Loading...
Item T7 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY Meeting Date: December 17. 2003 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: Yes - No X Department: Planning Department AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to consider an amendment to Policy 212.2.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan incorporating revisions reconunended by the Department of Conununity Affairs concerning shoreline setbacks and an amendment to the Land Development Regulations to amend Section 9.5-349 (Shoreline Setbacks). [SECOND OF TWO PUBLIC HEARINGS] ITEM BACKGROUND: The Transmittal resolution was submitted to the Department of Conununity Affairs (DCA). In response to the submittal, the DCA returned, on October 13, 2003, a letter of Objections, Reconunendations and Conunents (ORC) (See Exhibit "A"). The ORC has been addressed and the Ordinance has been amended to reflect the conunents. Staff supports the concept proposed in the agreement reached with the DCA. The agreement allows for a 10-foot minimum setback for all developed lots smaller than 4.000 square feet. Staffreconunends APPROVAL of the text change to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the text change to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The 1 st public hearing was held on May 21, 2003 and the BOCC approved Transmittal Resolution 189-2003. CONTRACnAGREEMENTCHANGES: NM STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: Approval TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes N/A No_ COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes N/A No - AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A Year - APPROVED BY: County Arty ~ Risk Management _ DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required_ DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #~ '1(2 AMENDMENT TO THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN &. MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS Board of County Commissioners Marathon December 17, 2003 PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS CONCERNING SHORELINE SETBACKS A request filed by the Monroe County Department of Planning concerning Amendments to Policy 212.2.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan concerning Shoreline Setbacks and to Section 9.5-349 (Shoreline Setbacks) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. Comp Plan and LOR Recommendations Staff Approval November 20,2002 Staff Report DRC Approval November 26,2002 Resolution #018-02 PC Denial March 12, 2003 Resolution #P16-03 SOCC Transmittal May 21,2003 Resolution #189-2003 DCA ORC October 13, 2003 BOCC DRAFT ORDINANCE ORDINANCE NO. -2003 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING A REQUEST OF THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO AMEND POLICY 212.2.3 (SHORELINE SETBACKS) OF THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES INCONSISTENT HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORA nON INTO THE MONROE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTWE DATE. WHEREAS, Objective 101.8 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states "Monroe County shall eliminate or reduce the frequency of uses which are inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the land development regulations and the Future Land Use Map, and structures which are inconsistent with applicable codes and land development regulations"; and WHEREAS, Policy 212.2.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states, in part, "Along lawfully altered shorelines including manmade canals, channels, and basins, principal structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet as measured from the mean high water line"; and WHEREAS, many residential lots on lawfully altered shorelines, especially those smaller lots in Recreational Vehicle Parks established prior to the 1986 Comprehensive Plan were developed with principal structures built within the twenty (20) foot shoreline setback; and WHEREAS, because of the small lot size, it is not possible to replace an existing mobile home with the new larger factory built modular homes and set back the required twenty (20) feet as measured from the mean high water line; and WHEREAS, while older homes can continue to be maintained, it is difficult to expand or replace them with a larger FEMA approved raised home; and WHEREAS, there is no possibility of relaxing these setback regulations by permitting a waiver or variance of the current regulations the owners ofthe smaller lots are subject to an unnecessary burden for which there is no amelioration; and WHEREAS, on October 13, 2003, DCA responder to the County's transmittal resolution NO. 189- 2003 with an Objections, Recommendations and Comments report (ORC) requiring additional data and limits to the areas where setbacks could be reduced; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has completed the additional studies and modified the proposal the proposal to only apply to lots less than 4,000 Square Feet developed with a lawfully established principal use. The setback along lawfully altered shorelines may be reduced to ten (10) feet provided that storm water runoff is minimized by the use of berms, swales and other recognized methods of controlling runoff. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: /. Deleted teX:t is strike1:hfel:lgJ:t New text is underlined I Page 1 of 2 C:\TEMP\Copy of SOCC ORD (ORC),doc Section 1. Policy 212.2.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as follows: Policv 212.2.3 Permitted uses and performance standards within the shoreline setback shall be as follows: 1. Along lawfully altered shorelines including man made canals, channels, and basins, principal structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet as measured from the mean high water (MHW) line; 2. Along lawfully altered shorelines including manmade canals. channels. and basins. parcels less than 4.000 Square Feet. that are developed with a lawfully established principal use. the required setback may be reduced to a minimum of ten ( 1 0) feet provided that the structure is sited so as to protect community character and minimize environmental impacts by maintaining open space and protecting shoreline vegetation. ~~ ~4. Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change or provision ofthis ordinance is held invalid, the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. Section 3. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 4. The ordinance is hereby transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Section 5. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Department of Community Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of , A.D., 2003. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE, Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson Page 2 of 2 ROB . WOLFE C;\TEMP\Copy of SOCC ORD (ORC),doc D~t~'EF I~S~~~~~ORNEY &J&:.\..-~.-",.$ .lj.;i~ rrtul.....f'~Uj'fKUL .....U........."'.. ""'''''''. vr&."",,~ "u-oJ"""....'"'~,~w."-' ~ ,......~- ., ~ ORDINANCE NO. -2004 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS APPROVING A REQUEST OF THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO AMEND SECTION 9.5-349 (SHORELINE SETBACKS) OF THE MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULA nONS REDUCING THE SETBACK FOR LOTS UNDER FOUR THOUSAND (4.000) SQUARE FEET; PROVIDlNO FOR REPEAL OF ALL ORDINANCES INCONSISTENf HEREWITH; PROVIDING FOR INCORPORATION INTO TIffi MONROE COUNTY CODE OF ORDINANCES; AND PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, Objective 101.8 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states "Monroe County shall eliminate or reduce the frequency of uses which are inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the land development regulations and the Future Land Use Map, and structures which are inconsistent with applicable codes and land development regulations"; and WHEREAS, Policy 212.2.3 of the Monroe County Y car 20 I 0 Comprehensive Plan states. in part. "Along lawfully altered shorelines including manmade canals, channels. and basins, principal structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet as me8SUIed from the mean high water line"; and WHERF.AS, many residential lots on lawfully altered shorelines, especially those smaller lots in Recreational Vehicle Parks established prior to the 1986 Comprehensive Plan were developed with principal structures built within the twenty (20) foot shoreline setback; and WHEREAS, because of the small lot size, it is not possible to Ieplace an existing mobile home with the new larger iactory built modular homes and set back the required twenty (20) feet as measured from the mean high water line; and WHERE~ while older homes can continue to be maintained. it is difficult to expand or replace them with a larger FEMA approved raised home; and WHEREAS, there is no possibility of relaxing these setback regulations by pennitting a waiver or variance of the current regulations the owners of the smaller lots are subject to an unnecessary burden for which there is no amelioration; and WHEREAS, on October 13,2003, DCA responder to the CoWlty'S transmittal resolution NO. 189-2003 with an Objections, Recommendations and COIIUIlents report (ORC) requiring additional data and limits to the areas where setbacks could be reduced; and WHEREAS, the Planning Department has completed the additional studies and modified the proposal the proposal to only apply to lots less than 4,000 Square Feet developed with a Page 1 of 3 C:\TEMP\Copy (21.doc ""~~-4f.),l-""'~ .l,l;6U ~1'-\j"'.."\J''''''''V.... .....\.IlIVt...... r'\....~ ........___ ..... .....-------.- .. ,.....- -- - lawfully established principal use. The setback along lawfully aJtertd shorelines may be reduced to ten (10) feet provided that storm water nmoffis minimized by the use ofbenns, swales and other recognized methods of controlling nmoff NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT: /. DeleteEI ~t is Sfri&tBreugh New text is underlined ~ Section 1. Section 9.5-349(b)(2) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations is hereby amended as follows; Section 9.S-349(b)(2) 2. A1on~ lawfully altered shorelines including manmade canals. channels. and basins.. which are developed with a lawfullv established princi~ U5C. the required setback on parcels less than 4.000 Square Feet may be reduced to a minimum often (10) feet provided that: a The total combined area of all structures. principal and accessory. does not occupy more tlwl sixty (60) percent of the upland area of the required tweotv (20) foot sMreline setback: b. The DrojlOsed develoDment protects the character and over water views of the community,; c. Shoreline vegetation is protected: and d. Open ~e ratios are maintained. ~~ ~4. Section 2. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause. item, change or provision of this ordinance is held invalid. the remainder shall not be affected by such invalidity. Se~tion 3. All ordinances or pans of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed (0 the extent of said conflict. Sectioo 4. The ordinance is hereby transmitted to the Florida Department of Community Affairs pW'suant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Secdon 5. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of State of the State of Florida, but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the Department of Community Page 2 of 3 C:\TEMP\Copy (21.doc DEC-01-03 11. 16 F~UM'MUN~U~ ~UUN~. M~A' urr'~L .U;w.frfJ~..c::;;;;J"WO;;)"U rM\.II.t. .., .> Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida at a regular meeting held on the day of , A.D.. 2004. Mayor Nelson Mayor Pro Tern Rice Commissioner McCoy Commissioner Neugent Commissioner Spehar (SEAL) BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Attest: DANNY L.KOLHAGE. Clerk OF MONROE COUNTY. FLORIDA By By Deputy Clerk Mayor/Chairperson Page 3 of 3 C:\TEMP\Copy (21.doc soee STAFF REPORT MEMORANDUM TO: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners FROM: Fred Gross, Director of Lower Keys Planning Team DATE: November 17, 2003 RE: AMENDMENT TO POLICY 212.2.3 OF THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CONCERNING SHORELINE SETBACKS AND AMENDMENT TO SECTION 9.5-349 (SHORELINE SETBACKS) OF THE MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT REGULATIONS [Amended in response to DCA letter of Objections, Recommendations and Comments.] I. BACKGROUND Objective 101.8 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states "Monroe County shall eliminate or reduce the frequency of uses which are inconsistent with the applicable provisions of the land development regulations and the Future Land Use Map, and structures which are inconsistent with applicable codes and land development regulations." Policy 212.2.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan states, in part, "Along lawfully altered shorelines including manmade canals, channels, and basins, principal structures shall be set back at least twenty (20) feet as measured from the mean high water line." Many residential lots on lawfully altered shorelines, especially those smaller lots in Recreational Vehicle Parks established prior to the 1986 Comprehensive Plan, were developed with principal structures built within the twenty (20) foot shoreline setback. Because of the small lot size, it is not possible to replace an existing mobile home with the new larger factory built modular homes and set back the required twenty (20) feet. As a result, while the older home could continue to be maintained but are difficult to replace with a larger FEMA approved raised manufactured home. The requirement of the twenty (20) foot setback has other implications in addition to the inability to replace a mobile home with a FEMA approved structure. Many of the smaller lots have stick built homes located in such a way that they are unable to add a deck or stairway to the entrance of a lawfully established principal dwelling because the construction would penetrate the existing shoreline setback. Since there is no possibility of relaxing these setback Page 1 of 3 W:\Planning\Working Folders\Gross-Fred\Shoreline Setbacks\BOCC staff report [amended].doc requirements by permitting a waiver or variance of the current regulations, these requests are currently denied and owners of the smaller lots are subject to an unnecessary burden for which there is no amelioration. In response to this problem, the Planning Department has proposed a modification to the twenty (20) foot required setback regulations. It is proposed that on lots developed with a lawfully established principal use, the setback along lawfully altered shorelines may be reduced to ten (10) feet provided that storm water runoff is minimized by the use of berms, swales and other recognized methods of controlling runoff. The Department of Community Affairs (DCA), in an attached memorandum (Exhibit A), has indicated that they were amenable to such a modification. At the November 26, 2002 meeting the Development review Committee reviewed the proposed amendments and voted to recommend APPROVAL to the Monroe County Planning Commission. At the regularly scheduled public hearing of December 4, 2002 the Monroe County Planning Commission, reviewed the staff report, heard sworn testimony from staff, and comments from the public. The hearing was continued to December 17, 2002 and staff was instructed to revise the proposed text. This hearing was continued to January 8, 2003 because there still remained a number of outstanding issues. At the meeting of January 8, 2003, the Planning Commission continued the hearing to February, 12, 2003 in order for staff to bring forward the answers to outstanding issues. There were a number of questions concerning the magnitude of the proposal if it was approved. There are 6,293 total parcels in the URM and URM-L land use districts. Of those, 3,429 are waterfront parcels. Of the 3,429 waterfront parcels, 3,083 have a structure and only 346 are vacant. Finally, of the 3,083 parcels with structures, 2,687 of those are mobile homes. During the past 2 years, research of our permitting records indicates that permits for residential units on waterfront lots have been issued for 60 mobile homes and 29 modular homes in URM and URM-L districts. Speaking specifically of the Outdoor Resorts park, there are 406 total parcels of which 216 are waterfront parcels. To this date, 25 permits have been granted for residential development. At the February 12, 2003 meeting of the planning commission, staff was directed to meet with the concerned parties to discuss the outstanding issues. A meeting was held on February 25, 2003. Marlene Conaway and Fred Gross represented the planning department, Rebecca Jetton represented the DCA, and Nicholas Mulick was present as legal council for both Outdoor Resorts and Venture Out homeowners. Members of the homeowner's associations of both communities Page 2 of 3 W:\Planning\Working Folders\Gross-Fred\Shoreline Setbacks\BOCC staff report [amended].doc were also in attendance. The proposed 10-foot setback satisfies the needs of Venture Out. Outdoor Resorts, however, continued to press for a 2-foot setback. Outdoor Resorts maintains that the only critical element, which must be satisfied, is the storm water runoff into the ocean. They contend that 2-feet is a sufficient setback if the storm water is "properly" diverted. However, no scientific information was presented to support that contention. Staff did volunteer to investigate whether the Southwest Florida Water Management District (SWFWMD) had any studies or statistical data that would be relevant to the issues. The only studies that appear to have been done relate to rivers and wetlands where setbacks run from 50 to 100 feet. The Planning Commission, at the public hearing of March 12, 2003, voted against recommending a change in the existing setbacks finding. At the regularly scheduled public hearing of May 21,2003, the Soard of County commissioners reviewed the amendment and was presented with: . Staff Report prepared by Fred Gross, Director of Lower Keys Planning Team. . Sworn testimony of staff. . Sworn testimony of SOCC counsel . Comments from the public. The SOCC directed that the amendment be transmitted to the DCA for review. The DCA, on October 13, 2003, responded to the transmittal with a letter of Objections, Recommendations, and Comments (ORC). The ORC has been addressed and both the ORC and response are attached as Exhibit "A". II. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the amended text change to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan and the text change to the Monroe County Land Development Regulations. Page 3 of 3 W:\Planning\Working Folders\Gross-Fred\Shoreline Setbacks\BOCC staff report [amended].doc EXHIBIT "A" MEMORANDUM To: Board of County Commissioners From: Fred Gross, Director of Lower Keys Planning Team Date: November 6, 2003 Subject: Response to DCA Report of Obiections. Recommendations and Comments (ORC) concernina BOCC Resolution 189-2003 (Shoreline Setbacks). The Monroe County Department of Planning has responded to The DCA ORC of October 13, 2003, concerning the Monroe County Transmittal Resolution 189- 2003 (Shoreline Setbacks). The ORC concerns have been addressed and are discussed below. The Resolution to which this memorandum is attached has been amended accordingly. Objection 1. Internal inconsistency with the Monroe County adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed language submitted showing changes for Future Land Use Element Policy 212.2.3 is internally inconsistent with the plan and land development regulations. DCA Recommendation: Revise the proposed language and establish criteria that limit the situations and land use categories where reduced setbacks would be allowed. County Response: There exists 21,829 developed residential waterfront parcels that would potentially be given relief under the existing Ordinance. We have amended the language to make relief available only to those developed parcels of less than 4,000 Square Feet. The results of this reduction are that 1,536 developed residential waterfront parcels will benefit from the setback relief. This maximum lot size restriction results in a decrease of 93 percent in the number of residential lots affected by this amendment. Objection 2. Adequate supporting data and analysis was' not provided to support changes to Future Land Use Element Policy 212.2.3. The County has not demonstrated that these changes would not degrade water quality. The policy does not include adequate performance measures and guidelines to address the fact that shoreline functions will be maintained, including habitat, water quality and storm surge. The modification is premature because the County has not completed the Shoreline Priority Plan. DCA Recommendation: Provide data indicating the number of developed shoreline lots eligible countywide that may utilize the reduced setback. Establish priorities for shoreline land uses, providing for siting water-dependent and water related uses as well as performance standards for shoreline uses. County Response: The requested supporting data is included in the response to Objection 1. The establishment of priorities for shoreline land uses, providing for siting water-dependent and water related uses are not relevant to the subject of this Ordinance (Shoreline Setbacks for small residential lots). The shoreline priorities will be available at the completion of the Shorelines Priority Plan, scheduled for completion in 2004. Objection 3. The proposed amendments are not consistent with and do not further the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187.201(8)(b) 6: Encourage land use and water uses that are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. The proposed amendments are not consistent with Strategic Regional Policy Plan Goal 3.8 and policy 3.8.3. DCA Recommendation: Modify the amendment as previously recommended. County Response: The amended Ordinance has been modified in accordance with your recommendations. Department of Environmental Protection Concern: If it is anticipated that mangroves will be impacted as a result of any particular setback reduction, then the landowner is advised to contact the Department's Marathon office to determine if a permit will be required. County Response: Although we do not expect the amendment to further impact mangroves or the need for mangrove trimming, Growth Management's Environmental staff will advise every landowner utilizing the provided relief of the potential need for permits. . ~ STATE OF FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS "Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home" IEB BUSH COLLEEN CASTILLE GOYernor Secretary October 13, 2003 The Honorable Dixie Spehar, Mayor Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 530 Whitehead Street Key West, Florida 33040 Dear Mayor Spehar: The Department has completed its review of the proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment for Monroe County (DCA No. 03-01), which was received on August 13,2003. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed. The Department has reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (FAC) and Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S) and has prepared the attached Objections, recommendations, and comments (aRC) Report which outlines our findings concerning the comprehensive plan amendment. The Department's objections concern the relaxation of shoreline protection measures with no regard for lot size and ability to meet the adopted set-back. Weare also concerned the proposed amendment is inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan. 2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD . TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100 Phone: 850.488.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: 850.921.0781/Suncom 291.0781 In t ern eta d d res 5: hJ1JJ.: II w_w~..dc a. 5 tat e, j I, u , CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OffiCE COM\lUNITY PLANNING E,\IERGENCY MANAGEMENT HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT 2796 O"""eas Highway. Suile 212 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard ~\aralhon. FL 33050-2227 Tallaha"ee, FL 32399-2100 Tallahassee. Fl 32399-2100 Tallaha.,ee. Fl 32399-2100 (05) 289.2402 (850) 488-2356 (850) 413-9969 (850) 488.7956 1,7 The Honorable Dixie Spehar October 13, 2003 Page 2 For your assistance, we have attached procedures for final adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment. If you have any questions, please call Rebecca Jetton, Area of Critical State Concern Program at 305 289-2408 and 850-922-1766. Sincerely, / I { 1,'-( , , //c[i (v:.~ I JL-ct,f-,;~, c/ Valerie J. ' bard, Director Division~, ommunity Planning ./ V JH/bls Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report Review Agency Comments cc: Ms. Marlene Conaway, Planning Director, Monroe County Ms. Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council Introduction The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the Department's review of the Monroe County 03-2 proposed amendment to their comprehensive plan pursuant to s, 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.). The objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 91-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S. Each objection includes a recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some of these objections may have initially been raised by one ofthe other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the Department's objection would take precedence. Each of these objections must be addressed by the local government and corrected when the amendment is resubmitted for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection regarding missing data and analysis items, which the local government considers not applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule 91-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination on the non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be considered addressed. The comments, which follow the objections and recommendations section, are advisory in nature, Comments will not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar, organization, mapping. and reader comprehension. Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other state review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals, These comments are advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they appear under the "Objections" heading in this report. --' DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT FOR MONROE COUNTY AMENDMENT 03-1 October 13,2003 Division of Community Planning This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.01 OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT FOR MONROE COUNTY 03-1 I. ORC Objections: 1. Internal inconsistency with the Monroe County adopted Comprehensive Plan. The proposed language submitted showing changes for Future Land Use Element Policy 212.2.3 is internally inconsistent with Objective 10 I. 8 requiring the elimination or reduction in frequency of uses inconsistent with the plan and land development regulations. Recommendation: Revise the proposed language and establish criteria that limit the situations and land use categories where reduced set backs would be allowed. Rule 9J-S.00S(S), Florida Administrative Code, (F.A.C.). 2. Adequate Supporting Data and Analysis was not provided to support changes to Future Land Use Element Policy 212.2.3. The County has not demonstrated that these changes would not degrade water quality, The policy does not include adequate performance measures and guidelines to address shoreline functions will be maintained, including habitat, water quality and storm surge. The modification is premature because the County has not completed the Shorelines Priority Plan. Recommendation: Provide data indicating the number of developed shoreline lots eligible countywide that may utilize the reduced set-back. Establish priorities for shoreline land uses, providing for siting water-dependent and water related uses as well as performance standards for shoreline uses. Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F,A.C.. 380.0552(7)(e)(b)(k); 9J-5,012(c)9 .., The proposed amendments are not consistent with and do not further the State j, Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187,201(8)(b) 6: Encourage land use and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive coastal resources. The proposed amendments are not consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan Goal 3,8 and policy 3.8.3 that provides: l. As a result of proposed project reviews, including conditions that result in a project that enhances and preserves marine and estuarine water quality by: (b) reducing turbidity, nutrient loading, and bacterial loading from wastewater facilities, vessels (c) reducing the number of improperly maintained storm water systems. Recommendation: Modify the amendment as previously recommended. . TRANSMITTAL PROCEDURES Upon receipt of this letter, Monroe County has 60 days in which to adopt, adopt with changes, or determine that the County will not adopt the proposed amendment. The process for adoption of local government comprehensive plan amendments is outlined in s. 163.3184, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Rule 9J-11.011, EA.C. The County must ensure that all ordinances adopting comprehensive plan amendments are consistent with the provisions of Chapter 163.3189(2)(a), ES. Within ten working days of the date of adoption, Monroe County must submit the following to the Department: Three copies of the adopted comprehensive plan amendments; A listing of additional changes not previously reviewed; A listing of findings by the local governing body, if any, which were not included in the ordinance; and A statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes to the Department's Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. The above amendment and documentation are required for the Department to conduct a compliance review, make a compliance determination and issue the appropriate notice of intent. In order to expedite the regional planning council's review of the amendments, and pursuant to Rule 9J-11.011(5), F.A.C., please provide a copy of the adopted amendment directly to the Executive Director ofthe South Florida Regional Planning Council. Please be advised that Section 163.3184(8)( c), Florida Statutes, requires the Department to provide a courtesy information statement regarding the Department's Notice oflntent to citizens who furnish their names and addresses at the local government's plan amendment transmittal (proposed) or adoption hearings. In order to provide this courtesy information statement, local governments are required by law to furnish the names and addresses of the citizens requesting this information to the Department. Please provide these required names and addresses to the Department when you transmit your adopted amendment package for compliance review. In the event no names, addresses are provided, please provide this information as well. For efficiency, we encourage that the information sheet be provided in electronic format. .' . . South ,~ Florida * Regional Planning Council . MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM #6c DATE: SEPTEMBER 8, 2003 TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: ST AFF SUBJECT: MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT . Introduction On August 12,2003, Council staff received proposed amendment #03-1 to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for review of consistency with the Strategic Regional PoliCl) Plan for Soutll Florida (SRPP). Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes, and Rules 9J-5 and 9J-11, Florida Administrative Code. Community Profile Monroe County, incorporated in 1824, is the southernmost county in the State of Florida. The county consists of a mainland por~on (782 square miles) bordered by Collier County to the north and Miami-Dade County to the east, and an archipelago, known as the Florida Keys, extending from northeast to southwest for 120 miles (102 square miles), and separating the Gulf of Mexico from the Atlantic Ocean. The mainland portion is occupied by Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve and is virtually uninhabited. The Keys are home to an estimated 81,140 permanent residents (2002) with an average population density of 790 persons per square mile. The economy of Monroe County is based on tourism, fishing, retirees and the military. Monroe County's growth is constrained by a number of issues. The vast majority of the county is environmentally sensitive, comprised of mangrove wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and rare and endangered species habitats, with world-renowned coral reefs offshore. With one main highway serving the entire population, traffic is a concern, particularly during hurricane evacuations. Lack of adequate infrastructure for stormwater and wastewater magnify the effects of population growth in nearshore coastal waters. The desirability of the county as a place to live and the limited amount of developable land have made land costs prohibitively expensive, leading to shortages of affordable housing and adequate school sites. All of this is complicated by population growth pressure that began in earnest with the completion of the Overseas Highway (U.S. Highway 1) in 1938 and shows little sign of abating. With infrastructure and the environment showing signs of stress and approximately 15,000 undeveloped platted lots, most of the Florida Keys has been designated an Area of Critical State Concern, under Chapter 380.05, Florida Statutes. 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021 Broward (954) 985-4416, Area Codes 305,407 and 561 (800) 985-4416 SunCom 473-4416, FAX (954) 985-4417, SunCom FAX 473-4417 I e-maij sradmin@sfrpc,com ..- .: In 1992, Monroe County instituted a residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO) to help it manage the impacts of growth. This policy has been incorporated into the comprehensive plan, along with similar policies to regulate non-residential growth. In order to provide additional support for decisions about future g);owth, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) and the US Army Corps of Engineers developed the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study, which resulted in two geographic information system tools: the Carrying Capacity Impact Assessment Model and a Routine Planning Tool. A working group composed of local governments in the Florida Keys,.DCA, and environmental groups is discussing the use of these tools, and is scheduled to complete its work in late 2003. Recent incorporations (Islamorada and Marathon) have reduced the population in the unincorporated portion of Monroe County to 36,772 (2002). These jurisdictional changes will affect the roles of Monroe County and its municipalities, among other things leading to a need for greater intergovernmental coordination. For more information about the County or the region, visit the Council's website at www.sfrpc.com. Summary of Staff Analvsis Proposed amendment #03-1 contains a single text amendment. A map of the County is included in Attachment 1. The proposed amendment would revise the text of Policy 212.2.3 of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan to reduce the required shoreline setback on currently developed lots. The current policy establishes that "Along lawfully altered shorelines including manmade canals, channels, a~d basins, principal structures shall be set back at least hventy (20) feet as measured from the mean high water (MHW) line." Monroe County proposes to add a paragraph stating that "Along lawfully altered shorelines including manmade canals, channels, and basins that are developed with a lawfully established principal use, the required setback may be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet provided that the structure is sited so as to protect community character and minimize environmental impacts." In other words, the 20-foot shoreline setback would continue to apply for undeveloped lots, but for those legally developed, the shoreline setback would be reduced to 10 feet. County staff backup materials indicate that many residential lots on lawfully altered shorelines, especially smaller lots in recreational vehicle parks established prior to the 1986 comprehensive plan, were developed with principal structures built within the 20-foot shoreline setback. Current regulations make those uses non-conforming today. As such, existing structures can be replaced within the existing footprint, but in many cases, because of the small lot size and the non- conformance, it is not possible to replace an existing mobile home with the new larger factory-built modular homes (that are approved by the Federal Emergency Management Agency - FEMA) while meeting the required shoreline setback. Current regulations also do not allow waivers or variances to resolve this issue. The Department of Community Affairs, on September 3, 2002, agreed to an interim policy provided that Monroe County would amend the comprehensive plan and the land development regulations to address the problem in a more permanent way. The interim policy spells out the specific requirements to be eligible for the reduced setback, including storm water runoff management, · maintenance of open space ratios, limits on the proportion of the upland area of the lot, and other criteria. The proposed policy, however, requires only that the structure be "sited so as to protect community character and minimize environmental impacts," Monroe County staff has indicated 2 .r that performance criteria for the proposed policy would be included in the land development regulations. . The Monroe County Planning Commission voted to deny the change in setbacks on March 12/ 2003/ citing concern with protection of the quality of waters surrounding the Florida Keys and referencing the availability of some relief for existing structures, which can be replaced within the existing footprint, as well as the allowance of some accessory uses within the 20-foot setback. The County Commission vote was 3-0 in favor, with two commissioners absent. Obiection As presented, the proposed policy would apply in all land use categories and for parcels of any size. Wormation supplied in the Monroe County staff report suggests a large number of lots would be affected. There are 3,083 waterfront parcels with structures (of which 2/687 are mobile homes) in the Residential High land use with Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM and URM-L) zoning. No data was presented for other land uses or zoning, where parcels on altered shorelines may be larger. As proposed, even the owners of lots large enough to accommodate replacement structures or additions within a 20-foot shoreline setback would now be unconstrained and able to build within the reduced setback. Council staff analysis confirms that this amendment conflicts with the following goals and policies of the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida. Strategic Regional Goal 3.2 Develop a more efficient and sustainable allocation of the water resources of the region. Regional Policy 3.2.5 Ensure that the recharge potential of the property is not reduced as a result of a proposed modification in the existing uses by incorporation of open space, pervious areas, and impervious areas in ratios which are based upon analysis of on-site recharge needs. Strategic Regional Goal 3.8 Enhance and preserve natural system values of South Florida's shorelines, estuaries, benthic communities, fisheries, and associated habitats, including but not limited tOt Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay and the coral reef tract. Regional Policy 3.8.3 As a result of proposed project reviews, include conditions that result in a project that enhances and preserves marine and estuarine water quality by: a) improving the timing and quality of freshwater inflows; b) reducing turbidity, nutrient loading and bacterial loading from wastewater facilities, vessels; c) reducing the number of improperly maintained stormwater systems; and d) requiring port facilities and marinas to implement hazardous materials spill plans. Considering the role of shoreline setbacks in the preservation of water quality and community character and the large number of affected parcels, Council staff recommends that Monroe County staff revise the proposed policy to include performance criteria that restrict the allowance of a reduced shoreline setback to those parcels where size, shape or other considerations make it impossible to accommodate a reasonable improvement or replacement of an existing legal use. In addition, Council staff encourages Monroe County staff to include the performance criteria in the comprehensive plan policy instead of relegating those criteria to the land development regulations. . 3 ~ ~mendati@ Find propo~ed amendment #03-1 to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive plan to be generally inconsistent with the Stra'egic Regional Policy pInn for Sotllh Florida based on the goals and policies referenced above. Approve this agenda item lor transmittal to the Department 01 Community Affairs. 4 -( .crT'~' . ,co , ;... 'i(j,.~ :ON- " . '"" - ~/~~" " Department of ~~-=~~~; Environmental Protection ~~-~ -......::::...;:-.,...~ -- ~ Marjory Stoneman Douglas Building . ~eb Bu,h 3900 Commonwealth Boule..,d . D."" B. Suuh' ~overnor Tallahassee. Florida 31399-3000 I' ~'_;;;-;:'-7'-:-::----- ' Secretary , ~ iJ!j \; Ij ',1.' . _ ~~ September17. 2003\ ~1r-;;~-\-; . . '. l\'~/ \ '''\ v- . - \'\ \ i ----.---- .' . ' ~ -- Hli!. ;-';: ~ ' ~t~,..~ t'~OCtS~,,~Ql~l^-.. _..1 Mr. D. Ray Eubanks '.-" ..-_. ....- Bureau of Local Planning Department of community Affairs 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Re: Proposed Amendment to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. DCA 03-1 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Tbe Office oflntergovemmental Programs ofthe Department of Envirorunental protection baS reviewed the above-referenced amendment under the required provisions of Chapter 163. Part II, Florida Statutes. and Chapters 9J5 and 9J11. Florida Administrative Code. Our comments and recommendations are provided to BSsist your agency in developing the state's response. Comments: The Department baS regulatory authority over the trimming of mangrOVeS througb the Mangrove Trimming and Preservation Act. Ifit is anticipated that mangroves will be impacted BS a result ofany particular setback reduction, then the landowner is advised to contact the Department's Marathon office to detennine if a permit will be required. Please call me at (850) 245-2163 if you have any questions regarding this response. Sincerely, , /!/z~#-~ Robert W. Hall Office of Intergovernmental Programs cc: Gus Rios "More Protection, Less Process" o.,_".-j (1" recycled paper. < I SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT ;301 Gun ClubR",d, W.., p,lm ,,,d,, HoM. ,,,06 . (561) 686.\lSOO . FL W A 15 1-800-<>2- 2lH; . TDD (;61) 697-25" M,i1ing Add,,~' p.D. ,,, 24680, W.., p,lm .."" FL ,,,'6-4650 . ww".""md,,, GOV 08-20 ~ W September 16, 2003 1 D ,(E & m JLW ~ --~:.,-; 'q t{1 , ""; n:: I nJ SEP i 7 J Ray Eubanks, Administrator L_ plan Review and DR! Processing ----; '.----.. ........ ;~.~ -~~-.. ~~;.:~::-:' :=,.'-~.~'- Department of Community Affairs ",. ." : ,. .... 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments Monroe County, DCA# 03-1 The SDuth Florida Water Management District staff has reviewed the subject document and we have nO adverse corrunents. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contact Cecilia Weaver at (305) 853-3219 or me at (561) 682-6179. Sincerely, i/Wry~ - p.K. Sharma, AICP Lead Planner Water Supply Planning & Development Division PKS/nk c: K. Marlene Conaway, Monroe County Carolyn Dekle, SFRPC Rebecca Jetton, DCA GOVERNINC BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICE "-:::" l I'd:" ~\i~h4~~l C\'/I~i.~l:J ~:=.::~ \~-:"C~!'ty H"nrv Dean, fum!;.''- DiO,\"'" '. ,. t:","1isn Harkley R. Thorr>ton "T'."rli K Williams, P.E. < ~ ~ / -~ ~~ Florida Department of Transportation . OFFICE OF PLANNIl'iG . DISTRICT SIX JEB nUSH JOSE ABREU GOVERi'iOR 602 SOUTH MIAMI A VEt'mE. MIAMI. FLORIDA 33130 . SECRETARY PHONE: (305) 377-5910 (SCI452-5910 FAX: (305) 377-5684 (SC) 452-5684 August 25, 2003 1~':";" '--::~;" ""--\. .-....- - 1) . .) "\111 .~.'" ....'a ,"r-...... -....-~..~ iiJj -2-_m~_~__-_'-,i;;~ I ". \!:' ;; , !~, ~'ill '" \', " 'f,., I: " ,- '.' .. I~' ,,,,~ ; , '1.., ,'," \ ,7 it I ':1 \c 'n' ,', Ii ~ l':"t\~.;,;J~. h~ ~i ~ U ~ Mr. Ken Metcalf U L! /::< i. 8 (dO' liU) _It. . Division of Resource Planning and Mana ement .:l L... -.- .:~,UG .~.;) :?'Qn:~ ,', ~ Florida Department of Community Affai EPT. OF COMM. AFFAIRS/OCP Dt;,;,,'i=lICT 6 2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard PLAN:\d\G OFFICE Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Metcalf: SUBJECT: Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (proposed Amendment 03-01) In accordance with your request, and the provisions of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes and Chapter 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code, this office has completed a review of the plan amendment documents for Monroe County, which were forwarded to our office on August 13, 2003. The District has no objections, recommendations, or comments. u e if you have any questions concerning our response. GD/ktm www,dot.state.f\.us @ REC' CLEO ;;~"ER ./' I SOUTH FWRIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT 3301 Gun Oub Road, West Palm Beach, Florida 33406 . (561) 686-8800 . FL W ATS 1-SQO-432-20-l5 . TOO (561) 697-2574 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 24680, West Palm Beach, FL 33416-4680 . www.sfwmd.gov . GOV 08-20 ~ September 16, 2003 . 1J.) 'q"i Ray Eubanks, Administrator 1 L._ Plan Review and DR! Processing '<1 ::~F~!;:~~::~ ~~"~ . f Department of Community Affairs ...._-.- 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100 Dear Mr. Eubanks: Subject: Proposed Amendment Comments Monroe County, DCA# 03-1 The South Florida Water Management District staff has reviewed the subject document and we have no adverse comments. If you have any questions or require additional information, please contoct Cecilia Weaver at (305) 853-3219 or me at (561) 682-6779. Sincerely, i~ - P.K. Sharma, AlCP . Lead Planner Water Supply Planning & Development Division PKS/nk c: K. Marlene Conaway, Monroe County Carolyn Dekle, SFRPC Rebecca Jetton, DCA GOVERNING BOARD EXECUTIVE OFFICE Nicolas J. Gutierrez, Jr., I:.sq., LI"'lr l\Ii~lld\.:l Cui.iill::J K:':::; ~.~~C~!"ty Henry Dean. EUC/lfi,'t' Df-,oc!or Pamela Brooks-Thomas, Vice-Chair Hugh M. English Harkley R. Thornton 1 ___ ~_J. t:' T 'I"",~~'h' T'1=' Trudi K. Williams, r.E.