock (See Section 1, Table 3). Due to the significant development restrictions associated with undisturbed wetlands, native upland communities become more vulnerable to development. The Lower Keys provides potential habitat for many endangered species including several species of turtles, the American alligator and crocodile, the Eastern indigo snake, several species of birds, the silver rice rat, the Key deer, and the Lower Keys marsh rabbit. A full list of species can be found in Section 1,Table 4 of this report. Acquisition of tropical hardwood hammock and wetlands in the area is actively ongoing. As funding allows, the State of Florida and Monroe County are actively acquiring environmentally sensitive parcels. The State of Florida has added over 6,000 parcels throughout the Keys to their priority acquisition list under the Florida Forever Program. These parcels are in the Natural Resource and Conservation areas identified as environmentally sensitive through the ROGO point system and coincide with the Tier I areas mapped through the Tier System. The Tier System was adopted into the Comprehensive Plan in 2005. Monroe County adopted the Tier System and Tier Overlay District Maps into the Land Development Regulations in March 2006. The Department of Community Affairs published final orders in June 2006, approving the ordinances. The final orders were challenged in July 2006, and the amendments, with a few modifications, came into effect on January 2, 2008. In addition to direct acquisition of environmentally sensitive lands, Monroe County has addressed their protection through numerous regulatory means including limiting clearing of habitat and requiring mitigation for removal of native plants. The Tier System is designed to continue these restrictions while simplifying the process. The improvement and maintenance of good water quality is a primary goal within the planning area as it has been throughout the Florida Keys. Establishment of the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary in 1990 was in large part a response to studies indicating a decline in water quality and the health of the coral reef tract along the Keys. Monroe County, in conjunction with state and federal agencies, has worked to implement programs and regulatory strategies to help improve water quality. Strategies include the adoption of master plans for sewage treatment and stormwater runoff, the elimination of illegal cesspits, improved stormwater management requirements for site development, and the planning of central wastewater collection and treatment. There are nine sanitary sewer service providers serving 15 associated service areas located throughout the County. For the most part, service areas within incorporated areas coincide with 4111/ the limits of incorporation. The four service areas served by regional service providers within 32 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan incorporated areas include the Village of Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, City of Marathon, and the City of Key West; the City of Layton is served by FKAA. Within unincorporated Monroe County, there are five regional service providers: North Key Largo Utility Corp., Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District, Key West Resort Utilities Corp., Stock Island and FKAA. FKAA provides service to seven of the 15 service areas previously identified. Regional systems are regulated through FDEP, and are subject to the same State and Federal regulations. Because each regional service provider is accountable for compliance, responsibility for service areas within incorporated areas typically falls with the municipality they serve. With the exception of the City of Layton that is served through FKAA, each municipal and private provider is independent of one another. Analysis of Community Needs Tier System/Acquisition. Numerous parcels within Tier I lands were submitted to the State of Florida and added to the Florida Forever priority acquisition list. The County should track the State's progress in purchasing these lands within the planning area. Additionally, the County should identify Tier III-A (Special Protection Areas) lands providing green space on US-1 and elsewhere or that may be restored to enhance and expand existing habitat. Threatened and Endangered Species. The adoption of the Tier System is intended to provide for protection of habitat while streamlining the assignment of points for ROGO and directing 4111/ growthto the most appropriate locations. Habitat Management. One aspect of land acquisition and habitat protection that presents a difficulty in the planning area is the management of acquired lands. Due to the proliferation of platted subdivisions and roads, acquired parcels may form a fragmented patchwork of mixed habitat and disturbed areas. These areas are difficult to manage due to increased resource and manpower requirements and the fact that access/disturbance factors are almost impossible to control in some areas. In the Florida Keys, major habitat management activities include the removal of trash and debris, the removal of invasive exotic vegetation, restoration of habitat through mainly through topographic restoration, and maintenance of parcels in an exotics-free condition. Water Quality. The County is currently addressing the impacts of development on water quality through the implementation of the wastewater and stormwater master plans for the Florida Keys. The County should track the progress of these activities and ensure timely implementation within the planning area as well as coordinating these actions with design and roadway improvements called for in the Lower Keys/US-1 Corridor Enhancement Plan. 33 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals,Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 2a Monroe County will continue to manage conservation lands, reduce exotic species, and continue natural lands acquisition for preservation in the Lower Keys. Goal 2b Monroe County will continue to develop and implement programs to improve water quality in canals and the nearshore environment. Objective 2.1 Monroe County will continue to implement the Tier System Land Use District Overlay Maps for the planning area depicting the locations of Tier I, Tier III, and Tier III-A (Special Protection (kW Areas) lands as described in Comprehensive Plan Policy 105.2.1 ` Policy Bern 2.1.1: Monroe County will continue to use the Tier System as the basis for setting acquisition priorities with in the planning area that considers wildlife and plant habitat and restorable area first, Policy Item 2.1.2: Monroe County will partner with neighborhood groups to identify, acquire, and manage lots and parcels in Tier I and Tier III-A (Special Protection Areas) with fragments of hammock. Objective 2.2 Monroe County shall create and implement a management strategy for County-owned acquisition lands aimed at maintaining and restoring native habitat or meeting community planning objectives. Policy Item 2.2.1: Monroe County will monitor acquired lands and provide contact information to the public in order facilitate expedient responses to complaints and property-related problems such as illegal dumping, clearing, or camping. Policy Item 2.2.2: Monroe County will establish management goals and objectives for the various types of lands inventoried and evaluated under Policy Item 2.2.1. The goals and objectives may be aimed at natural resources management, public safety (wildfire minimization),public access management, and other opportunities. 34 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4111, Policy Item 2.2.3: Monroe County will include opportunities for habitat restoration in the land acquisition management plan. Policy Item 2.2.4: Monroe County should ensure that the design of Monroe County's facilities further site management and restoration goals. Objective 2.3 Monroe County policies and regulations shall continue to be implemented regarding the removal of exotic and invasive species and the conservation of native species. Policy Item 2.3.1: Monroe County will conduct a review of their existing policies and regulations and identify opportunities to ensure conservation of native plant species in Tier III-A (Special Protection Areas) and Tier III lands subject to development. Policy Item 2.3.2: Monroe County will expand education programs encouraging the removal of exotic and invasive species. Objective 2.4 Monroe County shall continue to ensure the implementation of the County's stormwater and wastewater master plans in order to improve water quality within the planning area. Policy Item 2.4.1: In the preparation of stormwater and wastewater plans, Monroe ------- County shall ensure that resident's concerns regarding nearshore water quality and circulation are addressed. Policy Item 2.4.2: Monroe County shall insure that the Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan is implemented regarding the control of non-point source discharges that may affect nearshore water quality. 35 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 6. TRANSPORTATION ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary The inventory of existing roads, bridges, and facilities for the Lower Keys (MM 14.2-29) includes U.S. 1 and numerous County-maintained collector and local roads. U.S. I is a State facility functioning as a major arterial and providing direct access to numerous commercial services. Throughout the planning area, U.S. 1 is primarily a two-lane roadway with the exception of MM 24-25 which has a center turn lane. There are 13 U.S. 1 bridges and one signalized intersection at MM 19.5 on Upper Sugarloaf Key at Crane Blvd. This road must meet State concurrency requirements for traffic LOS C. The Florida Keys concurrency standard is speed-based rather than volume based and requires that, at a minimum, an overall average speed of 45 miles per hour (mph) be maintained over the entire length of the island chain (from MM 112.5 to MM 4 on Stock Island) and that any individual segment (24 total)not fall below 45 mph average speed. Any reserve speed(difference between median speed and the LOS C standard) is used to calculate additional roadway capacity and correspondingly additional development along those segments. There are six segments in the Lower Keys CommuniKeys Planning Area (from mile marker14.2 to mile marker 29). Segment 4: Saddlebunch, Mile Markers 10.5-16.5 411 - Segment 5: Sugarloaf, Mile Markers 16.5-20.5 Segment 6: Cudjoe, Mike Markers 20.5-23.0 Segment 7: Summerland (23.0-25.0) Segment 8: Ramrod, Mile Markers 25.0-27.5 Segment 9: Torch, Mile Markers 27.5-29.5 The 2011 U.S. I Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study, prepared by URS Corporation Southern, indicate Segments 4 through 8 has a LOS B and Segment 9 is a LOS A. Compared to last year (2010) study results, Segments 4 and 5 resulted in positive LOS changes, increasing from a LOS C to a LOS B. Monroe County maintains 100.35 miles of roads and seven bridges between MM 14.2-29. These include both collector and local roads which must meet a LOS D established by the County's Land Development Regulations. The County's Seven Year Roadway and Bicycle Plan identifies a number of paving projects for many of the roads within the planning area, as well as paving of several bicycle paths in Summerland Key. • There is bus service provided by the Lower Keys shuttle which runs from Key West to Marathon. The City of Key West Department of Transportation (KWDOT) which operates: o Key West Transit (KWT) with four fixed-route bus routes serving the City of Key West and Stock Island; o The Lower Keys Shuttle providing service in the southern portion of the County from the City of Marathon to the City of Key West; and o The Key West Park-N-Ride at The Old Town Garage. 36 January2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan kle The shuttle connects with Dade-Monroe Express in Marathon to provide bus service from Key West to Florida City (mainland Miami). Scheduled stops within the planning area are in Bay Point, Sugarloaf, Cudjoe Key, and Summerland Key. There is also one bus stop on Ramrod and one on Little Torch Key. Ridership data has not been analyzed. Sidewalks and curb ramps are infrequent along U.S. 1 in the planning area. The Overseas Heritage Trail (OHT) which runs parallel to U.S. 1 throughout most of the Keys, is yet to be completed in the planning area. This is a limiting factor for both pedestrian and bicycle activity in the Lower Keys (MM 14.2-29). A small portion of the OHT has been competed at the southern end of the planning area on Saddlebunch Key. Construction of the remainder of the trail from MM 16.5 — 29.9 is scheduled for construction in late 2011.. The following historic bridges have been reconstructed to be used as part of the OHT: Park Channel Bridge at MM 18.7, Bow Channel Historic Bridge at MM 20.2, Lower Sugarloaf Bridge at MM 15.5. Kemp Channel Bridge at MM 23.6, and South Pine Channel Bridge at MM 29 are scheduled to be renovated in 2012. . Concurrent to the Lower Keys LCP, the County contracted with Carter-Burgess, Inc. to prepare the U.S. 1 Corridor Enhancement Plan. The US-1 Corridor Enhancement Plan encompasses the same study boundaries as the Lower Keys LCP and examines opportunities for establishing a consistent look and feel for US-1 in each community. Specific issues addressed in this study include bicycle and pedestrian needs and safety, roadway conditions, better defined vehicular areas, traffic flow, maintenance of or absence of landscaping, quality of the built environment and the scale of development. Analysis of Community Needs Much of the community's discussions on transportation needs were related to improving the US- 1 corridor in the planning area. The comments focused on additional bus stops,bus shelters, turn and merge lanes, repaving, and completion of the OHT. These issues are addressed in depth in the U.S. 1 Corridor Enhancement Plan as indicated above. Beyond the U.S. 1 corridor, community members expressed interest in increasing the number of designated bike routes along collector roads and the provision of bus service and shelters along select collector roads. There were no specifics discussions regarding where these services would be appropriate. Residents of the Torch Keys have indicated they do not want any additional signor-improvements that would increase non local vehicular, bicycle, or pedestrian traffic into their community. The Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association has asked for right and left acceleration lanes at the intersection of Sugarloaf Boulevard and US 1. They also asked for this intersection be made a"T" instead of a four way intersection. Maintenance of safety is very important to the Sugarloaf Shores HOA and these issues are recommended to be considered by the Florida DOT when developing US-1 corridor improvement plans. 411109 37 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 3 Monroe County shall encourage multi-modal transportation opportunities and implement programs specifically designed for vehicles, bicycles, and pedestrians along the U.S. I corridor and selected collector roads in the Lower Keys. Objective 3.1 Monroe County will review engineering and design efforts to implement projects proposed by FDEP and FDOT within the Overseas Heritage Trail and U.S. 1 Corridor. Policy Item 3.1.1: Monroe County should refer to the recommendations in the Lower Keys US-1 Corridor Enhancement Plan when reviewing proposed FDOT improvements located within the U.S. 1 Corridor. Policy Item 3.1.2: Monroe County should refer to the recommendations in the Overseas Heritage Trail Master Plan when reviewing proposed FDEP Greenways and Trails improvements located within the U.S. 1 Corridor. Objective 3.2 Monroe County shall explore the feasibility of providing public transportation along collector roadways within the Lower Keys planning area(MM 14.2-29). Policy Item 3.2.1: Monroe County will work with Key West Transit Authority to determine potential ridership and economic viability of increasing or reducing the service area of the Lower Keys Shuttle to include select collector roadways within the Lower Keys planning area(MM 14.2-29) Objective 3.3 Monroe County shall continue to improve the bicycle/pedestrian environment on local and collector roads in accordance with the community's desires, the County Bicycle-Pedestrian Master Plan and the Florida Keys Overseas Heritage Trail Master Plan.. Policy Item 3.3.1: Monroe County will work with the Lower Keys residents to identify, develop, and seek funding for bicycle/pedestrian routes to link residential areas to parks, schools, and commercial areas. 411/110 38 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan thr 7. HOUSING ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary The Lower Keys planning area has experienced an increase of 1352 housing units between 2000 and 2010, according to the US Census. This represents a 34% increase, more than twice the percent increase experienced countywide during the same time period. As these statistics indicate, the planning area has seen significant housing growth. Much of the increase results from the continuing build out of existing improved subdivisions. According to the County's population projections, this rate is expected to continue. Eventually, it is expected that the pace of infill development will slow as the inventory of vacant lots declines, with units created through redevelopment representing an increasingly greater share of total development activity. Owner-occupied and vacant housing units accounted for the bulk of the new units added in the planning area. According to the Census only 108 rental units were added to the inventory between 1990 and 2000. The percentage of overall vacant housing in the Lower Keys has increased by 45% as compared to 31%countywide. Of the vacant housing found in the planning area, the largest percentage was attributed to seasonal residences. The US Census Bureau classifies seasonal residences under vacant housing since a primary residence is being counted as occupied elsewhere. As a percent of total vacant housing, seasonal housing stayed the same during the ten year period while the County saw an increase of 13% (see Table 7). 4111/ 39 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Table 7 -Lower Keys Housing Units 1990-2000 Lower Keys (Census Tracts 9715 and 9716) Monroe County % % 1990 2000 Change 1990 2000 Change 1990- 1990- Number Percent Number Percent 2000 _ Number Percent Number Percent 2000 Total Housing Units 3,592 na 4,532 na 26% 46,215 na 51,617 na 12% Occupied Housing Units 2,512 ' 100% 2,963 100% 18% 46,312 100% 48,272 100% 4% Owner occupied 1,961 78% 2,378 80% 21% 33,583 73% 35,086 73% 4% Renter occupied 551 22% 585 20% 6% 12,729 27% 13,186 27% 4% Vacant Housing Units 1,080 100% 1,569 100% 45% 12,632 100% 16,531 100% 31% 47 For rent 80 7% 154 10% _ 93% 2,010 16% 1,663 10% -17% For sale 104 10% 90 6% -13% 943 7% 759 5% -20% Not occupied 73 7% 34 2% _ -53% 560 4% 304 2% -46% Seasonal 740 69% 1,082 69% 46% 7,928 63% 12,638 76% 59% Other 83 i 8% 207 13% 149% 1,191 9% 1,177 7% -1% Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1990, 2000 Due to the limitation on the amount of growth the County could absorb based on the Carrying Capacity and Hurricane Evacuation Studies, on June 23, 1992, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 016-1992, creating the Residential Dwelling Unit Allocation System, known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or ROGO. ROGO was developed as a response to the inability of the road network to accommodate a large-scale hurricane evacuation in a timely fashion. It is used as a tool to equitably distribute the remaining number of permits available both geographically and over time. ROGO allows development subject to the ability to safely evacuate the Florida Keys (the Keys) within 24 hours. The annual allocation period, or ROGO year, is the 12-month period beginning on July 13, 1992, (the effective date of the original dwelling unit allocation ordinance), and subsequent one-year 41, periods. The number of dwelling units which can be permitted in Monroe County has been controlled since July of 1992 (adoption of Ordinance 016-1992). 40 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan The BOCC adopted Ordinance 09-2006 which revised ROGO and ado pted Ordinance 11-2006 which revised NROGO to utilize the Tier overlay as the basis for the competitive point system. The Tier System changed the service areas (or subareas boundaries) mentioned in the Introduction. The boundaries are the basis for the scoring of NROGO and ROGO applications and administrative relief. The ROGO subareas are the Lower Keys, Upper Keys, and Big Pine / No Name Keys. The NROGO subareas are 1) Big Pine/No Name Keys and 2) the remainder of unincorporated Monroe County. The residential ROGO allocations (LDR, Section 138-24) break down the number of available dwelling units per year, per subarea. Table 8-Lower Keys ROGO Allocations Subarea Number of Allocations Market Rate Upper Keys 61 Lower Keys 57 Big Pine Key&No Name Key 8 Total Market Rate 126 Affordable Big Pine/No Name Keys Very low, Low&Median income 1 Moderate Income 1 The remainder of unincorporated Monroe County Very low, Low & Median income 35 Moderate Income 34 Total Affordable 71 Overall Total Per Year 197 Affordability of housing for working residents in the Florida Keys has received significant attention in the last few years. Monroe County's comprehensive plan and land development regulations have defined affordable housing and provided some incentives for its development. These regulations were aimed at providing housing for lower wage earners such as service workers, unskilled laborers, minimum wage earners and single-earner households. The annual income for these workers has historically met the criteria to allow them to qualify for affordable housing as defined in the MCC. The most that a single household can earn and still qualify for affordable housing is 120% of the county's median monthly household income. 460 41 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Housing availability for workers earning more than 120% of the median county income has been decreasing steadily over the last few years. Households edging out of the affordable category include professional salaried workers, skilled workers/tradesmen and two-income households. With the recent rapid changes in the real estate values in the Florida Keys the typical dry-lot single family home often purchased by this group is now out of their projected affordable price range based on income. The availability of moderately low mortgage interest rates especially over the past few years and the controlled allocation of permits for new residential units in the Keys have combined to make house prices increase at alarming rates. The recent downturn in the economy has resulted in an increase in unemployment and a decrease in the availability of mortgage loans. It is clear that household income for the "workforce" group has not experienced a concurrent increase at a rate sufficient to qualify them for basic housing, even with the lower interest rates. The availability of 100% financing, no down payment, and other such options available in this volatile market make for an unstable situation for these families even if they qualify. Units qualifying as "affordable" under the MCC must meet regulations listed under Section 9.5- 266 and other sections of the MCC. Not the least of these regulations is the requirement for the affordable unit to remain affordable for at least 99 years restrictive from the time it is established. 11111/ The term "workforce housing" is commonly used to refer to housing units that employees working in Monroe County could qualify to purchase or those units which are currently owned by members of the County's workforce. The market-rate housing that the existing workforce has been utilizing has no such restrictions and is now being lost. Units that were purchased by members of the workforce prior to the dramatic increase in housing prices are being sold at the highest possible market price. Houses sold at the highest market price will not likely be available to new members of the workforce who may not be able to purchase the unit at the higher market price. Analysis of Community Needs Creation of Affordable Housing. Virtually all of the housing units owned or rented by the resident workforce in the Lower Keys are not deed-restricted affordable housing. Consequently ---- as housing values have increased in recent years, the stock of housing affordable to lower or moderate income residents has declined. In addition, a number of previously affordable units, such as mobile homes, have been demolished and replaced with new market rate housing. To ensure the availability of housing for the resident workforce in March of 2006 the County passed Ordinance No. 009-2006. The Ordinance limits affordable/workforce housing to Tier III properties, expands the covenant for housing to remain affordable at least 99 years, and provides incentive for affordable/workforce housing through ROGO. 42 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 4 Monroe County shall pursue locations, solutions, and partnerships to establish an affordable housing base for the Lower Keys residents and workers, while also ensuring compatibility between new and existing residential development. Objective 4.1 Monroe County shall promote the preservation and improvement of the existing stock of affordable housing in the Lower Keys LCP planning area. Policy Item 4.1.1: Monroe County will conduct an inventory of the existing deed restricted affordable and workforce housing stock within the Lower Keys planning area - - - (MM14.2-29), including government housing, units that are legally bound to affordable standards, neighborhoods and developments that have traditionally housed workers, and employee housing(both on and off employer premises). Objective 4.2 Monroe County shall encourage affordable and workforce housing in areas identified appropriate for higher intensity commercial, mixed-use, and residential development. Policy Item 4.2.1: Monroe County will evaluate the effectiveness for existing affordable housing incentives and identify, if appropriate, revising or creating new incentives to promote the development of affordable and workforce housing. Policy Item 4.2.2: Monroe County will conduct an analysis to identify sites for affordable and workforce housing in areas identified in the FLUM as residential high and -- ------mixed-use/commercial land use. Policy Item 4.2.3: Monroe County will consider, as part of the Community Center designation process, the provision of affordable housing as part of mixed use development. Policy Item 4.2.4: Monroe County is encouraged to require new developments in areas designated for higher density mixed use development to supply or fund employee, affordable and workforce housing in return for receiving new dwelling unit or commercial floor space allocations. 43 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 41111, 8. PUBLIC UTILITIES/SERVICES ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary Potable Water. The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole provider of potable water in Monroe County. FKAA's primary water supply is the Biscayne Aquifer, a shallow groundwater source. The FKAA's wellfield is located in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in south Miami-Dade County. The FKAA's wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater in the State, meeting all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Laws protect the wellfield from potential contamination from adjacent land uses. Beyond the County's requirements, FKAA is committed to comply with and surpass all federal and state water quality standards and requirements. The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the FKAA's Water Treatment Facility in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment design capacity of 29.8 million gallons per day (MGD). The primary water treatment process is a conventional lime softening/filtration water treatment plant and is capable of treating up to 23.8 MGD from the Biscayne Aquifer. The secondary water treatment process is the newly constructed Reverse Osmosis (RO) water treatment plant and is capable of producing 6 MGD from the brackish Floridan Aquifer. This RO water treatment system is designed to withdraw brackish water from the Floridan Aquifer, an alternative water source, which is approximately 1,000 feet below the ground surface, and treated io drinking water standards. The new RO water treatment plant provides added capability to limit Biscayne aquifer withdrawals and is designed to meet current and future water demands. The RO water treatment system provides an additional 6.0 MGD of potable water. The product water from these treatment processes is then disinfected and fluoridated. The FKAA treated water is pumped 130 miles from Florida City to Key West supplying water to the entire Florida Keys. Including overlapping coverage, the FKAA maintains 187 miles of transmission main at a maximum pressure of 250 pounds per square inch. The transmission pipeline varies in diameter from 36 inches to 12 inches. The FKAA distributes the treated water through 690 miles of distribution piping ranging in size from '/-inch to 12 inches in diameter. There are two saltwater RO water treatment systems in Monroe County. One is in Marathon and the other is in Stock Island. Both are available to produce potable water under emergency conditions. The RO desalinization plants have design capacities of 2.0 and 2.0 MGD of water respectively. The annual average daily demand is 16.21 MGD and thee maximum monthly water demand in Monroe County is 533.26 MG which occurred in April of 2010. Preliminary figures and projections for 2011 indicate a slight increase to an annual average daily demand to 16.54 MGD and an increase in maximum monthly demand to 563.33 MG as compared to 2010 figures. FKAA has a 20-year Water System Capital Improvement Master Plan for water supply, water treatment, transmission mains and booster pump stations, distribution mains, facilities and ilr structures, information technology, reclaimed water systems, and Navy water systems. 44 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan (.. In 1989, FKAA embarked on the Distribution System Upgrade Program to replace approximately 190 miles of galvanized lines throughout the Keys. FKAA continues to replace and upgrade its distribution system throughout the Florida Keys and the schedule for these upgrades is reflected in their long-range capital improvement plan. The FKAA's Water Distribution System Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of approximately 38,240 feet of water main during fiscal year 2011. Sanitary Sewer. The sustainability of the marine ecosystem of the Florida Keys (the "Keys") is dependent upon clear water with low nutrient loading. Treatment of sewage and the disposal of wastewater within the County historically have been accomplished through septic tanks, on-site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS), and small to intermediate sized privately-owned wastewater treatment package plants. With expansion and growth, regional systems consisting of treatment plants and centralized sewer have been built providing a greater level of collection and treatment. Several sewer districts, both private and municipal, have been formed to service more densely populated areas. Notwithstanding the above accomplishments, the Keys face the challenge of obtaining adequate funding sources to implement the extent of regional systems required to meet guidelines established by State and federal mandates. To further complicate the issue, in more sparsely populated areas, advanced methods of treatment are not generally economically feasible. Regulatory pressure and the implementation of numeric nutrient criteria increase the complexity of providing proper treatment of sewage. Current wastewater treatment practices, combined with severely limited soils and high land use densities result in increased potential for ground and surface water contamination. The treatment of sewage and the disposal of wastewater within the planning area have historically been accomplished either through on-site treatment and disposal using septic tanks and drain fields or through intermediate sized, privately-owned wastewater treatment package plants. The Comprehensive Plan requires that sewage treatment in the Florida Keys meet Advanced Wastewater Treatment(AWT) criteria in the Keys by 2010. In December 12, 1995, the Administration Commission found the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan not in compliance and ordered facilitated rulemaking/mediation to address outstanding issues. In July 1997, the Administration Commission proposed Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C., which introduced the concept of the Work Program requiring the following activities as it relates to wastewater: • Continued construction of wastewater facilities in hot spots begun in previous year. • Design and construction of additional wastewater treatment facilities in accordance with the schedule of a wastewater master plan. • Implementation of the FKCCS to establish development standards ensuring that all new development not exceed the capacity the ecosystem's ability to sustain impacts. • Complete elimination of cesspits. • Complete central wastewater facilities by July 1, 2010. thr In April 2010, the Florida Senate and House approved SB 2018 extending the deadline for compliance to the end of 2015, and postponing fines and potential liens against property owners. 45 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan L In addition, the bill authorized $200 million of State funding for improvements; however, the source of funding remains unresolved. Meeting the 2015 extension requires a detailed financial plan to implement necessary plant and infrastructure improvements. The funding gap, which has already stretched the County's capacity for debt service, continues to broaden due to a delayed revenue stream resulting from delays in design and construction of new systems. Subsidizing costs is consistent with County's policy. Detailed construction plans must be complete and ready when future funding becomes available. Solid Waste. In 1990 Monroe County entered into an agreement with Waste Management,Inc.(WMI)to transport solid waste out of the County to the contractor's private landfill in Broward County, Florida Monroe County has continued to contract with Waste Management (WMI). The contract authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 30, 2016, thereby providing the County with approximately five (5) years of guaranteed capacity. Analysis shows that there is adequate capacity for solid waste generation through 2012. Solid waste is collected by franchise and taken to the three historic landfill sites, which serve as transfer facilities. At the transfer stations, the waste is compacted and loaded on Waste Management, Inc. (WMI) trucks for haul out. Recyclable materials, including white goods, tires, glass, aluminum, plastic bottles and newspaper are included as part of the solid waste haul out contract. A recent(2009) amendment to the contract includes WMI and the County's commitment to increase the annual recycling rate to 40 percent by 2014. IOW The historical solid waste generation values for Monroe County show a steady increase of total solid waste generation between the years 1998-2001. During the period 2002 - 2006, the County's solid waste generation was significantly higher. These higher values do not correspond to normal solid waste generation trends within the County and in actuality result from a cluster of outliers. The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions (greater consumption of goods and services) and storm events that cause a significant amount of over generation due to debris. Furthermore, during the period of 2007-2008, an economic recession affected solid waste generation, significantly reducing standard trends for generation growth. Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 5.44 pounds per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) and establishes a haul out capacity of 95,000 tons per year or 42,668 ERUs. The Comprehensive plan requires sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of three years from the projected date of completion of the proposed development of use. The Monroe County Land Development Code (LDC), in compliance with State concurrency requirements, require that, "...sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and approved development for a period of at least three years from the projected date of completion of a proposed development or use" (LDC, Section 114-2(a)(2)). This regulation went into effect on February 28, 1988, and serves as a level of service (LOS) standard for solid waste disposal. 46 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan The LDC also requires that solid waste management plans be completed before any proposed development of a Major Conditional Use is reviewed by the Growth Management Department. Solid waste generation rates and capacity assessments must be submitted for review and coordination with the Public Works Division. Fire and Rescue Services Public safety facilities include the typical services needed for community protection and safety. The following services are provided: ■ Sheriff. The County Sheriffs Office provides Law Enforcement service to all of the Florida Keys. According to the Florida Department of Law Enforcement (FDLE) 2010 Total Crime Index, the reported annual crime rate decreased in the Florida Keys between 2009 and 2010 by 6.2%. Table 9 - Crime in Florida- Monroe County Summary of LCR Data County 2009 2010 % Change Population 77,925 76,887 -1.3 Total Arrests 6,801 6,672 -1.9 Total Index Offenses 4,445 4,115 -7.4 Violent Rate 531.3 442.2 -17.0 Non-Violent Rate 5,172.9 4,909.8 -5.1 Index Rate 5,704.2 5,352.0 -6.2 http://www.fdle.state.fl.us • Fire Service. Volunteer Fire Rescue Stations #10, #11, and #13 serve the planning area. Station #10 is located on Sugarloaf Key at MM 17. Station #11 is located at MM 20 on Cudjoe Key and Station #13 is located MM 30.5 on Big Pine Key. Monroe County Fire Rescue indicated they were adding new fire wells throughout the County including three or four in the planning area. • Emergency Management Services (EMS). Monroe County's EMS Department serves as the central public information source for any planning area emergency and acts as coordinator in disaster situations. One major function of EMS is hurricane preparedness and emergency evacuation of residents. EMS has designated the Lower Keys as Evacuation Zone #2. Sugarloaf School serves as the emergency evacuation shelter for Category 1 and 2 storms. 4 kW 47 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan kir Schools The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools located throughout the Keys. School Board data includes both unincorporated and incorporated Monroe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three middle/elementary schools, and six elementary schools. Each school offers athletic fields, computer labs, bus service and a cafetorium that serves as both a cafeteria and an auditorium. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some middle schools offer gymnasiums. The Monroe County school system is divided into three (3) sub-districts. Sub-district 3 covers the Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school (Key West High), one middle school (Horace O'Bryant Middle School), one elementary/middle school (Sugarloaf School), and five elementary schools (Gerald Adams Elementary, Glenn Archer Elementary, Poinciana Elementary, Montessori Elementary School, and Sigsbee Elementary School). Table 10—Lower Keys Schools ACTUAL ACTUAL LOWER KEYS 2010-2011 2010-2011 2014-2015 SCHOOLS 2009-2010 (From Bahia Honda to CLASSROOM FULLTIME UTILIZATIO FULLTIME Key West) CAPACITY STUDENTS N PROJECTION KEY WEST SENIOR 1,431 1,338 94.00% 1,338 HIGH HORACE O'BRYANT 1,038 707 68.00% 964 MIDDLE GERALD ADAMS 652 441 68.00% 440 GLYNN ELEMENTARY ARCHER 598 257 43.00% 0 PEOLEMENT RY ANA 641 612 95.00% 611 SIGSBEE ELEMENTARY 522 228 44.00% 0 SUGARLOAF ELEMENTARY 1,215 745 61.00% 740 ---- MONTESSORI 90 90 100.00% 140 ELEMENTARY TOTAL 6,187 4,418 71.41% 4,233 During the 2009-2010 school year, the Florida Inventory of School Houses (FISH) capacity rate for the Lower Keys was 6,187 students and the Capital Outlay of Full-Time Equivalent (COFTE) was 4,418. In the Lower Keys, the projected growth utilization rate for the years 2014-2015 is 4.20%. Enrollment figures for the 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 school years indicate there is adequate capacity for the Lower Keys Monroe County school system. Residents have indicated 48 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CammuniKeys Plan that it is imperative that underutilized school facilities be made more available for community use. Analysis of Community Needs A review of the existing Lower Keys planning area conditions and the 2011 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment report identifies the following trends: • Enrollment figures for the 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 school years indicate that there is adequate capacity in the Monroe County school system. Including the private Montessori Charter School, the overall 2010-2011 utilization is 71.41% of the school system capacity. • The 2010 estimated population for unincorporated Monroe County is 70,808 (2010) and by 2030 it is projected to increase by 3,149 additional persons. This is an increase of 157.5 persons per year through the twenty year planning horizon. • A public sanitary sewer system will continue to be needed and is included in the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. • The Fire Marshall identified the need for additional staff and the potential for upgrading the Cudjoe fire station facility sometime in the future. 41111, • Funding is needed to repair and upgrade the Sugarloaf Volunteer Fire Station. 49 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 411/ Goals, Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint'Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 5 Monroe County shall provide adequate public facilities to serve existing and future needs of the Lower Keys planning area while promoting conservation measures where appropriate. Objective 5.1 Monroe County shall implement the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Policy Item 5.1.1: Monroe County shall install a sanitary sewage treatment system in accordance with the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan. Components may include centralized or cluster facilities for collection and treatment. Efforts should be made to ensure that these facilities be developed on disturbed and/or scarified uplands or in existing rights-of-way. Policy Item 5.1.2: Monroe County shall confirm that the projected sewage treatment requirements for the planning area are consistent with the final development plan adopted pursuant to the Master Plan. Objective 5.2 Monroe County shall ensure the provisions of the Stormwater Master Plan are implemented and enforced for existing storm water management and improve upon systems where necessary, including canals. Policy Item 5.2.1: Monroe County will implement stormwater treatment systems in accordance with the Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan. Any facilities installed for centralized collection and treatment should be developed on disturbed and/or scarified uplands or in existing rights-of-way. Objective 5.3 Monroe County shall investigate and encourage programs to promote water reuse, water conservation, and solid waste clean-up and recycling programs within the planning area Policy Item 5.3.1: Monroe County shall continue to provide programs to promote water reuse, water conservation, solid waste clean-up, and recycling opportunities within the Lower Keys LCP planning area. 50 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CammuniKeys Plan Policy Item 5.3.2: Monroe County will seek funding to educate and create new programs, where appropriate, to encourage water reuse, water conservation, solid waste clean-up, and recycling opportunities within the Lower Keys LCP. Objective 5. 4 As part of the development and redevelopment efforts in the planning area, Monroe County shall ensure that fire suppression facilities meet the standards set by the Monroe County Fire Marshall. Policy Item 5.9.1: Monroe County will identify priority fire safety needs based on the Monroe County Fire Rescue Services assessment report and work with the FKAA to include priority areas into their work plan. tkbr 51 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4111, 9. RECREATION ELEMENT Current Conditions Summary County-owned conservation lands have been acquired over the years through land purchases by the Monroe County Land Authority (MCLA), land purchases by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), and the dedication of ROGO lots to the BOCC. These properties are located throughout the Keys, are undeveloped, and generally have parcel sizes of one acre or less. In many cases they are near or adjacent to larger conservation properties owned by the State or federal government. Many of the properties originally acquired by MCLA and the BOCC have been conveyed to the State or federal government. As of September 30, 2010, the inventory of conservation lands in Monroe County titled in either MCLA or the BOCC totaled approximately 1,400 acres. Resource-based recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources and cannot always be near population centers. Therefore, when determining the Level of Service (LOS) for this type of facilities, Monroe County includes the entire unincorporated County for this calculation. The activity-based recreational facilities that are inventoried include facilities and activities such as baseball/softball, footbalUsoccer, tennis courts, basketball courts, picnic tables and picnic pavilions, volleyball courts, handball/racquetball courts, equipped play areas, multi-use areas, benches, tracks, piers, bike paths, boat ramps, fishing, swimming, swimming pools, barbeque grills, shuffleboard courts,beaches and restrooms. Additionally,other recreation uses and facilities are indicated such as historic structures, bandshells, dog parks, skateboard facilities, aquatic parks, museums, and concessions. 41101 52 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Table 11 - Recreation Facilities in Lower Keys �r PARK NAME KEY MILE TOTAL ACTIVITIES LOCATION MARKER ACRES National Key Big Pine to 15 to 30 9,200 Nature Trail, Deer Wildlife Sugarloaf Visitor's Center Refuge Great White Big Pine Key to 20 7,600 Beach, Great Heron National Key West White Heron& Wildlife Refuge Other Birds' Habitat, Fishing Bay Point Park Saddlebunch Key 15 1.58 Play Equipment, Volleyball, Picnic Tables,Trail, Basketball, 2 Tennis Courts, Pavilions, Soccer Nets Ramrod Key Park Ramrod Key 27 2.4 Beach, Swimming ` Public Boat Ramp Little Torch Key 28.5 0.1 Boat Ramp �/ Sugarloaf Key Sugarloaf 19.5 37 2 Elementary/Middle Baseball/Softball School* Fields,play equipment, 3 Public Boat Ramp W. Summerland 25 Public Boat Ramp Key Public Boat Ramp Little Torch Key Public Boat Ramp Public Boat Ramp Cudjoe Key 21.2 Public Boat Ramp The County Comprehensive Plan establishes level of service standards (LOS) for parks and recreation facilities to ensure there are adequate facilities to support existing and future populations. These standards are listed in the Comprehensive Plan and represent the minimum amount of recreation areas/facilities that should be provided by the County. The standard for neighborhood and community parks in unincorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1000 people. This is divided equally between resource-based and activity-based recreation with each having a required LOS of 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population. The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at educational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency. As of May 2011, a total of 98.98 acres of developed resourced-based and 118.25 acres of activity-based recreation areas either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board. 53 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Analysis of Community Needs Community input suggested that there was a desire to improve and better manage the recreational resources available to the residents. Participants in public workshops expressed a desire to be involved in decisions regarding the improvements and acquisitions in their neighborhoods and Keys. For example, many Torch Key residents said they do not want signs directing to people to existing recreation areas or improvements to these areas that might draw nonresidents to their neighborhood. The Overseas Heritage Trail was a frequent topic of discussion and a much awaited and desired amenity (addressed in the Transportation Element). Improved access to conservation lands with possible boardwalks and walking trails were suggested, where appropriate. However it was noted that many of these areas may not be appropriate for public access and further evaluation as to what is allowed on these lands should be undertaken before encouraging use of these resources. Swimming access, roadside parking, and additional neighborhood parks were also desired by many residents. 411/ thr 54 ✓anuary2ol2 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 41111/ Goals,Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 6 Monroe County shall maintain existing recreational facilities, seek opportunities for active and passive land-based recreation, and expand public shoreline access for water-based recreational activities within the Lower Keys community. Objective 6.1 Monroe County shall improve existing recreational facilities in need of maintenance throughout the Lower Keys planning area. Policy Item 6.1.1: Monroe County will implement the parks and recreation recommendations of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan within the planning area including improvements on undeveloped county owned recreation lands. Policy Item 6.1.2: Monroe County will identify and utilize available resources and potential funding opportunities for capital improvement projects to enhance parks and recreation facilities, services, and operational support. Policy Item 6.1.3: Monroe County will advocate responsible stewardship of natural resources through the development of an interpretive education program within active recreational areas. Policy Item 6.1.4: Monroe County will coordinate with State and Federal agencies, non- profit organizations, as well as other private and public entities to ensure that active recreational opportunities are being provided to all users, in conformance with standards adopted by the American Disabilities Act. Objective 6.2 Monroe County shall work with communities who desire neighborhood parks and recreational opportunities to encourage the acquisition of appropriate parcels. Policy Item 6.2.1: Monroe County will identify locations and prioritize land acquisition for small local parks in neighborhoods, which do not have, but desire public recreational facilities in their communities. 55 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Objective 6.3 Monroe County shall promote the use of existing and future conservation areas to provide passive recreational opportunities, while remaining sensitive to the natural resources and residential character of the Lower Keys LCP planning area. Policy Item 6.3.1: Monroe County will identify conservation areas appropriate for quality passive recreational activities where consistent with overarching environmental conservation responsibilities. Policy Item 6.3.2: Monroe County will prioritize future acquisition of conservation lands to maximize the preservation of scenic vistas,undeveloped views. Policy Item 6.3.3: Monroe County will identify and provide trail systems that connect existing and future conservation areas to the greatest extent practical. Policy Item 6.3.4: Monroe County will, where appropriate, design and establish trail improvements to blend with the natural environment while incorporating best management practice to protect the natural resources. Policy Item 6.3.5: Monroe County will work with interested residents to provide low- impact amenities at public access points within their neighborhoods or Keys. `r Policy Item 6.3.6: Monroe County will advocate responsible stewardship of natural resources through the development of an interpretive education program within conservation areas. Objective 6.4 Monroe County shall increase public shoreline access which offers opportunities for safe and diverse water-based activities while protecting the integrity of the natural environment and the community's residential character. Policy Item 6.4.1: Monroe County will conduct a study to identify potential shoreline access points and parcels within the planning area. Policy Item 6.4.2: Monroe County will prioritize the acquisition of recreational lands, with shoreline access given a priority between MM 14.2 and MM 29. Policy Item 6.4.3 Monroe County will coordinate work and activity with other agencies and groups, including but not limited to the Florida Keys Overseas Paddling Trail Program, Monroe County Marine Resources, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission and the DEP Division of Recreation and Parks, to further ensure harmony and consistency with the overall protection and preservation of beaches and shoreline within the county. 56 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4 Policy Item 6.4.4: Monroe County will work with the private sector to acquire, maintain and improve shoreline access for the public. Policy Item 6.4.5: Monroe County will implement appropriate mechanisms for regulating boating activities located within 300 feet of county owned public land with shoreline access in order to provide appropriate location for diverse water-based recreation activities and to ensure public safety and environmental protection. 411, 411, 57 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan t 10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS �+ Current Conditions Summary The Lower Keys LCP process included extensive public involvement through public notices, e- mail, County website, interviews, press releases and workshops. Many of the ideas expressed and the resulting goals formulated will take continued direct involvement from the community to be implemented. Analysis of Community Needs Continued community involvement is needed to update and implement the plan. Input from the community will be needed during future study and design efforts and direct partnering with the community may be needed to implement some identified policy items. 58 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals, Objectives and Policies Public comments have expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs. However, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. Goal 7 Monroe County shall continue to support and encourage citizen involvement and monitoring of the Lower Keys LCP. Objective 7.1 Monroe County shall provide updates to the community on all aspects of the Lower Keys LCP implementation and the status of public projects in the planning area. Policy Item 7.1.1: Monroe County will continue to distribute information through press releases, e-mail and the postings on the County web site regarding status of the Lower Keys LCP and upcoming meetings for relevant community topics. (1111/ Policy Item 7.1.2: Monroe County will continue to provide speakers to civic and service organizations to discuss the Lower Keys LCP issues. Objective 7.2 Monroe County shall establish a committee to advise the Planning Commission on project proposals within the Lower Keys LCP planning area, especially on the US-1 corridor. Policy Item 7.2.1: A Lower Keys LCP advisory committee shall be formed consisting of five to seven members to include representatives from the business community, the general citizenry, and design professionals to serve as volunteers reviewing and commenting on plans for projects and improvements within the planning area and to implement the draft Lower Keys US-1 Corridor Enhancement Plan. klme 59 January2012 Draft Lower Keys(MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4111, 10. IMPLEMENTATION The implementation of the Lower Keys LCP will require the commitment and continuous attention of the County and the Lower Keys community. Implementation can be separated into the following three categories: Update, Continue, and Enforce Existing Policies and Regulations. Throughout the Lower Keys LCP, a number of objectives and policies identify the need for updating, continuing, or enforcing existing County policies and regulations. These activities should occur on an ongoing basis as part of the County's regular processes and procedures. They do not require additional studies to be implemented and can occur with little or no change to existing procedures. Implementation of these objective and policy recommendations is ongoing. Conduct Specific Analysis and Studies. Additionally, a series of policies in the plan identify the need for further evaluation, analysis, or studies. These activities may be conducted by County staff or outside consultants, depending on the areas of expertise and availability of funds for such work. Wherever possible these activities should be completed within one to three years from adoption of the Lower Keys LCP as an amendment to the Comprehensive Plan Implement Master Plan and Studies. Finally, there are policy statements within the Lower Keys LCP which require implementation of existing or pending master plans or plans resulting from studies and analysis identified in other policy statements within the document. These policies should be implemented as indicated in their respective reports or within three years of completion of any identified studies or analysis. RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Appendix F is a table that summarizes the issues raised at the September 20, 2010 Public Workshop, with staff recommended solutions that address each issue. This will serve as a reference for a follow up public workshop to be held on November 2, 2011 at the Sugarloaf Volunteer Fire Department. FINAL REVIEW PROCESS Following the November 2, 2011 Public Workshop, the final draft of the Lower Keys LCP will be scheduled for review by the Monroe County Development Review Committee. This will be followed by a public hearing to be conducted by the Monroe County Planning Commission, who will make a recommendation to the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC will hold a public hearing to recommend transmitting the Lower Keys LCP to the State Land Planning Agency. The State Land Planning Agency then prepares an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report to Monroe County that identifies any conflicts with significant State facilities, resources, or statutory requirements. The BOCC then holds an adoption hearing following the receipt of the ORC report. The Lower Keys LCP with then be incorporated into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by reference, having the full legal 4169 standing of the comprehensive plan. 60 January 2012 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 411/ 12. APPENDIX A. Goals,Objectives,and Policies by Island Subarea,Page A-1 B. Lower Keys Workshop 1—Results of SWOT Voting,November 14,2006,Page A-7 C. Draft Vision Statement and Comment,December 12,2006,Page A-9 D. Goal Exercise Workshop 2,Page A-10 E. Results of Individual Community Workshops,January—February,2007,Page A-12 F. Public Workshop Comments,September 28,2010,Page A-17 G. Recommended Actions to Address Public Workshop Comments,Page A-22 H. Public Workshop Comments,November 2,2011,Page A-42 Appendices A through H are an important part of this Plan. They define each of the Plan's segments in more detail. They point out the similarities and differences of each community. --These Appendices, together with the Goals, Objectives and Policies, define the community vision for the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan. The Lower Keys LCP community has expressed the need to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the community character of each island. Staff has consequently identified six island subareas: Summerland, Sugarloaf, Cudjoe, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Torches, and Ramrod. Each subarea has unique qualities and needs; however, it would be impractical to create six subarea plans within the context of the Lower Keys LCP. In order to further community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each subarea, the tables in Appendix A were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective and Policy applies to each of the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. A-1 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan kAppendix A Goals,Objectives and Policies by Subarea Future Land Use Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goall X X X X X X Objective 1.1 X X X X X X Policy 1.1.1 X X X X Policy 1.1.2 X X X X Policy 1.1.3 X X X X Policy 1.1.4 X X _ X X X X Policy 1.1.5 X X X X X X Objective 1.2 X X X X X X Policy 1.2.1 X X X X X X Policy 1.2.2 X X X X X X Objective 1.3 X X X X X X Policy 1.3.1 X X X X X X Policy 1.3.2 X X X X X X Policy 1.3.3 X X X X X X Objective 1.4 X X X X Policy 1.4.1 X X X Policy 1.4.2 X X X Policy 1.4.3 X X X Policy 1.4.4 X X X Objective 1.5 X X X Policy 1.5.1 X X X Policy 1.5.2 X X X Policy 1.5.3 X X X A-2 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4111, Goals,Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Conservation and Coastal Management Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal2a X X X X X X Goal2b X X X X X X Objective 2.1 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.1 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.2 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.3 X X X X X X Policy 2.1.4 X X X X X X Policy2.1.5 X X X X X X Objective 2.2 X X X X X X Policy2.2.1 X X X X X X Policy2.2.2 X X X X X X Policy2.2.3 X X X X X X j Pclicy2.2.4 X X X X X X �/ Objective 2.3 X X X X _ X X Policy2.3.1 X X X X X X Policy 2.3.2 X X X X X X Objective 2.4 X X X X X X Policy 2.4.1 X X X X X X 4111/ A-3 (, Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Goals,Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Transportation Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal3 X X X X X Objective 3.1 X X X X X Policy 3.1.1 X X X X X Policy 3.1.2 X X X X X Objective 3.2 X X X X X Policy3.2.1 X X X X X Objective 3.3 X X X X X Policy 3.3.1 X X X X X Goals,Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Housing Element 41111, Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal4 X X X X X X Objective 4.1 X X X X X X Policy4.1.1 X X X X X X Objective 4.2 X X X X X X Policy4.2.1 X X X X X X Policy4.2.2 X X X X X X Policy4.2.3 X X X X X X Policy4.2.4 X X X X X X (1111/ A-4 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 411.1, Goals,Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Public Utilities/Services Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal5 X X X X X X Objective 5.1 X X X X X X Policy5.1.1 X X X X X X Policy 5.1.2 X X X X X X Objective 5.2 X X X X X X Policy 5.1.2 X X X X X X Objective 5.2 X X X X X X Policy 5.2.1 X X X X X X Objective5.3 X X X X X X Policy 5.3.1 X X X X X X Policy5.3.2 X X X X X X Objective 5.4 X X X X X X Objective 5.41 X X X X X X 411/ A-5 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 4111, Goals,Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Recreation Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal6 X X X X X Objective 6.1 X X X X X Policy6.1.1 X X X X X Policy 6.1.2 X X X X X Policy 6.1.3 X X X X X Policy6.1.4 X X X X X Objective 6.2 X X X X X Policy6.2.1 X X X X X Objective 6.3 X X X X X Policy 6.3.1 X X X X X Policy 6.3.2 X X X X X Policy 6.3.3 X X X X X Policy 6.3.4 X X X X X Policy6.3.5 X X X X X _ Policy 6.3.6 X X X X X Objective 6.4 X X X X X Policy6.4.1 X X X X X Policy 6.4.2 X X X X X Policy 6.4.3 X X X X X Policy 6.4.4 X X X X X Policy 6.4.5 X X X X X Goals,Objectives and Policies by Geographic Area Public Participation Element Goal, Summerland Sugarloaf Cudjoe Baypoint/ Torches Ramrod Objective, Saddlebunch Policy Goal7 X X X X X X Objective 7.1 X X X X X X Policy 7.1.1 X X X X X X Policy 7.1.2 X X X X X X Objective 7.2 X X X X X X Policy 7.2.1 X X X X X X C A-6 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan CAppendix B Lower Keys Cnlnlle.Sty Workshop 1 R.wroe Of VASA KUv6mbr14,2006 voting rear 8treny_tM1s rotor Weaknesses roon J.«a}as Opportunities Toa'Throats yang w as dens% wawnalt that aiwwm. I dmbycn.11 ro itocyle 22 1 I x .S.mv.ma eenc IJ .mmyeeeuW m.e 74 I 11 P^e.vaeai [Charge �weN�.euineh _. . P 5 ,memam.I ow ow*r Ia.yn Oma gr .surd male lawn xI a. 'bey ]I wnpanmm0mm 0 .Ib'n'rYP.rwm 12 Wale,4+Irhnn7,7m040e IB elax 4kYl Va'u1vr 4Yu II.bused hangs 6 ia•`�+c lW.xtl 1 Eud..n.1 4 Ion AUR aaurt.Int.l US 1 �.rM .+a1en.�rLCn IS �1xxvl wl Bon.aN.lv9 Oy rwlunW dam., that mimic'!a aaPman. y I sop.d wort NUS and _ 1 e 4 6 M4e]vuM1 MWMa� r nvo Pea Nvriv acN I9q° trernien icr. 0 .i.oav I] bnF.m u+vmaxbM I 7 dy�� !N neut. 0 +lack dmsomnamaao Ibas Saab a �01 ma7npmnl 12 a veY u1x9lYnp cannon's! 1101 maid beanieapM WI 11;M4pn.n i 7 u..uee a Twee 04Plyre,nulvie II I 6R a't marms on into Lao; a .. .sr a µpa I0.0.anon. i. era,pu skier:. r In do B. P✓MR control b wedme.I EstUSA wtq•a.eca..Ian' !lad or crwnM a currant IIn . Swanned by wnw 1 a. B on 1 0. laeaaum. 5 Lem W nine. .rotes wu.naT.. 11 pan awe 6 ,Lackn Sat wand senor 0 Iw.Yq m. S ,Hall noes NO way as anuiV US I 0 awe-aWYth% Lanai a_T M P•um'1 13 School No 'u .Weueal USIIN �m ^b 6 VSL Iyatrn 14 .Medea I-rnxc 5 Panax mvYN is ...1W'n 'mraemmm. aM� i 4137 Low cab lime 3 Laok el sore eue.vq 5 nrfwed Son.• m'np Rdnlcp else le IGdemote Mnvp.n wpr4'a Ma1?!5 5 nouncn 3 .wean nova ueYmm� t • .. komus „IEwwaaav a t ITrub ono dropsy 4 atanx�everelY 3 Fn. e'EnINNreA•in Spay-i4eno IVY dslat 19iyla r W.,hams 19 eor, om Nr1 Ingo a. • Vmn sew Incase vvw a®s al®70.01110 b 3 1•10 rlwT slydtl • [ba^M MlYinora.r b 3 old near Yvona nag van 1131 3 Ilbory On 5vg bl0 3 Cpy won <d.Nale sown: sgeroios SYM1 poi working wellT • e^a n. aV'ry yY _. Ma ffinwsled ..P vag.Ir Pnr I 3 GODS nb Nay nags donipmli P.eduanrn22 45e 1.rv.wmdr ..0 ot aPw.a + _ mesre mr Ya -loot ages 1 .I.w..xdm.w 3 data.sae !1r.na x! harm 6..nwntofor 11 ! 22 onorsto tons. jDe. wE pl V dnMa•I. Paw.aa r.y.e wa� Memnon record,. Pam 0m0.< 00CConci Staff-- una. Pw �, m.nn v.•T^ t. l -. .—race GKaYrup +. r. 2 Lain oi mama recrosta, 0 teeny..map Dane WA 2 r bus li risantionissews l Sa Bannon o Not upo 1 cavil New x mown many land a. am I Lack of=moos an(Kaman. 30}I 0 ua a1vmtuWh y 2 Un 0 waistIn.yl'>Y a1 unresponsive nouns.semen 2 kr 111 Boo pans _Pm0w m1m.nme ad Crime westorod Say US 32 a33 wPw : ! • .lad aOa hydrants 1 0 n 3$ otusgbn w 2. 1 ram Blvd Old Yb.1w j r ' SO ,_ ro goof umxeut'rose. 1_ -L — _ _ y + _.._ -___ + as ton", L r 7aa•anaaan a j �0 adtvnan ae.mly�" a - 1 •1 N4naxn.I WO 0 votho end TdaY. 1r• OB I• y-x1x Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan ID Lower Keys Community Workshop 1 Consolidated Results of SWOT Voting November 14,2006 • Voting Voting Voting Voting Strengths Totals Weaknesses Totals Opportunities TVotails,Threats Totals Over development/changes and inconsistencies in LDR affecting No high density Remain low density/limit height;density,future development,green Lack of canal and culvert development& development/attracting more 1 space 35 maintenance/flushing 26 franchises/keep greenspace 34 tourist developments 93 Nature Preserve;Vsldlife Overdevelopment/speculative Overall water quality/canals, Refuge;Nature. development that displaces Buy more land for preservation near shore/sewers/grow 2 wetlands,&wildlife 34 people 22 and nature parks _ 24 sponges to improve 34 Illegal dumping and Bike paths/Overseas Trail to clearing/general trash and improved and maintained/use Hight taxes and property 3 Strong Social Fabric 13 debns 21 Old SR as trail 23 insurance 18 Damaged strip Increase recreactional malls/unappealing commercial opportunities/more parks and Invasive plant and animal exotic 4 Low crime rate 12 entrances 20 boat ramps 13 species/iguanas 15 • Lack of stomiwater,sewer, Business closures due to loss of and fire hydrants/sheet flow workforce housing and storage 5 Lack of light pollution 11 and odor problems _ 18 Revamp lodge and Mall 12 areas for contractors equipment 12 Traffic issues and speeding Use of school for communities Low commercial along US 1 and many other activities and adult Lack of enforcement of current 6 development-adaquate 9 areas 16 ed/gym/weight room 12 regulations 5 Lack of buffering along US 7 Old SR 4A 7 1/generally along commercial 10 Put electirc lines underground 9 Sign and pde pollution 5 Make the development of Lack of safe and protected employee/affordable housing Light pollution from US 1 and 8 Rural character 6 bus stops 8 easier 8 commercial development 4 Control traffidredesign NNW Parking control in pedestrian patterns along US 1 for cars Permits for seawalls too 9 School and Sports Fields 6 areas 6 and bikes 7 complicated to obtain 4 Cut mangroves on Tarpon 10 Full-time residents 5 Lack of hike trails along US 1 6 Creek for safety 7 Natural habitat destruction 4 11 Low traffic and quiet 5 No public boat ramp - 5 Solutions for wastewater 5 Fear of fire and wildfire 4 County unresponsive with 12 Overseas heritage trail 5 services and to citizen voices 5 Shrimp farm property 2 Agencies not waiting for LCP 3 State,Federal,County agencies not working well 13 County park at Baypont 4 together 3 Landscape along US 1 2 Multi-agency burearcracy 3 Existing zoning and More frequent bus service and Too many part-time non-vested 14 density 4 Invasive exotic plants 2 shelters 1 people 3 tiirte pains nonxistent rum Carribean westward along US Perceived lack of respect from 15 Single-family homes 4 1 2 Control our own destiny 1 BOCC and staff,commissioners 2 Increase open water access in 16 Water access 4 No parks 2 USL 0 Cost of living 1 Light pollution and energy waste from athletic field at Allow downstairs enclosures 17 Water view from US 1 3 school 1 for affordable housing 0 Closing off access to fishing 1 Good proximity to Key Mess on Blvd.and absentee 18 West 2 owners 1 Lack of health care services 1 Not a lot of government No good usable boat ramps or Lack of services after hurricane 19 trying to help us 2 waterfront access 1 recovery 0 Vacant run-down commercial 20 Affordable housing 1 building 1 Lack of law enforcement 0 21 Deep water access 1 Playground equipment 0 Lack of fire hydrants 0 22 Diversity of business 1 Too far from fire department 0 23 Lots of outdoor recreation 0 Congestion at Dions US 1 0 Re st au ra n U Del i/Baby s 24 Coffee on Baypoint 0 I raffle Light on Upper 25 SGL 0 iVoting Grand Totals= 174 128 I 126 j 212 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Appendix C Draft Vision Statement and Comments—December 12, 2006 Draft Community Vision Statement: The Lower Keys will remain a rural community, with a strong social fabric. We protect, preserve, and enjoy our natural environment, low density, and unique recreational opportunities. Our community is committed to acquire land for conservation and recreation, establish and adhere to strict growth management regulations, and renew our commercial areas. Our infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life. Community Comments: • Affordable housing is missing from statement • Maintain height limitations • Is rural the best term for this community • Economy of Keys is based on tourism—need to balance with those who live here • Essentially a residential community • Census determined this area to be"rural"—check definition • How many full-time residents in the Lower Keys—what is the composition of community • Acquiring land for conservation takes it off the tax roles and causes huge tax increases to residents and business owners. This is not the vision of the community • The land preserved is not always usable.Conserving and providing • Preserve commercial business and grow small business • Need affordable/workforce housing to keep commercial • Acquiring land as a goal should be the burden of the visitors not the residents • Maintain spaces between homes and height restrictions—be more specific about restricting these things • Sentence 2 add—wildlife habitat and open space • Sentence 2 change-to low residential density • Sentence 2 add—acquire and manage recreational opportunities • We are a varied community not just residential • Mile marker 21.5 on the Atlantic side has a very dense 11 unit housing project formally a trailer park—how did this happen. We are leaking density • Natural areas/wetlands undeveloped land is already paying very low taxes prior to their acquisition. Snowbirds non homesteaded property taxes more than compensate for the removal of the natural areas off tax roles A-9 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan ill Appendix D -- __ N A � o= EI ma € W " E mR E. $hgTO C 6ge d -D2g 2fl o12 $o oe EIs 3B ill Erowaml § g0wE m 0 = 22 2'8w � msW = . Au m Aa aa. a ,a, g_fl a 22g2_ N - a o " E 2E ¢ uREl EhY3 ifil •a L • •$ co rn co €' x pp aa gt w t= `s o▪ £ aog EM MI is 0 LI C 0 to `15:2 vim a ffi rm 'FN i'� m u, _$ � Y+ B e c = _=-HIa ` EtnYa m = g - og$ 217)mBT.yp" S g d2 . oagE U.2, 'R E O -"gg- E. T p $ a iW m1 m b—fligl 9n ` E b ro kffi�a 3- ' Edxg2e E2t of 3 = g" �m —g 01� w ` gW4a ° � = o t q � y• 3 0 S emts lc,oto._ bnIti▪ DEfrg • N Uks v � � R ` 2• o = of c 'NE2 0 aw 3 0$ E - P n—P. m oot co co thir J G g : h3 Lwbist a $ Lm �� _ /I(7 LL c�2@A W 0 vYcEN 322_ ., = tow . EME a J K cm n a o x Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan k Is a= a qs oa s„ a� 5 == a ov � "T asga a sd V m 04o „ k3B � K'�_ i � � � �® ii V zvbIli i at o�E� S' ; f25 .� � N-2m V E a 5- I c 5 f3 E % C §, Sp "g - mpg; g= € 4 $ oii Fin 2-flezm2.2k w'3k20M9 c3 `cgb a6kfl 35 ! rlgtf fin; tm6 6pod $O o o g I $ £$a =$ l z kman a04 = = m 22me Esetgtg k _ -c m o E S '„ xs ffi m v d a 'e F�- a .2E , - vNNE - d ` N cg RA `S wwoo <O = 8 I NI MO g (OJ rna ' E AcL" $ � O EA . Nd . 4€1 og oogm o t o. it n ` g 2m ° 4 = b= ob “343 - E & S.m es L _ E E B 0 “mccw maoEo � E . ° . o o ww i_ p e 2 ,a` as .5a o -r§ a, ` $ 2 g9 offn as u ew g ` w=`= gc Fg t 8mf9e0 §- E am° m w A `m $ $EN,E� mEf was,. st ® E 'a id " W m Em - Bt as- y± ._tCJ8 E4ZE a tie of -orr'c . ( 8 $ = w 5u _= Vre a(j - . 4• • • • • • • • c d5 0 O U cc 4. a' 0 2 = Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 41111 Appendix E Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan Results of Individual Community Workshops January—February 2007 Future Land Use Bavpoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Recognition of decreasing land and trying to squeeze more development into areas • Clarify downstairs enclosures rules • Clarify rules for duplex development • Maintain 35' height limit • Use Route 1 as dividing line between commercial and residential uses • Continue to encourage protection of native plantings/landscaping(especially along US-1 corridor) • Maintain existing rules of development • Enforce existing rules Cudioe ihr • Maintain 35' height limit(clarify-how to measure) • Leave 35' height limit alone • 35'above sea-level • Leave zoning as is • Architectural guidelines(if any should be consistent with community character of surrounding neighborhood) • No higher density than what is existing • Enforce existing zoning regulations Ramrod and Torches • Architectural Guidelines for commercial development in Ramrod Key • Better landscaping along right-of-way(Ramrod) • Impervious area—need to address • Maintain community character(#1) (Ramrod) • Keep densities and allocations the same • More clarity on site specific density • Tighter conditions on development A-12 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan kIllr Summerland • 35' measured from existing grade(natural grade) (not from US-1) • Keep height • Maintain community character • Enforcement of existing laws regarding clearing of native flora and mangroves • Architectural Guidelines(not needed) • Encourage small business Conservation and Coastal Management Baypoint to Upper Sugarloaf • County support for better water flow and improved water quality • Coordinate with other agencies to improve water quality Cudioe • Enforce existing regulations-for native plantings Ihme Ramrod and Torches • Promote all items in listed on large board • No hurricane shelters o NO UPGRADE • Public Input • Once a year growth management workshop Summerland • Choice of evacuate vs.stay • Promote conservation of sponges to improve water quality • Better control of exotic species such as: iguanas Housing Bavpoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Identify/protect available affordable housing • Maintain single-family character of sugarloaf A-13 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Cudioe • Keep low density • Maintain existing density • Address data needs for affordable housing issue Ramrod and Torches • Limit affordable housing near employment centers • Little Torch—limit mixed use density • Affordable housing should mix income levels(very low, low, moderate) • Address affordable housing need for elderly(not adequately addressed) • No mother-in-law units(Ramrod) • Protect mobile homes as site of affordable housing • Promote land,trust ownership model • Promote multi-unit affordable housing near transportation facilities Summerland • More government involvement in affordable housing • Encourage affordable housing on-site • County needs to continue to look for affordable housing sites • Re-examine allocation of permits for housing • Target employment centers as site for affordable housing Public Utilities and Services Bavpoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Education program on converting septics to cisterns • Promote use of gray water for irrigation Cudioe • Program for bulk trash and recycling. Need goal statement regarding recycling • Promote lighting standards/guidelines Ramrod and Torches • Move forward faster with sewer project (Little Torch) • Promote graywater use • Clarify/develop regulations • Incentives for cisterns is incentive for mosquitoes A-14 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan thliv • Long-term collector roads—place underground • Recycling program and hazardous waste program (education,enforcement,free dump days) Summerland • Stormwater maintenance around (east and west shore and ocean dr.) • Fire Hydrants! • Graywater Reuse—promote • Bury power lines • Promote cleanup of canals Recreation Open Space Bavpoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Promote bike path on one side of highway only • Careful consideration of location of parking for bike path • Create careful balance between inviting tourists into residential areas • Identify recreational areas • Limit use of Loop Road • Encourage bike/ped bridge for safer use of path SCudioe • Passive, natural parks(limit) Ramrod and Torches • Better signage for recreation areas • Improve public water access • Improve maintenance in recreation areas(esp. swimming hole—N. Ramrod) • Maintain public boat ramps Summerland • No complaints • Light pollution needs to be addressed Transportation Bavpoint to Upper Sugarloaf • Promote left and right turn lanes ` A-15 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan • Promote safer bus stops Cudiae • Spanish Main and entrance to Venture Out—need safety improvement(bicycle path) Ramrod and Torches • Promote carpooling programs • Examine infrastructure for level of service • Address transportation needs for elderly and disabled (more flexibility and better service) • Examine possible agreement with cab companies to provide service for elderly Summerland • Provide bike/ped amenities on Caribbean • Improve existing bike path on Oceanside of US1 • Identify possible location for bike/ped facilities away from US-1 • Drainage improvement needed along US-1 (1111/ A-16 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2-29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 41111, Appendix F Public Comments Lower Keys Liveable Communikeys Plan Public Workshop September 28,2010 Sugarloaf Elementary School Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association(letter submitted 6/2009) 1) Give a high priority to highway safety and traffic management. 2) Sound barrier between U.S. 1 and the homes on the Oceanside. 3) Reestablish services at Sugarloaf Commercial Center(maintain existing zoning). 4) Service road at the commercial center. 5) Improve stormwater runoff at U.S. 1 and Sugarloaf Boulevard(unplug the canal). 6) Coordinate wastewater plans with U.S. 1 road plans. 7) Identify communities that are governed by rental requirements(28 days+more). 8) Place utilities underground. 9) Repair Sugarloaf Firehouse. Sugarloaf Shores Property Owners Association (9/2010) 1) No significant increase in density or land use change(secondary priority). 2) Achieve the wastewater mandate (secondary priority). 3) Address climate change (secondary priority). 4) Install electric vehicle charging stations. 5) Install elevated parking areas at the bridge approaches. 6) Account for changes in the economy, real estate market, and budget. 7) Prioritize the plan elements. 8) Give each community a section in the plan to address community specific issues. 9) Form community advisory committees. 10) Minimal growth—low density, height limits, limited commercial development(Primary Priority). 11) Traffic safety—traffic light at Sugarloaf Boulevard (Primary Priority). 12) Integrate the LCP and Corridor Enhancement Plan (Primary Priority). 13) No impacts to safety(Primary Priority). 14) Put bike/ped enhancements on the bayside where amenities are. 15) Renovate/relocate fire station (Primary Priority). 16) Establish a community advisory group for the Sugarloaf Community Center Overlay(Primary Priority). 17) Protect existing non-conforming commercial uses(as in draft LCP). 18) Commercial development targeted toward community needs. 19) Firehouse needs help. 20) Improvements to the entrance/exits near Sugarloaf Lodge. A-17 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 21) Limit transient rentals in existing residential area from Loop Road to Refuge barricade on State Road 939-A. 22) Separate section of LCP for each community. 23) Form Community Advisory Groups now. 24) Prioritize policy items to do things that can be done now. 25) Examine the usage of donated property off Sugarloaf Boulevard (was to be used for parks and community area).Speaker will email a description of the location. Citizens Not Serfs 19/2010) 1) Prohibition of high rise hotels and condos. 2) No intensification of commercial/mixed use development. 3) Reevaluate affordable housing in each affected community. 4) Height restrictions and other concerns included in the LCP. Define low density residential. 5) Clarification and examples of specifications. 6) Maintain current community character. 7) County land authority property on Cudjoe was habitat for white crowned pigeon. Do not use for high density residential (Habitat for Humanity project).There is an issue with the entrance/exit. 8) Examine clearing limits and enforcement. 9) Type of commercial development addressed. 10) Enforce the code 11) Affordable housing and other development density should match density of adjacent area. 12) Examine limiting long term residential in commercial zone. 4111, 13) Put affordable housing near employment centers. Middle and Big Torch Key Residents 19/20101 1) No industrial development or zoning. 2) No public recreational access. 3) No added foot or bike paths. 4) No public recreational facilities. 5) Do not direct tourists to Middle and Big Torch Key by signs, maps,or publicly funded information. 6) Treat Middle and Big Torch separately from Little Torch/other Keys. 7) No change. 8) No additional or improved signage. 9). No improvements to recreational access. 10) No enhancement of tourism. 11) No directing traffic to Middle or Big Torch. 12) Reduce sign pollution on Middle Torch Road and Dorn Road. 13) Maintain 35 foot height limitation throughout the county. 14) Add fire hydrants on State Road in Little Torch. 15) Put in dinghy docks and mooring fields. A-18 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Summerland Key Businesses and Property Owners(letter to Papa 20071 1) Accept real input from the community. 2) Dollar limit on permits($3,000). 3) Allow any use for the side setbacks if agreed to by adjoining businesses. 4) Replace special Master of Code Enforcement with regular citizens. 5) Correct past bad decisions. 6) Create attractive professional business center with common sense rules. 7) Create citizen review committee comprised of local property owners. 8) Discuss usage/allow dock slip rental on canal including charter and commercial fishing boats. 9) Allow sign for tourist related services(charter and commercial fishing). 10) Make it easier to get permits. 11) Put a French drain system on the south side of U.S. 1. 12) Change present rules to fit our needs. 13) Let us meet with the planning department prior to changes that affect our property. 14) Allow easy construction of employee housing on existing properties(paystub only). 15) Different rules for affordable and employee housing. 16) Use crown of U.S. 1 as building height starting points except on bridge approaches. 17) Allow 8 foot high finished and painted concrete wall in front of storage lots. Murals could be optional. 18) Cooperation from Planning Department regarding businesses and in achieving what people in the area want. 41111, 19) Dedicated turn lane on U.S. 1 extended to the west end of the island. 20) Summerland is a business oriented island. 21) Let us use 100 percent of our property. 22) Canal south of U.S. 1 should be the only rear property buffer. 23) No additional vegetation on south side of U.S. 1. 24) No shared driveways for businesses. 25) Self policing—establish our own code enforcement group. 26) Allow self regulation. 27) Allow A-frame signs. 28) Develop a beautification plan. Summerland Key Residents(9/2010) 1) Standardize signs on U.S. 1. 2) Maintain vision of the Communikeys Plan. 3) More landscaping. 4) Protect existing non-conforming commercial uses(as in draft LCP). 5) Streamline permitting process as opposed to "making getting permits easier". 6) Use the quarry at the north end of Niles Road as a park. 7) Conservation lands and donated lands used for mitigation should remain for conservation in perpetuity. 8) Need a timetable for exotics removal. A-19 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan 411110 9) Need a timetable for canal dredging to remove hurricane debris. 10) Maintain method of setting building height starting point. 11) Follow the code. Upper Sugarloaf Residents 1) No high density residential at the school or commercial district. 2) Specify density that keeps with the character of the community. 3) Maintain Crane Boulevard as a paved road for use by residents and visitors. 4) Add a community center with pool behind the school. 5) Publix on Upper Sugarloaf at the Leisure Club site. Saddlebunch 1) Zero Growth 2) Extend 45 mph speed limit. Ramrod Key 1) Electricity distribution substation(lines downed by boats knock out Ramrod's power). Encourage Keys Energy to address this issue at Pine Channel. 2) Get rid of the historic Flagler bridges. 41111, 3) Employee housing over commercial building and over parking lots. 4) Put employee housing near jobs. Cudioe Key 1) Blimp Road Keys Energy housing—maintain current density for housing(zoned industrial). Bavpoint 1) Maintain status quo RECOMMENDED ACTIONS Appendix G is a table that summarizes the issues raised at the September 20, 2010 Public Workshop, with staff recommended solutions that address each issue. This served as a reference for a follow up public workshop that was held on November 2, 2011 at the Sugarloaf Volunteer Fire Department. thlig A-20 " 0 >- \ / / 7 c E £ \ ƒ 2 / % « » - C D ® \ / ' 0 co C® E $ \ / CD' J O ® \ \ $ w ƒ t / v) 2 C 0 U 2 0 \ m u e q 0 >' 2 = E w 0 6 0 { > a) U 0 ƒ R E / o 1" E / ® m ® $ 2 ° CD 2 > a) # ii 0 E c c ƒ C — 0 CC — U VI - a) = c c a) a) } n / I u m -o - m 0 CL / / .§ C C / u / \ .a) CD as _ I / ® R e f LL .e k c ^ _ ry ro ¥ \ cs Q., u m c 3 m ^ $ \ % 2 \ � x m 0 3 \ o \ c ro } / \ � / ) E - (D a) C a)o / co ' E a > £ c e u 2 m o ,0 ,u \ \ _c 0 c a) .E / 4 I 4 / Li •_ ,. c 2 a u = m % co I g k 0 CD > c 2 0 E ƒ E > 0 ƒ \ 2 » > a Oj e ro o _ © 2 6-4 . c c e = u E 1- = o • b 9 = @ CC ul ® 0 c cz 0 -C ® r 0 e c it N 0 0 E / f / / R ƒ ... ` e Q e e e e ƒ 4.1 > o. .41 . $ 0. . - 10 o § E 0 c o . : £ c � up cu E 1 \ J c W E Q ~ k U(spr.13,.., 0 - o. d in 0 ro .,_. EL © 0. 10 \. CL « « a V) $ ¥ U a E « (n c m a CO s > kr .N a 0 « C_ in m > J Y Y_ w d dzi V 3 N N O a V c u c « = y L L ° m E w ,� CO ._ a c u z a m r d � J -° ->. a a c w O a s n cv c Oco C . O3 m a o -o n m E u u° 2 co y O o U U m c m YE m an TA La aY i v y m o w v « L a = J c c c c > ` , 7 En a m -° ° J > n ° c c c c a co « aa a ' ara A O L a ° a c N > w m a L E. d m a a Or o f a c a a u n m E c. a u a > a �o E vi m E c 'T w '> c a o t u L 1° 1 a c O Y 0 c o f m n J E o o a N a = u < v a u w a o 1— V V a a V tij VI In N ill a m \ \ O \ U \ C w v J a n v J _ _ J O a = 0 r 7 > > 5 J j V_ U_ j V_ 0 V _0 -0LL -0LL a N 111110 J J J 0 N a a a a e n Q. a. m _ `o c a k a c r, in oa s a m u a d U a (0 J N S S C a Y > + a c o a « a 3 u cu ° c .0 co Y J u c w a a EE E v _ o m J c m m N m m c rts U E c c ° .� w `n a `o m 3 ca c E u m u ° > a E _m c " ii " > r i E u a u 0 .z' m y a J CD m e a 0 ,f0„ = • C a J N o V •° in V Q C "- v a ° 0 a N O O O O O O 0 n>. 'i 'i N N N N N O N E' j, L C \ aC Lacri 3 4 C m O 7. L°T O OCO CO IICO ] O. O N O , ‘p.q O 6 Q N o `o m ,>, m a a c N v c c . m `o• w `° E 9 a o a 'r" w c w u a m c v p 3 « a r c al w w w v o a 0 On al u u o m $ E c 0 a E .f o w V . Q al i as 0 w g al c c °' Q c > N v wa. 'C N 2 N u al a On N a a C N u0 - y tl ea c y al o a u Q O a y a ul 1l al — m 3 m m O. w al a m w c to E v m ra• c 0 'a u o v a E « a X C N fa >. Si « J �^ _ m 0 O `l « « a « . IC FL c c o 22 C N• n s al .mc N `o « o f c .E E v 0 « al ucil w m o N_ E E m H u _0o u a 1— a C m in Y C L.m N a. a VI CD C N a C al al 'a C m C —1 al al J 0 0.0 Gal al d al ul a aro C w 7 u. ~ M kV 2 N Z m Q tl F Q a DI C « m O taa a ‘C x DO y v C «_ «_ O Y m - m m a as N as m C C C > u > C n C a a- ' m p pl ry w d E a w r an E n E N i w L z E a « o E 0 CO « m0 U a w E E ._ .0 « o m E E0. , m v wmn •«°• E• o 1O 07.1Call D z = o0 EE WCUv ao 4l in Cl. r OO w y 0 a 6 O Ou N VI W W N m a 0 _ m Vc m mu E a i a - c c E a " In o _ Q « t7 r° o a — m q LL H Q N in lO nco ry O IDO O O .-N ‘al: eV N N CV N NI C. ac an 0 O V Ihroq > a c W in > y c m a ry W 00 « 4111, c m m W r N « a W c .C, o r a o > a y w a W W o 'c v 0 a m w m 3 " ' J a m m « v O c o u '-> E o E a a —0' � C . m d w c > 0 E -FP o W n .3 'A a ° « o a Imom. w W a 8 > 42 > �n y m « .L .171 A in y > E u c 0 « y W m m m aZI -C m « W a C Cl w O co u in CO a o c c m d = O N m W > ' 0 0 ILI a) a v _ o C m 3 3 W W o c Q o o •4.w •LI a '^ o o w r c W =' `o 'm -o C u « it cW ✓ CO L. � C L W W E a C V m �' l7 m J W O w E nea m o o o a 't J N w ? E E m C ` O U > 1O ›' dw ¢ a 3 r a m ow 0 wm m m J 2 a a o c o •u r '" 01 a f in N u U' a ' 3 u c H O 1 a O C 444 m U C Li- c Y 2 O W O 0 o W CI m 7 CO C d U on d m ' a i c c - c W O a O O n _ E J Cin 10 4 i0 N co W J CO 0 0 a u J a r a u a 4111011 in C c a 6 u. nit N m t in I0 J C r r 0- a n h ?, �, a C W W « W , W C W c W w r c Co' w m E c .0 W W > j > C N O N U u y O W A to E ° E - m E O -J C O W m C 0 C L w O O J E > « O oc ro x w : ¢ u o u 0 '^ u w V '° Ol LE d a E °1 E y N L m W W c J . E aa m > N O wEm m > CCU O a) _ L CAmL.) wO c ) JO Z o m C- u W C W on a- 0O CX N M O in - p N C 'i (N rl (N (N N N N N N N N NI: 1 D' m a W O V k.q Y C ilir inN E J « m 10 0 0 0 E N . b0 N N N E it v c E a u .a O C °1 a) ..c N c C C U O y co U a c O O O $ - Q . v '> « a m Q Q Q W > a ^� 0 $ a a a a ` 0 0 w .c ¢ a C a, w v C a `m c o d a a a = ° ,°. w E .a E w c w 3 Ti c E t m a E E E E 4- E °' Le) m ° s w E E 0 V) N V °I C d V ` U U U H K a w '� t y °C °C K y UI .3 c ig m w w m w n VI 2+ a v 0)N U p V1 VI V1 I- F a v C u c 1° an w 2 a 0 x `wa N a c ma m a m J J in C a) W in N Ip N 1° °1 - a 0 II- a w a w c 7 J = - V - C a S V J Q .0 Q J O a u. J ` ilirJ a in a J N y u. a yC C a) an N a) a N w J ai U y O L `S i0 C T in F a 9 W-10 _C O C 00 C N re 01 O C - E N b. > .O N N J r V CO Y Z W CO C13 C Y a0 d• C 3 N IC N F a ^' w w w y a vl 4 E .. C .0 o J a w a U N N „ > W a y y v OV J j n m CO « a O ° j -o `y 11° E t a 0 : c o m a o mL., a c_ v v E ° E o El! E v1 .. .` U CO E o J o V E u LL — . :% E E ; a x o A .O u O 0 = N L VI 8 a s "' a o o o: N CO al O N N M N „9 „'I N N N N N in N N N N N N N N N ti 5 v 44 L. v 0 N LrF2 T in a 61 > U c - a) U C - O y Cr0 in Q O T a C a c E a « tO in > y CO as s a " a • aa) L Y a w a C a tif0o a d H a O. c ' cu omca mm c > U Ewc E u �a a T m u 110 �o ea w a a m a a E c 3 cam° w a v b $ c m > o .ava 3 � a` E o, 'aia t C > a ° a .5 - am U 0 $ a a s > CO `1 > m T y > ry Lel W1L p a C a C d C a 'L] a V _ a C C 'O a U a s N E c ; c o o h E c '� E TC m t o ° u A a m u C co H c m N C a Y E - a c o f a a F- t) - a C C C C C a a)E E E E E w a) w w w w w a a OD c a a a E 7 7 a a o a a a C C = C C c ea coN J N a a a a a « J = to LL LL LL LL LL a o C LA �' 0 w a a s a -° C a p�v ` O c m a m -O 30 !o E N u 3 W C 0 0.1 ° N T C - a C x o v m yC�+ L O a O « yO c C a a `m E o a lV € a N u a V •N .0 C V V u o c C (a o a a E c p E a != c T y W > ED G E d u a l oO N C O c U " a C O a s c E a i c " t ° w c m 'm E V o L ° E N j 'W N L a = ° O o a Z °U CC -00 L « la U o u Q N O 0 O O O O R -- al xi M M M M ti W y N i z N in 3 a o N_ V V Q 0 IN Lo « C J v C m al 2 > Jo LE so ea ` 7 o o cu C uw mw E m a coD a N „ o m o w c ai 0 0 c LL 0a c ,a 4 47, o C m �m ° °' v 0 " u ° a ' a o E LI o a o Ea ° a E a aoc m N ,4" a0. a)o 0w0 o al •wc v IV o f 0 > ° '-" a E m ~ 01 ° _ g 'v c m u « o o E w « La r0 c 2 v0i o J N a w a a J c c _C o a a m N u 'N `a '- j a+ w eo o r c m a y x c t°o H F- U _P. C a J u L C 00 C CC C C a a+ ai � c c E E E a a J w a ai v 'u o 0 om a) a w w 'E r r a+ m w c a 7 t u C C c (0 a a a C c c 3 a' CO CO I' -I 0 0 S « 0 ` J J LL 41 J lir es J p N LL J LL 0 E N G 0, LL LL a p W 4 a m « m r To a « n 'K « — d C L 0 09 '- 3 3 c 'c '-" m E 1° ai m c . m` c c y ▪ p W 0 0 0 m c C u 0 a oo o CO o _ c 0 « `u J t E m u m E m a 0 C E E C C m o E aJ 0 « o El =7. 0 c g E m m 0 0 — ,u, - c —, u t c vm E « 0 — ° U c o 3 0 « o` m C °' o 0 42 $ cw w m 'w N m E a ` ° Ca) 4, 0 "0 a ~ r c a 0 0 ° CO t > E E o Q• 0 0 « OD 0 m m N L o m > > w o o aC in 1 C x ' U a L ' 3 W ~ 0 ` a m W O• u ° L a a Q a N ' N O CO Cl 0 el -I .Ni -3 M M t+t M M ni d 1 y m L. L. v 0 V kV q Ca JD co el o 0 4-4 0 in in {- § CV )3f _ _ -a11.1 ; ! �{ § f / / f &a§ f { } : el , & / ( 0 r. \(t 13 i\ mo ( | ) k CU CU ) j �k � \ al o( ! Ca !° O ! ) !n CO,{ Cy \ \ \ ) \ } ) ! CO O. ) o itar ; Ca CU ) yy ) } ° a ) CO an \ C bC - _ ; § / ) To CO la) ( ƒ ) \ ( } e , # 2 | _ : 4a2 ! » k [ - ; & / z § ! : ; / ® 0 eN am / ) ai CO kk �{ ; N 9 4111110 • NCU N N W N c C ?= o 0 a o -o m C o !' c a a a a ro o a E w a a a « w .10, ▪ c > T c C C c C > 0 CU w• m w a Ti f C C E o 9 " `a m ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ V c c a 0 C a t -0 -o -o v '7 It ` Y w w w a) `) a) O. O w o w a o v a u E . c w •C ra L C 0 0 0 0 Y 0 O C y 40$ t73 > -o E E E E 3 u > E vi 0 •_ c E E E E x 0. a) .O. Q C O O U O O� 0 U c •T' o E °1 z z cc cc 3 u > ra J o aim w 0.1 0 w 3 • a) • E V V VI VI VI VI N E (4 C q C C ra o O J u i0 w w V u C a a) c' a a C 0 a) 7 7 7 '^ v^ 0 7 a a -0C C c O C C C a a t C ° w_ 0 0 0 C0.w E! w a v w C c> j 0 o co J J LL LLs. 0 U▪. U. ~ CD m A 7 m a a '" c a CS 4' v w d _wl E >, > O �n O O C t ., (:. m O w O O t C m m V j c T w a) E Cu C E O O n .c• O w 1 _ L a) a) .C °a w 0./ of E E pc cc m 0 w) y m 0\ to O q w C U M m a L a' '- O C U a V V a >p 0 N 0 C O C I- C M H 0 O N O 0 O t G V -C O w _w 'm H O C C V Q y u w a u 0 '0 3 9 c 'c `o " A ° v z 0 2 v 't y cc o ~ 7 0 Z Z E — N O O O O 0 el el IN el ril el N a a a a a a a a 5 km k m 0 N 'q p w o c CO' o o m m E a 01 E c v ui vi E ✓ v m E it a v >.« o y „ m E Z a c o `o_ O s i m o E '" t G E t « E O. a ¢ E `w ii w 3 in .0 U ° a w -0U4-7 CO• a avi w c u C C N 0 0 O N V 3 0 £ E u c v E E u 'i y A d 0 w E n U o w e u o E ° ¢ CC o v v a n o E 3 a r o v > v v Y r a 0 �n vvi a o w v v A O. O W a) O N ry c 7 7 io a v p in 474 w On '� 9 n A .� c a J .Y Cp U_ U Y . n J J L J J U- I.L. J O J N n LL n • m a i an 9 O t O y' u. m E E o «o Si .v. 3 '^ 0 p s a >, `v « a v c al • 413 c ao w 5 c c o w 01 E - a e et M c E ° N sJ o u " c _ap m E E vMi J "- ena ,moo - m N t 'O p d OV = C Y C c O. . o E E a V '° ro u y 0 c 5 v 0 3av `-0a .• ap U p O N CO a 0 O ¢ ¢ ¢ cc Q N ti O O O O O c e vi ui vi vi ui x Y C W C G R 6 d y C E E N v G y c N lbwq In m O OL fillir N •C p E coN N CD0:. O O m W w LEI tll Lei a C > x a r it c C w m C C C E o 3 v o ° ° o E ¢ a p' x 4 < LL a a .c a o v v C 0 0 3 v d d N v '�o' A a r J C V E W N C C w Ym C c a w c E o « E E c E V O a > EO E O o .45 01 -o G v a) 0 U J CC CC U K y W O C W a) W a Vf in N ti1 L ,an' r V C C a o w as w a 0 y 51 m 3 j n « m aC 0. a a v c — 0.N U N C CC O V J J J N I- a 0 a m U a Li- U 0 LL 5 o 4.4 0.CIA a+ a 0. LL ` V d M r a 0 C h 4 VI N C O N u a+ „ al 00 y " Lic > c E 3 d c 3 C N L N N a 00 h w o 3 U c E w 0 G 00 0 u w c y0 u = «° c 0 2 CU ar o 3 N 'u w o m c m u m co E LTa ,"„ .3) C ..... a 4. E 00V o C v to aEpw $ «V E o Nc E a m v Cn u v 2g m o -Ca ao U. 0 CO V N tD I� COCON -I� O 0 O O N Lfl US N ill N LA N 0i kC Y N 5 0 N 41svq let ' Cc o ! » 0 es 7fo c \ E \ ; ! a ( | ) ) 0 \ fit c to I e ! : ; / § { \ \ /% ( � � � \ 0 / � ) u ` cu ( § { cr ƒ / II \ E & � ! ! 0 ! Cc - I / } } = o I -J : to � 3 Z � � � ` § aL } «EvMiCO2 ; — ; ( _ ! ^ ( { ) ez ) / ; / ac0. ! | ; ` £ ! _ ) # ; / \ t } XCe t ) ) \ } { ) \ { } \ ) / § f , — ) -- 0E — ƒ « ; / ! m2 E _ _ 0 ` k ` M0 \ \ ` I el et oti til LA LA LA IA LA f \ 3 kw Fr CU 3 0 0 o Io v $ .c] N N N !I IJI IN N N 1l1 Vl Vf Vf C y 3 N I- W N as ?t a at �+ c it O D C C C C O B c CI o !_^ o o O o J E O « > ° m coQ Q CC Q . a a v A € a a a a w o a 9 N V' i C !-' O al W y y O d c c C g E E E E of w vE E o . v E E E E m 'A o u o v a z w w O o a) ar o m y CC CC '. .N u cc w 01 aI o a IDai '> 'S ` w O VI VI VI VI ° C 01 N a` u aa+ u u c as E al aI ar y 3 a o D , 7 D c a C N a '° a -o C al o d o ° tO CO ra '° A O a = co 6 a J J o al N N c I_ y a, C u C V_ II, J 7 J 7 7 J o J ~ LL u_ u_ u. J 2 O. 2 a u. LL j 0 (II j m LL U. Q C N D as J `N' Ln C al ° 1a O Ly w O C ° 3 N VI ja VI to, L v O c E _ a) 3 '-N wc c « - a Ia rn -C27 m sa ` oa o 0 vt « masE c o w « « wa itoa a ° . o o > co a c vU a a) 4. y Cy ' a t Cm O C o O 'm v a o m a N o « a VI OD , a s cu .0 ' oc ' CUv m 0 N J 0 CO C ° a o Ill uu i w E ° C J a a « 1 J 36-1 E u o e o 0. Q'O 0 vI J Z Z T., 0 0< N N N CFI N N N N NNN a; vi LA lei IA LA vi IA LA ti tn '44 a CO C ° N �q N Ln N a p O al4116/ a as O N J00 J C VI E 0 N m Om V a O E m a a v` o 0 0 w « a E o LL y « N c 0 —° a y « E ro E m ea > c p E ,ca > — c a+ O m y S u U -C C > E c E CO o w cU O as u V 6 u o x u V W To u W C w u « -aE > O a c [l' w ,a Q E > >w � w voi n 0 ~ a Q 0 c o y 7 7 c a 0 N 10 j j a a J ra c r c c c o tea m m v 0 o. ra a ai v CU J J LL LL H J J J J LL LL LL a m 0 m m m ra c « c c o u c -a E p a c v ai E E CI) .� c aca CO v s EE ms° E a a m H > a u a` n n ai U. a s ar '> E c .x o Ol Q a1 N c J a C C c m m ry •0 3 a s E as u ra m a' cs o ° `m c E `p v E ' E y c • Q N a 1p fa Vvi v CO i O N 0 N a pV J vl a q N N co « N M N NCN 0 O 0 O O �; ul vt t0 t0 l0 t0 Lo ti R 46 E v o E `_ n O Q u 411.1, a C ° C c TO a C re' -C W L J to °C '3 U or 0 o m L E lG 3 E A V y ° C CO c C > N 3 O C « N N o > O toC am+ O W �^ a r c a c w e r E E wY � .o u° ° E ca 0 a Eo u° c_ a E ° c « w y o ? m -o c L Z m E ° ;cc � a '5 p m N c m ° 0 ° C c V ^V O U1 v C In 00 IA > .° O E u !' a o co °i `-0 E a W e o m 0 v m ai a y w ° y ,� w 0 c O m C O a CC a O ~ N 1° LEu c C 01 m 0 c 0 O F- WI 9 t O. u LE 2 $ m H u H a y c u CO m in a Y La d y \ Co 7 O D D 0 a N a a D 7 H m m a m a a a a a c y y CO C w Co C a 0 Cd d0.1 Y o ° U o C > L. > a u a 7 LL LL LL LL LL Ifl z LL en Q CoMN in y c a) ° am ' ro — mo a c oG -c O° E C V > 'n ° m °C jCC -0 W vC y m O . a W L 'C A 'z m` 0100 f0 ? `° E "' m O w CO o ° C w a U a o a o N y a E N m a c E :a m « v m ,u w a 1p n — CC « u w oq m C '� c ,� m .o -C c Z v O 0 n m .o E .o .Fa L 'C o m -, E cs 41 w a bp « — L — E 0 N m m y X a ° C V a .0 C0 c0 m W .° d L 'm C N LL Z m 0 o 0 u a 'E Z 0 a 2 N a V q Z W O N D 0 0 COCI .y N0O 0 rf ti tO La Lci La G 1-1 N 0 n • 4- N 0 m r O C N d ° a N O. W C ? CC O 1\ o - L , C CV y Le ° C O 3 N Q Y N St = C ro y m c al a) c c E 'n Q O L a. O Y o 9 N 0 ° E .__ L o 0 u C > n c a 0 '- ' 0 0 C w = 3 LA C U a 9 m al EL O. N `w S n a i a E Ca.. L IC w v ra ea > c c C °U CD3 -0U C O a) m w IO C y 01 ° CC C 4., y M L a+ v C a V d m U n 0 O . E O u oo o o '^ -CV 9 U to m V W C a d al O N j g o -° m c ._ o r a C C fa J 0 0 Co J 0 w a v • C C 0 N a A M 7 j C J N LL N Lp 0- u. M 0 Q 0. d V T y n nj y a `m w Y°" al > N o « a, o N a Y ° 7 a) a' ra al 0 H H m w -5 y 5 C > > -C a N V C 9 ', L _ V U ~ N E ro O N E L t a j {� 2 _E C U E U r1 ° U 6 F N v a) $ C a) d 0 a C .F.,` N V O �' L+ m ry 9 U L al N C ? 'V L C a W 9 y % al V arm m a 3 a # o IA 3 Q o m w m a 0< N N O eV 0 01 CDO ~O IN O h n n r n e0 au r W 5 M a L C U O _W - v 9 3 CO 0 00 in CO u m m m e > o m C 3 a '—° °i m e v. o P. m 0 y w aC H 0 W 0 w V ° v N C E :N an °' L tab O o '-^ C c N « 3 u d 0 f C OO. W Y a a ° E E w y c -o m C w L E ° O V 9 W OWD O' C F. 0 « m > K c a - a r c W c 3 z .) E W m W m W W m E C N _ C c a ~ L .c V 0 U V C < 9 U n c W W 'O c � W ) L J d M V o c LI) CO 2 ~ V O D O. ° E ° O L E 4 O O 0- « m CO an d a c C c C0 III m 0 O O W \ Y \ \ 7 W m W 0 W V 5" E c as c a a a W 0 C inm V 0 m c W ✓ r m J J J kW a O ° = O W- IA J J J LL N CI• a M d LL LL LL Q C. It 0 O W c W > C V -0 c "0 CU Y so ✓• aOWm W NO an C O C m C p c U V W E . c _ O W m C w co O O J v . — CD -C c C NJ it c c O. , in W 0 .5 c OW p -o s W - C L � l W . m« ON Q m L V ° 0. N _CVp « CD W u p M E W Oo W N w 0 0. - O a Y p u CO L V N 0 m N .y 1-4 0 N -01 0 0 O C - et 0 Oi pi O 0 ti I-I cn W «X AJ 9 G C° .O 4. • E u m o o o V o d o L 4 ai ~ -I-I Q Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Appendix H Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan Community Meeting at Sugarloaf Fire Station November 2, 2011 Community Comments Regarding the Recommended Actions (Appendix G): 2.05 Comment: Need elevated parking at bridge approaches for hurricane events. Response: The Florida Keys Scenic Highway, together with FDOT and DEP Greenways and Trails are developing parking areas near the pedestrian bridges. These designs do not address elevated parking to accommodate people who want to use these as safe havens for their cars when there is a hurricane. 2.20 Comment: Road/entrance improvements near Sugarloaf Lodge (safety concerns). Response: FDOT is monitoring. 1111/ 5.05 Comment:Why are certain comments included—what do the comments mean? Response: All comments that were discusses at the 9/26/10 community meeting were identified and addressed. They do not necessarily mean that there was community agreement for each comment New Comment:Summerland needs more fire hydrants and better drainage Response: The draft Comprehensive Plan Evaluation and Appraisal Report is recommending that a county-wide fire hydrant needs study be conducted. Drainage issues are reviewed by the Project Management Division. 10.0 Comment:Affordable housing no longer an issue. Response: The LCP policies have been amended to reflect current housing conditions and anticipated needs. A-38 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Sugarloaf Shores HOA Comments: Comment: Concerned that issues addressed in the Appendix are an important portion of the report. Response: A paragraph will be added that states that the Appendix is a vital part of the LCP. Comment: Housing Goal 4 needs to be revised. There is not an aggressive need for affordable/workforce housing. Add permanent housing. Response:This has been amended. Comment: Vision needs to be revised. Do not have sewers yet. Response: The Vision statement was developed by community consensus and should remain. Comment: Corridor Plan should be implemented; right and left hand turn wanted. Response:Transportation improvements are not part of the scope of the LCP. Comment: Page 42; Update housing costs from 2006 values. Response: 2010 Census data not yet available. Comment: Page 44; Delete aggressive and permanent. Response: Amended as suggested. Comment: Page 49; Community Usage of schools. Response: Need interlocal agreement between Monroe County and the school system regarding the use of public school facilities by the community. Comment: Page 60; Options for traffic control at Sugarloaf. Response: County is coordinating with FDOT. Comment: Page 72; Insure implementation. A-39 Draft Lower Keys (MM 14.2—29.0)Livable CommuniKeys Plan Response: County staff will refer to the LCP when reviewing proposed development applications and land use changes within the study area. Staff will also engage the community as part of the review process. Cudjoe: Too much industrial infrastructure on Cudjoe. Examples: Solid waste sites, blimp site, regional waste water treatment plant on Cudjoe. Community input process does not address community needs and wants. Environmental impact and industrial look to Cudjoe. Need measured approach to how infrastructure is placed. Venture Out installed a bubbling system that caused weed to collect in canals causing water quality issues. Shared resource use with the Monroe County school system to use resources after hours. Ramrod: There is a high density area and boat basin. What is the zoning? Response: Commercial Fishing Village. Upper Sugarloaf: Gate at Crane Boulevard Don't have many parks. County owns the road used be residents as a park resource. The County should not tear up or abandon the road. A-40 s 1 mow kor 4 MEMORANDUM 5 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT 6 We strive to be caring,professional and fair 7 8 To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 9 10 Through: Mayte Santamaria,Assistant Planning Director 11 12 From: Mitchell N. Harvey,AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager 13 14 Date: January 27, 2012 15 16 Subject: Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan 17 18 Meeting: February 13, 2012 19 20 I. REQUEST 21 The proposal is a request by Monroe County Growth Management Division to amend Policy 22 101.20.2 of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to adopt the Lower Keys Livable 23 CommuniKeys Master Plan into the Comprehensive Plan. 24 25 II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION war 26 The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan program provides Monroe County citizens with the 27 opportunity to create a vision document that reflects the unique needs and qualities of their 28 community. There are presently four Livable CommuniKeys Master Plans that have been 29 incorporated into the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan by reference: 1) Big Pine Key 30 and No Name Key; 2)Tavernier; 3) Stock Island/Key Haven; and 4)Key Largo. These Livable 31 CommuniKeys Plans (LCP) provide guidance to County staff when reviewing proposals for 32 land use changes within the LCP study area and when reviewing ROGO applications and 33 development applications.. The Lower Keys LCP focuses on the specific needs of the local 34 community and identifies actions to meet those needs. 35 36 The County's Livable CommuniKeys Program and content of the LCP master plan 37 development are outlined in the Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.20.1,which states: 38 39 "Monroe County shall develop a series of Community Master Plans. Master Plans will be 40 developed in accordance with the following principles: 41 42 1. Each Community Master Plan will contain a framework for future development and 43 redevelopment including the designation of growth boundaries and future acquisition 44 areas for public spaces and environmental preservation; 45 46 2. Each Community Master Plan will include an Implementation Strategy composed of 47 action items, an implementation schedule, and a monitoring mechanism to provide 48 accountability to communities; 1 1 2 3. Each Community Master Plan will be consistent with existing Federal and State thr3 requirements and overall goals of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to ensure legal 4 requirements are met. While consistency with the goals of the 2010 Comprehensive 5 Plan is paramount,the 2010 Plan will be updated and amended where appropriate; 6 7 4. Each Community Master Plan will be closely coordinated with other community plans 8 and other jurisdictions to ensure development or redevelopment activities will not 9 adversely impact those areas; 10 11 5. Each Community Master Plan will include appropriate mechanisms allowing citizens 12 continued oversight and involvement in the implementation of their plans. Through the 13 Community Master Plans, programs for ongoing public involvement, outreach, and 14 education will be developed; 15 16 6. Each Community Master Plan will include a Capital Improvements program to provide 17 certainty that the provision of public facilities will be concurrent with future 18 development; 19 20 7. Each Community Master Plan will contain an environmental protection element to 21 maintain existing levels of environmental protection as required in the 2010 22 Comprehensive Plan; 23 24 8. Each Community Master Plan will include a community character element that will 25 address the protection and enhancement of existing residential areas and the lise 26 preservation of community character through site and building guidelines. Design 27 guidelines for public spaces, landscaping, streetscapes, buildings, parking lots, and 28 other areas will be developed through collaborative efforts of citizens, the Planning 29 Department, and design professionals reinforcing the character of the local community 30 context; 31 32 9. Each Community Master Plan will include an economic development element 33 addressing current and potential diversified economic development strategies including 34 tourism management. The preservation and retention of valued local businesses, 35 existing economies, and the development of economic alternatives will be encouraged 36 through the process; 37 38 10. Each Community Master Plan will contain a transportation element addressing 39 transportation needs and possibilities including circulation, safe and convenient access 40 to goods and services, and transportation alternatives that will be consistent with the 41 overall integrity of the transportation system not resulting in negative consequences for 42 other communities; 43 44 11. Each Community Master Plan will be based on knowledge of existing conditions in 45 each community. The Planning Department will compile existing reports, databases, 46 maps, field data, and information from other sources supplemented by community input 47 to document current conditions; and ihr 48 2 1 12. Each Community Master Plan will simplify the planning process providing clarity and 2 certainty for citizens, developers, and local officials by providing a transparent 3 framework for a continuing open dialogue with different participants involved in4 planning issues". 5 6 Lower Keys LCP: 7 8 The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) covers the area between Mile Markers 9 (MM) 14.2 and 29, excluding the offshore islands. This includes Saddlebunch Key, Lower 10 Sugarloaf Key, Sugarloaf Key, Cudjoe Key, Summerland Key, Ramrod Key, Big Torch Key, 11 Middle Torch Key, and Little Torch Key. The Lower Keys LCP process, which started in 12 November 2006, engaged the community in a comprehensive planning process, determined 13 important island features, identified issues affecting these conditions, and related the stated 14 desires of the community to future development activities. 15 16 The Lower Keys LCP's foundation was established through public input at workshops where 17 community participants identified their perceptions and desires for the Lower Keys. Based 18 upon the discussion in the public meetings and by reviewing responses received via e-mail,the 19 following community vision statement was created: 20 21 "The Lower Keys will remain a low-density,primarily residential community, with a strong 22 social fabric. We protect,preserve,and enjoy our natural environment, low density, wildlife 23 and open space, and unique recreational opportunities Our community cherishes 24 conservation and recreation lands and the strict growth management regulations. We seek 25 to renew our commercial areas and provide affordable housing in our community. Our C26 infrastructure and services fully meet the community's needs. Ultimately, we manage and 27 control growth and preserve the environment and our quality of life." 28 29 The consensus goals identified by the community are: 30 31 Future Land Use, Economic Development, and Community Character 32 Goal 1: Monroe County shall manage future growth to preserve the rural or low density 33 community character, protect the natural environment of the Lower Keys, and maintain and 34 encourage commercial revitalization along the U.S. 1 corridor. Community character includes 35 the culturaUtraditional heritage, physical character, and scale of the businesses that serve the 36 local community in the Lower Keys area. 37 38 Conservation and Coastal Management 39 Goal 2a: Monroe County shall manage conservation lands, reduce exotic species, and continue 40 natural lands acquisition for preservation in the Lower Keys. 41 42 Goal 2b: Monroe County shall develop and implement programs to improve water quality in 43 canals and the nearshore environment. 44 45 Transportation 46 Goal 3: Monroe County shall improve multi-modal transportation services and implement 47 programs specifically designed for vehicles, bicycles and pedestrians along US 1 and 480 48 appropriate collector roads in the Lower Keys. 3 1 2 Housing E 3 Goal 4: Monroe County shall aggressively pursue locations, solutions, and partnerships to �r 4 establish a permanent affordable housing base for Lower Keys residents and workers. 5 6 Public Utilities/Services 7 Goal 5: Monroe County shall provide adequate public facilities to serve existing and future 8 needs of the Lower Keys planning area while promoting conservations measures where 9 appropriate. 10 11 Recreation and Open Space 12 Goal 6: Monroe County shall maintain existing recreational facilities and seek opportunities 13 for active and passive land-based recreation as well as expand public shoreline access for 14 water-based recreational activities within the community. 15 16 Public Participation in the Planning Process 17 Goal 7: Monroe County shall continue to support and encourage citizen involvement and 18 monitoring of Lower Keys LCP. 19 20 Current LCP Revisions: 21 Public comments expressed the desire to create Goals, Objectives and Policies that reflect the 22 community character of all the islands included in the Lower Keys LCP separately. Each 23 subarea has unique qualities and needs. Staff determined it would be impractical to create six 24 subarea plans within the context of the Lower Key LCP. Therefore, in order to further 25 community visions that address the special needs and concerns of each island subarea, tables 26 (Appendix A) were prepared to identify which Goal, Objective, and Policy applies to each of 27 the six subareas for the seven elements of the Lower Keys LCP. The six island subareas are: 28 Summerland, Sugarloaf, Baypoint/Saddlebunch, Cudjoe, Torches, and Ramrod. 29 A public meeting was held on September 26, 2010 at Sugarloaf Elementary School and a 30 summary of those comments are listed in Appendix F of the LCP. Appendix G of the LCP 31 recommends actions to address these issues. A follow up meeting was held on November 2, 32 2011 at the Sugarloaf Fire House. A summary of those issues are included in Appendix H of 33 the LCP. 34 On November 29, 2011, the Development Review Committee held a public meeting to review 35 the Lower Keys LCP. Two members of the community attended who supported the LCP in 36 general,but requested that a policy be included to limit building height to 35 feet. Policy 1.2.3 37 was added to the draft LCP which reinforces the County's 35-foot height limit for the Lower 38 Keys LCP planning area. 39 On January 24, 2012, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public meeting to 40 review the Lower Keys LCP. Public comments expressed concerns about restricting future 41 gambling facilities. Staff has revised the LCP to add Policy 1.4.5 which recommends that 42 gaming facilities not be supported in the Lower Keys LCP area. The Planning Commission 43 discussed concerns related to references in the LCP regarding small businesses, since there is 44 currently no definition of small business in the Comprehensive Plan. Goal 1, Objective 1.1, 45 Objective 1.4 and Objective 1.5 have been amended in response to the Planning Commission's 4 1 discussion by supporting businesses that serve the local community and are compatible with 2 adjacent residential areas. The Planning Commission was also concerned about water quality 3 and the protection of nearshore waters. Staff has added Policy 2.4.2 to insure the 4 implementation of the Monroe County Stormwater Master Plan to control non-point source 5 discharges that may affect nearshore water quality. The Planning Commission unanimously 6 approved a motion to recommend that the Board of County Commissioners transmit the 7 proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to the State Land Planning Agency with the 8 recommended revisions. 9 III. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS 10 The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as follows, (Deletions are 11 strieken—threugk and additions are underlined) including the LCP adopted by reference, 12 attached as Exhibit A to the staff report: 13 14 15 Policy 101.20.2 16 The Community Master Plans shall be incorporated into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan as a 17 part of the plan and be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following 18 Community Master Plans have been completed in accordance with the principles outlined in 19 this section and adopted by the Board of County Comrnissionas: 20 21 1. Master Plan for Future Development of Big Pine Key and No Name Key,dated August 22 2004 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on August 18, 2004 is 23 incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the 24 Master Plan is equivalent to the tam Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the tarn Ilkir 25 - - --- Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and requirements for 26 implementation am synonymous. Amended by Ordinance 020-2009. 27 28 2. The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan for Tavernier Creek to Mile Marker 97 dated 29 February 11,2005 and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February 16, 30 2005 is incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The tam 31 Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the tam Objective in the Comprehensive 32 Plan and the tam Action Item is equivalent to the tam Policy; the meanings and 33 requirements forimplenentation are synonymous. 34 35 3. The Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Plan Volume I is incorporated by 36 reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.The tam Strategies in this Master Plan is 37 equivalent to the term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the tam Action Item is 38 equivalent to the tam Policy; the meanings and requirements for implementation are 39 synonymous. 40 41 4. Volume Two(2)of the Stork Island and Key Haven livable CommuniKeys Master Plan 42 titled Harbor Preservation/Redevelopment and Condor Enhancement Plan dated 43 November 2005 and incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The 44 tarn Strategies in this Master Plan is equivalent to the tam Objectives in the 45 Comprehensive Plan and the tam Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the 46 meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 47 5 1 5. The Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by reference into the 2 2010 Comprehensive Plan The tern Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the LI 3 term Objectives in the Comprehensive Plan and the tarn Action Item is equivalent to the 4 tam Policy;the meanings and requirements for implementation are synonymous. 5 6 6. The Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by 7 reference into the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 8 9 10 IV. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE 11 PLAN,THE FLORIDA STATUTES,AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING 12 DEVELOPMENT 13 14 A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and 15 Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the 16 amendment furthers: 17 18 Objective 101.20 19 Monroe County shall address local community needs while balancing the needs of all 20 Monroe County communities. These efforts shall focus on the human crafted environment 21 and shall be undertaken through the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program. 22 23 Policy 101.20.1 24 Monroe County shall develop a series of Community Master Plans. Master Plans j 25 will be developed in accordance with the following principles: `r 26 27 1. Each Community Master Plan will contain a framework for future 28 development and redevelopment including the designation of growth 29 boundaries and future acquisition areas for public spaces and environmental 30 conservation; 31 32 2. Each Community Master Plan will include an Implementation Strategy 33 composed of action items, an implementation schedule, and a monitoring 34 mechanism to provide accountability to communities; 35 36 3. Each Community Master Plan will be consistent with existing Federal and 37 State requirements and overall goals of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan to 38 ensure legal requirements are met. While consistency with the goals of the 39 2010 Comprehensive Plan is paramount, the 2010 Plan will be updated and 40 amended where appropriate; 41 42 4. Each Community Master Plan will be closely coordinated with other 43 community plans and other jurisdictions to ensure development or 44 redevelopment activities will not adversely impact those areas; 45 46 5. Each Community Master Plan will include appropriate mechanisms 47 allowing citizens continued oversight and involvement in the 4,. 48 implementation of their plans. Through the Community Master Plans, 6 1 programs for ongoing public involvement, outreach, and education will be 2 developed; kw3 4 6. Each Community Master Plan will include a Capital Improvements program 5 to provide certainty that the provision of public facilities will be concurrent 6 with future development; 7 8 7. Each Community Master Plan will contain an environmental protection 9 element to maintain existing high levels of environmental protection as 10 required in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan; 11 12 8. Each Community Master Plan will include a community character element 13 that will address the protection and enhancement of existing residential 14 areas and the preservation of community character through site and building 15 guidelines. Design guidelines for public spaces, landscaping, streetscaping, 16 buildings, parking lots, and other areas will be developed through 17 collaborative efforts of citizens, the Planning Department, and design 18 professionals reinforcing the character of the local community context; 19 20 9. Each Community Master will include an economic development element 21 addressing current and potential diversified economic development 22 strategies including tourism management. The preservation and retention of 23 valued local businesses, existing economies, and the development of 24 economic alternatives will be encouraged through the process; 25 4100 26 10. Each Community Master Plan will contain a Transportation Element 27 addressing transportation needs and possibilities including circulation, safe 28 and convenient access to goods and services, and transportation alternatives 29 that will be consistent with the overall integrity of the transportation system 30 not resulting in negative consequences for other communities; and 31 32 11. Each Community Master Plan will be based on knowledge of existing 33 conditions in each community. The Planning Department will compile 34 existing reports, databases, maps, field data, and information from other 35 sources supplemented by community input to document current conditions; 36 and 37 38 12. Each Community Master Plan will simplify the planning process providing 39 clarity and certainty for citizens, developers, and local officials by providing 40 a transparent framework for a continuing open dialogue with different 41 participants involved in planning issues. 42 43 44 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the 45 Florida Keys Area,Section 380.0552(7),Florida Statute. 46 47 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that 48 plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles,the 7 1 principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or 2 applied in isolation from the other provisions. ( 3 �/ 4 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so 5 that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of 6 critical state concern designation. 7 (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, 8 seagrass beds,wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. 9 (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, 10 native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune 11 ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. 12 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound 13 economic development. 14 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the 15 Florida Keys. 16 (t) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural 17 environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic 18 character of the Florida Keys. 19 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. 20 (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and 21 proposed major public investments,including: 22 23 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 24 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 25 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 26 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 27 5. Transportation facilities; 28 6. Federal parks,wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 29 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned 30 properties; 31 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 32 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. 33 34 (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, 35 maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage 36 collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation 37 and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. 38 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and 39 operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 40 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served 41 by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. 42 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of 43 the Florida Keys. 44 (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the 45 Florida Keys. 46 (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the 47 event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisaster reconstruction plan. 411100 1 (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and 2 maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. 3 410 4 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent 5 with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any 6 Principle. 7 8 9 C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida 10 Statute(F.S.).Specifically,the amendment furthers: 11 12 Chapter 163.3177, F.S. Required and optional elements of the comprehensive plan studies 13 and surveys; Section 163.3177(1),F.S.; Section 163.3177(1)(f), F.S: 14 15 163.3177 Required and optional elements of comprehensive plan;studies and surveys.- 16 (1) The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and 17 strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, 18 and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the 19 plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a 20 consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive 21 plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles 22 and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the 23 local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be 24 initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent gise25 manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations 26 in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, 27 and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the 28 comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land 29 development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and 30 predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful 31 guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. 32 33 (n All mandatory and optional elements of the comprehensive plan and plan amendments 34 shall be based upon relevant and appropriate data and an analysis by the local government 35 that may include, but not be limited to, surveys, studies, community goals and vision, and 36 other data available at the time of adoption of the comprehensive plan or plan amendment. 37 To be based on data means to react to it in an appropriate way and to the extent necessary 38 indicated by the data available on that particular subject at the time of adoption of the plan 39 or plan amendment at issue. 40 41 42 Chapter 163.3181, F.S. Public participation in the comprehensive planning process; 43 Section 163.3181(2), F.S: 44 45 (2) During consideration of the proposed plan or amendments thereto by the local 46 planning agency or by the local governing body, the procedures shall provide for broad 47 dissemination of the proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public kw 1 hearings as provided herein, provisions for open discussion, communications programs, 2 information services, and consideration of and response to public comments. 3 fir 4 5 6 V. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 7 8 Staff recommends approval. 9 10 11 VI. PROCESS 12 Comprehensive Plan Amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, 13 the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a 14 contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of 15 Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the 16 Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. 17 18 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission 19 shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning 20 & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony 21 given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and 22 findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing 23 to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers 24 the staff report, staff recommendation, Planning Commission Recommendation, and the fir25 testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to 26 the Florida Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to the State Land 27 Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, 28 Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the 29 County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not 30 adopt the amendment. 31 32 VII. EXHIBITS 33 A. Draft Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan proposed for adoption 34 B. BOCC Adoption Ordinance 411/ 10