Item J2M BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
County of f Monroe A Mayor George Neugent, District 2
The Florida Keys Mayor Pro Tem David Rice, District 4
Danny L. Kolhage, District 1
Heather Carruthers, District 3
Sylvia J. Murphy, District 5
County Commission Meeting
October 18, 2017
Agenda Item Number: J.2
Agenda Item Summary #3321
BULK ITEM: No DEPARTMENT: Planning/Environmental Resources
TIME APPROXIMATE: STAFF CONTACT: Mayte Santamaria (305) 289 -2500
3:00 P.M. PUBLIC HEARING
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: An ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners amending Monroe County Land Development Code Section 101 -1 to create
definitions related to flood protection height exceptions; and amending Section 131 -2 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; and to address height exceptions for non - habitable
architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned community; 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.
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's roof -line
(building together with the architectural decorative feature cannot exceed 40ft);
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 fee
4) create Policy 101.5.33 to allow an exception of the height limit for l awfully established existing
buildings which already exceed the 35 -foot height limit to rebuild to a height of 40ft to meet
BFE 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.
Packet Pg. 1931
J.2
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.
To implement the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendments, staff of Monroe County
Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing Land Development Code amendments to:
1) amend Section 101 -1 to add definitions for elevate, elevated building and retrofit.
2) amend Section 130 -187 to provide for the height exceptions created by the proposed Comp Plan
policies, as follows:
a. create subsection A to allow non - habitable architectural decorative features within the
Ocean Reef community, but that such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the
building's roof -line (building together with the architectural decorative feature cannot
exceed 40ft);
b. create subsection B.1. to allow 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;
i. The PC recommended including that: "In no event shall a new building exceed 38
feet in height or two (2) habitable floors."
ii. Staff recommends adding "The space below the lowest habitable floor of an
elevated structure shall be limited to a maximum of 299 square feet of enclosed
floor area and shall be used exclusively for parking of vehicles, elevators, limited
storage and /or building access purposes."
c. create subsection B.2. to allow 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
d. create subsection B.3. to specify that no height exception shall result in a total building
height that exceeds 40 feet;
e. create subsection B.4. to specify that buildings not being elevated to at least meet the
required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception (must at least meet BFE);
f. create subsection C to allow an exception of the height limit for l awfully established
existing buildings which already exceed the 35 -foot height limit to rebuild to a height of
40ft to meet BFE provided the b building is limited to the existing lawfully established
intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use;
g. create subsection D to allow an exception of the height limit for lawfully established
existing buildings which already exceed the 35 -foot height limit, proposing to exceed a
total height of 40 feet, to go through a public hearing before the Planning Commission
and the Board of County Commissioners to determine the maximum height allowed. The
BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height after
considering the following criteria:
i. The flood zone of the parcel;
ii. The number of dwelling units lawfully established and an analysis of the number
Packet Pg. 1932
J.2
of dwelling units which may not be able to redevelop on the subject parcel
without a height exceptionThe physical characteristics of the existing building and
parcel;
iii. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood damage and
the effects of such damage on the property owner;
iv. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others;
v. The availability of alternate solutions;
vi. 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;
vii. Community character; and
viii. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not
eligible for this exception.
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.
Packet Pg. 1933
J.2
The proposed changes 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.
On 2/15/17, 3/15/17 and 4/12/17, the BOCC held public hearings to consider the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendments and provide for public comment. On 4/12/17, the BOCC adopted
Resolution 115 -2017 transmitting the proposed Comp Plan amendments to the State Land Planning
Agency (DEO).
DEO issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report on July 21, 2017, and
did not identify any objections to the proposed Comp Plan amendment. Normally, the County has up
to 180 days from receipt of the ORC to adopt the amendment, adopt with changes, or choose to not
adopt the proposed amendments.
At the April 12, 2017 meeting, the BOCC agenda also included a discussion and direction item (Item
I -8) regarding the draft LDC amendments to accompany the Comp Plan amendment. Staff presented
draft language which included the Planning Commission's recommendations from the February 24,
2016 public hearing, and also subsequent staff recommendations for changes. The BOCC directed
staff to bring the proposed LDC amendment for an adoption hearing as drafted for this discussion
item. Specifically, the BOCC agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to limit
eligible structures to two (2) habitable floors; agreed with staff's recommendation to not include a
prohibition of the height exception in V and VE flood zones; and agreed with the criteria listed under
proposed subsection D. regarding existing multifamily buildings proposed to exceed 40 feet.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
BOCC 12/10/14 — 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.
BOCC 2/15/17 (Item P -3): The Board continued the public hearing to the BOCC 3/15/17 meeting in
Key Largo, FL and to the BOCC 4/12/17 meeting in Marathon, FL to allow the item to be heard in
all three areas of the Keys.
BOCC 3/15/17 (Item P -1): The Board continued the public hearing to the BOCC 4/12/17 meeting in
Marathon.
BOCC 4/12/2017 (Item N -1): the BOCC adopted Resolution 115 -2017 transmitting the proposed
amendments to the State Land Planning Agency.
BOCC 4/12/2017 (Item I -8): — the BOCC gave direction to staff during discussion item I -8 regarding
proposed Land Development Code amendments to accompany the Comprehensive Plan height
amendments.
Packet Pg. 1934
J.2
CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES:
n/a
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments,
contingent on adoption and effectiveness of the accompanying Comprehensive Plan amendments.
DOCUMENTATION:
Odinance - height amendment Land Development Code 9 -20 -2017
Height Amendment LDC Staff Report 9 -20 -2017
Ex. 1 height BOCC 10.7.2014
Ex. 2 height 2015 -171 SR DRC 10.27.15
Ex. 3 height DRC 10.27.15 Approved 12.15.15
Ex. 4 height 2015 -171 SR DRC 01.26.16
Ex. 5 height DRC 01.26.16 Approved 03.29.16
Ex. 6 height 2015 -171 SR PC 02.24.16
Ex. 7 height PC 02.24.16 Approved 04.27.16
Ex. 8 height FEMA flood zones and number of parcels
Ex. 9 height Ocean Reef Club request and data
Ex. 10 FEMA build back rebuild datasheets
Ex. 11 Proposed Comp Plan and Land Development Code Amendments
Example HEIGHT ANALYSIS
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:
County Match:
Insurance Required:
Additional Details:
Packet Pg. 1935
1.
REVIEWED BY:
Mayte Santamaria
Completed
Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley
08/29/2017 2:43 PM
Steve Williams
Completed
Jaclyn Carnago
Completed
Emily Schemper
Completed
Budget and Finance
Skipped
Maria Slavik
Skipped
Mayte Santamaria
Skipped
Kathy Peters
Completed
Board of County Commissioners
Completed
Board of County Commissioners
Pending
08/28/2017 3:09 PM
Completed
08/30/2017 9:42 AM
08/31/2017 10:24 AM
09/01/2017 2:41 PM
08/28/2017 2:43 PM
08/28/2017 2:43 PM
09/01/2017 2:58 PM
09/01/2017 3:50 PM
09/20/2017 9:00 AM
09/27/2017 4:00 PM
Packet Pg. 1936
J.2.a
1
2
3
4
5 00
6
7 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
8 MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
9 ORDINANCE NO. -2017
10
11
12 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF
13 COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY
14 LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE SECTION 101 -1 TO CREATE
15 DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD PROTECTION HEIGHT
16 EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 131 -2 TO PROVIDE
17 CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO
18 PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE
19 FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS
20 WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE
21 FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT
22 LIMIT; AND TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON -
23 HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES
24 WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY;
25 PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL
26 OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
27 TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY
28 AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR
29 INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE; PROVIDING
30 FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
31
32
33
34 WHEREAS, on the 20 day of September, 2017, at a regularly scheduled meeting, the
35 Monroe County Board of County Commissioners adopted Ordinance 2017, amending Policy
36 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; creating Policy 101.5.31 to address non- habitable
37 architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and creating Policies
38 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect
39 property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a
40 structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit;
41 and
42
43 WHEREAS, in order to be consistent with the adopted Monroe County Year 2030
44 Comprehensive Plan, amendments to the Land Development Code are necessary; and
45
Ord -2017
1 of 6
Packet Pg. 1937
J.2a
I WHEREAS, Florida Statute Sections 163.3194 and 163.3201 require land development
2 regulations to be consistent with and implement the Comprehensive Plan; and
3
4 WHEREAS, the proposed Land Development Code amendments are consistent with and
5 implement the adopted amendments to Policies 101.5.30, 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 of the
6 Comprehensive Plan; and
7
8 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing
9 amendments to Section 101 -1 to create definitions related to flood protection height exceptions;
10 and amending Section 131 -2 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect
11 property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a
12 structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit;
13 and to address height exceptions for non - habitable architectural decorative features within the
14 Ocean Reef master planned community; and
15
16 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) considered
17 the proposed amendment at regularly scheduled meetings held on October 27, 2016, and January
18 26, 2016; and
19
20 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on
21 February 24, 2016, for review and recommendation on the proposed amendment; and
22
23 WHEREAS, based upon the information and documentation submitted, the Planning
24 Commission made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law:
25
26 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the
27 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and
28 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development
29 for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and
30 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with one or more of the required provisions of
31 Section 102- 158(d)(7)b. of the Land Development Code; and
32
33 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission recommended approval of the
34 proposed amendment; and
35
36 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 12' day of April, 2017, the Monroe
37 County Board of County Commissioners held a discussion of the proposed Land Development
38 Code text amendment and provided direction to staff regarding proposed draft amendment
39 language; and
40
41 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on the 20` day of September, 2017, the
42 BOCC held a public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Land Development Code text
43 amendment;
44
45
Ord -2017
2 of 6
Packet Pg. 1938
J.2:a
I NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
2 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
3
4 Section 1, The Monroe County Land Development Code is hereby amended as follows
5 (Deletions are shown str i t .,. additions are shown underlined
6
7 Section 101 -1. - Definitions.
8 The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code,
9 shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context
10 clearly indicates a different meaning:
11
12
13
14 Elevate means the action of retrofitting or raising a building to o a higher positon.
15
16 Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest floor raised above the ground
17 level by foundation walls, shear walls posts piers, pilings or columns.
18
19 Retrofit it means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its
20 exposure to flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general,
21 retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or extending
22 the existing foundation, or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new
23 elevated floor system within the building or add_ ing a new upper story and converting
24 the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only for parking, building access,
25 or storage.
26
27
28 Sec. 131 -2. Maximum height.
29 No structure or building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet.
30 Exceptions will be allowed for chimneys; spires and/or steeples on structures used for
31 institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna; flagpoles; solar
32 apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting
33 structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146.
34 Exceptions will be allowed for flood rotection asspecifically permitted in Policies
35 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 and listed below. However, in no event shall any of the
36 exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to permit any habitable or usable
37 space to exceed the maximum height limitation except asspecifically ermitted in
38 Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 In the case of airport districts, the height limitations
39 therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall not apply.
40
41 A. Within the Ocean Reef master planned community which is gated, isolated and
42 inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community
43 character, buildings mav include non - habitable architectural decorative features
44 (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height
45 limit, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line.
46 This exception shall not result in a building tozether with anv architectural
Ord -2017
3of6
Packet Pg. 1939
J.2.a
1
decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet.
C
°-
2
r
3
B. As provided in Policy 101.5_.32 buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed
a
4
the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35 -foot height limit as
c
5
follows:
-
6
L-
7
1 . For NEW single family detached dwelling unit and multi-family attached
c
8
dwelline unit) buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the
a
9
building's minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum of three (3)
x
10
feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the
1 I
height exception shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation
E
12
above BFE. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height or two
r
13
(2) habitable floors. The space below the lowest habitable floor of an
a
14
elevated structure shall be limited to a maximum of 299 square feet of
=
15
enclosed floor area and shall be used exclusively for parking of vehicles,
o
16
elevators limited storage and/or building access pup2oses. This exce tion
-
17
shall apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or
r
18
not.
o
19
T
20
2. For lawfully established EXISTING (detached and attached dwelling unit)
21
buildings which do not exceed the 35 -foot height limit and are voluntarily
22
retrofitted to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an
N
23
exception of a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may
N
24
be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the
CD
25
distance necessary to elevate the building to meet BFE plus up to three (3)
c
26
feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing building
u
27
be elevated to exceed a total building height of 40 feet.
m
28
a
29
3. No exception shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet.
°
30
m
31
4. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not
°
32
eligible for this exception.
a
33
r
34
C. As provided in Policy 101.5.33 lawful/ established EXISTING multi-family
E
35
(attached dwelling unit) buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit may be
36
repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet the required FEMA
E
37
BFE provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height
38
40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity,
r
a,
39
floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. A
40
Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of five (5) feet may be
41
permitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE. The
a
42
amount of the exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation
43
necessary to meet BFE. Buildings not beiniz elevated to at least meet the
0
o
44
_
required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception.
45
E
46
D. As provided in Policy 101.5.33 for lawfully established EXISTING multi-
Ord -2017
4
4of6
Packet Pg. 1940
J.2.a
1 f
family (attached dwelling unit) buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit
2 t
that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the
3 P
Planning Commission and Board of County�Commissioners to review and
4 s
specify the maximum approved height shall be required prior to issuance of an
5 c
county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall
6 p
provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building -
7 T
- .
8
9 1
1. For lawfully_ established EXISTING multi - family (attached dwelling unit)
10 b
buildings that are voluntarily repaired, improved, redeveloped_ and/or
11 e
elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE, but will
12 r
re wire a height exception of more than five S feet a Flood Protection
13 H
Height Exception exceeding the 35 -foot height limit may be provided by the
14 B
BOCC based on the following criteria:
15 a
a. The flood zone of the ap reel;
16 b
b. The number of dwelling units lawfully established and an analysis
37 Section 2. Severability. If any section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence or
38 provision of this ordinance shall be adjudged by any court of competent jurisdiction to be invalid,
39 such judgment shall not affect, impair, invalidate, or nullify the remainder of this ordinance, but
40 the effect thereof shall be confined to the section, paragraph, subdivision, clause, sentence, or
41 provision immediately involved in the controversy in which such judgment or decree shall be
42 rendered.
43
44 Section 3. Conflictim Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with
45 this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
46
Ord -2017
5of6
Packet Pg. 1941
0
I Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Florida State Land
2 Planning Agency as required by F.S. 380.05 (11) and F.S. 380.0552(9).
3
4 Section 5. Filing. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State
5 of Florida but shall not become effective pursuant to Section 9 until a final order is issued
6 according to F.S. 380.05(6) by the Florida State Land Planning Agency or Administration
7 Commission approving the ordinance, and if the final order is challenged, until the challenge to
8 the order is resolved pursuant to F.S. Chapter 120.
9
10 Section 6. Inclusion in the Monroe County Code. The provisions of this Ordinance
11 shall be included and incorporated in the Code of Ordinances of the County of Monroe, Florida,
12 as an addition to amendment thereto, and shall be appropriately renumbered to conform to the
13 uniform marring system of the Code.
14
15 Section 7. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective contingent on
16 effectiveness of the corresponding amendments to the Monroe County Year 2030
17 Comprehensive Plan and as provided by law and stated above.
18
19 PASSED AND ADOPTED 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 r�D COUNTY ATTO
A OV AS T ORM:
37 .L '
ASSISTANT C�{S�J�N ATTORNEY
39 DEPUTY CLERK Date d / , J - -
Ord -2017
6 of 6
Packet Pg. 1942
J.2.b
""o — V
1
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: August 28, 2017
Subject: An ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners amending
Monroe County Land Development Code Section 101 -1 to create definitions related to
flood protection height exceptions; and amending Section 131 -2 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; and to address height exceptions
for non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned
community; 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 -006)
Meeting: September 20, 2017
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to Land
Development Code (LDC) Section 101 -1 to create definitions related to the flood protection height
exceptions and to Section 130 -187 to address height exceptions for non - habitable architectural
decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned community; and to provide certain
exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance
costs, by establishing standards for when a structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and
including a maximum height limit.
The proposed LDC amendments are proposed to implement proposed Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
IL BACKGROUND INFORMATION
The County completed working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public
hearings on the proposed amendments. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
(BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to
File 2015 -171 Page 1 of 16
Packet Pg. 1943
J.2,b
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.
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 Comp Plan 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.
DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review
Committee reviewed the proposed Comp Plan 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.
DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed Comp Plan 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. Public comment included processing separate Land Development Code amendments on
height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
Through the DRC process, members of the public asked for general policies in the Comprehensive
Plan and more detail in the Land Development Code (LDC). The May 26, 2015 and August 25, 2015
File 2015 -171 Page 2 of 16
Packet Pg. 1944
J.2.b
DRC staff reports for the Comprehensive Plan amendment included draft LDC amendments to assist
in reviewing and developing the amendments. This staff report is the LDC amendment to correspond
to the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment (File 2015 -006).
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 2. Minutes from the October
27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
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 4. Minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5.
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 6. Minutes from the February 24, 2016 PC are attached as Exhibit 7.
BOCC — Comp Plan Amendment At its regularly scheduled meeting February 15, 2017, the BOCC
held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed Comp Plan text amendment,
considered the staff report and provided for public comment and public participation. The BOCC
continued the public hearing to their regular meeting on March 15, 2017.
At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 15, 2017, the BOCC held a public hearing to consider
the transmittal of the proposed Comp Plan text amendment, considered the staff report and provided
for public comment and public participation. The BOCC continued the public hearing to their regular
meeting on April 12, 2017 and requested a discussion item on the proposed height amendments for
the Land Development Code.
At its regularly scheduled meeting on April 12, 2017, the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed Comp Plan text
amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and public participation in
accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted for public participation in
the planning process. At the April 12, 2017, public hearing, the BOCC adopted Resolution 115 -2017,
transmitting the proposed Comp Plan text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency (DEO).
At the April 12, 2017 meeting, the BOCC agenda also included a discussion and direction item (Item
I -8) regarding the draft LDC amendments to accompany the Comp Plan amendment. Staff presented
draft language which included the Planning Commission's recommendations from the February 24,
2016 public hearing, and also subsequent staff recommendations for changes. The BOCC directed
staff to bring the proposed LDC amendment for an adoption hearing as drafted for this discussion
File 2015 -171 Page 3 of 16
c
0
r
m
r
0
CL
0
0
0
c
r
CL
0
0
X
0
E
r
x
U
0
J
Packet Pg. 1945
J.2.b
item. Specifically, the BOCC agreed with the Planning Commission's recommendation to limit
eligible structures to two (2) habitable floors; agreed with staff's recommendation to not include a
prohibition of the height exception in V and VE flood zones; and agreed with the criteria listed under
proposed subsection D. regarding existing multifamily buildings proposed to exceed 40 feet.
DEO reviewed the proposed Comp Plan amendment and issued an Objections, Recommendations and
Comments (ORC) report, received by the County on July 21, 2017. The ORC report did not identify
any objections to the proposed amendment. The County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the
ORC to adopt the proposed Comp Plan amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt
the amendment. The proposed Comp Plan amendment is scheduled for a public hearing for the BOCC
to consider adoption at the September 20, 2017 regular meeting.
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HEIGHT:
In unincorporated Monroe County, he�ht and rg ade are defined as follows:
Section 101 -1
HEIGHT means the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure,
including mechanical equipment, but excluding the following: 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 definition 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 definition shall not apply.
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, 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.
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 higher than natural elevation of the ground surface (prior to
construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure).
File 2015 -171 Page 4 of 16
Packet Pg. 1946
J.2.b
As such, the crown of the road is the starting point, for this example, in measuring the vertical distance of
the structure.
Height limit *35
For this example, a3 story
home may be developed
within the 35 foot height
limit and the flood zone of
AE 511
Cron of F"md 5ft' Crown of the road
Natural Elevatlar� aft
it relatlan to
MMn sea level
*N
M
r
AE 5'
The vertical distance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest park of the structure
= Height
211 of fill needed to reach 511
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.
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
File 2015 -171
Page 5 of 16
Packet Pg. 1947
J.2.b
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.isp
See FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium,
which are attached as Exhibit 10.
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:
ANALYSIS OF DAMAGES FROM STORM SURGE AND SEA LEVEL RISE FOR THE
GEOGRAPHIC REGIONS OF KEY LARGO AND STOCK ISLAND, MONROE COUNTY, FL
USING THE COASTAL ADAPTATION TO SEA LEVEL RISE TOOL (COAST)
J nnathan T. Luekma n AICP
Samuel B. IVerrill, PhD
Men nderGray, IMS
CATALYSIS ADAPTATI ON PARTNERS, LLC 1 242 Sawyer Street, South Portland, ME 04105
15 November 2633
ERIN L. DEAD Y, P.A.
... CataIy5r5..
Entire report can be accessed here: http: / /fl- monroecountyclimate .civicplus.com /DocumentCenter /View /l03
File 2015 -171 Page 6 of 16
Packet Pg. 1948
J.2.b
1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Catalysis Adaptation Partners, LLC (Catalysis) specializes in analyzing impacts from storm surges and
long -term sea level rise using its Co astal Adaptation to Sea level rise Tool (COAST). COAST modeling
software mimics floods from storms and sea level rise on community assets such as homes and businesses,
then tallies the cumulative damages overtime so communities can better understand the cost to them of
not adapting (vulnerability assessment), as well as the costs and benefits (damage reduction) of
implementing various adaptation actions.
Catalysis was contracted by Erin L. Deady, P.A. to use COAST to perform a vulnerability assessment
of homes and commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County
in Key Largo as part of the GreenKeys! project.'Workingwith Erin L. Deady, P.A., Catalysis conducted three
(3) community workshops in October, November and December 2014, during which County residents in
Key Largo voted on modeling parameters and assumptions far "no- action" and three (3) adaptation action
scenarios: 1) Elevating and floodproofing buildings; 2) building barriers close to share; and 3) purchasing
properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program. Voting occurred during
Workshops #2.and #3 (results can be found in the appendix Section 6 of this report) and focused on certain
model parameters as well as whether or not actions should be further evaluated.
The "asset" selected for analysis was the value of residential and commercial buildings, obtained
from Monroe County tax records. Sea Level Rise assumptions were based upon the Unified Sea Level Rise
Projection for Southeast Florida'. These projections included a low and high estimate of sea level rise in
2030 of 3" and 7" respectively, as well as a lows and high estimate of sea level rise in ?D60 of 9" and 24"
respectively. As requested by workshop participants, a lower sea level rise projection was also employed
in the analysis based only or the rate of sea level rise that has occurred over the last 100 years, outside
of the official Unified Sea Level Rise Projection document. A straight line projection of the tide gauge
trend was added to the modeling parameters, fur a very low scenario of sea level rise of 1.82" in 20310 and
4.53" in 2060. Surge values from various sized storms were obtained from the most recent Federal
Emergency Management Act (FEMA) Flood Insurance Study. Key findings from the worst case
vulnerability assessment included one -time damage estimates of $2.0 Million from a nuisance flood in
2060 under a high sea level rise scenario of 24 "and $289.2 Million from a Hurricane Wilma -sized flood in
2060 under the same sea level rise scenario. Cumulative damages over time from storms of various sizes
resulted in significantly higher damage estimates by 2060, with $1.673 Billion in damages under the very
low sea level rise scenario of 4.53 ", and $2.130 Billion in damages under a high sea level rise scenario of
24 ". The value of properties {buildings and land) permanently inundated by sea level rise alone by 2060
(from daily flooding at high tide) ranged from $206.9 Million (very low scenario) to $705.6 Million (high
scenario). Once the modeling indicated such properties would be flooded by the daily high tide, the
software no longer subjected it to continuing cumulative damages from that point in time forward.
The three (3) adaptation actions to model identified by the Project Team and County Staff
included:
• Elevating and floodproofing buildings
1 Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties, Sea Level Rise Ad Hoc Technical Working Group
(ApA 2011).
File 2015 -171 Page 7 of 16
Packet Pg. 1949
J.2.b
Building barriers close to the coast (to protect from storm surge but not sea level rise); and
+ Purchase of properties vulnerable to sea level rise through a voluntary buyout program over
a phased timeframe.
For each action, costs were determined by the consultant and staff team, and in some cases,
modified by workshop participants by polling. Modeling parameters (e.g., building elevation heights, the
distance between the barrier and the east as well as the height of the barrier, the number of residents
accepting a buyout for their properties, etc.) also were established by workshop participants through a
keypad polling process. Catalysis then used COAST again with the adaptation actions in place to quantify
the predicted reduction in damages over the same time period as the vulnerability assessment.
These results were converted into benefit -cost ratios. Ratios greater than 1 represented actions
that reduced more in damages in the future than itcustto implement them. Ratios less than 1 represented
actions that would cost more than the amount of reduced damages in the future (i.e., not cast effective).
The action that had the best benefit -cost ratio was elevating and flaadproofing buildings (accounting for
those not already elevated or floodproofed in the area of Key Largo within Monroe County), which had a
benefit -cost ratio between 5.48 and 13.70 (meaningfor every $1.O0 spe nt an elevating and floodproofing,
the avoided damages would range from $5.48 to $13.711), depending or the sea level rise scenario (high,
low or tide gauge trend) and construction crest estimates (high and law). Building barriers had the second
highest benefit -cost ratios, but with all results below 1111.40 to 0.93). The voluntary buyout program had
benefit -cost ratios ranging from 0.02 to 1.21. The €only result with a value greater than 1 was for the tide
gauge trend sea level rise scenario, however. Aside from the model outputs, there were other factors
which contributed to these results as discussed in this document. A similar analysis for Stock Island was
completed at a later date and can be found in Appendix 6.
These: benefit -cost ratios were presented to County residents and keypad polling technology was
used to evaluate their opinions. After looking at the COAST model results and participating in the group
discussions, residents voted that elevating and flaadproofing buildings was their most preferred action.
In addition, residents thought the County should pursue sources of funding to help private property
yawners implement this strategy.
The modeling results and community engagement process enabled the Project Team to provide
the County residents with a context for beginning more difficult conversations and decision- making
processes rega rdingtheir vulnerabilities. Discussions of factors outside of the model should lead to diverse
co- benefits (e.g., choosing to restore mangrove forests to not only improve coastal ecosystems but also
protect buildings from wave attenuation) and planning outcomes. Importantly, benefit -cost ratios
resulting from this work tend to open difficult conversations about exactly what is must important to a
community in planning how to adapt to sea level rise and future storm surges.
However, these results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a program to
elevate and floodproof residential and commercial buildings. Catalysis recommends that the County use
this information to;
• Further discuss sea level rise vulnerability with County residents and the importance of having a
method to weigh different adaptation actions against one another (benefit -cost analysis)
File 2015 -171 Page 8 of 16
Packet Pg. 1950
J.2.b
4 Develop a framework for using new knowledge to engage with residents so that consensus on an
eventual adaptation action is data- and stakeholder- driven.
Share this information with neighboring communities so that more regional communication can
take place and strengthen any local momentum towards adaptation
Document any progress or failures towards adaptation so that other communities around the
country have lessons from which they can learn.
6 A PPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST MNSIDERATIONS OF PRQ POSED
STRATFG IE5
6.1 KEYPAD P OLLING RESULTS FROM C Ol41lhF1UNITY WORKSHOP 02
GreerKEYSi Keypad Palling Resuhs front tote COAST community modeliri; exercise tondu•clod
November S 2024 at the Nel , 4pn Covernmelrtt Center in Key Largo, FL
Quesflon ill: Currently in Key Largo, 40% of properties are already elevated. What percentage of
add Itianal Key Largo V -cone buildings do you wawt to gee elevated In this model?
1 a 25% 9 29% Question 1
b 50% 2 696 sa
C 75% 2 6% 9
d The draft input of 1Q0% 14 4596 ,
¢lank 4 13% ■
T =1 31 LOO t c d bla ,
Queslwi412: what percentage ofKey Largo A zom- Wi ldl nip doyvtr want to- see Noadprocfedinthis
model?
2 a 25% 2 6% Question 2
b 50% S 16% ei 16
C 75% 4 IS%
d The draft input of MO% 26 52%
blank 4 13% ■ ■
Tool 31 LOD -.Inr4
questlart #jk- Currently in Key Large, nevu buildings are required to he elevated to the 100 -year flood
elevation, which ranges from 5 to 15 feet across the Key. For pa reels that will be elevated In the
model, do you want them to he elevated up to this code or to somethirtg higher?
3 a uptocurrentcode L2 99% Question 3
b Up to current code plus 1! 3 10% a0 18 .15
C Up to current code plus 3 15 48% lu
blank 1 1%
Totals 31 LOD% o
a b L
Questian 94. The made[ estimates Flaodproofing to a curtain height. Now high would you like to see
parcels noodproofed?
4 a 1 ft 0 0% Question :I.
b 3 ft 8 26% 80 16
c 6 1t 3 10% 10 a
d The draft input of 8 fit 36 5296 O ,
blank 4 JIS% ° a ■
Tokai 31 LON a b c 0 blank
29'
File 2015 -171 Page 9 of 16
c
0
a�
0
CL
0
0
,°
c
0
r
CL
0
0
X
0
r
r
t
C1
0
2
U
D
J
Packet Pg. 1951
J.2.b
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are ek ed and additions are underlined
Planning Commission recommendations are shown with deletions in blue with a
and additions in blue with a double underline
Subsequent staff recommendations presented to the BOCC at the April 12, 2017 public meeting, and
consistent with direction given by the BOCC at that meeting, are shown with deletions in red with a
and additions in red with a double underline
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 o 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. 131 -2. 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 Manned communitv 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 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 limit as follows:
1. For NEW single family (detached dwelling unit) and multi - family (attached dwelling unit)
File 2015 -171 Page 10 of 16
Packet Pg. 1952
J.2.b
buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE,
an exception of a maximum of three (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
or two (2) habitable floors. The space below the lowest habitable floor of an elevated
structure shall be limited to a maximum of 299 square feet of enclosed floor area and shall
be used exclusively for parking of vehicles, elevators, limited storage and /or building
access purposes. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of buildings,
whether voluntary or not.
2. For lawfully established EXISTING r....' (detached and attached dwelling unit)
buildings which do not exceed the 35 -foot height limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to
meet and /or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum
of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height
exception shall be no greater than the distance necessary to elevate the building to meet
BFE plus 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 FEMA BFE are not eligible for
this exception.
C. As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established EXISTING multi- family attached
dwelling unit) 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 Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of five (5) feet may be
permitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE. The amount of the
exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet 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_ attached
dwelling unit) buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are proposed to 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 (attached dwelling unit) buildings that
are voluntarily repaired, improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet the building's
minimum required FEMA BFE, but will require a height exception of more than five (5)
feet, a Flood Protection Height Exception exceeding the 35 -foot height limit may be
File 2015 -171 Page 11 of 16
C
0
a�
0
CL
0
0
�0
C
0
CL
aD
0
x
a�
E
r
M
M
U
D
J
r
C
0
N
aD
r
0
N
0
N
w
0
CL
�a
U)
U
D
J
r
C
m
E
C
aD
E
M
x
C
m
E
M
0
�a
a
Packet Pg. 1953
J.2.b
_provided by the BOCC based on the following criteria:
a. The flood zone of the parcel:
b. The number of dwelling units lawfully established and an analysis of the number of
dwelling units which may not be able to redevelop on the subject barcel without a
height exception,
c. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel;
d. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood damage and the
effects of such damage on the property owner;
e. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other
lands to the injury of others;
f The availability of alternate solutions;
g_ 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
h. Community character.
i. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BITE are not
eligible for this exception.
2. A BOCC resolution shall specify the findings of criteria of D.1. a. through i. (above) and
specify the approved maximum total height for the proposed building.
V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2030 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.
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.
File 2015 -171 Page 12 of 16
Packet Pg. 1954
J.2.b
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 required elevation by FEMA or the County's Floodplain
Regulations.
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.
(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.
File 2015 -171 Page 13 of 16
c
0
a�
r
0
CL
0
0
0
c
0
CL
0
0
X
0
E
r
x
U
D
J
Packet Pg. 1955
J.2,b
(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)(1) 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.
(1) 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 one or more of the required provisions of 102 -
158(d)(7)b.:
1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or
boundary was based;
N/A
2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends) from those on which the existing text
or boundary was based;
N/A
File 2015 -171 Page 14 of 16
Packet Pg. 1956
J.2.b
3. Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features which contributed
to the application of the existing text or boundary;
N/A
4. New issues which arose after the application of the existing text or boundary;
The proposed amendment is consistent with and implements the adopted amendments to
Policies 101.5.30, 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 of the Comprehensive Plan; the proposed
amendment addresses new issues related to height exceptions for nonhabitable architectural
decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned community; and to provide certain
exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood
insurance costs due to projected sea level rise, upcoming release of new FEMA flood maps and
the recent Biggert - Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act.
5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or
The proposed amendment is consistent with and implements the adopted amendments to
Policies 101.5.30, 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 of the Comprehensive Plan; the proposed
amendment addresses the need for additional detail to implement proposed comprehensive
plan policies related to height exceptions for non - habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef master planned community; and to provide criteria to evaluate and
provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and
reduce flood insurance costs.
6. Data updates; or
N/A
7. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the principles for guiding development as defined
in Section 380.0552, Florida Statutes.
The proposed amendment is consistent with and implements the adopted amendments to
Policies 101.5.30, 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 of the Comprehensive Plan.
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments, contingent on adoption and effectiveness
of the accompanying Comprehensive Plan amendments.
Staff has found that the proposed text amendments would be consistent with the provisions of §102-
158(d)(5)(b): 1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the text
or boundary was based; 2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); 3. Data errors,
including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in volume I of the plan; 4.
New issues; 5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or 6. Data updates.
Specifically, staff has found that the proposed text amendments are necessary due to 4. New issues; and
5. A recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness.
VII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report
File 2015 -171 Page 15 of 16
Packet Pg. 1957
J.2.b
3. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. January 26, 2016 DRC Staff report
5. January 26, 2016 DRC Minutes
6. February 24, 2017 PC Staff report
7. February 24, 2017 PC Minutes
8. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
9. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
10. FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium'
11. Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments
File 2015 -171 Page 16 of 16
Packet Pg. 1958
J.2.c
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners Special Meeting
Tuesday, October 7, 2014
Height Exceptions
Then the next change is on page 43...
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 we've also come up with some criteria
and you'll see that on those two 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?
Yes mam on this particular topic.
Joel Reed: Good morning Mayor, Commissioners, Joel Reed. I'm here today on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and
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 community. It's a private gated community of about twenty five hundred
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 process. They're all notified as far as any 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
well. I'm going to pass out, I guess to the clerk and to you guys, additional language we would like you guys to
consider. But we have been talking to staff about ....(passes 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
are the hotels that are near Buccaneer Island, if you've been up there before. The Amberjack, The Dolphin, The
Marlin, these buildings are aging, they're coming to the end 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
buildings, I have some data, it's not all there, The Amberjack for example is three levels of living. Just to give an
c
0
a�
0
L
Q
0
0
L
�0
c
0
CL
(D
0
X
(D
E
x
U
0
J
0
N
r;
0
U
U
O
m
T
aM
x
W
c
(D
E
s
R
Q
Page 1 of 12
J.2.c
example, the couple, I'm not going to go 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 wouldn't be able to build
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
hotel buildings, that's at forty two feet. We got the Dolphin Hotel at forty seven feet and The Creek House. We
didn't have the number on it but we know that's well over forty feet as well. That's another condominium
building up there. We came up with the boat barn, that's at 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
know, if you get three stories up there you're at thirty feet and then you have an architectural roof element
you're at thirty seven feet or something like that. A lot of these buildings are built below flood right now so if
we go to build them back, obviously we're talking about sea level rise, we want 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 developments and that's just not possible to happen. So we
proposed some additional policy language to put in there to protect these existing buildings that are there to be
able to be built back. We haven't thoroughly vetted with 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,
it exempts, it doesn't exempt, it doesn't include single family homes so this is only for the multi - family and
commercial structures that are up there, so it doesn't include any of the single family homes and what it says is,
"lawfully established structures that exclude single family 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
the FE" so encouraging them to go, you 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 was built, they aren't able to attract and have the top
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
drop down the new one and their theater wasn't able to be 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
those types of productions there. I'm here for 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
that's in there ...
Commissioner Carruthers: the institutional language ...
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 the loss of rooms and the development that's there.
c
0
0
L
CL
0
0
L
0
c
0
CL
(D
0
X
(D
E
x
U
0
J
0
N
r;
0
U
U
O
m
aM
x
W
c
(D
E
s
v
R
Q
Page 2 of 12
J.2.c
Mayor Murphy: Do we have a public speaker on this?
We do.
Mayor Murphy: Let's hear the public speaker. Another one.
D.A. Aldridge
I'm D.A. Aldridge. I live on Tavernier which is part 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 Federation of Homeowner's Association has 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
0
asking at this time to have you not vote on this. We have not had the opportunity to look at the language that
0
has been just handed to you and we feel that it needs to be reviewed very closely by the staff and by you
o
because this is a huge change that they are requesting. Thank you.
CL
'a
0
0
Mayor Murphy:... That's it
L
0
Commissioner Kolhag (,- What does the, in the final sentence when they talk about assembly group Al and so
0
forth, what does that mean?
C
0
X
Christine Hurh We don't know.
( D
E
Mayor Murphy: Well they haven't seen it yet. This is the problem with this.,
e Hurl( Well we have seen that he emailed it but we asked questions. We didn't know what he meant
=
by that.
o
J
Commissioner Kolhage: Well but we're going to have to be more specific on that. We'll have to have language
that says exactly what it means. I think anyway.
T
N
r;
Commissioner Could we not deal with this today and deal with it in January?
°
U
If you want us to address his comments, I just say get direction from the board at this point.
0
We work on some type of language to bring back to you in January.
m
r -
2M
,
Commissioner :.: I think that's what we should do.
t
Mayor Murphy: And what happens if we then want to make changes in January? Do we hold up the whole
w
process?
c
(D
I think you can legally make changes on the floor by motion before we transmit.
R
As long as you're not changing the general substance of it. The general tone of it.
Q
Mayor Murphy: Well that's what I am worried about. If we let 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
J.2.c
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?
Sure. We could do that.
Mayor Murphy: That would be helpful.
Commissioner Rice That may be the way to approach it.
The problem with holding it in November or December is the calendars are already a mess
0
from the holidays.
a�
0
L
Commissioner Neugent: Oh my gosh we might have to do a little work.
a
0
No, that's not what I meant. It's just that even your regular board meetings got all shifted
around.
L
0
c
0
Commissioner Neugent: Have it at the board meeting. End of the item discussion for a board meeting.
a
(D
0
Okay. We can do that.
a
Mayor Murphy: We can do that.
E
Commissioner Neugent: Another things that's in this right here as I read it, for clarification purposes,
t
"architectural decorating features that exceed the thirty five foot height limit but such features shall not exceed
v
five feet above the structures roof line" Joel also mentioned that some of these buildings are already, I guess
o
they would be legal non - conforming because they are above the height limit, so when you say "features shall
not exceed five feet above the structures roofline" what roofline are we talking about? The one that's already
T
N
non - conforming? Or thirty five feet, shall not exceed five feet above thirty five feet? That's not the way I
ti
necessarily interpret that.
0
U
U
Mayor Murphy: Because if it's the fifty four foot building, we're now at fifty nine...
m
It's not though. This is meant for new development that cannot exceed thirty five feet.
T
a'
Commissioner Neugent: Well what happens ...
x
W
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
E
feet, be allowed to rebuild to that height plus...
Commissioner Neugent: I didn't hear anybody bring that up...
Q
That's really what he is asking though.
Commissioner Rice Well that's what this really says
Page 4 of 12
J.2.c
Mayor Murphy: Plus what?
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.
Well he talked about decorative also, but he definitely spoke about ...
Mayor Murphy: Well let's get it down pat.
Well we will try to but we got his language a couple days ago and...
c
Mayor Murphy: Well his language is kind of going in a figure eight.
2
0
L
Commissioner Kolha e: I understand what the are saying. In other words, he wants to maintain what the
g Y Y g• Y
a
�
have now with an adjustment.
0 0
Yes. I think that's what he is asking.
L
°
c
0
Commissioner Kolhage: And I think that is reasonable.
C
0
Mayor Murphy: To replace a building, an older building that was built over thirty five feet, have a problem with
X
0
that anywhere in Monroe County. It is what it is, we're all used to it, it's part of the landscape.
E
Commissioner Neugent: Clarification on what you just said
a�
x
Mayor Murphy: I do not object to any of the older buildings that were built above thirty five feet. We all have
v
them in our neighborhoods. If they need to be replaced or have to be replaced, I don't have a problem with
0
V
them maintaining the height.
T
0
N
Commissioner Neugent: Hold on a minute there. Is there anything in our code, and I would use this as an
r;
analogy, FEMA's description of it, if its damaged by more than fifty percent, it has to be rebuilt, that is there
0
anything in our code or Comp Plan that says that it then can be built over thirty five feet?
U
0
m
Mayor Murphy: No, No. t
aM
Okay, today, don't mix apples and oranges. Today 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 x
conform to the new code, which is the thirty five foot height limit. And if it's destroyed beyond fifty percent w
under the floodplain rules, they have to raise the elevation and that's why they added this other position. E
s
Commissioner Neugent: I understand the apples and oranges thing that I just plugged into it as an analogy but
what I am saying is, have we had that discussion? You just said, at least my interpretation, that you can't build Q
what Commissioner Murphy just said ...
Christine Hurh You can't. That is what Joel is asking you to change.
Page 5 of 12
J.2.c
Commissioner Neugent: So we need to have that discussion.
Commissioner Carruthers. And that's why we have the further thing 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: I'm not talking about base flood elevation.
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.
Joel is proposing that.
Commissioner Neugent: And that's what I am asking this Commission. Is that where we want to go with that?
Commissioner Carruthers: Well, I mean, if we don't allow people to do that, isn't that essentially a taking? I
mean you would be ... think about the real life economic consequences of...
Bob Shillinger: There may be some Bert Harris implications but it's a different analysis.
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, they're very similar to a municipality with a city
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 I don't think we are trying to do that.
Mayor Murphy: I don't either. But I will tell you, my feeling is, in many, many instances, what Ocean Reef wants
to do up there because they are away from everyone, I've agreed with. They've had good ideas, no problem and
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 homeowners are watching. I can't do something for them that I
won't do for the rest of the county. And I will go to the 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
c
0
(D
0
CL
0
0
L
0
0
CL
(D
0
X
(D
E
x
U
D
J
T
0
N
ti
_o
U
U
O
m
T
aM
x
W
c
(D
E
s
v
R
Q
Page 6 of 12
J.2.c
remodel it, I don't have a problem with them rebuilding to the height it was. I don't think it ruins the landscape
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
you're saying, you don't have a problem with them rebuilding 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 Kos; So you don't have an objection to it?
c
0
Mayor Murphy: Not to that. I have an objection to the decorative features.
0
(D
0
L
Commis¢` ,ner Kolhag, Okay but look, if it's, if they got a fifty foot building and there is a five foot adjustment
a
for base flood elevation, you don't have a problem with them going to fifty five feet?
0
Mayor Murphy: No.
L
0
c
0
Commissioner Koinag� Okay.
a
(D
0
Mayor Murphy: They are going to what they were before the remodel ...
a
and you want it county wide not just for Ocean Reef?
E
Mayor Murphy: Yes.
M
x
Commissioner Carruthers: But only for flood mitigation...
p
J
Mayor Murphy: That's it, no decorative stuff.
0
N
Well right now the decorative is in, the flood is in...
0
Commissioner Carruthers: Well the decorative is in for Ocean Reef only, the flood is in for everyone. Right?
v
O
Yeah and the decorative is not so much what Joel is talking about relative to the bigger
m
commercial buildings, its more for the single family homes that want the decorative features on top of the roof.
aM
They are separate issues really. So right now in the draft policy you have included an extra five feet in Ocean
0
Reef for the decorative architectural features, you've included for the whole county up to five feet adjustments
x
for flood protection, raising your elevations, and Joel is asking you to also include, for Ocean Reef, but it sounds
w
like you at least have one Commissioner who wants to do it county wide for grandfathering existing buildings
E
that are higher than thirty five feet and allowing them to get the flood adjustment.
R
Bob Shillinger: You'd want to vest them for that height is what I'm hearing.
Q
Yup. But I don't know the Commissions, I'm not getting...
Page 7 of 12
J.2.c
Commissioner Neugent: Well first of all the staff is supposed to review what the request is and bring it back the
staff recommendation
But I'd like to know what the board, county wide or Ocean Reef for this vesting of existing
buildings at least.
Commissioner Ricµ Well let me help you out, if we don't do that, the economic impact, eventually we will
destroy what we know down here. I don't feel that we have any choice.
Commissioner Carruthers I don't think it's fair ... I don't think it's fair 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
S
today that did not exist then.
0
a�
Christine Hurlo I understand what you all are asking for so if you want to just move on without voting, we will
o
draft language and bring it back for discussion on one of your regular agendas.
CL
'a
0
0
Commissioner Neugent: Let me point this out, as someone who operated out of an illegal non - conforming
L
building, if you think that it is something that is, it was called Porky's restaurant, and if would have been
0
destroyed by a storm, I would have had a very difficult time, if not impossible time to rebuild with the same
c
0
amount of square footage because of setbacks that came into play after Porky's was built eons ago. So if you
CL
think that there is a fairness level here, there is really a lot of situations where you can't rebuild.
(D
Commissioner Carruthers: but wouldn't you have been able to apply for variances and exceptions to those
E
setbacks...
x
No.
U
D
J
Commissioner Neugent: You still would have had to meet the setback requirements.
You could apply for variance for a setback but not height.
T
N
ti
Mayor Murphy: See well all we are talking about is height. Not their setbacks. Not anything else.
0
v
U
Commissioner Kolhage We're talking about changing the whole concept of the fifty percent rule.
m
No I understand ...
T
a'
0
Commissioner Kolhage How does it work? For height ... we're saying we're washing away the fifty percent rule.
T
x
W
Well other things enter into ....for height you would be washing it away.
(D
Bob Shillinger: As a trigger for bringing it into compliance with current code
R
There are still other things that apply to that but most of those can be remedied by a variance.
Q
Commissioner Carruthers- and just to clarify what you are eluding to I think, Commissioner, is that someone
can elevate their building now. And that's not necessarily fifty percent improvement. Right?
Page 8 of 12
J.2.c
I mean if you are elevating a building, you're usually triggering that price...
Commissioner Carruthers: Well it depends on the building and the cost
Commissioner Kolhage: and the whole destruction issue and the fifty percent and that's.... I'm not necessarily
saying I have a problem with that but that's what we're doing
And I will say the examples that Joel gave of the condominiums, when you, let's say have eight
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
eight condo owners don't get a unit and so that's related to the Bert Jay Harris that Bob referred to
0
Commissioner Carruthers: Everybody gets a smaller unit which is still going to be an issue so ... 0
(D
0
L
That's under our current rules. a
0
Commissioner Rice And what we're trying to do is validate, you don't want to build a fifty year building or sixty
L
year building without accommodating expected sea level rise 0
c
0
Commissioner Carruthers. I guess my only other comment is that I know that this is going to be controversial a
and people are going to be concerned about character and things like that... 0
(D
Mayor Murphy: But it's already there.
Commissioner Carruthers.: Well it is already there...
Mayor Murphy: So it's not changing the landscape... _
U
D
J
Commissioner Carruthers: It's not but trust me from dealing with this in Key West people have the perception
that overnight the character of our communities is going to change and that's not what we're talking c
about ... Over fifty years it probably will to some extent but it's going to have to if we want to continue to live
here. °
U
Mayor Murphy: Alright listen we're going to take a break p
m
T
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 w
for the decorative features. Discuss it and let her know which direction you would like her to take when she
does her staff report. E
s
v
Commissioner Carruthers: Are you talking about within Ocean Reef or County wide?
Q
Mayor Murphy: They are the only ones that asked for it.
Commissioner Carruthers: I don't really care.
Page 9 of 12
J.2.c
Commissioner Neugent: We'll put together something that is going to be 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: But the point is, what county wide? I don't care if its county wide, in fact it has to be. For me
to vote for a height limit, it has to be county wide. Otherwise, I'm not going to vote for it.
rl„a I Okay wait a minute, no one has proposed, maybe that's where you're going next I don't know,
right now what's in your draft is flood for everybody ...
Mayor Murphy: Base flood elevation...
c
0
They have talked about it, I am very clear, everyone is okay with that. Ocean Reef only,
0
decorative features, five additional feet. And I didn't hear, I heard Murphy say she's opposed to it but I didn't
o
hear what any of you other Commissioners thought of that.
CL
'a
0
0
Mayor Murphy: And that's what I am trying to bring out so that she knows where to go with it.
L
0
Commissioner Neugent: I thought I heard you ask, you wanted a head nod whether this was going to be
0
proposed just for Ocean Reef or all of unincorporated Monroe County.
C
0
X
Christine Hurls : I had never heard that the decorative features was proposed for all of Monroe County from
}'
you all.
E
Commissioner Rice and Commissioner Kolhage respond in unison: No, no...
aM
0
x
Commissioner Neugent: Okay but I also heard Commissioner Mayor Murphy say, I'm not going to treat them
G
any different than the rest of the County.
V
Commissioner Rice: Well that gives you a slight clue as to how she might vote.
N
r;
So what I think I've gotten clarity on is everybody's okay allowing the people to get five of the
°
five feet to adjust the floodplain if they are demolished. The board wants us to draft language to address
U
U
existing structures that are already over thirty five feet to be able to be replaced with the five foot flood
m
adjustment. What I don't have any clarity on is whether 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
aM
wide, which I had never heard as an option to this moment.
x
W
Commissioner Kolhage: Let me just state my position on this and you can go down the line I guess but I really
don't care about the architectural features of Ocean Reef. I've tried to care but I just can't. But I am a little
E
concerned, I'm a little concerned about doing away with our fifty percent rule on the rest of the County and I'm
not saying that I am going to support that.
Q
Commissioner Neugent: I'm not saying that I am going to support anything. I'm saying I just want the
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
J.2.c
Mayor Murphy: And my only point with the architectural features, I don't think they are necessary, but if just
for Ocean Reef, I don't want them certainly spread all 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 they'll be rebuilding is something that is you know, fifty
feet, fifty four feet, whatever. Its adding ten feet to it instead of five. I think that's a bit much.
Commissioner Neugent: At what point in time do we bring up what was brought up previously about
addressing affordable housing, increasing the height limit ...This is all about bringing information back to us.
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
c
Meridian West could have had another floor which would have increased the housing if they had gone up an
0
(;
additional foot or so. So again, more information to discuss that strictly for affordable housing.
0
a
0 0
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
0
discussed it as staff after you had that meeting. It's our opinion that if you are going to incentivize affordable
c
housing development by giving them a higher height limit that you should restrict that to very low and low
a
maybe median, but the moderate income level is something that we do not think should be incentivized with a
0
height increase.
°'
E
Commissioner Neugent: One of the biggest problems in dealing with affordable housing is the property to build
7,
them on. Another reason why I think the discussion should take place for affordable housing to go up is that if
aM
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.
J
Commissioner Kolhage So what are you going to do with that Christine? Between now and January?
0
N
Do you want us to include something for you to consider relative to affordable in the next
ti
0
version that we bring to you at your regular meeting for discussion?
v
U
Commissioner Rice I do.
ca
m
Commissioner Carruthers: I do.
T
t
aM
0
Okay.
x
w
Commissioner Kolhage° I remain to be convinced...
(D
E
Commissioner Rice: I'm not sure how I feel about it but I think we do need to have the discussion.
R
Christine Hurls And I'm going to have some diagrams for you all by the next meeting with each policy so you
Q
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
J.2.c
I understand. I will bring that also.
Commissioner Kolhage It's all about potential serious community character issues here.
S
0
a�
0
L
Q
0
0
L
0
0
a.•�
Q
0
x
E
a.+
t
2
U
D
J
r
O
N
ti
O
r
U
U
O
CO
T
M
aM
t
x
W
c
(D
E
s
v
R
Q
Page 12 of 12
J.2.d
r
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Maytd Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: October 16, 2015
Subject: 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)
Meeting: October 27, 2015
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to amend
Section 101 -1 to create definitions related to the flood protection height exceptions and amending
Section 130 -187 to address height exceptions for non - habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef master planned community; and to provide certain exceptions to the height
limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
IL 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
File 2015 -171
Page 1 of 9
Packet Pg. 1971
J.2.ci
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.
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 proposed Comprehensive Plan (CP) text amendments 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 CP
text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input
and discussion early in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land
Development Code amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed CP 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 CP text amendment was
continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early
in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land Development Code
amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed CP 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 CP text amendment was
continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early
in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land Development Code
amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
File 2015 -171
Page 2 of 9
Packet Pg. 1972
1.2.d
Through the DRC process, members of the public asked for general policies in the Comprehensive
Plan and more detail in the Land Development Code (LDC). The May 26, 2015 and August 25,
2015 DRC staff reports for the Comprehensive Plan amendment included draft LDC amendments to
assist in reviewing and developing the amendments. This staff report is the LDC amendment to
correspond to the Comprehensive Plan amendment currently being processed (File 2015 -006).
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HEIGHT:
In unincorporated Monroe County, hem and rg ade are defined as follows:
Section 101 -1
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical 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
in this section shall not apply.
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
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 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.
File 2015 -171
Page 3 of 9
Packet Pg. 1973
J.2.d
Height limit
4 4 3 ' — Y -
For this example, a 3 story
home may be developed 20'-
within the 35 foot height
limit and the flood zone of
AE 5ft
X 10 -
Crow" of Road 5ft' Crown of the road
Natural Elevation aft •
' ID le144 n to
mean sea level
AE 5'
The vertical distance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest part of the structure
= Height
2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are st-risle-go; thr-.Ai and additions are underlined
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:
x x rc x �r
Elevate means the action of retrofitting or raising a building to a higher positon.
Elevated Buildiniz means a building that has its lowest floor raised above the f,round level by
foundation walls shear walls posts, iers pilings, or columns.
R means methods to modifv a lawfully established existing build 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 constructiniz a new foundation or extending the existing foundation or leavin
the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floor system within the building _or
adding a new unner story " converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only
for parking, building access, or storage.
x �
See. 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 ermitted in
Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 and listed below. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions
File 2015 -171
Page 4 of 9
Packet Pg. 1974
J.2.ti
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 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 limit as follows:
1. For NEW buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum
required BFE an exception of a maximum of three L3 ) above the 35 -foot height limit
may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount
Of VOIUDtary 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 EXISTING buildings which do not exceed the 35 -foot height limit
and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and /or exceed the building's minimum re uired
BFE, an exception of a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be
permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the distance
necessary to elevate the building to meet BFE plus 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 FEMA BFE are not eligible for
this exception.
5. No exception shall be provided to buildings located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA
flood zone.
As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-
foot height limit m4y be repaired, improved, retrofitted or redeveloped 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 lawfully established existing intensity, floor area
building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height
Exception of a maximum of five 5 feet may be 12erTnitted to meet the building's minimum
required FEMA BFE. The amount of the exception shall be no greater than the amount of
elevation necessary to meet BFE. Buildinjzs not being elevated to at least meet the required
FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception.
File 2015 -171
Page 5 of 4
0
m
0
CL
0
0
,°
C
0
r
CL
0
U
X
0
E
M
ai
x
U
D
LO
N
O
U
a
0
a
U)
r
r
Lf?
r
0
N
r
M
Cl
N
X
W
r
C
0
ca
a
Packet Pg. 1975
J.2.d
D. As provided in Policy 101.5.33 for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the
35 -foot height limit that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing
before the Board of Countv Commissioners to review and s ecif y the maximum approved
height shall be required prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval.
For lawfully established existing buildings that are voluntarily repaired, improved,
retrofitted or redeveloped to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE but will
require a height exception of more than 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 availabili . 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 FENIA BFE are not eligible
for this exception.
2. A BOCC resolution_ shall specify the findings of criteria of D. L a. though g. (above) and
s ecif y 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 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
File 2015 -171
Page 6 of 9
Packet Pg. 1976
J.2.d
contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage
caused by storms.
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 pinclands), 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:
I . 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)(1) and 403.086(10), as
File 2015 -171
Page 7 of 9
Packet Pg. 1977
applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through
permit allocation systems.
(k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys.
(1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys.
(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 one or more of the required provisions of 102 -
158(d)(5)(b).
1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or
boundary was based;
N/A
2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends);
N/A
Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in
volume 1 of the plan;
N/A
4. New issues;
The proposed amendment addresses new issues related to height exceptions for non -
habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned
community; and to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect
property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or
The proposed amendment addresses the need for additional detail to implement
proposed comprehensive plan policies related to height exceptions for non - habitable
architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned community;
and to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property
from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
b. Data updates;
N/A
7. For FLUM changes, the principles for guiding development as defined in the Florida Statutes
relating to changes to the comprehensive plan.
N/A
File 2015 -17I
Page 8 of 9
Packet Pg. 1978
J.2,d
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
Staff has found that the proposed text amendments would be consistent with the provisions of § 102 -
158(d)(5)(b): 1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the
text or boundary was based; 2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); 3. Data
errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in volume I of the
plan; 4. New issues; 5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or 6. Data
updates.
Specifically, staff has found that the proposed text amendments are necessary due to 4. New issues;
and 5. A recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness
VII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report for File 2015 -006 Comp Plan height amendment
File 2015 -171
Page 9 of 9
Packet Pg. 1979
J.2.e
Exhibit 3
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tuesday, October 27, 2015
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
October 27, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (1 floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida.
CALL TO ORDER
ROLL CALL by Gail Creech
DRC MEMBERS
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present
Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present
STAFF
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present
CHANGES TO THE AGENDA
Ms. 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:
L 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
Packet Pg. 1980
0
PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE
LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(2015 -152)
Mr. Bond presented the staff report. Mr. Bond reported that this is a land use district map
amendment from Suburban Commercial to Mixed Use. The property is located oceanside on
Little Torch Key and serves as a land base for the Little Palm Island. There is no FLUM change
required for this proposed amendment. The property was described. Mr. Bond stated the change
in development potential between the two districts would result in a reduction of eight permanent
residential units, a slight increase in max net density, a net zero change in transient development
potential and no change in commercial development potential. The change would open up the
possibility of some uses that are currently prohibited within the SC district. Staff has evaluated
the proposed amendment and found it is consistent with the comprehensive plan and that the
request does fall under two provisions of the code: Number 4, new issues; and 6, data updates,
primarily due to the Lower Keys Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP). It is consistent with the
Lower Keys LCP. Staff recommended approval of the proposed amendment.
James Hendrick was present on behalf of the applicant and commended staff on their
memorandum.
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, asked why the applicant is changing the zoning Ms.
Santamaria replied that the applicant wants to have a use their current zoning does not allow,
which will reduce the overall allocated density, but they can transfer in up to 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.
Pi
Packet Pg. 1981
J.2.e
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; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File 2015 -006)
3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE
AMENDING SECTION 101 -1 TO CREATE DEFINITIONS RELATED TO FLOOD
PROTECTION HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS; AND AMENDING SECTION 130 -187 TO
PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT
PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS AND TO
ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL
DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED
COMMUNITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR
TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY
OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY CODE;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
(File #2015 -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
amendments have been revised. Ms. Santamaria stated there is a proposed policy change to
Policy 101.5.3 to incorporate the height definition that is in the code today into the comp plan as
well. That height is defined as "The vertical distance between grade and the highest part of the
structure."
Ms. Santamaria reported that the next amendment is to Policy 101.5.31, Ocean Reef - specific,
related to non - habitable architectural decorative features. This would allow these features to be
above the roof line of those homes up to five feet. The overall height of those structures still
cannot exceed a 40 -foot height imit. There are no differences between this version and what was
presented at the last DRC meeting regarding this policy.
3
Packet Pg. 1982
J.2.e
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 received information 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 asked for public comment.
Ms. Moses commented that adding an extra three feet to meet base flood elevation should be
allowed with the 35 -foot height limit remaining. Ms. Moses does not see the need for this
amendment for new construction. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff does not know how many
homes there are in the County below base flood right now. Staff is working on getting
information from the Property Appraiser to see if somehow that information can be extrapolated,
but it is not available at this time. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Ms. Moses that this policy
refers to elevating existing structures. If a house is torn down it must be rebuilt to a 35 -foot
height limit. Ms. Santamaria then explained between the last DRC meeting and today the
:l
Packet Pg. 1983
J.2:e
language has been reorganized a bit, but it is the same information. Language has been added
that if a building is not being elevated to at least meet base flood it is not eligible for this
exception. This exception shall also apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether
voluntary or not.
Ms. Putney stated that it would be helpful to know what the FEMA maps will show. Ms. Putney
then noted that with new construction, although there may be a hardship involved, it can be made
to work within the 35 -foot height limit. Ms. Moses stated the Federation opposes raising the 35-
foot height limit on new construction. Ms. Moses shared a newsletter written by Dennis Henize,
a retired meteorologist, stating that communities should be thinking in terms of decelerating
growth, especially in the eyes of sea level rise. Ms. Putney pointed out that pre -FIRM, January
1, 1975, people built on the ground mostly and built a small enough house that they could afford
to lose. With insurance, houses got bigger, higher and fancier. Citizens need to open up their
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.
The BOCC would then decide and specify the height that they could build to. Ms. Santamaria
reviewed the criteria used by the BOCC to evaluate the request. The BOCC would have to pass
a resolution stating which height a homeowner could build to. Ms. Santamaria explained there
are condo structures where clearly units would be lost if redeveloped at the 35 -foot height limit.
Ms. Moses pointed out the amendment, as written, does not apply to only multi- tenant buildings,
but would apply to any building. Ms. Santamaria added that the public can suggest a provision
that this is for multi - family structures only. Ms. Curlee agreed with that suggestion. Ms. Moses
noted that previously Legal staff had referred to a Bert Harris implication when discussing this.
Ms. Santamaria stated at the next meeting there will be an attorney present who will be able to
address that. Mr. Hunter asked if there are any commercial buildings that fall into this category.
Ms. Santamaria is unaware of any, but stated that does not mean 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
Packet Pg. 1984
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 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 comp plan update. This proposed amendment is
to Policy 101.6.8, which is the transfer of ROGO exemptions. The existing text in the staff
report for this policy is already included in the comp plan update and has been transmitted to the
State with the exception of Receiver Site Criteria Number 6, which says it is not an offshore
island. This is a separate stand -alone amendment so focus can be placed on this one topic.
Policy 101.13.3, which is the transfer of development rights, has been transmitted to the State
with the EAR -based amendments except for Receiver Site Criteria Number 7, which states it is
not an offshore island. That also reflects the initial amendment in the comp plan update the
BOCC asked staff to extract and process separately. Policy 206.1.2 had an added statement not
transmitted with the comp plan update regarding discouraging the development of offshore
islands. This added statement has been struck for consideration and still includes existing
policies in the comp plan that offshore islands should be designated as Tier I and it has the
existing policy that development shall be prohibited on offshore islands, including spoil islands
which have been documented as an established bird rookery based on resource agency best
available data or survey. Staff is proposing a definition for the entity "offshore island" as
"Offshore Island means an area of land surrounded by water which is not directly or indirectly
connected to US -1 by a bridge, road or causeway."
Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment.
Lance Kyle, owner of an offshore island in Monroe County, asked for an explanation of
"severability" as used in the agenda. Ms. Santamaria explained that the one provision of
offshore island could be appealed and extracted out without overturning the rest of the ordinance
and keeping it from becoming effective. Ms. Santamaria further explained for Mr. Kyle that she
believes the ten -acre size determination came from the '86 code. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr.
Kyle that the fact that his island is only 800 feet from US -1 does not give it any kind of special
consideration.
Gidget Jackson asked whether there is any flexibility in the restricted use for the islands for
camping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner
L
Packet Pg. 1985
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 citation to 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 the defined terms of the glossary the policies identify when
development on offshore islands should be prohibited is based on the documentation of an
established bird rookery or nesting area. Those terms are not defined in the comprehensive plan
and the land development regulations and should be. Without having a quantifiable or
objectionable criteria for what an established bird rookery or nesting area is it could be left to
interpretation. FEB Corp. has retained Phil Frank, a well- respected biologist in the community,
to put together a proposed definition for "established bird rookery or nesting area." Copies of
the definition were submitted to staff. Mr. Frank then explained how he worked through the
definition and what he reviewed in order to come up with that definition. Mr. Frank stated the
common theme in the definitions as cited by different authorities is the words "communal
nesting, gregarious birds, prominent colonies, colony forming, gregarious colony." Mr. Smith
read aloud the proposed definition. Mr. Smith believes if this term that is utilized for the
absolute prohibition of development is not defined it will be left open to interpretation that will
be fought over for years to come.
Ms. 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 receiver sites to offshore islands.
7
Packet Pg. 1986
J.2.e
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. Santamaria clarified 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 clarified Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund
fully supports the language protecting nesting areas. Ms. Dick then noted that Mr. Smith is here
on behalf of FEB, who does not own Wisteria Island, and questions their interest in the matter.
Ms. Santamaria emphasized the ordinance does not speak to a particular island, but would apply
to anything that falls within the definition of offshore island.
Mr. Kyle asked whether the term "nest" implies that the island has to have some sort of tree
canopy of bush canopy. Mr. Roberts replied not necessarily, because there are a number of shore
birds and wading birds that are ground - nesters. Mr. Kyle then commented that 90 percent of the
speck islands in the County are transient, so the evacuation time issue seems to be somewhat
discounted. Ms. Santamaria then explained to Mr. Kyle in detail how the phased evacuation
process occurs. Ms. Dick re- emphasized that evacuation is a real concern for Monroe County
citizens and it is a safety threat for everyone in the county if the evacuation predictions are not
correct. That situation adds further weight to the need to reduce added risk to the evacuation
formula by allowing further development on offshore islands.
Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none.
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.
E3
Packet Pg. 1987
J.2.f
- I�IIIY�' J
\ 71.
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Development Review Committee
Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources
Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager
Date: January 15, 2015
Subject: 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)
Meeting: January 26, 2016 — continued from October 27, 2015
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to amend
Section 101 -1 to create definitions related to the flood protection height exceptions and amending
Section 130 -187 to address height exceptions for non - habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef master planned community; and 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
File 2015 -171
Page 1 of 9
cc
N
Packet Pg. 1988
J2.f
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.
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 proposed Comprehensive Plan (CP) text amendments 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 CP
text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input
and discussion early in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land
Development Code amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed CP 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 CP text amendment was
continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early
in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land Development Code
amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed CP 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 CP text amendment was
continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early
in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land Development Code
amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
File 2015-171
Page 2 of 9
Packet Pg. 1989
J.2.f
Through the DRC process, members of the public asked for general policies in the Comprehensive
Plan and more detail in the Land Development Code (LDC). The May 26, 2015 and August 25,
2015 DRC staff reports for the Comprehensive Plan amendment included draft LDC amendments to
assist in reviewing and developing the amendments. This staff report is the LDC amendment to
correspond to the Comprehensive Plan amendment currently being processed (File 2015 -006).
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 2. Minutes from the October
27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT
HEIGHT:
In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ade are defined as follows:
Section 101 -1
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical 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 he 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.
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
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.
File 2015 -171
Page 3 of 9
Packet Pg. 1990
J.2.f
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 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
home may be developed {ZQ •_
within the 35 foot height
limit and the food zone of
AE 5ft
Crown of Road 51t• Crown ofthe road
Natural Elevation 3ft •
• IP relation to
mean no le+d
AE 5'
The vertical distance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest part of the structure
= Height
2ft of fill needed to reach 5ft
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
cc
r
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are strisken thfia and additions are underlined N
Section 101 -1, - Definitions.
The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have the
meanings ascribed to thern 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 Buildinz 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 lawfullv established existing building to reduce its excosure to
flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general, retrofitting involves
lifting the buildina and constructing a new foundation or extending the existing foundation or leavin
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.
File 2015 -171
Page 4 of 9
Packet Pg. 1991
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 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 limit as follows:
For NEW buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum
Muired BFE, an exception of a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35 -foot height limit ce
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 r
height. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether v
voluntM or not. a
2. For lawfully established EXISTING multi - family buildings which do not exceed the 35
foot height limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and /or exceed the building's
minimum required BFE an excel2tion of a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot
height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than
the distance necessary to elevate the building to meet BFE plus up to three (3) feet of
voluntary elevation abo ve BFE. In no event shall an existina building be elevated to exceed
a total building height of 40 feet.
File 2015 -171
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 FEMA BFE are not eligible for
this exception.
5. No exception shall be provided to 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
Page 5 of 9
Packet Pg. 1992
J.2.f
meet the required FEMA BFE l2rovided the building does not exceed a total maximum
building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established
intensfty, floor area building envelope floor to floor height) densit y and lype of use. A
Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of five (5) feet may be permitted to meet
the building's minimum required FEMA BFE. The amount of the exception shall be no
greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet 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
which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a
p ublic hearing before the 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.
1. For lawfully established EXISTING multi-family buildings that are voluntarily repaired, c
improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA n
BFE but will re uire a height exception of more than 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 ap rcel; =
r
b. The susceptibility of the existing building and its contents to flood damage and the c
effects of such damage on the property owner
c. The possibility that materials from the existing building may be swept onto other c)
lands to the injury of others; o
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 r
nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public; and v
f. Community character.
g. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible
for this exception. y
2. A BOCC resolution shall specify the findings of criteria of D.I. a. though g. (above) and
specif y 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 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.
File 2015 -171
Page 6 of 4
Packet Pg. 1993
J2.f
Policy 217.1.5
Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NF1P) 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.
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:
I . 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;
File 2015 -171
Page 7 of 9
Packet Pg. 1994
J.2.f
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)(1) 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.
(1) 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 one or more of the required provisions of 102 -
158(d)(5)(b):
Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) frorn those on which the text or o
boundary was based;
NIA
cc
N
2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); c
NIA U
Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in
volume 1 of the plan;
NIA
4. New issues;
The proposed amendment addresses new issues related to height exceptions for non -
habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned
community; and to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect
property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs due to projected sea level
rise and upcoming release of new FEMA flood maps.
Recognition of need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or
The proposed amendment addresses the need for additional detail to implement
proposed comprehensive plan policies related to height exceptions for non - habitable
architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned community;
and to provide criteria to evaluate and provide certain exceptions to the height limit
in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
File 2015 -171
Page 8 of 9
Packet Pg. 1995
J2.f
6. Data updates;
NIA
7. For FLUM changes, the principles for guiding development as defined in the Florida Statutes
relating to changes to the comprehensive plan.
NIA
VI, STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments,
Staff has found that the proposed text amendments would be consistent with the provisions of §102 -
158(d)(5)(b): 1, Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the
text or boundary was based; 2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); 3. Data
errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in volume I of the
plan; 4. New issues; 5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or 6. Data
updates.
Specifically, staff has found that the proposed text amendments are necessary due to 4. New issues;
and 5. A recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness
VII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing �
2. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes
4, Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe r
County °
5. Ocean Reef Club request and data. W
File 2015 -171
Page 9 of 9
Packet Pg. 1996
J.2.g
Exhibit 5
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE
Tuesday, January 26, 2016
MEETING MINUTES
The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday,
January 26, 2016, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media &
Conference Room (1 floor, 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 Resources Present
Mike Roberts, Senior Administrator, Environmental Resources Present
STAFF
Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present
Matt Coyle, Principal Planner Present
Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present
Janene Sclafani, Planner Present
Mitzi Crystal, Transportation Planner Present
Debra Roberts, Staff Assistant Present
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. 11enderson 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)
Packet Pg. 1997
J.2.g
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 habitat and some protected trees on the property. Relevant County 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 to be 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 commercial retail.
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 the parking 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 -1 for 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. The applicant 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.
Pi
Packet Pg. 1998
J.2.g
Ms. Mitchell then 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 is needed
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 a text 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 30 percent 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
Packet Pg. 1999
J.2,g
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 a waiver 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
Packet Pg. 2000
J.2.g
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)
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 a max 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 that they would be allowed.
Ms. Santamaria then reported on the amendments to the Land Development Code. Section 130-
187 has been 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. Lawfully established 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 already exceed 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 Cudj oe 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 be repaired, 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.
Packet Pg. 2001
J.2,g
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 information has 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
SEVERABIL,ITY; 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.
L
Packet Pg. 2002
J..
Bart Smith, 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 data or 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 or lack thereof of bird rookeries or nesting sites or areas. "Nesting area"
should be included so there is consistency in the use of terminology throughout the 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 protected through 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
Packet Pg. 2003
J.2.g
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 moves development 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.
E3
Packet Pg. 2004
J.2.h
-' Item #5 Height LDC Text Amendment
=� "zs Staff Report
MEMORANDUM
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
To: Monroe County Planning Commission
From: Mayte 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 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)
February 24, 2016
I. REQUEST
The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to amend
Section 101 -1 to create definitions related to the flood protection height exceptions and amending
Section 130 -187 to address height exceptions for non - habitable architectural decorative features
within the Ocean Reef master planned community; and to provide certain exceptions to the height
limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
Land Development Code amendments are proposed to implement draft Comprehensive Plan
amendments.
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
File 2015 -17I
Page 1 of 10
Packet Pg. 2005
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.
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 proposed Comprehensive Plan (CP) text amendments 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 CP
text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input
and discussion early in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land
Development Code amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed CP 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 CP text amendment was
continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early
in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land Development Code
amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development
Review Committee reviewed the proposed CP 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 CP text amendment was
continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early
in the process. Public comment included processing separate Land Development Code
amendments on height exemptions and to include more details in the Code.
File 2015 -171
Page 2 of 10
Packet Pg. 2006
J.2.h
Through the DRC process, members of the public asked for general policies in the Comprehensive
Plan and more detail in the Land Development Code (LDC). The May 26, 2015 and August 25,
2015 DRC staff reports for the Comprehensive Plan amendment included draft LDC amendments to
assist in reviewing and developing the amendments. This staff report is the LDC amendment to
correspond to the Comprehensive Plan amendment currently beingprocessed (File 2015 -006).
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 2. Minutes from the October
27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3.
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 6. 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, he�ht and rg ade are defined as follows:
Section 101 -1
HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical 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
in this section shall not apply.
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
county shall use the best available data, including, but not limited to, pre - construction
File 2015 -171
Page 3 of 10
Packet Pg. 2007
J.2.h
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 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
home may be developed
within the 35 foot height
limit and the flood zone of
AE 511
X 10
Crown of Road 5ft` Crown ofthe road
Natural Elevation aft •
Iry relatinn to
mean aeo level
AE 5'
The vertical distance
between grade (crown of
road, based on definition,
for this example) and the
highest part of the structure
= Height
211 of fill needed to reach 511
flood zone requirement from
the natural elevation of 3 feet
National Flood Insurance Program & Binert- 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.
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.
File 2015 -171 Page 4 of 10
c
O
r
r
O
L_
O
0
L
O
C
O
r
CL
Q)
U
X
Q)
r
E
r
M
Cl
Q)
2
U
D
cc
r
N
N
O
U
(L
W
U)
r
Lf?
r
0
N
M
2M
Q)
M
X
W
c
Q)
E
�a
r
r
a
Packet Pg. 2008
J.2.h
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.issp
See FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium'
which are attached as Exhibit 7.
IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are °*r -ieke ti„-,,,,,.h and additions are underlined
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
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
File 2015 -171
Page 5 of 10
Packet Pg. 2009
J.2.h
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 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 limit as follows:
1. For NEW buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum
required BFE, an exception of a maximum of three (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 EXISTING multi - family buildings which do not exceed the 35-
foot height limit and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and /or exceed the building's
minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot
height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than
the distance necessary to elevate the building to meet BFE plus 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 FEMA BFE are not eligible for
this exception.
5. No exception shall be provided to 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 maw paired, 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
Flood Protection Height Exception of a maximum of five (5) feet may be permitted to meet
the building's minimum required FEMA BFE. The amount of the exception shall be no
greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE. Buildings not being elevated to
at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception.
File 2015 -171
Page 6 of 10
0
a�
0
CL
0
0
L
C
0
r
CL
m
U
X
r
E
r
a�
x
U
0
J
to
Iq
N
N
0
U
(L
w
U)
r
Lf?
0
N
M
M
to
X
W
r
C
aD
r
a
Packet Pg. 2010
J.2.h
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 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.
For lawfully established EXISTING multi - family buildings that are voluntarily repaired,
improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA
BFE, but will require a height exception of more than 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 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. though g_(above) and
specify �pproved 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 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.
File 2015 -171
Page 7 of 10
Packet Pg. 2011
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.
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
File 2015 -171
Page 8 of 10
Packet Pg. 2012
J.2.h
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)(1) 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.
(1) 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 one or more of the required provisions of 102 -
158(d)(5)(b):
Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the text or
boundary was based;
N/A
2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends);
N/A
Data errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in
volume 1 of the plan;
N/A
4. New issues;
The proposed amendment addresses new issues related to height exceptions for non -
habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned
community; and to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect
property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs due to projected sea level
rise, upcoming release of new FEMA flood maps and the recent Biggert - Waters
Flood Insurance Reform Act.
Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or
The proposed amendment addresses the need for additional detail to implement
proposed comprehensive plan policies related to height exceptions for non - habitable
architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned community;
and to provide criteria to evaluate and provide certain exceptions to the height limit
in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs.
6. Data updates;
N/A
File 2015 -171
Page 9 of 10
Packet Pg. 2013
J.2.h
7. For FLUM changes, the principles for guiding development as defined in the Florida Statutes
relating to changes to the comprehensive plan.
N/A
VI. STAFF RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments.
Staff has found that the proposed text amendments would be consistent with the provisions of §102-
158(d)(5)(b): 1. Changed projections (e.g., regarding public service needs) from those on which the
text or boundary was based; 2. Changed assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); 3. Data
errors, including errors in mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in volume I of the
plan; 4. New issues; 5. Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or 6. Data
updates.
Specifically, staff has found that the proposed text amendments are necessary due to 4. New issues;
and 5. A recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness
VII. EXHIBITS
1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing
2. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report
3. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes
4. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe
County
5. Ocean Reef Club request and data.
6. January 26, 2016 DRC Staff report
7. FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your
Premium'
8. Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments
File 2015 -171
Page 10 of 10
Packet Pg. 2014
J.2.i
PLANNING COMMISSION
February 24, 2016
Meeting Minutes
The Planning Commission of Monroe County conducted a meeting on Wednesday, February
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 c
County Resolution 131 -92 was read into the record by Mr. Wolfe.
x
SUBMISSION OF PROPERTY POSTING AFFIDAVITS AND PHOTOGRAPHS w
Ms. Creech confirmed receipt of all necessary paperwork.
E
SWEARING OF COUNTY STAFF
County staff members were sworn in by Mr. Wolfe. Q
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.
Packet Pg. 2015
J.2.i
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:
L A PUBLIC HEARING TO CONSIDER AND FINALIZE THE RANKING OF
APPLICATIONS IN THE DWELLING UNIT ALLOCATION SYSTEM FOR
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. 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.
2
Packet Pg. 2016
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.
Ms. Santamaria provided the definitions for "height" and "grade." Those 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
be included in the new maps. FEMA is trying to make the rates consistent with a property's
actual risk. With this legislation if a structure is elevated up to three feet above base flood
discounts can be received on flood insurance.
3
Packet Pg. 2017
J2.
Ms. Santamaria explained the first policy change is to Policy 101.5.30, which is the policy that
includes the 35 -foot height limit. The definition of "height" has been included directly into the
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.
4
Packet Pg. 2018
J2.
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
video was presented. Mr. Montagne then commented that FIRM supports Monroe County's
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
Packet Pg. 2019
J.2.i
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
11
Packet Pg. 2020
J.2.i
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
7
Packet Pg. 2021
J.2.i
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 Kay Thacker's passing. Mr Hendrick stated that Ms. Thacker fought for preserving a
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
Livable CommuniKeys program has merit, but pointed out that Ocean Reef's proposed policy
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
E3
Packet Pg. 2022
J.2.i
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
E]
Packet Pg. 2023
areas could be considered on a case -by -case situation because it is not known what FEMA's
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 -story homes: "For new single - family or multi - family buildings, which are
voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required 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 floors of
habitable space." Ms. 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 in Policy 101.5.33 changing "The
Planning Commission" to "The Planning Director shall provide a recommendation to the
BOCC." Commissioner Lustberg and Chair Werling believe that language shall remain "The
Planning Commission" to allow for public input. Chair Werling stated that nobody 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
10
Packet Pg. 2024
J.2.i
area. Commissioner Miller pointed out that in the lower elevations this will create more
habitable space Commissioner Ramsay - Vickrey proposed the language "No exception shall be
provided to new buildings located in" AE 10 and greater or VE 10 and greater. 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 changes in Item 4, Policy 101.5.32: "Within one 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 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
maximum height of 40 feet."
Ms. Santamaria then read aloud the proposed changes to Item 5, Bl: "For new single - family and
multi - family buildings which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required
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
buildings, whether voluntary or not." Ms. Santamaria explained that "multi- family" will be
stricken from B2 and B5 will read: "No exception shall be provided to new buildings located in
an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone."
Motion: Commissioner Ramsay - Vickrey made a motion on Agenda Item Number 4 to 2
approve with the language adjustments as read by staff as directed by the Planning
Commission. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. Commissioner Lustberg asked x
Legal staff about unintended consequences these changes will bring about. Mr. Williams stated w
that there are always consequences, but as long as the County does not infringe on property
owners' rights as they currently exist everything should be fine. Chair Werling clarified that the E
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 Q
they comes before the Commission through the existing process. There was no opposition.
The motion passed unanimously.
11
Packet Pg. 2025
J.2.i
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. Ms. Santamaria repeated the changes for Commissioner Miller. Commissioner
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
SEVERABIL,ITY; 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
beyond what has already been transmitted: "As used in this policy, established bird rookery
refers to the location where colonial birds nest together (location in which a bird lays and
incubates its eggs and raises its young). The nesting area may include nest structures, shallow
depression in sand, soil or vegetation, crevices in the rocks, burrows and cavities." A definition
of "offshore island" for the glossary that was previously 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
physical island, itself. "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
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 of FEB Corp's attorneys claimed to speak on behalf of a client who
12
Packet Pg. 2026
0
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 THE
transfer? Mr. Batty respectfully requested the Commission approve the language of the
amendment as written with the exception of the THE 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
in the policies. Ms. Dick proposed the language "Development shall be prohibited on offshore
13
Packet Pg. 2027
islands (including spoil islands) which have a nesting area or an established bird colony site,
based on best available data or survey and on -site verification by the County biologist." Ms.
Dick explained the words "been documented as" should be 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
island and it may be documented in the future. The addition of "nesting area" is suggested
because Policy 102.7.2 has almost mirror -image language except it lists rookery and nesting
area. Nesting areas are critical to protect. In the definitions and the glossary "Nesting Areas"
cover endangered and threatened species and species of special concern at the State and Federal
level. Ms. Dick explained that "resource agency" should be removed so 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 fact that "bird
rookeries" is an ambiguous term and refers to crows. A colony site is a more scientifically
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,
stated that in order to make some of the language more consistent scientifically "rookery" should
be changed to "colony site" 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
that changing "rookery" to "nesting site" narrows the language. Dr. Lorenz reiterated that
"rookery" is incorrectly defined in the language. All colonies are rookeries, but not all rookeries
are colonies. Mr. Roberts agreed that Dr. Lorenz' proposed language would afford less
protection to the area. Ms. Santamaria read aloud the Merriam- Webster definition of "rookery."
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
protect these nesting habitats. Dr. Lorenz pointed out again when using the term "colony site"
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
the word "suitable" habitats. Dr. Lorenz agreed that would be much more restrictive and much
more protective if it said "suitable habitats for semi - colonial or colonial nesting birds."
14
Packet Pg. 2028
J.2.i
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
the transfer of ROGO exemptions. Mr. Roberts agreed that "resource agency" can be deleted
and agreed the term "or semi - colonial" could be added. That would close a narrowly open door.
Commissioner Ramsay - Vickrey does not want "resource agency" taken out because then it is
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
the definition of "offshore island" mirroring what has been discussed at the comp plan level.
Chair Werling suggested adding "best available data verified by the County biologist." Mr.
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
proposed the language "based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the
County biologist." Commissioner Ramsay - Vickrey agreed with that proposal. Chair Werling
asked to change "established" to "suitable" in that same paragraph. Commissioner Lustberg
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 amended language for confirmation: "Development shall be prohibited
on offshore islands (including spoil islands) which have been documented as an established bird
rookery, based on resource agency best available data or survey as verified by the County
biologist. As used in this policy, established 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 rocks, burrows, and cavities."
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.
15
Packet Pg. 2029
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
Condition Number 2 refer to "guests of the hotel" as opposed to "registered guests of the hotel."
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 a
some kind of event, so to have every guest register for every single event is not realistic. Mr.
Cepero suggested using the language "hotel related uses." Commissioner Wiatt emphasized the N
fact that parking is the concern if the bar is open to non - registered guests. Mr. Cepero responded c
that the applicant is only restricted in not advertising for people to come into the bar and be a
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 "Alcoholic beverage sales shall be limited to registered guests of the hotel x
and registered guests at events at the hotel facility." Mr. Mulick asked to broaden the language w
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 E
often controlled by people putting on the wedding or the event, not by the hotel.
r
a
Commissioner Ramsay - Vickrey supports the Commission's attorney and County staff on this
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. Santamaria's language as read
16
Packet Pg. 2030