Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item P2
Meeting Date: March 23, 2016 Bulk Item: Yes No X BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Department: Planning & Environmental Resources Staff Contact Person/Phone #: Maytd Santamaria 289-2500 AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider a resolution transmitting to the State Land Planning Agency an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Monroe County Comprehensive Plan by creating a definition of offshore island; amending Policies 101.5.8 and 101.13.5 within the Future Land Use Element and Policy 207.1.2 within the Conservation and Coastal Management Element to further clarify the development of offshore islands; providing for severability; providing for repeal of conflicting provisions; providing for transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency and the Secretary of State; providing for inclusion in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan; providing for an effective date. (Legislative Proceeding) ITEM BACKGROUND: A special BOCC public hearing was held on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to process separate amendments to address these topics. A transmittal hearing was set for January 14, 2015 for the proposed the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. During the special January 14, 2015, BOCC transmittal hearing, the BOCC directed the Planning & Environmental Resources Department to process an interim development ordinance which defers the acceptance of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. During the regular January 21, 2015 BOCC meeting, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 022-2015 directing the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department to process an Ordinance to defer the approval of applications for the transfer of development rights to offshore islands, transfer of ROGO exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, map amendments for offshore islands to increase potential density or intensity and text amendments to increase development potential (density/intensity). The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on April 15, 2015, and adopted Ordinance 011-2015 to defer the approval of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands, commencing January 21, 2015, until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. The proposed interim development ordinance shall provide for a sunset date no greater than 365 days from its effective date or when the comprehensive plan amendments become effective, whichever comes first. [365 days from effective = July 22, 2016] County staff separated the proposed text amendments for offshore islands into a stand-alone amendment. The Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at regularly scheduled meetings held on March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015, October 27, 2015 and January 26, 2016, and incorporated revisions based upon public input. The Monroe County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on February 24, 2016 and recommended approval to the BOCC. The Planning Commission recommended an edit to Policy 207.1.2 to include that the County Biologist will verify data and surveys submitted to document a bird rookery. Currently, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan allows the transfer of ROGO exemptions (TREs) to Tier III receiver areas within the same ROGO-subarea. Further, the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan currently allows Transferable Development Rights (TDRs) to be transferred off specific habitat types (hammock, wetlands, etc.) and certain zoning districts, such as lands designated as Offshore Island (OS) zoning category, to receiver sites with a max net density [Policy 101.13.3 - The Maximum Net Density is the maximum density allowable with the use of TDRs, and shall not exceed the maximum densities established in this plan]. The proposed text amendment continues to disallow the transfer of TREs or TDRs to Tier I, II and III -A or to properties with a FLUM designation without a maximum net density. In addition, the proposed amendment also adds for clarification purposes that TREs and TDRs cannot be transferred to any offshore island. A definition of offshore island is also proposed as follows: an area of land, surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. 1 by a bridge, road or causeway. All offshore islands identified (see Exhibit 5 of staff report) have a Future Land Use designation that does not have a max net density (i.e. no transfer of TDRs permitted) or a Tier I designation (i.e. no transfer of TREs), except for the parcels identified in the table below (yellow = FLUM with a max net density, purple = no FLUM and red= no tier designation): Map FLUM R"dential Apps�oa. •slde.Uai Zoning AAproK andal Estimated Upland Estimated Total Map Neme Page RE Number FLUM Allocated Itaireslty, elopment gory enttaY a@oPvetent Tler Aot�s Based an GIS Potantlat ARosated Deststry Potandal Data Acres Palo Alto Keys .... ....�m-............. 1 0009141CI-0000W Elswias,R.teal ,.75 0 ? i.`= 0,00 I MOD 0.36 Card Sound It 3 DOD91240-DODODO RM 2d}C3 0,71 0S 010 .....„ 0.07 UrdsiVtd 071 66.62 3 DOD91230-00OD00 RV ;..Do 915 415 0.10 ted 0.16 7.19 Tavernier Key 6 00091720-000WO MC 600 0,Dr US 0.30 0.4#:i I O.W 20.65 7 0009709D-000000 RC C;, 25 0,00 %IS DAD 01M U i tad 0.00.. _ 30.16 Cotton and Wilson Keys 7 00097110-D00000 RC 0,25 0.00 0S 0.10 0'W Undesipated 0.00 19.32 Spoil Island -MM 73 8 00D98100-00DDDD RC 0.25 0,13 0S 0110 0106 Undesipated 0,00 3.43 Molasses Keys 11 00106200-OD0000 RC 0,25 0.0C 05 0.10 0.0i3 Undesilpmted 0.00 6.38 Little Money Key 12 0010614D-D000W RC a2.5 0,00 0S 0,10 ).rOO Undesilluted- ._- 0.00 ^mmIT 1.55 Money Key 12 ODID6180-ODOODO RC 0..:25 t). C'ta CS 0.10 v.W Undesignated .: m.mmm^0,00 1.10 Rachael Carlson Key 13 0010592D-000000 RC. 0.:25 '3, 00 05 0,10 0, 1 Undesiplated .' O.W 1.05 Little Palm Island 16&18 00207880-ODOODO WIC C:su ....20 DR 1.00 4.20 1 4,20 4.20 Gopher Key 23 D010778O-D00000 RC 0.25 17.130 OR 07 10 O0 M' Undesiputed 0.00 7.87 Buttonwood Key 25 00116760.o0DODO C 0,00 0.0" 05 0.AA 0.00 undesignated 0,00 0.21 West Harbor Key 32 00116200-OOODOO tlrve.severaated 05 0,10 „'§A"Yo I m^^^^O.W�W 50.17 Wisteria Island 33 00323950-00WW 1,1mesignaterd 0S 07Ai 1,27 undissiouted VW 18,70 39.03 Ballast Key 34 00124030-ODDOOO Urmlx;.sayrnted 0S (S,iCa -1-1 UndemIltnated 13.10 14.28 apprvalmatlon for Ballast Key Density a abcated dens/ry means the number of dweling units or roans allocated per gross acre of land by the pan. Gross acre means the total man of a site tinlutirg submerged lands, tidally inundated mBrgroves, not to eceed mean high tide, and any pudwly dedicated rghts of -way. While not the subject of this text amendment, the following offshore islands do not have a tier designation (red= no tier designation in the table above): Card Sound Road, Tavernier Key, Cotton & Wilson Keys, Spoil Island (MM73), Molasses Keys, Little Money Key, Money Key, Rachael Carlson Key, Gopher Key, Buttonwood Key, Wisteria Island and Ballast Key. Pending the status of the interim development order and this text amendment, staff will process future tier designation (map overlay) amendments through the public process. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: On July 23, 2014, the BOCC held a special public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on all the proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC continued to hearing to October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency. On October 7, 2014, the BOCC held a special public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on all the proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The BOCC continued to hearing to December 10, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency. On December 10, 2014, the BOCC held a public hearing (transmittal hearing) and reviewed, discussed and provided direction on proposed elements of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan related to height and offshore islands. The BOCC continued the transmittal hearing to January, 14, 2015, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency. The BOCC directed staff to process separate amendments for height and offshore islands (not to include within the 2030 Comprehensive Plan) On January 14, 2015, the BOCC held a special public hearing (transmittal hearing) and voted to transmit the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the State Land Planning Agency (without the amendments for height and offshore islands). On January 21, 2015, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 022-2015 directing the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department to process an Ordinance to defer the approval of applications for the transfer of development rights to offshore islands, transfer of ROGO exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, map amendments for offshore islands to increase potential density or intensity and text amendments to increase development potential (density/intensity). On April 15, 2015, the BOCC held a public hearing and adopted Ordinance 011-2015 to defer the approval of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands, commencing January 21, 2015, until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. The proposed interim development ordinance shall provide for a sunset date no greater than 365 days from its effective date or when the comprehensive plan amendments become effective, whichever comes first. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Staff recommends approval. TOTAL COST: INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE: COST TO COUNTY: SOURCE OF FUNDS: REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes _ No AMOUNT PER MONTH Year APROVED BY: County Atty X�-IOMB/Purchasing Risk Management DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41. 42 43 44 45 46 ! 1 e NJ 11CUM111WWJ N In I1 I WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the Florida Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and comment of the proposed amendments to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan which is identified as the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and. WHEREAS, _. EREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners support the requested text amendments; NOW THEREFORE,RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section Ie The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, for adoption in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. Section 2. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. Section 4. The Clerk of the Board .is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Director of Planning. P. 1 of 2 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a special meeting held on the day of — '2016. (SEAL) ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK MUfforem W-w Mayor Heather Carruthers Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage Commissioner David Rice Commissioner Sylvia Murphy i 0 19JULVAM091 XwO19104IM09931PAI• M. Mayor Heather Carruthers NO S'fg-VEN T. WI ULI P. 2 of 2 r _Wy Exhibit ,A l' ORDINANCE 1 I 6 AMENDINGAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS r riE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING OFFSHORE ISLAND;AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE . 1 USE ELEMENT 1 POLICY CONSERVATION 1, COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO Fr r CLARIFY DEVELOPMENT 1 PROVIDING FOR PROVIDING FOR CONFLICTING PROVISIONS;PROVIDING `, TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY 1 PROVIDING COUNTYINCLUSION IN THE MONROE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, at a special meeting on January 14, 2015, unanimously passed a motion to direct staff to impose a temporary moratorium upon certain development applications of Offshore Islands due to pending legislation: and WHEREAS, Monroe County is currently in the process of updating its Comprehensive Plan, to the 2030 Comprehensive Plan which includes updates and revisions on policies regulating development on all lands within the County, including Offshore Islands: and WHEREAS, on December 10, 2014, the Board of County Commissioners directed that pending and proposed new Comprehensive Plan amendments specifically concerning Offshore Islands and building height restrictions be removed fro►n the larger Comprehensive Plan update project and that each be considered as a separate and distinct Comprehensive Plan Amendment to be voted upon and submitted to the State of Florida separately from the rest of the cumulative Comprehensive Plan update project package; and WHEREAS, the Comprehensive Plan amendment process remains pending and an ongoing process, an ordinance to prohibit new applications from being processed is necessary to ensure new Amendments) regarding Offshore Islands are fully evaluated, including the provision of public participation in the planning process; and WHEREAS, during a special meeting of the Board of County Commissioners to consider the transmittal of the 2030 Comprehensive Plan amendment package on January 14, 2015, a discussion was held and motion made and passed to direct staff not to accept any applications regarding Offshore Islands that would involve a Transfer of Development Rights to Offshore Islands, Transfer of ROGO File 20I5-007 Page 1 of 6 Exhibit A Exemptions to Offshore Islands, and Map Amendments or Text Amendments that would bring about increased density or intensity to Offshore Islands; and WHEREAS, during the regular January 21, 2015 BOCC meeting, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 022-2015 directing the Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department to process an Ordinance to defer the approval of applications for the transfer of development rights to offshore islands, transfer of ROOO exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, map amendments for offshore islands to increase potential density or intensity and text amendments to increase development potential (density/intensity). WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on April 15, 2015, and adopted Ordinance 011-2015 to defer the approval of applications that include the Transfer of Development Rights to offshore islands, Transfer of ROGO Exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, Map Amendments or Text Amendments having the effect of increasing development potential on offshore islands; commencing January 21, 2015, until such time as a comprehensive plan amendment process is completed regarding offshore islands. The proposed interim development ordinance shall provide for a sunset date no greater than 35 days from its effective date or when the comprehensive plan amendments become effective, whichever comes first; and WHERE, A, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed amendment at regularly scheduled meetings held on March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015, October 27, 2015 and January 26, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission considered the proposed amendment at a regularly scheduled meetings held on February 24, 2016; and WHEREAS, the Planning Commission recommended revisions be made to Policy 206.1.2 and recommended approval of the proposed amendment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on March 23, 2016, provided for public comment and public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted for public participation in the planning process, to transmit comprehensive plan amendments to the State Land Planning Agency and Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and cornment; and WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners ; and WHEREAS, on , the State Land Planning Agency issued its Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC) report. The ORC report states WHEREAS, as a response to the ORC Report, Monroe File 201.5-007 Page 2 of 6 and County Exhibit A -nOW, TAEMFO-.'-E,, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF !, E! COUNTY, FLORIDA, Section 1. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is amended as shown. (Deletions are StFiGlEeR thF and additions are underlined. Items in italics were included in the January 14, 2015 Comp Plan transmittal and reflect direction from the BOCC on March 1, 2016.) Policy 101,56 8 Monroe County ram, ealked shall maintain a Transfer of ROGO Exemption (TRE)pram, that �� allows for the transfer off -site of dwelling units, hotel rooms, campgroundfrecreational vehicle spaces and/or mobile homes to anther site in the .saute ROGO sub -area, provided that they are lawfully existing and can be accounted for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. Dwelling units may be trans erred asLollows: a. between sites in the Uplerr Keys RCtGC tsub-area,. b. between sites in the Loner Ke) s ROGO sub -area; c. between sites in the Big .fine Kev and No .Name Kev ROGQ sub -area; i, units from the Big Pine} Key and No Name Key ROGO sub -area may also be transferred to the Lower Kevs ROGO subarea. No .sender units may,be trans erred to an area where there are inadequate fbeilities and services. s. Sender Site Criteria: 1. Contains a documented law ull -established sender unit recognized bv the Coun ; and 7. Located in a Tier I II III -A or Tier 111 desi noted area; including an tier within the Counoz's Military Installation Area o,f Impact (MIAD Overlay. Receiver Site Criteria: 1. The Future Land Use cate ory and Land Use (Zonin) District must allow the requested use: 2. Must meet the adopted density standards, a3. Includes all infrastructure (notable water, adeauate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, Paved roads, etc.); 4. Located within a Tier III designated area; 5. Structures are not located in a veloci V zone or within a CBRS unit; and 6. Is not an offshore island. ,r 9 r4g,,,,arS , 4 e#tge: rp z 3 111 „4, jajg,4 Nrgtj,,e Ara+;,, r t a 7 r n,., ✓r s File 2015-007 Page 3 of 6 Exhibit A e ey arnri rx c3 Aese mops :Mall be mp�fed as neeessen:y and made available �(q Crf-awih 44at?ageineoit ;qt a a a s, to r nr Transfer of Development Rights pr�ograrn sender and receiver sites are subject to the following transfer conditions. - Sender Site Criteria: 1. Pro,perL� has development rights to trans er. 2. Located in a Tier I, II, III -A or Tier III designated area; including any tier within the County's Military Installation Area of`Impact (MIAI) Overlay. Receiver ,Site Criteria: L The Fixture Land Use catezory and Land Use (Zonine) District must allow the requested use; a Liveable CommuniKevs Communit Centers shall be encouraged as receiving areas ,for transfer of 'development rights. 2. Must have an adol2ted maximum net density standards; 3. Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and diSaosal wastewater meeting adopted LQ,S, paved roads, etc 4 Located within a Tier III designated area; S Is not located within a des hated CBRS unit; and 6. is not an offshore island Policy 24�206.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survev as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depression in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows, and cavities. .. a`nr;nrr✓ass.�ia.r�rsnr�i�ir�i;,,.,,x,�� File 2015-007 Page 4 of•f Exhibit A, Glossary.. Bird Rookery means a communal nesting ground for gregarious birds. Native U land Ve elationfHabitat also land Native Ve etation/Ilabiiat means native lant species, either new growth or mature, occurring within native upland plant communities including inelands, cactus hammocks palm hammocks or tropical hardwood hammocks. NestiLig Areas (for birds) means those areas that birds use for nesting. This applies to wading birds, hawks, falcons, seabirds, .shorebirds, and any birdecies federally or state -listed as endangered, threatened, or a species of s ecial concern. This definition does not QW/E to non- native invasive or nuisancespecies, O .shore Island means an area of land surrounded by seater, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S,. 1 by a bridge, road or causeway, Upland means the area of a site landward of'mean high water, excluding ,submerged lands and tidally inundated mangroves. Upland Native Vegetation`Habitat (see Native Upland Vegetation/Habitat) Section 2._Severability. if any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such validity. Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict, Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Planning Department to the Florida State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Section 5. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of Florida, but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Florida State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance, and if challenged until such challengc is resolved pursuant to Chapter 120, F.S. Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The amendment shall be incorporated in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of 2016.. Mayor Heather Carruthers Mayor Pro Tem George Neugent Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage Commissioner David Rice Commissioner Sylvia Murphy File 2015-007 Page 5 of( Exhibit A 31 m ON Lei 2924 1!' m (SEAL) ATTEST: AMY HEAVILIN, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK.. Mayor Heather Carruthers File 2015-007 Page 6 of 6 MEMORANDUM 1 i To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: March 4, 2016 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS .AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) .March 23, 2016 The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department is proposing an amendment to revise the policies related to the development of offshore islands in regards to the use of transfer of development rights (TDRs) and transfer of ROGO exemptions (TREs). The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014,.to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider- the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 l of 12 File 92015- 007 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following. • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5,32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies,for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 3Sft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Stiff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventoryfdata of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. During the regular December 1.0, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the offshore island policies and process it as a separate amendment. A. special BOCC transmittal hearing was set for January 14, 2015 for the proposed the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners, at a special meeting on January 14, 2015, unanimously passed a motion to direct staff to impose a temporary suspension upon certain development applications of Offshore Islands due to pending legislation (updates to the Comprehensive Plan). During the regular January 21, 2015 BOCC meeting, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Resolution No. 022-2015 directing the Monroe County Planning and .Environmental. Resources Department to process an Ordinance to defer the approval of applications for the transfer of development rights to offshore islands, transfer of ROCO exemptions to offshore islands, tier amendments for offshore islands, map amendments for offshore islands to increase potential density or intensity and text amendments to increase development potential (density/intensity). DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 1. DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments frorn the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 2. DRC. At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report 2 of 12 File #2015- 007 and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. }RC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 2.7, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The infonmation provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 4. DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2016, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and provided for public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. Approved minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are not available as of the date of this staff report. PC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 24, 2016, the Monroe County Planning Commission reviewed the proposed text amendment, provided for public review and comment and recommended approval of the proposed amendments with revisions to Policy 206.1.2. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. Approved minutes from the February 24, 2016 PC are not available as of the date of this staff report. ,! �•!Fl r ., r The proposed changes relate to where development, in terms of the transfer of development rights (density) and transfer of ROCO exemptions (lawfully -established unit) are directed. The existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.5.8 allowed for the transfer of units, based on the following criteria: occurs within the same li'OGO sub -area, provided the units are law Ily existing and can be accounted fora in the County's hurricane evacuation model. In addition, the receiver site shall be located ivithin a Tier III area outside a designated Special Protection Area and far- a receiver site on dig Pine Key and No Name Key, the sending site shall also be located on one of those two islands. The new proposed policy expands the criteria to provide additional standards and utilize the Tier System: Sender Site must be located in a Tier 1, 11, or 111-A designated area;. or any tier designation within the County's Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) Overlay. Receiver Site criteria: • The Future Land. Use category and Land Use (Zoning) District must allow the requested use, • Must meet the adopted density standards; 3of12 File 92015- 007 • Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads, etc.); o Located within a Tier III designated area; and • Structures are not located in a velocity (V) zone or within a CBRS unit. Transfer of development rights or TDRs: The existing Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.13.4 (TDR) specifies habitat types (hammock, wetlands, etc.) and certain zoning districts that are allowable sender sites for TDRs. The (?fshore Island (OS) zoning category is specifically identified as an eligible sender site (note, this does not mean the general/glossary term of offshore island: an area of land, surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. I by a bridge, road or causeway - it is the zoning category). The new proposed Policy 1.01.1.3.3 (TDR) utilizes Tier designation to specify allowable sender sites because it reflects both the habitat types and several of the zoning districts utilized in existing Policy 101.13.4.. Tier designations are based mainly on the environmental characteristics of the land and other items such as: Tier 1 category (Policy 205.1.1) includes lands within state/federal acquisition boundaries; known locations of threatened and endangered species, and lands designated as Conservation and Residential Conservation on the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) (note, the Gffshore Island (OS) zoning calegoi„y falls tinder the Residential Conservation FL UM. TDRs are utilized by applicants to get enough density to build proposed dwelling units - both residential and transient. Specifically, maximum net density is the maximum density allowed with the use of TDRs (Policy 101.13.3). The new proposed Policy 101.1.3.3 also utilizes Tier designation to specify receiver sites for TDRs. Under the new policy, only parcels designated as Tier III — infill areas, may be receiver sites. The policy also specifies that receiver sites must have an adopted maximurn net density standard. INVENTORY/DATA OF PRIVATELY -OWNED OFFSHORIE ISLANDS: During the Comprehensive Plan update, the BOCC requested an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. This information is attached as Exhibit 4 (table) and Exhibit 5 (maps). For these exhibits, staff utilized the previously proposed definition of offshore island which means an area of land, surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. I by a bridge, road or causeway. Additionally, staff utilized the County's GIS data to provide Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation, Land Use (Zoning) District, Tier designation and approximate upland acres for each privately owned offshore island. 4of12 File 2015- 007 All offshore islands identified have a Future Land Use designation that does not have a max net density (i.e. no transfer of TDRs permitted) or a Tier I designation (i.e. no transfer of TRFs), except for: Map Name Map Page RE Number FLUM Reside taS FLUM Allocated Oensisy ApProx. donkial Dave{oR pmenk Pn#enkial : 2 r{n0 201 Vng Ref�dcntiaf A14ocated Density Api R nu ltl .ti71. 0eec[nprnent F91Enti=r€ Tier Estimated Up4and Ares Rased an OlS data . EstmustedTotal Acres pain Alto Keys 1 00091410-COCOOD Undcagn, t,d - 777777 (rr = 0� 1 _... O.00 036 card 5aaad "ad3 0009124000OGGO Pre, ..CC. L rl C� C 1.D7 Ilode0goatsd I 0,71 66.62 3 00091230-COGOOO JW i D0 0.12 1;' :C' O.G2 Undeslg+p.fed -..-. 416 7-19 Tvermer'Key 6 OOD91720000000 :11 11I'll CAO f}t G10 {'DO 0,00 20.65 7 -- -7 0009709D-000000 -- PC U-2S 0 M ,", u1rJ u e Undesigr# Wed 000 30 i9. Cotton and Wi6san Keys 000971la-000000 rc 0 O.DO , ._ G-00 Undeslgr(dted --- 0.00 19.32 Spoil 1-1 MM 73 3 0G0981GO 0000OO s RC. ,,._S a.DO ,-... :10 0. 0 Umlas!gWdd 0.90 3.43 Molaxses Keys 11 00106200 000000 RC C.21 a to :: s ;1 10 D 00 Un4t Fumed a CO 6.38 Little Mari" Kcy 12 00106140 000000 Re. 0 25 ,, ,U ,1., i t 0G0 Undesigngked MO i.55 Money Key 12 00106190-000000 RL C.2S i 00 i).00 1jnda1$1imiaidd i C.00 1.10 Ruh-1 Carl-KeY Little Palm Island 13 16 Ye 15 C0105920000000 C0107880-0000DO tC C.25 MC C'1 t 10 A Un t70 DaD 4.22D unit 0£ignored t 0.00 4.20 1.05 4.20 Rettnnw..d Key 25 00116780-OCOODO C 11 On i'00 O$ .n 000 Undesignated _-0.00 0,71 Wcst Harttor Key W stem €shod 32 33 001.1620000OODO 00123950000000 UM,,a;-.rd 1J d t,rts.uti 0; Q'> ., i 0111) 1.r63 f Undeslgriated 0.00 16.70 50.17 39.03 Ballast Key 34 0012403u 000Cm Al d,srbsrta�ed .,` i-' OS r1I Undes1graited '. 13.10 1428 _.. app2-xlma[�nn for be I"I Keg r,,, r, _ a < per I he'd t, rl2r_ Grat.e zihc ..rain _a. tl1v.,E..rr ,13J Jz�: sitl �ny__ cl to es.:....,1 n111d /.-1,"_. 1crl..ac.r Based on the data analyzed, the following offshore islands appear to have residential development potential; however, it should be noted that Wisteria Island and Ballast Key do not have a PLUM or Tier designation: ARp-, Residential lnn1n0 App p R.ld..HM Estimated Upland Map Name Map RE N-1sea FLUM FLUM Rdsidennal 41eve.:iaPmont inp; Residrnklai 4 vrtopmom Tier Ac-Based on GIS Estimated Total Page Ablated D.o,hy Potsntiai A'1r2eated Pe,9sity Paksnkinl Data Aces 00091210 00Oi00 21 0a091210-000200 000912W 0GO600 00091210-000MO ii 00091210-aUCC00 00091210 OU700 00091210-001DOD DO091210-001400 Pumpkin Key 2 00091219"0012nO RM tla! 17 17 ORCA 24.1B 2505 00091210-001500 00091210-000800 0009121a 0a03Oe 00091210-000400 00091210-001000 00091210001100 OW91210-000900 00091210-001300 Toms Harhar Keys 1D 0009&970-0O000D FC. 1.„_ 2,!;6 C.L _. I.O3 30.05 49.4U Little Pelrn lll.nd 16&i8 0010788CMO000 dNc'.. 6.G 21.a0 D0 0 d2i) 1 4.20 4.2p Wste,a Island 33 D01MSMOODOO Undesgna'md ;J'S _:.l� 1,87 Und4F1@nAte# 1&7O 39.03 Mhst Key 34 04124030 COMuu U d- y-te¢i =: :,' . ' g,1_3+ Under gnated ]3.Z0 14 28 aParo.;>nar��� to Balinst Kpy 1'-, i,Y c-ie plan u -D,.f lv vlea:', i 3ra.nr ,c �cI c _ylc. a ,sf.vr alp Tom Harbor Keys acreage based on survey data 5ofi12 File #2015- 007 IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are str-ieken thfeuo and additions are underlined.) Note: items shaded in grey were included in the January 14, 2015 Comp Plan transmittal. Note: items in blue text were amendments directed by the BOCC at the March 1, 2016 Public Hearing. Policy 101.56.8 Monroe County .-,-a pr-ogr-affl, 6 shall maintain a Transfer of ROGO Exemption (TRE)-,Lprograrn that weW4 -aUawallows for the transfer off -site of dwelling units, hotel , rooms, campground/recreational vehicle spaces and/or mobile homes to another site in the same ROGO sub -area, provided that they are lawfully existing and can be accounted for in the County's hurricane evacuation model. Dwelling units may be transferred as follows: a. between sites in the Upper Keys ROGO sub -area, b. between sites in the Lower Kevs ROGO sub -area; c. between sites in the Big Pine Key and No Name Key ROGO sub -area; i. units front_theBig Pine Key and No Name Key ROGO sub -area may also be transferred to the Lower Keys ROGO subarea. WINE lw�mvfvmll .. ........... . Sender Site Criteria: 1. Contains a documented lawfully -established sender unit recognized by the County, and 2. Located in a Tier 1, 11, 111-A or Tier III designated area', illClUdillL, any tier designation within the County Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) Overlay. Receiver Site Criteria: 1, The Future Land Use cateaory and Land Use (Zoning) District must allow the reauested Y�� 2. Must meet the adopted density standards, 3. Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads. etc.); 4. Located within a Tier Ill designated area- 5. Structures are not located in a velocity W) zone or within a CBRS unit: and 6. Is not an offshore island. NNW. 1�1. -iii -" W ii - WiN LTA R 4 6 of 12 File #2015- 007 These maps shall be updated as --A MaAR available to C-4-W.A.4h. N41-Anageffient staf-Pand publie faf use in the deYt,ekjm*e..t ill. Transfer of Development Rights program sender and receiver sites are subject to the following transfer conditions: Sender Site Criteria: I. Property has development ent ri{,.�hts to transfer. 2. Located in a Tier 1 II III A or Tier 111 designated area, islclUcing)_any tics- within the County's Military Installation Area of Impact (MIAI) ®verlU. Receiver Site Criteria: 1. The Future Land Use category and Land Use(Zoning) District must allow the requested u • _Liveable CommuniKeys Community Centers shall be encouraged as receiving areas. for transfer of development rights. . Must have an adapted maximum net density standards, 3. Includes all infrastructure (potable water, adequate wastewater treatment and disposal wastewater meeting adopted LOS, paved roads, etc.) 4. Located within a Tier III designated area, 5. Is not located within a designated CBRS unit; and 6. Is not an offshore island Policy 207LO6.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey, as verified by the County Biologist. As used in this policy, established bid rookM refers to the location where colonial birds nest together Location in which a bird lays and incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow 7of12 File #2.015- 007 depression in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices n-the racks, burrows. and cavities. arm . 5.012(3)(e)1; nr c n13(2)(,)c afi 6] Glossary: Bird Rockery means a communal nesting ground for gregarious birds. Native i<pland VegetaticnlHabitat (also Upland Native Tle etationlllabitat) means native plant species, either new growth or mature occurrin within native upland plant communities including_pinelands, cactus hammocks, halm hammocks or tropical hardwood hammocks. Nesing Areas ffor birds) means those areas that birds use for nesting. This applies to wading birds, hawks falcons seabirds, shorebirds and any bird species federally or state -listed as endangered, threatened, or a species of special concern. This definition does not apply to non- native invasive or nuisance species. Offshore Island means an area of land surrounded by water, which is not directly or indirectly connected to U.S. 1 by a bridge, road or causeway. Upland means the area of a site landward of mean high water, excluding submerged lands and tidally inundated mangroves. Upland Native VegetaticnlHabitat (see Native Upland Vegetation/Habitat) V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTYYEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the fallowing Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the duality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Objective 101.11 Monroe County shall implement measures to direct future growth away from crivixonmentally sensitive land and towards established development areas served by existing public facilities. Policy 1.02.7.2 By January 4, 1997, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which will further restrict the activities permitted on offshore islands. These shall include the following: 1. development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery or nesting area (See Conservation and Coastal Management Policy 207.1.3.); 2. campgrounds and marinas shall not be permitted on offshore islands; 3. new mining pits shall be prohibited on offshore islands; 4. permitted uses by -right on islands (which are not bird rookeries) shall include detached residential dwellings, camping (for the personal use of the owner of the property on a temporary basis), 8of12 File #2015- 007 beekeeping, accessory uses, and home occupations (subject to a special use permit requiring a public hearing); 5. temporary primitive camping by the owner, in which no land clearing or other alteration of the island occurs, shall be the only use of an offshore island which may occur without necessity of a permit; 6. the use of any motorized vehicles including, but not limited to, trucks, carts, buses, motorcycles, all -terrain vehicles and golf carts shall be prohibited on existing undeveloped offshore islands; 7, planting with native vegetation shall be encouraged whenever possible on spoil islands; and 8. public facilities and services shall not be extended to offshore islands Policy 102.7.3 Monroe County shall discourage developments proposed on offshore islands by methods including, but not limited to, designated offshore islands as Tier I Lands Policy 207.1.2 Development shall be prohibited on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird rookery, as identified on the current Protected Animal Species Map. Policy 207.9.1 By January 4, 1998, the Monroe County Biologist, in cooperation with DNR, FGFWFC, FWS, and the National Audubon Society Research Department shall update the list of offshore island bird rookeries where development shall be prohibited. Until the list is updated, the offshore islands which are established bird rookeries shall be defined as any offshore island designated as a known habitat for a nesting bird on the latest update of the Protected .animal Species Map. GOAL 209 Monroe County shall discourage private land uses on its mainland, offshore islands and undeveloped coastal barriers, and shall protect existing conservation lands from adverse impacts associated with private land uses on adjoining lands. Policy 215.2.3 No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently accessible by road, with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural resource protection, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety.. Policy 217..2 No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed saltmarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently accessible by road, with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural resource protection, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety. Policy 1401.2.2 No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, undisturbed saltniarsh and buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently accessible by road, with the exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural resource protection, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety, 9of12 File 4201.5- 007 B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (t) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities, Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; Transportation facilities; Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. (�) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(l0), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. (1) ]Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida. Keys. (am) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan. (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. 10 of 12 File 92015- 007 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle. C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Dart 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages, encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote,. protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare, facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions Section 163.3177(1), F.S. — The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. it is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 11 of 12 File 42015- 007 180 days to adopt the amendments, adapt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. C�1�.`�1M_=i`�i�:��%ITi71i►C�i17!�Iil�#� I Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. Willowmall I . March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 2, May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 3. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes 5. Table of privately owned offshore islands within unincorporated Monroe County. 6. Location maps of privately owned offshore islands within unincorporated Monroe County. 12 of 12 File 42015- 007 Tuesday, March 24, 215 EETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, March 24 , 2015, beginning at 1:02 paw, at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (I" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Emily Schemper, Principal Planner Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item I is delayed. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24, 2015,.DRC meeting as is. New Items: 2. N ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET T14E INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) (1:03 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated that Iterns 2 and 3 will be held as a workshop discussion versus a staff report with comments. Both items are from the comp plan update and were proposed within the 2030 cornp plan. The BOCC has asked staff to remove the policies as they were in the comp plan and process them separately so that there is public understanding and public input through the process. This item will be brought back two or three times to ensure revisions can be made with public input. Ms. Santamaria first addressed Policy 101.4.26. Ms. Santamaria explained that the current height definition is the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure and it is measured from either grade or the crown of the nearest road. Multiple height exceptions have been proposed in order to address a variety of issues. The first one is the wind turbine for facilities owned and operated by a public utility. An avian protection plan would be required. The height exception would be for those wind turbines that facilitate green technologies and alternative energy sources. Ms. Santamaria informed Deb Curlee there are no applications for wind turbines. currently. Alicia Putney commented that her personal experience has been that wind turbines are not able to generate enough current to be deemed useful unless the sustainable winds were above 20-25 miles an hour. Consequently, wind is more questionable than solar energy at this point. Ms. Curlee is not in favor of wind turbines because of their aesthetics. Ms. Santamaria will draft a version of the policy as the BOCC has proposed it next to a version that includes the public's input. Bill Eardley asked that staff obtain an analysis of FIEC's two wind turbines located on Cudjoe Ivey before proceeding with this policy. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.31. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy is specific to Ocean Reef. In permitting for that community staff has had to deal with architectural features just above the 35-foot height limit. Staff has recommended the architectural features could exceed the 35-'foot height limit by five feet, not to exceed 40 feet, and can contain no habitable space up there. Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association and Ocean Reef Club. Mr. Reed stated even though Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non -habitable architectural decorative features, it is only one and the least significant of three provisions that Ocean Reef has requested. Mr. Reed explained that Ocean Reef has its own architectural review committee that projects go through as well. One of the longer term issues facing Ocean Reef Club is that they still own a number of buildings and condominiums that currently exceed the 35-foot height. restriction. These are aging buildings coming to the end of their useful life. There is concern if they are ever destroyed they would not be able to build back to their current heights, Mr. Reed agrees with being proactive by building above the FEMA flood heights. One policy request from N Ocean Reef is for the ability to build back on a story -by -story approach rather than to the pre- existing height. Mr. Reed feels allowing this way of rebuilding with an increase in the slab -to - slab measurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than tearing them down. Another issue important to Ocean Reef is the Cultural Center building. Because the flyover space in this building is Limited, the ability to have productions in this building is limited also. Mr. Reed suggested that a height of 65 feet would accommodate that flyover space. Mr. Reed emphasized that the proposed story -by -story rebuilding process is being requested for Ocean Reef only, which is an isolated and gated community, not visible from the roadway. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef provide information of the cultural center, such as a map depiction and its existing height information. Mr. Reed agreed to provide that information, as well as a list of inventoried buildings at Ocean Reef including their existing heights. Ms. Curlee asked for an estimate of the height of a building with an 11-foot slab -to -slab allowance plus the flood elevation. Mr. Reed replied that it depends on the flood zone and the average existing grade or crown of road of each site. Ms. Putney proposed Ocean Reef go through a variance procedure for each of the specific buildings because of all the variables associated with each building. Mr. Reed agreed that consideration needs to be given for each building individually and stressed that losing a floor would not be an option in rebuilding. Mr. Reed further explained that some communities have minimum ceiling heights so that a more adaptable building into the future is built. Ms. Putney asked if Ocean Reef has its own community master plan containing its own design criteria. Mr. Reed responded that there are architectural design guidelines for Ocean Reef that are followed currently and a process is being gone through to update and create a new master plan for Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria clarified that it is for Ocean Reefs own development internally, but a Livable CommuniKeys plan or even an overlay district can be proposed. Ms. Putney voiced concern that this policy would open the door for other gated communities throughout the Keys to increase their height restriction_ Ms. Santamaria noted that the reason the BOCC was even considering this policy is because Ocean Reef is not only gated, but it is isolated and separate from the rest of the Keys. Bill Hunter, present on behalf of Sugarloaf Property Owners Association (SPOA), will be taking this request by Ocean Reef back to SPOA members for their input. SPOA recognizes that Ocean Reef is isolated and very different from the rest of the Keys. Mr. Hunter commented that the BOCC has said in the past they do not want to treat Ocean Reef differently than the rest of the County. SPOA is neutral on this policy as long as this does not affect the rest of the County. Mr. Reed explained that there is language that allows Ocean Reef to go through a letter of understanding process without going through a conditional use process. Mr. Reed feels perhaps some stronger language would help address the concerns being voiced. Ms. Putney again suggested Ocean Reef have their own Livable CommuniKeys plan which is protected by the comp plan. Mr. Reed pointed out that Ocean Reef has stricter regulations than the rest of the County has, such as setbacks. Ms. Putney suggested adding language referring to gated communities over a certain size. Ms. Curlee believes, regardless of Ocean Reef being isolated and gated, the public will expect the sarne consideration that Ocean Reef receives. Ms. Putney agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not want to have special rules for 3 Ocean Reef: Mr. Reed added that he believes only one Commissioner has expressed that sentiment. Ms. Santamaria stated the BOCC will make the decision of what they choose to adopt and/or transmit to the State and will ultimately make the decision of which communities, which policies and where they will apply to. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policies 101.5.32 and 1.01.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained these policies are an attempt to provide existing and new structures the ability to redevelop or lift the existing structure to come into compliance with their flood zone. New FEMA maps are expected in four years. The first provision of Policy 101.5.32 is for new structures to voluntarily elevate their structures up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit. It is based on what they choose to elevate above flood. The second provision of the policy is for existing structures to be able to meet their base flood zone or to exceed it. Again, they can go up to five feet above the 35®foot height limit, but this is based on the amount they choose to go up. The third provision is for those structures that need to go a little bit higher to rnect their flood zone. The addition of one foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for. Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structure is impractical due to the cost. It is simpler to pay off the mortgage and cancel the flood insurance. Mr. Eardley feels there is no need for the exception on new construction because the building can be designed to meet the current standards. Ms. Santamaria explained the exception was proposed because the BOCC did not want people to lose living space and be squeezed into smaller homes. FEMA representatives have informed staff a grant program may be created to help with the cost of elevating a home. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that some existing structures may not be able to be raised due to its structural integrity. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there has been discussion about including bonus points or points under the CRS for communities that provide for an opportunity for property owners to elevate their base floor one to three feet above base flood elevation on a voluntary basis. Dottie Moses from the Upper Keys Homeowners Federation stated that the CRS looks at encouraging people not to build in low-lying areas. Ms. Santamaria explained that is why the inventory of flood zones was done. Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the County is somehow encouraging building in a very low-lying area where roads will eventually Ego longer be maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number I is applicable when people tear down and build a new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of hones built before FEMA came in to Monroe County in '78 built below the base flood would be a small enough number that they could be dealt with through some kind of a development review mechanism as opposed to a carte blanche rule. Ms. Schemper noted that this would give property owners the allowance to do it rather than being penalized because of their unique circumstance. Ms. Santararia stated staff will evaluate that. s. Santamaria then described a situation of a property owner in North Florida who built a home less than ten years ago at three feet above flood. The new FEMA maps now show that home being three feet below flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that the new FEMA maps could impact a substantial number of people whose flood insurance premiums are going to skyrocket up because of this situation. FEMA is supposed to take sea level rise into account when creating their new maps. Staff is trying to think into the future to try to facilitate people's ability to protect their hornes and investments. Mr. Hunter suggested, because it is unknown what the maps will show, introducing the concept and making allowances for the solution in the comp S plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifying the LDRs in the LDC is an easier process. Mr. Schemper cautioned the longer addressing this issue is put off, the more homes will be built that are going to be affected. Ms. Moses stated that at an Army Corps meeting comments were made that all of the "easy" lots have been built on and what is left will require mitigation and other issues. Ms. Santamaria will try to run an analysis of the flood zone of the vacant parcels in the County. Mr. Hunter clarified that when he suggested splitting the concept in the comp plan and the detail in the LDRs, he was not suggesting delaying the LDRs. Mr. Hunter further stated more public outreach would help in educating the public more on climate change and sea level rise. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr. Hunter that the County does not have policies in place yet regarding replacement of infrastructure in areas potentially susceptible to sea level rise, so the County has to proceed under existing policies and directives, which obligates the County to maintain the roads. Ms. Santamaria described a situation in St. Augustine where property owners are suing the municipality to maintain a road in a low-lying area so that the people would have access to their fire service. Ms. Curlee asked about regulations regarding filling a lot. Mr. Roberts explained that whether fill is allowed depends on the flood zone. Ms. Putney added that runoff from higher lots into the road is creating a problem for the neighbors and in the canals, as well as blocking views and creating shade. Mr. Williams clarified that situation does not create a property rights issue. Ms. Santamaria noted that the variance procedure could create a staggered view line in an area. Ms. Moses stated the Federation has taken the position they do not want the 35-foot height limit raised under any circumstance. The County has managed to get by under that height limit to date with new construction. Mr. Hunter on behalf of SPCA agreed with Ms. Moses` comments. Mr. Hunter personally believes more education is needed about freeboard and the benefits of freeboard. Ms. Putney on behalf of Last Stand stated existing buildings should have some kind of mechanism for special approval, but that the total raised building could not exceed 44 feet and the space created under the first floor should be non -habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed to new construction receiving an exception to the 35-foot height limit. Mr. Williams noted that there is a potential map amendment process to appeal to FEMA to make an exception for a lot. The expense of that process was discussed. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy addresses existing structures that currently exceed the height limit, such as a three or four-story condo. By redeveloping to upgrade the building, coming into compliance with the flood zone may result in loss of a stony of that condo. That could potentially result in 20 people on the top floor no longer having the ability to rebuild their home. Ms. Putney questioned wiry it is perceived to affect the top story as opposed to the first story. Ms. Santamaria stated half of the people would lose their home regardless of which story it is. This policy provides for allowing five feet above their existing height. Ms. Putney stated Last Stand supports this policy provided that the footprint of the structure is not changed. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee there is no cap on the height. Staff does not have a clear inventory of those structures this policy would encompass, but estimates only a handful. Mr. Reed asked that those who do support this policy consider giving some additional slab -to -slab height when rebuilding. Ms. Putney replied Last Stand supports the grandfathering of nonconforming height to certain buildings in Monroe County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed that of the old building. As such, compliance with 1MEMA along with any additional voluntary clearance above base flood elevation must be equal to or less than the height of the old nonconforming building. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA agrees as long as the redevelopment is involuntary, such as because of fire or flood. Ms. Santamaria asked if the public in attendance considers the new FEMA maps deeming a structure below base flood involuntary. Mr. Reed does not like the "involuntary" language because it is a very tricky threshold to meet. Ms. Santarnaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying to facilitate a lot of new development. Mr. Reed clarified that while there is no magic slab -to - slab number, floor to ceiling heights should be created that are adaptable and can continue to be remodeled throughout future years. Ms. Curlee expressed concern that what is "involuntary" to one person may open the door to let somebody else take advantage of this policy. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee that in almost all situations exceptions to the height limit will not allow people to add a story. In some situations that would be possible. Ms. Putney believes that language should be included to limit in what situations it would be allowed. Mr. Hunter suggested more detail of the buildings in Ocean Reef be gathered to realize the effect this could have on the County. Mr. Reed clarified that his comments regarding slab -to -slab increases were specific to the Ocean Reef policy, but feels it might be worth considering for all of unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Moses is concerned about taking people's property rights away from them_ Mr. Hunter then commented that the "historical designation" language should be eliminated. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.34. Ms. Santamaria explained this came out of the session of the BOCC at the October meeting to address a different height maximum for very low, low and median income affordable employee and work force housing on properties designated Tier 111. This was to facilitate having nonresidential development on the first story and allowing a couple stories of affordable housing on top. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA is opposed to this amendment. SPOA believes that the County has the benefit of seeing what the cities have done to address this issue before they make a decision on solutions. Another issue for SPOA is using height as a solution to affordable housing in the County where there is more land than the County has ROGO allocations for. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to raising the affordable housing limit. Key Largo does not have an affordable housing issue. There are affordable housing projects in the Upper Keys district already and some of the way those projects are being managed are not the way their deed restrictions have been written. Ms. Moses pointed out there is no definition for "workforce housing" in the code. Ms. Santamaria replied the Affordable Housing Committee will be addressing that soon. The BOCC hired the I; SU Consensus Center to provide a report on the County's affordable housing issue. Ms. Schemper added that the LDC uses the term "affordable housing" or "employee housing," which are defined terms. "Work force housing' is a more general term. Mr. Reed argued that there is a demand and a need still in the Upper Keys for affordable housing. Mr. Reed then stated it is a severe challenge to find appropriate land of a certain size to accommodate affordable housing. Mr. Eardley is concerned this amendment would open the door for all kinds of other development. Mr. Eardley agrees there are ways to address work force housing without going higher, such as making the units smaller. Ms. Curlee added when talking about truly affordable housing that would be rentals. Ms. Putney believes this issue is complex and the height exception for affordable housing should be dealt with within the arena of the affordable housing discussion separate from what is being done today. Ms. Santamaria clarified this amendment would provide the opportunity to build more units, but it also will raise those units above base flood. Ms. Santamaria thanked the public for their comments and stated these comments will be included in the staff report and will be back before the DRC again for more comments. I.PlayaLar a Resort, 97450 Overseas Highway,rev Lama, mile marker 7.5. A public meeting concerning a request for an Amendment to a Major Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 177-unit hotel and associated accessory uses. The subject property is legally described as. Tracts 4B and 513, Amended Plat of Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Ivey Largo, and also a tract of submerged land in the Bay of Florida fronting said Tract 5B (TIIF Deed No. 22416), Monroe County, Florida, having real estate number 00555010.000000. (File 2015-031) (2:32 p.m.) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this applicant currently has an approved major conditional use permit from 2007 and it has had several deviations and tirne extensions over time. It is still active. The most recent deviation has approved the site plan for 162 transient units and one commercial apartment, which was previously on the site. The applicant has been issued a number of building permits. This amendment to the major conditional use permit is to add an additional 15 transient units into the hotel, the building of which has already been permitted, and that would bring them up to their max number net density. It does not change any footprint on the site plan. All of the required criteria are in compliance. The only issue that is still outstanding is the traffic and access. The applicant had supplied a Level 2 traffic study with this application, and because of the threshold of what is being proposed a Level 3 traffic study is needed. This may also impact the requirement for a right -turn deceleration lane leading into the property. Ms. Schemper recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria commented that the planning Commissioners will likely want to see the traffic studies so they can take that data into account in their decision -making and make sure that it is compliant. Mr. Roberts asked that Number 7 of the recommended actions be reworded to specify the number of allowed docks. Mr. Roberts will supply that number to Ms. Schemper. Jorge Cepeda, present on behalf of the applicant, stated he was familiar with the conditions contained in the original approval. Mr. Cepeda asked that Condition 8, the transportation shuttle for guests and employees, be considered in the traffic study because that has less of an impact on. traffic. Mr. Cepeda asked that the second portion of the language about adequacy of public facilities on Page 6 of the report remain part of the recommended action. Mr. Cepeda clarified that no trees will be cut for the mulch exercise path, but there may be some underbrush that may need to be accommodated. Mr. Roberts specified that `:clearing" is the removal of any native vegetation regardless of the size. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to inform staff if the applicant is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted ig for in the site plan. Ms. Schemper will look again at the deviation to see exactly how it is worded and get back to the applicant regarding the clearing. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses asked whether the proposed commercial apartment is bayfront. Ms. Schemper explained it was a previously existing unit, so the residential use and density is protected. Mr. Cepeda stated the apartment is in the same location as the prior developer's site plan. Ms. Moses then pointed out the site plan shows two entrances. Ms. Schemper explained one is an emergency access drive requested by the fire department. Ms. Moses then noted that the front buffer that faces US-1 looks to contain lead tree. Mr. Cepeda replied that the landscaping will be done in the final stage. The main entrance is the original American Outdoor entrance and at the end stage the exotics will be removed and landscaping will be done to complete that buffer. Ms. Moses commented that there are a lot of non-native species on the vegetation list. Mr. Roberts explained that the required vegetation is 100 percent native vegetation, but anything planted above the minimum requirement can be anything the developer wants. The developer is overplanting the required landscaping significantly. Ms. Schemper clarified for Ms. Moses that the docking facility on the property is a hotel accessory dock, not a marina. 3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 1.01.5.8 AND 1.01.1.3.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANKING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) (2:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated this item also comes from the comp plan update project. The BOCC asked staff to remove these policies that were included in the comp plan and process them separately since it was a new topic and received a lot of attention and people wanted to provide input on the topic. These policies relate to the transfer of ROGO exemptions, density rights, as well as where the development would be directed to. Ms. Santamaria addressed Policy 101.5.8. Ms. Santamaria explained that, again, this item will be handled today more like a workshop -type item. Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. smith asked staff to address all of the policies together. Mr. Smith thanked staff for planning multiple workshops to allow these policies to be vetted over a period of time where everyone can work together. Mr. Smith asked staff to provide notice to the affected property owners of these meetings so they can actively engage in this process. Mr. Smith asked staff to contemplate the unintended consequences of these policies of not allowing the TDRs and TREs to be transferred to offshore islands and designating all offshore islands as Tier 1. Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies 0 put an inordinate burden on the property owners. These property owners have some development right, all residential in nature. The code only has two ways that residential can be built: Through ROGO allocation or ROGO exemption. These islands do not have ROGO exemptions because they do not have homes on them, so in order to build residential one would have to get a ROGO allocation or transfer a ROGO exemption from somewhere else. These policies eliminate the ability to transfer. A property is left with requiring a ROGO allocation, but the property is designated Tier 1. This would be so limiting that the only use left would be bee- keeping and temporary camping by the owner. Mr. Smith asked that staff look at how these policies would operate as a whole to get a complete picture of how it would operate. Ms. Santamaria clarified individual property owners were not notified because this is not property -specific and not all properties have their issues resolved with ownership. This is a policy that would impact all privately -owned or even publicly -held offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that while the policy has direction of discouraging development by designating Tier I does not mean it is an automatic Tier 1. That designation would have to go through its proper process to apply a designation to a property. Ms. Santamaria commented that this policy is not a huge change regarding the TREs and the TDRs. This is a proposed change based on the discussions from the BOCC of where to direct the remaining allocations or exemptions and where is the most appropriate place to direct development. Julie Dick on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys .Environmental Fund thanked staff for the workshop process and allowing the public the opportunity to participate in this process. Last Stand thinks that the policies generally are consistent with the concepts of the tier overlay system for offshore islands. Last Stand is generally supportive of the changes. Ms. Dick commented that there are sorne inconsistencies with the acreage on the inventory. Ms. Santamaria explained the Property Appraiser does not have the exact acreage of a property. A boundary survey is required to determine the upland portions of a property. Ms. Santamaria will look into any discrepancy reported to her. Ms. Dick further stated Last Stand agrees with the sender and receiver site criteria. For evacuation purposes it make sense to discourage additional development on offshore islands. Last Stand recommends removing significant upland habitat as a criteria in Policy 206.1.2. The reasons to protect offshore islands go beyond whether or not they are suited to upland habitat, such as containing bird rookeries. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that under Policy 206. L2 the significant upland habitat is one of the criteria and it is being made consistent with the Tier I criteria. Ms. Putney asked whether there was a determination made that offshore islands were Tier I when the County went to the tier system. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 stated that designating offshore islands as Tier I lands was one method used to discourage developments proposed on offshore islands. The only offshore islands that are not designated Tier I were the ones that were missed by accident and undesignated, but this policy does not automatically designate them. They would still have to go through that process. The provision exists in the LDC that any islands without a specific land use designation shall be considered zoned as offshore islands. The approximately ten offshore islands that were missed and not designated were discussed. .01 Ms. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to participate in the workshop -style meetings scheduled in the future.. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m, its] Tuesday, May 26, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (ls` floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. ROLL CALL by Gail Creech RC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director- of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Rey Ortiz, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner Supervisor Present Lori Lehr, Floodplain Administrator Present Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development. Administrator Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. MINUTES FOR. APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the minutes of the April 28 2015,.DRC meeting with one correction of a section number that will be submitted to Ms. Creech. New Items: 1.99700 Overseas Highway, Key Laren, mile marker 99: A public meeting concerning a request for a major deviation to a major conditional use permit. The requested approval is required for the proposed development to increase the existing walk-in cooler and to increase the size of the existing bathrooms which would increase the amount of non-residential floor area on the property. The subject property is legally described as Lazy Lagoon — A revision of Amended Plat of Curry's Comer, Plat Book 2, Page 120 of public records, Monroe County, Section 33, Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in metes and bounds is provided in the application/tile), having real estate number 00497540,000000. (File 2015-093) (1:01 p.m.) Mr. Ortiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ortiz reported that the applicant is requesting a major deviation to a major conditional use application. The applicant wants to expand the bathroom by approximately six square feet, add a modular component to the rear of the building for a walk-in cooler and expand an existing cooler that is currently within the setbacks on the rear property line. The only criteria not rnet is regarding the variance requirement that the site is going to need. Mr. Ortiz recommends approval to the Planning Commission with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that the applicant has submitted a variance application. Hany Haroun, the applicant, emphasized that this renovation is necessary. Many hours have been spent with Wendy's International and the County to make this work. The new kitchen configuration in the center of the restaurant is a requirement from Wendy's International, which takes away from the cooler/freezer space and the current storage area. The extension for the sides is due to making the bathrooms ADA compliant. None of this will be visible from the front. The only setback issue is for the cooler/freezer. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, does not object to what is being asked for. Ms. Moses likes the proposed landscaping along the highway. Ms. Moses commented on the poor drainage that exists on the property. Mr. Haroun explained that the main road was built to drain out towards Buttonwood Drive and consequently it floods there all the time. That is on the County right-of- way. The County and State agreed to dig out the French drain and fill it with gravel to address the flooding problems. The tides also affect the drainage in this area. Ms. Santamaria noted when building permits are applied for the applicant will have to comply with the stormwater requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant provide some documentation from Wendy's International to show the hardship imposed on the applicant for purposes of the variance. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant to provide an updated site plan. 2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101. .26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY, AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 20I5-006) 2 (1:12 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the comp plan update. There were policies to amend the height policies, address the wind turbines, affordable housing and the flood protection. The BOCC asked staff to process this as a separate stand-alone amendment. This was before the DR.0 in March where a lot of comments were received. The flood protection policy generated concerns about the overall height exception. Staff has proposed a policy that includes the reasons why there would be an exception with a max height limit of 40 feet and it would be to elevate property three feet above base flood elevation (BFE). The exception for new buildings is to exceed BFE, not just to meet it, up to three feet above BFE. The exception for lawfully existing buildings is to either meet or exceed BFE because there are circumstances, depending on the flood zone, where this exception will not allow you to exceed BFE. If it is exceeded, it is only that amount it is exceeded that one gets to go above BFE. Again, it is capped at 40 feet. The exception would not be allowed in high -risk areas. Ms. Santamaria introduced Ms. Lehr and asked for an update and information on flood zones. Ms. Lehr explained that one of her roles is to help the County get into the Community Rating System (CRS) program, which would result in some discount in flood insurance. When property owners voluntarily elevate their properties they get a reduced premium on their flood insurance. For every foot of elevation, the savings is about a quarter of the premium. After the cap of three feet, the discounts fall off. The cost to elevate a property is recouped quickly in flood insurance savings. Ms. Lehr believes the future of the Florida Building Code and other legislation is going to be moving towards the implementation of some sort of freeboard, some sort of elevation requirement above BFE. Ms. Lehr further explained the County is going through a mapping process currently. It will be 2018 before those new maps come out, but the general feeling of those rnaps is that the elevations in some areas will increase, so the required elevations will increase. Ms. Lehr clarified for Ms. Moses a community has to require a higher regulatory standard above what is required on the flood insurance rate amounts to get CRS credit. Florida in general has some of the highest scoring communities in the nation. Ms. Lehr believes Monroe County is doing a lot of things to address the flooding that will be worth CRS credit. There will be changes in the Florida Building Code coming up in the next couple of years to address BFE. Ms. Santamaria explained the CRS does not address the top height, so the BOCC gave staff direction to look into elevating the height limit so home owners are not squeezed in from the top, causing homes to become smaller and smaller. Ms. Lehr noted that credits are being given for existing buildings being elevated as opposed to rebuilt. The CRS program is very adamant that communities do what is good for their floodplain management and protection of their citizens' investments, Ron Miller, Planning Commissioner and Key Largo resident, questioned why the County has become concerned about someone losing habitable space in their structure, because in URM parking spaces were required to be under homes, which takes away from habitable space. Ms. Santamaria clarified this proposal is not zoning -specific. Mr. Miller feels homeowners should be amenable to some give-and-take in the loss of some habitable space. Mr. Miller believes the people interested in more Paving space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms. 0 Santamaria clarified that the BOCC has become aware of the new FEMA maps coming out and want Monroe County to get into the CRS and help the community better protect their property and investments. So they have directed staff to address this issue by allowing people to make that financial choice themselves. The whole intent was to better protect our community. Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf resident, suggested that a definition of "elevate" be proposed. Mr. Hunter mentioned different scenarios of what could fall under the definition of "elevate." Ms. Santamaria said that staff will consider and look into those different scenarios. Ms. Lehr clarified if a bottom floor was knocked out and used for parking with penthouses built on top of the structure, those structures would still be limited by the height restriction from BFE. Ms. Santamaria noted that Policy 101.5.33 is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height limit and a top cap of 40 feet is in place unless the owners go to a public hearing before the BOCC. Mr. Hunter then asked for an explanation of why the different numbers of 38 and 40 feet are used. Ms. Santamaria explained that discounts are given for one, two and three feet above BFE. Since discounts are not given above that, the new buildings were capped at 38 feet. The 40-foot limit was added for existing buildings in case they needed to raise their property a little bit higher because they do not meet base flood today. Ms. Lehr clarified that the flood insurance policy associated with a structure would receive a different rating because of the elevation of that property. The discount for CR.S is completely different. The discount for CRS could be in addition to the different rating on the insurance policy for an elevation. Ms. Santamaria noted that no exception will be given to either new or existing structures in AE10 through VE10. That came from the comments made at prior DRC meetings about not facilitating redevelopment or new development in higher -risk areas. Mr. Hunter stated he agrees with Mr. Miller about the ability of Monroe County citizens to live under the 35-foot height limit, but is more sympathetic to the owners of existing homes than to new construction. Mr. Miller is concerned for the properties in such a high AE or VE that they would not be able to develop a home that was attractive. Mr. Miller proposed keeping the 35- foot height limit in the comp plan and allowing for a variance for those so limited that they would not be able to develop something architecturally acceptable to the community. Ms. Santamaria stated it would be difficult to create a variance for architectural or visual issues. There is no real hardship in that instance. Naja Girard, Key West resident, commented that people are more concerned over encouraging new development in AE and VE areas as opposed to elevating existing homes in those areas. Mr. Miller agrees with limiting infrastructure in flood -prone areas, but feels a minimal -size house could be able to punch through the height barrier if the owners could show a hardship when asking for a variance. Ms. Lehr explained that the CRS does not take away points. The CRS program credits activity. Prohibiting development in high risk areas is credited under the CRS. The emphasis of the program has always been to build safer, more resilient communities. Jim Hendrick was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA) regarding Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef is an isolated and gated community with a distinct community character. The planning process in Ocean Reef is very tough. Mr. Hendrick said Ocean Reef would like the extra five feet for architectural features. The largest concern with this policy for Ocean Reef is its cultural center. The cultural center does not have the head 4 room needed to be able to house events that could potentially be put on at this facility. Mr. Hendrick asked for a height limit unique to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center, which was built and paid for by the people of Ocean Reef. Another concern that ORCA has is that any multi -story building in existence on the effective date of this policy be able to replace their existing number of stories up to 1.1 feet slab to slab per story. The Ocean Reef hotels are currently dated with a ceiling height of only eight feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that at the last meeting Joel Reed presented this information on behalf of Ocean Reef Club. Staff had asked for an inventory of existing heights of the various structures throughout Ocean Reef. Nothing has been received to date. Mr. Hendrick will send the complete list to Ms. Santamaria. Mr. Hendrick emphasized this is being asked to apply to Ocean Reef only, which is isolated and does have a distinct community character. Deb Curlee, resident of the Lower Keys, noted that Ocean Reef is still part of Monroe County. Mx. Hendrick replied there is an abundant body of policy already recognizing the unique circumstances of Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef consider proposing an Ocean Reef specific overlay to address height issues in Ocean Reef Mr. Hendrick replied Ocean Reef has a very effective self -governance program within the community. Ms. Santamaria asked that the information regarding the various heights as well as the total heights at Ocean Reef be sent in to help staff understand what the request is from Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick then explained for Ms. Girard hove Ocean Reef is self -governed. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to punching through the height limit and they feel that the 35-foot height limit has been accommodating and there is still room for elevating the floodplain. Ms. Girard on behalf of Last Stand stated that a majority of the properties should be able to elevate the buildings as much as needed and still have adequate living space. Last Stand would like to see this turned into a hardship situation that would have to be triggered to go through the height barrier.. Mr. Miller asked what would happen to those properties whose flood zone was changed due to the FEMA flood maps. Ms. Santamaria reminded Mr. Miller that no exceptions being given to properties in AE10 or VE10 or higher was a result of members of the community not wanting to facilitate development of homes within those flood zones. The owners of those properties would have to work within the rules or not build at all. Ms. Santamaria then confirmed for Mr. Hunter that reconstructed structures in Policy 101.5.33 includes those that are demolished and rebuilt. Ms. Santamaria explained that the BOCC resolution that specifies the maximum approved height is done on a building -by -building basis. There is currently no limit to that height because it is not known what would be needed to meet base flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that buildings over 35 feet currently could only rebuild to 35 feet if they were wiped out by a hurricane. Ms. Curlee asked why no caps are placed in Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria replied that building heights would be different depending on how it was measured. Ideas were proposed for the BOCC to consider when making the decision on how high they can go. Mr. Hunter suggested considering the community's desire to limit the height. Ms. Santamaria noted a public hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out. 5 Mr. Haroun stated he finds it unreasonable to not allow a condo to be built back up so that no owners would lose their living space. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that is why a flood exception is being proposed for those property owners. Mr. Miller noted that his concern is not whether they can build back what they had or not, but his concern is that the potential for more habitable space in this county is being increased as a result of seeking relief from sea level rise. Ms. Santamaria then stated the affordable housing has been struck from this proposal at this point in time. Staff will work with the BOCC and the Affordable Housing Committee further in that regard. The other item in this stand-alone amendment is the wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility. At the last meeting members of the public asked what the results were from the Keys Energy demonstration project. It was concluded that the wind towers have been proven to be ineffective. Ms. Moses proposed striking this item altogether. Ms. Girard stated on behalf of Last Stand they would like to see the whole exception to the wind turbines stricken. If someone comes forward and proposes a great plan in the future, then it can be looked at with specific considerations in mind. Ms. Santamaria stated the plan is to bring this amendment back to the DRC and get more data for community -specific amendments. It will be brought back as two items: One as a comp plan and an LDR for more discussion and more input. 3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COM ISSI NERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE 'SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MfNROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) (2:38 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this amendment has stemmed from the comprehensive plan update process. There was a lot of discussion on where to direct and how to direct development in the future and if it is appropriate to go to offshore islands. The BOCC asked staff to remove this from the general comp plan update and process it as a stand-alone amendment. The definition of "offshore island" has been included. The new provision is that TDRs and TREs would not be allowed to transfer to an offshore island. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Attorney Nick Batty was present on behalf of FEB Corporation with respect to Wisteria Island. Mr. Batty stated the issues that FEB has with this proposed amendment pertain to the receiver sites for TREs have to be within a Tier III designated area and must not be an offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 provides that Monroe County shall discourage the development 0 of offshore islands which have no prior development and have significant upland habitat by discouraging the extension of public facilities and designating the offshore islands as Tier 1. That makes a scenario where ROGO exemptions cannot be transferred to those islands and at the same time bumps them down to a Tier I level for the ROGO allocation program. Mr. Batty pointed out there is no definition proposed for "significant upland habitat." Significant upland habitat does not necessarily coincide with environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, areas like Wisteria Island, which does not have significant areas of environmentally sensitive habitat, would by default be lumped in with a Tier I designation, which is contrary to the intent of the code. Bumping them down to a Tier I in terms of the ROGO allocation system and not allowing any transfers of TREs to the area would result in a situation where there would be no beneficial uses for the properties. Mr. Roberts replied that using the blanket and undefined term `;significant upland habitat" does not account for the differences in the natural features of those properties and effectuate the intent of the Tier I and Tier III definitions. Ms. Santamaria added that no changes are being proposed to the Tier III criteria for designating any land. Mr. Batty replied that islands which currently do not have a tier designation and would fit whatever the definition is determined to be of "significant upland habitat' and have no prior development would be pushed into that Tier I category without any other consideration. Ms. Santamaria stated no particular tier designation is being proposed for any offshore island. This is simply policy, not property specific. Ms. Santamaria will review this further and consider proposing a definition for `:significant upland habitat." Ms. Girard, on behalf of Last Stand, stated it makes very little difference what is on the upland, whether or not there even is upland, because offshore islands are surrounded by shallow waters and environmentally sensitive benthic resources and are important for avian species. Ms. Girard emphasized a survey containing 76 different species of native plants and a report regarding the importance of Wisteria Island for the white crown pigeons a couple of hundred feet away from Wisteria Island are on file with the County. Last Stand thinks it is extremely appropriate that offshore islands be given Tier I designations and that they not be considered as receiver sites because they are inappropriate for development in a county that has a limited number of ROGOs and is basically facing build -out. Ms. Santamaria clarified that this is not a property -specific amendment. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that the tier designations are based on upland habitat. Mr. Roberts clarified for Ms. Girard that native areas that provide corridors or wildlife access between other larger native areas are part of the Tier I designation. Mr. Batty pointed out it is important to make sure the intent of the code is being effectuated. Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Ms. Santamaria stated staff will review all the comments made and will look at defining `'significant upland habitat" and bring this back to the DRC for one more round of public input before taking it to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. 7 Tuesday, August 25, 2015 Of 01 lfll II 10190T 11► M The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (I" floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. ROLL CALL by Gail Creech Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Kevin Band, Planning & Development Review Manager STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Devin Rains, Senior Planner Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator CHANGES TOT E AGENDA Mr. Roberts announced Items 5 and 6 will be heard first. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Roberts deferred approval of minutes to the next DRC meeting. WHIMAUUM Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present 5.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR. REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE; PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) Mr. Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts reported that while working on the comp plan update the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to pull the proposed changes for further review and submit as a separate amendment. The proposed text amendment has been reviewed at two prior DRC meetings. Policy 101.5.30 adds mechanical equipment to the 35-foot limit while excluding certain structures. There are no exceptions to the height ]imitation in Airport districts. Policy 101.5.31 for Ocean Reef, which is a gated and isolated community with a distinct community character, includes non -habitable architectural decorative features that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed five feet above the building's roof line. There are Land Development Code amendments to reflect these policies. Policy 101.5.32 provides that certain buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit. New buildings voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE may exceed the 35-foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed 35 feet and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum. required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Ivey, asked for the rationale for the difference of an extra two feet between an existing building and a new building. Mr. Coyle explained that it is to allow a homeowner more room to get into compliance and go up. Mr. Hunter then asked for clarification on the definition of "retrofit." Mr. Roberts stated that retrofitting rneans making changes to an. existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. Demolition and reconstruction of a new structure would not fit within that definition. Dottie Moses, on behalf of the Federation of Homeowners Association, stated that the Federation consistently maintains its opposition to raising the height lirnit. Ms. Moses asked who is requesting the height increase. Mr. Roberts replied that this amendment was staff -initiated at the direction of the BOCC. Ms. Moses believes that the recent change in the code that allows setbacks being used for parking in URM zones will result in another floor of bedrooms being added under this amendment, which will increase density. The hurricane evacuation issue is always a concern in the community, also. Ms. Moses then asked where the exception provided for properties located in the AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zones originated. Ms. Schemper will look into that for Ms. Moses. Ms. Schemper added that this item will be brought back to the DRC one more time. Joel Reid, on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and Ocean Reef Community Association, commented. that these two associations have asked for height changes to address their community concerns. Mr. Reid expressed disappointment that some items Ocean Reef has been asking for have not been included in the staff report. Mr. Reid then asked for clarification regarding architectural elements exceeding 40 feet under Policy 101.5,33, Ms. Schemper explained that Policy 101.5.33 applies to lawfully established buildings that are already over 35 feet high. The intent is if it was a pre-existing feature, then the BOCC could approve it, but if it is a proposed architectural 2 feature an exception would not be given if it is over 40 feet. Mr. Reid stated Ocean Reef would like some protection in order for residents to be able to build back their structures without losing their views. Ms. Schemper pointed out that this amendment is to protect what is already in existence while also meeting the flood requirements. The existing intensity or density type of use would be protected. Policy 101.5.33 does not specifically address increasing slab -to -slab heights. That would have to be approved by the BOCC if over 40 feet. The mechanism of going through the approval process to the BOCC has not been thoroughly fleshed out. That would be in the Land Development Cade portion of the amendment. Mr. Reid asked how rebuilding and doing modifications to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center and boat storage area would be handled. Ms. Schemper responded that the full amount of data in those issues has not been received by staff at this point. fr.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-007) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is another item originally contemplated during the cornp plan update. Staff was directed by the BOCC to pull it out as a separate text amendment. This was already reviewed at two DRC meetings and has been continued to this meeting to get additional public review, input and discussion. The proposed changes are about where development in terms of TDRs and the transfer of ROGO exemptions are directed. Existing Policy 101.5.8 allows for the transfer of units based on certain criteria. The new policy expands the criteria and has additional standards to utilize the tier system. The sender site must be located in Tier 1, 11, or III -A, or any tier designation if it is within the military installation impact overlay. The receiver site must have a future land use category ability and zoning district that allows the use, must meet the adopted density standards, include all infrastructure, be located within Tier III and may not be within a V zone or a CBRS unit. The comprehensive plan specifies specific habitat types and the certain zoning districts that were allowed on sender site TDRs. The offshore island zoning category is specifically identified as an eligible sender site. The new proposed policy utilizes the tier designation to specify the sender site because this already accounts for both habitat types and zoning districts that were in the existing policy. The new policy states only parcels designated Tier III can be receiver sites and they must have an adopted maximum net density standard, which would be based on their zoning category. Ms. Schemper reviewed Policy 206.1.2, which prohibits development on offshore islands, and the definition of significant native upland habitat. This item will be brought back to the DRC one more time. Julie Dick with Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Florida Keys Environmental Fund and Last Stand, believes Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and is addressed somewhere else in the 3 comp plan_ Ms. Dick suggested eliminating the entire policy because any confusion resulting from this policy leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Ms. Dick supports Policy 101.6.8 in making sure that offshore islands are not receiver sites. Bart Smith, Esquire, commented that generally he appreciates the revisions made to the obtaining and transferring of TDRs. On behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith stated most of the receiver site criteria in the staff report scems very logical. Mr. Smith does not, however, feel that the sixth criteria that blanketly prohibits offshore islands from being receiver sites is logical because there is not any data and analysis identifying the reasons why an offshore island cannot be a receiver site. Mr. Smith feels that the definition of "significant native upland habitat" is a well -thought-out definition. Mr.. Smith stated everything in the proposed ordinance makes logical sense and is conforming except for the blanket prohibition of offshore islands. Naja Girard, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, addressed Mr. Smith's comments by responding that one thing different about offshore islands is that shallow waters surround the offshore islands and include benthic resources that the comp plan directs the County to protect. Encouraging development on offshore islands would require the acceptance of all the boating traffic that would be created as a result of that development. Ms. Girard agrees that Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and changes the normal way offshore islands are designated Tier 1, which could result in confusion on its interpretation. Ms. Girard believes this weakens the protection of all offshore islands. Ms. Girard also believes there is not accurate data on what actually exists on these islands. LAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) AND COMMERCIAL FISHING AREA,. (CFA) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940.000100, AND FROM INDUSTRIAL (1) TO COMMERCIAL 2 (C2) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 001.21990.000000, AS PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2012-069) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this item is a zoning amendment to accompany a FLUM amendment which has already been transmitted by the BOCC to DEO. Staff has received the objections, recommendations and comments report on the FLUM amendment. DEO's objection was that it was increasing the potential residential 4 development and should be revised to allow other residential uses. The original deadline for adopting that FLUM amendment was September 19, but staff has asked for an extension based on the applicant's delay and the new deadline is March 15, 2016. The current zoning amendment would be required to match the FLUM amendment. The applicant is required to revise the total FLUM amendment to include a comp plan policy that would limit any residential development on the site to affordable housing only. This affects only the northernmost L-shaped parcel on the map. The southern parcels are proposed to become commercial with no residential density. Today's discussion concerns the zoning portion of the amendment. The net change in development for the entire site will actually be a reduction in residential density. The Big Coppitt portion of the site would have an increase in affordable residential, but the proposed comp plan policy will limit all residential development to affordable housing on that site. Staff has found that any impact is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on community character. Staff has found no adverse effects for traffic circulation. There is sufficient capacity for the public facilities for potential development under this zoning amendment. Staff has found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to be consistent with the proposed FLUM amendment that the BOCC has already recommended and transmitted to the State. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. This is contingent on the adoption of the FLUM amendment. Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked what the Navy has to say about this amendment. Ms. Schemper replied that the portion of affordable housing is actually in the noise zone at the greatest distance compared to the rest of the property. Bart Smith, Esquire, agreed and added that the requirement to sound -attenuate to the level the Navy requests is specifically written in to the site -specific zoning. 2.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (RC) TO RECREATION (R) AND CONSERVATION (C), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690,003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-047) 3.,AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM NATIVE AREA (NA) TO PARKS AND REFUGE (PR) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, 2 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC., PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS, PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-048) Ms. Schemper presented the staff reports. Ms. Schemper reported that these two amendments are FLUM and zoning amendments that coordinates with one another for a parcel within Ocean Reef proposed by Ocean Reef Club. The site is 1 I acres and currently has a FLUM designation of Residential Conservation with a zoning category of Native Area. The property owners would like to develop a park on a portion of the site and are requesting to change the FLUM to 9.5 acres of Conservation and a little over 1.5 acres of Recreation for the FLUM and, corresponding to that, 9.5 acres of Conservation zoning and 1.5 acres of Park and Refuge zoning. The density and intensity change for this amendment would be a decrease in both residential and non-residential density and intensity. There is no adverse impact on community character and no additional impact foreseen for any of the public facilities. Staff has found both proposed amendments would be consistent with the comp plan and the Land Development Code and is consistent with the principles for guiding development. These amendments support Ocean Reef s desire to increase some of the park and recreational space within the community based on an increase in the number of families with children currently in their community. If the corresponding FLUM amendment is transmitted to the State and adopted, then the zoning plan would be required to remain consistent with the FLUM. Staff is recommending approval of the PLUM amendment from Residential Conservation to Conservation and Recreation and staff is recommending approval of the zoning amendment from Native Area to Parks and Refuge and Conservation district. The zoning recommendation would be contingent on the approval and effectiveness of the proposed FLUM amendment that corresponds with this. Joel Reid, the representative of the applicant, stated that Ocean Reef Club is always looking to enhance the community's experience and meet their needs for the community members, Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, asked whether Mr. Roberts had any concern with clearing of upland habitat of protected species of 1.71 acres for the sole purpose of providing a park for homeowners. Mr. Roberts replied that the applicant is required to coordinate directly with U.S. Fish chi Wildlife for the protection of these species. The County's clearing requirements would fall back to the original development orders for Ocean Reef Club because it is not dictated by the tier clearing limits in the code. 4.PL OCEAN RESIDENCES , 97801 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO, MILE MARKER 98. A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 24 ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS DESIGNATED AS It AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY I'S DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00090810.000000, 00090820.000000, 00090840.000000, 00090840,000100, AND 00090860.000000. (File 2015-049) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is a request for a minor conditional use permit which is required because the applicant is requesting to develop 24 attached dwelling units. Within the Urban Residential zoning category that use requires a minor conditional use permit. The development is reviewed by staff as a whole for consistency safe. The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached dwelling units as market rate housing. The site's current characteristics and zoning were described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units. Ms. Schernper then listed the categories where staff has found either compliance is still to be determined or the site was found not in compliance. Compliance with the residential ROGO is to be determined because at the time of the building permit is when the applicant applies for their ROGO allocations. An additional eight market rate ROGO allocations and 24 affordable housing ROGO allocations would be needed. Permitted uses is listed as not in compliance because the attached residential dwelling units are permitted with the condition that sufficient common areas for recreation are provided to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be developed. Compliance is to be determined on residential density and maximum floor area because the site requires 7.6 transferred development rights which are done at the time of the building permit. Compliance is to be determined on required open space because the calculations were not comparable of the upland area on the site plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the indicated shoreline setbacks were either incorrect or not clearly depicted on the site plan. Ms.. Schernper continued to report that most of the non -shoreline setbacks are in compliance at this point, but the setback lines shown on the site plan are not necessarily the correct lines in every situation. The surface water management will be dealt with for full compliance at the time of permit application.. Mr. Roberts noted that there was conflicting information on the site plan regarding the depth to ground water. Ms. Schemper continued to report that there are inconsistencies on the site plan regarding the height of the fencing and privacy wall. The privacy wall shown on the site plan separates the site completely between the attached units and the detached units, which basically turns the parcel into two separate developments and they would each need to meet all of the land development regulations on their own. Some sort of connection is needed between the two. Compliance for flood plain, energy conservation and potable water is to be determined, as well as environmental design criteria and mitigation, at the building permit stage. The required parking is also affected by the separation between the two types of units on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces is sufficient if the site is viewed as a whole. The required bufferyards are not in compliance because the site plan shows some incorrect bufferyards. Mr. Roberts added that the property was rezoned from URM to UR and the URM boundary buffers are being shown. 7 Ms. Schemper continued to report that the square footage of the signage proposed has some issues and recommended that the signage be done separately as part of the fence permit at the time of the building permit. The access is currently under review by the County's traffic consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U..1, but also needs to comply with FDOT standards. Compliance is to be determined on inclusionary housing at the time of the building permit because when the tenth permanent market rate unit gets its certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy is required on at least three of the affordable housing units, and a proportional increase continues accordingly throughout the development. Given all of those items, staff still recommends approval. A list of 22 conditions required are listed in the staff report. Jorge Cepero, present on behalf of the applicant, clarified that there is still one structure, a gatehouse, in the front of the property that was not demolished. Robert Ginter, owner of an adjoining property, is concerned about the fencing and buffers to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schemper explained that there are quite a few buffers on the site plan. There is an access off of First Street for a portion of the property. Ms. Schemper will make the site plan available to Mr. Ginter at the end of today's meeting. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, is concerned that this is the one time that the public has a chance to review this proposal and there are so many items still not deemed to be in compliance. Ms. Schemper explained that there is a 30-day notice that goes out that says the Planning Director intends to issue the minor conditional use permit, as well as a legal ad. The Planning Director's decision will not be made until these items are all fulfilled. The revised proposal will be available through the Planning Department. ADJOURNMENT URNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. n- Tuesday, October 27, 2015 I►A131 ailti10102►fillet fl�i�. The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, October 27, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1'` floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. ROLL CALL by Gail Creech ayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present STAFF Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA, Ms. Santarnaria asked that Items 2 and 3 be read together. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santarnaria approved the meeting minutes of July 28, 2015, August 25, 2015, and September 29, 2015. New Items. - LAN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BG OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM SUBURBAN COMMERCIAL (SC) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 28500 AND 2.8540 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, LITTLE TORCH KEY, MILE MARKER 28.5 OCEANSIDE, LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND IN A PART OF U.S. GOVERNMENT LOT 6, SECTION 28, TOWNSHIP 66 SOUTH, RANGE 29 EAST, LITTLE TORCH KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00113570-000000, 00113570-000100, 00113570-000200, 00113590- 000000 AND 001.1.3620-000000, AS PROPOSED BY PATRICK R AND INANE COLEE, DOLPHIN MARINA ASSOCIATES LTD AND TORCH KEY PROPERTIES LTD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (;ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (2015-152) Mr. Bond presented the staff report. Mr. Bond reported that this is a land use district map amendment from Suburban Commercial to Mixed Use. The property is located oceanside on Little Torch Key and serves as a land base for the Little Palm Island. There is no FLUM change required for this proposed amendment. The property was described. Mr. Bond stated the change in development potential between the two districts would result in a reduction of eight permanent residential units, a slight increase in max net density, a net zero change in transient development potential and no change in commercial development potential. The change would open up the possibility of some uses that are currently prohibited within the SC district. Staff has evaluated the proposed amendment and found it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the request does fall under two provisions of the code: Number 4, new issues; and 6, data updates, primarily due to the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP). It is consistent with the Lower Keys LCP. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment. dames Hendrick was present on behalf of the applicant and commended staff on their memorandum. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, asked why the applicant is changing the zoning Ms. Santamaria replied that the applicant wants to have a use their current zoning does not allow, which will reduce the overall allocated density, but they can transfer in up to I I more units through TDRs. Mr. Hendrick assured Ms. Moses that the applicant is definitely not interested in having a light industrial use on the property. Bill. Hunter, Sugarloaf Key resident, asked for clarification on the justification for the request. Mr. Bond explained that there are seven different factors by which map amendments are to be evaluated. Any one of those factors can be a justification for map amendment approval. Number 4 is new issues, the new Lower Keys LCP, which was not in effect prior, and Number 6, data updates, which is the LCP that was not in effect at the time of their original zoning. The Lower Keys LCP is not inconsistent and is new data in the County's files. Mr. Hendrick noted that the applicant has other rationale for the proposed change. Deb Curlee, Cudjoe Key resident, asked for clarification on what is being proposed to be on the property. Ms. Santamaria responded that this is a map amendment only and the specific development is not the subject of the amendment. Mr. Kendrick offered to e-mail Ms. Curlee an outline of the proposed development. Mr. Bond explained for Ms. Curlee that with the map amendment staff evaluates what the potential is, not what they specifically may or may not be planning to do. Anything listed as a major or minor conditional use would go through the review process and, if the applicant meets all of those conditions staff would have no basis for saying no and would approve it. Ms. Creech and Mr. Bond confirmed that no negative feedback was received from any neighbors. Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. 2. N ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS, AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31. TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-006) 3.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDING SECTION 101-1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130-187 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE, PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015-1.71) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fourth DRC meeting on the proposed camp plan amendments for the height provisions. Tile BOCC asked staff to work on the height policies that were in the comp plan update and process thern separately so that they could be fully vetted and worked through as one topic versus within the entire comp plan update. The previous various staff reports are attached to show how these amendments have been revised. Ms. Santamaria stated there is a proposed policy change to Policy 101.5.3 to incorporate the height definition that is in the code today into the comp plan as well. That height is defined as "The vertical distance between grade and the highest part of the structure." Ms. Santamaria reported that the next amendment is to Policy 101.5.31, Ocean. Reef -specific, related to non -habitable architectural decorative features. This would allow these features to be above the roof line of those homes up to five feet. The overall height of those structures still cannot exceed a 40-foot height imit. There are no differences between this version and what was presented at the last DRC meeting regarding this policy. Mr. Hendrick, present on behalf of Ocean Reef, stated Policy 101.5.31 does not address Ocean Reef s needs. Ocean Reef had asked for three things. Mr. Hendrick acknowledged that staff has not received the additional information it had requested. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef contains several buildings which now greatly exceed the 35-height limitation, do not comply with flood, and Ocean Reef would like for thern to be elevated. Mr. Hendrick submitted a document detailing what Ocean Reef is asking for with regard to the corresponding Land Development Code. Mr. Hendrick continued to explain that Ocean Reef is most concerned about the lawfully established existing buildings which exceed 35 feet and do not meet flood. There is no mechanism in the proposed policies which allows for those buildings to be made flood- compliantas-of-right. Mr. Hendrick pointed out that Ocean Reef is a master -planned community, completely isolated from the rest of Monroe County, and they have established their own community character, which is not 35 feet in height. Ocean Reef would ask for a policy which enables them to replace their existing buildings, floor for floor, to allow for flood compliance. Ocean Reef would also like to increase their slab -to -slab height in building to be consistent with what people expect when they go to a luxury resort. Mr. Hendrick then stated Ocean Reef is concerned about their cultural center because that building cannot accommodate the fly space that is needed. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that staff has not received information from Ocean Reef that they have requested. Staff needs more information so they can evaluate and understand what is being requested. Staff has not received information on the Ocean Reef Cultural Center. Dottie Moses, speaking on behalf of Island of Ivey Largo Federation of Homeowners, voiced concern these policies could spill over into Unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Curlee agreed. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff would like to start to move this item toward the Planning Commission unless members of the public would like to have another DRC meeting to get more input. ,Alicia Putney, speaking on behalf of Last 'Stand, reiterated what Ms. Moses stated regarding spillover into Monroe County. Ms. Santamaria then reported that the next proposed amendment is to Policy 101.5.32, and this is to create a flood protection height exception up to five feet above the 35-foot height limits to allow buildings to go three feet above their base flood elevation. In no event under this policy will a building be over 40 feet. The policy is specific to new buildings and for existing buildings. If the building is not being elevated to meet at least the required base flood elevation this exception cannot be used at all. This exception would not be provided for buildings located in the very hazardous flood zones. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses commented that adding an extra three feet to meet base flood elevation should be allowed with the 35-foot height limit remaining. Ms. Moses does not see the need for this amendment for new construction. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff does not know how many homes there are in the County below base flood right now. Staff is working on getting information from the Property Appraiser to see if somehow that information can be extrapolated, but it is not available at this time. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Ms. Moses that this policy refers to elevating existing structures. If a house is torn down it must be rebuilt to a 35-foot height limit. Ms. Santamaria then explained between the last DRC meeting and today the 4 language has been reorganized a bit, but it is the same information. Language has been added that if a building is not being elevated to at least meet base flood it is not eligible for this exception. This exception shall also apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or not. Ms. Putney stated that it would be helpful to know what the FEMA maps will show. Ms. Putney then noted that with new construction, although there may be a hardship involved, it can be made to work within the 35-foot height limit.. Ms. Moses stated the Federation opposes raising the 35- foot height limit on new construction. Ms. Moses shared a newsletter written by Dennis Henize, a retired meteorologist, stating that communities should be thinking in terms of decelerating growth, especially in the eyes of sea level rise. Ms. Putney pointed out that pre -FIRM, January 1, 1975, people built on the ground mostly and built a small enough house that they could afford to lose. With insurance, houses got bigger, higher and fancier. Citizens need to open up their 'Hinds to reverting back to smaller homes given sea level rise and FEMA. Ms. Santamaria then reported that Policy 101.5.33 is another flood protection height exception, but this is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height limit. If a lawfully established existing building which already exceeds the 35-foot height limit wants to rebuild over 40 feet, they would have to go before the BOCC and meet specific criteria. The BOCC would then decide and specify the height that they could build to. Ms. Santamaria reviewed the criteria used by the BOCC to evaluate the request. The BOCC would have to pass a resolution stating which height a homeowner could build to. Ms. Santamaria explained there are condo structures where clearly units would be lost if redeveloped at the 35-foot height limit. Ms. Moses pointed out the amendment, as written, does not apply to only multi -tenant buildings, but would apply to any building. Ms. Santamaria added that the public can suggest a provision. that this is for multi -family structures only. Ms. Curlee agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Moses noted that previously Legal staff had referred to a Bert Harris implication when discussing this. Ms. Santamaria stated at the next meeting there will be an attorney present who will be able to address that. Mr. Hunter asked if there are any commercial buildings that fall into this category. Ms. Santamariais unaware of any, but stated that does not mean there is not one in existence. Ms. Moses asked what effect raising sorne of the low roads would have on this. Ms. Santamaria explained that grade is either natural elevation or crown of the road, whichever is higher. Ms. Moses believes that could exacerbate things. Mr. Hendrick commented that there are many commercial buildings throughout the County over 35 feet. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef has a boat barn well over 35 feet. They have real concerns because they would like to elevate, but if they do they are going to lose rack space when they already cannot supply the need that they have. Mr. Hendrick then asked that the words "building envelope" be substituted with "building footprint" to be able to modernize these spaces. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Mr. Hunter that boat barns would fall within the definition of "building." Ms. Santarnaria asked for further public comment. There was none. 5 4,AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.1.3,5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY, PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTy7u65IVE DATE. (File 2015-007) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the comp plan update in dealing with amendments that prohibited transferable ROGO exemptions and transferable density from going to an offshore island. After numerous public comments the BOCC asked staff to extract those amendments from the overall comp plan update and process them separately. This amendment reflects the camp plan update. This proposed amendment is to Policy 101.6.8, which is the transfer of ROGO exemptions. The existing text in the staff report for this policy is already included in the comp plan update and has been transmitted to the State with the exception of Receiver Site Criteria Number 6, which says it is not an offshore island. This is a separate stand-alone amendment so focus can be placed on this one topic. Policy 101.13.3, which is the transfer of development rights, has been transmitted to the State with the EAR -based amendments except for Receiver Site Criteria Number 7, which states it is not an offshore island. That also reflects the initial amendment in the comp plan update the BOCC asked staff to extract and process separately. Policy 206.1.2 had an added statement not transmitted with the comp plan update regarding discouraging the development of offshore islands. This added staternent has been struck for consideration and still includes existing policies in the comp plan that offshore islands should be designated as Tier I and it has the existing policy that development shall be prohibited on offshore islands, including spoil islands which have been documented as an established bird rookery based on resource agency best available data or survey. Staff is proposing a definition for the entity "offshore island" as "Offshore Island means an area of land surrounded by water which is not directly or indirectly connected to US-1 by a bridge, road or causeway." Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Lance Kyle, owner of an offshore island in Monroe County, asked for an explanation of "severability" as used in the agenda. Ms. Santamaria explained that the one provision of offshore island could be appealed and extracted out without overturning the rest of the ordinance and keeping it from becoming effective. Ms. Santamaria further explained for Mr. Kyle that she believes the ten -acre size determination came from the '86 code. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr. Kyle that the fact that his island is only 800 feet from US-1 does not give it any kind of special. consideration. Gidget Jackson asked whether there is any flexibility in the restricted use for the islands for carnping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner 0 only. Lady enforcement would have to be called for trespassers on an offshore island. Mr. Hendrick confirmed that the ten -acre determination did come from the '6 code, if not before. Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to look closely at whether it is necessary to prohibit transferring TREs onto offshore islands because TREs take pressure off of the allocation system and offshore islands are already limited in density to .1 per acre. There are restrictions in place that require all of the development potential be in place with the correct development requirements. Mr. Smith agreed with the prior comments made by Ms. Hick on behalf of Last Stand regarding the redundancy of the language in 206.1.2 because that is already provided for in the policy as written. Mr. Smith believes the citation to the ALJ order frorn 2006 regarding the four -acre threshold was incorrect. Mr. Smith stated now that the language that defines "significant upland habitat" has been eliminated and the term "offshore island" is being added to the defined terms of the glossary the policies identify when development on offshore islands should be prohibited is based on the documentation of an established bird rookery or nesting area. Those terms are not defined in the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations and should be. Without having a quantifiable or objectionable criteria for what an established bird rookery or nesting area is it could be left to interpretation. FEB Corp. has retained Phil. Frank, a well -respected biologist in the community, to put together a proposed definition for "established bird rookery or nesting area." Copies of the definition were submitted to staff. Mr. Frank then explained how he worked through the definition and what he reviewed in order to come up with that definition. Mr. Frank stated the common theme in the definitions as cited by different authorities is the words "communal nesting, gregarious birds„ prominent colonies, colony forming, gregarious colony." Mr. Smith read aloud the proposed definition. Mr. Smith believes if this term that is utilized for the absolute prohibition of development is not defined it will be left open to interpretation that will be fought over for years to come.. Ms. Santarnaria stated that part of the reasons a definition for "bird rookery" is not proposed in this amendment is that in the comp plan update the definition as "A communal nesting ground for gregarious birds" was included, as well as a definition for "nesting area." This has been transmitted to the State. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the definition for "nesting area." Mr. Frank pointed out that passerine birds are not listed in the definition and should be. Mr. Smith stated he is concerned that the definition for "nesting area" is too broad and could prohibit development on any offshore island. Ms. Curlee noted that solitary birds" which are not included in the definition, are equally as important. Ms. Curlee does not agree with Mr. Frank's definition, but does agree with staffs. Mr. Smith believes the definition needs to be clarified so that arguments are not made that all offshore islands are nesting islands. Julie Rick of the Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund, re-emphasized that offshore islands are the last place to be encouraging development because they are not connected to public facilities and are some of the most environmentally sensitive areas in the entire Keys. Development rights should not be moved to offshore islands because they are the hardest areas to evacuate. Ms. Dick disagreed with Mr. Smith that TREs should not have the restriction on transferring receiver sites to offshore islands. 19 Ms. Dick appreciates staff removing the confusing and redundant new language in Policy 206.1.2, but continues to believe the entire policy should be removed. Ms. Dick stated Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund will likely support staffs existing definition over what has been proposed today, but will need time to confer on that. Mr. Kendrick, speaking on behalf of himself, stated he fully supports the idea of protecting bird rookeries, but feels that it seems illogical to focus and protect nesting areas on offshore islands because nesting areas are located everywhere. Ms. Santamaria clarified Policy 206.1.2 does not actually refer to nesting areas. Mr. Frank commented when the camp plan was written back in 1986 the bird rookeries were teased out as special resources. Mr. Smith noted that is why using one definition is preferable. Ms. Dick clarified Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund fully supports the language protecting nesting areas. Ms. Dick then noted that Mr. Smith is here on behalf of FEB, who does not own Wisteria Island, and questions their interest in the matter. Ms. Santamaria emphasized the ordinance does not speak to a particular island, but would apply to anything that falls within the definition of offshore island. Mr. Kyle asked whether the term "nest" implies that the island has to have some sort of tree canopy of bush canopy. Mr. Roberts replied not necessarily, because there are a number of shore birds and wading birds that are ground -nesters. Mr. Kyle then commented that 90 percent of the speck islands in the County are transient, so the evacuation time issue seems to be somewhat discounted. Ms. Santamaria then explained to Mr. Kyle in detail how the phased evacuation process occurs. Ms. Dick re-emphasized that evacuation is a real concern for Monroe County citizens and it is a safety threat for everyone in the county if the evacuation predictions are not correct. That situation adds further weight to the need to reduce added risk to the evacuation formula by allowing further development on offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. s. Santamaria asked the public if they prefer to bring this back to DRC one more time or move this forward to the Planning Commission. Mr. Smith, on behalf of FEB Corp., stated they would like to see how concerns over nesting areas are going to be resolved prior to bringing it to the Planning Commission because it affects all offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria agreed to bring this matter back to the DRC one more time for safe measure. ADJOURNMENT' The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:45 p.m. E3 I O 0 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — n. 41 7 -7 -0 CS 0 0 0 CO 0 C, �c, Cr c 0 0 C) 0 0 0 C) c 0 o 4, c� c� a O c o o c R 9 9 O O O a a O 9 9 9 c? O 9 p 9 6® 6 a© 6 6 6 0 0 o C o 0 0 0 o ca 6 6 6 6 6 6 c a I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -zE < < < 4 4 Tc ;F( �i 7 zi :E :Tc ;;E ;Tt -�C- .2 -2 2 -2 o -Fu o -is a -7. o c 7. o o 2 .2 -2 o -Fo o -;a of -is c o -16 76 1; 16 E 0 o o 6 1� li A w M- r.,: 0 v m 0 0 C, 0 0 0 C, o o ev 0 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — O Z -0 C3 C� C� C;l ffi . . . . . . . . . . . . 0 c, o C 6 C3 6 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 19 fle CL 0 C:, 0 cD G cD a Q crt o fl 52 E. cl O u u Ct E C? R 171 O R 9 C? O 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 6 o c a c, c o o o o 0 -o -a -o O O O O O o '< o :< o 22i o 2< o o !<� :F( 71 ;R ;T zi a a <� ;F a a 1EE :;z d I zE I 4 ;;E 2 o 2 .2 2 4 2 -2 -2 -2 2 �2 �2 .2 -2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 i� cq '1 m 4 m m 0 0 N 6 4 6 6 6 6 6 6 co p li C5 C5 cs ci IL < c c 61 Li w .w �A. � w rn ib 4 C-J vC 0 07 c. 7 c 6 0 o C 6 C ID 0 0 0 0 0 cl 0 C. w 'a 1 76 0i CL E 0 V O Cl 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 0 Ch 0 0 0 m a 0 0 0 0 a C, 0 c 0 c 0 0 m C, C? C? C? C? C? 9 C, 9 9 9 C? 9 9 C? I? 0 9 1? 9 9 9 CP 9 9 o o o B O C) 10 CL < 0 CCE m a m 0 - > T; C hi 72 iE cc �T — 0 x L rli ci Lo 4 m m cl E m c o m m d a d d 4 0 o cl o o o o o o o m co 6 6 6 6 N 4 6 K i 6 6 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 'D 7a E 4, 6 c, C.0 Cl 71 '21 2 Pd �113 0 0 c o o 0 0 o FJ 19 M E o C, p Z 1.t O IJ 1„ u Ij u o cl o o o cl c o o o c c or.lo I c o 0 a cl cl c o a = o c 9 9 9 c? c? d I? c n o o c? c? 9 c? 9 cp 0 o 9 R 9 9 p o o 0o o o co -o lo lo cD H o o c, c ID 15 pq w o a 4 40 c �2 . -2 o o o o c, oa le u u u uc LM 0 C, .0 6 c5 6 ci c5 6 6 c5 cS 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 d c; 6 6 6 c5 r-: r n ci 6 a FD w I m w Iq ol 19 -i li -i -i -i c� a) c? Lr� co c� m En w N N N N - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - zc m 'o �r 4 m c� c� a c� c� C� d as C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C'3 0 c I-S 0 o 0 0 .m E w c o © o. u u u v V V v V V V V V u V V v L. u u V u a ry o o o c? c? I? o 0 oI? 0o aI? o I? z Ir -o o o alo clo o o o o, m o c, o o o o o c o o .6 o3 -6 -3 � -4 .6 .4 .6 .6 -Z QA .6 10 0 10 12 i2l 12 12 �2 !L z L !2 -L E Z, an D �2 Z, D !4 !n �r �n fl �2 V 12 �2 12 �2 32 �2 �2 t9 1 -1 . - . . -�2 -�2 S o o o o o o D o a o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o o c o a o o c o o o o o o o o o o o a a a o o o c a o o c m o o u u u tsi c to C� 00 0 O 0 9 0 O a d 0 0 0 0 q q CR Gl— — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — -2 O c� q q q O Ci C? O O a 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 a 0 cc a 0 O 7E a iP c-, 0 o 6 6 iS bo 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 rJ 0) 0 0 0 c CJ lu aq 0 cm� w q q ac� q q 9 q p p c�! < -ro O u U V C.) L,) L) C? 9 9 9 9 R 9 9 9 9 1;1 9 9 C? R C? 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 Ca C? 0 0 a 0 0 a c 0 0 a C'. CL 0 w w ce oa t t -M T -M4D hp Sp .2p y u u u I I I U I I I I E Fa 1� 1-4 -i -i CD m u E 0 C) 0 0 o 0 0 t4 a C, 0 C, c 0 6 n O C? CD Q 0 C? a 0 0 a a C) 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C� 0 C3 O a O .E Ko Ir 44 tf Vi eft r 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 pq res as a C, 0 y ID q Q q q q q q q C? a a C 0 c, 0 6G7 d d 0 6 0 0 6 O tJ u U 4s V V 4J tJ iJ 4J V U u u LL C? C? o a O a o R 9 9 R 9 9 a a p p p y 9 9 9 F 6 6 0 0 8 0 c R9. al TO RP .ap Ap SP np SP Y .9 .�p . bp o -S 16 0 16 -c -o -c -c -o -c o o o o o 0 -0 -0 -c 0 -o a -0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 1 1 1 1 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o C) iil — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 C, C, 2 sl� C Iv 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 F141 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 Csfi 0 0 0 b C 0 C? O O O c? 0 C3 0 c 0 CL < -rD u U u 9 9 O C? 9 9 9 9 9 R 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 O C? C? p C? 9 O 9 9 0 0 0 c 0 c 0 C) 0 0 0 0 0 CL 21 -u iu ca 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) c .E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P: W'r c c, 10, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) J 0 0 0 0 0 O 7 a E C, 0 0 O O u u u I-) I? O y 9 C? C? O O O 1? 9 9 C? 9 C? 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 C, 0 C) c m a, M RP 0/1y .Cp P L L y 0 m z 0 lu m ED m 0 0 71 j, m z 2 IL ibq yl T, m CL "6 — 0 — 0 '6 — 0 0 '6 '8 '6 5 o —S 16 —6 —o —c -o u-. I - I I I 75 iN m CL co .E — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 D 6 6 C5 6 6 ci 6 6 6 C5 6 6 cs 0 oc000C66 G ID C 0 C, C ❑ rat ro w CL X 0 m 2 w M, Q CL - - - - - - - - - - C) 0 0 o o o u m u u u u C..0 u u u LL 9 R C? C? 0 C? 9 9 C? R C? O 6 6 6 6 6 '171 - - - - - - - - - on 0 w w w w w w w w U w N WM w w w m FL TIT- C� 6 ci C5 c 0 0 C) is c d 6 o m 0 o o C, C, 0 a 0 o 0 6 b o O a 0 o C? 0 Q o a c Q CD o b 0 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o to 0 0 C, 0 a 0 0 E tz — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ,rm m w ccFj 0a a ho a a 0 0 1, 0 t1a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 S, 0 0 c 0 76 E CL n n 0 0 C, 0 0 0 C� Cl Q Q Q CL < -r. . . . 11 . IN . rV . 14 . llJ . I-i . . lJ eti N 1. 0 o U U U U U U E 9 C? C? R C? R 7 C? 9 R C, 9 9 9 R o o o c 0 c 'a ll th -8b 1� �51 �C- i5 —0 —0 -0 16 16 16 —0 o 16 16 18 16 —0 —0 16 0 0 16 15 — — — — — — — 0 —0 —0 I u T �F�l T Ri asT LV T .2 T E 0 c 0 0 0 c 0 0 O O o o Q a a Cd 0 0 0 0 C, CL m m 0 0 0 % 9 9 q 9 0 9 0 1? 0 q 0 q 0 q 0 q 0 q 0 q 0 q o Q Q C, 0 o o 0 0 0 0 b d 6 = d 6 6 6 o q o q o 0 o 0 c 0 c 0 d 6 6 6 E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C� 0� C? C� C� C� mr 7 C, cKslA O 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 15 x 0 0 0 0 C 0 0 to6 6 6 44 u it J u 9 9 9 9 C? C? C? 9 C? 9 C? Q C? C? C? 7 10 aI eG CL 15 r" -M W W � u- LT, M M M M M 0 Z au0 7� M 70 G-, 0 L-, M i7. iZ M M Z 15 t t 6 6 -0 6 6 6 6 O 6 6 -0 16 -o -o -o 6 -S O6. 16 16 16 16 16 T w w w WU a ar aw .... ____....._.. . 16 "Sl y m m V a+1 O¢0 i]1 H m m v7 a!5 M 6p eY N N5 r/1 h �7 6e V' Vt M t!5 m d' N ei r-1 r-t r1 ei H i-1 r-[ M E w ti c r a Q L3 C] C7 CY 47 f © O ® O O O O O O O O a 0 O 0 0 ® CI O O 4 4 4 4 p mN I-- fR 4 n3 E O C d 4 4 p 4 p c. c c p c 0 Q O a O O a a O O C1 4 ID 4 a` I $ (I I I p d G7 C d 0 co C,i C3 G 4 d i3 CJ' C Ri 'R6 Q � I N N ✓� Lrt VS f u5 l J> t!3 J'� JS vS v) ti� iJ 0 0i`l 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01010 0V fl � C i Q dt n} um � V 1.1 V V iJ C..S V lJ tiJ V V U 41 CJ V U V iJ V l l 4t V U J V LI V i.l V C,1 N p q p a p O O O O O O O O O a O a O a O O O O 4 4 O p q p p E 4 o 4i 0 4 0 q p p p p p a O O O o O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 O 0 a 6 O O O O O O o C,4 0 4 0 4 0 O a o ® 6 O O O a QO a a o 0 ', ' a a a a CJ a a {] O a a a Q a o o h m W N h r-t ct O N [l1 V' � u'i t7'v C35 p h p p tp vY U] W C9 ,-1 O1 tiD O1 40 N � � N N' N M N m m 4 d p N 4 N p N p N p N p N p N O N O N O N O N O N O N O fmM a rV O N O N a N O N a N O o smj O O 4 4 4 p q p a O O O O O o O O O O O a a a a 0 O O O1 � au rn rn� m m Q} rn m m u, oe rn rn m a� m rn rn� m �+ rr� rn rs m as m rn m m 2 � 4a oA M 41] b)5 IXO d9 G4 Ctm .t C6 48 CO laL 40 dp 4p b0 Qq pb bp 08 M hp ?=3 04 QU oA R9 44 W W W W W W ®- N O ®. O ® O 0 "6 O '6 O wQ '6 '6 O Q O ® O O O O 9 Q O O 4 o O O 0 6 � 4J u u � U � U Q} U W U U U' W U d U di U Ud U 9l � 41 4J III Q} d1 N 41 N 61 N tlJ A] ¢a N N U 4J a w e C3' cL p E spa — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — �s O O O O O i Q 0 C. m 0 0 O C.J C: a C! C'3 �� d Q Q o O Q d 0 O O ca O 6 O 6 O 6 O i O '' 6 c O 6 O d 0 6 0C} cam` c a 04d 6 d 0 7 0 6 0 d 0 � C, d O 0 0.. o t'a d m S:} c® {3 ._+ r C.l 0 d 0 Q 0 n � � ar 4 -4 6 � ✓r v; s in yr v� �r rnx � ��. 0 C3 0 r C 0 0C o ,.;J CJ0 0 �? 0 o m O O C d O d W.. a �. w at N n 1N ll� � V V U LJ V U La 4.: � 4J l+ tJ tJ E.1 V U U U 4J tJ 4J CJ V V 4J fJ U U V V. w O Q 4 a 0 0 o Q o Q Q o d ea ca a a a o Q Q Q Q Q Q O o 0 Q 0 Q o o Q. ca Q 0 Q a Q ,o O O O O O O O C] O O 9 p 4 a O O O a O O O O Q Q O O O O O O �fl R O Ol (]Y -0Q 6 +-! 9t Q M �--1 rti N H O M rf1 �k 4� R n tll n'i 5T fS1 GQ •-1 N N N n n N N N N N N N f4 N N N N N N N N N N N N n O O O O O O O O O 0 C1 9 OFF O a O Q O O Q O O O O O O O [1 9! _. hd Qt 4t Q1 45 ❑5 fi5 �l '. O5 {]5 fft '. 01 fft Ot 61 di d1 Oi 6l (h 4� L11 O� � lT 61 ❑t � � Ot Q4 av a+ a a as a +nu ar w v � v as as a w v v v as w a a w aj � a+ m � 09 �A eP ts0 M M LW IXd RA Gfl qL M 4p m m Ofl hd BL Llb h6 QO b� oA tlf) W � oA 4% 46 C. O O D 47 a o O o �® o O O O O O wQ O O O Q O p 9 O 4 O o fl O . a ff: a a � a 1 •' 7. 0 0 a c 0 0 a 6 d o m 0 o 0 o 4, 4T Q O O 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 a 0 o 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C� C� ® lz� C� a C� c� q c� � ID Gj <D C5 CD 6 C: 0 10, 0 0 0 0 C, C 01 0 0 0 0 0 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 C�; 6 C5 6 6 6 6 6 o o CD o Q 0 o o c tl LL LI u SJ V u u 'J lJ iJ Cl J u u �j u tJ V Ij u lJ 0 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 n 0 a 0 0 0 0 C? C? 1? 7 C? 7 9 9 9 C� R C? 9 C? 9 9 9 9 9 9 a C� C? C? C? 1�1 mNO mNa NNO mNG% rNv 0 0 0 0 c 0 c a 0 0 0 0 0 BE BE 0 a 0 0 0 0 C, c C, 0 0 iZ w M 7, 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 - 0 - 0 - - - - - - - 0. 01 - 0. I w I UO liwu I U . . . . 10 v ® w w 10 � lw . . . . . W, U I T d: E E 6- F E: E E E: E I E I E: I E I 6: 5: H 72 0 z O o a d C? c? 0 q 0 q 0 q 0 q C, O c O 0 O 0 O 0 O o C? Q O 0 C? C, 0 C, a 0 m a 0 o o o o o 0 C) c o 0 c 0 o 0 6 6 0 o C, o 0 0 0 6 d 6 6 0 u" - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - a 0 0 6 c) 6 a 0 0 0 5 6 0 5 0 d 0 0 C� 6 6 C3 0 > o' c, c-, pq 0 0 0f7 0 0 0 0 O u 0 c 0 C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C:� :D it o Cl 0 > W cl 6 d o C:) 0 E u u 4i u O C? Cs o9 q 9 9 9 9 9 6 6 6 6 0 OO C8 C) c 0 8 E. 9p p tq u R. sp L.2.5 4p .28 y tp .2. L. L. L4 Sp ' 'EZ tl�Q hp Q'o hp F F 29 z to W Ch 11 0 0 0 0 o o o 0 - 0 - o - o - - - - - - - - - - - - t5 15 t -0 0 u T E T E LU T 2 't, .22 .2? . �EEEEE m m 0 o oic 0 0 c o C) 0 6 0 o o d o a a o o 0 0 8 G C, 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P C� 4 C? C� Si C� C� r� C � C� CL c C. 0 c, q C O C] O CZ M 1� ll� IN hi1� li ll�l 1. m o C, 0 u u LL 0 C, 0 a 0 0 a c 9 9 y 9 C? C? C? 9 oR 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 C? C? 10rn H 0 C, a 0 0 Qj 16 16 16 6 6 6 0 o -C, o o o 0 o o a o 6 o 6 6 6 '6 6 I I U li 1� 9 IN ri IR d -i FD a q 0 9 C, C? 0 Q 0 C? 0 0 0 c 0 C, a CO 0 O. 0 0 0 0 0 C, 0 C. C, 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 m O O O CS 0 CJ Q c 2 21 2 2 2 "R 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 1.3 ZQ C. G G 1� 1-4 ll� N u 4j u u C1 u u u u u u u U U J U U U 11 CJ U U lJ U u u 0 0 c 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 C? 9 C? 9 C? CP 9 0 R 9 9 9 C? C� -�p �o -�p -Sp -5 -�p Sp �p 'L. 'llp -5 '�p -�p -�p -5 '!Ip !lp -5 �p -�p -�p "IP -L� �-p Eo 15 .99 0 0 o 0 o o a o o —0 —0 o —0 0 —0 —0 0 -0 o o o 0 o o o o 7E m a o o a 0 o o o a 0 O o o o c o m co E - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - P I I I I I I I I I -ri C� C� o o o o a q q q Cl. 0 0 0 ID 4 0 0 0 0 a C, 4 0 4 0 c-? 0 0 si o S c (D 0 0 C, C 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 dl- 0 0 0 ol 01 d, 0 0- w 0 IT -5 q q q q 9 q q q I? q 0 q q 0 c a y 0 p 0 C� I? 0 0 a 0 c, q c q c q o 9 0 tC u V u u u u u u u u u u u u u U V t.J U V V u LL 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 E C? 9 C? R 9 9 4 9 9 9 9 y o9 C? 9 aC? o o9 a 9 9 9 9 9 9 z o c 0 o a o® o 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o cr m m I I N I m M N M MW wmmmmmmmm I I I I I I u I u N I I FFFLEEEEEE a: E E E: F F E 6: E a: E d: Ld 0 z a o C) C, o o o o 0 c o 0 6 d 6 6 o 6 o 6 0 6 0 0 0 6 o lY m r co o o o a C, 0 C) o 0 o 0 o 0 C) 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - C-� 0 0 o o C� '.3 C� 0 0 Q. 2 11 S 2 2 0 R C 0 C 6 o 1� V? - - - - - - -- 0 c 6 - f 0 0 0 C, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 C, 0 0 Ytii 0 0 6 6 6 6 0 1 1 11 1 1, 1 C3 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 4 0 0 0 a 0 0 . o . . . 171ca as Z CL m o q a o o 0 o o c o a o o '6 o f o 0 0 -0 -0 -0 -c - - - o o o - - - - - - -- - u - I aa u - 'v A� '2� 'LL �L' li H I-i o 0 a o 0 o 0 a a 0 o b 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - aV 0 0 a, 0 0 0 0 0 CTI 0 w P c� L� IP c� c� c� c� c? c� c� c� c� q c� q q q q q q 47 0 Q m VJ '0 o o o 0- o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Fd O w lu E l:D o o n n o w C Q cD O O C? ID 0 o O o O o O 1:1 O o a. cl o ti O LL Ll Lj u u u LL C? C? C? 9 9 9 9 9 9 O 9 1;1 R 9 R 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 c o c 8 c o o C, 0 M w MU mmolmmm pp AO hd b1a z iz iT 0 z m 0 �z M M M 0 w 0 Z M 15 -0 -0 -0 -0 18 -0 -0 -o -a -o 22 r ED CL m E — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — M G � >02 0 Yq c c. 0 0 c 0 6' 0' 6C C3 « 'S 0 0 0 C, 0 c C) CD c 0 0 0 a C', c 0 0 0 C-11 76 0 w q CD G d G O q 0 C� Q y C1 C-� X 0 1J u 1. U u U u 0 0 0 c 0 0 9 9 9 9 9 0 0 9 C? 9 q ca 9 9 9 9 9 9 c 9 9 9 o 9 9 9 9 a 9 . . . I'M71, 9.0 .9p To y Y SP L� Y Y Y Y 5 Y .�.Ip L* Y �5 Y .❑o �y Y @P .bp .Lp Ep Y CL —0 Q o 0 0 0 0 0 0 O O 0 O — — 0 — — — 0 - 0 — 0 - - U u u u u u u ar T T S? T Qs�2 T . . . . �T . . . . . . . O. ® a a O O 6 aa 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 c 0 0 0 C) C) 0 O O 0 0 an — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — E 0 0 0 C7 0 0 a a 0 0 C, 0 0 0 is 0 C3 0 C, 0 Cv Fa I v, 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cx 0 ! 0 q a q n 9 n q n 0 q O O y ll: Cp P Ca CL - - - - - - - - - - - 11 rQ ILL S{ fs C? 9 y 9 R R 9 C? C? C? R 9 R C? 9 9 C? cc to m I MH - - - ol a, Gar- '�p 'SP '9p ¢o '!'p 'bP �.o 5 .�P �P '5 5 '5 �P 'LW Lo 'L� '�p '�p Rp �p !14 �p —0 18 16 —0 "6 15 16 16 —0 16 —0 —0 -0 -0 —0 c O 0 O —0 —0 4 o —0 o o 0 I I I U I I I U -Fa -I Ii 1-1 Ii N 1•[ 1-t H 0 0 0 C) 0 0 c 0 0 CL 0 0 0 0 q 0 cll? c q CD q 0 q c q O q O q O q lln q C? Q C? — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — o 0 0 C, 0 0 o a o 6 0 5 cs 6 0 6 0 d 5 cs m 6 5 6 6 o 6 0 6 5 d g '0 0 2 l, tIi a c-, 0 0 0 0 0 t 0 ITHI, 0 0 0 0 0 d hd 9 a a a a O Q G7 O Gi n ro 1� IN 11� N 11� 1� 1� Ii 11�1 1i j u LL `lD 'D C? Q C? 9 9 Q 9 9 9 R 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 C? C? a 0 0 0 C, 0 CD 0 0 "D 0 0 C, 0 CL EZ SP F U lRp �q Rp y p lib �LW 'y trl 'y .29 'y .!lIp �p LU —0-0 - - — 00-0—000000000coco-c-oc—oo686 Zo m 4 m w ff; ni x6 to 9 eia er; r-h YJ CJ LQ q ri O O lD Qq 05 tfS O cV m kq rY kR ('-i 119 rl fl cq q li q tq tV q rV r-- ei iU - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - km 0, a 6 o o o 6 mrY3 "o o c o o dk lj 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o o o o o o c, o o 0 o o 0 o 0 c o 'ru o w 48 'N r! I q 0] q q q PP 4D �i rN 1-4 lV N 1? cl c o o a c o c o R c? c? R cp R 9 y c? 7 R 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 c? c? 9 9 9 Ex 41 c o o a o o o o o c o o o o o o o c o o o o c o E E E E E E E E E E E E E E E EEiE E E E E E E E ------------- E c c c c c c a c a c c E st N q N N 6 4 c6 vi �6 h .4 rV ri r4 N ti 4 4 4 6 6 w r 0 m a C� IR 7 c� li Lq q q In q q 9 q q q 1� li q q I-i li li q co E — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ba m 75 c, a m H p p O Q O Q o 6 6 c 0 C, CD 0 0 0 0 c C, 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 76 � cc -w u Q u I_j u u Ij R O ® c? O O O O y 9 R c? 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 9 0 9 9 a o o cl loic'. o o lol I I Ip o o a o o a o o a o 9 � 9 9 9 1? 9 E 4 -k I L9 o o o o o o u o I o m od 4 Gi vi .6 z� id ,i N CY rJ ct .4 N i V au 4 — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — ro 0 n 0 0 0 0 C, o C� 0 0 0 0 CL qo q Vl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 NI u u u u u u l j IJ lrJ 9 90 d a d ca o 0 o cr 9 9 9 9 p 9 9 9 9 9 8 8 9t TFF M---- 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a 0 4 'Fa lAJ cl� 41 49 m 0 o 0 0 nl 0 o o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Cl 0 C, 0 ti lu o w CD C� 0 c� q C� ii ........... m E o o c? a c? c, n O o o 5 o o o o o o 71"i m z \�� } . DO C) .2 co co 4CO U) 0 0 < 0 0) CL 15 cc A V5 CL 0 Z Lo LL k 7 \ � r � CL � � � / \ W �` / co j:o 0 CL OD a) < CY) 0 "0Q) u < M Z (L — 0- U- . y /\, / ry cu ca LO q C) 4 V CO w 2 w U < CL Q) co > 0) 0- U- . 2 { ry, .0 � � � \ \. a CO CU � � � k k \ / 10 w m 0 L) < CCF) tm a) D C _0 0 -j 0 c LL » { U) 0 .x 0 E m Z ry / > 2 0 Z —0 o Z6 2.1 fn U-) LO w c 0 F 0 'a — LM Nt m 75 tr 0 CL Z EfJ (U cu 0 A A -i CL m u- 0) m W c 0 C) 2' 1 n 0 CD L:) En ry c 0 a) 70 (D E to 0 c ® 0 U) cu m k \ m (D L) 5; 0 0 (D c o 2 no- -uj- NO \ / \ ry \ "D U) Co co \ 0 0 LO 0 20 - m m cn Co m z 00 D co _j a- U- . � >/ � } ` � \ / � -j 0 0 a) CN E E 0 ) -t 0 ly 2 00 ca a) D IOD, a) � \ 0 . a co 2 � � (1) cu c d- if — IL U- 2 — No 2 \ 70 10 0 c E U) ca cn 0 C%J r-L o -C IL 0 z A