The URL can be used to link to this page

Item P3 4 CM ounty of onroe BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Mayor George Neugent, District 2 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice, District 4 TheFloridaKeys Danny L. Kolhage, District 1 Heather Carruthers, District 3 Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5 County Commission Meeting February 15, 2017 Agenda Item Number: P.3 Agenda Item Summary #2631 BULK ITEM: DEPARTMENT: No Planning/Environmental Resources TIME APPROXIMATE:STAFF CONTACT: Mayte Santamaria (305) 289-2500 3:00PM AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A Resolution by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners transmitting to the State Land Planning Agency an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; 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 by establishing standards when a structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit; 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 2030 Comprehensive Plan; providing for an effective date. ITEM BACKGROUND: The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing Comprehensive Plan amendments to: 1)amend Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height within the height limit policy; 2)create Policy 101.5.31 to allow non-habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community, but that such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building-line; 3)create Policy 101.5.32 to allow an exception of the height limit of: a.up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit so lawfully existing buildings can voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation with a maximum height of 40 feet; and b.a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow new (new construction or substantially improved) buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation with a maximum height of 38 feet 4)create Policy 101.5.33 to allow an exception of the height limit for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35-foot height limit to rebuild to a height of 40ft or if proposing to exceed a total height of 40 feet, require a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. 4EGOIX4K 4 The proposed amendments are proposed to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit. 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 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 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. During the Comprehensive Plan update process, recommendations to amend the height policy were made to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. Flood maps inform communities about the local flood risk and help set minimum floodplain standards for communities to build with safety and resiliency in mind. Flood maps determine the cost of flood insurance, which helps property owners to financially protect themselves against flooding. The lower the risk, the lower flood insurance premiums will be. Flood maps are also the basis for flood insurance rates through the NFIP. As risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks. [Note, FEMA is in the process of re-mapping the Florida Keys] Flood insurance premiums may be going up; however, property owners may be able to reduce premiums if they build their home or business to be safer, higher, and stronger. The proposed changes to the comprehensive plan are mainly to address exceptions to the height limit of 35ft to allow property owners the ability to elevate 3ft for new buildings and 5ft for lawfully existing buildings in order to voluntarily raise their home up to 3ft above the FEMA base flood elevation. These exceptions are proposed to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: December 10, 2014 BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: 4EGOIX4K 4 n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. Staff also recommends the BOCC continue this item to the March 15, 2017 BOCC meeting so the proposal can be discussed in the Upper Keys as well. DOCUMENTATION: Transmittal Resolution - height ordinance Exhibit A Ordinance - height CP amendment Staff Report height amendment CP_BOCC_Feb_2017 Ex. 1 height BOCC 10.7.2014 Ex. 2 height 2015-006 SR DRC 03.24.15_ Ex. 3 height DRC 03.24.15 Approved 04.28.15 Ex. 4 height 2015-006 SR DRC 05.26.15_ Ex. 5 height DRC 05.26.15 Approved 07.28.15 Ex. 6 height 2015-006 SR DRC 08.25.15_ Ex. 7 height DRC 08.25.15 Approved 10.27.15 Ex. 8 height 2015-006 SR DRC 10.27.15_ Ex. 9 height DRC 10.27.15 Approved 12.15.15 Ex. 10 height 2015-006 SR DRC 01.26.16 Ex. 11 height DRC 01.26.16 Approved 03.29.16 Ex. 12 height 2015-006 SR PC 02.24.16 Ex. 13 height PC 02.24.16 Approved 04.27.16 Ex. 14 height FEMA flood zones and number of private Ex. 15 FEMA build_back_rebuild datasheets Ex. 16 Proposed Comp Plan and Land Development Code Amendments Example HEIGHT ANALYSIS FEMA flood zones and number of parcels FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: Total Cost to County: Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: If yes, amount: Grant: 4EGOIX4K 4 County Match : Insurance Required: Additional Details: REVIEWED BY: Mayte Santamaria Completed 01/27/2017 1:09 PM Emily Schemper Completed 01/27/2017 1:52 PM Steve Williams Completed 01/30/2017 10:02 AM Jaclyn Carnago Completed 01/30/2017 3:12 PM Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley Completed 01/31/2017 4:08 PM Budget and Finance Skipped 01/27/2017 12:47 PM Maria Slavik Skipped 01/27/2017 12:47 PM Mayte Santamaria Completed 01/31/2017 4:55 PM Kathy Peters Completed 01/31/2017 5:05 PM Board of County Commissioners Pending 02/15/2017 9:00 AM 4EGOIX4K 4E 4EGOIX4K 4E 4EGOIX4K 4F Exhibit A 1 2 3 4 5 6 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 7 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 8 ORDINANCE NO. -2017 9 10 11 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF 12 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY 13 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE THE 14 DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO 15 ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON-HABITABLE 16 ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE 17 OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND 18 CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE 19 CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO 20 PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE 21 FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS 22 WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE 23 FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT 24 LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR 25 REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR 26 TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY 27 AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR 28 INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE 29 PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. 30 31 32 33 WHEREAS, 34 the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department is 35 proposing an amendment to revise the height limit policy in the Comprehensive Plan; and 36 WHEREAS, 37 the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing 38 amendments to Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; to create Policy 101.5.31 to 39 address non-habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and 40 create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to 41 protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a 42 structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit; 43 and 44 Ord ____-2017 1 of 5 4EGOIX4K 4F Exhibit A WHEREAS, 1 the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) considered 2 the proposed amendment at regularly scheduled meetings held on March 24, 2015, May 26, 3 2015, August 25, 2015, October 27, 2016, and January 26, 2016 and recommended approval; and 4 WHEREAS, 5 the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on 6 February 24, 2016, for review and recommendation on the proposed Comprehensive Plan text 7 amendment; and 8 WHEREAS, 9 based upon the information and documentation submitted, the Planning 10 Commission made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 11 12 1.The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 13 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and 14 2.The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development 15 for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and 16 3.The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute; 17 and 18 WHEREAS 19 , the Monroe County Planning Commission recommended approval of the 20 proposed amendment; and 21 th WHEREAS, 22 at a regular meeting held on the 15 day of February, 2017, the Monroe 23 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 24 proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and 25 public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted 26 for public participation in the planning process; and 27 th WHEREAS, 28 at a regular meeting held on the __ day of ________, 2017, the Monroe 29 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 30 proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and 31 public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted 32 for public participation in the planning process; and 33 WHEREAS, 34 at the ____________, 2017, public hearing, the BOCC adopted Resolution 35 ____-201_, transmitting the proposed text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and 36 WHEREAS, 37 the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an 38 Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report, received by the County on 39 ________________; and 40 WHEREAS, 41 the ORC report ___________________________________________;and Ord ____-2017 2 of 5 4EGOIX4K 4F Exhibit A 1 WHEREAS, 2 the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to adopt the 3 proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment; and 4 th WHEREAS, 5 at a regularly scheduled meeting on the __ day of ______, 2017, the 6 BOCC held a public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text 7 amendment; 8 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 9 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 10 11 Section 1. 12 The text of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as 13 follows (Deletions are shown stricken through; additions are shown underlined): 14 Policy 101.5.30 15 16 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe 17 County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined 18 as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including 19 mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for 20 institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; 21 flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna 22 supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event 23 shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or 24 usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted 25 in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Exceptions will be allowed for 26 appurtenances to buildings, transmission towers and other similar structures. In the case 27 of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation. 28 Policy 101.5.31 29 30 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the 31 surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include 32 non- 33 parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall 34 of-line. This exception shall not result in a 35 building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would 36 exceed 40 feet. 37 38 As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 39 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the 40 county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained 41 by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and 42 transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association 43 or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development 44 requests by its members. Ord ____-2017 3 of 5 4EGOIX4K 4F Exhibit A 1 Policy 101.5.32 2 3 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land 4 Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 5 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal 6 flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize 7 damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future 8 expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood 9 events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height 10 Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be 11 provided to allow lawfully existing buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) 12 feet above FEMA base flood elevation; and a flood protection height exception of a 13 maximum of three (3) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow new 14 (new construction or substantially improved) buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three 15 (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation. These exceptions are in order to promote 16 flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize 17 future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a 18 Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new building exceeding a maximum height 19 of 38 feet and a lawfully existing building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. 20 Policy 101.5.33 21 22 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land 23 Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for 24 lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote 25 public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm 26 surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize 27 public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds 28 for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood 29 insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, 30 improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation 31 (BFE) provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, 32 and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, 33 building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established 34 existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing 35 before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be 36 required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any 37 county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a 38 recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall 39 adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. 40 41 Section 2.Severability. 42 If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or 43 provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall 44 not be affected by such validity. 45 Ord ____-2017 4 of 5 4EGOIX4K 4F Exhibit A Section 3.Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. 1 All ordinances or parts of ordinances in 2 conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. 3 Section 4.Transmittal. 4 This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to 5 the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida 6 Statutes. 7 Section 5.Filing and Effective Date. 8 This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the 9 Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is 10 issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding 11 the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any 12 applicable challenges have been resolved. 13 Section 6.Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. 14 The text amendment shall be 15 incorporated in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the 16 foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the 17 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. 18 PASSED AND ADOPTED 19 by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, 20 Florida, at a regular meeting held on the _____ day of ______, 2017. 21 22 Mayor George Neugent _______ 23 Mayor Pro Tem David Rice _______ 24 Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage _______ 25 Commissioner Heather Carruthers _______ 26 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy _______ 27 28 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 29 OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA 30 31 BY ______________________________ 32 Mayor George Neugent 33 34 (SEAL) 35 36 ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK 37 38 ____________________________________ 39 DEPUTY CLERK Ord ____-2017 5 of 5 4EGOIX4K 4G MEMORANDUM MCP&ERD ONROE OUNTY LANNING NVIRONMENTAL ESOURCES EPARTMENT To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners From: Mayté Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: January 25, 2017 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; 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 BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT; 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) Meeting: February 15, 2017 I.REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non-habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create 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 by establishing standards when a structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit. II.BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County completed working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. 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, 116 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G 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 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 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately-owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. 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 DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. 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. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. 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 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. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. 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 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. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. 216 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 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. The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9. DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2016, 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 staff report from the January 26, 2016 DRC is attached as Exhibit 10. Minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are attached as Exhibit 11. Planning Commission: At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 24, 2016, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendment and provided for public comment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The staff report from the February 24, 2016 PC is attached as Exhibit 12. Minutes from the February 24, 2016 PC are attached as Exhibit 13. III.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, height and gradeare defined as follows: HEIGHT the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure means , including mechanical equipment, but excluding the following: spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in the Land Development Code. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this definition be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the maximum height limitation. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this definition shall not apply. (current, effective Comprehensive Plan Glossary; and updated LDC Section 101-1, expected to be effective February 2, 2017) GRADE the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, means next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. (current, effective Comprehensive Plan Glossary) GRADE the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, means next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground 316 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G surface, prior to construction, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe County prepared in 2007 and other best available data, including, but not limited to, pre-construction boundary surveys with elevations, pre-construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates and/or other optical remote sensing data. (updated LDC Section 101-1, expected to be effective February 2, 2017) Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of: height = the verticaldistance between grade and the highest part of any structure. In this depiction, the crown of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure is higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in measuring the vertical distance of the structure. Height limit For this example, a 3 story The vertical distance home may be developed between grade (crown of within the 35 foot height road, based on definition, limit and the flood zone of for this example) and the AE 5ft highest part of the structure = Height Crown of the road 2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet During the Comprehensive Plan update process, recommendations to amend the height policy were made to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. National Flood Insurance Program & Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) to provide a means for property owners to protect themselves financially from flood events. The NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters and business owners if their community participates in the NFIP. Participating communities agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances that meet or exceed FEMA requirements. Flood maps inform communities about the local flood risk and help set minimum floodplain standards for communities to build with safety and resiliency in mind. Flood maps determine the cost of flood insurance, which helps property owners to financially protect themselves against flooding. The lower the risk, the lower flood insurance premiums will be. Flood maps are also the basis for flood insurance rates through the NFIP. 416 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G As risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks. [Note, FEMA is in the process of re- mapping the Florida Keys] Flood insurance premium may be going up; however, property owners may be able to reduce premiums if they build their home or business to be safer, higher, and stronger. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 provides long-term changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. This additional legislation has been enacted with the intent to strengthen the program, ensure its fiscal soundness and inform its mapping and insurance rate-setting through expert consultation, reports and studies. Today the program is focused on implementing recent legislation by adjusting premium increases, issuing new rates and map updates, supporting mitigation and ensuring special advocacy to connect policyholders with the information they need to better understand the program. Recent legislation phases out subsidies for some older buildings in high-risk flood areas. As a result, rates for these buildings will rise until they reach full-risk rates. In addition, all policyholders will be subject to new assessments and surcharges. [https://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/hfiaa-2014.jsp]. See FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Fl, which are attached as Exhibit 15. Monroe County Green Keys Project Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeys! Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key Largo and a cost benefit ratios of elevating and floodproofing buildings: Entire report can be accessed here: http://fl-monroecountyclimate.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/103 516 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G 616 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G 716 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G 816 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G PROPOSED AMENDMENT ( IV. Deletions are stricken through and additions are underlined.) Planning Commission recommendations are shown with deletions in blue with a double stikethrough, and additions in blue with a double underline. Land Development Code (LDC) amendments are being processed separately. LDC text is included below simply to provide the BOCC and the public with complete representation of the amendments. LDC text is identified in green. Policy 101.5.30 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Exceptions will be allowed for appurtenances to buildings, transmission towers and other similar structures. In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railing, parapets) that exceed the 35- roof-line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existing buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation; and a flood protection height exception of a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow new (new construction or substantially improved) buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation. 916 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G These exceptions are in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new building exceeding a maximum height of 38 feet and a lawfully existing building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. __________________________________________________________________________________ Section 101-1. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: * * * * * Elevate means the action of retrofitting or raising a building to a higher positon. Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest floor raised above the ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its exposure to flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general, retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or extending the existing foundation, or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floor system within the building or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only for parking, building access, or storage. * * * * * Sec. 130-187. - Maximum height. No structure or building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet. Exceptions will be allowed for chimneys; spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as 1016 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G permitted in chapter 146. Exceptions will be allowed for flood protection as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 and listed below. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the maximum height limitation, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall not apply. A.Within the Ocean Reef master planned community which is gated, isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non- parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any 40 feet architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed . B. As provided in Policy 101.5.32, buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limit as follows: 1.For NEW single family and multi-family buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceedthree (3) feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a 38 feet new building exceed in height or two (2) habitable floors. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or not. 2.For lawfully established EXISTING multi-family buildings which do not exceed the 35- meet and/orexceed foot height limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to five (5) minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum of feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than meetplusthree (3) the distance necessary to elevate the building to BFE up to feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing building be elevated to exceed a total building height of 40 feet. 40 feet 3.No exception shall result in a total building height that exceeds. 4.Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception. 5. No exception shall be provided to new buildings located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone. C.As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established EXISTING multi-family buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet the required FEMA BFE provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. A five (5) meet Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of feet may be permitted to 1116 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G meet greater than the amount of elevation necessary to BFE. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception. D.As provided in Policy 101.5.33, for lawfully established EXISTING multi-family buildings exceed which exceed the 35-foot height limit that are proposed to a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners to review and specify the maximum approved height shall be required prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. 1.For lawfully established EXISTING multi-family buildings that are voluntarily repaired, meet improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to more than five (5) BFE, but will require a height exception of feet, a Flood Protection Height Exception exceeding the 35-foot height limit may be provided by the BOCC based on the following criteria: a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel; b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood damage and the effects of such damage on the property owner; c. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; d. The availability of alternate solutions; e. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood risk; result in additional threats to public safety; result in extraordinary public expense; create nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public; and f. Community character. g. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception. 2.A BOCC resolution shall specify the findings of criteria of D.1. a. through g. (above) and specify the approved maximum total height for the proposed building. V.CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. GOAL 216 Monroe County shall maintain a program of hazard mitigation and post-disaster redevelopment to increase public safety and reduce damages and public expenditures. Objective 216.1 Monroe County shall maintain a program of hazard mitigation in the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA) . which reduces floodplain alteration and damage or loss due to natural disasters 1216 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G Policy 216.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 216.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class rating. Policy 216.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the land development regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. Objective 601.3 Monroe County shall continue implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites. Policy 601.3.1 Monroe County shall coordinate with other County agencies to monitor housing conditions. Standards for evaluation of the structural condition of the housing stock are summarized below: Sound: Most housing units in this category are in good condition and have no visible defects. However, some structures with slight defects are also included. Deteriorating: A housing unit in this category needs more repair than would be provided in the course of regular maintenance, such as repainting. A housing unit is classified as deteriorating when its deficiencies indicate a lack of proper upkeep. Dilapidated (Substandard): A housing unit in this category indicates that the unit can no longer provide safe and adequate shelter or is of inadequate original construction including being constructed below the minimum requi Policy 601.3.2 The County Code Compliance Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe, decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods. 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. 1316 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G (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. (f) 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: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 9. 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. (j) 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)(l) and 403.086(10), 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. (l) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m) 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. 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 Part II 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 preserveand 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 1416 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G 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 ated, 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. VI.PROCESS 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 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII.STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII.EXHIBITS 1.Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2.March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3.March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4.May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5.May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6.August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7.August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 1516 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4G 8.October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report 9.October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes 10.January 26, 2016 DRC Staff Report 11.January 26, 2016 DRC Minutes 12.February 24, 2016 PC Staff Report 13.February 24, 2016 PC Minutes 14.Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 15.r Risk, Reduce Your 16.Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments 1616 File 2015-006 Page of 4EGOIX4K 4H Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Special Meeting Tuesday, October 7, 2014 Height Exceptions dŚĞŶƚŚĞŶĞǆƚĐŚĂŶŐĞŝƐŽŶƉĂŐĞϰϯ͙ You have a couple of new policies here, you all directed staff to take a look at how to possibly raise the height limit for architectural features that really just apply to Ocean Reef and so we͛ǀĞĂůƐŽĐŽŵĞƵƉǁŝƚŚƐŽŵĞĐƌŝƚĞƌŝĂ ĂŶĚǇŽƵ͛ůůƐĞĞƚŚĂƚŽŶƚŚŽƐĞtwo policies 5.31 and 5.32 Mayor Murphy: Do we have a public speaker on this Lindsay? Lindsay Ballard: We do. Joel Reed. Mayor Murphy: Debbie, are you ready for public speakers? Debbie: Yes mam on this particular topic. Joel Reed: 'ŽŽĚŵŽƌŶŝŶŐDĂǇŽƌ͕ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌƐ͕:ŽĞůZĞĞĚ͘/͛ŵŚĞƌĞƚŽĚĂǇŽŶďĞŚĂůĨŽĨKĐĞĂŶZĞĞĨůƵďĂŶĚ Ocean Reef Community Association in regard to this issue. First of all I want to thank you for the support. As you know Ocean Reef is a distinct ĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇ͘/ƚ͛ƐĂƉƌŝǀĂƚĞŐĂƚĞĚĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇŽĨĂďŽƵƚƚǁĞŶƚǇĨŝǀĞŚƵŶĚƌĞĚ acres, about seventeen hundred units up there. We have a lot of additional amenities up there, public buildings or quasi, kind of public buildings that are for the club purpose as well. Ocean Reef also has a Community Association which has its own architectural board, its architectural committee that kind of makes going through DRC and Planning Commission a day at the beach compared to their architectural committee. They are very stringent. They impose a lot of times additional requirements and regulations on their projects. Their whole community is very involved with the procĞƐƐ͘dŚĞǇ͛ƌĞĂůůŶŽƚŝĨŝĞĚĂƐĨĂƌĂƐany changes that happen up there. So the five foot, we appreciate the support and the language in there a lot of times, some of the single family homes and the commercial buildings as well bump up as far as making them more architecturally attractive to need this section to allow for that. We also have had a lot of discussions the last couple of weeks internally as ǁĞůů͘/͛ŵŐŽŝŶŐƚŽƉĂƐƐŽƵƚ͕/ŐƵĞƐƐƚŽƚŚĞĐůĞƌŬĂŶĚƚŽyou guys, additional language we would like you guys to ĐŽŶƐŝĚĞƌ͘ƵƚǁĞŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶƚĂůŬŝŶŐƚŽƐƚĂĨĨĂďŽƵƚ͙͘;Ɖasses out additional language considerations) So not to confuse the issue, there are two specific issues. First is allowing for some additional architectural features that the five foot would do. As we went through the club, as I said, owns a lot of buildings. Some of those buildings ĂƌĞƚŚĞŚŽƚĞůƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞŶĞĂƌƵĐĐĂŶĞĞƌ/ƐůĂŶĚ͕ŝĨǇŽƵ͛ǀĞbeen up there before. The Amberjack, The Dolphin, The DĂƌůŝŶ͕ƚŚĞƐĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐĂƌĞĂŐŝŶŐ͕ƚŚĞǇ͛ƌĞĐŽŵŝŶŐƚŽƚŚĞĞŶd of their life. We have done quite a few renovations to them. At this point there is not really many more renovations that can be done in order to continue to maintain and operate them. As you know, that function of the club as well is essential to maintaining a Class A club up there, continuing to provide for the tax base that comes out of Ocean Reef is by having an attractive club where we can continue to attract, to maintain current members and attract new members. A lot of those ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕/ŚĂǀĞƐŽŵĞĚĂƚĂ͕ŝƚ͛ƐŶŽƚĂůůƚŚĞƌĞ͕dŚĞŵďĞƌũĂĐŬfor example is three levels of living. Just to give an Page 1 of 12 4H ĞǆĂŵƉůĞ͕ƚŚĞĐŽƵƉůĞ͕/͛ŵŶŽƚŐŽŝŶŐƚŽŐŽ into all of them, but we said look if these things were substantially damaged through a hurricane, or they had to come down, or we had to rebuild, we woƵůĚŶ͛ƚďĞĂďůĞƚŽďƵŝůĚ back those units to those heights that are there today. We have several. We have The Harbor House which is a condominium, its over fifty four feet right now in Ocean Reef Club. We have The Marlin, which is one of the ŚŽƚĞůďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƐ͕ƚŚĂƚ͛ƐĂƚĨŽƌƚǇƚǁŽĨĞĞƚ͘tĞŐŽƚƚŚĞŽůƉŚŝŶ,ŽƚĞůĂƚĨŽƌƚǇƐĞǀĞŶĨĞĞƚĂŶĚdŚĞƌĞĞŬ,ŽƵƐĞ͘tĞ ĚŝĚŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞƚŚĞŶƵŵďĞƌŽŶŝƚďƵƚǁĞŬŶŽǁƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁĞůůŽǀĞƌĨŽƌƚǇĨĞĞƚĂƐǁĞůů͘dŚĂƚ͛ƐĂŶŽƚŚĞƌĐŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵ ďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƵƉƚŚĞƌĞ͘tĞĐĂŵĞƵƉǁŝƚŚƚŚĞďŽĂƚďĂƌŶ͕ƚŚĂƚ͛ƐĂƚ thirty seven feet, the boat barn that we have up there. But there is about seven or eight buildings specifically that we thought it would be greatly impacted as we try to redevelop these properties or if we have to due to a hurricane or other issues. Some of the other issues we face is that although these are three stories and they are just pushing the height limit right now. You ŬŶŽǁ͕ŝĨǇŽƵŐĞƚƚŚƌĞĞƐƚŽƌŝĞƐƵƉƚŚĞƌĞǇŽƵ͛ƌĞĂƚƚŚŝƌƚǇĨĞĞƚĂŶĚƚŚĞŶǇŽƵŚĂǀĞĂŶĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůƌŽŽĨĞůĞŵĞŶƚ ǇŽƵ͛ƌĞĂƚƚŚŝƌƚǇƐĞǀĞŶĨĞĞƚŽƌƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐůŝŬĞƚŚĂƚ͘ůŽt of these buildings are built below flood right now so if we go to build them back, obviously ǁĞ͛ƌĞƚĂůŬŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚƐĞĂůĞǀĞůƌŝƐĞ͕ǁĞwant to encourage those buildings to be brought back up to flood. What happens is we lose a whole top level that we currently have today. We would lose almost a whole floor there out of those develoƉŵĞŶƚƐĂŶĚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐũƵƐƚŶŽƚƉŽssible to happen. So we proposed some additional policy language to put in there to protect these existing buildings that are there to be ĂďůĞƚŽďĞďƵŝůƚďĂĐŬ͘tĞŚĂǀĞŶ͛ƚƚŚŽƌŽƵŐŚůǇǀĞƚƚĞĚǁŝth staff yet at this point we have just proposed talking about the issue that I just explained. We would like and hope to support and to continue to work with staff to tweak some of this language to get into the Comp Plan to protect us on some of these issues. And the language, ŝƚĞǆĞŵƉƚƐ͕ŝƚĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚĞǆĞŵƉƚ͕ŝƚĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚŝŶĐůƵĚĞƐŝŶŐůĞfamily homes so this is only for the multi-family and ĐŽŵŵĞƌĐŝĂůƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĂƌĞƵƉƚŚĞƌĞ͕ƐŽŝƚĚŽĞƐŶ͛ƚŝŶĐůude any of the single family homes and what it says is, ͞ůĂǁĨƵůůǇĞƐƚĂďůŝƐŚĞĚƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĞǆĐůƵĚĞƐŝŶŐůĞĨĂŵŝly homes that exceed this height limit may be replaced with their existing height plus any additional height required to elevate the first finished floor two feet above ƚŚĞ&͟ƐŽĞŶĐŽƵƌĂŐŝŶŐƚŚĞŵƚŽŐŽ͕ǇŽu know, those extra two feet as well above that base flood elevation to account for future sea level rise as well. And then also that the height limit applicable to Ocean Reef and this would be an exemption for their community center building. The community center building up there right now puts on productions and theater productions and when it waƐďƵŝůƚ͕ƚŚĞǇĂƌĞŶ͛ƚĂďůĞƚŽĂƚƚƌĂĐƚĂŶĚŚĂǀĞƚŚĞƚŽƉ of the line theater groups that come in there because a lot of the sets that they have, they change throughout the production. They actually lift that whole set up to lift that whole backdrop up into the ceiling and then they ĚƌŽƉĚŽǁŶƚŚĞŶĞǁŽŶĞĂŶĚƚŚĞŝƌƚŚĞĂƚĞƌǁĂƐŶ͛ƚĂďůĞƚŽbe designed to that because of the height and so they also want that as an exclusion so that they can look to enhance that building at some point to be able to attract ƚŚŽƐĞƚǇƉĞƐŽĨƉƌŽĚƵĐƚŝŽŶƐƚŚĞƌĞ͘/͛ŵŚĞƌĞĨŽr any questions. Thank you for considering. Mayor Murphy: So the proposed additional language, Joel, is what you want, not the existing language? Joel Reed: We support the Club and the Community Association both support that existing policy language ƚŚĂƚ͛ƐŝŶƚŚĞƌĞ͙ Commissioner Carruthers: ƚŚĞŝŶƐƚŝƚƵƚŝŽŶĂůůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ͙ Joel Reed: Yeah. This is additional language, as we were talking about that five foot that was in there, that we were supportive of. You know, we started to talk about the hotels and the aging and the issues and if we did try and rebuild them back, what that would look like in ƚŚĞůŽƐƐŽĨƌŽŽŵƐĂŶĚƚŚĞĚĞǀĞůŽƉŵĞŶƚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐƚŚĞƌĞ͘ Page 2 of 12 4H Mayor Murphy: Do we have a public speaker on this? Lindsay Ballard: We do. Mayor Murphy: >Ğƚ͛ƐŚĞĂƌƚŚĞƉƵďůŝĐƐƉĞĂŬĞƌ͘ŶŽƚŚĞƌŽŶĞ͘ Lindsay Ballard: D.A. Aldridge D.A. Aldridge: /͛ŵ͘͘ůĚƌŝĚŐĞ͘/ůŝǀĞŽŶdĂǀĞƌŶŝĞƌǁŚŝĐŚŝƐƉĂrt of Kay Largo. Here we are at the last minute, a breath away from sending the Comp Plan and all of a sudden we see a very important change being requested by our Northern neighbors. The FedĞƌĂƚŝŽŶŽĨ,ŽŵĞŽǁŶĞƌ͛ƐƐƐŽĐŝĂƚŝŽŶŚĂs been very adamant about height restrictions for many years and we have continually fought for thirty five feet. We are asking at this time, I am asking at this time to have you not vote on this. We have not had the opportunity to look at the language that has been just handed to you and we feel that it needs to be reviewed very closely by the staff and by you because this is a huge change that they are requesting. Thank you. Mayor Murphy:͙dŚĂƚ͛Ɛŝƚ Commissioner Kolhage: What does the, in the final sentence when they talk about assembly group A1 and so forth, what does that mean? Christine Hurley: tĞĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁ͘ Mayor Murphy: tĞůůƚŚĞǇŚĂǀĞŶ͛ƚƐĞĞŶŝƚǇĞƚ͘dŚŝƐŝƐƚŚĞƉƌŽďůĞŵǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐ͘ Christine Hurley: Well we have seen that he emailed it but we asŬĞĚƋƵĞƐƚŝŽŶƐ͘tĞĚŝĚŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚŚĞŵĞĂŶƚ by that. Commissioner Kolhage: tĞůůďƵƚǁĞ͛ƌĞŐŽŝŶŐƚŽŚĂǀĞƚŽďĞŵŽƌĞƐƉĞĐŝĨŝĐŽŶƚŚĂƚ͘tĞ͛ůůŚĂǀĞƚŽŚĂǀĞůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞ that says exactly what it means. I think anyway. Commissioner Rice: Could we not deal with this today and deal with it in January? Christine Hurley: If you want us to address his comments, I just say get direction from the board at this point. We work on some type of language to bring back to you in January. Commissioner Rice: /ƚŚŝŶŬƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚĂƚǁĞƐŚŽƵůĚĚŽ͘ Mayor Murphy: And what happens if we then want to make changes in January? Do we hold up the whole process? Christine Hurley: I think you can legally make changes on the floor by motion before we transmit. Bob Shillinger: ƐůŽŶŐĂƐǇŽƵ͛ƌĞŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐƚŚĞŐĞŶĞƌĂůsubstance of it. The general tone of it. Mayor Murphy: tĞůůƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚĂƚ/ĂŵǁŽƌƌŝĞĚĂďŽƵƚ͘/ĨǁĞůĞt this go til January and then begin to, ya know, flesh it out and the public speaks and we all get confused and then what happens to the rest of Comp Plan because we are supposed to vote on that in January. Page 3 of 12 4H Commissioner Neugent: I would ask on issues like this because I very much agree with what was said that we just got this and I think we need some information and my question is, and there may be some more issues very similar to this that come up. Can we have another meeting discussing those particular issues before the January transmittal? Christine Hurley: Sure. We could do that. Mayor Murphy: That would be helpful. Commissioner Rice: That may be the way to approach it. Christine Hurley: The problem with holding it in November or December is the calendars are already a mess from the holidays. Commissioner Neugent: Oh my gosh we might have to do a little work. Christine Hurley: EŽ͕ƚŚĂƚ͛ƐŶŽƚǁŚĂƚ/ŵĞĂŶƚ͘/ƚ͛ƐũƵƐƚƚŚĂƚĞǀĞŶ your regular board meetings got all shifted around. Commissioner Neugent: Have it at the board meeting. End of the item discussion for a board meeting. Christine Hurley: Okay. We can do that. Mayor Murphy: We can do that. Commissioner Neugent: ŶŽƚŚĞƌƚŚŝŶŐƐƚŚĂƚ͛ƐŝŶƚŚŝƐƌŝŐŚƚŚĞƌĞĂƐ/ƌĞĂĚŝƚ͕ĨŽƌĐůĂƌŝĨŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƉƵƌƉŽƐĞƐ͕ ͞ĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĚĞĐŽƌĂƚŝŶŐĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƚŚĂƚĞǆĐĞĞĚƚŚĞƚŚŝƌƚǇfive foot height limit but such features shall not exceed ĨŝǀĞĨĞĞƚĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƌŽŽĨůŝŶĞ͟:ŽĞůĂůƐŽŵĞntioned that some of these buildings are already, I guess they would be legal non-conforming because they are abŽǀĞƚŚĞŚĞŝŐŚƚůŝŵŝƚ͕ƐŽǁŚĞŶǇŽƵƐĂǇ͞ĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐƐŚĂůů ŶŽƚĞǆĐĞĞĚĨŝǀĞĨĞĞƚĂďŽǀĞƚŚĞƐƚƌƵĐƚƵƌĞƐƌŽŽĨůŝŶĞ͟ǁŚĂƚƌŽŽĨůŝŶĞĂƌĞǁĞƚĂůŬŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚ͍dŚĞŽŶĞƚŚĂƚ͛ƐĂůƌĞĂĚǇ non-conforming? Or thirty five feet, shall not exceed fiǀĞĨĞĞƚĂďŽǀĞƚŚŝƌƚǇĨŝǀĞĨĞĞƚ͍dŚĂƚ͛ƐŶŽƚƚŚĞǁĂǇ/ necessarily interpret that. Mayor Murphy: ĞĐĂƵƐĞŝĨŝƚ͛ƐƚŚĞĨŝĨƚǇĨŽƵƌĨŽŽƚďƵŝůĚŝŶŐ͕ǁĞ͛ƌĞŶŽǁĂƚĨŝĨƚǇŶŝŶĞ͙ Christine Hurley: /ƚ͛ƐŶŽƚƚŚŽƵŐŚ͘dŚŝƐŝƐŵĞant for new development that cannot exceed thirty five feet. Commissioner Neugent: tĞůůǁŚĂƚŚĂƉƉĞŶƐ͙ Christine Hurley: Joel has added in and what he is really asking you to do, is in simple terms, and I think it could be very simplified, is agree that existing, non-conforming buildings that are at a height greater than thirty five ĨĞĞƚ͕ďĞĂůůŽǁĞĚƚŽƌĞďƵŝůĚƚŽƚŚĂƚŚĞŝŐŚƚƉůƵƐ͙ Commissioner Neugent: /ĚŝĚŶ͛ƚŚĞĂƌĂŶǇďŽĚǇďƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƵƉ͙ Christine Hurley:dŚĂƚ͛ƐƌĞĂůůǇǁŚĂƚŚĞŝƐĂƐŬŝŶŐƚŚŽƵŐŚ͘ Commissioner Rice: tĞůůƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚĂƚƚŚŝƐƌĞĂůůǇƐĂǇƐ Page 4 of 12 4H Mayor Murphy: Plus what? Christine Hurley: plus, let him adjust, like we already have a provision in here, for another five feet, if they need to raise the elevation for FEMA floodplain issues. Mayor Murphy: Fine, but not for decorative features. Christine Hurley: tĞůůŚĞƚĂůŬĞĚĂďŽƵƚĚĞĐŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂůƐŽ͕ďƵƚŚĞĚĞĨŝŶŝƚĞůǇƐƉŽŬĞĂďŽƵƚ͙ Mayor Murphy: tĞůůůĞƚ͛ƐŐĞƚŝƚĚŽǁŶƉĂƚ͘ Christine Hurley: tĞůůǁĞǁŝůůƚƌǇƚŽďƵƚǁĞŐŽƚŚŝƐůĂŶŐƵĂŐĞĂĐŽƵƉůĞĚĂǇƐĂŐŽĂŶĚ͙ Mayor Murphy: Well his language is kind of going in a figure eight. Commissioner Kolhage: I understand what they are saying. In other words, he wants to maintain what they have now with an adjustment. Christine Hurley: zĞƐ͘/ƚŚŝŶŬƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚĂƚŚĞŝƐĂƐŬŝŶŐ͘ Commissioner Kolhage: And I think that is reasonable. Mayor Murphy: To replace a building, an older building that was built over thirty five feet, have a problem with that anywhere in Monroe County. It is what it is, we͛ƌĞĂůůƵƐĞĚƚŽŝƚ͕ŝƚ͛ƐƉĂƌƚŽĨƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ͘ Commissioner Neugent: Clarification on what you just said Mayor Murphy: I do not object to any of the older buildings that were built above thirty five feet. We all have them in our neighborhoods. If they need to be replaced or have to be replaced, /ĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞĂƉƌŽďůĞŵǁŝƚŚ them maintaining the height. Commissioner Neugent: Hold on a minute there. Is there anything in our code, and I would use this as an ĂŶĂůŽŐǇ͕&D͛ƐĚĞƐĐƌŝƉƚŝŽŶŽĨŝƚ͕ŝĨŝƚƐĚĂŵĂŐĞĚďǇŵŽƌĞ than fifty percent, it has to be rebuilt, that is there anything in our code or Comp Plan that says that it then can be built over thirty five feet? Mayor Murphy: No, No. Christine Hurley: KŬĂǇ͕ƚŽĚĂǇ͕ĚŽŶ͛ƚŵŝǆĂƉƉůĞƐĂŶĚŽƌĂŶŐĞƐ͘dŽday our code does not allow us to approve a building permit above thirty five feet. If the structure is destroyed beyond fifty percent, they then have to conform to the new code, which is the thirty five foot heŝŐŚƚůŝŵŝƚ͘ŶĚŝĨŝƚ͛Ɛdestroyed beyond fifty percent under the floodplain rules, they have to raise the elevĂƚŝŽŶĂŶĚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚǇƚŚĞǇĂĚĚĞĚƚŚŝƐŽƚŚĞƌƉŽƐŝƚŝŽŶ͘ Commissioner Neugent: I understand the apples and oranges thing that I just plugged into it as an analogy but ǁŚĂƚ/ĂŵƐĂǇŝŶŐŝƐ͕ŚĂǀĞǁĞŚĂĚƚŚĂƚĚŝƐĐƵƐƐŝŽŶ͍zŽƵũƵƐƚƐĂŝĚ͕ĂƚůĞĂƐƚŵǇŝŶƚĞƌƉƌĞƚĂƚŝŽŶ͕ƚŚĂƚǇŽƵĐĂŶ͛ƚďƵŝůĚ ǁŚĂƚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌDƵƌƉŚǇũƵƐƚƐĂŝĚ͙ Christine Hurley: zŽƵĐĂŶ͛ƚ͘dŚĂƚŝƐǁŚĂƚ:ŽĞůŝƐĂƐŬŝŶŐǇŽƵƚŽĐŚĂŶŐĞ͘ Page 5 of 12 4H Commissioner Neugent: So we need to have that discussion. Commissioner Carruthers: ŶĚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚǇǁĞŚĂǀĞƚŚĞĨƵƌƚŚĞƌƚŚŝŶg about flood protection and height exceptions. Go to 105.5.32. We added that so that we would allow people to exceed the thirty five feet when they have to, to create enough free board to comply with FEMA regulations. Commissioner Neugent: /͛ŵŶŽƚƚĂůŬŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚďĂƐĞĨůŽŽĚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ͘ Commissioner Carruthers: but that is the crunch that you are getting into. When the Mayor says that you can rebuild a building at the height it is today, but we have a thirty five foot limit and FEMA says you gotta raise your building five feet, you lose a story. Commissioner Neugent: that addresses one part of it. The other part that is not being addressed in my opinion, is do we have anything, are we proposing that then a fifty four foot high building could be rebuilt to fifty four feet. Christine Hurley: Joel is proposing that. Commissioner Neugent: ŶĚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚĂƚ/ĂŵĂƐŬŝŶŐƚŚŝƐŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶ. Is that where we want to go with that? Commissioner Carruthers: tĞůů͕/ŵĞĂŶ͕ŝĨǁĞĚŽŶ͛ƚĂůůŽǁƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽĚŽƚŚĂƚ͕ŝƐŶ͛ƚƚŚĂƚĞƐƐĞŶƚŝĂůůǇĂƚĂŬŝŶŐ͍/ ŵĞĂŶǇŽƵǁŽƵůĚďĞ͙ƚŚŝŶŬĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞƌĞĂůůŝĨĞĞĐŽŶŽŵŝĐĐŽŶƐĞƋƵĞŶĐĞƐŽĨ͙ Bob Shillinger: dŚĞƌĞŵĂǇďĞƐŽŵĞĞƌƚ,ĂƌƌŝƐŝŵƉůŝĐĂƚŝŽŶƐďƵƚŝƚ͛ƐĂĚŝĨĨĞƌĞŶƚĂŶĂůǇƐŝƐ͘ Commissioner Kolhage: What we are considering here is because of the isolated and specific nature of Ocean Reef, do we want to make an exception here? Commissioner Neugent: And can I tag onto that Commissioner Kolhage? Municipalities have the right, if I misspeak correct me, to go above thirty five feet if they choose to. Marathon has gone above thirty five feet, I think Key West has a height limit above thirty five feet, but based on what Commissioner Kolhage just said, and I want to hear some arguments otherwise, Ocean Reef is an isolated area, miles away from anyone else and a gated community, albeit in unincorporated Monroe County, ƚŚĞǇ͛ƌĞǀĞƌǇƐŝŵŝůĂƌƚŽĂŵƵŶŝĐŝƉĂůŝƚǇǁŝƚŚĂĐŝƚǇ type manager, that do we want to be so parental if they have no objections internally amongst themselves to keep them from rebuilding above thirty five feet or changing some things that they have gone through the public input locally with their gated community. Do we want to impose our thoughts on how Ocean Reef should be run? Commissioner Rice: /ĚŽŶ͛ƚƚŚŝŶŬǁĞĂƌĞƚƌǇŝŶŐƚŽĚŽƚŚĂƚ͘ Mayor Murphy:/ĚŽŶ͛ƚĞŝƚŚĞƌ͘Ƶƚ/ǁŝůůƚĞůůyou, my feeling is, in many, many instances, what Ocean Reef wants to do up there because they are away ĨƌŽŵĞǀĞƌǇŽŶĞ͕/͛ǀĞĂŐƌĞĞĚǁŝƚŚ͘dŚĞǇ͛ǀĞŚĂĚŐŽŽĚŝĚĞĂƐ͕ŶŽƉƌŽďůĞŵĂŶĚ they do it. However when it comes to things like the height limit that everyone in this county is interested in, every developer is watching, and a lot of the homeownersĂƌĞǁĂƚĐŚŝŶŐ͘/ĐĂŶ͛ƚĚŽƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐĨŽƌƚŚĞŵƚŚĂƚ/ ǁŽŶ͛ƚĚŽĨŽƌƚŚĞƌĞƐƚŽĨƚŚĞĐŽƵŶƚǇ͘ŶĚ/ǁŝůůŐŽƚŽƚŚe extent that these buildings that Joel is talking about, were built when there was no height limit actually. If this comes down either in a hurricane or they want to Page 6 of 12 4H ƌĞŵŽĚĞůŝƚ͕/ĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞĂƉƌŽďůĞŵǁŝƚŚthem rebuilding to the height it was. /ĚŽŶ͛ƚƚŚŝŶŬŝƚƌƵŝŶƐƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ because we have had thirty/forty years of looking at it. And therefore, everyone else in the county can also rebuild the over thirty five feet structures they have. Most of them are commercial structures. Commissioner Kolhage: Okay can I ask you a question Mayor so I can more or less understand your position? So ǇŽƵ͛ƌĞƐĂǇŝŶŐ͕ǇŽƵĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞĂƉƌŽďůĞŵǁŝƚŚƚŚĞŵƌĞďƵŝlding to the height that they are now but you mean without the adjustment for base flood elevation or with it? Mayor Murphy: No, because everyone in the county is going to get that adjustment. Commissioner Kolhage: ^ŽǇŽƵĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞĂŶŽďũĞĐƚŝŽŶƚŽŝƚ͍ Mayor Murphy: Not to that. I have an objection to the decorative features. Commissioner Kolhage: KŬĂǇďƵƚůŽŽŬ͕ŝĨŝƚ͛Ɛ͕ŝĨƚŚĞǇŐŽƚĂĨŝĨƚǇĨŽot building and there is a five foot adjustment ĨŽƌďĂƐĞĨůŽŽĚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ͕ǇŽƵĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞĂƉƌoblem with them going to fifty five feet? Mayor Murphy: No. Commissioner Kolhage: Okay. Mayor Murphy: They are going to what thĞǇǁĞƌĞďĞĨŽƌĞƚŚĞƌĞŵŽĚĞů͙ Christine Hurley: and you want it county wide not just for Ocean Reef? Mayor Murphy: Yes. Commissioner Carruthers:ƵƚŽŶůǇĨŽƌĨůŽŽĚŵŝƚŝŐĂƚŝŽŶ͙ Mayor Murphy: dŚĂƚ͛Ɛŝƚ͕ŶŽĚĞĐŽƌĂƚŝǀĞƐƚƵĨĨ͘ Christine Hurley: tĞůůƌŝŐŚƚŶŽǁƚŚĞĚĞĐŽƌĂƚŝǀĞŝƐŝŶ͕ƚŚĞĨůŽŽĚŝƐŝŶ͙ Commissioner Carruthers: Well the decorative is in for Ocean Reef only, the flood is in for everyone. Right? Christine Hurley: Yeah and the decorative is not so much what Joel is talking about relative to the bigger commercial buildings, its more for the single family homes that want the decorative features on top of the roof. They are separate issues really. So right now in the draft policy you have included an extra five feet in Ocean ZĞĞĨĨŽƌƚŚĞĚĞĐŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ͕ǇŽƵ͛ǀĞŝŶcluded for the whole county up to five feet adjustments for flood protection, raising your elevations, and Joel is asking you to also include, for Ocean Reef, but it sounds like you at least have one Commissioner who wants to do it county wide for grandfathering existing buildings that are higher than thirty five feet and allowing them to get the flood adjustment. Bob Shillinger: zŽƵ͛ĚǁĂŶƚƚŽǀĞƐƚƚŚĞŵĨŽƌƚŚĂƚŚĞŝŐŚƚŝƐǁŚĂƚ/͛ŵŚĞĂƌŝŶŐ͘ Christine Hurley: zƵƉ͘Ƶƚ/ĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁƚŚĞŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶƐ͕/͛ŵŶŽƚŐĞƚƚŝŶŐ͙ Page 7 of 12 4H Commissioner Neugent: Well first of all the staff is supposed to review what the request is and bring it back the staff recommendation Christine Hurley: Ƶƚ/͛ĚůŝŬĞƚŽŬŶŽǁǁŚĂƚƚŚĞďŽĂƌĚ͕ĐŽƵŶƚǇǁŝĚĞŽƌKĐĞĂŶZĞĞĨĨŽƌƚŚŝƐǀĞƐƚŝŶŐŽĨĞǆŝƐƚŝŶŐ buildings at least. Commissioner Rice: tĞůůůĞƚŵĞŚĞůƉǇŽƵŽƵƚ͕ŝĨǁĞĚŽŶ͛ƚĚŽthat, the economic impact, eventually we will destroy what we know down here. I doŶ͛ƚĨĞĞůƚŚĂƚǁĞŚĂǀĞĂŶǇĐŚŽŝĐĞ͘ Commissioner Carruthers: /ĚŽŶ͛ƚƚŚŝŶŬŝƚ͛ƐĨĂŝƌ͙/ĚŽŶ͛ƚƚŚŝŶŬŝƚ͛ƐĨĂŝƌ to not let somebody rebuild what they got. As it is when they do rebuild they have to meet standards that exist today that did not, and codes that exist today that did not exist then. Christine Hurley: I understand what you all are asking for so if you want to just move on without voting, we will draft language and bring it back for discussion on one of your regular agendas. Commissioner Neugent: Let me point this out, as someone who operated out of an illegal non-conforming building, if you think that it is something that is, it ǁĂƐĐĂůůĞĚWŽƌŬǇ͛ƐƌĞƐƚĂƵƌĂŶƚ͕ĂŶĚŝĨǁŽƵůĚŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶ destroyed by a storm, I would have had a very difficult time, if not impossible time to rebuild with the same amount of square footage because of setbacks that came inƚŽƉůĂǇĂĨƚĞƌWŽƌŬǇ͛ƐǁĂƐďƵŝůƚĞŽŶƐĂŐŽ͘^ŽŝĨǇŽƵ think that there is a fairness level here, there is ƌĞĂůůǇĂůŽƚŽĨƐŝƚƵĂƚŝŽŶƐǁŚĞƌĞǇŽƵĐĂŶ͛ƚƌĞďƵŝůĚ͘ Commissioner Carruthers: ďƵƚǁŽƵůĚŶ͛ƚǇŽƵŚĂǀĞďĞĞŶĂďůĞƚŽĂƉƉůy for variances and exceptions to those ƐĞƚďĂĐŬƐ͙ Christine Hurley: No. Commissioner Neugent: You still would have had to meet the setback requirements. Christine Hurley: You could apply for variance for a setback but not height. Mayor Murphy: See well all we are talking about is height. Not their setbacks. Not anything else. Commissioner Kolhage: tĞ͛ƌĞƚĂůŬŝŶŐĂďŽƵƚĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐƚŚĞǁŚŽůĞĐŽŶĐĞƉƚŽĨƚŚĞĨŝĨƚǇƉĞƌĐĞŶƚƌƵůĞ͘ Christine Hurley: EŽ/ƵŶĚĞƌƐƚĂŶĚ͙ Commissioner Kolhage: ,ŽǁĚŽĞƐŝƚǁŽƌŬ͍&ŽƌŚĞŝŐŚƚ͙ǁĞ͛ƌĞƐĂǇŝŶŐǁĞ͛ƌĞǁĂƐŚŝŶŐĂǁĂǇƚŚĞĨŝĨƚǇƉĞƌĐĞŶƚƌƵůĞ͘ Christine Hurley: tĞůůŽƚŚĞƌƚŚŝŶŐƐĞŶƚĞƌŝŶƚŽ͙͘ĨŽƌŚĞŝŐŚƚǇŽƵǁŽƵůĚďĞǁĂƐŚŝŶŐŝƚĂǁĂǇ͘ Bob Shillinger: As a trigger for bringing it into compliance with current code Christine Hurley: There are still other things that apply to that but most of those can be remedied by a variance. Commissioner Carruthers: and just to clarify what you are eluding to I think, Commissioner, is that someone ĐĂŶĞůĞǀĂƚĞƚŚĞŝƌďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŶŽǁ͘ŶĚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐŶŽƚnecessarily fifty percent improvement. Right? Page 8 of 12 4H Christine Hurley: I mean if you are elevating a building, ǇŽƵ͛ƌĞƵƐƵĂůůǇƚƌŝŐŐĞƌŝŶŐƚŚĂƚƉƌŝĐĞ͙ Commissioner Carruthers: Well it depends on the building and the cost Commissioner Kolhage: and the whole destruction issue and the fiftǇƉĞƌĐĞŶƚĂŶĚƚŚĂƚ͛Ɛ͙͘/͛ŵŶŽƚŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌŝůǇ ƐĂǇŝŶŐ/ŚĂǀĞĂƉƌŽďůĞŵǁŝƚŚƚŚĂƚďƵƚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚĂƚǁĞ͛ƌĞĚŽŝŶŐ Christine Hurley: And I will say the examples that Joel gave of thĞĐŽŶĚŽŵŝŶŝƵŵƐ͕ǁŚĞŶǇŽƵ͕ůĞƚ͛ƐƐĂǇŚĂǀĞĞŝŐŚƚ units per floor and now you have a storm that destroys more than fifty percent of that building, you are eliminating the possibility of one of those floors, because you are going to have to elevate it and that means ĞŝŐŚƚĐŽŶĚŽŽǁŶĞƌƐĚŽŶ͛ƚŐĞƚĂƵŶŝƚĂŶĚƐŽƚŚĂƚ͛ƐƌĞůĂted to the Bert Jay Harris that Bob referred to Commissioner Carruthers: Everybody gets a smaller unit which ŝƐƐƚŝůůŐŽŝŶŐƚŽďĞĂŶŝƐƐƵĞƐŽ͙ Christine Hurley: dŚĂƚ͛ƐƵŶĚĞƌŽƵƌĐƵƌƌĞŶƚƌƵůĞƐ͘ Commissioner Rice: ŶĚǁŚĂƚǁĞ͛ƌĞƚƌǇŝŶŐƚŽĚŽŝƐǀĂůŝĚĂƚĞ͕ǇŽƵĚŽŶ͛ƚǁĂŶƚƚŽďƵŝůĚĂĨŝĨƚǇǇĞĂƌďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŽƌƐŝǆƚǇ year building without accommodating expected sea level rise Commissioner Carruthers: I guess my only other comment is that I know that this is going to be controversial and people are going to be concerned ĂďŽƵƚĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌĂŶĚƚŚŝŶŐƐůŝŬĞƚŚĂƚ͙ Mayor Murphy: Ƶƚŝƚ͛ƐĂůƌĞĂĚǇƚŚĞƌĞ͘ Commissioner Carruthers: tĞůůŝƚŝƐĂůƌĞĂĚǇƚŚĞƌĞ͙ Mayor Murphy: ^Žŝƚ͛ƐŶŽƚĐŚĂŶŐŝŶŐƚŚĞůĂŶĚƐĐĂƉĞ͙ Commissioner Carruthers: /ƚ͛ƐŶŽƚďƵƚƚƌƵƐƚŵĞĨƌŽŵĚĞĂůŝŶŐǁŝƚŚƚŚŝƐŝŶ<ĞǇtĞƐƚƉĞŽƉůĞŚĂǀĞƚŚĞƉĞƌĐĞƉƚŝŽŶ that overnight the character of our communities is ŐŽŝŶŐƚŽĐŚĂŶŐĞĂŶĚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐŶŽƚǁŚĂƚǁĞ͛ƌĞƚĂůŬŝŶŐ ĂďŽƵƚ͙KǀĞƌĨŝĨƚǇǇĞĂƌƐŝƚƉƌŽďĂďůǇǁŝůůƚŽƐŽŵĞĞǆƚĞŶƚďƵƚŝƚ͛ƐŐŽŝŶŐƚŽŚĂǀĞƚŽŝĨǁĞǁĂŶƚƚŽĐŽŶƚŝŶƵĞƚŽůŝǀĞ here. Mayor Murphy: ůƌŝŐŚƚůŝƐƚĞŶǁĞ͛ƌĞŐŽŝŶŐƚŽƚĂŬĞĂďƌĞĂŬ ͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͙͘͘ Mayor Murphy: And what I realized is we neglected to give Christine a head nod one way or the other on the non-habitable architectural decorative features. My comment was, I will vote for the increase in height but not for the decorative features. Discuss it and let her know which direction you would like her to take when she does her staff report. Commissioner Carruthers: Are you talking about within Ocean Reef or County wide? Mayor Murphy: They are the only ones that asked for it. Commissioner Carruthers: /ĚŽŶ͛ƚƌĞĂůůǇĐĂƌĞ͘ Page 9 of 12 4H Commissioner Neugent: tĞ͛ůůƉƵƚƚŽŐĞƚŚĞƌƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŝƐŐŽŝŶŐƚŽbe in place for twenty years or at least supposedly it should be put in place so this is going to be hard and complex so I would say that the data and information on it being done county wide. Mayor Murphy: ƵƚƚŚĞƉŽŝŶƚŝƐ͕ǁŚĂƚĐŽƵŶƚǇǁŝĚĞ͍/ĚŽŶ͛ƚĐĂƌĞŝĨŝƚƐĐŽƵŶƚǇǁŝĚĞ͕ŝŶĨĂĐƚŝƚŚĂƐƚŽďĞ͘&ŽƌŵĞ ƚŽǀŽƚĞĨŽƌĂŚĞŝŐŚƚůŝŵŝƚ͕ŝƚŚĂƐƚŽďĞĐŽƵŶƚǇǁŝĚĞ͘KƚŚĞƌǁŝƐĞ͕/͛ŵŶŽƚŐŽŝŶŐƚŽǀŽƚĞĨŽƌŝƚ͘ Christine Hurley: KŬĂǇǁĂŝƚĂŵŝŶƵƚĞ͕ŶŽŽŶĞŚĂƐƉƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ͕ŵĂǇďĞƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚĞƌĞǇŽƵ͛ƌĞŐŽŝŶŐŶĞǆƚ/ĚŽŶ͛ƚŬŶŽǁ͕ ƌŝŐŚƚŶŽǁǁŚĂƚ͛ƐŝŶǇŽƵƌĚƌĂĨƚŝƐĨůŽŽĚĨŽƌĞǀĞƌǇďŽĚǇ͙ Mayor Murphy: ĂƐĞĨůŽŽĚĞůĞǀĂƚŝŽŶ͙ Christine Hurley: They have talked about it, I am very clear, everyone is okay with that. Ocean Reef only, ĚĞĐŽƌĂƚŝǀĞĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐ͕ĨŝǀĞĂĚĚŝƚŝŽŶĂůĨĞĞƚ͘ŶĚ/ĚŝĚŶ͛ƚŚĞĂƌ͕/ŚĞĂƌĚDƵƌƉŚǇƐĂǇƐŚĞ͛ƐŽƉƉŽƐĞĚƚŽŝƚďƵƚ/ĚŝĚŶ͛ƚ hear what any of you other Commissioners thought of that. Mayor Murphy: ŶĚƚŚĂƚ͛ƐǁŚĂƚ/ĂŵƚƌǇŝŶŐto bring out so that she knows where to go with it. Commissioner Neugent: I thought I heard you ask, you wanted a head nod whether this was going to be proposed just for Ocean Reef or all of unincorporated Monroe County. Christine Hurley: I had never heard that the decorative features was proposed for all of Monroe County from you all. ŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌZŝĐĞĂŶĚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌ<ŽůŚĂŐĞƌĞƐƉŽŶĚŝŶƵŶŝƐŽŶ͗EŽ͕ŶŽ͙ Commissioner Neugent:KŬĂǇďƵƚ/ĂůƐŽŚĞĂƌĚŽŵŵŝƐƐŝŽŶĞƌDĂǇŽƌDƵƌƉŚǇƐĂǇ͕/͛ŵŶŽƚŐŽŝŶŐƚŽƚƌĞĂƚƚŚĞŵ any different than the rest of the County. Commissioner Rice: Well that gives you a slight clue as to how she might vote. Christine Hurley: ^ŽǁŚĂƚ/ƚŚŝŶŬ/͛ǀĞŐŽƚƚĞŶĐůĂƌŝƚǇŽŶŝƐĞǀĞƌǇďŽĚǇ͛ƐŽŬĂǇĂůůŽǁŝŶŐƚŚĞƉĞŽƉůĞƚŽŐĞƚĨŝǀĞŽĨƚŚĞ five feet to adjust the floodplain if they are demolished. The board wants us to draft language to address existing structures that are already over thirty five feet to be able to be replaced with the five foot flood ĂĚũƵƐƚŵĞŶƚ͘tŚĂƚ/ĚŽŶ͛ƚŚĂǀĞĂŶǇĐůĂƌŝƚǇŽŶŝƐǁŚĞƚŚer or not the board wants us to keep in Ocean Reef allowance for five foot additional architectural decorative features or not. Or if you want to expand that County wide, which I had never heard as an option to this moment. Commissioner Kolhage: Let me just state my position on this and you can go down the line I guess but I really ĚŽŶ͛ƚĐĂƌĞĂďŽƵƚƚŚĞĂƌĐŚŝƚĞĐƚƵƌĂůĨĞĂƚƵƌĞƐŽĨKĐĞĂŶZĞĞĨ͘/͛ǀĞƚƌŝĞĚƚŽĐĂƌĞďƵƚ/ũƵƐƚĐĂŶ͛ƚ͘Ƶƚ/ĂŵĂůŝƚƚůĞ ĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚ͕/͛ŵĂůŝƚƚůĞĐŽŶĐĞƌŶĞĚĂďŽƵƚĚŽŝŶŐĂǁĂǇǁŝƚŚour fifty percent rule on thĞƌĞƐƚŽĨƚŚĞŽƵŶƚǇĂŶĚ/͛ŵ not saying that I am going to support that. Commissioner Neugent: /͛ŵŶŽƚƐĂǇŝŶŐƚŚĂƚ/ĂŵŐŽŝŶŐƚŽƐƵƉƉŽƌƚĂŶǇƚŚŝŶŐ͘/͛ŵƐĂǇŝŶŐ/ũƵƐƚǁĂŶƚƚŚĞ information to be able to make the decision, have the discussions with the people who are going to speak for and against it. Page 10 of 12 4H Mayor Murphy: And my only point with the architectural features͕/ĚŽŶ͛ƚƚŚŝŶŬƚŚĞǇĂƌĞŶĞĐĞƐƐĂƌǇ͕ďƵƚŝĨũƵƐƚ ĨŽƌKĐĞĂŶZĞĞĨ͕/ĚŽŶ͛ƚǁĂŶƚƚŚĞŵĐĞƌƚĂŝŶůǇƐƉƌĞĂĚall over Monroe County and if you do that you are guaranteeing somebody an extra ten feet. Five feet for the base flood elevation, up to five feet, and then up to another five feet for their decorative stuff, plus what ƚŚĞǇ͛ůůďĞƌĞďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŝƐƐŽŵĞƚŚŝŶŐƚŚĂƚŝƐǇŽƵŬŶŽǁ͕ĨŝĨƚǇ feet, fifty four feet, whatever. Its adding ten feet ƚŽŝƚŝŶƐƚĞĂĚŽĨĨŝǀĞ͘/ƚŚŝŶŬƚŚĂƚ͛ƐĂďŝƚŵƵĐŚ͘ Commissioner Neugent: At what point in time do we bring up what was brought up previously about addressing affordable housing, increaƐŝŶŐƚŚĞŚĞŝŐŚƚůŝŵŝƚ͙dŚŝƐŝƐĂůůĂďout bringing information back to us. Christine Hurley: This is the time to bring that up if you want to. Commissioner Neugent: And I just, looking back in history a little bit here, there were some comments that Meridian West could have had another floor which would have increased the housing if they had gone up an additional foot or so. So again, more information to discuss that strictly for affordable housing. Christine Hurley: Yes and at the meeting that State Representative Raschein held, you all discussed that. We do not have anything included right now in this policy for increased height for affordable housing. We have ĚŝƐĐƵƐƐĞĚŝƚĂƐƐƚĂĨĨĂĨƚĞƌǇŽƵŚĂĚƚŚĂƚŵĞĞƚŝŶŐ͘/ƚ͛ƐŽƵr opinion that if you are going to incentivize affordable housing development by giving them a higher height limit that you should restrict that to very low and low maybe median, but the moderate income level is something that we do not think should be incentivized with a height increase. Commissioner Neugent: One of the biggest problems in dealing with affordable housing is the property to build them on. Another reason why I think the discussion should take place for affordable housing to go up is that if you can build more on that specific site as opposed to trying to find other properties to build affordable housing on. It helps resolve that part of the equation. Commissioner Kolhage: So what are you going to do with that Christine? Between now and January? Christine Hurley: Do you want us to include something for you to consider relative to affordable in the next version that we bring to you at your regular meeting for discussion? Commissioner Rice: I do. Commissioner Carruthers: I do. Christine Hurley: Okay. Commissioner Kolhage: /ƌĞŵĂŝŶƚŽďĞĐŽŶǀŝŶĐĞĚ͙ Commissioner Rice: /͛ŵŶŽƚƐƵƌĞŚŽǁ/ĨĞĞůĂďŽƵƚŝƚďƵƚ/ƚŚink we do need to have the discussion. Christine Hurley: ŶĚ/͛ŵŐŽŝŶŐƚŽŚĂǀĞƐŽŵĞĚŝĂŐƌĂŵƐĨŽƌǇŽƵĂůůby the next meeting with each policy so you can see what that means. Commissioner Carruthers: Will you also, related to this policy with affordable, that would have to be in very specific tiered areas obviously. Page 11 of 12 4H Christine Hurley: I understand. I will bring that also. Commissioner Kolhage: /ƚ͛ƐĂůůĂďŽƵƚƉŽƚĞŶƚŝĂůƐĞƌŝŽƵƐĐŽŵŵƵŶŝƚǇĐŚĂƌĂĐƚĞƌŝƐƐƵĞƐŚĞƌĞ͘ Page 12 of 12 4I MEMORANDUM MCP&ERD ONROE OUNTY LANNING NVIRONMENTAL ESOURCES EPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Mayté Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: March 17, 2015 Subject: AN 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 ADDRESSNON-HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONSTO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TOPROTECT 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 THE 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. Meeting:March 24, 2015 I.REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non-habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; create 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 create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or employee/workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as tier 3. File 2015-006Page 1of 20 4I II.BACKGROUND INFORMATION 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 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 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. •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 DEO. The BOCC directed staffto maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. III.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, heightand gradeare defined as follows: HEIGHT is defined as: thevertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna, flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated y. in this section shall not appl GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the File 2015-006Page 2of 20 4I county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre-construction boundary surveys with elevations, pre-construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates and/or other optical remote sensing data. Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of: height = the vertical distance In this depiction,the crown of the nearest road directly between grade and the highest part of any structure. adjacent to the structure is than natural elevation of the ground surface(prior to construction, next to higher the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in measuring the vertical distance of the structure. Height limit For this example,a 3 story The vertical distance home may be developed between grade (crown of within the 35 foot height road, based on definition, limit and the flood zone of for this example) and the AE 5ft highest part of the structure =Height Crown of the road 2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendationsto amend and expand the height policyhave been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing,is attached (Exhibit 1). File 2015-006Page 3of 20 4I OCEAN REEF-architectural decorative features: Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessibleto the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow’s walk)that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure’s roof-line.Thisexception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. Policy 101.5.31 Draftis intended to addressnon-habitable architectural decorative featureswhich are commonly applied for in the Ocean Reef community and the issues this causes inpermitting relative to the architectural decorative features. 40’ 0” Yellow = symbol fora non-habitable architectural decorative feature This type of exemption would be to address items such as balls,finials,orawidow’s walk File 2015-006Page 4of 20 4I FLOOD PROTECTIONAND INSURANCE DISCOUNTS: Policy 101.5.32 In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows: exceed 1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to the structure’s minimum required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE)based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. For existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 meet and/or exceed and are voluntarily elevated to the structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 3. Existingstructures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the meet structure to the structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.32 Draftis intended to help protect structures from flood events, mitigate upcoming FEMA flood zone height changes, mitigate rising insurance costs for the property owner and assist with flood insurance rate discounts in the Community Rating System. The discussed height exception would allow structures to be elevatedhigher than the required minimum FEMA base flood elevation which could then allow property owners to obtain discounts on their insurance and help mitigate potential flooding damage. See the following example on flood insurance discounts: EXAMPLE: PreFIRM “A” Zone $250k building coverage $2k deductible File 2015-006Page 5of 20 4I Policy 101.5.32 For draft whichcreates theFlood Protection Height exception, the BOCC expressed concerns with a property owner’sabilityto either build or elevate their homes without losing living space (i.e. reducing the number of stories of the structure) and being squeezed into smaller homes. To try and determine if this is an issue with the proposed policy exception,which would allow an additional 5 feet in height, County staff has evaluated the number of properties per flood zone []and followingFlood Zonetable created basicillustrations []to depict how the current height following 4 page Flood Zone Height Analysis limit,per flood zone,may affect proposed development,and examples with the flood protection height exception. Based on the information in the Flood Zone table, it is noted that the majorityof parcels within unincorporated Monroe Countyfall within the AE 7 to AE 11 flood zones. There are 44,910 parcels within these flood zones, out of anestimated 56,843total parcels within unincorporated Monroe County (79% of the total parcels arewithin AE 7 to AE 11). Based on the informationin the Flood Zone Height Analysis, generally: In flood zones X through AE 10 or VE 10[], a three (3)story structure may approx. 47,158 parcels be developed. In flood zones AE 11 (VE 11) through AE 20 (VE 20)[], a two (2)story approx. 9,330 parcels structure may be developed. For flood zones AE 21 (VE 21) and greater[],aone (1) story structure may be approx. 19parcels developed. Thegeneralized commentsare made based upon the provided examples,within the Flood Zone Height Analysis,with crown of road at 5ft and used as the starting point (grade) for measuring height. Land Development Code HEIGHT is defined as: thevertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure…. GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher…. File 2015-006Page 6of 20 4I FLOOD ZONE TABLE FEMA Flood ZoneNumber of Parcels% of total % of total X1,9353.40% 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 5.16% CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD9991.76% AE 510.00% AE 61,9643.46% AE 78,99615.83% AE 814,82426.08% AE 911,27219.83% AE 106,83512.02% 83.48% AE 112,9835.25% AE 121210.21% AE 134180.74% AE 14360.06% AE 1530.01% AE 1610.00% VE 950.01% 3 story VE 103270.58% VE 111,0191.79% VE 121,4432.54% VE 131,0691.88% VE 141,8153.19% VE 153520.62% VE 16310.05% 10.76% VE 17330.06% VE 1950.01% VE 2010.00% VE 2180.01% VE 2270.01% VE 2310.00% VE 2410.00% VE 2620.00% OPEN WATER100.02% total parcels 56,843 Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different assome of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. File 2015-006Page 7of 20 4I Flood Zone Height Analysis 8202 File 2015-006Fil 201Page of e5of 006Page80 - 4I Flood Zone Height Analysis 920 File 2015-006Fil 201Page of e5of 006Page920 - 4I Flood Zone Height Analysis 101202 File 2015-006Fil 201Page of e5of 006PPPPageP00 PPP PP PP PP P P P - P 4I Flood Zone Height Analysis 1111202 File 2015-006Fil 201Page of e5of 006PPPPPPageP0 PPP PP P PP PP -PPP P 4I EXISTING STRUCTURES: Policy 101.5.33 A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1.For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in meet and/or exceed Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to the structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount ofvoluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of morethan five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily meet elevate the structurethe structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.33 For draft which creates the height exception fora lawfully established existing structure which currently exceedsthe 35 foot height limit to be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height andprovides a Flood Protection Height Exception to elevate the structure to meet and/or exceed the required FEMA BFE. Example 1:exceed 5 feet to the structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE 49’ 0” +5’ in height 44’ 0” 11’ 11’ 11’ Existingstructure= 44ft Replaced 44ft structure + 11’ elevated 5ft above BFE Existing 11’ Height = 49ft structure = 44ft 11’ 11’ 11’ +5’above BFE AE 5AE 5 File 2015-006Page 12of 20 4I Example 2: elevated10ft to meet the structure’s minimum required FEMA BFEplus 1 additional foot above BFE 55’ 0’’ 11’ 42’ 0’’ 11’ 11’ Existingstructure= 44ft Elevated44ft structure 10 ft to meet BFE(AE 15) 11’plus 1 foot above BFE 11’ Existing Height = 55ft structure = 44ft Built below 11’ BFE 11’ +1’ aboveBFE 10’ 11’ AE 15AE 15 Note, staff has not been able to complete an inventory of structures that exceed the adopted height limit of 35 feetas there is not enough information in our files to determine the exact grade ( either highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the for most structures crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher) built before 1985. As such, we cannot determine the number of structures which may be affected by the proposed policy.Below are examples of structures which appear to exceed the adopted height limit: Moon Bay Condos, mm 104 Built in the 70s Crown of road mightbe 13-14’ based on LiDAR, Building B is 46’ from ground level of 13’ AMSL. Building A is 49’6” from ground level. Harbor 92 Condos, mm 92 Built in the 70s Crown of road mightbe about 8’ based on LiDAR Building is 63’ from ground level Kawama Tower, mm 102 Built in the 70s Building is 85’ from ground level of about 7’ AMSL File 2015-006Page 13of 20 4I AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Policy 101.5.34 In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee/workforce housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee/workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or employee/workforce housing for very low, low and/or median income categories may be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet ( to ). provide for up to three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.5.30. very low income = household whose total household income does not exceed 50% of the median monthly household income for the county low income = household whose total household income does not exceed 80% of the median monthly household income for the county median income = means a household whose total household income does not exceed 100% of the ty median monthly household income for the coun Policy 101.5.34 For draft which creates the height exceptionfor affordable housing, the BOCC discussed finding ways to incentivize additional development of affordable housing. Theintent of the proposed policy is to encourage additional affordableand employee/workforce housing provisionby allowing structures developed as affordable/workforce housing to be built with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide for three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area. 44’ 0” 40’ 0” 10’ 44’ Affordable Housing 10’ 44 ft height limit EXAMPLE: 40’ 2 ft for roof 3 stories –10ft each 10’ and 12ft for parking or commercial underneath 12’ File 2015-006Page 14of 20 4I IV.PROPOSED AMENDMENT OPTIONSFOR PROPOSED HEIGHT POLICIESFOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Staff has developed the following draft policiesfor consideration. (Deletions are stricken throughand additions are underlined.) Policy 101.45.2630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment andlandfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations.Exceptions will be allowed for appurtenances to buildings, transmission towers and other similar structures. Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the turbines comply with relevant State and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. Applications proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height within the MIAI overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment. In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow’s walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure’s roof-line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. File 2015-006Page 15of 20 4I Policy 101.5.32 In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows: exceed 1. For new structures whichare voluntarily elevated to the structure’s minimum required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. For existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of meet and/or 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to exceed the structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more than five (5) feet, ifnecessary, to voluntarily elevate the structure to meet the structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.33 A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitteda height File 2015-006Page 16of 20 4I exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate meet the structurethe structure’s minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.34 In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee/workforce housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee/workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or employee/workforce housing for very low, low and/or median income categories may be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet (to provide for up to three stories over parking or development overnonresidential floor area). Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.5.30. V.CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following 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 quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations ofthe applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. File 2015-006Page 17of 20 4I Objective 601.3 By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites. Policy 601.3.2 The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe, decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods. 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 achievethese 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. (f)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: 1.The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2.Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3.Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4.Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5.Transportationfacilities; 6.Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7.State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8.City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 9.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. (j)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)(l) and 403.086(10), 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. File 2015-006Page 18of 20 4I (l)Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m)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. 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 Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. –It isthe 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 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. VI.PROCESS 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 File 2015-006Page 19of 20 4I 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 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII.STAFF RECOMMENDATION VIII.EXHIBITS 1.Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing File 2015-006Page 20of 20 4J DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 24, 2015 MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on March 24 , 2015 , beginning at1:02 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & st Conference Room (1floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental ResourcesPresent Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental ResourcesPresent Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental ResourcesPresent STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County AttorneyPresent Emily Schemper, Principal PlannerPresent Matt Coyle, Senior PlannerPresent Gail Creech, Planning Commission CoordinatorPresent CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item 1 is delayed. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24,2015, DRC meeting as is. MEETING New Items: 2.ANORDINANCE 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 THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND/OR MEDIAN 1 4EGOIX4K 4J 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 Items 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 withinthe 2030 comp 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 orderto 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 FKEC’s two wind turbines located on Cudjoe Key before proceedingwith 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 Policy101.5.31 is intended to address non-habitable architectural decorative features, it is only oneand 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 everdestroyed 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 2 4EGOIX4K 4J 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- slabmeasurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than tearing them down. Anotherissue 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 andgated 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 asa list of inventoriedbuildings 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 isfor Ocean Reef’s 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 OwnersAssociation (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 donot 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 same consideration thatOcean Reef receives. Ms. Putney agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not wantto have special rules for 3 4EGOIX4K 4J 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 101.5.33. 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 infour 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 chooseto go up. The third provision is for those structures that need to go a little bit higher to meet their flood zone. The addition of one foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for. Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structureis 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 hasbeen 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 roadswill eventually no longer be maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number 1 is applicablewhen people tear down and builda new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of homes 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. Santamaria stated staff will evaluate that. Ms. 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 intothe future to try to facilitate people’s ability to protect their homes 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 4 4EGOIX4K 4J plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifyingthe 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 hesuggested 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 viewline 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 SPOA agreed with Ms. Moses’ comments. Mr. Hunterpersonally 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 40 feetand the space created under the first floor should be non-habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed to new construction receiving an exception tothe 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 story 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 why 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 5 4EGOIX4K 4J County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA 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. Santamaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying to facilitate alot 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. Curleeexpressed 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 toadd 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 abouttaking 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 III. 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 FSU 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 6 4EGOIX4K 4J 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. 1.Playa Largo Resort, 97450 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 97.5: 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 5B, Amended Plat of Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Key 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 time 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 isto 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. Cepedaasked 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 onPage 6 ofthe 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 theapplicant is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted 7 4EGOIX4K 4J 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 itwas 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 thatthe 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 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENTAND 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) (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 FEBCorp. 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 I. Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies 8 4EGOIX4K 4J put an inordinate burden on theproperty 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 homeson 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 I. 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 I. 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 some inconsistencies with the acreage on theinventory. 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 206.1.2 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. 9 4EGOIX4K 4J Ms. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to participate in theworkshop-style meetingsscheduled in the future. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. 10 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4K 4EGOIX4K 4L DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 26, 2015 MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, May The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on 26, 2015 , beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference st Room (1 floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present STAFF 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. MEETING New Items: 1.99700 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, 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 Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in metes and bounds is provided in the application/file), having real estate number 00497540.000000. ϭ 4EGOIX4K 4L (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 met 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 and the County to make this work. The new kitchen 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 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 101.4.26 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; 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) Ϯ 4EGOIX4K 4L (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 DRC 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 maps 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 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 living space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms. ϯ 4EGOIX4K 4L 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. men 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 CRS 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 ϰ 4EGOIX4K 4L 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 11 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. Mr. 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 how 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 c hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out. ϱ 4EGOIX4K 4L 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 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) (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- 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 ϲ 4EGOIX4K 4L 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 I. 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 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 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 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 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 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. ϳ 4EGOIX4K 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4M 4N DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 25, 2015 MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on August 25, 2015 , beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & st Conference Room (1 floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE 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. MEETING New Items: 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 ϭ 4EGOIX4K 4N 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 limitation 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 abovs 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 d BFE may exceed the 35-foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, 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 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 limit. 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 Ϯ 4EGOIX4K 4N 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 Code 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. 6.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 comp 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 I, II, 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 ϯ 4EGOIX4K 4N 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 seems 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 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. 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 I, 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. 1.AN 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 (I) 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 00121990.000000, 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 amendmentwas increasing the potential residential ϰ 4EGOIX4K 4N 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 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 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, ϱ 4EGOIX4K 4N 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 11 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 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 FLUM 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 mmunity 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. 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 ϲ 4EGOIX4K 4N AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS 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 sake. The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached dwelling units as market rate housing. The sitet characteristics and zoning were described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units. Ms. Schemper 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. Schemper 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. ϳ 4EGOIX4K 4N 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 re consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U.S.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 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 be available through the Planning Department. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. ϴ 4EGOIX4K 4O 4O 4O 4O 4O 4O 4O 4O 4P DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, October 27, 2015 MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on October 27, 2015 , beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & st Conference Room (1floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental ResourcesPresent Mike Roberts, SeniorAdministrator, Environmental ResourcesPresent Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning ManagerPresent Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review ManagerPresent STAFF Devin Rains, Senior PlannerPresent Gail Creech, Planning Commission CoordinatorPresent CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Ms. Santamaria asked that Items 2 and 3 be read together. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the meeting minutes of July 28, 2015, August 25, 2015, and September 29, 2015. MEETING New Items: 1.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD 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 28540 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 00113620-000000, AS PROPOSED BY PATRICK R AND DIANE COLEE, DOLPHIN MARINA ASSOCIATES LTD AND TORCH KEY PROPERTIES LTD; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING 1 4EGOIX4K 4P 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 maxnet 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. James Hendrick was present on behalf of the applicant and commended staff ontheir 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 11 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. Hendrick 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. 2 4EGOIX4K 4P Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. 2.AN 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; PROVIDINGFOR 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; PROVIDINGFOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNINGAGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File #2015-171) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fourth DRC meeting on the proposed comp plan amendments for the height provisions. The BOCC asked staff to work on the height policies that were in the comp plan update and process them 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 amendmentshave been revised. Ms. Santamaria stated there is a proposed policy change to Policy 101.5.3 to incorporate the height definition that is in thecode 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 thatthe 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. 3 4EGOIX4K 4P 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 them 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- compliant as-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 receivedinformation on the Ocean Reef Cultural Center. Dottie Moses, speaking on behalf of Island of Key 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 askedfor public comment. Ms. Moses commented that adding an extrathree feet to meetbase 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 meetingand today the 4 4EGOIX4K 4P 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 ofdecelerating 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 minds 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. TheBOCC 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. Santamaria is unaware of any, but stated that does notmean there is not one in existence. Ms. Moses asked what effect raising some 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. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. 5 4EGOIX4K 4P 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 101.13.5 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 OFCONFLICTING 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 compplan update. This proposed amendment is to Policy 101.6.8,which is the transfer ofROGO 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 statementnot transmitted with the comp planupdate regarding discouragingthe development of offshore islands. This added statement has been struck for consideration and still includes existing policies in thecomp 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 thathis 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 camping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner 6 4EGOIX4K 4P only. Law enforcement would have to be called for trespassers on an offshore island.Mr. Hendrick confirmed that the ten-acre determination did come from the ’86 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. Dick 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 citationto the ALJ order from 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 thedefined 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. Santamaria 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 staff’s. Mr. Smith believes the definition needs to be clarified so that arguments are not made that all offshore islands are nesting islands. Julie Dick 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 receiversites to offshore islands. 7 4EGOIX4K 4P 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 staff’s existing definition over what has been proposed today, but will need time to confer on that. Mr.Hendrick, 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. Santamariaclarified Policy 206.1.2 does not actually refer to nesting areas. Mr. Frank commented when the comp 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 clarifiedLast 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 evacuationtime 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 predictionsare not correct. That situation adds further weight to the need to reduce addedrisk to the evacuation formula by allowing further development on offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Ms. 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. 8 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4Q 4EGOIX4K 4R DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, January 26, 2016 MEETING MINUTES Tuesday, The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on January 26, 2016 , beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & st Conference Room (1floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Debra Roberts DRC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental ResourcesPresent Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental ResourcesPresent STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County AttorneyPresent Matt Coyle, Principal PlannerPresent Devin Rains, Senior PlannerPresent Janene Sclafani, PlannerPresent Mitzi Crystal, Transportation PlannerPresent Debra Roberts, Staff AssistantPresent CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the meeting minutes of December 15, 2015, with no changes. MEETING New Items: 1.Henderson Building, Overseas Highway, Big Pine Key, mile marker 30: A public meeting concerning a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 8,000 square foot building with 2,600 square feet of commercial retail, low-intensity and office uses and six attached dwelling units designated as employee housing. The subject property is described as a parcel of land in Section 26, Township 66 South, Range 29 East, Big Pine Key, Monroe County, Florida, also known as Lots 12 and 13 of an unrecorded Plat of survey by C.G. Bailey, Reg. Florida Land Surveyor, No. 620 and dated September 19, 1952, having real estate number 00111560.000000. (File 2015-218) 1 4EGOIX4K 4R Mr. Coyle presented the staff report. Mr. Coyle reported that this property is 3,331 square feet, is zoned Suburban Commercial, designated a Tier III property and has a FLUM of Commercial. The site was previously developed, so it is disturbed and scarified, but also has some protected pineland habitatand some protected trees on the property. RelevantCounty actions on the property were described. A letter of understanding from 2008 addressed issues related to access from US-1 to the property. Although that redevelopment proposal was found tobe consistent with a number of the comp plan policies, as well as the Big Pine and No Name master plan, some extra development controls were placed on the property because it was mixed use and has pineland habitat. It can only be low intensity commercialretail. Mr. Coyle continued to report that the current building and the development proposal was found consistent with the community character of that part of Big Pine. The design minimizes adverse effects and visual impacts on adjacent properties. Six affordable housing ROGO allocations will be required for the development. Mr. Coyle suggested that the applicant consider doing a BOCC reservation since only six affordable housing ROGO allocations for Big Pine were available at the time of the staff report. No NROGO is needed since only 2600 square feet is being developed and the applicant is exempt over 6,000. The residential density and floor area, as well as open space, setback requirements and height limit are all in compliance. Preliminary drainage plans were found to be consistent with the County’s requirement, but complete stormwater plans will be required during the building permit process. All of the environmental issues were found to be in compliance. A bicycle rack and wheel stops for theparking spaces up against the setback or required buffer yard need to be shown on the plan. The loading space needs to be made larger or that requirement needs to be reduced. All of the buffer yards and landscaping meet code. There are a few issues related to access to the site. There is not enough space between the existing curb cuts to meet the County’s requirement. If the applicant wants to maintain access on US-1 a Planning Commission variance would need to be applied for and received. The County’s transportation planner believes the applicant’s existing curb cuts would meet FDOT requirements. The County’s traffic consultant, as well as Judy Clarke from the Engineering Department, found the sight distance of the Sandy Circle access unsafe and proposed relocating that driveway further south which would make a T intersection. Mr. Coyle recited the nine conditions as listed in the staff report. John Arrieta, the County’s traffic consultant, joined the meeting by phone. Barbara Mitchell, of Mitchell Planning and Design, was present on behalf of the applicant, Ginger Henderson, and her husband, Bruce Schmitt. Her clients were introduced. The applicant’s architect, Bill Horn, and traffic consultant, Karl Peterson, were also present. Ms. Mitchell pointed out that this was an existing site and was developed for many years. A sewage treatment plant remains on the property that will be closed down and removed as part of this project. There has been historical access to this site from US-1for many years until the Overseas Heritage Trail was installed in that section. Historically this site has had a high intensity commercial development use. The applicant is proposing a low density use, a real estate office, and six units of affordable housing. Theapplicant has avoided using the portion of the property that contains pinelands. Ms. Mitchell then clarified that the commercial square footage is the 2,605 square feet as demonstrated on the floor plans, which fixes the loading zone issue. 2 4EGOIX4K 4R Ms. Mitchellthen discussed the access issue. Ms. Mitchell stated FDOT earlier last summer indicated that they wanted an ingress-only access from US-1 on this site, which has been proposed. That reduces the traffic impact on US-1 by 50 percent. Commercial access isneeded for this project or it is not going to work. Ms. Mitchell submitted an e-mail received from FDOT confirming that their requirements have been fulfilled except for an area of eight feet that would require an administrative FDOT variance. Ms. Mitchell stated through her search through County actions and in discussions with previous County Planning Directors and Planning Commissioners an example of the 400-foot standard for curb cuts could not be found. Ms. Mitchell pointed out that FDOT has a standard of only 245 feet from either side of the curb cut. The Overseas Heritage Trail implementation has eradicated the opportunity to use a parallel access road as an option. Ms. Mitchell believes Monroe County Code needs to be amended to reflect current FDOT standards. Ms. Santamaria responded that although staff is willing to work on future amendments, today the code has not been amended. For the applicant to come into compliance in that regard a Planning Commission variance would be needed, which is not an overly burdensome process. Ms. Mitchell reiterated that this standard has not been applied in the past and the code should be applied in a fair and consistent manner. Ms. Santamaria replied that the standard has been applied in the past and applicants have redesigned or included parallel access, but ignoring the code is not an option. Another possibility is applying for a code change, which is timely, but a Planning Commissioner variance is an easier route to go through in terms of time frame, but atext change can be applied for. Staff will be going over the code with the BOCC on March 1, 2016, and April 13, 2016, and that could become effective in June or July. Karl Peterson, traffic engineering consultant for the applicant, stated FDOT has reviewed this and determined it meets substantial compliance with the criteria. The eight-foot variance that is required can be handled at the administrative level. Bruce Schmitt, partner in this project, stated in all of the many projects he has been involved in, the standards that the County has set in this particular project could never have been met. Mr. Schmitt said there are areas where this standard has not been implemented by the County and feels like they are being targeted. $50,000 have been invested to this point on a project that will likely cost over $2 million. The issue brought about of an ingress point because of this 400-foot rule makes no sense to Mr. Schmitt. Mr. Schmitt wants to discuss this further with Ms. Henderson and put this application on hold until then. Ms. Mitchell asked to discuss the Sandy Circle access since everybody involved is present in the room in case the project does go forward. Ms. Mitchell stated the right-of-way on Sandy Circle is encumbered by significant vegetation, making the line of sight at this intersection very dangerous. The applicant’s access point was considered and selected very carefully. The applicant is trying to locate the accessory uses adjacent to the building. Mr. Peterson explained that a 30percent clearance 30 feet back from the proposed driveway would not only benefit the driveway location proposed in the current plan, but it fixes an existing roadway problem that currently exists. Creating a stop condition on both legs of the approach would be another option, although not as ideal. Ms. Mitchell added that the property is County right-of-way. Mr. Arrieta pointed out that although it is an existing condition, Mr. Peterson’s suggestion adds to a less-than-ideal situation by putting more vehicles in a less desirable location. Also, it then 3 4EGOIX4K 4R becomes the onus of the County to maintain and have permanent clearing in that area. Putting the driveway in without proper sight distance significantly increases the potential for a crash because it creates more traffic conflicts. That is why the County proposed making a T intersection where a stop sign will be controlling one of the approaches, which is probably going to be the southbound approach. Mr. Peterson emphasized that, regardless of whether this project goes forward or not, this area is what is known as a horizontal sight distance obstruction. Again, there are two solutions: Clearing the vegetation in that corner to address an existing sight distance issue or creating a stop control condition at that intersection to address the lack of adequate horizontal sight distance there. Ms. Santamaria noted that the County does not regulate the right-of-way. If the applicant wishes to table this item, staff will have the ability to continue to work with them and explore the options that are available. Ms. Mitchell clarified for Ms. Santamaria that the garbage containers will be rolled out to the street, so Waste Management will not be required to back onto the property to empty a dumpster. Mr. Arrieta again discussed the fact that although conflicts are present or introduced every time a driveway is introduced, additional conflicts should not be introduced when there are sight distance issues. Mr. Schmitt commented that the Sandy Circle issue can probably be negotiated, but there is no reason to negotiate if there is no settlement on the ingress issue. Mr. Schmitt asked to table this discussion. Ms. Mitchell asked if the fees for the variance would be waived due to the inconsistency in the way the code is written. Ms. Santamaria and Mr. Williams agreed there would not be awaiver of fees. Mr. Williams pointed out that to get a variance the applicant will have to show a hardship. Ms. Santamaria also stressed that if the applicant proposed the change to the BOCC, the BOCC would have to choose to include it in the Land Development Code being processed now. If not, the applicant would have to do their own separate amendment. Ms. Mitchell requested tabling this item. Joyce Newman of Big Pine Key asked for and received information regarding the property owners adjacent to the Sandy Circle corner lot. 2.AN 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 EXEPTIONS 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 4 4EGOIX4K 4R 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 FORINCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File #2015-171) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the most recent draft of five of the County’s height amendments. Starting with the comp plan, Policy 101.5.30 is being amended and the definition of “height” is being incorporated within the policy. Policy 101.5.31 is being created, which is specific to Ocean Reef as a master-planned community to allow for non-habitable architectural decorative features up to amax total of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.32 is being created, which creates a new flood protection height exception up to a five-foot increase to allow for elevating to meet or exceed FEMA base flood elevations. Policy 101.5.33 is being created, which is a flood exception policy for lawfully established and existing buildings that already exceed the 35-foot height limit to elevate their structure to meet base flood provided they have the same intensity, floor, area, building envelope, density and type of use.If proposing to go over 40 feet, then they would have to go before the BOCC for review and a determination for the max height thatthey would be allowed. Ms. Santamaria then reported on the amendments to the Land Development Code. Section 130- 187 hasbeen amended to highlight the exceptions that are created in the policies: Provision A for Ocean Reef to have their decorative features and Provision B for the flood exception. Brand new buildings can have three feet to exceed FEMA base flood. Lawfullyestablished existing multifamily buildings can either meet or exceed FEMA base flood up to five feet. These options are only eligible if at least FEMA base flood is met. This exception will not be provided in AE10 or VE 10 or greater because those are riskier areas and the County does not want to incentivize the flood exceptions in those areas. Existing multifamily buildings which already exceed the height limit are allowed to elevate up to 40 feet. Lawfully existing multifamily structures that alreadyexceed the 40-foot height limit would have to go before the BOCC for a public hearing and state which criteria they meet. The BOCC would have to specify their findings of these criteria and set the max total height of what the building could be rebuilt as. Ms. Santamaria asked for staff and public comments. Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked for clarification of the term “redevelop” for buildings that already exist over 35 feet. Ms. Santamaria explained that could include a tear-down, but it states specifically a lawfully established existing building may berepaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope, floor-to-floor height, density and type of use. So they are confined to the existing footprint and envelope. 5 4EGOIX4K 4R Joyce Newman, Big Pine Key resident, asked about the slab-to-slab height increase request from Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria stated that has not been included in this draft. Ocean Reef was to provide certain information to staff to give a general picture of what the heights would amount to, and that informationhas not been received to date. Ms. Newman noted that Last Stand believes it is not a good idea to have these height increase requests go directly to the BOCC because that completely politicizes the whole process. The Planning Commission is the logical body to review these requests because they know the right questions to ask and is considerably less political. Ms. Newman added that Last Stand remains opposed to the exception to the height limit of 35 feet for new buildings because there is no burden that exists there. Construction of new buildings can adhere to the existing 35-foot height limit and provide two stories over parking while adding voluntary clearance to BFE. Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, feels that the new building exemption can be taken advantage of by somebody who has to choose between either elevation or an extra story, but because of sea level rise and how Monroe County is going to adapt to it, Mr. Hunter supports the new building height exemption as it is written. Ms. Santamaria asked for further staff or public comment on this item. There was none. 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 101.13.5 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) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this is the fifth DRC meeting on this item and this amendment is very similar to the previous drafts. This stems from the comp plan update when the BOCC asked staff to move the provisions related to offshore islands out of the comp plan update and process it separately as a stand-alone issue. The amendments in this draft reflect what was already transmitted to the State in terms of Policy 101.6.8 and Policy 101.13.3. The new changes from the last meeting are only to Policy 206.1.2. Policy 206.1.2 relates to nesting areas of birds and states “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.” New text included in today’s draft is: “As used in this policy, established bird rookery refers to the location where colonial birds nest. The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow depressions in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in rocks, burrows and cavities.” Policy 101.6.8 includes language that the receiver site for TREs will not be an offshore island and Policy 101.13.3 includes the criteria that an offshore island will not be a receiver site for TDRs. Ms. Santamaria asked for staff and public comments. 6 4EGOIX4K 4R BartSmith, Esquire, on behalf of FEB Corp., asked Mr. Roberts if he was involved in drafting the additional definitions in the glossary. Mr. Roberts replied that he reviewed them. Mr. Roberts then pointed out that the definition of an established bird rookery is specific to this policy and is not overriding throughout the comp plan. Mr. Smith explained that Phil Frank, a biologist on behalf of FEB Corp., suggested utilizing the term “colonial nesting water birds” in Policy 206.1.2 since the colonial nesting birds in the Florida Keys are water birds. Mr. Smith then read aloud a proposed definition of the term “colonial nesting water birds.” Mr. Smith noted that Mr. Frank’s proposed definition mirrors Wikipedia’s definition of that term. Mr. Smith explained that Mr. Frank also suggested the language “Bird rookery means communal nesting ground for colonial nesting water birds.” Mr. Roberts agreed that the birds that are addressed when talking about colonial nesting birds are water fowl, but stated there are other birds that nest colonially that are not water birds that use the Atlantic flyway. Mr. Hunter asked if solitary birds like the white crown pigeons would be protected under the proposed definitions. Mr. Roberts explained that generally speaking the density of nests in a rookery are much closer than what you find in a white crown pigeon nesting situation, but Mr. Roberts will look at the literature to see if the experts consider white crown pigeons to be a colonial nesting bird.Ms. Santamaria agreed that staff will review this because there are other policies in the comp plan related to listed species and threatened species. Ms. Newman noted that there are a lot more birds that nest on these spoil banks than just wading birds and water birds. Julie Dick from the Everglades Law Center on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund voiced concerns with respect to Policy 206.1.2. The reference to “based on resource agency best available dataor survey”should be opened up to include just “best available data and survey” so as not to be limited to a specific source of information. Ms. Dick also believes that an on-site verification from the County biologist would be appropriate to determine the existence orlack thereof of bird rookeries or nesting sites or areas. “Nesting area” should be included so there is consistency in the use of terminology throughoutthe plan. Naja Girard of Key West stated she is vehemently opposed to shrinking this definition down to just water fowl. Any species that are in any way protectedthrough special designations by the State or the Federal Government should be spelled out as well. Ms. Girard agreed with Ms. Dick that the County should be open to whatever credible data and survey might come its way. Ms. Curlee asked that the importance of these spoil and offshore islands be emphasized for birds migrating through as resting spots. Ms. Dick followed up on that and stated that a rookery can be a roosting area as well as a nesting area. Mr. Smith commented that Policy 206.1.2 is an absolute prohibition on development of the entire island. Mr. Smith suggested that there are other suitable means to protect the nesting area to allow for birds to land that make more sense with policies that deal with the actual area that it is in than to have an express and blanket prohibition. Ms. Santamaria then asked for comments on the policies that relate to TREs and TDRs. 7 4EGOIX4K 4R Julie Dick, on behalf of Last Stand and the Florida Keys Environmental Fund, voiced full support for the criteria for receiver sites in both Policies 101.6.8 and 101.13.3 that a receiver site may not be an offshore island. Ms. Dick asked that the same definition be used in the offshore island zoning designation and the offshore island definition in the comp plan so that owners of offshore islands may not be able to use this in the future to manipulate the intent to make some offshore islands receiver sites. Ms. Santamaria clarified that offshore island zoning is not included in the comp plan as a term that is defined, but she will review this further. Mr. Smith agreed that it is superfluous to include the language “as defined in the glossary” and that it may imply any other time the term is used it is not being defined by the glossary. Mr. Smith then commented that the bank of ROGOs makes building in the County like energy: Lots are not going to be able to be created or destroyed; just transferred. Mr. Smith does not believe it is a good utilization of resources to have a prohibition on TREs for offshore islands and requiring owners to compete in ROGO and ultimately having the County faced with purchasing an island. Ms. Santamaria responded that the County, in terms of the comp plan update and code, is trying to incentivize through the ROGO process donation and dedication of lots to the County. Ms. Newman stated that someone who has the means to buy and develop an island should not be put in any better position than someone who has their hopes and dreams based on retiring and living in the Florida Keys. Julie Dick noted that Monroe County is at its limit in terms of being able to evacuate this county within 24 hours in the face of a hurricane. For that reason, whatever incentive built into the comp plan that movesdevelopment away from the areas hardest to evacuate should be fully supported. Ms. Girard does not agree with Mr. Smith’s logic of sending ROGOs to offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria concluded by stating all comments will be taken into consideration before taking this to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:54 p.m. 8 4EGOIX4K 4S MEMORANDUM MCP&ERD ONROE OUNTY LANNING NVIRONMENTAL ESOURCES EPARTMENT To: Monroe County Planning Commission From: Mayté Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: February 12, 2016 Subject: AN 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 REEFMASTER 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) Meeting:February 24, 2016 I.REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendmentsto create Policy 101.5.31 to address non-habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create 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. II.BACKGROUND INFORMATION 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 Comprehensive Plan) 113 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 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 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. •BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately-owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. 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 DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. 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. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. 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 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. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. 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 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. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow forextensive 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. 213 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9. DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting onJanuary 26, 2016, 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 staff report from theJanuary 26, 2016 DRC is attached as Exhibit 12.Minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are not available as of the date of this staff report. III.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, heightand gradeare defined as follows: HEIGHT thevertical distance between grade and the highest part of any is defined as: structure ,including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna, flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall not apply. GRADEthe highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, means next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher . To confirm the natural elevation of the ground surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre-construction boundary surveys with elevations, pre-construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates and/or other optical remote sensing data. Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of:height = the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure.In this depiction,the crown of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure is higherthan natural elevation of the ground surface(prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, forthis example, in measuring the vertical distance of the structure. 313 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S Height limit For this example,a 3 story The vertical distance home may be developed between grade (crown of within the 35 foot height road, based on definition, limit and the floodzone of for this example) and the AE 5ft highest part of the structure =Height Crown of the road 2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendationsto amend and expand the height policyhave been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. National Flood Insurance Program&Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP)toprovide a means for property owners to protect themselves financially from flood events. The NFIP offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters and business owners if their community participates in the NFIP. Participating communities agree to adopt and enforce floodplain management ordinances that meet or exceed FEMA requirements. Flood maps inform communities about the local flood risk and help set minimum floodplain standards for communities to build with safety and resiliency in mind. Flood mapsdetermine the cost of flood insurance, which helps property owners to financially protect themselves against flooding. The lower the risk, the lower flood insurance premiums will be. Flood maps are also the basis for flood insurance rates through the NFIP. As risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks. [Note, FEMA is in the process of re- mapping the Florida Keys] Flood insurance premium may be going up; however, property owners may be able to reduce premiums if they build their home or business to be safer, higher, and stronger. The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 provides long-term changes to the National Flood Insurance Program. This additional legislation has been enacted with the intent to strengthen the program, ensure its fiscal soundness and inform its mapping and insurance rate-setting through expert consultation, reports and studies. 413 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S Today the program is focused on implementing recent legislation by adjusting premium increases, issuing new rates and map updates, supporting mitigation and ensuring special advocacy to connect policyholders with the information they need to better understand the program. Recent legislation phases out subsidies for some older buildings in high-risk flood areas. As a result, rates for these buildings will rise until they reach full-risk rates. In addition, all policyholders will be subject to new assessments and surcharges.[https://www.floodsmart.gov/floodsmart/pages/hfiaa-2014.jsp]. See FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and ‘Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium’ which are attached as Exhibit 13. Monroe County Green Keys Project Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeys! Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key Largo and a cost benefit ratios of elevating and floodproofing buildings: Entire report can be accessed here: http://fl-monroecountyclimate.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/103 513 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 613 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 713 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 813 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S PROPOSED AMENDMENT ( IV. Deletions are stricken throughand additions are underlined.) Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately. Policy 101.45.2630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceedthe applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies101.5.31,101.5.32 and 101.5.33.Exceptions will be allowed for appurtenances to buildings, transmission towers and other similar structures.In the case of airport districts,there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow’s walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building’s roof-line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned communityof 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 11. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages;minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be voluntarily elevatedup to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood 913 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events.In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildingswhich exceedthe 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved,redeveloped and/or elevatedto meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE)provided the buildingdoes not exceed atotal maximum building height of 40 feet,and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be requiredto review and specify the maximum approved heightprior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolutionspecifyingthe maximum approved height. V.CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following 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 quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. 1013 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S Objective 601.3 By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites. Policy 601.3.2 The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe, decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods. 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. (f)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: 1.The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2.Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3.Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4.Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5.Transportation facilities; 6.Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7.State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8.City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 9.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. (j)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)(l) and 403.086(10), 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. 1113 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S (l)Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m)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. 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 Part II 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 thatmay 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 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. VI.PROCESS 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 Planningshall 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 1213 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S given at the public hearing. The BOCC mayor 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 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII.STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII.EXHIBITS 1.Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2.March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3.March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4.May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5.May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6.August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7.August 25, 2015 DRCMinutes 8.October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report 9.October 27,2015 DRC Minutes 10.Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 11.Ocean Reef Club request and data. 12.January 26,2016 DRC Staff Report 13.FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and ‘Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium’ 14.Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments 1313 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S 4EGOIX4K 4S )\LMFMX MEMORANDUM MCP&ERD ONROE OUNTY LANNING NVIRONMENTAL ESOURCES EPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Mayté Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Mayté Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: January15, 2016 Subject: AN 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 REDUCEFLOOD 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) Meeting:January 26, 2016-continued fromMarch 24, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015and October 27, 2015 I.REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendmentsto create Policy 101.5.31 to address non-habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create 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. II.BACKGROUND INFORMATION 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 112 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 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 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 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. •BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately-owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. 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 DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, theMonroe 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. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. 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 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. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposedtext 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. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. 212 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S DRC: At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 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. The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9. III.ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, heightand gradeare defined as follows: HEIGHT thevertical distance between grade and the highest part of any is defined as: structure , including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna, flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to permit any habitable or usablespace to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall not apply. GRADEthe highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, means next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher . To confirm the natural elevation of the ground surface, the county shall utilize theLight Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre-construction boundary surveys with elevations, pre-construction topographic surveys, elevation certificates and/or other optical remote sensing data. Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of:height = the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure.In this depiction,the crown of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure is higherthan natural elevation of the ground surface(prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure). As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in measuring the vertical distance of the structure. 312 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S Height limit For this example,a 3 story The vertical distance home may be developed between grade(crown of within the 35 foot height road, based on definition, limit and the flood zone of for this example) and the AE 5ft highest part of the structure =Height Crown of the road 2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendationsto amend and expand the height policyhave been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeys! Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key Largoand a cost benefit ratios of elevating and floodproofing buildings: Entire report can be accessed here: http://fl-monroecountyclimate.civicplus.com/DocumentCenter/View/103 412 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 512 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 612 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 712 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S PROPOSED AMENDMENT ( IV. Deletions are stricken throughand additions are underlined.) Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately. Policy 101.45.2630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies101.5.31,101.5.32 and 101.5.33.Exceptions will be allowed for appurtenances to buildings, transmission towers and other similar structures.In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow’s walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building’s roof-line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned communityof 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 11. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages;minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be 812 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S voluntarily elevatedup to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events.In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildingswhich exceedthe 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved,redeveloped and/or elevatedto meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE)provided the buildingdoes not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet,and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be requiredto review and specify the maximum approved heightprior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. V.CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following 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 quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. 912 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S Objective 601.3 By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites. Policy 601.3.2 The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe, decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods. 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. (f)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: 1.The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2.Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3.Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4.Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5.Transportation facilities; 6.Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7.State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8.City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and 9.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. (j)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)(l) and 403.086(10), 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. 1012 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S (l)Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m)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. 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 Part II 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, andimprove 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 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. VI.PROCESS 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 affectedby 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 1112 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K 4S 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, Recommendationsand Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII.STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII.EXHIBITS 1.Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2.March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3.March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4.May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5.May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6.August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7.August 25, 2015 DRCMinutes 8.October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report 9.October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes 10.Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 11.Ocean Reef Club request and data. 1212 File 2015-006Page of 4EGOIX4K )\LMFMX %XXEGLQIRX)\LIMKLX764' LIMKLXPMQMXI\GITXMSRJSVJPSSHTVSXIGXMSR %XXEGLQIRX)\LIMKLX764' LIMKLXPMQMXI\GITXMSRJSVJPSSHTVSXIGXMSR 4S Rebuilding in an AE Zone Can we afford to rebuild higher? Can we afford not to? ĞĐĂƵƐĞ:ŽŶĂŶĚ<ĂƚŚǇWĂƌŬĞƌĐŽƵůĚŶ͛ƚƐĞĞƚŚĞƐŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝƌŚŽƵƐĞ͕ ƚŚĞǇŶĞǀĞƌƌĞĂůůǇďĞůŝĞǀĞĚƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞĐŽƵůĚďĞǁŝƉĞĚ tŚĞŶƚŚĞǇĂƉƉůŝĞĚĨŽƌĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚ͕ 1 1 Option 1: Building to the current requirements dŚĞWĂƌŬĞƌƐ ƌĞĂůŝǌĞĚƚŚĂƚǁĞĂƚŚĞƌŝƐ ΨϭϰϯƉĞƌŵŽŶƚŚŽƌΨϭ͕ϳϭϲƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ Option 2: Building 3 feet above the current requirements Ψϭ͕ϭϳϴ 'ŽŽĚŶĞǁƐ͊ 4EGOIX4K 4S Not every case is the same. Consider your situation. Žƌ 4EGOIX4K 4S 6IFYMPHMRKMRE:)>SRI 'ER[IEJJSVHXSVIFYMPHLMKLIV# 'ER[IEJJSVHXS# RSX dŽŵĂŶĚDĂƌǇ^ŵŝƚŚůŝǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞĨŽƌϭϱǇĞĂƌƐ͘ dŚĞŶ tŚĞŶƚŚĞǇĂƉƉůŝĞĚĨŽƌĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚ , 1 1 3TXMSR&YMPHMRKXSXLIGYVVIRXVIUYMVIQIRXW dŚĞ^ŵŝƚŚƐ ƌĞĂůŝǌĞĚƚŚĂƚǁĞĂƚŚĞƌŝƐ $400,000 $1,796 ΨϴϳϴƉĞƌŵŽŶƚŚŽƌΨϭϬ͕ϱϯϲƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ $2,674 3TXMSR&YMPHMRKJIIXEFSZIXLIGYVVIRXVIUYMVIQIRXW ΨϰϬϯ͕ϲϬϬ $1,812 ΨϯϭϱƉĞƌŵŽŶƚŚŽƌΨϯ͕ϳϴϬƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ ΨϮ͕ϭϮϳ 'ŽŽĚŶĞǁƐ͊ dŚĞ^ŵŝƚŚƐǁŝůůƐĂǀĞŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶΨϱϬϬĞǀĞƌǇŵŽŶƚŚďǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐϯĨĞĞƚ higher. dŚĞ^ŵŝƚŚƐƐĂǀĞĚŵŽŶĞǇďǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŚŝŐŚĞƌ͘ 4EGOIX4K 4S 2SXIZIV]GEWIMWXLIWEQI 'SRWMHIV]SYVWMXYEXMSR dŚĞ^ŵŝƚŚƐ͛ƐƚŽƌǇŝƐŽŶůǇŽŶĞĞǆĂŵƉůĞ͘ dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŵĂŶǇǀĂƌŝĂďůĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŵƉĂĐƚǇŽƵƌĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶĂďŽƵƚŚŽǁǇŽƵƌĞďƵŝůĚ͘ 1-800-427-4661 www.fema.gov/building-science msc.fema.gov FloodSmart.govŽƌ1-888-229-0437 4EGOIX4K 4S Exhibit 14 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPEMNT CODE AMENDMENTS Policy 101.45.2630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies101.5.31,101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Exceptions will be allowed for appurtenances to buildings, transmission towers and other similar structures.In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow’s walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building’s roof-line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned communityof 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages;minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be voluntarily elevatedup to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events.In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildingswhich exceedthe 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general 4EGOIX4K 4S Exhibit 14 welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved,redevelopedand/or elevatedto meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the buildingdoes not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet,and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be requiredto review and specify the maximum approved heightprior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolutionspecifyingthe maximum approved height. Section 101-1.-Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: ***** Elevate means theaction of retrofitting or raising a building to a higher positon. Elevated Buildingmeans a building that has its lowest floor raised above the ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its exposure to flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general, retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or extending the existing foundation, or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floor system within the building or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only for parking, building access, or storage. ***** Sec. 130-187.-Maximum height. No structure or building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet. Exceptionswill be allowed for chimneys; spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. Exceptions will be allowed for flood protection as specifically permitted in Policies101.5.32 and 101.5.33and listed below. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the maximum height limitation,except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall not apply. A.Within the Ocean Reef master planned community which is gated, isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, 4EGOIX4K 4S Exhibit 14 railings, widow’s walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building’s roof-line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. B.As provided in Policy 101.5.32, buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limitas follows: exceed 1.For NEW buildings which are voluntarily elevated to the building’s minimum required BFE, an exception ofa maximum ofthree (3) feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or not. 2.For lawfully established EXISTINGmulti-family buildings which do not exceed the meet and/orexceed 35-foot height limit and are voluntarily retrofittedtothe building’s minimumrequired BFE, an exception of a maximum offive (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall meetplus be no greater than the distancenecessary to elevate the building to BFE up to three (3) feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing building be elevated to exceed a total building height of 40 feet. 3.No exception shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet. 4.Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMABFE are not eligible for this exception. 5. No exception shall be provided tobuildingslocated in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone. C.As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established EXISTING multi-family buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevatedto meet the required FEMA BFEprovided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. AFlood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of five (5) feet may be meet permitted to the building’s minimum required FEMA BFE.The amount of the meet exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to BFE. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception. D.As provided in Policy 101.5.33, for lawfully established EXISTING multi-family exceed buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that are proposed to a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission andBoard of County Commissioners to review and specify the maximum approved height shall berequired prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval.The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. 4EGOIX4K 4S Exhibit 14 1.For lawfully establishedEXISTING multi-family buildings that are voluntarily meet repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevatedto the building’s minimum more than required FEMA BFE, but will require a height exception of five (5) feet, a Flood Protection Height Exception exceeding the 35-foot height limit may be provided by the BOCC based on the following criteria: a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel; b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood damage and the effects of such damage on the property owner; c. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; d. The availability of alternate solutions; e. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood risk; result in additional threats to public safety; result in extraordinary public expense; create nuisance; or cause fraud onor victimization of the public; and f. Community character. g.Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception. 2.A BOCC resolution shall specify the findings of criteria of D.1. a. though g. (above) and specify the approved maximum total heightfor the proposed building. 4EGOIX4K 4T PLANNING COMMISSION February 24, 2016 Meeting Minutes Wednesday, February The Planning Commission of Monroe County conducted a meeting on 24, 2016, beginning at 10:01 a.m. at the Marathon Government Center, 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE ROLL CALL by Gail Creech PLANNING COMMISSION MEMBERS Denise Werling, Chair Present William Wiatt, Vice Chair Present Elizabeth Lustberg Present Ron Miller Present Beth Ramsay-Vickrey Present STAFF Mayte Santamaria, Sr. Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present John Wolfe, Planning Commission Counsel Present Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present Matt Coyle, Principal Planner Present Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Janene Sclafani, Planner Present Gail Creech, Sr. Planning Commission Coordinator Present COUNTY RESOLUTION 131-91 APPELLANT TO PROVIDE RECORD FOR APPEAL County Resolution 131-92 was read into the record by Mr. Wolfe. SUBMISSION OF PROPERTY POSTING AFFIDAVITS AND PHOTOGRAPHS Ms. Creech confirmed receipt of all necessary paperwork. SWEARING OF COUNTY STAFF County staff members were sworn in by Mr. Wolfe. CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Ms. Creech asked to have Items 4 and 5 read together with separate votes taken on each. The applicant of Item 3 is delayed and that item will be heard out of order when they arrive. ϭ 4EGOIX4K 4T APPROVAL OF MINUTES Motion: Commissioner Wiatt made a motion to approve the January 27, 2016, meeting minutes. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. MEETING New Items: 1.A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND FINALIZE THE RANKING OF APPLICATIONS IN THE DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR nd OCTOBER 14, 2015, THROUGH JANUARY 12, 2016, ROGO (2 QUARTER YEAR 24). ALLOCATION AWARDS WILL BE ALLOCATED FOR ALL UNINCORPORATED MONROE COUNTY. (File 2015-192) (10:04 a.m.) Ms. Stankiewicz presented the staff report. Ms. Stankiewicz stated that this report is for the quarterly ROGO. Ms. Stankiewicz recommended approval of the market rate allocations as specified in the report and there were no affordable housing applications. Chair Werling asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Miller asked for a ballpark figure of Tier I properties that have been developed in the last ten years. Ms. Santamaria will collect that information and provide it to Commissioner Miller. Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion for approval as recommended by staff. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. 2.A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND FINALIZE THE RANKING OF APPLICATIONS IN THE DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR THE BIG PINE KEY/NO NAME KEY SUBAREA. ALLOCATION AWARDS TO BE ALLOCATED, IF AVAILABLE, TO APPLICANTS PREVIOUSLY DEFERRED WITHIN THE BIG PINE KEY/NO NAME KEY SUBAREA. (File 2015-192) (10:05 a.m.) Ms. Stankiewicz presented the staff report. Ms. Stankiewicz reported that the Planning Department recommends approval of the release of the remaining three deferred allocations at this time. Chair Werling asked for public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Ϯ 4EGOIX4K 4T Motion: Commissioner Lustberg made a motion for approval. Commissioner Ramsay- Vickrey seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. 4.AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHESIVE 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) 5.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 2015-171) (10:07 a.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that both the comp plan and the Land Development Code will be addressed together today. Ms. Santamaria explained that during the October 7, 2014, BOCC meeting the Commissioners asked staff to set aside the height and offshore policies and sections and provide additional information on those topics. Then in December of 2014 the BOCC decided to separate these topics totally from the 2030 comp plan and process them separately. Five DRC meetings have been held since March of 2015 on these issues. se terms are critical to understand because each property may be different depending on what their natural elevation, their grade is or their crown of the road. A depiction was shown of how this generally works. Ms. Santamaria continued to report that there are going to be upcoming changes with the FEMA maps. Staff anticipates that flood zones will likely go up because sea level rise projections will actual risk. With this legislation if a structure is elevated up to three feet above base flood discounts can be received on flood insurance. ϯ 4EGOIX4K 4T Ms. Santamaria explained the first policy change is to Policy 101.5.30, which is the policy that includes the 35-foot heigh policy as well as the proposed exceptions to the height limits. There is a policy for the Ocean Reef master planned community for non-habitable architectural decorative features on the roof line up to five feet. Section 130-187A of the code contains the matching language. The structure itself with the decorative features cannot exceed 40 feet. The first flood protection height exception is proposed Policy 101.5.32, which allows up to a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit to a total maximum of up to 40 feet for flood protection. This is specifically to allow property owners to better protect their property and potentially receive discounts on their flood insurance. Section 130-187B of the code has two provisions: Number 1 is for new buildings that would have the opportunity of a maximum of up to three feet above the 35-foot height limit to a maximum height of 38 feet; Number 2 is for lawfully existing buildings, not multi-family, up to five feet above the 35-foot height limit. The reasons five feet was provided here instead of three feet is these structures may be below base flood and may need an opportunity to get to base flood and hopefully will have a foot or two more to go above and better protect themselves and receive discounts. It is proposed that no structure will ever be more than 40 feet. FEMA base flood would have to be met for this opportunity to be afforded to a property owner. Also, those properties located in AE10 or VE 10 or greater are not afforded this opportunity because those are riskier areas for development. A table of FEMA flood zones with the number of private vacant parcels in the county was shown. Most of both the existing parcels and the private vacant parcels exist in AE5 through AE9. These ordinances, therefore, would cover the majority of the parcels in the County. Ms. Santamaria then explained that another flood protection height exception is for those lawfully established buildings that exist today and already exceed the 35-foot height limit. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet the required FEMA base flood elevation provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet. If a building already exceeds the 40-foot height limit and cannot rebuild within that provision of the 40-foot max, a hearing before the Planning Commission and the BOCC would be required to set what would be their maximum height. There is criteria created in the code to address that situation. Lawfully existing multi-family buildings that exceed the 35-foot height limit that would need to go beyond 40 feet would again require a hearing before the Planning Commission and a hearing before the BOCC to set a maximum height. The criteria to address this situation were illustrated. Ms. Santamaria recommended approval to both the comp plan amendments as well as the Land Development Code amendments. Commissioner Lustberg asked for clarification between an existing house and a new house. Ms. Santamaria clarified that existing homes can be elevated to 40 feet, a new home can be built to 38 feet, and replacement of a demolished home can go to 40 feet because of a ROGO exception. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey suggested exploring the difference between a damaged rebuild and a voluntary tear-down and rebuild. Chair Werling asked for public comment. ϰ 4EGOIX4K 4T Burke Cannon, resident of Tavernier, cited examples of discrepancies that would exist in his neighborhood. The neighborhood would change dramatically. Mr. Cannon asked that more consideration be given to these ordinances. Mel Montagne, president of Fair Insurance Rates of Monroe County (FIRM), asked to show a four-minute video put together by Scott Fraser, who is the FEMA coordinator and flood plain manager for the City of Key West, which highlights the potential savings in a video format. That referendum that will allow homeowners to protect their property by elevating structures up to five feet above base flood level, but in no case exceeding a maximum building height of 40 feet. FEMA is expected to redraw flood insurance rate maps in Monroe County over the next several years and the National Flood Insurance Program will be reauthorized in 2017, which may result in rates less than favorable to Monroe County. A referendum with similar changes passed easily in the City of Key West. Mr. Montagne asked the Commissioners to adopt proposed amendments that allow elevation to mitigate flood risk. Commissioner Miller pointed out that the cost of building a home higher has not been deducted in the figures shown by Mr. Montagne, which could actually negate 20 years of savings to a home. Mr. Montagne replied that the figures on the video were Key West-specific and based on a 30-year payout. Also, catastrophic events should be considered in those figures. Commissioner Miller does not believe this ordinance should be passed before knowing what the flood maps will be. Dottie Moses, representing the Island of Key Largo Federation of Homeowners Associations, stated that although the Federation has been a supporter of the FIRM organization, they object to raising the 35-foot height limit on new construction. The Federation is not against raising the base flood elevation, but believes that can be done under the 35-foot height. The flood insurance premiums should in themselves be a motive for people to want to build higher without being given another higher elevation, but this is voluntary. Ms. Moses then commented that although recent sea level rise workshop data is being used as support for elevating, the executive summary from that project says their results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a program to elevate flood plain residential. Ms. Moses pointed out that Key West is an older community and has more homes that are in lower elevations than Unincorporated Monroe County. Voluntarily tearing down a house and then being allowed to rebuild it to 40 feet should be looked at very closely and should be treated as new construction. Ms. Moses clarified for Commissioner Lustberg that she personally supports the ability to elevate an existing house to 40 feet, but not for any new construction, including a teardown. Commissioner Miller asked where in the LDRs it states you can build to 40 feet if you tear your house down. Ms. Santamaria pointed out Section 130-187B. Ms. Santamaria then explained that she misspoke earlier and clarified that this exception shall apply to the substantial improvements of buildings, whether voluntary or not, who would be able to rebuild to 38 feet, not 40 feet. Bill Hunter of Sugarloaf Key asked what the maximum height would be if he bulldozed his home to build a new one. Ms. Santamaria replied the maximum would be 38 feet. Alicia Putney, resident of No Name Key, explained that the height of 35 feet was determined by the height of the existing tree line so that trees would be higher than the buildings. Throughout the Keys members of homeowners associations and environmental groups fought for that height ϱ 4EGOIX4K 4T limit to keep the Florida Keys a unique and special place. Ms. Putney pointed out that there are only three land use determinants for the 2010 comp plan and LDRs: The carrying capacity limitations; natural resource protection; and the enhancement of community character. Policy 101.2.24 limits the height of structures to 35 feet. To be able to change the comp plan new issues or a change in circumstance need to be shown using data and analysis. The only new data being presented today is the need to allow existing buildings to be elevated for flood protection. Ms. Putney suggested the following ways to address this agenda item on height issues: Allow an exception to the 35-foot height limit when the reasons to elevate the existing structure is for FEMA reasons to a maximum of 38 feet; allow an exception to the 38-foot height limit to allow grandfathered structures to elevate the structure for FEMA reasons; and allow an exception to the 35-foot height limit limited to Ocean Reef where the community character is distinct from the rest of the Florida Keys provided there is legal protection from this allowance setting a precedent for the rest of the Keys and provided the exceptions are based in a Livable CommuniKeys planning initiative which would result in an overlay district. Allowing new construction to those owners who desire a third story that would exceed 35 feet is encouraging development in the lowest areas of the Florida Keys where development should be discouraged. There is no need to change the rules for new construction. Ms. Putney asked the Commissioners to consider these recommendations prior to voting on this important issue. Joyce Newman of Big Pine Key spoke on behalf of Last Stand. Ms. Newman stated that Last Stand has participated in all of the meetings related to change of height in the county and wholeheartedly supports a mechanism that would allow an existing home to be raised five feet above base flood elevation as protection against sea level rise and increased flood insurance premiums. However, Last Stand is opposed to a blanket exemption to the 35-foot height that would change the community character of the Florida Keys. A variance procedure should be attached to any changes proposed above the 35-foot level, which would allow the Planning Commission to look carefully at these requests on a case-by-case basis. Last Stand does not support new construction being afforded the ability to go beyond the 35-foot level because there is no burden on new construction to achieve the BFE elevations. Last Stand continues to object to special considerations for Ocean Reef because of the precedent this might set. However, the suggestion of going through the Livable CommuniKeys process might provide legal protections to avoid the precedence being set. Ms. Newman believes this is not ready to go before the BOCC because of the recent changes and the contention and lack of consensus that still exists. Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Club to speak on Agenda Item 4 as it pertains to Ocean Reef Club. Mr. Reed stated Ocean Reef has been represented at all of the meetings regarding this issue over the last two years. This is a key and critical issue for Ocean Reef and the language does not go far enough to protect existing structures that are already exceeding the height limit. Mr. Reed displayed proposed language to be included under Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Reed attempted to assuage the concerns that language applicable to Ocean Reef would spread to the rest of the community by explaining the policy, as written, is a policy unique only to Ocean Reef and is not applicable to other parts of the County. Ocean Reef is the only community that meets the gated master planned community in the definitions of the code today. Additional items that Ocean Reef is asking to be put in is that the existing structures that already exceed the 35- foot height restriction could be built back. Ocean Reef is asking that two community buildings that are key and essential to the community, the cultural center and the boat barn, would have a ϲ 4EGOIX4K 4T 65-foot height restriction. Mr. Reed described Ocean Reef as distinct in that it is isolated, inaccessible and does have a distinct community character. There is no visual impact due to the buildings in Ocean Reef. Commissioner Miller pointed out that Ocean Reef can be seen clearly from the water. Mr. Reed continued to explain that Ocean Reef has design guidelines and an architectural committee that reviews for all architecture that happens in all buildings in Ocean Reef. Photographs of Ocean Reef were shown from different times and different vantage points. Mr. Reed stated that Ocean Reef is more restrictive than Monroe County as far as setbacks, building envelope requirements and architectural restrictions. Mr. Reed stated the County has no regulations to date to protect buildings that are lawfully established buildings that exceed the height limits that are part of the Ocean Reef community. Pictures were displayed of some of these buildings. Ms. Santamaria clarified that a table of the proposed changes for the buildings at Ocean Reef is contained in the backup for some policy language in Exhibit 11, although the table is mostly blank. Mr. Reed stated that he will fill in the updated information and provide it to staff and to the Commissioners afterwards. Mr. Reed then continued to show the different buildings as examples in the community. Mr. Reed stated some of the buildings have aged and have passed their useful life because of the restrictions and not allowing these building to be rebuilt with an increase in height is not a benefit to the community or to the overall value of that community. Some buildings have outdated ceiling heights and Ocean Reef is asking those buildings be allowed to be built back with 11 or 12 feet slab-to-slab height. Some buildings would lose units if built back to current height restrictions. To build the boat barn back within codes to maintain the same number of boats stored there it would need to go up to 65 feet. The boat barn currently is at 37 feet. The cultural center has asked to go to 65 feet because of the space needed for the type of productions that are put on for the community. Mr. Reed reiterated that Ocean Reef Club is a distinct community and isolated. Ocean Reef Club is managed by its board of directors and the homeowner piece of it, Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA), has not only a board, but an architectural committee as well. Both the club and the community association are in support of this request and believe it is a necessity for Ocean Reef. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey discussed the difference in height of the cultural center and the boat barn currently and what is proposed by Mr. Reed. Commissioner Wiatt asked Mr. Reed about ownership of the different structures in the table provided. Mr. Reed replied that the commercial buildings are all owned by Ocean Reef Club and the condominium buildings are all owned within the community association. Commissioner Wiatt expressed sympathy for the owners that may have obtained these properties prior to the 35-foot limit, but believes owners that obtained them after the 35-foot limit came into place should have known they could only be built back to 35 feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that the 35-foot height restriction came into being in 1986. Commissioner Lustberg disagreed in that many things in the County are grandfathered in and when purchasing something that violates the rules owners believe continuing that use is generally allowed. Mr. Reed commented again concerning neighbor impact due to a change that Ocean Reef Club is isolated and has their own rules and regulations that guide development and their community members are part of that entire process. Mr. Reed went over Number 2 and 3 to Policy 101.5.31 that Ocean Reef is requesting be added to the policy language. Mr. Reed confirmed for Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey that Number 2 would allow replacement of a building at an additional height. Commissioner Miller asked what the flood zone is for Ocean ϳ 4EGOIX4K 4T Reef. Mr. Reed replied that the Amberjack Hotel is in a V11-13 zone and the others are AE 9 and AE 10. Jim Hendrick of Key West was present on behalf of ORCA. Mr. Hendrick exaplained that Ocean Reef Club is the actual ownership entity and ORCA is the local governance for Ocean Reef that has its own architectural standards, its own boards and committees. Mr. Hendrick noted Ka measure of limitation on buildings within the island communities along the US-1 chain, but recognized that the community character of Ocean Reef is very distinct from the rest of the Keys. Ocean Reef is the only community that is exempted from ROGO because it is isolated. Mr. Hendrick pointed out that under the regulations that are currently being proposed all owners of a condominium could not be accommodated. A special policy is needed for Ocean Reef because there are no standards given to guide the exercise of granting an exemption. A special rule can be accomplished for Ocean Reef without setting an adverse precedent because the policy contains the reasons why Ocean Reef is unique: Because it is a gated master-planned community; it is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community; and has a distinct community character. Mr. Hendrick believes the suggestion that this be worked through a gives very clear and specific guidelines as to what will and will not be allowed in Ocean Reef. The Ocean Reef community is speaking with one voice on this and no one speaks against it. Naja Girard of Key West asked since when is a property owner allowed to make their own rules. Ms. Girard asked if the County wants to encourage walled-up, exclusive, gated communities throughout the Keys. Ms. Girard asked that this issue be considered very carefully. Deb Curlee of Cudjoe Key stated that she attended all of the DRC meetings on this issue and this is the first time the proposed changes or additional language from Ocean Reef has been seen. Ms. Curlee asked Ms. Santamaria to confirm that Ocean Reef is part of Monroe County. Ms. Santamaria answered in the affirmative. Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked to discuss Ocean Reef first. Commissioner Ramsay- Vickrey agrees that Ocean Reef is a distinct community and agrees with the five-foot exemption for the decorative features. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey commented that the proposed language by Ocean Reef contained in Number 2 and Number 3 has not gone through staff review or a public process. Therefore, she is opposed to voting on that today. Commissioners Wiatt and Miller agreed with that. Commissioner Lustberg believes there has been substantial public discussion on many things before coming in front of the Planning Commission and this is what is before the Commission today. Commissioner Lustberg feels that Ocean Reef is largely protected by the language allowing for the variance process in order to build beyond the 40 feet because it would be considered a hardship for somebody to lose a unit. That would be considered differently in Ocean Reef with a condo than it might for an individual homeowner. Commissioner Miller asked if the 15,000 excluded properties in AE-10 and VE-10 throughout the County would also apply to Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria responded that there are properties in Ocean Reef that are AE-10, VE-10 or greater. So the proposed policy that allows for existing ϴ 4EGOIX4K 4T multifamily structures to exceed the 35-foot height limit and go beyond 40 feet would not be available for those that exceed the 10-foot level. Ms. Santamaria then noted that the previous submission from Ocean Reef, Exhibit 11 of the staff report, contains 90 percent of the same language, but the table related to the request was never submitted previously. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey repeated that should go through staff and a public process before coming before the Planning Commission on those issues. Commissioner Wiatt noted that even though the height restrictions were originally put in place to address aesthetics and the height of the trees, they have morphed into something more than that. There are really only two things right now that have any control over residential floor area: setbacks and height restrictions. Therefore, the only way Commissioner Wiatt will be comfortable with increasing height restrictions is to make sure language is in place that does not allow for an increase in floor area in the guise of raising properties for flood. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that there is no limit in the text currently relating to floor area. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey suggested limiting this height rise to only single- and two-story homes. Commissioner Miller voiced concern that the height increase in new construction will result in a density increase. Commissioner Miller distributed graphs showing the potential changes that will result from the height increases. Commissioner Miller explained how to read the graphs. Commissioner Miller pointed out that these increases will incentivize those people who want to maximize their number of floors and believes protecting our homes and getting reduced FEMA premiums can already be accomplished without the proposed increases. Taking the residential units out of the equation may make for a better product. Commissioner Wiatt commented that Policy 101.5.33 limits existing lawfully established floor area to the building envelope. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that B2 does not include that language. C contains that language for multi-family. Ms. Schemper explained that new construction is sandwiched in between base flood and the 35-foot height limit, so an additional story is not able to be added. Commissioner Miller disagreed with that. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey again suggested limiting the increases to new buildings to single- or two-story homes. Commissioner Lustberg stated new construction gets the increase only if the house is elevated that three feet above base flood. Ms. Santamaria agreed that the increment is only what is gone above base flood. Mr. Williams explained the house stays the same size, but just gets moved up or down. Commissioner Miller insisted that his graph of showing the changes is correct and suggested having a workshop on this matter. Commissioner Wiatt would like to include multi-family in the limitation to single- or two-story structures. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey voiced concern because of the effects that may have on affordable housing. Commissioner Miller agreed with limiting the new construction to single- or two-story homes, but wants the community concern addressed. Ms. Santamaria explained if three stories could be built under the 35-foot limit, then those three stories could be built under the 38-foot limit because it is just being shifted up. Chair Werling stated there are already buildings in the very hazardous flood areas and they are getting no advantage to rectify their situation with these proposed changes. Ms. Santamaria explained that they can still build back within the 35 feet and take advantage of actually adding a couple feet above base flood, but the County does not want to incentivize construction in those riskier areas. They would be rebuilding smaller homes in those areas. Staff tried to capture in the language where the majority of the existing parcels and the majority of the existing development occurs, which is AE-6 through 10. Chair Werling asked if homes in those lower ϵ 4EGOIX4K 4T areas could be considered on a case-by-case numbers on their maps are going to be. Mr. Williams explained how the LiDAR works when creating these new maps and stated some counties who have had the LiDAR used to create their maps have seen as much as a foot change in their elevation. Chair Werling is bothered that no exception is given to those homes in the low-lying areas. Commissioner Miller questioned why the County would not wait for the map changes before voting on this ordinance. Ms. Santamaria replied to give people the opportunity to be better prepared and better protect their homes with potential changes coming out. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked to add language this is to be reviewed every time there is an issuance of new maps. Chair Werling agreed. Commissioner Lustberg does not believe that the height should be tied in to where base flood goes because that could go on forever. At this point a concession is being made to people who have an existing property to allow them to use it the same way, but to make it safer for flooding and to reduce their premiums. Commissioner Lustberg feels that this ordinance tries to take into effect where it is appropriate to build back and how much is appropriate to grant people in order to be able to have insured houses without allowing for inappropriate development that slips in. Otherwise, only people who do not need a mortgage can afford to live here. Commissioner Miller made three points: It is more equitable if the 35-foot rule applied to all of the properties in the Keys; under no circumstances should there be increased capacity in the number of floors that could be built under this exemption; and consideration should be given to the fact that our communities have been built under the 35-foot height limitation successfully for years. Ms. Santamaria proposed the following language to limit the 38-foot height exemption to one- or two--family or multi-family buildings, which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the buildi, an exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above base flood elevation. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height or two floors of Santamaria explained the proposed language for new development will not adversely affect those property owners who can build three floors currently at 35 feet. The Commissioners agreed to keep the language in B2 as is. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked that these same changes to new and existing development decided on for Item 5 be made to Item 4. Ms. Santamaria clarified that language will be added to specify in Policy 101.5.32 that limits new single-family and multi-family to 38 feet and two stories and existing to 40 feet to match the code. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey suggested rector shall provide a recommendation to the ody should be exempt in Number 5 of the LDC, especially if the maps are going to change. Ms. Santamaria explained the rationale for that language was public comment received during the DRC that redevelopment should not be facilitated or encouraged in the riskier areas. They could still build under the 35-foot height limit, but would not have the ability to go the extra height. Commissioner Miller believes that would allow for the creation of more habitable space in those homes. Commissioner Wiatt noted that the language is covered under existing development and the limitation of two floors covers it under new development. The people that have structures in low-lying areas can continue to have those structures, but they are not getting any more floor ϭϬ 4EGOIX4K 4T area. Commissioner Miller pointed out that in the lower elevations this will create more habitable space Commissioner Ramsay- That would discourage development in the most sensitive and flood prone areas for new development. Chair Werling added that there are a lot of restrictions in obtaining a permit in those areas already. Commissioner Lustberg asked to hear the proposed language again. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the c Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existing buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three feet above FEMA base flood elevation and a Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow new buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three feet above FEMA base flood elevation. These exceptions are in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new building exceeding a maximum height of 38 feet and a lawfully existing building exceeding a -family and multi-family b base flood elevation, an exception of a maximum of three feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above base flood elevation. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height or two habitable floors. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of - stricken from B2 and B5 will read: No exception shall be provided to new buildings located in Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion on Agenda Item Number 4 to approve with the language adjustments as read by staff as directed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. Commissioner Lustberg asked Legal staff about unintended consequences these changes will bring about. Mr. Williams stated that there are always consequences, but as long as the County does not infringe on property information submitted today by Ocean Reef is not included in this motion. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey added that the Planning Commission is willing to address those requests when There was no opposition. they comes before the Commission through the existing process. The motion passed unanimously. ϭϭ 4EGOIX4K 4T Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion on Agenda Item Number 5 to approve with the changes as read by the Planning Director as directed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Ms. Santamaria repeated the changes for Commissioner Miller. Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. A brief recess was held from 12:36 p.m. to 12:48 p.m. 6.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) (12:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that, similar to the height amendment, this item started in the comp plan update and the BOCC in December 2014 asked staff to take it out of the comp plan update and process it separately. This has also gone to the DRC five times since that time period. Three amendments are being proposed to the comp plan. The language in Policy 101.6.8 that allows the transfer of ROGO exemptions from one area to the other has already been transmitted to DEO and voted on and supported by the BOCC. The new addition is that the receiver site of these existing units transferring from one location to the other would not be to an offshore island. The language in Policy 101.13.3 allowing for the transfer of development rights, the transfer of density and not units, has also been transmitted to the State of Florida. The new addition, Number 6, states an offshore island will not be a receiver site for extra density. Policy 206.1.2 has the following new language 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, burrow included in the comp plan update and removed is included here. It is not for offshore island zoning, but for the specific term of the directly or indirectly connected to US- recommended approval of the amendments before the Planning Commission today. Chair Werling asked for public comment. Naja Girard, resident of Key West, questioned why the amendments relating to offshore islands are being brought separately from the general comp plan update with no new data that contradicts the original technical document. Ms. Girard stated during the final BOCC hearing on the comp plan update one ϭϮ 4EGOIX4K 4T owned a spoil island to the west of Key West when, in fact, the gentleman was not really his client and the island is not really a spoil island. That maneuver was used as the pretext that set in motion the sidetracking of the comp plan update as it pertains to offshore islands. Ms. Girard urged the Commissioners to keep in mind that today there are 60 privately-owned offshore islands and what is done here today will affect many islands that have remaining development potential. Ms. Girard asked that the comp plan policies retain the clear language that has been in place for decades that states that all offshore islands are Tier I, that development must be low density and even prohibited if the island is a bird nesting colony site and that no development rights or ROGOs may be transferred to offshore islands. Offshore islands are protected not only for the upland habitat they provide, but also because of the important ecosystem that is found in the waters that surround them. Spoil islands are uniquely inappropriate for residential development because they are highly prone to erosion. Ms. Girard concluded by stating that there is no legitimate reason and no data that supports the weakening of protections for offshore islands. Nicholas Batty, attorney on behalf of FEB Corp., thanked staff for their hard work in this matter. Mr. Batty stated FEB Corp. supports this proposal except for one facet of the ordinance to which FEB takes exception: The prohibition of offshore islands as receiver sites for TREs. It is completely acceptable to eliminate the transfer of TDRs to offshore islands because there is no maximum net density for islands within the offshore zoning category, but not every offshore island has ROGO attached and the prohibition of offshore islands as receiver sites forces the property owners to look to the ROGO allocation system which is already crowded and takes the possibility of purchasing and transferring ROGO exemptions in the market system off the table. There is no justification for the blanket prohibition against transfers to offshore islands. If a site on offshore islands meets all of the required criteria, why should it not be eligible for a TRE transfer? Mr. Batty respectfully requested the Commission approve the language of the amendment as written with the exception of the TRE receiver prohibition. Alicia Putney, resident of No Name Key, pointed out to the Commissioners that the final order for the 1995 challenge to the current comp plan adopted by the BOCC in 1993 includes findings of facts that specifically pertain to the goals, objectives and policies of the current year 2010 plan. Maps showing the offshore islands that were considered in the development of the comp plan were attached to that final order. Ms. Putney recited certain language from the technical document about offshore islands and their importance in the ecosystem of the Florida Keys. Ms. Putney stands firmly behind staff in the concept of offshore islands not being eligible to be a receiver site. There has been no data or analysis brought forward to justify changing the restrictions on development of offshore islands. To do so will not only be in violation of the comp plan, but also the principles for guiding development. Offshore islands are environmentally sensitive by definition and the protections should not be lowered. Julie Dick from Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Last Stand and the Florida Keys Environmental Fund, thanked staff for all of their work that has gone into developing this language and these policies. Ms. Dick stated her clients are fully supportive of keeping offshore islands from being receiver sites. Being able to transfer ROGOs to offshore islands would exacerbate very serious problems in terms of evacuation. Ms. Dick addressed some definitions ϭϯ 4EGOIX4K 4T islands (including spoil islands) which have a nesting area or an established bird colony site, based on best available data or survey and on- Dick ex removed because whether or not an offshore island has previously been documented as a nesting area or a bird rookery or colony site is irrelevant. The important thing is whether the bird rookery or colony site is on that offshore because Policy 102.7.2 has almost mirror-image language except it lists rookery and nesting cover endangered and threatened species and species of special concern at the State and Federal that the County does not have to wait for information that is needed when there may be other available data. Also, it should be verified by the County biologist to provide for on-the-ground verification of what is really on these islands in terms of colony sites or nesting areas. Ms. Dick stated Dr. Jerry Lorenz, the Florida Research Director for Audubon Florida, will address the f accurate reference. The definition for colony site should mirror what staff proposed in Policy 206.1.2 so there will be consistency throughout the comp plan. Policy 207.9.1 references anticipation of an updated list of offshore islands with bird rookeries where development shall be prohibited. That update has not been done, so Ms. Dick asked that the policy be taken out altogether. Dr. Jerry Lorenz, marine biologist representing National Audubon Society and Audubon Florida, because a rookery is much broader as it is defined whereas a colony site is a nesting habitat. Dr. Lorenz stated these islands are environmentally sensitive and are critical to bird life in the Keys and to the rest of the country because of the migration flyways through this area. A number of birds nest on these islands that are classified as colonial or semi- colonial, which are distinctly different. White-crowned pigeons are classified as a semi-colonial species, which simply means they can nest in colonies or they can nest individually. The white- crowned pigeon is critical to the upland habitat in the Keys because the hardwood hammocks are dependent upon them for moving around seeds. They are classified as threatened by the State of Florida and are a critical component of the ecosystem. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey noted All colonies are rookeries, but not all rookeries are colonies. Mr. Roberts agreed that Dr. Loren protection to the area. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the Merriam- Dr. Lorenz noted that that definition is not scientifically correct. Dr. Lorenz stated these lands are environmentally sensitive and he would like the comp plan to be as specific as possible to that both colonial birds and semi-colonials birds need to be included. When birds form in groups to sit on a nest it is a bird colony no matter what the bird is classified as. Dr. Lorenz then explained that bird colonies are ephemeral. The islands will be used by birds when appropriate and not used when not appropriate. A colony site is a place where birds would go to nest, not necessarily that birds are nesting there at a certain time. Commissioner Miller suggested adding uch - ϭϰ 4EGOIX4K 4T Commissioner Lustberg asked if every offshore island would be suitable. Dr. Lorenz replied that all offshore islands he is familiar with are environmentally important to all avian species even though they may not necessarily be a nesting location. Offshore islands are critical to all species of bird that migrate through the Florida Keys going to Cuba or the Yucatan Peninsula. Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked Mr. Roberts for his opinion regarding the broad definition of rookery, which could include turtles. Mr. Roberts explained that protections are in place for turtles. This policy protects offshore islands relative to the transfer of development rights and -could be added. That would close a narrowly open door. Commissioner Ramsay- unknown who will make the determination that it is suitable habitat. Commissioner Ramsay- Vickrey does like the receiver site criteria adding that it is not an offshore island and does like Roberts explained that the resource agencies that have a presence in the Keys are U.S. Fish & Wildlife, Florida DEP, Florida Game and Freshwater Fish Commission and the County. Commissioner Lustberg pointed out that there is not one entity the County should be dependent upon to get the data, but also does not want to rely on the applicants for that data. Mr. Roberts -Vickrey agreed with that proposal. Chair Werling pointed out that would mean there would be no development allowed on any offshore island and right now this language allows development on offshore islands so long as it can get the appropriate ROGO units, that it complies with all the land use maps, but no development or ROGO units can be transferred to the properties. Commissioner Miller asked to open this up to the idea of designating all offshore islands as Tier I. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 directs the County to discourage development proposed on offshore islands by methods, including but not limited to, designating offshore islands as Tier I lands. Each property is evaluated based on the tier criteria that has been adopted into the comp plan and code to see if they meet the criteria for the designation. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the proposed 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 bird rookery refers to the location where colonial or semi-colonial birds nest together (referring to a location where 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 Motion: Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey made a motion to approve with the amendments as read by the Planning Director as directed by the Planning Commission. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. ϭϱ 4EGOIX4K 4T 3.PLAYA LARGO RESORT, 97450 OVERSEAS HWY, KEY LARGO, MILE MARKER 97.4: A PUBLIC HEARING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A 6COP-S ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE USE PERMIT, WHICH WOULD ALLOW BEER, WINE, AND LIQUOR IN CONNECTION WITH OPERATION OF HOTEL, MOTEL, MOTOR COURT OR CONDOMINIUM; SALE BY THE DRINK FOR CONSUMPTION ON PREMISES AND PACKAGE SALES IN SEALED CONTAINERS. THE SUBJECT PARCEL IS LEGALLY DESCRIBED AS TRACTS 4B AND 5B OR AMENDED PLAT OF MANDALAY ON KEY LARGO, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF AS RECORDED IN PLAT BOOK 2, PAGE 25, PUBLIC RECORDS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA AND ALSO A TRACT OF SUBMERGED LAND IN THE BAY OF FLORIDA FRONTING SAID TRACT 5B, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00555010-0000000. (File 2016-014) (1:43 p.m.) Mr. Rains presented the staff report. Mr. Rains described the location and zoning of the property. Mr. Rains reported that the property is under substantial development at this time and is in for an application for special use permit to allow alcoholic beverage sales in connection with a hotel resort application. Mr. Rains described prior County actions on this property. Mr. Rains explained that within an application for variance from the parking it became evident that this was a closed resort to guests of the facility. Photographs of the property were shown. Surrounding properties that include alcoholic beverage use permits were listed. Mr. Rains recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were then outlined. Nicholas Mulick, Esquire, was present on behalf of the applicant. Mr. Mulick requested that Mr. Williams explained this is normally not an issue, but some of the variances received on this property expressly related to the parking issues on site. Mr. Williams suggested all people attending a special event could register as guests. Jorge Cepero of Playa Largo was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and stated every weekend there will be some kind of event, so to have every guest register for every single event is not realistic. Mr. sioner Wiatt emphasized the fact that parking is the concern if the bar is open to non-registered guests. Mr. Cepero responded that the applicant is only restricted in not advertising for people to come into the bar and be served at the bar. Mr. Wolfe explained parking for a hotel contemplates functions like weddings. What is not covered and is specifically excluded is traffic from people coming into the bar. Ms. Santamaria clarified that the parking variance approved by Planning Commission Resolution Number P39-07 states lcoholic beverage sales shall be limited to registered guests of the hotel and registered guests at events at the hotel facility. Mr. Mulick asked to broaden the language slightly to include special events or catered events. Commissioner Lustberg noted that guests of a conference would be registered guests even if staying elsewhere. Mr. Cepero noted that is often controlled by people putting on the wedding or the event, not by the hotel. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey supports the item. Commissioner Ramsay-Vickrey asked if the applicant would like to take a continuance for a month to go back and meet with staff and try to work out the language so it would be acceptable to all. Mr. Mulick stated the applicant is fine with Ms. ϭϲ 4EGOIX4K 4T from the resolution. Mr. Williams pointed out that the concern is not with the present applicant, but with what may happen two or three owners down the road who are not aware of everything that is agreed to here. Ms. Santamaria re-read Planning Commission Resolution P39-07 aloud. Chair Werling asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, resident of Key Largo, was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and then asked Mr. Cepero if the restaurant at the waterfront was no longer going to be open to the public as was previously believed. Mr. Williams pointed out that public comment is not an opportunity for the public to question the applicant. Ms. Moses stated that she had been told that the waterfront apartment was for employee housing only, which is not being called a commercial unit. The two residential areas on either side of this resort are members of the Federation of Homeowners Associations and are very concerned about any kind of impact the parking, traffic and noise will cause in those neighborhoods. Ms. Schemper added that some of these issues were dealt with during the conditional use approval. The approval on that site is for a hotel with restaurant and bar areas that are accessory uses to the hotel. The commercial apartment was approved as a commercial apartment, which means it can be for either employees or the owner to use on the site. One of the conditions in the conditional use permit is that there will be no outdoor entertainment past 10 p.m. Ms. Moses stated the noise ordinance in place now is not working. Joyce Newman, resident of Big Pine Key, was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and then repeated the story from a prior meeting about a piece of property on Big Pine Key that was proposed as a family restaurant and in short time became Commissioners to keep the big picture in mind. The neighbors of this resort are not only dealing with a drastic change in community character, but the whole community is dealing with a loss of affordable housing, so the developer ought to be able to give up something. Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Commissioner Wiatt pointed out in fairness to the applicant that they have supplied affordable housing for their workers, but stated he is not willing to compromise on the parking. Chair Werling and Commissioner Miller agreed. language read by the Planning Director at the request of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMENTS Ms. Santamaria reminded the Commissioners that on March 1 and April 13 the adoption hearings for the Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan will be held. Staff is trying to organize a training session for the Planning Commission on March 17 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. on fair and effective zoning hearings. Commissioner Lustberg stated she will be out of the country, but would be happy to read any written minutes of the meeting. Ms. Santamaria will check to see if the video can be purchased for those who cannot attend. ϭϳ 4EGOIX4K 4T ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m. ϭϴ 4EGOIX4K 4U Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County Number of # of Private- FEMA Flood Zone % of total % of total Parcels Vacant Parcels X 1,935 3.40% 462 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 5.16% CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 999 1.76% 165 AE 5 1 0.00% - 95 AE 6 1,964 3.46% 296 AE 7 8,996 15.83% 2,699 AE 8 14,824 26.08% 1,916 AE 9 11,272 19.83% AE 10 6,835 12.02% 1,098 83.48% AE 11 2,983 5.25% 326 AE 12 121 0.21% 12 AE 13 418 0.74% 5 AE 14 36 0.06% - AE 15 3 0.01% - AE 16 1 0.00% - VE 9 5 0.01% 1 3 story 67 VE 10 327 0.58% 272 VE 11 1,019 1.79% 265 VE 12 1,443 2.54% 127 VE 13 1,069 1.88% 52 VE 14 1,815 3.19% 52 VE 15 352 0.62% 7 VE 16 31 0.05% 10.76% 2 VE 17 33 0.06% VE 19 5 0.01% - VE 20 1 0.00% - VE 21 8 0.01% - VE 22 7 0.01% - VE 23 1 0.00% - VE 24 1 0.00% - VE 26 2 0.00% - OPEN WATER 10 0.02% 2 total parcels56,843 7,921 Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. 4EGOIX4K %XXEGLQIRX)\*)1%FYMPHCFEGOCVIFYMPHHEXEWLIIXW LIMKLXPMQMXI\GITXMSRJSVJPSSH %XXEGLQIRX)\*)1%FYMPHCFEGOCVIFYMPHHEXEWLIIXW LIMKLXPMQMXI\GITXMSRJSVJPSSH 4V Rebuilding in an AE Zone Can we afford to rebuild higher? Can we afford not to? ĞĐĂƵƐĞ:ŽŶĂŶĚ<ĂƚŚǇWĂƌŬĞƌĐŽƵůĚŶ͛ƚƐĞĞƚŚĞƐŚŽƌĞůŝŶĞ ĨƌŽŵƚŚĞŝƌŚŽƵƐĞ͕ ƚŚĞǇŶĞǀĞƌƌĞĂůůǇďĞůŝĞǀĞĚƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞĐŽƵůĚďĞǁŝƉĞĚ tŚĞŶƚŚĞǇĂƉƉůŝĞĚĨŽƌĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚ͕ 1 1 Option 1: Building to the current requirements dŚĞWĂƌŬĞƌƐ ƌĞĂůŝǌĞĚƚŚĂƚǁĞĂƚŚĞƌŝƐ ΨϭϰϯƉĞƌŵŽŶƚŚŽƌΨϭ͕ϳϭϲƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ Option 2: Building 3 feet above the current requirements Ψϭ͕ϭϳϴ 'ŽŽĚŶĞǁƐ͊ 4EGOIX4K 4V Not every case is the same. Consider your situation. Žƌ 4EGOIX4K 4V 6IFYMPHMRKMRE:)>SRI 'ER[IEJJSVHXSVIFYMPHLMKLIV# 'ER[IEJJSVHXS# RSX dŽŵĂŶĚDĂƌǇ^ŵŝƚŚůŝǀĞĚŝŶƚŚĞŝƌŚŽŵĞĨŽƌϭϱǇĞĂƌƐ͘ dŚĞŶ tŚĞŶƚŚĞǇĂƉƉůŝĞĚĨŽƌĂďƵŝůĚŝŶŐƉĞƌŵŝƚ , 1 1 3TXMSR&YMPHMRKXSXLIGYVVIRXVIUYMVIQIRXW dŚĞ^ŵŝƚŚƐ ƌĞĂůŝǌĞĚƚŚĂƚǁĞĂƚŚĞƌŝƐ $400,000 $1,796 ΨϴϳϴƉĞƌŵŽŶƚŚŽƌΨϭϬ͕ϱϯϲƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ $2,674 3TXMSR&YMPHMRKJIIXEFSZIXLIGYVVIRXVIUYMVIQIRXW ΨϰϬϯ͕ϲϬϬ $1,812 ΨϯϭϱƉĞƌŵŽŶƚŚŽƌΨϯ͕ϳϴϬƉĞƌǇĞĂƌ ΨϮ͕ϭϮϳ 'ŽŽĚŶĞǁƐ͊ dŚĞ^ŵŝƚŚƐǁŝůůƐĂǀĞŵŽƌĞƚŚĂŶΨϱϬϬĞǀĞƌǇŵŽŶƚŚďǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐϯĨĞĞƚ higher. dŚĞ^ŵŝƚŚƐƐĂǀĞĚŵŽŶĞǇďǇďƵŝůĚŝŶŐŚŝŐŚĞƌ͘ 4EGOIX4K 4V 2SXIZIV]GEWIMWXLIWEQI 'SRWMHIV]SYVWMXYEXMSR dŚĞ^ŵŝƚŚƐ͛ƐƚŽƌǇŝƐŽŶůǇŽŶĞĞǆĂŵƉůĞ͘ dŚĞƌĞĂƌĞŵĂŶǇǀĂƌŝĂďůĞƐƚŚĂƚǁŝůůŝŵƉĂĐƚǇŽƵƌĚĞĐŝƐŝŽŶĂďŽƵƚŚŽǁǇŽƵƌĞďƵŝůĚ͘ 1-800-427-4661 www.fema.gov/building-science msc.fema.gov FloodSmart.govŽƌ1-888-229-0437 4EGOIX4K 4W Exhibit 16 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPEMNT CODE AMENDMENTS ( Deletions are stricken throughand additions are underlined.) Planning Commissionrecommendations are shown with deletions in bluewith a double stikethrough, and additions in bluewith a double underline. Land Development Code (LDC) amendments are being processed separately.LDC text is included below simply to provide the BOCC and the public with complete representation of the amendments. LDC text is identified in green. Policy 101.5.30 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations,except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Exceptions will be allowed for appurtenances to buildings, transmission towers and other similar structures.In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35-foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow’s walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building’s roof-line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. 4EGOIX4K 4W Exhibit 16 Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages;minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35-foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existingbuildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation; and a flood protection height exception of a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35-foot height limit shallbe provided to allow new(new construction or substantially improved)buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation. These exceptions arein order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events.In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new building exceeding a maximum height of 38 feet and a lawfully existing building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior to issuanceof any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. ___________________________________________________________________ 4EGOIX4K 4W Exhibit 16 Section 101-1.-Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: ***** means the action of retrofittingor raising a building to a higher positon. Elevate means a building that has its lowest floor raised above the Elevated Building ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to Retrofit reduce its exposure to flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general, retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or extending the existing foundation, or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floor system within the building or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only for parking, building access, or storage. ***** Sec. 130-187. -Maximum height. No structure or building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet. Exceptions will be allowed for chimneys; spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. Exceptions will be allowed for flood protection as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 and listed below. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the maximum height limitation,except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall not apply. A.Within the Ocean Reef master planned community which is gated, isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non-habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow’s walk, parapets) that exceed the 35-foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building’s roof-line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would 40 feet exceed . 4EGOIX4K 4W Exhibit 16 B.As provided in Policy 101.5.32, buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35-foot height limitas follows: 1.For NEW single family and multi-familybuildings which are voluntarily exceed elevated to the building’s minimum required BFE, an exception three (3) of a maximum of feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall anew 38 feet building exceed in height or two (2) habitable floors. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or not. 2.For lawfully established EXISTING multi-familybuildings which do not meet exceed the 35-foot height limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to and/orexceed the building’s minimum required BFE, an exception of a five (5) maximum of feet above the 35-foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than meetplus the distance necessary to elevate the building to BFE up to three (3) feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing building be elevated to exceed a total building height of 40 feet. 40 feet 3.No exception shall result in a totalbuilding height that exceeds. 4.Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception. 5. No exception shall be provided to newbuildings located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone. C.As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established EXISTING multi- family buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet the required FEMA BFE provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and five (5) type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of meet feetmay be permitted to the building’s minimum required FEMA BFE. The amount of the exception shall be no greater than the amount of meet elevation necessary to BFE. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible forthis exception. D.As provided in Policy 101.5.33, for lawfully established EXISTING multi- family buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that are proposed to 4EGOIX4K 4W Exhibit 16 exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners to review and specify the maximum approved height shall be required prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. 1.For lawfully established EXISTING multi-family buildings that are meet voluntarily repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to the building’s minimum required FEMA BFE, but will require a height more than five (5) exception of feet, a Flood Protection Height Exception exceeding the 35-foot height limit may be provided by the BOCC based on the following criteria: a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel; b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood damage and the effects of such damage on the property owner; c. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other lands to the injury of others; d. The availability of alternate solutions; e. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood risk; result in additional threats to public safety; result in extraordinary public expense; create nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public; and f. Community character. g.Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception. 2.A BOCC resolution shall specify the findings of criteria of D.1. a. through g. (above) and specify the approved maximum total height for the proposed building. 4EGOIX4K 4Y Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County Number of # of Private- FEMA Flood Zone % of total % of total Parcels Vacant Parcels X 1,935 3.40% 462 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 5.16% CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 999 1.76% 165 AE 5 1 0.00% - 95 AE 6 1,964 3.46% 296 AE 7 8,996 15.83% 2,699 AE 8 14,824 26.08% 1,916 AE 9 11,272 19.83% AE 10 6,835 12.02% 1,098 83.48% AE 11 2,983 5.25% 326 AE 12 121 0.21% 12 AE 13 418 0.74% 5 AE 14 36 0.06% - AE 15 3 0.01% - AE 16 1 0.00% - VE 9 5 0.01% 1 3 story 67 VE 10 327 0.58% 272 VE 11 1,019 1.79% 265 VE 12 1,443 2.54% 127 VE 13 1,069 1.88% 52 VE 14 1,815 3.19% 52 VE 15 352 0.62% 7 VE 16 31 0.05% 10.76% 2 VE 17 33 0.06% VE 19 5 0.01% - VE 20 1 0.00% - VE 21 8 0.01% - VE 22 7 0.01% - VE 23 1 0.00% - VE 24 1 0.00% - VE 26 2 0.00% - OPEN WATER 10 0.02% 2 total parcels56,843 7,921 Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. 4EGOIX4K Board of County Commissioners February,l5th Key West. Mayor Neugent and Commissioners, I am Deb Curlee Vice President of Last Stand and I am speaking today on behalf of Last Stand. Last Stand supports creating mechanisms that would allow existing and new homes to be raised above Base Flood Elevation as protection against sea level rise and increased flood insurance premiums. However, we are opposed to blanket exceptions for the 35 foot height limit. We support raising of an existing building to add voluntary clearance(free board) to the BFE provided that: a.) there is a special mechanism in the code for approval; b) for each foot of voluntary clearance you add beneath the building, you can add one foot over the 35- foot height with a maximum of five additional feet; c.) the total heigh of the raised building shall not exceed 40 feet in elevation; and d.) the space created under the first floor must be non - habitable space with usable space dedicated only to storage or parking. For new buildings we are opposed to the exception of the 35 foot height limit to add 3 feet of voluntary clearance (freeboard). We believe that new buildings can adhere to the 35 foot height limit and also provide two stories over parking while adding voluntary clearance to the BFE. We support the grandfathering of non - conforming height limits to certain buildings in Monroe County provided: a.) the need for the redevelopment of the building is involuntary and the use remains the same; b.) the new building's height cannot exceed that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA, along with any additional voluntary clearance (freeboard) above BFE must be equal or less than the height of the old non - conforming building; and c.) the footprint of the new building must be the same or smaller than the footprint of the original building. Last Stand is opposed to the exception for decorative elements to the 35 foot height limit in Ocean Reef because of concerns that a precedent will be established for other gated communities in the rest of Monroe County. As currently proposed, Last Stand is opposed to the exception to the 35 foot height limit for affordable housing in Monroe County. The complex issue of affordable housing and its location needs to be addressed separately and comprehensively. Last Stand thanks the commissioners and the staff for the hard work on these issues and for choosing to continue the item to allow for input from residents in the upper keys. Thank you, Deb Curlee Vice President Last Stand