Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Item J1
M 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.1 Agenda Item Summary #3320 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 Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; creating Policy 101.5.31 to address height exceptions for non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef master planned community; and creating Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit; providing for severability; providing for repeal of conflicting provisions; providing for transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency and the Secretary of State; providing for inclusion in the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan; providing for an effective date. ITEM BACKGROUND: The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing Comprehensive Plan amendments to: 1) amend Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height within the height limit policy; 2) create Policy 101.5.31 to allow non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community, but that such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building'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 t; 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. 1510 J.1 The proposed amendments are intended 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 Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. During the Comprehensive Plan update process, recommendations to amend the height policy were made to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. Flood maps inform communities about the local flood risk and help set minimum floodplain standards for communities to build with safety and resiliency in mind. Flood maps determine the cost of flood insurance, which helps property owners to financially protect themselves against flooding. The lower the risk, the lower flood insurance premiums will be. Flood maps are also the basis for flood insurance rates through the NFIP. As risks change, insurance premiums also change to reflect those risks. [Note, FEMA is in the process of re- mapping the Florida Keys] Flood insurance premiums may be going up; however, property owners may be able to reduce premiums if they build their home or business to be safer, higher, and stronger. The proposed changes to the comprehensive plan are mainly to address exceptions to the height limit of 35ft to allow property owners the ability to elevate 3ft for new buildings and 5ft for lawfully existing buildings in order to voluntarily raise their home up to 3ft above the FEMA base flood elevation. These exceptions are proposed to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. On February 15, 2017, March 15, 2017 and April 12, 2017, the BOCC held public hearings to consider the proposed amendments and provide for public comment. On April 12, 2017, the BOCC adopted Resolution 115 -2017 transmitting the proposed amendments to the State Land Planning Agency (DEO). Packet Pg. 1511 J.1 DEO issued its Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report on July 21, 2017, and did not identify any objections to the proposed amendment. 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. The County is proposing to adopt the ordinance as transmitted. 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. CONTRACT /AGREEMENT CHANGES: n/a STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. DOCUMENTATION: Ordinance - height amendment Comp Plan 9 -20 -2017 BOCC Reso 115 -2017 DEO Objections Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC) Height Amendment Comp Plan Staff Report 9 -20 -2017 Ex. 1 height BOCC 10.7.2014 Ex. 2 height 2015 -006 SR DRC 03.24.15 — Ex. 3 height DRC 03 24.15 Approved 04.28.15 Ex. 4 height 2015 -006 SR DRC 05.26.15 Ex. 5 height DRC 05.26.15 Approved 07.28.15 Ex. 6 height 2015 -006 SR DRC 08.25.15 — Ex. 7 height DRC 08.25.15 Approved 10.27.15 Ex. 8 height 2015 -006 SR DRC 10.27.15 — Ex. 9 height DRC 10.27.15 Approved 12.15.15 Ex. 10 height 2015 -006 SR DRC 01.26.16 Ex. 11 height DRC 01.26.16 Approved 03.29.16 Ex. 12 height 2015 -006 SR PC 02.24.16 Ex. 13 height PC 02.24.16 Approved 04.27.16 Ex. 14 height FEMA flood zones and number of private Ex. 15 FEMA build datasheets Packet Pg. 1512 Ex. 16 Proposed Comp Plan and Land Development Code Amendments Example HEIGHT ANALYSIS FEMA flood zones and number of parcels FINANCIAL IMPACT: Effective Date: Expiration Date: Total Dollar Value of Contract: Total Cost to County: Current Year Portion: Budgeted: Source of Funds: CPI: Indirect Costs: Estimated Ongoing Costs Not Included in above dollar amounts: Revenue Producing: Grant: County Match: Insurance Required: Additional Details: If yes, amount: REVIEWED BY: Mayte Santamaria Completed Assistant County Administrator Christine Hurley 08/29/2017 2:44 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 2:59 PM Completed 08/30/2017 9:30 AM 08/31/2017 10:18 AM 09/01/2017 2:40 PM 08/25/2017 4:06 PM 08/25/2017 4:06 PM 09/01/2017 3:01 PM 09/01/2017 3:45 PM 09/20/2017 9:00 AM 09/27/2017 4:00 PM Packet Pg. 1513 J.1.a 2 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORDINANCE NO. -2017 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department is proposing an amendment to revise the height limit policy in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit; and Ord -2017 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 1514 I WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) considered 2 the proposed amendment at regularly scheduled meetings held on March 24, 2015, May 26, 3 2015, August 25, 2015, October 27, 2016, and January 26, 2016 and recommended approval; and 4 5 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on 6 February 24, 2016, for review and recommendation on the proposed Comprehensive Plan text 7 amendment; and 8 9 WHEREAS, based upon the information and documentation submitted, the Planning 10 Commission made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 11 12 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 13 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and 14 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development 15 for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and 16 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part H of Chapter 163, Florida Statute; 17 and 18 19 'WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission recommended approval of the 20 proposed amendment; and 21 22 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15 day of February, 2017, the Monroe 23 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 24 proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and 25 public participation in accordance with the requirements of -state law and the procedures adopted 26 for public participation in the planning process; and 27 28 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15 day of February, 2017, the Monroe 29 County Board of County Commissioners continued the public hearing to the regular meeting on 30 the 15 day of March, 2017; and 31 32 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15 day of March, 2017, the Monroe 33 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 34 proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and 35 public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted 36 for public participation in the planning process; and 37 38 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15 day of March, 2017, the Monroe 39 County Board of County Commissioners continued the public hearing to the regular meeting on 40 the 12 day of April, 2017 and requested a discussion item on the proposed height amendments 41 for the Land Development Code; and 42 43 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 12 day of April, 2017, the Monroe 44 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 45 proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and Ord -2017 2of5 Packet Pg. 1515 J.1:a I public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted 2 for public participation in the planning process; and 3 4 WHEREAS, at the April 12', 2017, public hearing, the BOCC adopted Resolution 115- 5 2017, transmitting the proposed text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an 8 Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report, received by the County on July 21, 9 2017; and 10 11 WHEREAS, the ORC report did not identify any objections to the proposed amendment; 12 and 13 14 WHEREAS, the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to adopt the 15 proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment; and 16 17 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on the 20 day of September, 2017, the 18 BOCC held a public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text 19 amendment; 20 21 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 22 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 23 24 Section 1. The text of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as 25 follows (Deletions are shown stricken through; additions are shown underlined): 26 27 Policy 101.5.30 28 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe 29 County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined 30 as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including 31 mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for 32 institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; 33 flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna 34 supp orting structures with attached antennas andJor collocations. However, in no event 35 shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit_ any habitable or 36 usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted 37 in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. E�Eeepti ns t. "�— A!owed�r 38 . In the case 39 of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Eli" 41 Policy 101.5.31 42 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the 43 surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include 44 non-habitable_ architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, 45 parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall 46 not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a Ord -2017 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 1516 J.1.a I building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would 2 exceed 40 feet. 3 4 As used in this polite, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 5 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development_ order approved by the 6 county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained 7 by the community including the provision of comprehensive private utilities and 8 transportation facilities an_ d services within its boundaries and a homeowners association 9 or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development 10 requests by its members. 11 12 Policy 101,5.32 13 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land 14 Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 15 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal 16 flooding, storm sure and other hazards protect prop from flooding and minimize 17 damages; minimize public and private losses due to floodin • minimize future 18 expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood 19 events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height 20 Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be 21 provided to allow lawfully existing buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three 3 22 feet above FEMA base flood elevation; and a flood protection height exception of a 23 maximum of three 3 feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow new 24 Lnew construction or substantially improved) buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three 25 _ (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation. These exceptions are in order to rp omote 26 flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize 27 future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a 28 Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new building exceeding a maximum height 29 of 38 feet or a lawfully existing buildinia exceedine a maximum heiLyht of 40 feet. MC 31 Policy 101,5.33 32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land 33 Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for 34 lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit, to promote 35 public health, safety general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm 36 surge and other hazards; rop tect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize 37 public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds 38 for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood 39 insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved 40 redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided 41 the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet and the buildin 42 is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope 43 (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings 44 that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning 45 Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and 46 specify the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any county permit or Ord -2017 4 of 5 C r cs r 0 CL 0 0 0 J- c 0 r CL a) 0 X m E r M a� x C �a a CL E 0 U 0 N 0 N C �a a CL E 0 U C m E C aD E �a e- a� m cs c M E E 0 c m r a Packet Pg. 1517 J.1.a 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1.3 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. Section 2. Severabilit_y. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such validity. Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Section 5. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any applicable challenges have been resolved. Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The text amendment shall be incorporated in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2017. Mayor George Neugent Mayor Pro Tem David Rice Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage Commissioner Heather Carruthers Commissioner Sylvia Murphy BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA N . Mayor George Neugent (SEAL) ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK DEPUTY CLERK Ord -2017 5 of 5 ',4ONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY AFtTVED AS W. N i ..�p`A -LiAMS ASSISTANT CQ�U i� ATTO RNEY Clot CT / /�� //7 Packet Pg. 1518 J.1.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ]0 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS RESOLUTION NO. 115 - 2017 A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal pursuant to the State Coordinated Review Process in Sec. 163.3184(4), F.S., to the State Land Planning Agency for objections, recommendations and comments, and to the other Reviewing Agencies as defined in Sec. 163.3184(1)(c), F.S., for review and comment on a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan as described above; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners support the requested text amendment; Resolution No. -2017 Page 1 of 2 Packet Pg. 1519 J.1.b 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 7V 7$s! O NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: Section 1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the recommendation of the Planning Commission to transmit the draft ordinance, attached as Exhibit A, for adoption of the proposed text amendment. Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the proposed amendment to the State Land Planning Agency for review and comment in accordance with the State Coordinated Review process pursuant to Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. Section 3 . The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes. Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a certified copy of this resolution to the Director of Planning. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 12 day of April 2017. Roll call vote for Policies 101.5.30 and 101.5.32 carried unanimously. Roll call vote for Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.33 was taken with the following results: N N cD KEVIN MADOK, CLERK Mayor George Neugent _Yes_ Mayor Pro Tem David Rice _Yes_ Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage _Yes_ Commissioner Heather Carruthers Yes Commissioner Sylvia Murphy _No BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA BY Mayor George Neugent 86 87 88 DEPUTY CLERK Resolution No. -2017 d �o v � 'Z T_ MONROE COUNTY ATT NEY AP S TO F - __7_ . WI LAMS ASSWANT C ATTORNEY Date .S/ I( (/ 7 Page 2 of 2 Packet Pg. 1520 J.1.b Exhibit A 2 4 6 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ORDINANCE NO. -2017 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department is proposing an amendment to revise the height limit policy in the Comprehensive Plan; and WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 10 1.5.32 and 10 1.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit; and Ord -2017 1 of 5 Packet Pg. 1521 J.1.b Exhibit A 1 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee (DRC) considered 2 the proposed amendment at regularly scheduled meetings held on March 24, 2015, May 26, 3 2015, August 25, 2015, October 27, 2016, and January 26, 2016 and recommended approval; and 4 5 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing on 6 February 24, 2016, for review and recommendation on the proposed Comprehensive Plan text 7 amendment; and 9 WHEREAS, based upon the information and documentation submitted, the Planning 10 Commission made the following Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law: 11 12 1. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Goals, Objectives and Policies of the 13 Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan; and 14 2. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development 15 for the Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern, Sec. 380.0552(7), F.S.; and 16 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute; 17 and 18 19 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission recommended approval of the 20 proposed amendment; and 21 22 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15` day of February, 2017, the Monroe 23 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 24 proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and 25 public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted 26 for public participation in the planning process; and 27 28 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15` day of February, 2017, the Monroe 29 County Board of County Commissioners continued the public hearing to the regular meeting on 30 15th day of March, 2017; and 31 32 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15 day of March, 2017, the Monroe 33 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 34 proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and 35 public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted 36 for public participation in the planning process; and 37 38 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the 15` day of March, 2017, the Monroe 39 County Board of County Commissioners continued the public hearing to the regular meeting on 40 12th day of April, 2017 and requested a discussion item on the proposed height amendments for 41 the Land Development Code; and 42 43 WHEREAS, at a regular meeting held on the _` day of , 2017, the Monroe 44 County Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the 45 proposed text amendment, considered the staff report and provided for public comment and Ord -2017 2 of 5 Packet Pg. 1522 J.1.b Exhibit A 1 public participation in accordance with the requirements of state law and the procedures adopted 2 for public participation in the planning process; and 3 4 WHEREAS, at the , 2017, public hearing, the BOCC adopted Resolution 5 -201_, transmitting the proposed text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency; and 6 7 WHEREAS, the State Land Planning Agency reviewed the amendment and issued an 8 Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) report, received by the County on 9 ; and 10 11 WHEREAS, the ORC report ; and 12 13 WHEREAS, the County has 180 days from the date of receipt of the ORC to adopt the 14 proposed amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment; and 15 16 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting on the _ day of 2017, the 17 BOCC held a public hearing to consider adoption of the proposed Comprehensive Plan text 18 amendment; 19 20 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY 21 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA: 22 23 Section 1. The text of the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan is hereby amended as 24 follows (Deletions are shown stricken through; additions are shown underlined): 25 26 Policy 101.5.30 27 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe 28 County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as 29 the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including 30 mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and /or steeples on structures used for 31 institutional and /or public uses only; chimneys; radio and /or television antennas; flagpoles; 32 solar apparatus; utility poles and /or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting 33 structures with attached antennas and /or collocations. However, in no event shall any of 34 exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed 35 the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 36 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. , 37 transm tee and ethef similar- str .,,...r -es In the case of airport districts, there shall be 38 no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. 39 40 Policy 101.5.31 41 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding 42 community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non - habitable 43 architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets ) that 44 exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet 45 above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any 46 architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. Ord -2017 3 of 5 Packet Pg. 1523 0 Exhibit A 2 As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or 3 more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the 4 county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by 5 the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation 6 facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity 7 which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. 8 9 Policy 101.5.32 10 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land 11 Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 12 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal 13 flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property from flooding and minimize 14 damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures 15 of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate 16 rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum 17 of five 5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existing 18 buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation; 19 and a flood protection height exception of a maximum of three (3) feet above the 35 -foot 20 height limit shall be provided to allow new (new construction or substantially proved) 21 buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation. These 22 exceptions are in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood 23 insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from 24 flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a new building 25 exceeding a maximum height of 38 feet and a lawfully existing building exceeding _a 26 maximum height of 40 feet. 27 28 Policy 101.5.33 29 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land 30 Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully 31 established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit, to promote public 32 health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and 33 other hazards; protect property from flooding; and minimize damages; minimize public and 34 private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control 35 projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. 36 A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and /or 37 elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not 38 exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing 39 lawfully established intensity, floor area, building nvelope (floor to floor height), densi!Y 40 and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a 41 total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of 42 County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved 43 height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning 44 Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum heigh 45 building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution Wecifving the maximum approved height. i, Ord -2017 4 of 5 c 0 r a� r 0 CL 0 0 0 r- 0 CL 0 0 X 0 r E a� x c ca a CL E 0 U 0 N LO r 0 U U O m c m E M 0 r Q Packet Pg. 1524 J.1.b 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not be affected by such validity. Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict. Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida Statutes. Section 5. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the Secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and after any applicable challenges have been resolved. Section 6. Inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan. The text amendment shall be incorporated in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. The numbering of the foregoing amendment may be renumbered to conform to the numbering in the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan. PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the day of , 2017. Mayor George Neugent Mayor Pro Tem David Rice Commissioner Danny L. Kolhage Commissioner Heather Carruthers Commissioner Sylvia Murphy IM BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA Mayor George Neugent (SEAL) ATTEST: KEVIN MADOK, CLERK 43 DEPUTY CLERK Ord -2017 5 of 5 Packet Pg. 1525 _ ffick Scott Cissy Proctor GOVERNOR ���- ��������N� EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR FLOR|DmDEwARTMENTof ECONOMIC OPPORTUNrrY July I1,2017 The Honorable George Neu#ent Mayor, Monroe County Board of County Commissioners 25 Ships Way Big Pine Key, FL53O43 Dear Mayor Neugent: The Department mf Economic Opportunity has completed its rev of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment for Monroe County (Amendment No. 17-1ACSC) which was received and determined complete mn May 22L2O17. VVe have reviewed the proposed amendment in accordance with the state coordinated review process set forth inSections 1G3.3184/2\ and (4), Florida Statutes (F.5j, for compliance with Chapter I63, Part ||,F.S. The Department of Economic Opportunity does not identify any objections or to the proposed amendment and this letter serves as the Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report. Review comments received by the Department of Economic Opportunity from the appropriate reviewing agencies are enclosed. The County should act 6v choosing tmadopt adopt with changes, or not adopt the proposed amendment. Also, please note that Section }G3.3184(4)(e\1LF.S., provides that ifthe second public hearing is not held and the amendment adopted within l8O days of your receipt of the Department nf Economic Opportunity report, the amendment shall be deemed withdrawn unless extended by agreement with notice to the Department ofEconomic Opportunity and any affected party that provided comment on the amendment. For your assistance, we have enclosed the procedures for final adoption and transmittal of the comprehensive plan amendment. Florida Department of Economic Opportunity I Caldwe Building 1107 E. Madison Street I Tallahassee, FL 32399 050.245J1051 An equal opportunity employer/program. Aux aids and service are ava upon request io individuals with disab All voice telephone numbers on this document may be reached by persons using TTY/TTD equipment via the Florida Relay Service at 711. I Packet Pg. 1526 1 The Honorable George 0eugent July 2I,2OI7 Page 2mf3 |f you have any questions related to this review, please contact Justin Sbe|iat(R5O) 717-8523, or by email atJustin.StieU@deo.nmvDurida.conm. / mes D. Stansbury, Chief Bureau of Community Planning and Growth Enclosures: Procedures for Adoption Agency Comments cc: Ms. KUmyteSantonnaha, Senior Director Planning and Environmental Resources, Monroe County Ms. Isabel [osioCarbmUo, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Council I Packet Pg. 1527 1 J.1.c SUBMITTAL OF ADOPTED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR STATE COORDINATED REVIEW Section 163.3184(4), Florida Statutes May 2011 NUMBER OF COPIES TO BE SUBMITTED: Please submit three complete copies of all comprehensive plan materials, of which one complete paper copy and two complete electronic copies on CD ROM in Portable Document Format (PDF) to the Department of Economic Opportunity and one copy to each entity below that provided timely comments to the local government: the appropriate Regional Planning Council; Water Management District; Department of Transportation; Department of Environmental Protection; Department of State; the appropriate county (municipal amendments only); the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (county plan amendments only); and the Department of Education (amendments relating to public schools); and for certain local governments, the appropriate military installation and any other local government or governmental agency that has filed a written request. SUBMITTAL LETTER: Please include the following information in the cover letter transmitting the adopted amendment: Department of Economic Opportunity identification number for adopted amendment package; Summary description of the adoption package, including any amendments proposed but not adopted; Ordinance number and adoption date; Certification that the adopted amendment(s) has been submitted to all parties that provided timely comments to the local government; Name, title, address, telephone, FAX number and e-mail address of local government contact; Letter signed by the chief elected official or the person designated by the local government. ADOPTION AMENDMENT PACKAGE: Please include the following information in the amendment package: Cffective: June 2, '2'011 (Updated' N4arch 11, 2013! Packet Pg. 1528 J.1.c In the case of text amendments, changes should be shown in strike-through/underline format; In the case of future land use map amendment, an adopted future land use map, in color format, clearly depicting the parcel, its existing future land use designation, and its adopted designation; A copy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate. Note: If the local government is relying on previously submitted data and analysis, no additional data and analysis is required; Copy of executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan amendment(s); Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for state coordinated review: The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not timely challenged, shall be the date the Department of Economic Opportunity posts a notice of intent determing that this amendment is in compliance. If timely challenged, or if the state land planning agency issues a notice of intent determining that this amendment is not in compliance, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency or the Administration Commission enters a final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Department of Economic Opportunity. List of additional changes made in the adopted amendment that the Department of Economic Opportunity did not previously review; List of findings of the local governing body, if any, that were not included in the ordinance and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed amendment; Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previously reviewed by the Department of Economic Opportunity to the ORC report from the Department of Economic Opportunity. Effective: June 2, 2011 (Updated March 11, 2073) Packet Pg. 1529 |n the case of text amendments, changes should be shown instrike-through/underline format; ' in the case offuture land use map amendment, an adopted future land use map, in color format clearly depicting the parcel, its existing future land use desi andKs adopted designation; __Acopy of any data and analyses the local government deems appropriate. Note: If the local government is relying onpreviously submitted data and analysis, �add�na| data and analysis �required; Copy of executed ordinance adopting the comprehensive plan amendment(s); Suggested effective date language for the adoption ordinance for state coordinated review The effective date of this plan amendment, if the amendment is not tinxek/chaUeneed. s hall be the date the Department of Economic Opportunity posts a ' of intent ` detenning that this amendment is in compliance. If timely challenged, or if the state land planning agency issues a notice of intent determining that this amendment is not in compliance, this amendment shall become effective on the date the state land planning agency orthe Administration Commission enters final order determining this adopted amendment to be in compliance. No development orders, development permits, or land uses dependent on this amendment may be issued or commence before it has become effective. if final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission, this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of resolution affirming its effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be sent to the Department of Economic Opportunity. List mf additional changes made inthe adopted amendment that the Department of Economic Opportunity did not previously review; List of findings of the local governing body if any, that were not included in the ordinance and which provided the basis of the adoption or determination not to adopt the proposed Statement indicating the relationship of the additional changes not previousk/revievved bv the Depa�n�entof Economic Opportun�vto the ORC report fnornthe Departrne of Economic Opportunity. Ef 2, 2011 (Updated Mar ch 11, 2013) 2 Pg. 1530 OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER (85o) 617 THE CAPITOL 400 SOUTH MONROB STREET TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0800 FLo-r�,. ML-NT oF AG CONSUINIF-R S-ERvIC.'sS COMMISRONER AntLm H. Pmrhum June 6, 2017 VIA EMAIL Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Ms. Mayte Samtamaria 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410 Marathon, Florida 33050 Re: DACS Docket # -- 20170524-931 Monroe County Resolution No. 115-2017 Submission dated May 18, 2017 Dear Ms. Samtamaria: The Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services (the "Department") received the above- referenced proposed comprehensive plan amendment on May 24, 2017 and has reviewed it pursuant to the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes to address any potential adverse impacts to important state resources or facilities related to agricultural, aquacultural, or forestry resources in Florida if the proposed amendment(s) are adopted. Based on our review of your county's submission, the Department has no comment on the proposal. If we may be of further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact me at 850-410-2280. Sincerely, Stormie Knight Sr. Management Analyst I Office of Policy and Budget cc: Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (SLPA #: Monroe County 17-1 ACSQ 1-800-HELPFLA www.FreshFr0rnF10r* I Packet Pg. 1531 J.1.c FDOT. F)"orida Deparowent of Transportation RICK SCOTT 1000 NW 1 11 Avenue RACHEL .CONE GOVERNOR Miami, FL 33 June 2, 2017 Ray Eubanks, Plan Processing Administrator Department of Economic Opportunity Community Planning and Development 107 East Madison Street Caldwell Building, MSC 160 Tallahassee, Florida 32399 Subject: Comments for the Proposed Comprehensive plan Amendment, Nlonroe County 17- 1 1ALSC Dear Mr. Eubanks: The Florida Department of Transportation, District Six, completed a review of the Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Monroe County #17- 1ACSC. The District has reviewed the amendment package per Chapter 953 Florida Statutes and has found no adverse impacts to transportation resources and facilities of State importance. Please contact me at 305 -470 -5445 if you have any questions concerning our response, Sincerely, Kenneth Jeffries Transportation Planner Cc: Harold Desdunes, P.E., Florida Department of Transportation, District 6 Dat Huynh P.E., Florida Department of Transportation, District 6 Mayte Santamaria, Monroe County Karen F-iamilton, South Florida 'Regional Planning Council Isabel Moreno, South Florida Regional Planning Council www.dot.state.f:.us Packet Pg. 1532 Eubanks, Ray M From: Plan-Review <Plan.Review@dep.state.fl.us> Sent: Friday, June 16, 2017 2:14 PM To: Eubanks, Ray; DCPexternalagencycomments Cc: Plan Review Subject: Monroe County 17-1ACSC Proposed To: Ray Eubanks, DEO Plan Review Administrator Re: Monroe County 17- 1 ACSC — State Coordinated Review of Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment The Office of Intergovernmental Programs of the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (Department) has reviewed the above-referenced amendment package under the provisions of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes. The Department conducted a detailed review that focused on potential adverse impacts to important state resources and facilities, specifically: air and water pollution; wetlands and other surface waters of the state; federal and state-owned lands and interest in lands, including state parks, greenways and trails, conservation easements; solid waste; and water and wastewater treatment. Based on our review of the submitted amendment package, the Department has found no provision that, if adopted, would result in adverse impacts to important state resources subject to the Department's jurisdiction. Please submit all future amendments by email to 121an.reviewL&de12. state. fl.us. If your submittal is too large to send via email or if you need other assistance, contact Suzanne Ray at (850) 717-9037. ICI I Packet Pg. 1533 1 J.1.c Eubanks, Ra From: Manning, Terese < tmanning @sfwmd.gov> Sent: Thursday, May 25, 2017 3:41 PM To: DCPexternalagencycomments Cc: Mayte Santamaria (Santamaria- Mayte @MonroeCounty- FL.Gov); Jetton, Rebecca; Karen Hamilton (khamilton @sfrpc.com); Isabel Moreno Subject: Monroe County, DEO #17 -1ACSC Comments on Proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment Package Dear Mr. Eubanks: The South Florida Water Management District (District) has completed its review of the proposed amendment package from Monroe County (County). The package includes proposed or amended policies to include the definition of "Height" and to address "Height Exceptions" in certain situations. There appear to be no regionally significant water resource issues; therefore, the District forwards no comments on the proposed amendment package. The District offers its technical assistance to the County and the Department of Economic Opportunity in developing sound, sustainable solutions to meet the County's future water supply needs and to protect the region's water resources. Please forward a copy of adopted amendments to the District. Please contact me if you need assistance or additional information. Sincerely Terry Manning, Policy and Planning Analyst South Florida Water Management District Water Supply Implementation Unit 3301 Gun Club Road, MSC 4222 West Palm Beach, FL 33406 Phone: 561 - 682 -6779 Fax: 561 - 681 -6264 E -Mail: tmanning @sfwmd.gov Packet Pg. 1534 J.1.c SFRPC MEMORANDUM AGENDA ITEM #IV.0 DATE: JUNE 26, 2017 TO: COUNCIL MEMBERS FROM: STAFF SUBJECT: LOCAL GOVERNMENT COMPREHENSIVE PLAN PROPOSED AND ADOPTED AMENDMENT CONSENT AGENDA Pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statues, Council review of amendments to local government comprehensive plans is limited to 1) adverse effects on regional resources and facilities identified in the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida (SRPP) and 2) extra - jurisdictional impacts that would be inconsistent with the comprehensive plan of any affected local government within the Region. A written report containing an evaluation of these impacts, pursuant to Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, is to be provided to the local government and the State Land Planning Agency within 30 calendar days of receipt of the amendment. Council staff has not identified adverse effects to regional resources and facilities or extra - jurisdictional impacts that would result from the following map and text amendments. Recommendation Find the proposed and adopted plan amendments from the local governments listed in the tables below generally consistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida. Approve this report for transmittal to the local governments with a copy to the State Land Planning Agency. I ,. South Florida Regional Planning Council 344o Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 14o, Hollywood, Florida 33021 954.9 Phone, 954.985-4417 FAX www.sfregionalcouncil.org Packet Pg. 1535 J.1.c PROPOSED AMENDMENTS Local Council Local Government Governing Government Proposed Adopted Review Date Transmittal or Body and Plan Adoption Public Adoption Amendment Hearing and Meeting Vote Number Broward County 17 -5ESR d N/A 06 -26 -17 05 -23 -17 8 -0 (received (1 absent) 05- 30 -17) 1. The proposed amendment to the Broward County Comprehensive Plan seeks to revise land uses within the Broward County Land Use Plan for consistency between the City of Plantation and the County Plan. 2. PC 17 -8 is a map amendment that aims to change the land use designation of an approximately 35.1 -acre site from Commercial to a Dashed -Line Area consisting of 21.6 acres of Commercial and 13.5 acres of Irregular (20) Residential. The new designation would result in 702 new dwelling units. The amendment area is generally bound by University Drive to the east, Broward Boulevard to the south, and NW 82" Avenue to the west. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. Miami Dade County 17 -2ESR U N/A 06 -26 -17 04 -26 -17 8 -0 (received 05- 22 -17) 1. This application contains two proposed amendments to the Miami -Dade County Comprehensive Plan. Application 6 is a combination of map and text revisions. The Land Use Plan map amendment seeks to re- designate an approximately 7.54 -acre parcel adjacent to the Douglas Road Metro -Rail station from Community Urban Center to Metropolitan Urban Center. The amendment would promote transit oriented design by facilitating the development of 1,878 multifamily units, 152,504 square feet of retail, 425,000 square feet of office space and 400 hotel units next to a train station. The amendment site is generally located at the Northwest corner of Douglas Road/NW 37 Avenue and South Dixie Highway /US1. 2. The related text amendment would add language to the Urban Center text of the Land Use Element, related to the Douglas Road Metrorail Station proposed development. Application 8 is a text amendment to the Land Use Element that would reduce the minimum Area Median Income threshold from 65% to 60% to provide consistency with the County's recently adopted Workforce Housing Development Program. 3. These amendments do not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. c 0 r m 0 CL 0 0 0 c 0 CL m 0 X (D E r x c m CL CL E 0 U U W O _ t= 0 CL m a r c m E E 0 U c m c 0 m c m E E 0 0 m a c 0 m O O w 0 r c m E m r Q Packet Pg. 1536 J.1.c Local Council ; Local Government Governing Government Proposed Adopted Review date Transmittal or Body and Plan Adoption Public Adoption Amendment Hearing and Meeting Vote Number Monroe County 17 -1ACSC V N/A 06 -26 -17 04 -12 -17 4 -1 (received 05- 22 -17) 1. The proposed amendment to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan seeks the following changes: to revise the height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility, address non- habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef Master Planned Community, and provide exceptions to the height limit 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. 2. The Ocean Reef Master Planned Community is a gated housing development inaccessible to the surrounding communities. Some of its character results from non - habitable architectural decorative features. It is located at the northern tip of Key Largo, bordered on three sides by water and the fourth side by federal and state protected land. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources /facilities, although Monroe Coun is in an area of critical con cern. Monroe County 17 -2ACSC V N/A 06 -26 -17 05 -17 -17 5 -0 (received 06- 05 -17) 1. The proposed amendment to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan seeks to revise the Future Land Use Map from "Residential High" to "Mixed Use /Commercial." The site is currently supports light industrial use (including a 9,963 auto parts /repair building with associated outdoor storage) which is not currently allowed under the existing designation. The change in designation would eliminate nonconformity between current site uses and the comprehensive plan. 2. The amendment site is located at 5713 First Avenue, South Stock Island, Mile Marker 5. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities, although Monroe County is in an area of critical concern. Town of Cutler Bay 17 -1ESR V N/A 06 -26 -17 05 -17 -17 5 -0 (received 05- 25 -17) 1. The proposed amendment to the Town of Cutler Bay Comprehensive Plan clarifies requirements for mixed -use developments, within the mixed -use future land use district. The proposed revisions provide greater guidance for the inclusion (optional) of residential uses. 2. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. c 0 m 0 CL 0 0 4- 0 c 0 r M m U X W E r x c M a CL E 0 U U W O _ t= 0 CL a W ' r c W E E 0 U c m c 0 r m c W E E 0 0 W a c 0 r 0 W O O w 0 c W E m r r Q Packet Pg. 1537 J.1.c Local Council Local Government Governing Government Proposed Adopted Review Date Transmittal or Body and Plan Adoption Public Adoption Amendment Hearing and Meeting Vote Number City of Doral 17 -1ESR V N/A 06 -26 -17 05 -24 -17 5 -0 (received 06- 05 -17) 1. The proposed text amendment to the City of Doral Comprehensive Plan seeks to amend the adopted Comprehensive Plan Future Land Use Element (FLUE) Policy 2.1.2 forthe "Downtown Mixed Use" (DMU) future land use category regarding the permitted mix of uses. The text amendment expands on the current development standards for the DMU land use category to allow for development programs to use a combination of at least two uses from "retail /business ", "office', and "residential ", meaning all developments will need to allow for at least two of the uses when developing within that land use designation. The proposed amendment does not change the maximum density or intensity currently permitted, but only the uses. 2. The amendment area applies to all designated DMU land uses at City of Doral. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. City of Florida City 17 -1ESR d N/A 06 -26 -17 04 -25 -17 5 -0 (received 05- 22 -17) 1. The proposed amendment to the City of Florida City Comprehensive Plan seeks to approve the City's 10 -year water supply facilities work plan and incorporate water related objective into the City's Comprehensive Development Master Plan. 2. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. City of Hialeah Gardens 17 -1ESR V N/A 06 -26 -17 02 -07 -17 3 -1 (received (1 absent) 05- 30 -17) 1. The proposed amendment to the City of Hialeah Gardens Comprehensive Plan seeks to change the land use designation of a 1.46 -acre triangular parcel from BU (General Business) to HDR (High Density Residential) as a result of a request from a property owner. The residential use would be restricted to elderly housing. 2. The amendment area is 1.46 acres and is between NW 103" and Samari Lakes, and between City Hall and HDR Development, Santa Navila. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. c 0 m 0 CL 0 0 4- 0 J- r- CL 0 0 X 0 E r 0 x c m a CL E 0 U U W O _ t= 0 CL a 0 ' r c m E E 0 U r- 0 r m c m E E 0 0 0 c 0 r 0 0 O O w 0 c m E m r Q Packet Pg. 1538 J.1.c Local Council Local Government Governing Government Proposed Adopted Review Date Transmittal or Body and Plan Adoption Public Adoption Amendment Hearing and Meeting Vote Number City of Key West 17 -1ACSC U N/A 06 -26 -17 04 -04 -17 6 -0 (received (1 absent) 05- 30 -17) 1. The proposed text amendment to the City of Key West Comprehensive Plan seeks to eliminate the one year residency requirement for affordable housing applicant eligibility in Chapter 3, Policy 3- 1.1.8, sub -part 3. 2. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. City of Miami Beach 17 -1ESR V N/A 06 -26 -17 05 -12 -17 7 -0 (received 05- 22 -17) 1. The proposed amendment to the City of Miami Beach Comprehensive Plan seeks to prohibit gambling and casino uses in all future land use categories in the City with a text amendment to the land development regulations. 2. The amendment will affect the entire City of Miami Beach. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities. City of Plantation 17 -3ESR U N/A 06 -26 -17 11 -30 -16 5 -0 (received 05- 30 -17) 1. The proposed amendment to the City of Plantation Comprehensive Plan seeks to change the Future Land Use Map from "Commercial" to "Commercial and Residential" all within a dashed like area with an overall density of 20 dwelling units per acre on both City of Plantation and Broward County's Land Use Maps. This new designation would permit up to 701 new dwelling units on site and 350,670 sq. ft. of commercial space. 2. The subject property is 35.067 acres, and located north of W. Broward Blvd, west of N. University Drive, and east of NW 82 " Avenue in Plantation. 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources/facilities, however, staff recommends the applicant to work with the City and County to address any deficiencies with water distribution and sewer capacity as a result of the additional swelling units and commercial space. c 0 m 0 CL 0 0 4- 0 J_ c 0 r CL m 0 X (D E r x c M a CL E 0 U U W O _ t= 0 CL a 0 ' r c m E E 0 U c m c 0 r m c m E E 0 0 m c 0 m O O w 0 c m E m r r Q Packet Pg. 1539 J.1.c Local Council Local Government Governing Government Proposed Adopted Review Date Transmittal or Body and Plan Adoption Public Adoption Amendment Hearing and Meeting Vote Number Village of Virginia Gardens U N/A 06 -26 -17 04 -20 -17 5 -0 17 -1ESR (received 05- 25 -17) 1. The proposed text amendment to the Village of Virginia Gardens Comprehensive Plan seeks to create new future land use categories and add three new land use categories to accommodate existing industrial uses within the future annexation area. The new categories are "Industrial and Office ", "Restricted Industrial and Office ", and "Transportation" (Including Terminals). 3. This amendment does not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources /facilities and the new categories are compatible with both Miami -Dade Land Use Element. c 0 m 0 L M 0 0 0 J_ c 0 r CL m 0 X W E r W x c M a CL E 0 U U W O _ 0 CL W a r c W E E 0 U c cc c 0 r cc c W E E 0 0 W c 0 r 0 W O O w 0 r c W E m r r Q Packet Pg. 1540 J.1.c ADOPTED AMENDMENTS Local Council Review Local Government Governing Government and Proposed Adopted Date Transmittal or Body Plan Adoption Public Adoption Amendment Hearing and Vote Number Meeting Monroe County 16 -5ACSC N/A V 06 -26 -17 05 -17 -17 5 -0 (received 06- 05 -17) 1. The adopted amendment to the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan seeks to provide a maximum net density of one dwelling unit per platted plot with the transfer of one Transferable Development Rights (TDR) for the development of one Tier 3 platted lot with a Residential Low (RL). The amendment would only affect Tier 3 platted lots with a Residential Low designation. 2. This amendment was previously reviewed by the Council and was determined to not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources /facilities. 3. The local government adopted the amendment as proposed. City of Deerfield Beach 16 -1ESR N/A V 06 -26 -17 05 -16 -17 5 -0 (received 05- 25 -17) 1. The adopted amendment to the City of Deerfield Beach Comprehensive Plan seeks to change the land use designation on a 119.7 gross acre parcel to Local Activity Center (LAC) to allow for increased local retail and more housing choices within a walkable neighborhood that has close access to the beach and 1 -95. The affected amendment area is generally located north of SE 7th Street, south of the Hillsboro Canal, east of Dixie Highway, and west of NE and SE 6t" Avenue. It is noted that the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) submitted technical assistance comments on this amendment, and made recommendations for increased coordination with the FDOT to address failing segments on the Strategic Intermodal System in the affected area. 2. This amendment was previously reviewed by the Council and was determined to not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources /facilities. 3. The local government adopted the amendment as proposed. Village of Virginia Gardens 16 -1ESR N/A V 06 -26 -17 01 -19 -17 5 -0 (received 05- 25 -17) 1. The adopted amendment revises the Village of Virginia Gardens Comprehensive Plan to adopt a 10- yearwater supply facilities work plan and capital improvements, conservation, intergovernmental coordination, and infrastructure elements amendments to ensure coordination with the regional water supply plans and update data for the 10 -year planning period to address state requirements. 2. This amendment was previously reviewed by the Council and was determined to not create any adverse impact to state or regional resources /facilities. 3. Village of Virginia Gardens made the following changes based on input from review agencies: section 3.7 (Conservation), 4.0 (Intergovernmental Coordination), 5.0 (Capital Improvements), 6.0 c 0 r m r 0 CL 0 0 4- 0 4- r- 0 r CL W 0 X W E r W x c m a CL E 0 U U O _ t= 0 CL a W ' c W E E 0 U c m c 0 r m c W E 0 0 c 0 r 0 W O O w 0 r c W E to Q Packet Pg. 1541 J.1.c Local . Council Review Local Government Governing Government and Proposed Adopted Date Transmittal or Body Plan Adoption Public Adoption Amendment Hearing and Vote Number Meeting (Goals, Objectives, and Policies), and Table 3 (MDWASD- Water Supply CIE Projects, Village of Virginia Gardens). 4. The additional revisions do not create any adverse impacts. _ Y _ J c 0 m 0 CL 0 0 4- 0 J- r- CL 0 0 x 0 r E r M 0 x c m a CL E 0 U U O _ t= 0 CL 0 a r c m E E 0 U c cc c 0 r cc c d E E 0 0 0 c 0 r 0 0 O O w 0 r c m E m r r Q Packet Pg. 1542 Eubanks, Ray From: Hight, Jason <Jason.Hight@MyFWC.com> Sent: Monday, June 12, 2017 3:28 PM To: santamaria-mayte@monroecounty-fl.gov; DCPexternalagencycomments Cc: Wagman, Jason; Wallace, Traci; Chabre, Jane Subject: Monroe County 17-IACSC (115-2017) Dear Ms. Santamaria: Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) staff has reviewed the proposed comprehensive plan amendment in accordance with Chapter 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes. We have no comments, recommendations, or objections related to fish and wildlife or listed species and their habitat to offer on this amendment. If you need any further assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Jane Chabre either by phone at (850) 41 5367 or by email at FWCConservationPlanningServices(� )MyFWC.com. If you have specific technical questions regarding the content of this letter, please contact Jason Wagman at (941) 377-3722 ext. 6540 or by email at Jaso1i.WagmanL&MyFWC.com. Sincerely, Jason Hight Biological Administrator 11 Office of Conservation Planning Services Division of Habitat and Species Conservation 620 S. Meridian Street, MS 5B5 Tallahassee, FL 32399-1600 (850) 228-2055 Monroe County 17-1 ACSC I Packet Pg. 1543 1 J.1.d 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 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.5.30 TO INCLUDE THE DEFINITION OF HEIGHT; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS BY ESTABLISHING STANDARDS WHEN A STRUCTURE CAN ELEVATE ABOVE FEMA BASE FLOOD ELEVATION AND INCLUDING A MAXIMUM HEIGHT LIMIT; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File # 2015 -006) Meeting: September 20, 2017 L REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to Policy 101.5.30 to include the definition of height; to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs by establishing standards when a structure can elevate above FEMA base flood elevation and including a maximum height limit. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County completed working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. The 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 -006 Page 1 of 17 Packet Pg. 1544 1.1.d 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 text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 17 Packet Pg. 1545 J.1.d DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2016, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The staff report from the January 26, 2016 DRC is attached as Exhibit 10. Minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are attached as Exhibit 11. Planning Commission At its regularly scheduled meeting on February 24, 2016, the Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing to consider the proposed text amendment and provided for public comment. The Planning Commission recommended changes to the proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code. The staff report from the February 24, 2016 PC is attached as Exhibit 12. Minutes from the February 24, 2016 PC are attached as Exhibit 13. BOCC At its regularly scheduled meeting February 15, 2017, the BOCC held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed 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 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 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 text amendment to the State Land Planning Agency (DEO). DEO reviewed the 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 amendment, adopt the amendment with changes or not adopt the amendment. File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 17 Packet Pg. 1546 J.1.d III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, hgigW and rg ade are defined as follows: HEIGHT means the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding the following: spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in the Land Development Code. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this definition be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the maximum height limitation. In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this definition shall not apply. (current, effective Comprehensive Plan Glossary; and updated LDC Section 101 -1, expected to be effective February 2, 2017) GRADE 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. (current, effective Comprehensive Plan Glossary) 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. (updated LDC Section 101 -1, expected to be effective February 2, 2017) Based on the adopted definitions the following is a basic depiction of height the 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 -006 Page 4 of 17 Packet Pg. 1547 J.1.d Height limit For this example, a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AF 511 Oruwr- of R&ad 5ft' Crown of the road NeAtaral Elewatlorz aft ' it relation to mean T�-_n level 3Q M c� 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 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 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. File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 17 Packet Pg. 1548 J.1.d Recent legislation phases out subsidies for some older buildings in high -risk flood areas. As a result, rates for these buildings will rise until they reach full -risk rates. In addition, all policyholders will be subject to new assessments and surcharges. [ https: / /www.floodsmart.gov /floodsmart/pages /hfiaa- 2014.jsp See FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium, which are attached as Exhibit 15. Monroe County Green Keys Project Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeys! Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key Largo and a cost benefit ratios of elevating and floodproofing buildings: 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) Jonathan T. Lockman, AICP Samuel 0. Merrill, PhD AlexanderGray, IMS CATALYSIS ADAPTATION PARTNERS, LLC 1242 Simw er Street, South P€artland, FEE 04101E 19 Novomher 20115 ERIN L. CEAaY, P.A. Entire report can be accessed here: http:// fl- monroecountyclimate .civicplus.com/DocumentCenter /View /l03 File 2015 -006 Page 6 of 17 Packet Pg. 1549 J.1.d 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 2050, 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 -006 Page 7 of 17 Packet Pg. 1550 J.1.d 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 -006 Page 8 of 17 Packet Pg. 1551 J.1.d 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 APPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST MNSIDERATIONS OF PRQPOSED STRATFG IE5 6.1 KEYPAD POLLING RESULTS FROM COl41lhF1UNITY 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 de 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 61t 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 -006 Page 9 of 17 Packet Pg. 1552 J.1.d IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are str-iek t4r-etfg4 and additions are underlined Planning Commission recommendations are shown with deletions in blue with a and additions in blue with a double underline Land Development Code (LDC) amendments are being processed separately. LDC text is included below simply to provide the BOCC and the public with complete representation of the amendments. LDC text is identified in green. Policy 101.5.30 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and /or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only, chimneys, radio and /or television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus, utility poles and /or transmission towers, and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and /or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. , t- .,,,smissio tower and other - simil stpdettir°s In the case of aimort districts. there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Ree£ a uated master Manned communitv which is inaccessible to the surroundi community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existing buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation and a flood rotection hei ht exce tion of a maximum of three 3 feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow new (new construction or substantially improved) buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation. File 2015 -006 Page 10 of 17 Packet Pg. 1553 J.1.d 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 or a lawfully existing building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. Section 101 -1. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Elevate means the action of retrofitting or raising a building to a higher positon. Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest floor raised above the ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its exposure to flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general, retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or extending the existing foundation, or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floor system within the building or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only for parking building access, or storage. Sec. 130 -187. Maximum height. No structure or building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet. Exceptions will be allowed for chimneys; spires and /or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only; radio and /or television antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and /or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and /or collocations as permitted File 2015 -006 Page 11 of 17 Packet Pg. 1554 J.1.d 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: 1. For NEW single family (detached dwelling unitj and multi - family attached dwelling unit) 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 (21 habitable floors. This exception shall apply to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or not. 2. For lawfully established EXISTING buildings (detached and attached dwelling unit ) 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. File 2015 -006 Page 12 of 17 Packet Pg. 1555 J.1.d 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 heir 1. For lawfully established EXISTING multi - family( attached dwelling unit) buildinus 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 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 parcel 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 BFE are not eligible for this exception. 2. A BOCC resolution shall specify the findings of criteria of D.I. a. through g. (above) and specify the approved maximum total height for the proposed building. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2030 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. GOAL 216 Monroe County shall maintain a program of hazard mitigation and post- disaster redevelopment to increase public safety and reduce damages and public expenditures. File 2015 -006 Page 13 of 17 Packet Pg. 1556 J.1.d 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. 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. File 2015 -006 Page 14 of 17 Packet Pg. 1557 J.1.d B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well -being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost- effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381.0065(4)(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 File 2015 -006 Page 15 of 17 Packet Pg. 1558 J.1.d maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle. C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions. Section 163.3177(1), F.S. — The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the File 2015 -006 Page 16 of 17 Packet Pg. 1559 J.1.d proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 8. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report 9. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes 10. January 26, 2016 DRC Staff Report 11. January 26, 2016 DRC Minutes 12. February 24, 2016 PC Staff Report 13. February 24, 2016 PC Minutes 14. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 15. FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium' 16. Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments File 2015 -006 Page 17 of 17 Packet Pg. 1560 J.1.e 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 E Ocean Reef Community Association in regard to this issue. First of all I want to thank you for the support. As z you know Ocean Reef is a distinct community. It's a private gated community of about twenty five hundred aM 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 c R Association which has its own architectural board, its architectural committee that kind of makes going through IL a DRC and Planning Commission a day at the beach compared to their architectural committee. They are very o stringent. They impose a lot of times additional requirements and regulations on their projects. Their whole U community is very involved with the process. They're all notified as far as any changes that happen up there. So le c 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 v v well. I'm going to pass out, I guess to the clerk and to you guys, additional language we would like you guys to 0 m consider. But we have been talking to staff about ....(passes out additional language considerations) So not to t confuse the issue, there are two specific issues. First is allowing for some additional architectural features that aM the five foot would do. As we went through the club, as I said, owns a lot of buildings. Some of those buildings r are the hotels that are near Buccaneer Island, if you've been up there before. The Amberjack, The Dolphin, The w 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 E 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 Q 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 Page 1 of 12 J.1.e 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. v 0 N r; 0 U U O m aM T W c (D E R Q Page 2 of 12 J.1.e 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 asking at this time to have you not vote on this. We have not had the opportunity to look at the language that has been just handed to you and we feel that it needs to be reviewed very closely by the staff and by you because this is a huge change that they are requesting. Thank you. Mayor Murphy:... That's it Commissioner Kolhag (,- What does the, in the final sentence when they talk about assembly group Al and so forth, what does that mean? Christine Hurh We don't know. 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. 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. 0 Commissioner Could we not deal with this today and deal with it in January? 0 If you want us to address his comments, I just say get direction from the board at this point. v We work on some type of language to bring back to you in January. p m T Commissioner ,:.: I think that's what we should do. Mayor Murphy: And what happens if we then want to make changes in January? Do we hold up the whole r process? x w I think you can legally make changes on the floor by motion before we transmit. (D E 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.1.e 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 from the holidays. Commissioner Neugent: Oh my gosh we might have to do a little work. around. No, that's not what I meant. It's just that even your regular board meetings got all shifted Commissioner Neugent: Have it at the board meeting. End of the item discussion for a board meeting Okay. We can do that. Mayor Murphy: We can do that. Commissioner Neugent: Another things that's in this right here as I read it, for clarification purposes, "architectural decorating features that exceed the thirty five foot height limit but such features shall not exceed a five feet above the structures roof line" Joel also mentioned that some of these buildings are already, I guess E they would be legal non - conforming because they are above the height limit, so when you say "features shall v not exceed five feet above the structures roofline" what roofline are we talking about? The one that's already non - conforming? Or thirty five feet, shall not exceed five feet above thirty five feet? That's not the way I N necessarily interpret that. 0 Mayor Murphy: Because if it's the fifty four foot building, we're now at fifty nine... v v O It's not though. This is meant for new development that cannot exceed thirty five feet. m C_ aM Commissioner Neugent: Well what happens ... t T Joel has added in and what he is really asking you to do, is in simple terms, and I think it could w be very simplified, is agree that existing, non - conforming buildings that are at a height greater than thirty five feet, be allowed to rebuild to that height plus... °' E 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.1.e 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... Mayor Murphy: Well his language is kind of going in a figure eight. Commissioner Kolhage: I understand what they are saying. In other words, he wants to maintain what they have now with an adjustment. Yes. I think that's what he is asking. Commissioner Kolhage: And I think that is reasonable. Mayor Murphy: To replace a building, an older building that was built over thirty five feet, have a problem with that anywhere in Monroe County. It is what it is, we're all used to it, it's part of the landscape. Commissioner Neugent: Clarification on what you just said Mayor Murphy: I do not object to any of the older buildings that were built above thirty five feet. We all have a CL them in our neighborhoods. If they need to be replaced or have to be replaced, I don't have a problem with E 0 them maintaining the height. U Commissioner Neugent: Hold on a minute there. Is there anything in our code, and I would use this as an N analogy, FEMA's description of it, if its damaged by more than fifty percent, it has to be rebuilt, that is there r; 0 anything in our code or Comp Plan that says that it then can be built over thirty five feet? U U Mayor Murphy: No, No. 0 m T t 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 T conform to the new code, which is the thirty five foot height limit. And if it's destroyed beyond fifty percent x under the floodplain rules, they have to raise the elevation and that's why they added this other position. w c (D Commissioner Neugent: I understand the apples and oranges thing that I just plugged into it as an analogy but E what I am saying is, have we had that discussion? You just said, at least my interpretation, that you can't build what Commissioner Murphy just said ... Q Christine Hurh You can't. That is what Joel is asking you to change. Page 5 of 12 J.1.e 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 N want to hear some arguments otherwise, Ocean Reef is an isolated area, miles away from anyone else and a r; 0 gated community, albeit in unincorporated Monroe County, they're very similar to a municipality with a city U type manager, that do we want to be so parental if they have no objections internally amongst themselves to 0 keep them from rebuilding above thirty five feet or changing some things that they have gone through the m T public input locally with their gated community. Do we want to impose our thoughts on how Ocean Reef should be run? °' T Commissioner Rice I don't think we are trying to do that. w Mayor Murphy: I don't either. But I will tell you, my feeling is, in many, many instances, what Ocean Reef wants E 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 Q 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 Page 6 of 12 J.1.e 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? Mayor Murphy: Not to that. I have an objection to the decorative features. Commis¢` ,ner Kolhag, Okay but look, if it's, if they got a fifty foot building and there is a five foot adjustment for base flood elevation, you don't have a problem with them going to fifty five feet? Mayor Murphy: No. Commissioner Koinag� Okay. Mayor Murphy: They are going to what they were before the remodel ... and you want it county wide not just for Ocean Reef? Mayor Murphy: Yes. Commissioner Carruthers: But only for flood mitigation... Mayor Murphy: That's it, no decorative stuff. U Well right now the decorative is in, the flood is in... N r; Commissioner Carruthers: Well the decorative is in for Ocean Reef only, the flood is in for everyone. Right? U Yeah and the decorative is not so much what Joel is talking about relative to the bigger U O commercial buildings, its more for the single family homes that want the decorative features on top of the roof. m They are separate issues really. So right now in the draft policy you have included an extra five feet in Ocean Reef for the decorative architectural features, you've included for the whole county up to five feet adjustments for flood protection, raising your elevations, and Joel is asking you to also include, for Ocean Reef, but it sounds x like you at least have one Commissioner who wants to do it county wide for grandfathering existing buildings w that are higher than thirty five feet and allowing them to get the flood adjustment. (D E 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.1.e 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 today that did not exist then. Christine Hurlo I understand what you all are asking for so if you want to just move on without voting, we will draft language and bring it back for discussion on one of your regular agendas. Commissioner Neugent: Let me point this out, as someone who operated out of an illegal non - conforming building, if you think that it is something that is, it was called Porky's restaurant, and if would have been destroyed by a storm, I would have had a very difficult time, if not impossible time to rebuild with the same amount of square footage because of setbacks that came into play after Porky's was built eons ago. So if you think that there is a fairness level here, there is really a lot of situations where you can't rebuild. Commissioner Carruthers: but wouldn't you have been able to apply for variances and exceptions to those setbacks... No. Commissioner Neugent: You still would have had to meet the setback requirements. You could apply for variance for a setback but not height. T 0 N Mayor Murphy: See well all we are talking about is height. Not their setbacks. Not anything else. r; 0 T Commissioner Kolhage We're talking about changing the whole concept of the fifty percent rule. v v O No I understand ... m C_ aM Commissioner Kolhage How does it work? For height ... we're saying we're washing away the fifty percent rule. t T Well other things enter into ....for height you would be washing it away. X W Bob Shillinger: As a trigger for bringing it into compliance with current code (D E 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.1.e 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 Commissioner Carruthers: Everybody gets a smaller unit which is still going to be an issue so ... That's under our current rules. Commissioner Rice And what we're trying to do is validate, you don't want to build a fifty year building or sixty year building without accommodating expected sea level rise Commissioner Carruthers. I guess my only other comment is that I know that this is going to be controversial and people are going to be concerned about character and things like that... Mayor Murphy: But it's already there. Commissioner Carruthers.: Well it is already there... Mayor Murphy: So it's not changing the landscape... Commissioner Carruthers: It's not but trust me from dealing with this in Key West people have the perception c that overnight the character of our communities is going to change and that's not what we're talking v about ... Over fifty years it probably will to some extent but it's going to have to if we want to continue to live c here. ti 0 Mayor Murphy: Alright listen we're going to take a break v v O ......................................................................... ............................... m T t Mayor Murphy: And what I realized is we neglected to give Christine a head nod one way or the other on the M non - habitable architectural decorative features. My comment was, I will vote for the increase in height but not r for the decorative features. Discuss it and let her know which direction you would like her to take when she w does her staff report. c (D Commissioner Carruthers: Are you talking about within Ocean Reef or County wide? R Mayor Murphy: They are the only ones that asked for it. Q Commissioner Carruthers: I don't really care. Page 9 of 12 J.1.e 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... They have talked about it, I am very clear, everyone is okay with that. Ocean Reef only, decorative features, five additional feet. And I didn't hear, I heard Murphy say she's opposed to it but I didn't hear what any of you other Commissioners thought of that. Mayor Murphy: And that's what I am trying to bring out so that she knows where to go with it. Commissioner Neugent: I thought I heard you ask, you wanted a head nod whether this was going to be proposed just for Ocean Reef or all of unincorporated Monroe County. Christine Hurls : I had never heard that the decorative features was proposed for all of Monroe County from you all. Commissioner Rice and Commissioner Kolhage respond in unison: No, no... Commissioner Neugent: Okay but I also heard Commissioner Mayor Murphy say, I'm not going to treat them any different than the rest of the County. Commissioner Rice: Well that gives you a slight clue as to how she might vote. le 0 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 ° existing structures that are already over thirty five feet to be able to be replaced with the five foot flood v adjustment. What I don't have any clarity on is whether or not the board wants us to keep in Ocean Reef m allowance for five foot additional architectural decorative features or not. Or if you want to expand that County t aM wide, which I had never heard as an option to this moment. Commissioner Kolhage: Let me just state my position on this and you can go down the line I guess but I really x W 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 }; concerned, I'm a little concerned about doing away with our fifty percent rule on the rest of the County and I'm E not saying that I am going to support that. R Commissioner Neugent: I'm not saying that I am going to support anything. I'm saying I just want the Q 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.1.e 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 Meridian West could have had another floor which would have increased the housing if they had gone up an additional foot or so. So again, more information to discuss that strictly for affordable housing. 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 discussed it as staff after you had that meeting. It's our opinion that if you are going to incentivize affordable housing development by giving them a higher height limit that you should restrict that to very low and low maybe median, but the moderate income level is something that we do not think should be incentivized with a height increase. Commissioner Neugent: One of the biggest problems in dealing with affordable housing is the property to build them on. Another reason why I think the discussion should take place for affordable housing to go up is that if you can build more on that specific site as opposed to trying to find other properties to build affordable housing on. It helps resolve that part of the equation. Commissioner Kolhage So what are you going to do with that Christine? Between now and January? 2 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 Do you want us to include something for you to consider relative to affordable in the next N version that we bring to you at your regular meeting for discussion? 0 Commissioner Rice I do. U U O Commissioner Carruthers: I do. m r - 2M Okay. t Commissioner Kolhage° I remain to be convinced... w Commissioner Rice: I'm not sure how I feel about it but I think we do need to have the discussion. (D E Christine Hurls And I'm going to have some diagrams for you all by the next meeting with each policy so you can see what that means. Q 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.1.e I understand. I will bring that also. Commissioner Kolhage It's all about potential serious community character issues here. 0 N ti O r U U O CO T M aM t x W c (D E R Q Page 12 of 12 y r MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: March 17, 2015 J.1.f Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 10 1.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON- 14ABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND /OR MEDIAN INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: March 24, 2015 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and /or median income categories on properties designated as tier 3. N Cl) 0 U 0 C0 0 0 Ln 0 N a+ N x W c (D E s v a File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 20 J.1.f II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed 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. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT LO HEIGHT: N M In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ade are defined as follows: v 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 co W 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 Ln 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 W airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated N in this section shall not apply. w GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, E 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 2 surface, the county shall utilize the Light Detection and Ranging (LiDAR) dataset for Monroe Q County prepared in 2007. In the event 2007 LiDAR data is not available for a given parcel, the File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 20 J.1.f 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 highestpart 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 +35' + 30 For this example, a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE 5ft X 10 Crown of Road 51to Crown of the road hataral Elevation aft Ir felAtpn tc mean sea 1"I 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 In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been LO made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating M a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance o costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. 0 For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public y hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). c LO 0 N a+ t C1 W M ;a K W C G1 E s v R Q File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 20 J.1.f OCEAN REEF - architectural decorative features: Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. Draft Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non - habitable architectural decorative features which are commonly applied for in the Ocean Reef community and the issues this causes in permitting relative to the architectural decorative features. 40' 0 Crown of Road 5ft• 7 ;P'FT Natural Elevation aft • } Ir+ relation to mean sea lewl AE 5' T *2 FT AE 5' This type of exemption would be to address items such as balls, finials, or a widow's walk I LO r N M O U D C0 CD O O LO 0 N a+ t C1 W M N K W C a1 E s v R Q File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 20 Yellow = symbol for a 1 20' -0 20' -0" non - habitable architectural decorative feature Crown of Road 5ft• 7 ;P'FT Natural Elevation aft • } Ir+ relation to mean sea lewl AE 5' T *2 FT AE 5' This type of exemption would be to address items such as balls, finials, or a widow's walk I LO r N M O U D C0 CD O O LO 0 N a+ t C1 W M N K W C a1 E s v R Q File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 20 J.1.f FLOOD PROTECTION AND INSURANCE DISCOUNTS: Policy 101.5.32 In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows: 1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. For existing strictures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the stricture's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 3. Existing strictures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to vohmtarily elevate the stricture to meet the stricture's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Draft Policy 101.5.32 is intended to help protect structures from flood events, mitigate upcoming FEMA flood zone height changes, mitigate rising insurance costs for the property owner and assist with flood insurance rate discounts in the Community Rating System. The discussed height exception would allow strictures to be elevated higher than the required minimum FEMA base flood elevation which could then allow property owners to obtain discounts on their insurance and help mitigate potential flooding damage. See the following example on flood insurance discounts: EXAMPLE: PreFIRM "A" Zone $250k building coverage $2k deductible <'---- -3' $6,268/yr 100% i LO N M O U 0 CO 0 O LO 0 N t C1 N x W C (1 E s a File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 20 Annual Annual % 30 -Year Premiums Savings Savings Savings +3. 402 5,894 94% $176,820 <� +2 1 603 15,693 9o% $170,790 BFE <� +1' 791 $5,505 87 % $165,162 <'---- -3' $6,268/yr 100% i LO N M O U 0 CO 0 O LO 0 N t C1 N x W C (1 E s a File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 20 J.1.f For draft Policy 101.5.32 which creates the Flood Protection Height exception, the BOCC expressed concerns with a property owner's ability to either build or elevate their homes without losing living space (i.e. reducing the number of stories of the structure) and being squeezed into smaller homes. To try and determine if this is an issue with the proposed policy exception, which would allow an additional 5 feet in height, County staff has evaluated the number of properties per flood zone [following Flood Zone table] and created basic illustrations [following 4 page Flood Zone Height Analysis] to depict how the current height limit, per flood zone, may affect proposed development, and examples with the flood protection height exception. Based on the information in the Flood Zone table, it is noted that the majority of parcels within unincorporated Monroe County fall within the AE 7 to AE 11 flood zones. There are 44,910 parcels within these flood zones, out of an estimated 56,843 total parcels within unincorporated Monroe County (79% of the total parcels are within AE 7 to AE 11). Based on the information in the Flood Zone Height Analysis, generally: • In flood zones X through AE 10 or VE 10 [approx. 47,158 parcels], a three (3) story structure may be developed, rn flood zones AE 11 (VE 11) through AE 20 (VE structure may be developed. For flood zones AE 21 (VE 21) and greater [approx. developed. 29) [approx. 9,330 parcels], a two (2) story 19 parcels], a one (1) story structure may be The generalized comments are made based upon the provided examples, within the Flood Zone Height Analysis, with crown of road at 5ft and used as the starting point (grade) for measuring height. Land Development Code HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any L , structure.... GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, N M v next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly o adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher.... 0 0 LO 0 N a+ t C1 t N K W C G1 E s v R Q File 2015 -006 Page 6 of 20 J.1.f FLOOD ZONE TABLE FEMA Flood Zone I Number of Parcels I % of total I % of total Note: As ofOctober 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEA11A Zones LO N M 0 U 0 0) 0 0 0 LO 0 N aM M N K W c (D E s v +a Q File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 20 X 1,935 3.40% M 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 5.16% CHANCE FLOOD 0 HAZARD 999 1.76% o AE 5 1 0.00% AE 6 1,964 3.46% o AE 7 8,996 15.83% N M o AE 8 14,824 26.08% 0 AE 9 11,272 19.83% AE 10 6,835 12.02% 83.48% a AE 11 2,983 5.25% AE 12 121 0.21% 3 AE 13 418 0.74% N ct AE 14 36 0.06% ° o N AE 15 3 0.01% AE 16 1 0.00% VE 9 5 0.01% 3 story VE 10 327 0.58% VE 11 1,019 1.79% 3 VE 12 1,443 2.54% VE 13 1,069 1.88% o VE 14 1,815 3.19% VE 15 352 0.62% r ° 0 VE 16 31 0.05% 10.76% 0 VE 17 33 0.06% VE 19 5 0.01% VE 20 1 0.00% VE 21 8 0.01% VE 22 7 0.01% r. o VE 23 1 0.00% 0 -a ° VE 24 1 0.00% o VE 26 2 0.00% OPEN WATER 10 0.02% total parcels 56,843 Note: As ofOctober 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEA11A Zones LO N M 0 U 0 0) 0 0 0 LO 0 N aM M N K W c (D E s v +a Q File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 20 a 0 a �z 0 c 3 0 G E 0 k m r aa , v4 Y X 35 4 orn Height = 3' AE w AE 11' AE w AE 12' At 12' AE 12' i,! 1R orar (14111� 5ff u ocr f` 5#t ore" 1Fe E4A base FQ oA bass fl 1 fod demtian ewlfan deratlan e4VOUW Fi J.1.f Heig Cram of Naad 5{t• Nw"A Ele•utlm S'R k Woke to aam kp N+d Etawe at R.Od Sri• Nat�rd pewtlen 39 • k fel@w m nKm eee Ie.J Page i of 4 O r N Cl) O U D Cl) 0 O O LO 0 N a+ t C1 t N AE 5' AE R' AE 7' AE W AE 11' AE 1p' AE 11• AE 12' a n n n n i H ei g ht h, 1, 1, . ? Rued 5 - ,d E1 3ft - m 4e In AE 24Y A9 21' man fn C,.— of Reed 511- P age 2 Cl) O CO CD CD 9 04 CI (D m 04 1; Height = 35' AE IN AE 14' AE 15' AE 18' AE Ir AE IV AE 19' II Il II II II X AE IV AE 10' AE 16• AE 21Y AE 20 AE 2W "I w Sfk Z ZA 40;� F ZZ) load flood flood ) -d (demtlm ele vation (elow.6on ( Watim v a c E 3 U a 7 p r C D d W S J'✓D Hit = 3 %C s' W 6' %C 7* w 4E 1!' W 111' X 11' VE IT II II 71 b II If Vf 8' W 8' VE 11' VE 12' VE 19' VE 12' b axFEflA be>sef£MA 6ax araJ ra!ion dewkk:n ekwilm FZ ��q Claret a} R.M 5H' N. • • I,Id141! s 1RA 4M a4 R,.d 54• ElrMu. 7R • i AWTW b --kld Page 3 of 4 LO r N Cl) O U D Cl) 0 O O LO 0 N a+ t C1 t 04 "Mi 1 I %C s' W 6' %C 7* w 4E 1!' W 111' X 11' VE IT II II 71 b II If Vf 8' W 8' VE 11' VE 12' VE 19' VE 12' b axFEflA be>sef£MA 6ax araJ ra!ion dewkk:n ekwilm FZ ��q Claret a} R.M 5H' N. • • I,Id141! s 1RA 4M a4 R,.d 54• ElrMu. 7R • i AWTW b --kld Page 3 of 4 LO r N Cl) O U D Cl) 0 O O LO 0 N a+ t C1 t 04 a 0 .a5 G E fl 7 p1 a a o rY Ln I Height = 35! FZ Z E � n 0 R-d 5tt- EJewtw 3n n rd—M VE 24' VE V . — - WA VE 1B' VE 1!' IIE 16' VE 27 VE 26 VE 211' � / ?!t ovep Sh asa 2ft over t F[41A Apse Fpfa pose FE1ea pose FEYA flood loud lbpd Nr,�j dewtian Ondw dewtlop e4 wlrcrl C.— O! Read 511• roetwal Ele," "I " Y Id911M to Inr4+ R4 NwV Page 4 of 4 I LO T N M O U D co CD O O LO T O N a+ t C1 t N VE 13' VE 14' VE 19' VE 113' VE IT VE 18' VE 19' 11 11 11 p II II J.1.f EXISTING STRUCTURES: Policy 101.5.33 A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 maw paired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing strictures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the stricture's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. Lawfully established existing strictures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, maepermitted a height exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the stricture meet the stricture's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. For draft Policy 101.5.33 which creates the height exception for a lawfully established existing stricture which currently exceeds the 35 foot height limit to be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height and provides a Flood Protection Height Exception to elevate the stricture to meet and /or exceed the required FEMA BFE. Example 1: 5 feet to exceed the stricture's minimum required FEMA BFE 49' 0" +5'in height 35, C„ 11' LO 6 35 - 13" 11' � Existing structure= 44ft c 11' Replaced 44ft structure + 0� elevated 5ft above BFE G Existing 11' CO 20' -0" structure Height = 49ft = 44 ft c 11' u j 0 N I 1F I I I I I J M File 2015 -006 Page 12 of 20 +5'aboveBFE Crcwr of Raid K hat�ral EBevatior W it relarbn to c mean secs level AE 5 AE 5 R a File 2015 -006 Page 12 of 20 J.1.f Example 2: elevated loft to meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE plus 1 additional foot above BFE 55' 0" 42' 0" .35' -0" 11° t 30* - -0" 11' 4-2L—o' L 5 . Ilm 0 .. U U Existing structure= 44ft Elevated 44ft structure 10 ft to meet BFE (AE 15) plus 1 foot above BFE 19 Existing I structure Height = 55ft = 44 ft Built below 11' BFE 10' +F above BFE Ctcwr of Read Notaral Elevatlor • it lelalpp to meon sea level AE 15 AE 15 Note, staff has not been able to complete an inventory of structures that exceed the adopted height limit of 35 feet as there is not enough information in our files to determine the exact grade (either highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher) for most structures v built before 1985. As such, we cannot determine the number of structures which may be affected by the o proposed policy. Below are examples of structures which appear to exceed the adopted height limit: 13� CO Moon Bay Condos, mm 104 CD °o Built in the 70s LO Crown of road might be 13 -14' based on LiDAR, N Building B is 46' from ground level of 13' AMSL. - Building A is 49'6" from ground level. aM W Harbor 92 Condos, mm 92 N Built in the 70s w Crown of road might be about 8' based on LiDAR Building is 63' from ground level E Kawama Tower, mm 102 R Built in the 70s Q Building is 85' from ground level of about 7' AMSL File 2015 -006 Page 13 of 20 J.1.f AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Policy 101.5.34 In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee /workforce housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and /or median income categories on properties designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or employee /workforce housing for very low, low and/or median income categories may be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet (to provide for up to three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area). Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.5.30. very low income household whose total household income does not exceed 50% of the median monthly household income for the county low income ° household whose total household income does not exceed 80% of the median monthly household income for the county median income means a household whose total household income does not exceed 100% of the median monthly household income for the county For draft Policy 101.5.34 which creates the height exception for affordable housing, the BOCC discussed finding ways to incentivize additional development of affordable housing. The intent of the proposed policy is to encourage additional affordable and employee /workforce housing provision by allowing structures developed as affordable /workforce housing to be built with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide for three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area. 44' 0" 40' 0" * 35 � FM AE 5' Affordable Housing 44 ft height limit EXAMPLE 2 ft for roof 3 stories — l Oft each and 12ft for parking or commercial underneath •::I:.:wr ", I�Cad 51t' No Twa l El evatlar 3t! ' If relatop to mean sea level I LO N M O U D N CD O O Ln O N t C1 M N K W C a1 E s v R Q File 2015 -006 Page 14 of 20 J.1.f IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OPTIONS FOR PROPOSED HEIGHT POLICIES FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Staff has developed the following draft policies for consideration. (Deletions are s�ekefi 4ifetith and additions are underlined Policy 101.45.30 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and /or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only, chimneys, radio and /or television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers, and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and /or collocations. &Eeepttens- will be a4lowed for- appii4enanees to Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the turbines comply with relevant State and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act. Applications proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height within the MIAI overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment. In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This excebtion shall not result in a structure or anv architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. L' N M O U 0 C0 W 0 0 LO 0 N t W N x W E s R a File 2015 -006 Page 15 of 20 J.1.f Policy 101.5.32 In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows: 1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five 5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. For existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the structure to meet the structure's minimum reauired FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.33 A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height S 0 0 CL 0 0 0 0 CL 0 x E x R FL CL E 0 U L' N M 0 U D co w 0 O LO 0 N M N x w E s a File 2015 -006 Page 16 of 20 J.1.f exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the structure meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone Dlus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. V. Policy 101.5.34 In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee /workforce housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and /or median income categories on properties designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or employee /workforce housing for very low, low and /or median income categories may be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet (to provide or up to three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area), Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of M structure, including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.5.30. 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 i Ln County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. �! M O Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting o structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The y Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable W interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. CD q un Policy 217.1.5 CD N 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 W rating. N Policy 217.1.6 K W Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to r- promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements E contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage 0 caused by storms. Q File 2015 -006 Page 17 of 20 J.1.f Objective 601.3 By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites. Policy 601.3.2 The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe, decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods. B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost - effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss. 381:0065(4)(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. LO N M 0 U 0 co 0 0 0 LO 0 N W N X W c (D E Q File 2015 -006 Page 18 of 20 J.1.f (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 the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3 161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within theirjurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board i LO N M (D U 0 0) 0 0 Ln 0 N a+ t N k W c (D E a File 2015 -006 Page 19 of 20 J.1.f of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing i LO N M O U D N 0 0 O LO 0 N a+ t C1 W t N K W C G1 E s v R Q File 2015 -006 Page 20 of 20 J.1.g DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 24, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, March 24 , 2015, beginning at 1:02 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 Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Emily Schemper, Principal Planner Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item 1 is delayed. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24, 2015, DRC meeting as is. MEETING New Items: Present Present Present Present Present Present Present 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE/WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND /OR MEDIAN 1 Packet Pg. 1593 0 INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) (1:03 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated that Items 2 and 3 will be held as a workshop discussion versus a staff report with comments. Both items are from the comp plan update and were proposed within the 2030 comp plan. The BOCC has asked staff to remove the policies as they were in the comp plan and process them separately so that there is public understanding and public input through the process. This item will be brought back two or three times to ensure revisions can be made with public input. Ms. Santamaria first addressed Policy 101.4.26. Ms. Santamaria explained that the current height definition is the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure and it is measured from either grade or the crown of the nearest road. Multiple height exceptions have been proposed in order to address a variety of issues. The first one is the wind turbine for facilities owned and operated by a public utility. An avian protection plan would be required. The height exception would be for those wind turbines that facilitate green technologies and alternative energy sources. Ms. Santamaria informed Deb Curlee there are no applications for wind turbines currently. Alicia Putney commented that her personal experience has been that wind turbines are not able to generate enough current to be deemed useful unless the sustainable winds were above 20 -25 miles an hour. Consequently, wind is more questionable than solar energy at this point. Ms. Curlee is not in favor of wind turbines because of their aesthetics. Ms. Santamaria will draft a version of the policy as the BOCC has proposed it next to a version that includes the public's input. Bill Eardley asked that staff obtain an analysis of FKEC's two wind turbines located on Cudjoe Key before proceeding with this policy. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.31. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy is specific to Ocean Reef. In permitting for that community staff has had to deal with architectural features just above the 35 -foot height limit. Staff has recommended the architectural features could exceed the 35 -foot height limit by five feet, not to exceed 40 feet, and can contain no habitable space up there. Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association and Ocean Reef Club. Mr. Reed stated even though Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non - habitable architectural decorative features, it is only one and the least significant of three provisions that Ocean Reef has requested. Mr. Reed explained that Ocean Reef has its own architectural review committee that projects go through as well. One of the longer term issues facing Ocean Reef Club is that they still own a number of buildings and condominiums that currently exceed the 35 -foot height restriction. These are aging buildings coming to the end of their useful life. There is concern if they are ever destroyed they would not be able to build back to their current heights. Mr. Reed agrees with being proactive by building above the FEMA flood heights. One policy request from Pi Packet Pg. 1594 J.1.g Ocean Reef is for the ability to build back on a story -by -story approach rather than to the pre- existing height. Mr. Reed feels allowing this way of rebuilding with an increase in the slab -to- slab measurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than tearing them down. Another issue important to Ocean Reef is the Cultural Center building. Because the flyover space in this building is limited, the ability to have productions in this building is limited also. Mr. Reed suggested that a height of 65 feet would accommodate that flyover space. Mr. Reed emphasized that the proposed story -by -story rebuilding process is being requested for Ocean Reef only, which is an isolated and gated community, not visible from the roadway. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef provide information of the cultural center, such as a map depiction and its existing height information. Mr. Reed agreed to provide that information, as well as a list of inventoried buildings at Ocean Reef including their existing heights. Ms. Curlee asked for an estimate of the height of a building with an 11 -foot slab -to -slab allowance plus the flood elevation. Mr. Reed replied that it depends on the flood zone and the average existing grade or crown of road of each site. Ms. Putney proposed Ocean Reef go through a variance procedure for each of the specific buildings because of all the variables associated with each building. Mr. Reed agreed that consideration needs to be given for each building individually and stressed that losing a floor would not be an option in rebuilding. Mr. Reed further explained that some communities have minimum ceiling heights so that a more adaptable building into the future is built. Ms. Putney asked if Ocean Reef has its own community master plan containing its own design criteria. Mr. Reed responded that there are architectural design guidelines for Ocean Reef that are followed currently and a process is being gone through to update and create a new master plan for Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria clarified that it is for Ocean Reef's own development internally, but a Livable CommuniKeys plan or even an overlay district can be proposed. Ms. Putney voiced concern that this policy would open the door for other gated communities throughout the Keys to increase their height restriction. Ms. Santamaria noted that the reason the BOCC was even considering this policy is because Ocean Reef is not only gated, but it is isolated and separate from the rest of the Keys. Bill Hunter, present on behalf of Sugarloaf Property Owners Association (SPOA), will be taking this request by Ocean Reef back to SPOA members for their input. SPOA recognizes that Ocean Reef is isolated and very different from the rest of the Keys. Mr. Hunter commented that the BOCC has said in the past they do not want to treat Ocean Reef differently than the rest of the County. SPOA is neutral on this policy as long as this does not affect the rest of the County. Mr. Reed explained that there is language that allows Ocean Reef to go through a letter of understanding process without going through a conditional use process. Mr. Reed feels perhaps some stronger language would help address the concerns being voiced. Ms. Putney again suggested Ocean Reef have their own Livable CommuniKeys plan which is protected by the comp plan. Mr. Reed pointed out that Ocean Reef has stricter regulations than the rest of the County has, such as setbacks. Ms. Putney suggested adding language referring to gated communities over a certain size. Ms. Curlee believes, regardless of Ocean Reef being isolated and gated, the public will expect the same consideration that Ocean Reef receives. Ms. Putney agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not want to have special rules for 3 Packet Pg. 1595 J.1.g Ocean Reef. Mr. Reed added that he believes only one Commissioner has expressed that sentiment. Ms. Santamaria stated the BOCC will make the decision of what they choose to adopt and /or transmit to the State and will ultimately make the decision of which communities, which policies and where they will apply to. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained these policies are an attempt to provide existing and new structures the ability to redevelop or lift the existing structure to come into compliance with their flood zone. New FEMA maps are expected in four years. The first provision of Policy 101.5.32 is for new structures to voluntarily elevate their structures up to five feet above the 35 -foot height limit. It is based on what they choose to elevate above flood. The second provision of the policy is for existing structures to be able to meet their base flood zone or to exceed it. Again, they can go up to five feet above the 35 -foot height limit, but this is based on the amount they choose to go up. The third provision is for those structures that need to go a little bit higher to meet their flood zone. The addition of one foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for. Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structure is impractical due to the cost. It is simpler to pay off the mortgage and cancel the flood insurance. Mr. Eardley feels there is no need for the exception on new construction because the building can be designed to meet the current standards. Ms. Santamaria explained the exception was proposed because the BOCC did not want people to lose living space and be squeezed into smaller homes. FEMA representatives have informed staff a grant program may be created to help with the cost of elevating a home. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that some existing structures may not be able to be raised due to its structural integrity. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there has been discussion about including bonus points or points under the CRS for communities that provide for an opportunity for property owners to elevate their base floor one to three feet above base flood elevation on a voluntary basis. Dottie Moses from the Upper Keys Homeowners Federation stated that the CRS looks at encouraging people not to build in low -lying areas. Ms. Santamaria explained that is why the inventory of flood zones was done. Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the County is somehow encouraging building in a very low -lying area where roads will eventually no longer be maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number 1 is applicable when people tear down and build a new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of homes built before FEMA came in to Monroe County in '78 built below the base flood would be a small enough number that they could be dealt with through some kind of a development review mechanism as opposed to a carte blanche rule. Ms. Schemper noted that this would give property owners the allowance to do it rather than being penalized because of their unique circumstance. Ms. Santamaria stated staff will evaluate that. Ms. Santamaria then described a situation of a property owner in North Florida who built a home less than ten years ago at three feet above flood. The new FEMA maps now show that home being three feet below flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that the new FEMA maps could impact a substantial number of people whose flood insurance premiums are going to skyrocket up because of this situation. FEMA is supposed to take sea level rise into account when creating their new maps. Staff is trying to think into the future to try to facilitate people's ability to protect their homes and investments. Mr. Hunter suggested, because it is unknown what the maps will show, introducing the concept and making allowances for the solution in the comp 4 Packet Pg. 1596 J.1.g plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifying the LDRs in the LDC is an easier process. Mr. Schemper cautioned the longer addressing this issue is put off, the more homes will be built that are going to be affected. Ms. Moses stated that at an Army Corps meeting comments were made that all of the "easy" lots have been built on and what is left will require mitigation and other issues. Ms. Santamaria will try to run an analysis of the flood zone of the vacant parcels in the County. Mr. Hunter clarified that when he suggested splitting the concept in the comp plan and the detail in the LDRs, he was not suggesting delaying the LDRs. Mr. Hunter further stated more public outreach would help in educating the public more on climate change and sea level rise. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr. Hunter that the County does not have policies in place yet regarding replacement of infrastructure in areas potentially susceptible to sea level rise, so the County has to proceed under existing policies and directives, which obligates the County to maintain the roads. Ms. Santamaria described a situation in St. Augustine where property owners are suing the municipality to maintain a road in a low -lying area so that the people would have access to their fire service. Ms. Curlee asked about regulations regarding filling a lot. Mr. Roberts explained that whether fill is allowed depends on the flood zone. Ms. Putney added that runoff from higher lots into the road is creating a problem for the neighbors and in the canals, as well as blocking views and creating shade. Mr. Williams clarified that situation does not create a property rights issue. Ms. Santamaria noted that the variance procedure could create a staggered view line in an area. Ms. Moses stated the Federation has taken the position they do not want the 35 -foot height limit raised under any circumstance. The County has managed to get by under that height limit to date with new construction. Mr. Hunter on behalf of SPOA agreed with Ms. Moses' comments. Mr. Hunter personally believes more education is needed about freeboard and the benefits of freeboard. Ms. Putney on behalf of Last Stand stated existing buildings should have some kind of mechanism for special approval, but that the total raised building could not exceed 40 feet and the space created under the first floor should be non - habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed to new construction receiving an exception to the 35 -foot height limit. Mr. Williams noted that there is a potential map amendment process to appeal to FEMA to make an exception for a lot. The expense of that process was discussed. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy addresses existing structures that currently exceed the height limit, such as a three or four -story condo. By redeveloping to upgrade the building, coming into compliance with the flood zone may result in loss of a story of that condo. That could potentially result in 20 people on the top floor no longer having the ability to rebuild their home. Ms. Putney questioned why it is perceived to affect the top story as opposed to the first story. Ms. Santamaria stated half of the people would lose their home regardless of which story it is. This policy provides for allowing five feet above their existing height. Ms. Putney stated Last Stand supports this policy provided that the footprint of the structure is not changed. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee there is no cap on the height. Staff does not have a clear inventory of those structures this policy would encompass, but estimates only a handful. Mr. Reed asked that those who do support this policy consider giving some additional slab -to -slab height when rebuilding. Ms. Putney replied Last Stand supports the grandfathering of nonconforming height to certain buildings in Monroe 5 Packet Pg. 1597 J.1.g County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA along with any additional voluntary clearance above base flood elevation must be equal to or less than the height of the old nonconforming building. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA agrees as long as the redevelopment is involuntary, such as because of fire or flood. Ms. Santamaria asked if the public in attendance considers the new FEMA maps deeming a structure below base flood involuntary. Mr. Reed does not like the "involuntary" language because it is a very tricky threshold to meet. Ms. Santamaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying to facilitate a lot of new development. Mr. Reed clarified that while there is no magic slab -to- slab number, floor to ceiling heights should be created that are adaptable and can continue to be remodeled throughout future years. Ms. Curlee expressed concern that what is "involuntary" to one person may open the door to let somebody else take advantage of this policy. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee that in almost all situations exceptions to the height limit will not allow people to add a story. In some situations that would be possible. Ms. Putney believes that language should be included to limit in what situations it would be allowed. Mr. Hunter suggested more detail of the buildings in Ocean Reef be gathered to realize the effect this could have on the County. Mr. Reed clarified that his comments regarding slab -to -slab increases were specific to the Ocean Reef policy, but feels it might be worth considering for all of unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Moses is concerned about taking people's property rights away from them. Mr. Hunter then commented that the "historical designation" language should be eliminated. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.34. Ms. Santamaria explained this came out of the session of the BOCC at the October meeting to address a different height maximum for very low, low and median income affordable employee and work force housing on properties designated Tier III. This was to facilitate having nonresidential development on the first story and allowing a couple stories of affordable housing on top. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA is opposed to this amendment. SPOA believes that the County has the benefit of seeing what the cities have done to address this issue before they make a decision on solutions. Another issue for SPOA is using height as a solution to affordable housing in the County where there is more land than the County has ROGO allocations for. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to raising the affordable housing limit. Key Largo does not have an affordable housing issue. There are affordable housing projects in the Upper Keys district already and some of the way those projects are being managed are not the way their deed restrictions have been written. Ms. Moses pointed out there is no definition for "workforce housing" in the code. Ms. Santamaria replied the Affordable Housing Committee will be addressing that soon. The BOCC hired the FSU Consensus Center to provide a report on the County's affordable housing issue. Ms. Schemper added that the LDC uses the term "affordable housing" or "employee housing," which are defined terms. "Work force housing" is a more general term. Mr. Reed argued that there is a demand and a need still in the Upper Keys for affordable housing. Mr. Reed then stated it is a severe challenge to find appropriate land of a certain size to accommodate affordable housing. Mr. Eardley is concerned this amendment would open the door for all kinds of other development. Mr. Eardley agrees there are ways to address work force housing without going higher, such as making the units smaller. Ms. Curlee added when talking about truly L Packet Pg. 1598 J.1.g affordable housing that would be rentals. Ms. Putney believes this issue is complex and the height exception for affordable housing should be dealt with within the arena of the affordable housing discussion separate from what is being done today. Ms. Santamaria clarified this amendment would provide the opportunity to build more units, but it also will raise those units above base flood. Ms. Santamaria thanked the public for their comments and stated these comments will be included in the staff report and will be back before the DRC again for more comments. 1. Playa Largo Resort, 97450 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 97.5: A public meeting concerning a request for an Amendment to a Major Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 177 -unit hotel and associated accessory uses. The subject property is legally described as Tracts 4B and 5B, Amended Plat of Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Key Largo, and also a tract of submerged land in the Bay of Florida fronting said Tract 5B (TIlF Deed No. 22416), Monroe County, Florida, having real estate number 00555010.000000. (File 2015 -031) (2:32 p.m.) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this applicant currently has an approved major conditional use permit from 2007 and it has had several deviations and time extensions over time. It is still active. The most recent deviation has approved the site plan for 162 transient units and one commercial apartment, which was previously on the site. The applicant has been issued a number of building permits. This amendment to the major conditional use permit is to add an additional 15 transient units into the hotel, the building of which has already been permitted, and that would bring them up to their max number net density. It does not change any footprint on the site plan. All of the required criteria are in compliance. The only issue that is still outstanding is the traffic and access. The applicant had supplied a Level 2 traffic study with this application, and because of the threshold of what is being proposed a Level 3 traffic study is needed. This may also impact the requirement for a right -turn deceleration lane leading into the property. Ms. Schemper recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria commented that the Planning Commissioners will likely want to see the traffic studies so they can take that data into account in their decision - making and make sure that it is compliant. Mr. Roberts asked that Number 7 of the recommended actions be reworded to specify the number of allowed docks. Mr. Roberts will supply that number to Ms. Schemper. Jorge Cepeda, present on behalf of the applicant, stated he was familiar with the conditions contained in the original approval. Mr. Cepeda asked that Condition 8, the transportation shuttle for guests and employees, be considered in the traffic study because that has less of an impact on traffic. Mr. Cepeda asked that the second portion of the language about adequacy of public facilities on Page 6 of the report remain part of the recommended action. Mr. Cepeda clarified that no trees will be cut for the mulch exercise path, but there may be some underbrush that may need to be accommodated. Mr. Roberts specified that "clearing" is the removal of any native vegetation regardless of the size. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to inform staff if the applicant is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted 7 Packet Pg. 1599 J.1.g for in the site plan. Ms. Schemper will look again at the deviation to see exactly how it is worded and get back to the applicant regarding the clearing. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses asked whether the proposed commercial apartment is bayfront. Ms. Schemper explained it was a previously existing unit, so the residential use and density is protected. Mr. Cepeda stated the apartment is in the same location as the prior developer's site plan. Ms. Moses then pointed out the site plan shows two entrances. Ms. Schemper explained one is an emergency access drive requested by the fire department. Ms. Moses then noted that the front buffer that faces US -1 looks to contain lead tree. Mr. Cepeda replied that the landscaping will be done in the final stage. The main entrance is the original American Outdoor entrance and at the end stage the exotics will be removed and landscaping will be done to complete that buffer. Ms. Moses commented that there are a lot of non - native species on the vegetation list. Mr. Roberts explained that the required vegetation is 100 percent native vegetation, but anything planted above the minimum requirement can be anything the developer wants. The developer is overplanting the required landscaping significantly. Ms. Schemper clarified for Ms. Moses that the docking facility on the property is a hotel accessory dock, not a marina. 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -007) (2:49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated this item also comes from the comp plan update project. The BOCC asked staff to remove these policies that were included in the comp plan and process them separately since it was a new topic and received a lot of attention and people wanted to provide input on the topic. These policies relate to the transfer of ROGO exemptions, density rights, as well as where the development would be directed to. Ms. Santamaria addressed Policy 101.5.8. Ms. Santamaria explained that, again, this item will be handled today more like a workshop -type item. Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to address all of the policies together. Mr. Smith thanked staff for planning multiple workshops to allow these policies to be vetted over a period of time where everyone can work together. Mr. Smith asked staff to provide notice to the affected property owners of these meetings so they can actively engage in this process. Mr. Smith asked staff to contemplate the unintended consequences of these policies of not allowing the TDRs and TREs to be transferred to offshore islands and designating all offshore islands as Tier L Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies E3 Packet Pg. 1600 J.1.g put an inordinate burden on the property owners. These property owners have some development right, all residential in nature. The code only has two ways that residential can be built: Through ROGO allocation or ROGO exemption. These islands do not have ROGO exemptions because they do not have homes on them, so in order to build residential one would have to get a ROGO allocation or transfer a ROGO exemption from somewhere else. These policies eliminate the ability to transfer. A property is left with requiring a ROGO allocation, but the property is designated Tier I. This would be so limiting that the only use left would be bee- keeping and temporary camping by the owner. Mr. Smith asked that staff look at how these policies would operate as a whole to get a complete picture of how it would operate. Ms. Santamaria clarified individual property owners were not notified because this is not property- specific and not all properties have their issues resolved with ownership. This is a policy that would impact all privately -owned or even publicly -held offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that while the policy has direction of discouraging development by designating Tier I does not mean it is an automatic Tier I. That designation would have to go through its proper process to apply a designation to a property. Ms. Santamaria commented that this policy is not a huge change regarding the TREs and the TDRs. This is a proposed change based on the discussions from the BOCC of where to direct the remaining allocations or exemptions and where is the most appropriate place to direct development. Julie Dick on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund thanked staff for the workshop process and allowing the public the opportunity to participate in this process. Last Stand thinks that the policies generally are consistent with the concepts of the tier overlay system for offshore islands. Last Stand is generally supportive of the changes. Ms. Dick commented that there are some inconsistencies with the acreage on the inventory. Ms. Santamaria explained the Property Appraiser does not have the exact acreage of a property. A boundary survey is required to determine the upland portions of a property. Ms. Santamaria will look into any discrepancy reported to her. Ms. Dick further stated Last Stand agrees with the sender and receiver site criteria. For evacuation purposes it make sense to discourage additional development on offshore islands. Last Stand recommends removing significant upland habitat as a criteria in Policy 206.1.2. The reasons to protect offshore islands go beyond whether or not they are suited to upland habitat, such as containing bird rookeries. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that under Policy 206.1.2 the significant upland habitat is one of the criteria and it is being made consistent with the Tier I criteria. Ms. Putney asked whether there was a determination made that offshore islands were Tier I when the County went to the tier system. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 stated that designating offshore islands as Tier I lands was one method used to discourage developments proposed on offshore islands. The only offshore islands that are not designated Tier I were the ones that were missed by accident and undesignated, but this policy does not automatically designate them. They would still have to go through that process. The provision exists in the LDC that any islands without a specific land use designation shall be considered zoned as offshore islands. The approximately ten offshore islands that were missed and not designated were discussed. E Packet Pg. 1601 J.1.g Ms. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to participate in the workshop -style meetings scheduled in the future. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. 10 Packet Pg. 1602 J.1.h MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: May 17, 2015 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: May 26, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as tier 3. H. 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 File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 4 X w c m E t m r Q Packet Pg. 1603 J.1.h (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory/data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, he and rg ade are defined as follows: HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any x structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on w structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna, c flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna E E 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 r permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of Q airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall not apply. File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 1604 J.1.h 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. fn 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 5tl Crown of Raid 5ft* Crown of the road Natural Elevation aft 1 iR relatlor to mean seo level v 35. E SQ 20 . 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 fdl needed to reach 5ft flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection NOTE: See exhibits for additional information related to flood protection and freeboard. File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 9 X w Z.; E t m r Q Packet Pg. 1605 J.1.h IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are StFiEkefi th-eu and additions are underlined Policy 101.4 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure including mechanical equipment, but excluding sires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar Apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. Exeeptions will be allowed for- appui4efiaflees to b uildings, 1L,aiulluVVt Vll LV 11 V1J l.Lllil VL11V sir fi fl af _ , Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian Protection Plan qpproved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the turbines comply with relevant State and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act and National Environmental Policy Act. Applications b a public utility proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height shall require a public hearing before the Board of County_ Commissioners and a BOCC Resolution supporting the p roposal and specifying the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any county Permit or approval. Applications proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height within the MIAI overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment. In the case of airport districts there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a master planned community of 100 or more acres in area which is gated, isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildincs may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials rails widow's walk ) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or an architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where p ublic access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community_ including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its member Policy 101.5.32 By XXXX date Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 (height limit) not exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet to promote public health safety and general welfare; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; allow adaptation to coastal flooding* storm surge and other hazards; File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 4 c 0 m 0 a 0 0 4- 0 0 r CL W 0 X E a� W x c �a a CL E 0 U LO r to N LO 0 U a 0 to 0 0 LO 0 N a� v X w c W E r Q Packet Pg. 1606 1.1.h p rotect Property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events- mitigate rising flood insurance premiums; and reduce flood insurance rates by facilitating/improving the County's Community Rating System score. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to voluntaril elevate up to three 3 feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection minimize flood damage reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events LDR Section XXX: As provided in Polio 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: I. For new buildings which are volunjui �Iy elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of into three l3) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be a maximum of three (3) feet and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height; and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35 -foot height limit and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may_ be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus u to three 3 feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existin 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, and 4. No exception shall be provided to properties located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone. Policy 101.5.33 As of the effective date of this policy, a lawfully established existing building, which exceeds the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 maybe repaired improved or reconstructed to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE), provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use For buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be required prior to issuance of an cry permit or approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. LDR Section XXX• As provided in Policy 101.5.33 lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to meet the FEMA BFE provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. File 2015 -006 Page 5 of g c r m 0 a 0 0 4- 0 c CL m U x E a� x c �a CL CL 0 U LO to N Li 0 U a 0 to 0 0 0 N a� v x W r C d E r Q Packet Pg. 1607 J.1.h A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing buildin exceeding the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE an exception of up to five (5) feet may be permitted The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five 5 feet and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessaryto meet BFE; and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35-foot height limit that are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE but will require a height exception of more than five (5) feet a public hearing before the Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of an cy ounty ep rmit or approval. The BOCC shall consider: 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; and e. If the new proposed building height will result in - ncreased flood risk; result in - additional threats to public safet • result in extraordinary public ex ense• create - nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4, Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting c structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The t Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable v interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. x W Policy 217.1.5 c Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community E Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating, v cc r r Q 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 -006 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 1608 J.1.h 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; IT 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; c 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; N 4. Key West. Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; Cr 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 t j 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. c m (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and E t replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal 0 m facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and Q disposal systems. 0) 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 -006 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 1609 J.1.h applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems. (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. (l) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida Keys. (m) Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction plan, (n) Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida Keys and maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource. Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle. C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F-S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the x Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual w interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and E t the Planning Commission. � m r r The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall Q review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 1610 J.1.h public hearing. The Planning Conunission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 5. Excerpt of CRS Coordinator's Manual, pages 430 -10 through 430 -15 6. FEMA Lowest Floor Elevation Fact Sheet 7. www.floodsmart.gov basic info on insurance and flood risk 8. What is Freeboard? www.dnr.maryland.gov /CoastSmart 9. Using Freeboard to Elevate structures above Predicted Floodwaters — Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 10. Floodplain Management in Florida Quick Guide, pages 1-28 11. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC meeting (side by side comparison) X w r c m E m r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 1611 J.1.i DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 26, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (l 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 Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Rey Ortiz, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner Supervisor Lori Lehr, Floodplain Administrator Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. Present Present Present Present Present Present Present Present MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the minutes of the April 28, 2015, DRC meeting with one correction of a section number that will be submitted to Ms. Creech. MEETING New Items: 1. 99700 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 99: A public meeting concerning a request for a major deviation to a major conditional use permit. The requested approval is required for the proposed development to increase the existing walk -in cooler and to increase the size of the existing bathrooms which would increase the amount of non - residential floor area on the property. The subject property is legally described as Lazy Lagoon — A revision of Amended Plat of Curry's Corner, Plat Book 2, Page 120 of public records, Monroe County, Section 33, Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in metes and bounds is provided in the application /file), having real estate number 00497540.000000. Packet Pg. 1612 J.1.i (File 2015 -093) (1:01 p.m.) Mr. Ortiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ortiz reported that the applicant is requesting a major deviation to a major conditional use application. The applicant wants to expand the bathroom by approximately six square feet, add a modular component to the rear of the building for a walk -in cooler and expand an existing cooler that is currently within the setbacks on the rear property line. The only criteria not met is regarding the variance requirement that the site is going to need. Mr. Ortiz recommends approval to the Planning Commission with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that the applicant has submitted a variance application. Hany Haroun, the applicant, emphasized that this renovation is necessary. Many hours have been spent with Wendy's International and the County to make this work. The new kitchen configuration in the center of the restaurant is a requirement from Wendy's International, which takes away from the cooler /freezer space and the current storage area. The extension for the sides is due to making the bathrooms ADA compliant. None of this will be visible from the front. The only setback issue is for the cooler /freezer. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, does not object to what is being asked for. Ms. Moses likes the proposed landscaping along the highway. Ms. Moses commented on the poor drainage that exists on the property. Mr. Haroun explained that the main road was built to drain out towards Buttonwood Drive and consequently it floods there all the time. That is on the County right -of- way. The County and State agreed to dig out the French drain and fill it with gravel to address the flooding problems. The tides also affect the drainage in this area. Ms. Santamaria noted when building permits are applied for the applicant will have to comply with the stormwater requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant provide some documentation from Wendy's International to show the hardship imposed on the applicant for purposes of the variance. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant to provide an updated site plan. 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) 2 Packet Pg. 1613 (1:12 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the comp plan update. There were policies to amend the height policies, address the wind turbines, affordable housing and the flood protection. The BOCC asked staff to process this as a separate stand -alone amendment. This was before the DRC in March where a lot of comments were received. The flood protection policy generated concerns about the overall height exception. Staff has proposed a policy that includes the reasons why there would be an exception with a max height limit of 40 feet and it would be to elevate property three feet above base flood elevation (BFE). The exception for new buildings is to exceed BFE, not just to meet it, up to three feet above BFE. The exception for lawfully existing buildings is to either meet or exceed BFE because there are circumstances, depending on the flood zone, where this exception will not allow you to exceed BFE. If it is exceeded, it is only that amount it is exceeded that one gets to go above BFE. Again, it is capped at 40 feet. The exception would not be allowed in high -risk areas. Ms. Santamaria introduced Ms. Lehr and asked for an update and information on flood zones. Ms. Lehr explained that one of her roles is to help the County get into the Community Rating System (CRS) program, which would result in some discount in flood insurance. When property owners voluntarily elevate their properties they get a reduced premium on their flood insurance. For every foot of elevation, the savings is about a quarter of the premium. After the cap of three feet, the discounts fall off. The cost to elevate a property is recouped quickly in flood insurance savings. Ms. Lehr believes the future of the Florida Building Code and other legislation is going to be moving towards the implementation of some sort of freeboard, some sort of elevation requirement above BFE. Ms. Lehr further explained the County is going through a mapping process currently. It will be 2018 before those new maps come out, but the general feeling of those maps is that the elevations in some areas will increase, so the required elevations will increase. Ms. Lehr clarified for Ms. Moses a community has to require a higher regulatory standard above what is required on the flood insurance rate amounts to get CRS credit. Florida in general has some of the highest scoring communities in the nation. Ms. Lehr believes Monroe County is doing a lot of things to address the flooding that will be worth CRS credit. There will be changes in the Florida Building Code coming up in the next couple of years to address BFE. Ms. Santamaria explained the CRS does not address the top height, so the BOCC gave staff direction to look into elevating the height limit so home owners are not squeezed in from the top, causing homes to become smaller and smaller. Ms. Lehr noted that credits are being given for existing buildings being elevated as opposed to rebuilt. The CRS program is very adamant that communities do what is good for their floodplain management and protection of their citizens' investments. Ron Miller, Planning Commissioner and Key Largo resident, questioned why the County has become concerned about someone losing habitable space in their structure, because in URM parking spaces were required to be under homes, which takes away from habitable space. Ms. Santamaria clarified this proposal is not zoning - specific. Mr. Miller feels homeowners should be amenable to some give- and -take in the loss of some habitable space. Mr. Miller believes the people interested in more living space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms. 3 Packet Pg. 1614 J.1.i Santamaria clarified that the BOCC has become aware of the new FEMA maps coming out and want Monroe County to get into the CRS and help the community better protect their property and investments. So they have directed staff to address this issue by allowing people to make that financial choice themselves. The whole intent was to better protect our community. Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf resident, suggested that a definition of "elevate" be proposed. Mr. Hunter mentioned different scenarios of what could fall under the definition of "elevate." Ms. Santamaria said that staff will consider and look into those different scenarios. Ms. Lehr clarified if a bottom floor was knocked out and used for parking with penthouses built on top of the structure, those structures would still be limited by the height restriction from BFE. Ms. Santamaria noted that Policy 101.5.33 is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35 -foot height limit and a top cap of 40 feet is in place unless the owners go to a public hearing before the BOCC. Mr. Hunter then asked for an explanation of why the different numbers of 38 and 40 feet are used. Ms. Santamaria explained that discounts are given for one, two and three feet above BFE. Since discounts are not given above that, the new buildings were capped at 38 feet. The 40 -foot limit was added for existing buildings in case they needed to raise their property a little bit higher because they do not meet base flood today. Ms. Lehr clarified that the flood insurance policy associated with a structure would receive a different rating because of the elevation of that property. The discount for CRS is completely different. The discount for CRS could be in addition to the different rating on the insurance policy for an elevation. Ms. Santamaria noted that no exception will be given to either new or existing structures in AE 10 through VE 10. That came from the comments made at prior DRC meetings about not facilitating redevelopment or new development in higher -risk areas. Mr. Hunter stated he agrees with Mr. Miller about the ability of Monroe County citizens to live under the 35 -foot height limit, but is more sympathetic to the owners of existing homes than to new construction. Mr. Miller is concerned for the properties in such a high AE or VE that they would not be able to develop a home that was attractive. Mr. Miller proposed keeping the 35- foot height limit in the comp plan and allowing for a variance for those so limited that they would not be able to develop something architecturally acceptable to the community. Ms. Santamaria stated it would be difficult to create a variance for architectural or visual issues. There is no real hardship in that instance. Naja Girard, Key West resident, commented that people are more concerned over encouraging new development in AE and VE areas as opposed to elevating existing homes in those areas. Mr. Miller agrees with limiting infrastructure in flood -prone areas, but feels a minimal -size house could be able to punch through the height barrier if the owners could show a hardship when asking for a variance. Ms. Lehr explained that the CRS does not take away points. The CRS program credits activity. Prohibiting development in high -risk areas is credited under the CRS. The emphasis of the program has always been to build safer, more resilient communities. Jim Hendrick was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA) regarding Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef is an isolated and gated community with a distinct community character. The planning process in Ocean Reef is very tough. Mr. Hendrick said Ocean Reef would like the extra five feet for architectural features. The largest concern with this policy for Ocean Reef is its cultural center. The cultural center does not have the head 4 Packet Pg. 1615 J.1.i room needed to be able to house events that could potentially be put on at this facility. Mr. Hendrick asked for a height limit unique to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center, which was built and paid for by the people of Ocean Reef. Another concern that ORCA has is that any multi -story building in existence on the effective date of this policy be able to replace their existing number of stories up to 11 feet slab to slab per story. The Ocean Reef hotels are currently dated with a ceiling height of only eight feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that at the last meeting Joel Reed presented this information on behalf of Ocean Reef Club. Staff had asked for an inventory of existing heights of the various structures throughout Ocean Reef. Nothing has been received to date. Mr. Hendrick will send the complete list to Ms. Santamaria. Mr. Hendrick emphasized this is being asked to apply to Ocean Reef only, which is isolated and does have a distinct community character. Deb Curlee, resident of the Lower Keys, noted that Ocean Reef is still part of Monroe County. Mr. Hendrick replied there is an abundant body of policy already recognizing the unique circumstances of Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef consider proposing an Ocean Reef specific overlay to address height issues in Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick replied Ocean Reef has a very effective self - governance program within the community. Ms. Santamaria asked that the information regarding the various heights as well as the total heights at Ocean Reef be sent in to help staff understand what the request is from Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick then explained for Ms. Girard how Ocean Reef is self - governed. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to punching through the height limit and they feel that the 35 -foot height limit has been accommodating and there is still room for elevating the floodplain. Ms. Girard on behalf of Last Stand stated that a majority of the properties should be able to elevate the buildings as much as needed and still have adequate living space. Last Stand would like to see this turned into a hardship situation that would have to be triggered to go through the height barrier. Mr. Miller asked what would happen to those properties whose flood zone was changed due to the FEMA flood maps. Ms. Santamaria reminded Mr. Miller that no exceptions being given to properties in AE 10 or VE10 or higher was a result of members of the community not wanting to facilitate development of homes within those flood zones. The owners of those properties would have to work within the rules or not build at all. Ms. Santamaria then confirmed for Mr. Hunter that reconstructed structures in Policy 101.5.33 includes those that are demolished and rebuilt. Ms. Santamaria explained that the BOCC resolution that specifies the maximum approved height is done on a building -by- building basis. There is currently no limit to that height because it is not known what would be needed to meet base flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that buildings over 35 feet currently could only rebuild to 35 feet if they were wiped out by a hurricane. Ms. Curlee asked why no caps are placed in Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria replied that building heights would be different depending on how it was measured. Ideas were proposed for the BOCC to consider when making the decision on how high they can go. Mr. Hunter suggested considering the community's desire to limit the height. Ms. Santamaria noted a public hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out. is Packet Pg. 1616 J.1.i Mr. Haroun stated he finds it unreasonable to not allow a condo to be built back up so that no owners would lose their living space. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that is why a flood exception is being proposed for those property owners. Mr. Miller noted that his concern is not whether they can build back what they had or not, but his concern is that the potential for more habitable space in this county is being increased as a result of seeking relief from sea level rise. Ms. Santamaria then stated the affordable housing has been struck from this proposal at this point in time. Staff will work with the BOCC and the Affordable Housing Committee further in that regard. The other item in this stand -alone amendment is the wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility. At the last meeting members of the public asked what the results were from the Keys Energy demonstration project. It was concluded that the wind towers have been proven to be ineffective. Ms. Moses proposed striking this item altogether. Ms. Girard stated on behalf of Last Stand they would like to see the whole exception to the wind turbines stricken. If someone comes forward and proposes a great plan in the future, then it can be looked at with specific considerations in mind. Ms. Santamaria stated the plan is to bring this amendment back to the DRC and get more data for community- specific amendments. It will be brought back as two items: One as a comp plan and an LDR for more discussion and more input. 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR 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) (2:38 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this amendment has stemmed from the comprehensive plan update process. There was a lot of discussion on where to direct and how to direct development in the future and if it is appropriate to go to offshore islands. The BOCC asked staff to remove this from the general comp plan update and process it as a stand -alone amendment. The definition of "offshore island" has been included. The new provision is that TDRs and TREs would not be allowed to transfer to an offshore island. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Attorney Nick Batty was present on behalf of FEB Corporation with respect to Wisteria Island. Mr. Batty stated the issues that FEB has with this proposed amendment pertain to the receiver sites for TREs have to be within a Tier III designated area and must not be an offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 provides that Monroe County shall discourage the development 11 Packet Pg. 1617 J.1.i of offshore islands which have no prior development and have significant upland habitat by discouraging the extension of public facilities and designating the offshore islands as Tier I. That makes a scenario where ROGO exemptions cannot be transferred to those islands and at the same time bumps them down to a Tier I level for the ROGO allocation program. Mr. Batty pointed out there is no definition proposed for "significant upland habitat." Significant upland habitat does not necessarily coincide with environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, areas like Wisteria Island, which does not have significant areas of environmentally sensitive habitat, would by default be lumped in with a Tier I designation, which is contrary to the intent of the code. Bumping them down to a Tier I in terms of the ROGO allocation system and not allowing any transfers of TREs to the area would result in a situation where there would be no beneficial uses for the properties. Mr. Roberts replied that using the blanket and undefined term "significant upland habitat" does not account for the differences in the natural features of those properties and effectuate the intent of the Tier I and Tier III definitions. Ms. Santamaria added that no changes are being proposed to the Tier III criteria for designating any land. Mr. Batty replied that islands which currently do not have a tier designation and would fit whatever the definition is determined to be of "significant upland habitat" and have no prior development would be pushed into that Tier I category without any other consideration. Ms. Santamaria stated no particular tier designation is being proposed for any offshore island. This is simply policy, not property specific. Ms. Santamaria will review this further and consider proposing a definition for "significant upland habitat." Ms. Girard, on behalf of Last Stand, stated it makes very little difference what is on the upland, whether or not there even is upland, because offshore islands are surrounded by shallow waters and environmentally sensitive benthic resources and are important for avian species. Ms. Girard emphasized a survey containing 76 different species of native plants and a report regarding the importance of Wisteria Island for the white crown pigeons a couple of hundred feet away from Wisteria Island are on file with the County. Last Stand thinks it is extremely appropriate that offshore islands be given Tier I designations and that they not be considered as receiver sites because they are inappropriate for development in a county that has a limited number of ROGOs and is basically facing build -out. Ms. Santamaria clarified that this is not a property - specific amendment. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that the tier designations are based on upland habitat. Mr. Roberts clarified for Ms. Girard that native areas that provide corridors or wildlife access between other larger native areas are part of the Tier I designation. Mr. Batty pointed out it is important to make sure the intent of the code is being effectuated. Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. Ms. Santamaria stated staff will review all the comments made and will look at defining "significant upland habitat" and bring this back to the DRC for one more round of public input before taking it to the Planning Commission. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. 7 Packet Pg. 1618 J.1.j 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: August 17, 2015 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: August 25, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 and May 26, 2015 Ln N I. REQUEST o U The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendments to create o Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef y community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit c in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. 9 Ln 0 N a+ II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION W 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 W (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to c review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was E 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 a hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 9 J.1.j 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, 20t5, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. IIL ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ade are defined as follows: 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. i Ln Li N co 0 U 0 co W 0 0 Ln 0 N a+ t C1 W x W c (D E s v a File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 9 J.1.j 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. Height limit 4 35- 30 For this example, a 3 story home may be developed i within the 35 foot height limit and the Flood zone of AE 5ft ¢ 10 - Crown of Road 5f? Crown of the road Mtural Elevador` aft ' ire relation to mean sea level AE W 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 In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection I LO 7 LO N co 0 U D co W 0 0 Ln 0 N a+ as W x w c aD E s v trs Q File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 9 J.1.j IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are strie�� and additions are underlined Policy 101.45.2630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure including mechanical equipment, but excluding; spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys' radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. Exceptions y4fl- he- ail-AW.A. for- uPp't'r`4efianees to buildings, tFansmission towers and other- similm sinjew . In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a master pl 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, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 height limit), not exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet, to promote public health safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm sure and other hazards protect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; -minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5 ) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. 0 0 0 0 0 W. 0 0 a 0 X aD E x R IL CL E 0 U Ln LO N co 0 U D N W 0 0 LO 0 N t W W x w c aD E s a Pile 2015 -006 Page 4 of 9 J.1.1 LDR Section XXX: 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 hei ht 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 S exceed 38 feet in height; and ° 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 a required BFE an exception of a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height ' a 0 limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than ° the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE 1p us up to three (3) feet of voluntary o elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existing building be elevated to exceed a c total building height of 40 feet, a 3. No exeeption shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet, and X 4. No exception shall be provided to properties located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or g reater FEMA flood zone. E LDR Section XXX• x Elevate means the action of retrofitting, moving or raising a building to a higher positon. a CL E Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above the ° round level by foundation walls shear walls posts, piers, pilings, or columns. U LO i 7 Floodproofing means any combination of structural or nonstructural changes or N adjustments included in the design, construction, or alteration of a building that o reduce or eliminate flood damage to the building and its contents. 0 Relocation means in retrofitting), the process of moving a building to a new location co outside the flood hazard area. o LO Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its N exposure to flooding and raise the living area above flood levels. In general retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or 2M M extendinLy the existing foundation below it or leaving the building in place and either w constructing a new elevated floor system within the building or adding a new upper w story and converting the round level to a compliant enclosure that is used only for C _ parking, building access, or storage. E s Retroflaink means making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or R a other hazards. File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 9 J.1,1 Policy 141.5.33 As of the effective date of this poliu, a lawfully established existing building, which exceeds the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, may be repaired, improved or reconstructed (demolished and rebuilt) to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE), provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. For buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet a public hearing before the Board of Count Commissioners shall be required prior to issuance of any county or approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. LDR Section As provided in Policy 101.5.33 lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed demolished and rebuilt to meet the FEMA BFE pLovided the building is limited to the lawfully established existin intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing building exceeding the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfull__ established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE, an exception of a maximum of five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE; and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE but will require a height exception of more than five (5, ) feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commission sball be required prior to issuance of any county ep rmit or approval. The BOCC shall consider: 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, nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public; and f. Community character. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. s 0 0 CL 0 0 0 CL aD 0 x E x R IL CL E 0 LO U i N co 0 U D CO CD 0 0 Ln 0 N a+ m x w c (D E s v R Q File 2015 -006 Page 6 of 9 J.1.j V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. 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. i Ln ui N 00 0 U D co W 0 0 un 0 N W x W c (D E Q File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 9 J.1.j (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 the Part II of Chapter 1163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to Ln ui N 00 0 U D co W 0 0 Ln 0 N W c (D E Q File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 9 J.1.j ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & E Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board a� of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the = proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida a Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then E reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon p receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments i with changes or not adopt the amendment. "' N VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION 00 U D VIII. EXHIBITS co co 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing to 0 9 LO 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report c 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe X County W 7. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC meeting (side by side comparison) E 8. Chapter 5.0 Elevating Your Home, excerpt from FEMA's Homeowner's Guide To Retrofitting R 9. Ocean Reef Club request and data. a File 2015 -006 Page 9 of 9 J.1.k DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 25, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1 floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Roberts announced Items 5 and 6 will be heard first. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Roberts deferred approval of minutes to the next DRC meeting. MEETING New Items: 5. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING Packet Pg. 1628 J.1.k FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) Mr. Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts reported that while working on the comp plan update the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to pull the proposed changes for further review and submit as a separate amendment. The proposed text amendment has been reviewed at two prior DRC meetings. Policy 101.5.30 adds mechanical equipment to the 35 -foot limit while excluding certain structures. There are no exceptions to the height limitation in Airport districts. Policy 101.5.31 for Ocean Reef, which is a gated and isolated community with a distinct community character, includes non - habitable architectural decorative features that exceed the 35 -foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed five feet above the building's roof line. There are Land Development Code amendments to reflect these policies. Policy 101.5.32 provides that certain buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35 -foot height limit. New buildings voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE may exceed the 35 -foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed 35 feet and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and /or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, asked for the rationale for the difference of an extra two feet between an existing building and a new building. Mr. Coyle explained that it is to allow a homeowner more room to get into compliance and go up. Mr. Hunter then asked for clarification on the definition of "retrofit." Mr. Roberts stated that retrofitting means making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. Demolition and reconstruction of a new structure would not fit within that definition. Dottie Moses, on behalf of the Federation of Homeowners Association, stated that the Federation consistently maintains its opposition to raising the height limit. Ms. Moses asked who is requesting the height increase. Mr. Roberts replied that this amendment was staff- initiated at the direction of the BOCC. Ms. Moses believes that the recent change in the code that allows setbacks being used for parking in URM zones will result in another floor of bedrooms being added under this amendment, which will increase density. The hurricane evacuation issue is always a concern in the community, also. Ms. Moses then asked where the exception provided for properties located in the AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zones originated. Ms. Schemper will look into that for Ms. Moses. Ms. Schemper added that this item will be brought back to the DRC one more time. Joel Reid, on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and Ocean Reef Community Association, commented that these two associations have asked for height changes to address their community concerns. Mr. Reid expressed disappointment that some items Ocean Reef has been asking for have not been included in the staff report. Mr. Reid then asked for clarification regarding architectural elements exceeding 40 feet under Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Schemper explained that Policy 101.5.33 applies to lawfully established buildings that are already over 35 feet high. The intent is if it was a pre- existing feature, then the BOCC could approve it, but if it is a proposed architectural 2 Packet Pg. 1629 J.1.k feature an exception would not be given if it is over 40 feet. Mr. Reid stated Ocean Reef would like some protection in order for residents to be able to build back their structures without losing their views. Ms. Schemper pointed out that this amendment is to protect what is already in existence while also meeting the flood requirements. The existing intensity or density type of use would be protected. Policy 101.5.33 does not specifically address increasing slab -to -slab heights. That would have to be approved by the BOCC if over 40 feet. The mechanism of going through the approval process to the BOCC has not been thoroughly fleshed out. That would be in the Land Development Code portion of the amendment. Mr. Reid asked how rebuilding and doing modifications to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center and boat storage area would be handled. Ms. Schemper responded that the full amount of data in those issues has not been received by staff at this point. 6. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -007) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is another item originally contemplated during the comp plan update. Staff was directed by the BOCC to pull it out as a separate text amendment. This was already reviewed at two DRC meetings and has been continued to this meeting to get additional public review, input and discussion. The proposed changes are about where development in terms of TDRs and the transfer of ROGO exemptions are directed. Existing Policy 101.5.8 allows for the transfer of units based on certain criteria. The new policy expands the criteria and has additional standards to utilize the tier system. The sender site must be located in Tier I, II, or III -A, or any tier designation if it is within the military installation impact overlay. The receiver site must have a future land use category ability and zoning district that allows the use, must meet the adopted density standards, include all infrastructure, be located within Tier III and may not be within a V zone or a CBRS unit. The comprehensive plan specifies specific habitat types and the certain zoning districts that were allowed on sender site TDRs. The offshore island zoning category is specifically identified as an eligible sender site. The new proposed policy utilizes the tier designation to specify the sender site because this already accounts for both habitat types and zoning districts that were in the existing policy. The new policy states only parcels designated Tier III can be receiver sites and they must have an adopted maximum net density standard, which would be based on their zoning category. Ms. Schemper reviewed Policy 206.1.2, which prohibits development on offshore islands, and the definition of significant native upland habitat. This item will be brought back to the DRC one more time. Julie Dick with Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Florida Keys Environmental Fund and Last Stand, believes Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and is addressed somewhere else in the 3 Packet Pg. 1630 J.1.k comp plan. Ms. Dick suggested eliminating the entire policy because any confusion resulting from this policy leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Ms. Dick supports Policy 101.6.8 in making sure that offshore islands are not receiver sites. Bart Smith, Esquire, commented that generally he appreciates the revisions made to the obtaining and transferring of TDRs. On behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith stated most of the receiver site criteria in the staff report seems very logical. Mr. Smith does not, however, feel that the sixth criteria that blanketly prohibits offshore islands from being receiver sites is logical because there is not any data and analysis identifying the reasons why an offshore island cannot be a receiver site. Mr. Smith feels that the definition of "significant native upland habitat" is a well- thought -out definition. Mr. Smith stated everything in the proposed ordinance makes logical sense and is conforming except for the blanket prohibition of offshore islands. Naja Girard, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, addressed Mr. Smith's comments by responding that one thing different about offshore islands is that shallow waters surround the offshore islands and include benthic resources that the comp plan directs the County to protect. Encouraging development on offshore islands would require the acceptance of all the boating traffic that would be created as a result of that development. Ms. Girard agrees that Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and changes the normal way offshore islands are designated Tier I, which could result in confusion on its interpretation. Ms. Girard believes this weakens the protection of all offshore islands. Ms. Girard also believes there is not accurate data on what actually exists on these islands. L AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) AND COMMERCIAL FISHING AREA (CFA) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940.000100, AND FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL 2 (C2) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000, AS PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2012 -069) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this item is a zoning amendment to accompany a FLUM amendment which has already been transmitted by the BOCC to DEO. Staff has received the objections, recommendations and comments report on the FLUM amendment. DEO's objection was that it was increasing the potential residential 4 Packet Pg. 1631 J.1.k development and should be revised to allow other residential uses. The original deadline for adopting that FLUM amendment was September 19, but staff has asked for an extension based on the applicant's delay and the new deadline is March 15, 2016. The current zoning amendment would be required to match the FLUM amendment. The applicant is required to revise the total FLUM amendment to include a comp plan policy that would limit any residential development on the site to affordable housing only. This affects only the northernmost L- shaped parcel on the map. The southern parcels are proposed to become commercial with no residential density. Today's discussion concerns the zoning portion of the amendment. The net change in development for the entire site will actually be a reduction in residential density. The Big Coppitt portion of the site would have an increase in affordable residential, but the proposed comp plan policy will limit all residential development to affordable housing on that site. Staff has found that any impact is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on community character. Staff has found no adverse effects for traffic circulation. There is sufficient capacity for the public facilities for potential development under this zoning amendment. Staff has found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to be consistent with the proposed FLUM amendment that the BOCC has already recommended and transmitted to the State. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. This is contingent on the adoption of the FLUM amendment. Deb Curlee, resident of Cudj oe Key, asked what the Navy has to say about this amendment. Ms. Schemper replied that the portion of affordable housing is actually in the noise zone at the greatest distance compared to the rest of the property. Bart Smith, Esquire, agreed and added that the requirement to sound - attenuate to the level the Navy requests is specifically written in to the site - specific zoning. 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (RC) TO RECREATION (R) AND CONSERVATION (C), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR 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 AND FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -047) 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM NATIVE AREA (NA) TO PARKS AND REFUGE (PR) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, Packet Pg. 1632 MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABIL.ITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -048) Ms. Schemper presented the staff reports. Ms. Schemper reported that these two amendments are FLUM and zoning amendments that coordinates with one another for a parcel within Ocean Reef proposed by Ocean Reef Club. The site is 11 acres and currently has a FLUM designation of Residential Conservation with a zoning category of Native Area. The property owners would like to develop a park on a portion of the site and are requesting to change the FLUM to 9.5 acres of Conservation and a little over 1.5 acres of Recreation for the FLUM and, corresponding to that, 9.5 acres of Conservation zoning and 1.5 acres of Park and Refuge zoning. The density and intensity change for this amendment would be a decrease in both residential and non - residential density and intensity. There is no adverse impact on community character and no additional impact foreseen for any of the public facilities. Staff has found both proposed amendments would be consistent with the comp plan and the Land Development Code and is consistent with the principles for guiding development. These amendments support Ocean Reef's desire to increase some of the park and recreational space within the community based on an increase in the number of families with children currently in their community. If the corresponding FLUM amendment is transmitted to the State and adopted, then the zoning plan would be required to remain consistent with the FLUM. Staff is recommending approval of the FLUM amendment from Residential Conservation to Conservation and Recreation and staff is recommending approval of the zoning amendment from Native Area to Parks and Refuge and Conservation district. The zoning recommendation would be contingent on the approval and effectiveness of the proposed FLUM amendment that corresponds with this. Joel Reid, the representative of the applicant, stated that Ocean Reef Club is always looking to enhance the community's experience and meet their needs for the community members. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, asked whether Mr. Roberts had any concern with clearing of upland habitat of protected species of 1.71 acres for the sole purpose of providing a park for homeowners. Mr. Roberts replied that the applicant is required to coordinate directly with U.S. Fish & Wildlife for the protection of these species. The County's clearing requirements would fall back to the original development orders for Ocean Reef Club because it is not dictated by the tier clearing limits in the code. 4. PL OCEAN RESIDENCES, 97801 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO, MILE MARKER 98: A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 24 ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS DESIGNATED AS 11 Packet Pg. 1633 J.1.k AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00090810.000000, 00090820.000000, 00090840.000000, 00090840.000100, AND 00090860.000000. (File 2015 -049) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is a request for a minor conditional use permit which is required because the applicant is requesting to develop 24 attached dwelling units. Within the Urban Residential zoning category that use requires a minor conditional use permit. The development is reviewed by staff as a whole for consistency sake. The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached dwelling units as market rate housing. The site's current characteristics and zoning were described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units. Ms. Schemper then listed the categories where staff has found either compliance is still to be determined or the site was found not in compliance. Compliance with the residential ROGO is to be determined because at the time of the building permit is when the applicant applies for their ROGO allocations. An additional eight market rate ROGO allocations and 24 affordable housing ROGO allocations would be needed. Permitted uses is listed as not in compliance because the attached residential dwelling units are permitted with the condition that sufficient common areas for recreation are provided to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be developed. Compliance is to be determined on residential density and maximum floor area because the site requires 7.6 transferred development rights which are done at the time of the building permit. Compliance is to be determined on required open space because the calculations were not comparable of the upland area on the site plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the indicated shoreline setbacks were either incorrect or not clearly depicted on the site plan. Ms. Schemper continued to report that most of the non - shoreline setbacks are in compliance at this point, but the setback lines shown on the site plan are not necessarily the correct lines in every situation. The surface water management will be dealt with for full compliance at the time of permit application. Mr. Roberts noted that there was conflicting information on the site plan regarding the depth to ground water. Ms. Schemper continued to report that there are inconsistencies on the site plan regarding the height of the fencing and privacy wall. The privacy wall shown on the site plan separates the site completely between the attached units and the detached units, which basically turns the parcel into two separate developments and they would each need to meet all of the land development regulations on their own. Some sort of connection is needed between the two. Compliance for flood plain, energy conservation and potable water is to be determined, as well as environmental design criteria and mitigation, at the building permit stage. The required parking is also affected by the separation between the two types of units on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces is sufficient if the site is viewed as a whole. The required bufferyards are not in compliance because the site plan shows some incorrect bufferyards. Mr. Roberts added that the property was rezoned from URM to UR and the URM boundary buffers are being shown. 7 Packet Pg. 1634 J.1.k Ms. Schemper continued to report that the square footage of the signage proposed has some issues and recommended that the signage be done separately as part of the fence permit at the time of the building permit. The access is currently under review by the County's traffic consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U.S.1, but also needs to comply with FDOT standards. Compliance is to be determined on inclusionary housing at the time of the building permit because when the tenth permanent market rate unit gets its certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy is required on at least three of the affordable housing units, and a proportional increase continues accordingly throughout the development. Given all of those items, staff still recommends approval. A list of 22 conditions required are listed in the staff report. Jorge Cepero, present on behalf of the applicant, clarified that there is still one structure, a gatehouse, in the front of the property that was not demolished. Robert Ginter, owner of an adjoining property, is concerned about the fencing and buffers to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schemper explained that there are quite a few buffers on the site plan. There is an access off of First Street for a portion of the property. Ms. Schemper will make the site plan available to Mr. Ginter at the end of today's meeting. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, is concerned that this is the one time that the public has a chance to review this proposal and there are so many items still not deemed to be in compliance. Ms. Schemper explained that there is a 30 -day notice that goes out that says the Planning Director intends to issue the minor conditional use permit, as well as a legal ad. The Planning Director's decision will not be made until these items are all fulfilled. The revised proposal will be available through the Planning Department. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. E3 Packet Pg. 1635 J.1.1 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Mayt6 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 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) Meeting: October 27, 2015 - continued from March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015 & August 25, 2015 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. i LO N O r U D co W 0 0 LO 0 N a+ t C1 00 x W C W E Q File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 8 J.1.1 The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. i LO N 0 U 0 co W 0 0 LO 0 N co x W c W E R Q File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 8 J.1.1 III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT• In unincorporated Monroe County, height and Wade are defined as follows: 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. Height limit b35- *! D For this example, a 3 story home may be developed ZQ . within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE Sft crown of Rood 51t• Crown of the road Natural Elevation 3tt • Ili relatlop to mean No lewd AE 5' The vertical distance between grade (crown of ro ad 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 + feet I r; N 0 U D N co 0 0 0 N t 7' t ao K W C W E t V «s Q File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 8 J.1.1 In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are strieken through and additions are underlined } Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately. Policy 101.451630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure including mechanical equipment but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television antennas: flagpoles, apparatus utility poles and/or transmission towers, certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations except as specifically ermitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. E*eepfiens will be allowed fer- appuf4enanees to buildings, tFmsmissiali towers and other- simila s4metums: In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a master planned community which is gated inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials railings widow's walk,_parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policv 101.5.30 but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof line This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subiect to a master plan or other development order approved by the coup where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. i Ln N 0 U 0 co W 0 0 Ln 0 N t C1 t co x W c W E R Q File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 8 J.1.1 Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101 5 30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare, 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 mitiiate rising flood insurance premiums A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings, which exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, to promote public health safety and general welfare: allow adaptation to coastal flooding storm surge and other hazards, 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, mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired improved retrofitted or redeveloped to meet required FEMA base flood elevation FE 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 For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum Uproved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. c 0 0 CL 0 0 L 0 c 0 CL (D 0 X (D E x c R a CL E 0 Ln v i N O r U 0 co W 0 0 Ln 0 N co x W c W E 0 R Q File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 8 J.1.1 Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. 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. R a Strengthening local (a ) gt g government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local CL E � government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern v designation. -- (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, LO wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical c vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. v (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. W (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and 0 9 ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. C ° ,i (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; x w 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; W E 5. Transportation facilities; t 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; Q 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and File 2015 -006 Page 6 of 8 J.1.1 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. 0) 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 the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. V1. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual i LO ti N _O U 0 co W O O LO 0 N co x W c W E R Q File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 8 J.1.1 interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 8. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 9. Ocean Reef Club request and data. i LO N 0 U D co W 0 0 LO 0 N a+ t C1 t co K W C W E t V R Q File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 8 J.1.m 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. 1644 1.1.rrs 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. 1645 J.1.m 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. 1646 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. 1647 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. 1648 J.1.m 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. 1649 J.1.rn 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. 1650 J.1.m 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. 1651 J.1.n 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, 2016 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVER-ABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File # 2015 -006) Meeting: January 26, 2016 - continued from March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015 and October 27, 2015 I. REQUEST The Monroe County PIanning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 12 X W Z.; c m E a Packet Pg. 1652 J.1.n 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing, Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 1653 DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ade are defined as follows: 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 2 00 7. 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 -006 Page 3 of 12 Packet Pg. 1654 J.1.n Height limit +3 - * N For this example, a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AF 5ft Ctowt of Road 5ft' Crown of the road natural Elevation aft Ir reldtlon to mew sea level M 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 In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeysl 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) Jonathan T. Lockman, AICP Samuel B. Merrill, PhD Alexander Gray, MS CATALYSIS ADAPTATION PARTNERS, LLC 1 242 Sawyer Street, South Portland, ME 04106 18 November 20155 a g ERIN L. BEADY, P,A. Catalysis Entire report can be accessed here: http:// fl- i noiiroecountyclimate .civicplus.com /DocumentCentei /103 File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 12 W C W E V Q Packet Pg. 1655 J.1.n 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 A daptation to Sea level rise T ool (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 over time 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. Working with 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 for "no-action" and three (3) adaptation action scenarios: 1) Elevating and floodproofing buildings; 2) building barriers close to shore; 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'. Those projections included a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2030 of 3" and 7" respectively, as well as a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2060 of 9" and 24" respectively. As requested by workshop participants, a lower sea level rise projection was also employed in the analysis based only on 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, for a very low scenario of sea level rise of 1.82" in 2030 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 ' Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties, Sea Level Rise Ad Hoc Technical Working Group (April 2011). File 201 5 -006 Page 5 of 12 X W r C d E t m r r Q Packet Pg. 1656 0 • 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 coast 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 it cost to implement them. Ratios less than 1 represented actions that would cost more than the amount of reduced damages in the future (i.e., not cost effective). The action that had the best benefit -cost ratio was elevating and floodproofing 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 (meaning for every $1.00 spent on elevating and floodproofing, the avoided damages would range from $5.48 to $13.70), depending on the sea level rise scenario (high, low or tide gauge trend) and construction cost estimates (high and low). Building barriers had the second highest benefit -cost ratios, but with all results below 1 (0.40 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 floodproofing buildings was their most preferred action. In addition, residents thought the County should pursue sources of funding to help private property owners 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 regarding their 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 Cr 4) resulting from this work tend to open difficult conversations about exactly what is most important to a 0 community in planning how to adapt to sea level rise and future storm surges. r X W 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 E this information to: m r r • Further discuss sea level rise vulnerability with County residents and the importance of having a Q method to weigh different adaptation actions against one another (benefit -cost analysis) File 2015 -006 Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 1657 J.1.n • 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. Ci APPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPOSED STRATEGIES 6.1 KEYPAo POLLING RESuLTs FROM C OMMUNITY W ORKSHOP #2 GreenKEYSI Keypad Polling Results from the COAST community modeling exercise conducted November 5 2014 at the Nelson Government Center In Key Largo, FL Question NI: Currently in Key Largo, 4016 of properties are already elevated. What percentage of additional Key Largo V zone buildings do you want to see elevated In this model? 1 a 25% 9 29% Question 1 b 50% 2 6% 20 14 d The draft Input of 1009i 14 4596 2 blank 4 13% 0 0 Total 31 100% black Question #2: What percentage of Key Largo A -zone buildings do you want to see floodpronfed in this model? 2 a 25% 2 6% Questien 2 b 50% 5 16% 20 16 c 75% 4 13% to d The draft input of 100% 16 52% z 5 a m blank 4 13% 0 Total 31 100% Question 03: Currentiy in Key Largo, new buildings are required to be elevated to the 100 -year flood elevation, which ranges from 6 to 1S feet across the Key. For parcels that will be elevated In the model, do you want them to be elevated up to this code or to something higher? 3 a Up to current code 12 39% Question 3 b Up to current code plus 1 3 10% za 1z 15 C Up to current code plus 3 is 49% 10 blank 1 3% Total 31 100% 0 a b t blank Question p4: The model estimates floodproofing to a certain height. How high would you like to see parcels floodproofed? a s 1 ft o 0% Question 4 b 3 ft 8 26% zo 16 c 5 ft 3 10% 10 i � d The draft input of 8 ft 16 52% 0 3 a bl�n� 4 13% 0 Total 31 100% a b t d Wank 29 File 2015-006 Page 7 of 12 LD r tc N T " O U D U) LD O O t[2 r O N r t t31 Z t O r X LU C d E V tts Q Packet Pg. 1658 J.1.n IV, PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are st-risken thfe and additions are underlined Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately. Policy 101.45.2630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure including mechanical equipment, but excludin spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only; chimneys radio and /or television antennas, flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and /or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and /or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. Rxeeptions will be allevved for- appui4enaiiees to buildings, . In the case of airport districts there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the communily including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members.. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 11. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote up biic 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 floodin • minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up _to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be File 2015 -006 Page S of 12 c 0 r cs a� r 0 a 0 0 0 r a a� X 0 E r a� x c �a (L CL 0 U cc N r O U a 0 a U) cc 0 0 0 N r t Cl 0 r X W r C d a Packet Pg. 1659 J.1.n voluntarily elevated up to three 3 feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this 12olicy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit to 12rornote p ublic health safe 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 floodin • minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and/or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensi1y, floor area building envelo a floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfull established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Board of Count Commissioners shall be re aired to review and s ecif the maximum a roved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 217.1.5 Z Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community c Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 r rating. w r c 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 Iife and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements 2 contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage Q caused by storms. File 2015 -006 Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 1660 J.1.n 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; Ix U) 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; o 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; q 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; r 5. Transportation facilities; c ° 14 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; W 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and 0 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. r X W (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and c replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal E 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 Q 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 File 2015 -006 Page 10 of 12 Packet Pg. 1661 J.1.n (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 the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.) Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual e r interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and x process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and w the Planning Commission, m E The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & a Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the File 2015 -006 Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 1662 J.1.n testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 8. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report 4. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes 10. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 11. Ocean Reef Club request and data. X W r C d E t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 1663 J.1.n EXHIBIT 1 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? Debbie: 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. 5o 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 Page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 1664 J.1.n 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 x that's in there ... w r c m Commissioner Carruthers: the institutional language ... E t 0 Joel Reed: Yeah. This is additional language, as we were talking about that five foot that was in there, that we r were supportive of. You know, we started to talk about the hotels and the aging and the issues and if we did try Q and rebuild them back, what that would look like in the loss of rooms and the development that's there Page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 1665 J.1.n Mayor Murphy: Do we have a public speaker on this? Lindsay Ballar We do. Mayor Murphy: Let's hear the public speaker. Another one. Lindsay Ballard: D.A. Aldridge 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 asking at this time to have you not vote on this. We have not had the opportunity to look at the language that has been just handed to you and we feel that it needs to be reviewed very closely by the staff and by you because this is a huge change that they are requesting. Thank you. Mayor Murphy:... That's it Commissioner Kolhage: What does the, in the final sentence when they talk about assembly group Al and so forth, what does that mean? We don't know. Mayor Murphy: Well they haven't seen it yet. This is the problem with this. Well we have seen that he emailed it but we asked questions. We didn't know what he meant by that. 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. Commissioner Rice: Could we not deal with this today and deal with it in January? If you want us to address his comments, I just say get direction from the board at this point. We work on some type of language to bring back to you in January. Commissioner Rice: I think that's what we should do. Mayor Murphy: And what happens if we then want to make changes in January? Do we hold up the whole process? I think you can legally make changes on the floor by motion before we transmit. Bob Shillinger: As long as you're not changing the general substance of it. The general tone of it. 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 Packet Pg. 1666 J.1.n 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 from the holidays. Commissioner Neugent: Oh my gosh we might have to do a little work. around. No, that's not what I meant. It's just that even your regular board meetings got all shifted Commissioner Neugent: Have it at the board meeting. End of the item discussion for a board meeting. Okay. We can do that. Mayor Murphy: We can do that. Commissioner Neugent: Another things that's in this right here as I read it, for clarification purposes, "architectural decorating features that exceed the thirty five foot height limit but such features shall not exceed five feet above the structures roof line" Joel also mentioned that some of these buildings are already, I guess 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 non- conforming? Or thirty five feet, shall not exceed five feet above thirty five feet? That's not the way I necessarily interpret that. Mayor Murphy: Because if it's the fifty four foot building, we're now at fifty nine... It's not though. This is meant for new development that cannot exceed thirty five feet. Commissioner Neugent: Well what happens ... 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 feet, be allowed to rebuild to that height plus... Commissioner Neugent: I didn't hear anybody bring that up... That's really what he is asking though. Commissioner Rice: Weil that's what this really says Page 4 of 12 Packet Pg. 1667 J.1.n Mayor Murphy: Pius 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... Mayor Murphy: Well his language is kind of going in a figure eight. Commissioner Kolhage: I understand what they are saying. In other words, he wants to maintain what they have now with an adjustment. Yes. I think that's what he is asking. Commissioner Kolhage: And I think that is reasonable. Mayor Murphy: To replace a building, an older building that was built over thirty five feet, have a problem with that anywhere in Monroe County. It is what it is, we're all used to it, it's part of the landscape. Commissioner Neugent: Clarification on what you just said Mayor Murphy: I do not object to any of the older buildings that were built above thirty five feet. We all have them in our neighborhoods. If they need to be replaced or have to be replaced, I don't have a problem with them maintaining the height. Commissioner Neugent: Hold on a minute there. Is there anything in our code, and I would use this as an analogy, FEMA's description of it, if its damaged by more than fifty percent, it has to be rebuilt, that is there anything in our code or Comp Plan that says that it then can be built over thirty five feet? Mayor Murphy: No, No. 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 conform to the new code, which is the thirty five foot height limit. And if it's destroyed beyond fifty percent under the floodplain rules, they have to raise the elevation and that's why they added this other position. 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 what Commissioner Murphy just said ... You can't. That is what Joel is asking you to change. Page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 1668 J.1.n 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 1055.32. 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 Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 1669 J.1.n 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 I(olhage: 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 Kolhage: So you don't have an objection to it? Mayor Murphy: Not to that. I have an objection to the decorative features. Commissioner I(olhage: Okay but look, if it's, if they got a fifty foot building and there is a five foot adjustment for base flood elevation, you don't have a problem with them going to fifty five feet? Mayor Murphy: No. Commissioner Kolhage: Okay. Mayor Murphy: They are going to what they were before the remodel ... and you want it county wide not just for Ocean Reef? Mayor Murphy: Yes. Commissioner Carruthers: But only for flood mitigation... Mayor Murphy: That's it, no decorative stuff. Well right now the decorative is in, the flood is in... Commissioner Carruthers: Well the decorative is in for Ocean Reef only, the flood is in for everyone. Right? Yeah and the decorative is not so much what Joel is talking about relative to the bigger commercial buildings, its more for the single family homes that want the decorative features on top of the roof. They are separate issues really. So right now in the draft policy you have included an extra five feet in Ocean Reef for the decorative architectural features, you've included for the whole county up to five feet adjustments for flood protection, raising your elevations, and Joel is asking you to also include, for Ocean Reef, but it sounds like you at least have one Commissioner who wants to do it county wide for grandfathering existing buildings that are higher than thirty five feet and allowing them to get the flood adjustment. Bob Shillinger: You'd want to vest them for that height is what I'm hearing. Yup. But I don't know the Commissions, I'm not getting... Page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 1670 J.1.n 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 Rice: 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 today that did not exist then. understand what you all are asking for so if you want to just move on without voting, we will draft language and bring it back for discussion on one of your regular agendas. Commissioner Neugent: Let me point this out, as someone who operated out of an illegal non - conforming building, if you think that it is something that is, it was called Porky's restaurant, and if would have been destroyed by a storm, I would have had a very difficult time, if not impossible time to rebuild with the same amount of square footage because of setbacks that came into play after Porky's was built eons ago. So if you think that there is a fairness level here, there is really a lot of situations where you can't rebuild. Commissioner Carruthers: but wouldn't you have been able to apply for variances and exceptions to those setbacks... No. Commissioner Neugent: You still would have had to meet the setback requirements. You could apply for variance for a setback but not height. Mayor Murphy: See well all we are talking about is height. Not their setbacks. Not anything else. Commissioner Kolhage: We're talking about changing the whole concept of the fifty percent rule. No I understand .... Commissioner Kolhage: How does it work? For height...we're saying we're washing away the fifty percent rule. Well other things enter into ....for height you would be washing it away. Bob Shillinger: As a trigger for bringing it into compliance with current code There are still other things that apply to that but most of those can be remedied by a variance Commissioner Carruthers: and just to clarify what you are eluding to I think, Commissioner, is that someone can elevate their building now. And that's not necessarily fifty percent improvement. Right? Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 1671 J.1.n 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 Commissioner Carruthers: Everybody gets a smaller unit which is still going to be an issue so ... That's under our current rules. Commissioner Rice: And what we're trying to do is validate, you don't want to build a fifty year building or sixty year building without accommodating expected sea level rise Commissioner Carruthers: i guess my only other comment is that I know that this is going to be controversial and people are going to be concerned about character and things like that... Mayor Murphy: But it's already there. Commissioner Carruthers: Well it is already there... Mayor Murphy: So it's not changing the landscape... 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 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. Mayor Murphy: Alright listen we're going to take a break ......................................................................... ............................... Mayor Murphy: And what I realized is we neglected to give Christine a head nod one way or the other on the non - habitable architectural decorative features. My comment was, I will vote for the increase in height but not for the decorative features. Discuss it and let her know which direction you would like her to take when she does her staff report. Commissioner Carruthers: Are you talking about within Ocean Reef or County wide? Mayor Murphy: They are the only ones that asked for it. Commissioner Carruthers: I don't really care. Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 1672 J.1.n 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. 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... They have talked about it, I am very clear, everyone is okay with that. Ocean Reef only, decorative features, five additional feet. And I didn't hear, I heard Murphy say she's opposed to it but I didn't hear what any of you other Commissioners thought of that. Mayor Murphy: And that's what I am trying to bring out so that she knows where to go with it. Commissioner Neugent: I thought I heard you ask, you wanted a head nod whether this was going to be proposed just for Ocean Reef or all of unincorporated Monroe County. you all. I had never heard that the decorative features was proposed for all of Monroe County from Commissioner Rice and Commissioner Kolhage respond in unison: No, no Commissioner Neugent: Okay but I also heard Commissioner Mayor Murphy say, I'm not going to treat them any different than the rest of the County. Commissioner Rice: Well that gives you a slight clue as to how she might vote. 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 existing structures that are already over thirty five feet to be able to be replaced with the five foot flood 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 wide, which I had never heard as an option to this moment. Commissioner Kolhage: Let me just state my position on this and you can go down the line I guess but I really 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 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. 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 Packet Pg. 1673 J.1.n 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 Meridian West could have had another floor which would have increased the housing if they had gone up an additional foot or so. So again, more information to discuss that strictly for affordable housing. 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 discussed it as staff after you had that meeting. It's our opinion that if you are going to incentivize affordable housing development by giving them a higher height limit that you should restrict that to very low and low maybe median, but the moderate income level is something that we do not think should be incentivized with a height increase. Commissioner Neugent: One of the biggest problems in dealing with affordable housing is the property to build them on. Another reason why I think the discussion should take place for affordable housing to go up is that if you can build more on that specific site as opposed to trying to find other properties to build affordable housing on. It helps resolve that part of the equation. Commissioner Kolhage: So what are you going to do with that Christine? Between now and January? Do you want us to include something for you to consider relative to affordable in the next version that we bring to you at your regular meeting for discussion? Commissioner Rice: I do. Commissioner Carruthers: I do. Okay. Commissioner Kolhage: I remain to be convinced... Commissioner Rice: I'm not sure how I feel about it but I think we do need to have the discussion. And I'm going to have some diagrams for you all by the next meeting with each policy so you can see what that means. Commissioner Carruthers: Will you also, related to this policy with affordable, that would have to be in very specific tiered areas obviously. Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 1674 J.1.n I understand. I will bring that also. Commissioner Kolhage: It's all about potential serious community character issues here. X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 1675 J.1.n 4 EXHIBIT 2 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Sehemper, Comprehensive PIanning Manager Date: March 17, 2015 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE /WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND /OR MEDIAN INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: March 24, 2015 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the o height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by x a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features w within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property fron flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and E E create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and /or median income categories on properties designated as tier 3. Q File 2015 -006 Page] of 20 Packet Pg. 1676 J.1.n II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101. 5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed 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. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ade are defined as follows: 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 o structures used for institutional and /or public uses only; radio and /or television antenna, N r flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and /or transmission towers; and certain antenna c 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 e permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of r airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated w in this section shall not apply. c W 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 Q 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 far a given parcel, the File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 20 Packet Pg. 1677 J.1.n 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. Height limit X 35 X 30 For this example, a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE 5111 y 1 "- Crown of Road 511• Crown ofthe road Natural Elevation aft • in relatlon 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 till needed to reach 511 flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of3 feet In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). X W Z.; C d E t V cts r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 20 Packet Pg. 1678 J.1.n OCEAN REEF - architectural decorative features: Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community., and has a distinct community character, structures may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. Draft Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non - habitable architectural decorative features which are commonly applied for in the Ocean Reef community and the issues this causes in permitting relative to the architectural decorative features. 40 9 0 99 Yellow = symbol for a non - habitable architectural decorative feature Ctown of Road 5' Naturd Devarlon " 0 relation 10 MM IN level AE 5' AE 5' This type of exemption would be to address items such as balls, finials, or a widow's walk File 2015 -006 a Page 4 of 20 Packet Pg. 1679 J.1.n FLOOD PROTECTION AND INSURANCE DISCOUNTS: Policy 101.5.32 In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows: 1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA base flood elevation BFE based on the flood zone an exception of uR to five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE: and 2. For existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone an exce Lion of up to five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit mqy be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no Greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, max be permitted a height exception of more than five 5 feet if necessary to voluntarily elevate the structure to meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Draft Policy 101.5.32 is intended to help protect structures from flood events, mitigate upcoming FEMA flood zone height changes, mitigate rising insurance costs for the property owner and assist with flood insurance rate discounts in the Community Rating System. The discussed height exception would allow structures to be elevated higher than the required minimum FEMA base flood elevation which could then allow property owners to obtain discounts on their insurance and help mitigate potential flooding damage. See the following example on flood insurance discounts: EXAMPLE: PreFIRM "A" Zone $250k building coverage b2k deductible 1 � �' Annual Annual % Premiums Savings Savings +3' 402 1 5,894 94% < � +2' 603 $ 5693 g% BFE 1 + 791 $5,505 87% 30 -Year Savings $176,820 $170,790 $165,162 W a ..3' $6,268/yr 100% File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 20 Packet Pg. 1680 J.1.n For drag Policy 101.5.32 which creates the Flood Protection Height exception, the BOCC expressed concerns with a property owner's ability to either build or elevate their homes without losing living space (i.e. reducing the number of stories of the structure) and being squeezed into smaller homes. To try and determine if this is an issue with the proposed policy exception, which would allow an additional 5 feet in height, County staff has evaluated the number of properties per flood zone [following Flood Zone table] and created basic illustrations [following 4 page Flood Zone .Height Analysis] to depict how the current height limit, per flood zone, may affect proposed development, and examples with the flood protection height exception. Based on the information in the Flood Zone table, it is noted that the majority of parcels within unincorporated Monroe County fall within the AE 7 to AE I 1 flood zones. There are 44,910 parcels within these flood zones, out of an estimated 56,843 total parcels within unincorporated Monroe County (79% of the total parcels are within AE 7 to AE 11). Based on the information in the Flood Zone Height Analysis, generally: • In flood zones X through AE 10 or VE 10 [approx. 4 7,158 parcels], a three (3) story structure may be developed. • In flood zones AE 11 (VE 1 1) through AE 20 (VE 20) [approx. 9,330 parcels], a two (2) story structure may be developed. • For flood zones AE 21 (VE 21) and greater [approx. 19 parcels], a one (1) story structure may be developed. The generalized comments are made based upon the provided examples, within the Flood Zone Height Analysis, with crown of road at 5ft and used as the starting point (grade) for measuring height. Land Development Code HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of a►?v structure.... GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher.... X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 6 of 20 Packet Pg. 1681 J.1.n FLOOD ZONE TABL F EMA Flood Zone i Number of Parcels I % of total I % of total X 1,935 3.40% 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 5.16% o CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 999 1.76% b� o AE 5 1 0.00% i AE 6 1,964 3.46% o AE 7 8,996 15.83% N � a AE 8 14,824 26.08% 0 AE 9 11,272 19.83% AE 10 6,835 12.02% 83.48% o AE 11 2,983 5.25% 3 i AE 12 121 0.2.1% 3 AE 13 418 0.74 % N C c AE 14 36 0.06% a N AE 15 3 0.01% AE 16 1 0.00% VE 9 5 0.01% 3 story VE 10 327 0.58% VE I l 1,019 1.79% 3 VE 12 1,443 2.54% o VE 13 (Q L 1,069 1.88 %n o Y VE 14 1,815 3.19% VE 15 352 0.62% o .° VE 16 31 0.05% °, '' 10.76 /0 o VE 17 33 0.06% VE 19 5 0.01% VE 20 1 0.00 % VE 21 8 0.01% 3 VE 22 7 0.01% VE 23 1 0.00 % 7: VE 24 1 0.00 % 0 VE 26 2 0.00% OPEN WATER 10 0.02% total parcels 56,843 Note: As of October 014 there are approximately 56.813 parcels in unincorporated Monroe Covina ,. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 20 X W Z.; C m E t m r Q Packet Pg. 1682 J.1.n v O L O E a a= v 0 .. y u� Ea x o vex 30' ; 20 « 70 Height = 35 AE Y AE B' cin�Jt / tSQf 414Q1 u }J'i7ll ""' Fly umm kJel�l +l•�rl 1 K a ; 20 « 70 Height = 35 AE Y AE B' AE 7 AE B' AE 9' AE 10' AE 11' u n n n n u AE 9' AE a' All W AE 12' At 1r AE 12' 1R o.n 1 SR over // 2H orp ` ]] Sft orer F$M400d } Fill ow x f FE best} FBIA hOfe / f 1 food 1 fla0d d�tian Flaod Zone Height Analysis Craven of Rood 5.4• KOi,frd Ekvollm ]el • 'e edr'® b AE 12' Cf— of good 5't• kW 4 drh t b Page; I of 4 �D r �D N r O U D N CD 0 0 _LO 0 N t Z t 0 r X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1683 O O L) E wx AE IW AE 10' All 16' Ifl o � F p ff m gle Y. O-r � bo ood 1-1 dmlion) ( d-hoo Height = 35' F — Fl,,,,d 1,, I Hu"hi fl & Reed 5r.• rd ):l—Om 3h - - . rddm k AE 20' oLE 21' --ko AE 2W AE 20' AE 20' 21', 1�7 (I"IAZL q*od ) flood ) do tiw eknfim C— ., R.0 Vt. nlad E3..Al. 3M .64— Page 2 of 4 Lc LD CD U co CD CD 9 LO T" CD C Cl Z CD LU E Lc I Packet Pg. 1684 1 AE IS AE if AE W AE 16' AE it AE IX AE 19' 7 J.1.n O s: E 3 B n � g T4S m E a E w 3 Height = 35' VE 8' VE B VE a VE tr VE 12' VE 12' ( IN oia 5° over / 2N ora / Sft over dmtm e �FENA bme riELrA boae� Hood 1-1 flwd ) l Owl tl w on dewtioo demilm Food Zone Height Analysis or Rood S>`!• E]rrotlm 3n ' • i rdsAee m n'ra sa \nl Cr ar Road Srt- matwa Oevatlm �n ' Y nICJa b maf w Y+/ Page 3 of 4 N r O U D N CD 0 0 LO T " 0 N t Cl Z t 0 r X W r C d E t V La r r Q Packet Pg. 1685 w v V£ a' VE Y VE W w 9' VE 10' n o u n u R J.1.n ° o d � E a u` a a V o g g . 3 TS n. x-E g w 1e° VE 1e' VE 1 F d � u ) � od ) Height a 35' Flood Zone Height Analysis T o! F'we 5N• V! rfn •! • w Htlw, M VE 20' VE 20' VE 20' VI awn t 5k am IFEUA beset FEYA L+CSS �:�, eleeehm C— of R.4 5fl• Not" Booth+ 1N • i U14um M i W NW Page 4 of 4 �D r �D N r O U D co CD 0 0 LO T " 0 N t C1 Z t 0 r X W r C d E t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1686 VE 13' VE 14' VE 13' VE 18' VE 17' VE 18' VE 19' n s u e u J.1.n EXISTING STRUCTURES: Police 101.5.33 A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of rip to five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (� feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE and 2. Lawfully established existing_ structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntaries elevate the structure meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. For draft Policy 101.5.33 which creates the height exception for a lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the 35 foot height limit to be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height and provides a Flood Protection Height Exception to elevate the structure to meet and /or exceed the required FEMA BFE. Example 1: 5 feet to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE 49' C" 44' C File 2015 -006 Page 12 of 20 44 ft ure+ FE Road Sit' evatlon 3tt - In 1R14K13P to mean sea lend X W Z.: C 0 E t V m Q Packet Pg. 1687 AE 5 AE 5 J.1.n Example 2; elevated ] Oft to meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE plus 1 additional foot above BFE 55' 0" 42' 0' l O O ,35_O" Ii Fxisting structure= 44ft i �� Elevated 44ft structure 10 O � ft to meet BFE (AE 15) O l i plus 1 foot above BFE Q 11' Existing v structure height = 55ft X ♦ 20' -0" = 44 ft E Built below 1 I I I BFE lo. +l' above BFE 2 Il' 10' C tE a Crown of Road 5tt• CL road - Natural Elevation 3t; C ' Ir rewl" to V mean no lewd �-- AE 15 AE 15 r rD N Note, staff has not been able to complete an inventory of structures that exceed the adopted height limit of r ° 35 feet as there is not enough information in our files to determine the exact grade (either highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher) for most structures a) built before 1985. As such, we cannot determine the number of structures which may be affected by the o proposed policy. Below are examples of structures which appear to exceed the adopted height limit: ° LO Moon Bay Condos, mm 104 r O N Built in the 70s Crown of road might be 13 -14' based on LiDAR, Building B is 46' from ground level of 13' AMSL. Building A is 49'6" from ground level. ° Harbor 92 Condos, mm 92 X w Built in the 70s c Crown of road might be about 8' based on LiDAR E Building is 63' from ground level m r Kawama Tower, mm 102 Q Built in the 70s Building is 85' from ground level of about 7' AMSL File 2015 -006 Page 13 of 20 Packet Pg. 1688 J.1.n AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Policy 141.5.34 In order to_incentivize the development of affordable and employee /workforce housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or employee/workforce housing for very low, low and/or median income categories may be developed with a maximum hei ht of 44 feet to provide for up to three stories over yarking or-development over nonresidential floor area). Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.5.30. very low income = household whose total household income does not exceed 50% of the median monthly household income far the county low income = household whose total household income does not exceed 80% of the median monthly household income for the county median income = means a household whose total household income does not exceed 100% of the median monthly household income for the county For draft Policy 101.5.34 which creates the height exception for affordable housing, the BOCC discussed finding ways to incentivize additional development of affordable housing. The intent of the proposed policy is to encourage additional affordable and employee /workforce housing provision by allowing structures developed as affordable /workforce housing to be built with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide for three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area. 44' 0" 40' 0 �- FM AE 5' File 2015 -006 Affordable Housing 44 ft height limit UAMPLE 2 ft for roof 3 stories m 10ft each and 12ft for parking or commercial underneath X W r Crown of Road 51t• C Natural Elevation aft d in relatpo to t mean wo level Q Page 14 of 20 Packet Pg. 1689 J.1.n IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OPTIONS FOR PROPOSED HEIGHT POLICIES FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Staff has developed the following draft policies for consideration. (Deletions are stfielien threaO and additions are underlined Policy 101.45.3630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between wade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding sires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses onl • chimneys; radio and /or television antennas flagpoles solar a aratus• utilijy poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. Exeeptions will be allowed fef apptH4ea&Hees to buildi , Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are owned and overated a public utilL, have an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS and the turbines comply with relevant State and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Ea le Protection Act and National Environmental Policy Act. Applications proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height within the MIAI overla y shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment. In the case of airport districts there shall be no exceptions to the 35 foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. File 2015 -006 Page 15 of 20 c 0 r cs a� 0 a 0 0 �0 c 0 CL W 0 X W E r W x c 0 (L CL E 0 U N r 0 U 0 o! U) to 0 0 LO r O N a� 0 r X W c W E 0 r r a Packet Pg. 1690 J.1.n Policy 101.5.32 In order to ro tect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows: 1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit maybe permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. For existing_ structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE, and 3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a heig exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the structure to meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 one additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.33 A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height Iimit of 35 feet in Polic y 101.5.30 may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection He iWit Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary efevation above BFE; and 2. Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy may be permitted a height File 2015 -006 Page 16 of 20 0 r cs a� r 0 a 0 0 �0 0 r CL aD 0 X (D E x c CL CL E 0 U N r O U 0 U) to 0 0 LO 0 N r 0 r X W c a� E a Packet Pg. 1691 J.1.n exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessM, to voluntarily elevate the structure meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.34 In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee /workforce housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as Tier 3._ A structure developed as affordable or employee/workforce housing for very low, low and /or median income categories may be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet (to provide for up to three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor areal Heiaht is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the hi hest part of any structure, Including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.5.30. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations 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 e Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 r rating. x w Z.; Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to E promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements M contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage Q caused by storms. File 2015 -006 Page 17 of 20 Packet Pg. 1692 J.1.n 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; 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 pen allocation systems. (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. File 2015 -006 Page 18 of 20 X w c m E t m Q Packet Pg. 1693 J.1.n (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 the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers; Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the ° Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual x interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and w process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and m the Planning Commission. E m The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall Q review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board File 2015 -006 Page 19 of 20 Packet Pg. 1694 J.1.n of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECONN1fMENDDATION VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing X W Z.; C d >_ t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 20 of 20 Packet Pg. 1695 J.1.n EXHIBIT 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 24, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, March 24 , 2015, beginning at 1:02 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 Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present 3 10 W a Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Emily Schemper, Principal Planner Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item 1 is delayed. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24, 2015, DRC meeting as is. MEETING New Items: 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.2+6 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE /WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND /OR MEDIAN X W c m E �a a Packet Pg. 1696 1.1.n INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) (1:03 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated that Items 2 and 3 will be held as a workshop discussion versus a staff report with comments. Both items are from the comp plan update and were proposed within the 2030 comp plan. The BOCC has asked staff to remove the policies as they were in the comp plan and process them separately so that there is public understanding and public input through the process. This item will be brought back two or three times to ensure revisions can be made with public input. Ms. Santamaria first addressed Policy 101.4.26. Ms. Santamaria explained that the current height definition is the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure and it is measured from either grade or the crown of the nearest road. Multiple height exceptions have been proposed in order to address a variety of issues. The first one is the wind turbine for facilities owned and operated by a public utility. An avian protection plan would be required. The height exception would be for those wind turbines that facilitate green technologies and alternative energy sources. Ms. Santamaria informed Deb Curlee there are no applications for wind turbines currently. Alicia Putney commented that her personal experience has been that wind turbines are not able to generate enough current to be deemed useful unless the sustainable winds were above 20 -25 miles an hour. Consequently, wind is more questionable than solar energy at this point. Ms. Curlee is not in favor of wind turbines because of their aesthetics. Ms. Santamaria will draft a version of the policy as the BOCC has proposed it next to a version that includes the public's input. Bill Eardley asked that staff obtain an analysis of FKEC's two wind turbines located on Cudjoe Key before proceeding with this policy. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 1.01.5.31. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy is specific to Ocean Reef. In permitting for that community staff has had to deal with architectural features just above the 35 -foot height limit. Staff has recommended the architectural features could exceed the 35 -foot height limit by five feet, not to exceed 40 feet, and can contain no habitable space up there. Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association and Ocean Reef Club. x Mr. Reed stated even though Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non - habitable architectural w decorative features, it is only one and the least significant of three provisions that Ocean Reef c has requested. Mr. Reed explained that Ocean Reef has its own architectural review committee E that projects go through as well. One of the longer term issues facing Ocean Reef Club is that they still own a number of buildings and condominiums that currently exceed the 35 -foot height a restriction. These are aging buildings coming to the end of their useful life. There is concern if they are ever destroyed they would not be able to build back to their current heights. Mr. Reed agrees with being proactive by building above the FEMA flood heights. One policy request from 2 Packet Pg. 1697 Ocean Reef is for the ability to build back on a story -by -story approach rather than to the pre- existing height. Mr. Reed feels allowing this way of rebuilding with an increase in the slab -to- slab measurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than tearing them down. Another issue important to Ocean Reef is the Cultural Center building. Because the flyover space in this building is limited, the ability to have productions in this building is limited also. Mr. Reed suggested that a height of 65 feet would accommodate that flyover space. Mr. Reed emphasized that the proposed story -by -story rebuilding process is being requested for Ocean Reef only, which is an isolated and gated community, not visible from the roadway. Ms. Santarnaria asked that Ocean Reef provide information of the cultural center, such as a map depiction and its existing height information. Mr. Reed agreed to provide that information, as well as a list of inventoried buildings at Ocean Reef including their existing heights. Ms. Curlee asked for an estimate of the height of a building with an 11 -foot slab -to -slab allowance plus the flood elevation. Mr. Reed replied that it depends on the flood zone and the average existing grade or crown of road of each site. Ms. Putney proposed Ocean Reef go through a variance procedure for each of the specific buildings because of all the variables associated with each building. Mr. Reed agreed that consideration needs to be given for each building individually and stressed that losing a floor would not be an option in rebuilding. Mr. Reed further explained that some communities have minimum ceiling heights so that a more adaptable building into the future is built. Ms. Putney asked if Ocean Reef has its own community master plan containing its own design criteria. Mr. Reed responded that there are architectural design guidelines for Ocean Reef that are followed currently and a process is being gone through to update and create a new master plan for Ocean Reef. Ms. Santarnaria clarified that it is for Ocean Reefs own development internally, but a Livable CommuniKeys plan or even an overlay district can be proposed. Ms. Putney voiced concern that this policy would open the door for other gated communities throughout the Keys to increase their height restriction. Ms. Santarnaria noted that the reason the BOCC was even considering this policy is because Ocean Reef is not only gated, but it is isolated and separate from the rest of the Keys. Bill Hunter, present on behalf of Sugarloaf Property Owners Association (SPOA), will be taking this request by Ocean Reef back to SPOA members for their input. SPOA recognizes that Ocean Reef is isolated and very different from the rest of the Keys. Mr. Hunter commented that the BOCC has said in the past they do not want to treat Ocean Reef differently than the rest of the County. SPOA is neutral on this policy as long as this does not affect the rest of the County. Mr. Reed explained that there is language that allows Ocean Reef to go through a letter of understanding process without going through a conditional use process. Mr. Reed feels perhaps some stronger language would help address the concerns being voiced. Ms. Putney again suggested Ocean Reef have their own Livable CommuniKeys plan which is protected by the comp plan. Mr. Reed pointed out that Ocean Reef has stricter regulations than the rest of the County has, such as setbacks. Ms. Putney suggested adding language referring to gated communities over a certain size. Ms. Curlee believes, regardless of Ocean Reef being isolated and gated, the public will expect the same consideration that Ocean Reef receives. Ms. Putney agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not want to have special rules for 3 Packet Pg. 1698 J.1.n Ocean Reef. Mr. Reed added that he believes only one Commissioner has expressed that sentiment. Ms. Santamaria stated the BOCC will make the decision of what they choose to adopt and /or transmit to the State and will ultimately make the decision of which communities, which policies and where they will apply to. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policies 10 1.5.32 and 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained these policies are an attempt to provide existing and new structures the ability to redevelop or lift the existing structure to come into compliance with their flood zone. New FEMA maps are expected in four years. The first provision of Policy 101.5.32 is for new structures to voluntarily elevate their structures up to five feet above the 35 -foot height limit. It is based on what they choose to elevate above flood. The second provision of the policy is for existing structures to be able to meet their base flood zone or to exceed it. Again, they can go up to five feet above the 35 -foot height limit, but this is based on the amount they choose to go up. The third provision is for those structures that need to go a little bit higher to meet their flood zone. The addition of one foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for. Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structure is impractical due to the cost. It is simpler to pay off the mortgage and cancel the flood insurance. Mr. Eardley feels there is no need for the exception on new construction because the building can be designed to meet the current standards. Ms. Santamaria explained the exception was proposed because the BOCC did not want people to lose living space and be squeezed into smaller homes. FEMA representatives have informed staff a grant program may be created to help with the cost of elevating a home. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that some existing structures may not be able to be raised due to its structural integrity. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there has been discussion about including bonus points or points under the CRS for communities that provide for an opportunity for property owners to elevate their base floor one to three feet above base flood elevation on a voluntary basis. Dottie Moses from the Upper Keys Homeowners Federation stated that the CRS looks at encouraging people not to build in low -lying areas. Ms. Santamaria explained that is why the inventory of flood zones was done. Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the County is somehow encouraging building in a very low -lying area where roads will eventually no longer be maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number I is applicable when people tear down and build a new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of homes built before FEMA came in to Monroe County in '78 built below the base flood would be a small enough number that they could be dealt with through some kind of a development review mechanism as opposed to a carte blanche rule. Ms. Schemper noted that this would give property owners the allowance to do it rather than being penalized because of their unique circumstance. Ms. Santamaria stated staff will evaluate that. Ms. Santamaria then described a situation of a property owner in North Florida who built a home less than ten years ago at three feet above flood. The new FEMA maps now show that home being three feet below flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that the new FEMA maps could impact a substantial number of people whose flood insurance premiums are going to skyrocket up because of this situation. FEMA is supposed to take sea level rise into account when creating their new maps. Staff is trying to think into the future to try to facilitate people's ability to protect their homes and investments. Mr. Hunter suggested, because it is unknown what the maps will show, introducing the concept and making allowances for the solution in the comp 4 Packet Pg. 1699 J.1.n plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifying the LDRs in the LDC is an easier process. Mr. Schemper cautioned the longer addressing this issue is put off, the more homes will be built that are going to be affected. Ms. Moses stated that at an Army Corps meeting comments were made that all of the "easy" lots have been built on and what is left will require mitigation and other issues. Ms. Santamaria will try to run an analysis of the flood zone of the vacant parcels in the County. Mr. Hunter clarified that when he suggested splitting the concept in the comp plan and the detail in the LDRs, he was not suggesting delaying the LDRs. Mr. Hunter further stated more public outreach would help in educating the public more on climate change and sea level rise. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr. Hunter that the County does not have policies in place yet regarding replacement of infrastructure in areas potentially susceptible to sea level rise, so the County has to proceed under existing policies and directives, which obligates the County to maintain the roads. Ms. Santamaria described a situation in St. Augustine where property owners are suing the municipality to maintain a road in a low -lying area so that the people would have access to their fire service. Ms. Curlee asked about regulations regarding filling a lot. Mr. Roberts explained that whether fill is allowed depends on the flood zone. Ms. Putney added that runoff from higher lots into the road is creating a problem for the neighbors and in the canals, as well as blocking views and creating shade. Mr. Williams clarified that situation does not create a property rights issue. Ms. Santamaria noted that the variance procedure could create a staggered view line in an area. Ms. Moses stated the Federation has taken the position they do not want the 35 -foot height limit raised under any circumstance. The County has managed to get by under that height limit to date with new construction. Mr. Hunter on behalf of SPOA agreed with Ms. Moses' comments. Mr. Hunter personally believes more education is needed about freeboard and the benefits of freeboard. Ms. Putney on behalf of Last Stand stated existing buildings should have some kind of mechanism for special approval, but that the total raised building could not exceed 40 feet and the space created under the first floor should be non - habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed to new construction receiving an exception to the 35 -foot height limit. Mr. Williams noted that there is a potential map amendment process to appeal to FEMA to make an exception for a lot. The expense of that process was discussed. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy N addresses existing structures that currently exceed the height limit, such as a three or four -story c condo. By redeveloping to upgrade the building, coming into compliance with the flood zone may result in loss of a story of that condo. That could potentially result in 20 people on the top o floor no longer having the ability to rebuild their home. Ms. Putney questioned why it is x perceived to affect the top story as opposed to the first story. Ms. Santamaria stated half of the people would lose their home regardless of which story it is. This policy provides for allowing five feet above their existing height. Ms. Putney stated Last Stand supports this policy provided E that the footprint of the structure is not changed. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee there is no cap on the height. Staff does not have a clear inventory of those structures this policy would a encompass, but estimates only a handful. Mr. Reed asked that those who do support this policy consider giving some additional slab -to -slab height when rebuilding. Ms. Putney replied Last Stand supports the grandfathering of nonconforming height to certain buildings in Monroe Packet Pg. 1700 J.1.n County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA along with any additional voluntary clearance above base flood elevation must be equal to or less than the height of the old nonconforming building. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA agrees as long as the redevelopment is involuntary, such as because of fire or flood. Ms. Santamaria asked if the public in attendance considers the new FEMA maps deeming a structure below base flood involuntary. Mr. Reed does not Iike the "involuntary" language because it is a very tricky threshold to meet. Ms. Santamaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying to facilitate a lot of new development. Mr. Reed clarified that while there is no magic slab -to- slab number, floor to ceiling heights should be created that are adaptable and can continue to be remodeled throughout future years. Ms. Curlee expressed concern that what is "involuntary" to one person may open the door to let somebody else take advantage of this policy. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee that in almost all situations exceptions to the height limit will not allow people to add a story. In some situations that would be possible. Ms. Putney believes that language should be included to limit in what situations it would be allowed. Mr. Hunter suggested more detail of the buildings in Ocean Reef be gathered to realize the effect this could have on the County. Mr. Reed clarified that his comments regarding slab -to -slab increases were specific to the Ocean Reef policy, but feels it might be worth considering for all of unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Moses is concerned about taking people's property rights away from them. Mr. Hunter then commented that the "historical designation" language should be eliminated. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.34. Ms. Santamaria explained this came out of the session of the BOCC at the October meeting to address a different height maximum for very low, low and median income affordable employee and work force housing on properties designated Tier III. This was to facilitate having nonresidential development on the first story and allowing a couple stories of affordable housing on top. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA is opposed to this amendment. SPOA believes that the County has the benefit of seeing what the cities have done to address this issue before they make a decision on solutions. Another issue for SPOA is using height as a solution to affordable housing in the County where there is more land than the County has ROGO allocations for. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to raising the affordable housing limit. Key Largo does not have an affordable housing issue. There are affordable housing projects in the Upper Keys district already and some of the way those projects are being managed are not the way their deed restrictions have been written. Ms. Moses pointed out there is no definition for "workforce housing" in the code. Ms. o Santamaria replied the Affordable Housing Committee will be addressing that soon. The BOCC x hired the FSU Consensus Center to provide a report on the County's affordable housing issue. W Ms. Schemper added that the LDC uses the term "affordable housing" or "employee housing," which are defined terms. "Work force housing" is a more general term. Mr. Reed argued that E there is a demand and a need still in the Upper Keys for affordable housing. Mr. Reed then stated it is a severe challenge to find appropriate land of a certain size to accommodate a affordable housing. Mr. Eardley is concerned this amendment would open the door for all kinds of other development. Mr. Eardley agrees there are ways to address work force housing without going higher, such as making the units smaller. Ms. Curlee added when talking about truly 0 Packet Pg. 1701 J.1.n affordable housing that would be rentals. Ms. Putney believes this issue is complex and the height exception for affordable housing should be dealt with within the arena of the affordable housing discussion separate from what is being done today. Ms. Santamaria clarified this amendment would provide the opportunity to build more units, but it also will raise those units above base flood. Ms. Santamaria thanked the public for their comments and stated these comments will be included in the staff report and will be back before the DRC again for more comments. 1.Pla a Largo Resort 97450 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 97.5: A public meeting concerning a request for an Amendment to a Major Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 177 -unit hotel and associated accessory uses. The subject property is legally described as Tracts 4B and 5B, Amended Plat of Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Key Largo, and also a tract of submerged land in the Bay of Florida fronting said Tract 5B (TIIF Deed No. 22416), Monroe County, Florida, having real estate number 0055 5 010. 000000. (File 2015 -031) (2:32 p.m.) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this applicant currently has an approved major conditional use permit from 2007 and it has had several deviations and time extensions over time. It is still active. The most recent deviation has approved the site plan for 162 transient units and one commercial apartment, which was previously on the site. The applicant has been issued a number of building permits. This amendment to the major conditional use permit is to add an additional 15 transient units into the hotel, the building of which has already been permitted, and that would bring them up to their max number net density. It does not change any footprint on the site plan. All of the required criteria are in compliance. The only issue that is still outstanding is the traffic and access. The applicant had supplied a Level 2 traffic study with this application, and because of the threshold of what is being proposed a Level 3 traffic study is needed. This may also impact the requirement for a right -turn deceleration lane leading into the property. Ms. Schemper recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria commented that the Planning Commissioners will likely want to see the traffic studies so they can take that data into account in their decision - making and make sure that it is compliant. Mr. Roberts asked that Number 7 of the recommended actions be reworded to specify the number of allowed docks. Mr. Roberts will supply that number to Ms. Schemper. Jorge Cepeda, present on behalf of the applicant, stated he was familiar with the conditions x contained in the original approval. Mr. Cepeda asked that Condition 8, the transportation shuttle w for guests and employees, be considered in the traffic study because that has less of an impact on traffic. Mr. Cepeda asked that the second portion of the language about adequacy of public E facilities on Page 6 of the report remain part of the recommended action. Mr. Cepeda clarified that no trees will be cut for the mulch exercise path, but there may be some underbrush that may a need to be accommodated. Mr. Roberts specified that "clearing" is the removal of any native vegetation regardless of the size. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to inform staff if the applicant is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted Packet Pg. 1702 J.1.n for in the site plan. Ms. Schemper will look again at the deviation to see exactly how it is worded and get back to the applicant regarding the clearing. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses asked whether the proposed commercial apartment is bayfront. Ms. Schemper explained it was a previously existing unit, so the residential use and density is protected. Mr. Cepeda stated the apartment is in the same location as the prior developer's site plan. Ms. Moses then pointed out the site plan shows two entrances. Ms. Schemper explained one is an emergency access drive requested by the fire department. Ms. Moses then noted that the front buffer that faces US -1 looks to contain lead tree. Mr. Cepeda replied that the landscaping will be done in the final stage. The main entrance is the original American Outdoor entrance and at the end stage the exotics will be removed and landscaping will be done to complete that buffer. Ms. Moses commented that there are a lot of non - native species on the vegetation list. Mr. Roberts explained that the required vegetation is 100 percent native vegetation, but anything planted above the minimum requirement can be anything the developer wants. The developer is overplanting the required landscaping significantly. Ms. Schemper clarified for Ms. Moses that the docking facility on the property is a hotel accessory dock, not a marina. 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -007) (2 :49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated this item also comes from the comp plan update project. The BOCC asked staff to remove these policies that were included in the comp plan and process them separately since it was a new topic and received a lot of attention and people wanted to provide input on the topic. These policies relate to the transfer of ROGO exemptions, density rights, as well as where the development would be directed to. Ms. Santamaria addressed Policy 101.5.8. Ms. Santamaria explained that, again, this item will he handled today more like a workshop -type item. Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to address all of the policies together. Mr. Smith thanked staff for planning multiple workshops to allow these policies to be vetted over a period of time where everyone can work together. Mr. Smith asked staff to provide notice to the affected property owners of these meetings so they can actively engage in this process. Mr. Smith asked staff to contemplate the unintended consequences of these policies of not allowing the TDRs and TREs to be transferred to offshore islands and designating all offshore islands as Tier I. Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies 8 Packet Pg. 1703 J.1.n put an inordinate burden on the property owners. These property owners have some development right, all residential in nature. The code only has two ways that residential can be built: Through ROGO allocation or ROGO exemption. These islands do not have ROGO exemptions because they do not have homes on them, so in order to build residential one would have to get a ROGO allocation or transfer a ROGO exemption from somewhere else. These policies eliminate the ability to transfer. A property is left with requiring a ROGO allocation, but the property is designated Tier I. This would be so limiting that the only use left would be bee- keeping and temporary camping by the owner. Mr. Smith asked that staff look at how these policies would operate as a whole to get a complete picture of how it would operate. Ms. Santamaria clarified individual property owners were not notified because this is not property- specific and not all properties have their issues resolved with ownership. This is a policy that would impact all privately -owned or even publicly -held offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that while the policy has direction of discouraging development by designating Tier I does not mean it is an automatic Tier 1. That designation would have to go through its proper process to apply a designation to a property. Ms. Santamaria commented that this policy is not a huge change regarding the TREs and the TDRs. This is a proposed change based on the discussions from the BOCC of where to direct the remaining allocations or exemptions and where is the most appropriate place to direct development. Julie Dick on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund thanked staff for the workshop process and allowing the public the opportunity to participate in this process. Last Stand thinks that the policies generally are consistent with the concepts of the tier overlay system for offshore islands. Last Stand is generally supportive of the changes. Ms. Dick commented that there are some inconsistencies with the acreage on the inventory. Ms. Santamaria explained the Property Appraiser does not have the exact acreage of a property. A boundary survey is required to determine the upland portions of a property. Ms. Santamaria will look into any discrepancy reported to her. Ms. Dick further stated Last Stand agrees with the sender and receiver site criteria. For evacuation purposes it make sense to discourage additional development on offshore islands. Last Stand recommends removing significant upland habitat as a criteria in Policy 206.1.2. The reasons to protect offshore islands go beyond whether or not they are suited to upland habitat, such as containing bird rookeries. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that under Policy 206.1.2 the significant upland habitat is one of the criteria and it is being made consistent with the Tier I criteria. Ms. Putney asked whether there was a determination made that offshore islands were Tier I when the County went to the tier system. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 stated that designating offshore islands as Tier I lands was one method used to discourage developments proposed on offshore islands. The only offshore islands that are not designated Tier I were the ones that were missed by accident and undesignated, but this policy does not automatically designate them. They would still have to go through that process. The provision exists in the LDC that any islands without a specific land use designation shall be considered zoned as offshore islands. The approximately ten offshore islands that were missed and not designated were discussed. Packet Pg. 1704 J.1.n Ms. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to participate in the workshop -style meetings scheduled in the future. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q Its] Packet Pg. 1705 J.1.n EXHIBIT 4 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: May 17, 2015 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: May 26, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the 6 height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features c within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions 0 to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and r create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or x w employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as tier 3. E II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION a 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 File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 9 Packet Pg. 1706 J.1.n (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies far addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and continents from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, heisrht and rude are defined as follows: HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any w 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, W flagpoles; solar apparatus utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna E 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 Q 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. File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 1707 J.1.n 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 andlor 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. flei < =ht limit + 3D' For this example, a 3 story home: may be developed within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE 5fl Crown of Road 5ft' Crown of the road Natural Elevation aft • I it Motion 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 In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as; anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection NOTE. See exhibits for additional information related to flood protection and freeboard. d. File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 9 X w Z.; G) E m r r Q Packet Pg. 1708 J.1.n IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are men "--- and additions are underlined Policy 101.451630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar a aratus• util poles and/or transmission towers- and certain antenna sqpporting supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. Exeeptiens will be allowed for appuftenaflees te Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS )aand the turbines comply with relevant State and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered _ Species Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act Applications by a public utility proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height shall require a public heariniz before the Board of County Commissioners and a BOCC Resolution supporting the proposal and specifying the maximum approved height, t prior to issuance of any county _permit or approval. ApplicationLproposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height within the MIAI overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment In the case of gjMort districts there shall be no excep to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a master planned community of 100 or more acres in area, which is gated, isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding communitv, and has a distinct community character buildings include non - habitable architectural decorative features such as finials rails widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or an architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the communiq is operated and maintained by the community including the pLovision of comprehensive private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its member Policy 101.5.32 By XXXX date Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 (height limit) not exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet to promote public health safety and general welfare; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm torm surge and other hazards; File 2015-006 Page4of9 c r cs a� 0 a O O 0 C O r CL W V X E W c M a CL 0 U cc r �D N r O U 0 o! U) to 0 0 LO 0 N r a� _o LU X r c W a Packet Pg. 1709 p rotect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control _ pro jects and for recovery from flood events; mitigate rising flood insurance premiums; and reduce flood insurance rates bL facilitating/improving the County's Community Rating System score. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot hei ht limit shall be provided to allow buildings to voluntaril elevate up to three 3 feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future ex enditures of p ublic funds for recovery from flood events. LDR Section XXX• 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 up to three (3) feet above the 35 foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exce tion shall be a maximum of three (3) feet, and shall be no eater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height; and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35 -foot height Emit and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be a maximum of five 5 feet and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus up to three 3 feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existin building be elevated to exceed a total building height of 40 feet; 3. No exce tip "on shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet; and 4. No exception shall be provided to properties located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone. Policy_ 101.5,33 As of the effective date of this policy, a lawfully established existing building, which exceeds the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to meet refit aired FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and We of use For buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be r uired prior to issuance of any county permit or approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. LDR Section XXX• As provided in Policy 101.5.33 lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to meet the FEMA BFE provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity floor area density and type of use. File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 9 c .2 cs a� 0 CL 0 0 �0 c r CL 0 0 x 0 E r 0 x c �a CL CL 0 U cc N O U 0 U) to 0 0 LO 0 N a� 0 _o x W r C d E �a a Packet Pg. 1710 J.1.n A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing building exceeding the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE an exception of up to five 5 feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE• and 2. For Iawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily elevated to meet the-building's minimum required FEMA BFE, but will require a height exception of more than five (5 )feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any co permit or approval. The BOCC shall consider: 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; and 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 A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 c Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting m structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The t 0 Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable r interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. x w Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community E Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 0 rating. m r Q 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 -006 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 1711 J.1.n 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; CD N 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; c 5. Transportation facilities; t 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; _o 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; x 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and w 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. W (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 r facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and Q disposal systems. 0) 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 -006 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 1712 J.1.n 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 3$0.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle_ C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part H of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(1), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical„ environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Vl. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 9 X W Z.; c m m r r Q Packet Pg. 1713 J.1.n public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 5. Excerpt of CRS Coordinator's Manual, pages 430 -10 through 430 -15 6. FEMA Lowest Floor Elevation Fact Sheet 7. www.floodsmart.gov basic info on insurance and flood risk 8. What is Freeboard? www.dnr.maryland.aov /CoastSmart 9. Using Freeboard to Elevate structures above Predicted Floodwaters — Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 10. Floodplain Management in Florida Quick Guide, pages 1-28 11. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC meeting (side by side comparison) X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Packet Pg. 1714 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 26, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (V floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Rey Ortiz, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner Supervisor Present Lori Lehr, Floodplain Administrator Present Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the minutes of the April 28, 2015, DRC meeting with one correction of a section number that will be submitted to Ms. Creech. MEETING New Items: 1. 99700 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 99: A public meeting concerning a request for a major deviation to a major conditional use permit. The requested approval is required for the proposed development to increase the existing walk -in cooler and to increase the size of the existing bathrooms which would increase the amount of non - residential floor area on the property. The subject property is legally described as Lazy Lagoon — A revision of Amended Plat of Curry's Corner, Plat Book 2, Page 120 of public records, Monroe County, Section 33, Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in metes and bounds is provided in the application /file), having real estate number 00497540.000000. X w c m E �a Q Packet Pg. 1715 J.1.n (File 2015 -093) (1:01 p.m.) Mr. Ortiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ortiz reported that the applicant is requesting a major deviation to a major conditional use application. The applicant wants to expand the bathroom by approximately six square feet, add a modular component to the rear of the building for a walk -in cooler and expand an existing cooler that is currently within the setbacks on the rear property line. The only criteria not met is regarding the variance requirement that the site is going to need. Mr. Ortiz recommends approval to the Planning Commission with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that the applicant has submitted a variance application. Hany Haroun, the applicant, emphasized that this renovation is necessary. Many hours have been spent with Wendy's International and the County to make this work. The new kitchen configuration in the center of the restaurant is a requirement from Wendy's International, which takes away from the cooler /freezer space and the current storage area. The extension for the sides is due to making the bathrooms ADA compliant. None of this will be visible from the front. The only setback issue is for the cooler /freezer. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, does not object to what is being asked for. Ms, Moses likes the proposed landscaping along the highway. Ms. Moses commented on the poor drainage that exists on the property. Mr. Haroun explained that the main road was built to drain out towards Buttonwood Drive and consequently it floods there all the time. That is on the County right -of- way. The County and State agreed to dig out the French drain and fill it with gravel to address the flooding problems. The tides also affect the drainage in this area. Ms. Santamaria noted when building permits are applied for the applicant will have to comply with the stormwater requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant provide some documentation from Wendy's International to show the hardship imposed on the applicant for purposes of the variance. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant to provide an updated site plan. 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) 2 Packet Pg. 1716 J.1.n (1:12 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the comp plan update. There were policies to amend the height policies, address the wind turbines, affordable housing and the flood protection. The BQCC asked staff to process this as a separate stand -alone amendment. This was before the DRC in March where a lot of comments were received. The flood protection policy generated concerns about the overall height exception. Staff has proposed a policy that includes the reasons why there, would be an exception with a max height limit of 40 feet and it would be to elevate property three feet above base flood elevation (BFE). The exception for new buildings is to exceed BFE, not just to meet it, up to three feet above BFE. The exception for lawfully existing buildings is to either meet or exceed BFE because there are circumstances, depending on the flood zone, where this exception will not allow you to exceed BFE. If it is exceeded, it is only that amount it is exceeded that one gets to go above BFE. Again, it is capped at 40 feet. The exception would not be allowed in high -risk areas. Ms. Santamaria introduced Ms. Lehr and asked for an update and information on flood zones. Ms. Lehr explained that one of her roles is to help the County get into the Community Rating System (CRS) program, which would result in some discount in flood insurance. When property owners voluntarily elevate their properties they get a reduced premium on their flood insurance. For every foot of elevation, the savings is about a quarter of the premium. After the cap of three feet, the discounts fall off. The cost to elevate a property is recouped quickly in flood insurance savings. Ms. Lehr believes the future of the Florida Building Code and other legislation is going to be moving towards the implementation of some sort of freeboard, some sort of elevation requirement above BFE. Ms. Lehr further explained the County is going through a mapping process currently, It will be 2018 before those new maps come out, but the general feeling of those maps is that the elevations in some areas will increase, so the required elevations will increase. Ms. Lehr clarified for Ms. Moses a community has to require a higher regulatory standard above 0 what is required on the flood insurance rate amounts to get CRS credit. Florida in general has W some of the highest scoring communities in the nation. Ms. Lehr believes Monroe County is to doing a lot of things to address the flooding that will be worth CRS credit. There will be changes o in the Florida Building Code coming up in the next couple of years to address BFE. Ms. r Santamaria explained the CRS does not address the top height, so the BOCC gave staff direction c to look into elevating the height limit so home owners are not squeezed in from the top, causing c homes to become smaller and smaller. Ms. Lehr noted that credits are being given for existing buildings being elevated as opposed to rebuilt. The CRS program is very adamant that o communities do what is good for their floodplain management and protection of their citizens' x investments. W r c Ron Miller, Planning Commissioner and Key Largo resident, questioned why the County has E become concerned about someone losing habitable space in their structure, because in URM parking spaces were required to be under homes, which takes away from habitable space. Ms. a Santamaria clarified this proposal is not zoning - specific. Mr. Miller feels homeowners should be amenable to some give- and -take in the loss of some habitable space. Mr. Miller believes the people interested in more living space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms. Packet Pg. 1717 J.1.n Santamaria clarified that the BOCC has become aware of the new FEMA maps coming out and want Monroe County to get into the CRS and help the community better protect their property and investments. So they have directed staff to address this issue by allowing people to make that financial choice themselves. The whole intent was to better protect our community. Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf resident, suggested that a definition of "elevate" be proposed. Mr. Hunter mentioned different scenarios of what could fail under the definition of "elevate." Ms. Santamaria said that staff will consider and look into those different scenarios. Ms. Lehr clarified if a bottom floor was knocked out and used for parking with penthouses built on top of the structure, those structures would still be limited by the height restriction from BFE. Ms. Santamaria noted that Policy 101.5.33 is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35 -foot height limit and a top cap of 40 feet is in place unless the owners go to a public hearing before the BOCC. Mr. Hunter then asked for an explanation of why the different numbers of 38 and 40 feet are used. Ms. Santamaria explained that discounts arc given for one, two and three feet above BFE. Since discounts are not given above that, the new buildings were capped at 38 feet. The 40 -foot limit was added for existing buildings in case they needed to raise their property a little bit higher because they do not meet base flood today. Ms. Lehr clarified that the flood insurance policy associated with a structure would receive a different rating because of the elevation of that property. The discount for CRS is completely different. The discount for CRS could be in addition to the different rating on the insurance policy for an elevation. Ms. Santamaria noted that no exception will be given to either new or existing structures in AE10 through VE10. That came from the comments made at prior DRC meetings about not facilitating redevelopment or new development in higher -risk areas. Mr. Hunter stated he agrees with Mr. Miller about the ability of Monroe County citizens to live under the 35 -foot height limit, but is more sympathetic to the owners of existing homes than to new construction. Mr. Miller is concerned for the properties in such a high AE or VE that they would not be able to develop a home that was attractive. Mr. Miller proposed keeping the 35- foot height limit in the comp plan and allowing for a variance for those so limited that they would not be able to develop something architecturally acceptable to the community. Ms. Santamaria stated it would be difficult to create a variance for architectural or visual issues. There is no real hardship in that instance. Naja Girard, Key West resident, commented that people are more concerned over encouraging new development in AE and VE areas as opposed to elevating existing homes in those areas. Mr. Miller agrees with limiting infrastructure in flood -prone areas, but feels a minimal -size house could be able to punch through the height barrier if the owners could show a hardship when asking for a variance. Ms. Lehr explained that the CRS does not take away points. The CRS program credits activity. Prohibiting development in high -risk areas is credited under the CRS. The emphasis of the program has always been to build safer, more resilient communities. Jim Hendrick was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA) regarding Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef is an isolated and gated community with a distinct community character. The planning process in Ocean Reef is very tough. Mr. Hendrick said Ocean Reef would like the extra five feet for architectural features. The largest concern with this policy for Ocean Reef is its cultural center. The cultural center does not have the head 4 Packet Pg. 1718 J.1.n room needed to be able to house events that could potentially be put on at this facility. Mr. Hendrick asked for a height limit unique to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center, which was built and paid for by the people of Ocean Reef. Another concern that ORCA has is that any multi -story building in existence on the effective date of this policy be able to replace their existing number of stories up to I I feet slab to slab per story. The Ocean Reef hotels are currently dated with a ceiling height of only eight feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that at the last meeting Joel Reed presented this information on behalf of Ocean Reef Club. Staff had asked for an inventory of existing heights of the various structures throughout Ocean Reef. Nothing has been received to date. Mr. Hendrick will send the complete list to Ms. Santamaria. Mr. Hendrick emphasized this is being asked to apply to Ocean Reef only, which is isolated and does have a distinct community character. Deb Curlee, resident of the Lower Keys, noted that Ocean Reef is still part of Monroe County. Mr. Hendrick replied there is an abundant body of policy already recognizing the unique circumstances of Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef consider proposing an Ocean Reef specific overlay to address height issues in Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick replied Ocean Reef has a very effective self- governance program within the community. Ms. Santamaria asked that the information regarding the various heights as well as the total heights at Ocean Reef be sent in to help staff understand what the request is from Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick then explained for Ms. Girard how Ocean Reef is self- governed. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to punching through the height limit and they feel that the 35 -foot height limit has been accommodating and there is still room for elevating the floodplain. Ms. Girard on behalf of Last Stand stated that a majority of the properties should be able to elevate the buildings as much as needed and still have adequate living space. Last Stand would like to see this turned into a hardship situation that would have to be triggered to go through the height barrier. Mr. Miller asked what would happen to those properties whose flood zone was changed due to 0 the FEMA flood maps. Ms. Santamaria reminded Mr. Miller that no exceptions being given to properties in AE10 or VE 10 or higher was a result of members of the community not wanting to to facilitate development of homes within those flood zones. The owners of those properties would o have to work within the rules or not build at all. Ms. Santamaria then confirmed for Mr. Hunter r that reconstructed structures in Policy 101.533 includes those that are demolished and rebuilt. N CD Ms. Santamaria explained that the BOCC resolution that specifies the maximum approved height c is done on a building -by- building basis. There is currently no limit to that height because it is not known what would be needed to meet base flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that buildings c over 35 feet currently could only rebuild to 35 feet if they were wiped out by a hurricane. x w Ms. Curlee asked why no caps are placed in Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria replied that c building heights would be different depending on how it was measured. Ideas were proposed for E the BOCC to consider when making the decision on how high they can go. Mr. Hunter suggested considering the community's desire to limit the height. Ms. Santamaria noted a public a hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out. Packet Pg. 1719 J.1.n Mr. Haroun stated he finds it unreasonable to not allow a condo to be built back up so that no owners would lose their living space. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that is why a flood exception is being proposed for those property owners. Mr. Miller noted that his concern is not whether they can build back what they had or not, but his concern is that the potential for more habitable space in this county is being increased as a result of seeking relief from sea level rise. Ms. Santamaria then stated the affordable housing has been struck from this proposal at this point in time. Staff will work with the BOCC and the Affordable Housing Committee further in that regard. The other item in this stand -alone amendment is the wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility. At the last meeting members of the public asked what the results were from the Keys Energy demonstration project. It was concluded that the wind towers have been proven to be ineffective. Ms. Moses proposed striking this item altogether. Ms. Girard stated on behalf of Last Stand they would like to see the whole exception to the wind turbines stricken. If someone comes forward and proposes a great plan in the future, then it can be looked at with specific considerations in mind. Ms. Santamaria stated the plan is to bring this amendment back to the DRC and get more data for community - specific amendments. It will be brought back as two items: One as a comp plan and an LDR for more discussion and more input. 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -007) (2:3$ p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this r amendment has stemmed from the comprehensive plan update process. There was a lot of N CD discussion on where to direct and how to direct development in the future and if it is appropriate c to go to offshore islands. The BOCC asked staff to remove this from the general comp plan update and process it as a stand -alone amendment. The definition of "offshore island" has been e included. The new provision is that TDRs and TREs would not be allowed to transfer to an x offshore island. W r c Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. E Attorney Nick Batty was present on behalf of FEB Corporation with respect to a Wisteria Island. Mr. Batty stated the issues that FEB has with this proposed amendment pertain to the receiver sites for TREs have to be within a Tier III designated area and must not be an offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 provides that Monroe County shall discourage the development 0 Packet Pg. 1720 J.1.n of offshore islands which have no prior development and have significant upland habitat by discouraging the extension of public facilities and designating the offshore islands as Tier I. That makes a scenario where ROGO exemptions cannot be transferred to those islands and at the same time bumps them down to a Tier I level for the ROGO allocation program. Mr. Batty pointed out there is no definition proposed for "significant upland habitat." Significant upland habitat does not necessarily coincide with environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, areas like C r Wisteria Island, which does not have significant areas of environmentally sensitive habitat, would by default be lumped in with a Tier I designation, which is contrary to the intent of the o code. Bumping them down to a Tier I in terms of the ROGO allocation system and not allowing .a any transfers of TREs to the area would result in a situation where there would be no beneficial $ uses for the properties. Mr. Roberts replied that using the blanket and undefined term "significant upland habitat" does not account for the differences in the natural features of those L° properties and effectuate the intent of the Tier I and Tier III definitions. Ms. Santamaria added o that no changes are being proposed to the Tier III criteria for designating any land. Mr. Batty a� replied that islands which currently do not have a tier designation and would fit whatever the x definition is determined to be of "significant upland habitat" and have no prior development would be pushed into that Tier I category without any other consideration. Ms. Santamaria E stated no particular tier designation is being proposed for any offshore island. This is simply policy, not property specific. Ms. Santamaria will review this further and consider proposing a c definition for "significant upland habitat." _ c �a Ms. Girard, on behalf of Last. Stand, stated it makes very little difference what is on the upland, a n whether or not there even is upland, because offshore islands are surrounded by shallow waters E and environmentally sensitive benthic resources and are important for avian species. Ms. Girard U emphasized a survey containing 76 different species of native plants and a report regarding the ce importance of Wisteria Island for the white crown pigeons a couple of hundred feet away from Wisteria Island arc on file with the County. Last Stand thinks it is extremely appropriate that r offshore islands be given Tier I designations and that they not be considered as receiver sites v because they are inappropriate for development in a county that has a limited number of ROGOs 0 and is basically facing build -out. Ms. Santamaria clarified that this is not a property - specific amendment. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that the tier designations are based on upland U) habitat. Mr. Roberts clarified for Ms. Girard that native areas that provide corridors or wildlife ° o access between other larger native areas are part of the Tier I designation. Mr. Batty pointed out r it is important to make sure the intent of the code is being effectuated. N r Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. 0 r Ms. Santamaria stated staff will review all the comments made and will look at defining w "significant upland habitat" and bring this back to the DRC for one more round of public input before taking it to the Planning Commission. E ADJOURNMENT r The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. a Packet Pg. 1721 J.1.n EXHIBIT 6 vn MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & EN iRONMENTAL 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: August 17, 2015 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON- HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: August 25, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 and May 26, 2015 1. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendments to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 9 X W r c m Q Packet Pg. 1722 J.1.n 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 flan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: X W In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ade are defined as follows: E HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any 0 structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires andlor steeples on Q structures used for institutional andlor public uses only; radio andlor television antenna, flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles andlor transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna andlor collocations as permitted in chapter 146. File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 1723 J.1.n 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. Height limit #35_ 03° For this example, a 3 story home may be developed 7 within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE Sft Crowh of Rood 5ft' Crown of the road Natural Elevation aft • ir telt[tiop to mean sea level lW 5. The vertical distance between grade (crown of mad, 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 In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 9 X NJ Z.; c W E m r Q Packet Pg. 1724 J.1.n Ifs'. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are stfieken dtFau and additions are underlined Policy 101.45.25 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Heiuht is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding sires and/or steeples on structures used ' far institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television - antennas• flagpoles• solar a aratus; utilit y poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supi2ortin structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. buildings In the case of qjWort districts there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5,31 For Ocean Reef, a 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 rails widow's walk that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order a2vroved the county where p ublic access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the communit including the provision of comprehensive private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which reizulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101 5 30 (height limit not exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet to promote public health safe!Y and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding storm surge and other hazards; protect p rop erty 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 recover from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3, ) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovea from flood events. File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 9 c r cs a� 0 a 0 0 0 c 0 CL 4) U X W E W x c M (L CL 0 U cc N O U D U) CD 0 0 LO r 0 N a� _o X w c W E a Packet Pg. 1725 J.1.n LDR Section XXX: As provided in PoHey 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 excel2tion 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; and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35 -foot height Emit 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 hei ht limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary 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: and 4. No exception shall be provided to prgperties located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone. LDR Section XXX• Elevate means the action of retrofitting, moving or raising a building to a higher positun. Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above the ground level by foundation walls shear walls posts piers,_pihngs or columns Floodproofing means any _combination of structural or nonstructural changes or adjustments included in the design, construction, or alteration of a building that reduce or eliminate flood damage to the building and its contents. Relocation means (in retrofitting), the process of moving a building to a new location outside the flood hazard area. Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its ex osure to flooding and raise the living area above flood levels. In general retrofitting_ involves lifting the building and _constructing a new foundation or extending the existing foundation below it or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floors stem within the building_ or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only parking, building access,_ or storage. Retrofitting means making changes to an existin g building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 9 c 0 r cs a� 0 a 0 0 �0 0 r CL aD 0 x r E x c �a CL CL E 0 U to r to N 0 U 0 o! U) to 0 0 LO 0 N r t Cl _o x w c m �a a Packet Pg. 1726 J.1.n Policy 101.5.33 As of the effective date of this policy, a lawfully established existing building, which exceeds the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired improved or reconstructed (demolished and rebuilt) to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area density-and type of use. For buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height _of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be required prior to issuance of any county permit or a royal. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum a roved height. LDR Section XXX: As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed(demolished and rebuilt) to meet the FEMA BFE provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully _established existing building exceeding the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum re uired FEMA BFE an exception of a maximum of five 5 feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE• and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE but will require a height exception of more than five (5) feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any county permit ar approval. The BOCC shall consider: a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel; b. The susceptibility of the existin building and its contents to flood dama c and the effects of such damage on the property owner; c. The ogi bilit 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, in additional threats to public safer • result in extraordinary public expense- create nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public • and f. Community character. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. File 2015 -006 i' 6 (it 9 c r cs a� 0 a 0 0 0 c r CL aD U x (D r E x c �a CL CL 0 U cc N 0 U a! 0 a U) CD 0 0 LO 0 N a� 0 r x W r c m �a r r a Packet Pg. 1727 J.1.n V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. Objective 6013 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 x w government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. c m (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, E 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 Q their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well -being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. L File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 1728 J.1.n (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 the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 1633161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with c the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive ° planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public w health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and E protect natural resources within their jurisdictions m r 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies Q for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 1729 J.1.n ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment.. VII, STAFF RECOMMENDATION hll 19 WI: 16 IN K` I . Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report c 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report ° r 5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes w 6. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 7. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC E meeting (side by side comparison) 8. Chapter 5.0 Elevating Your Home, excerpt from FEMA's Homeowner's Guide To Retrofitting Q 9. Ocean Reef Club request and data. File 2015 -006 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 1730 J.1.n EXHIBIT 7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 25, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1 floor, rear hallway), 2795 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Roberts announced Items 5 and 6 will be heard first. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Roberts deferred approval of minutes to the next DRC meeting. MEETING New Items: S. ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY r COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN w CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL r DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE r FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR a REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING Packet Pg. 1731 J.1.n FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) Mr. Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts reported that while working on the comp plan update the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to pull the proposed changes for further review and submit as a separate amendment. The proposed text amendment has been reviewed at two prior DRC meetings. Policy 101.5.30 adds mechanical equipment to the 35 -foot limit while excluding certain structures. There are no exceptions to the height limitation in Airport districts. Policy 101.5.31 for Ocean Reef, which is a gated and isolated community with a distinct community character, includes non - habitable architectural decorative features that exceed the 35 -foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed five feet above the building's roof line. There are Land Development Code amendments to reflect these policies. Policy 101.5.32 provides that certain buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35 -foot height limit. New buildings voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE may exceed the 35 -foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed 35 feet and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and /or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, asked for the rationale for the difference of an extra two feet between an existing building and a new building. Mr. Coyle explained that it is to allow a homeowner more room to get into compliance and go up. Mr. Hunter then asked for clarification on the definition of "retrofit." Mr. Roberts stated that retrofitting means making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. Demolition and reconstruction of a new structure would not fit within that definition. Dottie Moses, on behalf of the Federation of Homeowners Association, stated that the Federation 0 consistently maintains its opposition to raising the height limit. Ms. Moses asked who is requesting the height increase. Mr. Roberts replied that this amendment was staff - initiated at the U) direction of the BOCC. Ms. Moses believes that the recent change in the code that allows ° o setbacks being used for parking in URM zones will result in another floor of bedrooms being r added under this amendment, which will increase density. The hurricane evacuation issue is N CD always a concern in the community, also. Ms. Moses then asked where the exception provided c for properties located in the AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zones originated. Ms. Schemper will look into that for Ms. Moses. Ms. Schemper added that this item will be brought e back to the DRC one more time. r X W Joel Reid, on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and Ocean Reef Community Association, commented c that these two associations have asked for height changes to address their community concerns. E Mr. Reid expressed disappointment that some items Ocean Reef has been asking for have not been included in the staff report. Mr. Reid then asked for clarification regarding architectural a elements exceeding 40 feet under Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Schemper explained that Policy 101.5.33 applies to lawfully established buildings that are already over 35 feet high. The intent is if it was a pre - existing feature, then the BOCC could approve it, but if it is a proposed architectural 2 Packet Pg. 1732 J.1.n feature an exception would not be given if it is over 40 feet. Mr. Reid stated Ocean Reef would like some protection in order for residents to be able to build back their structures without losing their views. Ms. Schemper pointed out that this amendment is to protect what is already in existence while also meeting the flood requirements. The existing intensity or density type of use would be protected. Policy 101.5.33 does not specifically address increasing slab -to -slab heights. That would have to be approved by the BOCC if over 40 feet. The mechanism of going through the approval process to the BOCC has not been thoroughly fleshed out. That would be in the Land Development Code portion of the amendment. Mr. Reid asked how rebuilding and doing modifications to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center and boat storage area would be handled. Ms. Schemper responded that the full amount of data in those issues has not been received by staff at this point. 6. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -007) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is another item t3 originally contemplated during the camp plan update. Staff was directed by the BOCC to pull it ce out as a separate text amendment. This was already reviewed at two DRC meetings and has been continued to this meeting to get additional public review, input and discussion. The proposed r changes are about where development in terms of TDRs and the transfer of ROGO exemptions v are directed. Existing Policy 101.5.8 allows for the transfer of units based on certain criteria. 0 The new policy expands the criteria and has additional standards to utilize the tier system. The sender site must be located in Tier I, 11, or III -A, or any tier designation if it is within the military to installation impact overlay. The receiver site must have a future land use category ability and o zoning district that allows the use, must meet the adopted density standards, include all r infrastructure, be located within Tier III and may not be within a V zone or a CBRS unit. The N CD comprehensive plan specifies specific habitat types and the certain zoning districts that were c allowed on sender site TDRs. The offshore island zoning category is specifically identified as an eligible sender site. The new proposed policy utilizes the tier designation to specify the sender e site because this already accounts for both habitat types and zoning districts that were in the x existing policy. The new policy states only parcels designated Tier III can be receiver sites and w they must have an adopted maximum net density standard, which would be based on their zoning c category. Ms. Schemper reviewed Policy 206.1.2, which prohibits development on offshore E islands, and the definition of significant native upland habitat. This item will be brought back to the DRC one more time. a Julie Dick with Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Florida Keys Environmental Fund and Last Stand, believes Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and is addressed somewhere else in the 3 Packet Pg. 1733 J.1.n comp plan. Ms. Dick suggested eliminating the entire policy because any confusion resulting from this policy leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Ms. Dick supports Policy 101.6.8 in making sure that offshore islands are not receiver sites. Bart Smith, Esquire, commented that generally he appreciates the revisions made to the obtaining and transferring of TDRs. On behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith stated most of the receiver site criteria in the staff report seems very logical. Mr. Smith does not, however, feel that the sixth criteria that blanketly prohibits offshore islands from being receiver sites is logical because there is not any data and analysis identifying the reasons why an offshore island cannot be a receiver site. Mr. Smith feels that the definition of "significant native upland habitat" is a well- thought -out definition. Mr. Smith stated everything in the proposed ordinance makes logical sense and is conforming except for the blanket prohibition of offshore islands. Naja Girard, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, addressed Mr. Smith's comments by responding that one thing different about offshore islands is that shallow waters surround the offshore islands and include benthic resources that the camp plan directs the County to protect. Encouraging development on offshore islands would require the acceptance of all the boating traffic that would be created as a result of that development. Ms. Girard agrees that Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and changes the normal way offshore islands are designated Tier I, which could result in confusion on its interpretation. Ms. Girard believes this weakens the protection of all offshore islands. Ms. Girard also believes there is not accurate data on what actually exists on these islands. 1. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) AND COMMERCIAL FISHING AREA (CFA) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940.000100, AND FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL 2 (C2) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000, AS PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2012 -069) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this item is a zoning amendment to accompany a FLUM amendment which has already been transmitted by the BOCC to DEO. Staff has received the objections, recommendations and comments report on the FLUM amendment. DEO's objection was that it was increasing the potential residential 4 Packet Pg. 1734 J.1.n development and should be revised to allow other residential uses. The original deadline for adopting that FLUM amendment was September 19, but staff has asked for an extension based on the applicant's delay and the new deadline is March 15, 2016. The current zoning amendment would be required to match the FLUM amendment. The applicant is required to revise the total FLUM amendment to include a comp plan policy that would limit any residential development on the site to affordable housing only. This affects only the northernmost L- shaped parcel on the map. The southern parcels are proposed to become commercial with no residential density. Today's discussion concerns the zoning portion of the amendment. The net change in development for the entire site will actually be a reduction in residential density. The Big Coppitt portion of the site would have an increase in affordable residential, but the proposed camp plan policy will limit all residential development to affordable housing on that site. Staff has found that any impact is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on community character. Staff has found no adverse effects for traffic circulation. There is sufficient capacity for the public facilities for potential development under this zoning amendment. Staff has found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to be consistent with the proposed FLUM amendment that the BOCC has already recommended and transmitted to the State. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. This is contingent on the adoption of the FLUM amendment. Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked what the Navy has to say about this amendment. Ms. Schemper replied that the portion of affordable housing is actually in the noise zone at the greatest distance compared to the rest of the property. Bart Smith, Esquire, agreed and added that the requirement to sound - attenuate to the level the Navy requests is specifically written in to the site - specific zoning. 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (RC) TO RECREATION (R) AND CONSERVATION (C), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -047) 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM NATIVE AREA (NA) TO PARKS AND REFUGE (PR) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, 0 Packet Pg. 1735 J.1.n MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK. 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -048) Ms. Schemper presented the staff reports. Ms. Schemper reported that these two amendments are FLUM and zoning amendments that coordinates with one another for a parcel within Ocean Reef proposed by Ocean Reef Club. The site is 11 acres and currently has a FLUM designation of Residential Conservation with a zoning category of Native Area. The property owners would like to develop a park on a portion of the site and are requesting to change the FLUM to 9.5 acres of Conservation and a little over 1.5 acres of Recreation for the FLUM and, corresponding to that, 9.5 acres of Conservation zoning and 1.5 acres of Park and Refuge zoning. The density and intensity change for this amendment would be a decrease in both residential and non - residential density and intensity. There is no adverse impact on community character and no additional impact foreseen for any of the public facilities. Staff has found both proposed amendments would be consistent with the comp plan and the Land Development Code and is consistent with the principles for guiding development. These amendments support Ocean Reef's desire to increase some of the park and recreational space within the community based on an increase in the number of families with children currently in their community. If the corresponding FLUM amendment is transmitted to the State and adopted, then the zoning plan would be required to remain consistent with the FLUM. Staff is recommending approval of the FLUM amendment from Residential Conservation to Conservation and Recreation and staff is recommending approval of the zoning amendment from Native Area to Parks and Refuge and Conservation district. The zoning recommendation would be contingent on the approval and effectiveness of the proposed FLUM amendment that corresponds with this. Joel Reid, the representative of the applicant, stated that Ocean Reef Club is always looking to enhance the community's experience and meet their needs for the community members. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, asked whether Mr. Roberts had any concern with clearing of upland habitat of protected species of 1.71 acres for the sole purpose of providing a park for homeowners. Mr. Roberts replied that the applicant is required to coordinate directly with U.S. c Fish & Wildlife for the protection of these species. The County's clearing requirements would r fall back to the original development orders for Ocean Reef Club because it is not dictated by the w tier clearing limits in the code. m E 4. PL OCEAN RESIDENCES, 97801 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO, MILE a MARKER 98: A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 24 ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS DESIGNATED AS 11 Packet Pg. 1736 J.1.n AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00090810.000000, 00090820.000000, 00090840.000000, 00090840.000100, AND 00090860.000000. (File 2015 -049) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is a request for a minor conditional use permit which is required because the applicant is requesting to develop 24 attached dwelling units. Within the Urban Residential zoning category that use requires a minor conditional use permit. The development is reviewed by staff as a whole for consistency sake. The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached dwelling units as market rate housing. The site's current characteristics and zoning were described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units. Ms. Schemper then listed the categories where staff has found either compliance is still to be determined or the site was found not in compliance. Compliance with the residential ROGO is to be determined because at the time of the building permit is when the applicant applies for their ROGO allocations. An additional eight market rate ROGO allocations and 24 affordable housing ROGO allocations would be needed. Permitted uses is listed as not in compliance because the attached residential dwelling units are permitted with the condition that sufficient common areas for recreation are provided to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be developed. Compliance is to be determined on residential density and maximum floor area because the site requires 7.6 transferred development rights which are done at the time of the building permit. Compliance is to be determined on required open space because the calculations were not comparable of the upland area on the site plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the indicated shoreline setbacks were either incorrect or not clearly depicted on the site plan. Ms. Schemper continued to report that most of the non - shoreline setbacks are in compliance at this point, but the setback lines shown on the site plan are not necessarily the correct lines in to every situation. The surface water management will be dealt with for full compliance at the time o of permit application. Mr. Roberts noted that there was conflicting information on the site plan "' r CD regarding the depth to ground water. Ms. Schemper continued to report that there are N inconsistencies on the site plan regarding the height of the fencing and privacy wall. The privacy c wall shown on the site plan separates the site completely between the attached units and the m detached units, which basically turns the parcel into two separate developments and they would o each need to meet all of the land development regulations on their own. Some sort of connection x is needed between the two. Compliance for flood plain, energy conservation and potable water w is to be determined, as well as environmental design criteria and mitigation, at the building permit stage. The required parking is also affected by the separation between the two types of E units on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces is sufficient if the site is viewed as a whole. The required bufferyards are not in compliance because the site plan shows some a incorrect bufferyards. Mr. Roberts added that the property was rezoned from URM to UR and the URM boundary buffers are being shown. 7 Packet Pg. 1737 J.1.n Ms. Schemper continued to report that the square footage of the signage proposed has some issues and recommended that the signage be done separately as part of the fence permit at the time of the building permit. The access is currently under review by the County's traffic consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U.S.1, but also needs to comply with FDOT standards. Compliance is to be determined on inclusionary housing at the time of the building permit because when the tenth permanent market rate unit gets its certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy is required on at least three of the affordable housing units, and a proportional increase continues accordingly throughout the development. Given all of those items, staff still recommends approval. A list of 22 conditions required are listed in the staff report. Jorge Cepero, present on behalf of the applicant, clarified that there is still one structure, a gatehouse, in the front of the property that was not demolished. Robert Ginter, owner of an adjoining property, is concerned about the fencing and buffers to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schemper explained that there are quite a few buffers on the site plan. There is an access off of First Street for a portion of the property. Ms. Schemper will make the site plan available to Mr. Ginter at the end of today's meeting. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, is concerned that this is the one time that the public has a chance to review this proposal and there are so many items still not deemed to be in compliance. Ms. Schemper explained that there is a 30 -day notice that goes out that says the Planning Director intends to issue the minor conditional use permit, as well as a legal ad. The Planning Director's decision will not be made until these items are all fulfilled. The revised proposal will be available through the Planning Department. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. X W r C d E t V ca r r Q 8 Packet Pg. 1738 J.1.n EXHIBIT 8 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Froth: Mayte 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 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) Meeting: October 27, 2015 - continued from March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015 & August 25, 2015 1. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101,532 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. H. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. File 2015 -006 Page I of S X W c m E t m Q Packet Pg. 1739 J.1.n 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 -awned offshore islands, Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to 0 allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and r comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a w future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. m r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 1740 J.1.n III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ode are defined as follows: 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. Height limit + 30 . Far this example. a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height L limit and the flood zone of AE 511 "town of Road 5tt■ Crown of the road Natural Eievetlon aft • Ir teww to mean Im le„d AE 5' File 2015 -006 The vertical distance between grade (crown of road, based on definition, for this example) and the highest part ofthe structure Height 2fl of fill needed to reach 5ft flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet Page 3 of 8 X W c tv E t V Q Packet Pg. 1741 J.1.n In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are atAeken- tiz�ewgh and additions are underlined Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately. Policy 101.452630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between gade and the highest Rart of any structure including mechanical equipment, but excludin spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only, chimneys radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles solar app aratus; utilijy 12oles and/or transmission towers and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall an of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations except as s2ecifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. P*eaeptiens will be all buildings, transmission tewem and efliep stmetu In the case of airport districts there shall be no exce tions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Poligj 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef a master planned community which is Rated, inaccessible to the surroundin community, and has a distinct community character buildings may include non, habitable architectural decorative features such as finials railings widow's walk parapets that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof linc. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned commuWV means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area sub to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the communily is operated and maintained by the communily including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entt which regglates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. X W Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. I E m r r EN File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 1742 J.1.n PoliEy 101.5.32 Within in I 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, h safety and general welfare: allow adaptation to coastal flooding,,_ storm sure 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 c flood events: and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be a '0 voluntarily elevated up to three (3 ) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood 0 p rotection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures 0 of vublic funds for recovery from flood events In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result L° in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet r- 0 r CL m Policy 101.5.33 x Within in I year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe Coup shall adopt Land Development m E Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing E buildings, exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, to_promote�ublic health, safe and � g eneral welfare adaptation to coastal flooding, storm sure and other hazards roe from flooding and minimize damages, inimize public and private losses due to flooding: minimize future = expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recove from flood events; and mitig c�a rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired improved, a retrofitted or redeveloped to meet required FEMA base flood elevation FE provided the building does CL not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet and the building is limited to the lawfully E E 0 established existing intensi1y, floor area building envelope floor to floor height) density and a of use. v For lawfully established existing buildings that areproposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet. a public to hearing before the Board of Courts Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum anproved height prior to issuance of any count ennit or development anproval. A BOCC resolution N r shall specify the maximum approved height. ° U tY D tY N W. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, to CD THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT 9 LO A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the T " O r Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County hall manage future ty g growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of t County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. c r Policy 217.1.4 X W 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 (D E 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. r Q File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 1743 J.1.n Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. 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 goveming 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 N designation. _ (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, ° wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. U (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. N cc (d) Ensuring the maximum well -being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic °e development. 9 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. o (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and N ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. c (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. t (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost - effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major e public investments, including: r X 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; W 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; m 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; E 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; c 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; Q 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and File 2015 -006 Page 6 of S Packet Pg. 1744 J.1.n 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. Q) 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 the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.316] (4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of Iand within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies W for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the W area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and ° o strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to LO ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the N principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued c to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those e programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the r comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development t j regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. t VT. PROCESS , r Q Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual File 2015 -006 Page 7 of S Packet Pg. 1745 J.1.n interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMINMNI)ATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5, May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 8. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 9. Ocean Reef Club request and data. X W r C d E t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 1746 J.1.n EXHIBIT 9 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 (I' 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 X W r c m �a r a Packet Pg. 1747 J.1.n 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 r property. Ms. Santamaria responded that this is a map amendment only and the specific w 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 E 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 a and would approve it. Ms. Creech and Mr. Bond confirmed that no negative feedback was received from any neighbors. Packet Pg. 1748 J.1.n 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 -I$7 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 y meeting on the proposed comp plan amendments for the height provisions. The BOCC asked c staff to work on the height policies that were in the comp plan update and process them r separately so that they could be fully vetted and worked through as one topic versus within the N CD 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 c well. That height is defined as "The vertical distance between grade and the highest part of the r structure." w r c Ms. Santamaria reported that the next amendment is to Policy 101.5.31, Ocean Reef - specific, E 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 2 cannot exceed a 40 -foot height imit. There are no differences between this version and what was a presented at the last DRC meeting regarding this policy. Packet Pg. 1749 J.1.n 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 Ivey Largo Federation of Homeowners, voiced concern these policies could spill over into Unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Curlee agreed. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff would like to start to move this item toward the Planning Commission unless members of the public would like to have another DRC meeting to get more input. Alicia Putney, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, reiterated what Ms. Moses stated regarding spillover into Monroe County. Ms. Santamaria then reported that the next proposed amendment is to Policy 101.5.32, and this is to create a flood protection height exception up to five feet above the 35 -foot height limits to allow buildings to go three feet above their base flood elevation. In no event under this policy will a building be over 40 feet. The policy is specific to new buildings and for existing buildings. If the building is not being elevated to meet at least the required base flood elevation this exception cannot be used at all. This exception would not be provided for buildings located in the very hazardous flood zones. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses commented that adding an extra three feet to meet base flood elevation should be w 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 E homes there are in the County below ' base flood right now. Staff is working on getting v information from the Property Appraiser to see if somehow that information can be extrapolated, 2 but it is not available at this time. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Ms. Moses that this policy a refers to elevating existing structures. If a house is torn down it must be rebuilt to a 35 -foot height limit. Ms. Santamaria then explained between the last DRC meeting and today the 4 Packet Pg. 1750 J.1.n 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 c concerns because they would like to elevate, but if they do they are going to lose rack space r when they already cannot supply the need that they have. Mr. Hendrick then asked that the w 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 E definition of "building." �a r Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. a Packet Pg. 1751 0 C 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 Iand 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 r- "severability" as used in the agenda. Ms. Santamaria explained that the one provision of r offshore island could be appealed and extracted out without overturning the rest of the ordinance w 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. E Kyle that the fact that his island is only 800 feet from US -1 does not give it any kind of special consideration. Q Gidget Jackson asked whether there is any flexibility in the restricted use for the islands for camping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner 6 Packet Pg. 1752 J.1.n 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. VA Packet Pg. 1753 1.1.n 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 IikeIy 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. X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1754 EXHIBIT 10 Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County X W r c m E t v cc Q Packet Pg. 1755 FEMA Flood Zone Number of % of total % of total # of Private - Parcels Vacant Parcels X 1,935 3.40% 462 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 03 5.16% R CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 999 1.76% 165 v � o 2 AE 5 1 0.00% - AE 6 1,964 3.46% 95 3 AE 7 8,996 15.83% 296 C o � N tq AE 8 14,824 26.08% 2,699 o 0 AE 9 I1,272 19.83% 1,916 AE 10 6,835 12.02% 1 098 ' 83.48% AE 11 2,983 5.25% 326 3 AE 12 121 0.21% 12 AE 13 418 0.74% 5 b o ° cv AE 14 36 0.06% - AE 15 3 0.01% o AE 16 1 0.00% - VE 9 5 0.01% 1 3 story VE 10 327 0.58% 67 VE 11 1,019 139% 272 VE 12 1,443 2.54% 265 3 VE 13 1,069 1.88% 127 p VE 14 1,815 3.19% 52 VE 15 352 0.62% 52 VE 16 31 0.05% 7 ` 10.76% o VE 17 33 0.06% 2 VE 19 5 0.01% - VE 20 1 0.00% VE 21 8 0.01% - 3 VE 22 7 0.01 %° o VE 23 1 0.00% b o VE 24 1 0.00% 0 r, VE 26 2 0.00% - OPEN WATER 10 0.02% 2 total parcels 56,843 7,921 Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. X W r c m E t v cc Q Packet Pg. 1755 J.1.n EXHIBIT 11 Ocean Reef Height Policy Staff s draft height Policy for Ocean Reef, as set forth in the DRC Staff Report, reads: Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walls) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. The Staff Report accurately states that "Draft Policy 10 1.5.31 is intended to address non - habitable architectural decorative features ". However, architectural decorative features are only one (and the least significant) of three provisions that Ocean Reef has requested. Staff is occasionally presented with requests by Ocean Reef property owners to allow extra height for widow's walks and other such features, so staffs focus on that element is understandable. But of greater long -term importance to ORCA are provisions allowing story -by -story replacement of existing multi- family buildings, and an allowance for the unique requirements of a modernized Cultural Center. As proposed by ORCA, the Ocean Reef height Policy would read: Policy 101.5.31 For O cean Reef, a gated community which is isol and inaccessible to T7 the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, the N following policy shall apply: CD 1. Structures rnaV include non - habitable architectural decorative 0 features (such as finials, rails, and a widow's walk) that exceed the y 35 foot_height limit in Policy 101.5.30, provided that such features o do not extend more than 5 feet above the structure's roof line. 2. Multi -story buildings in existence on the effective date of this o N Policy may be replaced at their existiniz number of stories up to 11' slab -to -slab per story. W 3. The height limit applicable to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center shall o be 65 feet above grade. x w The above Policy is carefully tailored to the needs and circumstances of the Ocean W Reef Community. The general language of proposed Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33, E allowing an additional 5' of height for replacement of existing buildings exceeding m 35', does not facilitate replacement of Ocean Reef's multi -story buildings, because it a would force undesirable design features such as low ceiling heights. Nor does it accommodate the additional height needed for Cultural Center stage performances. Packet Pg. 1756 J.1.n Sa -Ma e From: RC3WORLD <joelreed55 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:50 AM To: Santamaria -Mayte Cc: David Ritz, Jack Duncan; Jim Hendrick; Michael G. Leemhuis Subject: Re: height Comprehensive Plan amendment and Ocean Reef Club Attachments: Height_data_table_2015- 06- 09.pdf, ATT00001.htm Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Categories: Blue Category Mayte, As was requested please find a list of buildings and corresponding data related to structures that exceed the 35' height limit in Ocean Reef Club. We are still collecting additional data onC.Q, Pompano, and Water Tower. We will submit any additional detail that we have on these structures once the data is obtained.. I know we also discussed sending the existing heights on the cultural center, which we are working on and will send over as soon once it is available. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you or your staff have any additional questions or comments as you prepare your next round of staff reports. Sincerely, Joel Reed, AICP Phone: 404.403.2925 joelreed55 @ amail.corn X W Z.; C d >_ t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1757 J.1.n Table 1 OCEAN REEF EXISTING STRUCTURES > 35' DATA TABLE Name Primary Use Levels of habitable Downstairs! Storage/ Enc. Overall H eight to Soffit or Tap of Beam Overall Height to Top of Roof Floor to Floor Avg, Slab Thicknes s Grade Flood Zone Amberjack Hotel 3 No 29 • 1 112" 33 112 " 8" to 2'6' Unknown Unknown Boat Barn Comm. NIA NIA Unknown 37' NIA Unknown Unknown Creek House Condo Unk. Unknown Unknown a35' Unknown Unknown Unknown Dolphin Hotel 4 Unknown 43' - 2" 49'- 2 - • —9' — 8' ,..5 AE11 Harbor House Condo 4 Yes Unknown 54' 9' —8' Unknown AE9 Madin Hotel 3 Yes 38' 42' —8' -8" —8" 4' -8112' VE Plaza Comm. 3 Yes 28' - 6" a 35' 9' _ 0" 6` Unknown Unknown Yachtsman Condo 3 Yes 35' - 9' Unknown 8'- 7' Unknown Unknown Unknown Fcmpano Hotel TED Tt1A TED TBD C.O. Dormitory Res. TED TTD TBD Water Tower NIA NIA N TED TED NOW Amberjack and Plaza added as pre -firm structure because height would be over 35' with redevelopment 8 built above flood ' Estimated roof to be 6' Prepared by RMINORLD, Inc. 101612014, fast modified 6fgf2015 X W r C d E t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1758 J.1.o 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 r concerning a request for a Minor Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for x the development of a proposed 8,000 square foot building with 2,600 square feet of commercial w 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, E 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 a September 19, 1952, having real estate number 00111560.000000. (File 2015 -218) Packet Pg. 1759 J.1.o 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. 1760 J.1.o 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. 1761 J.1.o 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. 1762 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. r r Deb Curlee, resident of Cudj oe Key, asked for clarification of the term "redevelop" for buildings w that already exist over 35 feet. Ms. Santamaria explained that could include a tear -down, but it Z.; states specifically a lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, E 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, Q density and type of use. So they are confined to the existing footprint and envelope Packet Pg. 1763 J.1.o 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. 1764 0 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. 1765 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. 1766 J.1.p MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Planning Commission From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: February 12, 2016 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN 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) Meeting: February 24, 2016 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 13 Packet Pg. 1767 to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow 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. File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 13 cc N N 0 U (L W U) cc 0 0 LO T " O N 2 N r X w Z.; E a Packet Pg. 1768 J.1.p The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on January 26, 2016, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The staff report from the January 26, 2016 DRC is attached as Exhibit 12. Minutes from the January 26, 2016 DRC are not available as of the date of this staff report. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, he�ht and rg ade are defined as follows: 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 -006 Page 3 of 13 Packet Pg. 1769 J.1.p 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 5tt` Crown ofthe road Natural Elevation 3f. in relation to mean eea 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 In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. National Flood Insurance Program & Biggert- Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act In 1968, Congress created the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) 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 consultation, reports and studies. File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 13 X W Z.; C Q) E �a r a Packet Pg. 1770 J.1.p 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 13. Monroe County Green Keys Proiect 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 GEOGRAPIHIC REGIONS OF KEY LARGO AND STOCK ISLAND, MONRQE COUNTY, FL USING THE COASTAL ADAPTATION TO SEA LEVEL RISE TOOL (COAST) Jonathan T. Lockman, AJCP Samuel B. Merrill, PhD Alexander Gray, MS CATALYSIS ADAPTATION PARTNERS, LLC 1 242 Sawyer Street, South Portland, ME 04106 18 November 2015 ERIC! L. DEADLY, P.AE. Entire report can be accessed here: http: / /fl- monroecountyclimate .civicplus.com /DocumentCenter /View /l03 x W r c W E m r r El File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 13 Packet Pg. 1771 J.1.p 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Catalysis Adaptation Partners, LLC (Catalysis) specializes in analyzing impacts from storm surges and long -term sea level rise using its COastal 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 over time 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 GreenKeysl project. Working with 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 for "no- action" and three (3) adaptation action scenarios: 1) Elevating and floodproofing buildings; 2) building barriers close to shore; 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'. Those projections included a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2030 of 3 and 7" respectively, as well as a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2060 of 9" and 24" respectively. As requested by workshop participants, a lower sea level rise projection was also employed in the analysis based only on 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, for a very low scenario of sea level rise of 1.82" in 2030 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 I Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties, Sea Level Rise Ad Hoc Technical working Group (April 2011). File 2015 -006 Page 6of13 Packet Pg. 1772 J.1.p • 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 coast 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 it cost to implement them. Ratios less than 1 represented actions that would cost more than the amount of reduced damages in the future (i.e., not cost effective). The action that had the best benefit -cost ratio was elevating and floodproofing 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 (meaning for every $1.00 spent on elevating and floodproofing, the avoided damages would range from $5.48 to $13.70), depending on the sea level rise scenario (high, low or tide gauge trend) and construction cost estimates (high and low). Building barriers had the second highest benefit -cost ratios, but with all results below 1 (0.40 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 floodproofing buildings was their most preferred action. In addition, residents thought the County should pursue sources of funding to help private property owners implement this strategy. The modeling results and community engagement process enabled the Project Team to provide o 0 the County residents with a context for beginning more difficult conversations and decision - making Ul) T " CD processes regarding their vulnerabilities. Discussions of factors outside of the model should lead to diverse C14 r co- benefits (e.g., choosing to restore mangrove forests to not only improve coastal ecosystems but also c 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 most important to a r community in planning how to adapt to sea level rise and future storm surges. w Z.; c However, these results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a program to m E elevate and floodproof residential and commercial buildings. Catalysis recommends that the County use m this information to: Q • 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 -006 Page 7of13 Packet Pg. 1773 J.1.p • 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 APPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPOSED STRATEGIES 6.1 KEYPAD POWNG RESULTS FROM COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 GreenKEYSI Keypad Polling Results from the COAST community modeling exercise conducted November 5 2014 at the Nelson Government Center In Key Largo, FL Question ill: Currently in Key Largo, 40% of properties are already elevated. What percentage of additional Key Largo V -zone buildings do you want to see elevated in this model? 1 a 25% 9 29% b 5096 2 6% c 75% 2 6% d The draft input of 100% 14 45% blank 4 13% Total 31 1 OD'I Question 02: What percentage of Key Largo A -zone buildings do you want to see floodproofed in this model? 2 a 25% 2 6% Question 2 b 509 5 16% 20 16 c 75% 4 13% to d The draft input of 100% 16 52% 2 4 blank 4 13% 0 6 Total 31 100% a c d Mara Question 03: Currently in Key Largo, new buildings are required to be elevated to the 100 -year flood elevation, which ranges from 6 to 15 feet across the Key. For parcels that will be elevated in the model, do you want them to be elevated up to this code or to something higher? 3 a Up to current code 12 39% Question 3 b Up to current code plus 1 3 ON 20 a 15 c Up to current code plus 3 is 48% 10 blank 1 3% , 3 ' t Total 31 11J(} 0 a B c 61a "k Question #4: The model estimates floodproofing to a certain height. How high would you like to see: parcels floodproofed? c d I t 0 O% uc5i U;1 4 L. 3 It 8 26% 20 C ,, It 3 10% t0 8 d The draft input of 8 ft 16 SZ% p 3 bl,"r 4 13% 0 , Twa 31 10096 a b c d blar File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 13 cD N N O U a U) cD O 0 to O N t 2 t N r X W r C d E t V tts r r Q Packet Pg. 1774 J.1.p IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are °*r -ieke ti„-,,,,,.h and additions are underlined Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately. Policy 101.45.2630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and /or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only, chimneys, radio and /or television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus, utility poles and /or transmission towers, and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and /or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. L-�Eeeptiaas will be allowed for- apput4enanees to buildings, tr-ansmission towers and athe si mil a r - stpdetur -es. In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 11. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood File 2015 -006 Page 9 of 13 c 0 a� 0 L M r a� x c a M E 0 U r N N O U a a U) CD 0 0 LO 0 N r t 2 W N r X W Z.; c m E �a a Packet Pg. 1775 J.1.p protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before efore the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. 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 N Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community r Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 w rating. d Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to w promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements Q contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. File 2015 -006 Page 10 of 13 Packet Pg. 1776 J.1.p Objective 601.3 By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites. Policy 601.3.2 The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe, decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods. B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well -being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost - effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. 0) 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. File 2015 -006 Page 11 of 13 X W Z.; C m m Q Packet Pg. 1777 J.1.p (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 the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the ca Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual x interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and w process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. E �a The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review a the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony File 2015 -006 Page 12 of 13 Packet Pg. 1778 given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 8. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report 9. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes 10. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 11. Ocean Reef Club request and data. 12. January 26, 2016 DRC Staff Report 13. FEMA data sheets on Rebuilding in Flood zones and `Reduce Your Risk, Reduce Your Premium' 14. Proposed Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Code Amendments File 2015 -006 Page 13 of 13 Packet Pg. 1779 J.1.p EXHIBIT 1 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? Debbie: 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. 5o 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 Page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 1780 J.1.p 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 x W that's in there ... c m Commissioner Carruthers: the institutional language ... E t 0 m Joel Reed: Yeah. This is additional language, as we were talking about that five foot that was in there, that we Q 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. Page 2 of 12 Packet Pg. 1781 J.1.p Mayor Murphy: Do we have a public speaker on this? Lindsay Ballar We do. Mayor Murphy: Let's hear the public speaker. Another one. Lindsay Ballard: D.A. Aldridge 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 asking at this time to have you not vote on this. We have not had the opportunity to look at the language that has been just handed to you and we feel that it needs to be reviewed very closely by the staff and by you because this is a huge change that they are requesting. Thank you. Mayor Murphy:... That's it Commissioner Kolhage: What does the, in the final sentence when they talk about assembly group Al and so forth, what does that mean? We don't know. Mayor Murphy: Well they haven't seen it yet. This is the problem with this. Well we have seen that he emailed it but we asked questions. We didn't know what he meant by that. 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. Commissioner Rice: Could we not deal with this today and deal with it in January? If you want us to address his comments, I just say get direction from the board at this point. We work on some type of language to bring back to you in January. Commissioner Rice: I think that's what we should do. Mayor Murphy: And what happens if we then want to make changes in January? Do we hold up the whole process? I think you can legally make changes on the floor by motion before we transmit. Bob Shillinger: As long as you're not changing the general substance of it. The general tone of it. 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 Packet Pg. 1782 J.1.p 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 from the holidays. Commissioner Neugent: Oh my gosh we might have to do a little work. around. No, that's not what I meant. It's just that even your regular board meetings got all shifted Commissioner Neugent: Have it at the board meeting. End of the item discussion for a board meeting. Okay. We can do that. Mayor Murphy: We can do that. Commissioner Neugent: Another things that's in this right here as I read it, for clarification purposes, "architectural decorating features that exceed the thirty five foot height limit but such features shall not exceed five feet above the structures roof line" Joel also mentioned that some of these buildings are already, I guess 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 non- conforming? Or thirty five feet, shall not exceed five feet above thirty five feet? That's not the way I necessarily interpret that. Mayor Murphy: Because if it's the fifty four foot building, we're now at fifty nine... It's not though. This is meant for new development that cannot exceed thirty five feet. Commissioner Neugent: Well what happens ... 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 feet, be allowed to rebuild to that height plus... Commissioner Neugent: I didn't hear anybody bring that up... That's really what he is asking though. Commissioner Rice: Weil that's what this really says Page 4 of 12 Packet Pg. 1783 J.1.p Mayor Murphy: Pius 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... Mayor Murphy: Well his language is kind of going in a figure eight. Commissioner Kolhage: I understand what they are saying. In other words, he wants to maintain what they have now with an adjustment. Yes. I think that's what he is asking. Commissioner Kolhage: And I think that is reasonable. Mayor Murphy: To replace a building, an older building that was built over thirty five feet, have a problem with that anywhere in Monroe County. It is what it is, we're all used to it, it's part of the landscape. Commissioner Neugent: Clarification on what you just said Mayor Murphy: I do not object to any of the older buildings that were built above thirty five feet. We all have them in our neighborhoods. If they need to be replaced or have to be replaced, I don't have a problem with them maintaining the height. Commissioner Neugent: Hold on a minute there. Is there anything in our code, and I would use this as an analogy, FEMA's description of it, if its damaged by more than fifty percent, it has to be rebuilt, that is there anything in our code or Comp Plan that says that it then can be built over thirty five feet? Mayor Murphy: No, No. 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 conform to the new code, which is the thirty five foot height limit. And if it's destroyed beyond fifty percent under the floodplain rules, they have to raise the elevation and that's why they added this other position. 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 what Commissioner Murphy just said ... You can't. That is what Joel is asking you to change. Page 5 of 12 Packet Pg. 1784 J.1.p 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 1055.32. 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 Page 6 of 12 Packet Pg. 1785 J.1.p 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 I(olhage: 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 Kolhage: So you don't have an objection to it? Mayor Murphy: Not to that. I have an objection to the decorative features. Commissioner I(olhage: Okay but look, if it's, if they got a fifty foot building and there is a five foot adjustment for base flood elevation, you don't have a problem with them going to fifty five feet? Mayor Murphy: No. Commissioner Kolhage: Okay. Mayor Murphy: They are going to what they were before the remodel ... and you want it county wide not just for Ocean Reef? Mayor Murphy: Yes. Commissioner Carruthers: But only for flood mitigation... Mayor Murphy: That's it, no decorative stuff. Well right now the decorative is in, the flood is in... Commissioner Carruthers: Well the decorative is in for Ocean Reef only, the flood is in for everyone. Right? Yeah and the decorative is not so much what Joel is talking about relative to the bigger commercial buildings, its more for the single family homes that want the decorative features on top of the roof. They are separate issues really. So right now in the draft policy you have included an extra five feet in Ocean Reef for the decorative architectural features, you've included for the whole county up to five feet adjustments for flood protection, raising your elevations, and Joel is asking you to also include, for Ocean Reef, but it sounds like you at least have one Commissioner who wants to do it county wide for grandfathering existing buildings that are higher than thirty five feet and allowing them to get the flood adjustment. Bob Shillinger: You'd want to vest them for that height is what I'm hearing. Yup. But I don't know the Commissions, I'm not getting... Page 7 of 12 Packet Pg. 1786 J.1.p 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 Rice: 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 today that did not exist then. understand what you all are asking for so if you want to just move on without voting, we will draft language and bring it back for discussion on one of your regular agendas. Commissioner Neugent: Let me point this out, as someone who operated out of an illegal non - conforming building, if you think that it is something that is, it was called Porky's restaurant, and if would have been destroyed by a storm, I would have had a very difficult time, if not impossible time to rebuild with the same amount of square footage because of setbacks that came into play after Porky's was built eons ago. So if you think that there is a fairness level here, there is really a lot of situations where you can't rebuild. Commissioner Carruthers: but wouldn't you have been able to apply for variances and exceptions to those setbacks... No. Commissioner Neugent: You still would have had to meet the setback requirements. You could apply for variance for a setback but not height. Mayor Murphy: See well all we are talking about is height. Not their setbacks. Not anything else. Commissioner Kolhage: We're talking about changing the whole concept of the fifty percent rule. No I understand .... Commissioner Kolhage: How does it work? For height...we're saying we're washing away the fifty percent rule. Well other things enter into ....for height you would be washing it away. Bob Shillinger: As a trigger for bringing it into compliance with current code There are still other things that apply to that but most of those can be remedied by a variance Commissioner Carruthers: and just to clarify what you are eluding to I think, Commissioner, is that someone can elevate their building now. And that's not necessarily fifty percent improvement. Right? Page 8 of 12 Packet Pg. 1787 J.1.p 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 Commissioner Carruthers: Everybody gets a smaller unit which is still going to be an issue so ... That's under our current rules. Commissioner Rice: And what we're trying to do is validate, you don't want to build a fifty year building or sixty year building without accommodating expected sea level rise Commissioner Carruthers: i guess my only other comment is that I know that this is going to be controversial and people are going to be concerned about character and things like that... Mayor Murphy: But it's already there. Commissioner Carruthers: Well it is already there... Mayor Murphy: So it's not changing the landscape... 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 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. Mayor Murphy: Alright listen we're going to take a break ......................................................................... ............................... Mayor Murphy: And what I realized is we neglected to give Christine a head nod one way or the other on the non - habitable architectural decorative features. My comment was, I will vote for the increase in height but not for the decorative features. Discuss it and let her know which direction you would like her to take when she does her staff report. Commissioner Carruthers: Are you talking about within Ocean Reef or County wide? Mayor Murphy: They are the only ones that asked for it. Commissioner Carruthers: I don't really care. Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 1788 J.1.p 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. 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... They have talked about it, I am very clear, everyone is okay with that. Ocean Reef only, decorative features, five additional feet. And I didn't hear, I heard Murphy say she's opposed to it but I didn't hear what any of you other Commissioners thought of that. Mayor Murphy: And that's what I am trying to bring out so that she knows where to go with it. Commissioner Neugent: I thought I heard you ask, you wanted a head nod whether this was going to be proposed just for Ocean Reef or all of unincorporated Monroe County. you all. I had never heard that the decorative features was proposed for all of Monroe County from Commissioner Rice and Commissioner Kolhage respond in unison: No, no Commissioner Neugent: Okay but I also heard Commissioner Mayor Murphy say, I'm not going to treat them any different than the rest of the County. Commissioner Rice: Well that gives you a slight clue as to how she might vote. 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 existing structures that are already over thirty five feet to be able to be replaced with the five foot flood 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 wide, which I had never heard as an option to this moment. Commissioner Kolhage: Let me just state my position on this and you can go down the line I guess but I really 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 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. 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 Packet Pg. 1789 J.1.p 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 Meridian West could have had another floor which would have increased the housing if they had gone up an additional foot or so. So again, more information to discuss that strictly for affordable housing. 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 discussed it as staff after you had that meeting. It's our opinion that if you are going to incentivize affordable housing development by giving them a higher height limit that you should restrict that to very low and low maybe median, but the moderate income level is something that we do not think should be incentivized with a height increase. Commissioner Neugent: One of the biggest problems in dealing with affordable housing is the property to build them on. Another reason why I think the discussion should take place for affordable housing to go up is that if you can build more on that specific site as opposed to trying to find other properties to build affordable housing on. It helps resolve that part of the equation. Commissioner Kolhage: So what are you going to do with that Christine? Between now and January? Do you want us to include something for you to consider relative to affordable in the next version that we bring to you at your regular meeting for discussion? Commissioner Rice: I do. Commissioner Carruthers: I do. Okay. Commissioner Kolhage: I remain to be convinced... Commissioner Rice: I'm not sure how I feel about it but I think we do need to have the discussion. And I'm going to have some diagrams for you all by the next meeting with each policy so you can see what that means. Commissioner Carruthers: Will you also, related to this policy with affordable, that would have to be in very specific tiered areas obviously. Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 1790 J.1.p I understand. I will bring that also. Commissioner Kolhage: It's all about potential serious community character issues here. X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 1791 J.1.p 4 EXHIBIT 2 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Sehemper, Comprehensive PIanning Manager Date: March 17, 2015 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE /WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND /OR MEDIAN INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: March 24, 2015 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the r height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by w a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features .. within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions m to the height limit in order to protect property fron flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and E create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and /or median Q income categories on properties designated as tier 3. File 2015 -006 Page] of 20 Packet Pg. 1792 J.1.p II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101. 5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed 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. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ade are defined as follows: HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any LO structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and /or steeples on o structures used for institutional and /or public uses only; radio and /or television antenna, r flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and /or transmission towers; and certain antenna c 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 N r permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations. In the case of x airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated w in this section shall not apply. m E 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 r adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher. To confirm the natural elevation of the ground Q 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 far a given parcel, the File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 20 Packet Pg. 1793 J.1.p 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. Height limit X 35 X 30 For this example, a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE 5111 Crown of Road 511• Crown ofthe road Natural Elevation aft in relatlon 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 off]] needed to reach 511 flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of3 feet In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003-2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). X W Z.; C d E t V tts r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 20 Packet Pg. 1794 J.1.p OCEAN REEF - architectural decorative features: Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community., and has a distinct community character, structures may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. Draft Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non - habitable architectural decorative features which are commonly applied for in the Ocean Reef community and the issues this causes in permitting relative to the architectural decorative features. 40 0 9 9 Yellow = symbol for a non - habitable architectural decorative feature Ctown of Road 5' Naturd Devarlon " 0 relation 10 MM IN level AE 5' AE 5' This type of exemption would be to address items such as balls, finials, or a widow's walk t � � File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 20 Packet Pg. 1795 J.1.p FLOOD PROTECTION AND INSURANCE DISCOUNTS: Policy 101.5.32 In order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows: 1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA base flood elevation BFE based on the flood zone an exception of uR to five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE: and 2. For existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone an exce Lion of up to five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit mqy be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no Greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, max be permitted a height exception of more than five 5 feet if necessary to voluntarily elevate the structure to meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Draft Policy 101.5.32 is intended to help protect structures from flood events, mitigate upcoming FEMA flood zone height changes, mitigate rising insurance costs for the property owner and assist with flood insurance rate discounts in the Community Rating System. The discussed height exception would allow structures to be elevated higher than the required minimum FEMA base flood elevation which could then allow property owners to obtain discounts on their insurance and help mitigate potential flooding damage. See the following example on flood insurance discounts: EXAMPLE: PreFIRM "A" Zone $250k building coverage b2k deductible 1 � �' Annual Annual % Premiums Savings Savings +3' 402 1 5,894 94% < � +2' 603 $ 5693 9% BFE I 1 +1' 791 $5,505 87% 30 -Year Savings $176,820 $170,790 $165,162 W a ..3' $6,268/yr 100% File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 20 Packet Pg. 1796 J.1.p For drag Policy 101.5.32 which creates the Flood Protection Height exception, the BOCC expressed concerns with a property owner's ability to either build or elevate their homes without losing living space (i.e. reducing the number of stories of the structure) and being squeezed into smaller homes. To try and determine if this is an issue with the proposed policy exception, which would allow an additional 5 feet in height, County staff has evaluated the number of properties per flood zone [following Flood Zone table] and created basic illustrations [following 4 page Flood Zone .Height Analysis] to depict how the current height limit, per flood zone, may affect proposed development, and examples with the flood protection height exception. Based on the information in the Flood Zone table, it is noted that the majority of parcels within unincorporated Monroe County fall within the AE 7 to AE I 1 flood zones. There are 44,910 parcels within these flood zones, out of an estimated 56,843 total parcels within unincorporated Monroe County (79% of the total parcels are within AE 7 to AE 11). Based on the information in the Flood Zone Height Analysis, generally: • In flood zones X through AE 10 or VE 10 [approx. 4 7,158 parcels], a three (3) story structure may be developed. • In flood zones AE 11 (VE 1 1) through AE 20 (VE 20) [approx. 9,330 parcels], a two (2) story structure may be developed. • For flood zones AE 21 (VE 21) and greater [approx. 19 parcels], a one (1) story structure may be developed. The generalized comments are made based upon the provided examples, within the Flood Zone Height Analysis, with crown of road at 5ft and used as the starting point (grade) for measuring height. Land Development Code HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of a►?v structure.... GRADE means the highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher.... X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 6 of 20 Packet Pg. 1797 J.1.p FLOOD ZONE TABL F EMA Flood Zone i Number of Parcels I % of total I % of total X 1,935 3.40% 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 5.16% o CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 999 1.76% b� o AE 5 1 0.00% i AE 6 1,964 3.46% o AE 7 8,996 15.83% N � a AE 8 14,824 26.08% 0 AE 9 11,272 19.83% AE 10 6,835 12.02% 83.48% o AE 11 2,983 5.25% 3 i AE 12 121 0.2.1% 3 AE 13 418 0.74 % N C c AE 14 36 0.06% a N AE 15 3 0.01% AE 16 1 0.00% VE 9 5 0.01% 3 story VE 10 327 0.58% VE I l 1,019 1.79% 3 VE 12 1,443 2.54% o VE 13 (Q L 1,069 1.88 %n o Y VE 14 1,815 3.19% VE 15 352 0.62% o .° VE 16 31 0.05% °, '' 10.76 /0 o VE 17 33 0.06% VE 19 5 0.01% VE 20 1 0.00 % VE 21 8 0.01% 3 VE 22 7 0.01% VE 23 1 0.00 % 7: VE 24 1 0.00 % 0 VE 26 2 0.00% OPEN WATER 10 0.02% total parcels 56,843 Note: As of October 014 there are approximately 56.813 parcels in unincorporated Monroe Covina ,. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 20 X w Z. m E t m r Q Packet Pg. 1798 J.1.p v O L O E a a= v 0 .. y u� Ea x o wx 30' ; 20 « 70 Height = 35 AE Y AE B' ci'n�Jt / tSQf 414Q1 u }J'i7ll ""' Fly umm kJel�l +l•�rl 1 K a ; 20 « 70 Height = 35 AE Y AE B' AE 7 AE B' AE 9' AE 10' AE 11' u n n n n u Ad B' AE e' All B' AE 12' At 12' AE 12' 1R o.n 1 SR 011". 2tt orp ` ]] 5ft ow F$M� } Fill f FEMq b st} �FBIA j / f 1 M1ood 1 fla0d de tla, drwha+ drmtal raj Flaod Zone Height Analysis CYOwn of Road S•4• KOi,frd Qevollm ]el • 'e ede'® b AE 12' Cf— 0 9oOd 5!I' NoWd ©i t1w NI kW 4 dsh t b Page; I of 4 �D r N N O U a a U) CD 0 0 _LO 0 N t t N r X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1799 O O L) E wx AE IW AE 10' All 16' e (F . Road devotion d-hoo Height = 35' F — flood Zm, fl M Reed 5r.• rd D—Om 3ft - .,"— 1. AE 20' oLE 21' --ko AE 2W AE 20' AE 20' 21', 1�7 (I"IAZL q*od ) flood ) do tiw eknfim C— .1 R.0 Vt. niad Osv Akf 3M .64— Page 2 of 4 cc C*4 N CD U 0. w co CD CD C ? LO T " CD C*4 Cl C*4 LU E ca I Packet Pg. 1800 1 AE IS AE if AE W AE 16' AE it AE IX AE 19' 7 J.1.p O s: E 3 B n � g T4S m E a E w 37 Height = 35' VE 8' V>d B VE a VE tr VE 12' VE 12' ( IN oia 5° over / 2N ora / Sft over dmtm e �FENA bme riELrA boae� Hood 1-1 flwd ) l Owl tl w on dewtioo demilm Food Zone Height Analysis or Rood Sfl• E]rrot4a. 3!1 • i rdsAee m n'ra sa 1M Cr ar Road Srt- matwa Oevatlw �u , �nICA b M'11 Page 3 of 4 r N N O U a a Lc 0 0 LO O N t Cl t N r X W Z.; C d E t V La r r Q Packet Pg. 1801 w v V£ a' VE Y VE W w 9' VE 10' n o u n u R J.1.p ° o d E a u` a a V o g g . 3 TS n. x-E g w 1e° VE 1e' VE 1 F d � u ) � od ) Height a 35' Flood Zone Height Analysis T o! F'we 5N• V! rfn •! • w rylypn M VE 20' VE 20' VE 20' VI awn t 5k am IFEUA beset FEYA L+CSS { 'k,»d 1 pa0d �:�, eleeehm C— of R.4 5fl• Not" Booth+ 1N • i U14um M w W hA Page 4 of 4 �D N N O U a a co CD 0 0 LO T " 0 N t Z t N r X W r C d E t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1802 VE 13' VE 14' VE 13' VE 18' VE 17' VE 18' VE 19' n s u e u J.1.p EXISTING STRUCTURES: Police 101.5.33 A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of rip to five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (� feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE and 2. Lawfully established existing_ structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a height exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntaries elevate the structure meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. For draft Policy 101.5.33 which creates the height exception for a lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the 35 foot height limit to be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height and provides a Flood Protection Height Exception to elevate the structure to meet and /or exceed the required FEMA BFE. Example 1: 5 feet to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE 49' C" 44' C File 2015 -006 Page 12 of 20 a-trt ure+ FE Road Sit' evatlon 3tt - In 1e14A13P to mean sea lend X W Z.: C d E t V fSf Q Packet Pg. 1803 AE 5 AE 5 Example 2; elevated ] Oft to meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE plus 1 additional foot above BFE 55' 0" 42' 0' #35_ - 0' " I i 11 Fxisting structure= 44ft 30'_0" Elevated 44ft structure 10 4 ft to meet BFE (AE 15) 1V plus I foot above BFE 1 I Existing * 20' -0" structure = 44 ft Height = 55ft 3 `- Built below t I I I BFE ♦- t +1 ° above BFE 11' 1 1 1 10 ' Crown of Road 5ft• Natural Elevation 3f; - ' Ir tembp to mean Sao lewd AE 15 AE 15 Note, staff has not been able to complete an inventory of structures that exceed the adopted height limit of 35 feet as there is not enough information in our files to determine the exact grade (either highest natural elevation of the ground surface, prior to construction, next to the proposed walls of a structure, or the crown or curb of the nearest road directly adjacent to the structure, whichever is higher) for most structures built before 1985. As such, we cannot determine the number of structures which may be affected by the proposed policy. Below are examples of structures which appear to exceed the adopted height limit: Moon Bay Condos, mm 104 Built in the 70s Crown of road might be 13 -14' based on LiDAR, Building B is 46' from ground level of 13' AMSL. Building A is 49'6" from ground level. Harbor 92 Condos, mm 92 Built in the 70s Crown of road might be about 8' based on LiDAR Building is 63' from ground level Kawama Tower, mm 102 Built in the 70s Building is 85' from ground level of about 7' AMSL File 2015 -006 Page 13 of 20 Packet Pg. 1804 J.1.p AFFORDABLE HOUSING: Policy 101.5.34 In order to_incentivize the development of affordable and employee /workforce housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as Tier 3. A structure developed as affordable or employee/workforce housing for very low, low and/or median income categories may be developed with a maximum hei ht of 44 feet to provide for up to three stories over yarking or-development over nonresidential floor area). Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.5.30. very low income = household whose total household income does not exceed 50% of the median monthly household income far the county low income = household whose total household income does not exceed 80% of the median monthly household income for the county median income = means a household whose total household income does not exceed 100% of the median monthly household income for the county For draft Policy 101.5.34 which creates the height exception for affordable housing, the BOCC discussed finding ways to incentivize additional development of affordable housing. The intent of the proposed policy is to encourage additional affordable and employee /workforce housing provision by allowing structures developed as affordable /workforce housing to be built with a maximum height of 44 feet to provide for three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor area. 44' 0" 40' 0 �- FM AE 5' File 2015 -006 Affordable Housing 44 ft height limit UAMPLE 2 ft for roof 3 stories m 10ft each and 12ft for parking or commercial underneath X W r Crown of Road 51t• C d Natural Elevation aft E in relatpo to mean wo level w Q Page 14 of 20 Packet Pg. 1805 J.1.p IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT OPTIONS FOR PROPOSED HEIGHT POLICIES FOR REVIEW & DISCUSSION: Staff has developed the following draft policies for consideration. (Deletions are stfielien threaO and additions are underlined Policy 101.45.3630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between wade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding sires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses onl • chimneys; radio and /or television antennas flagpoles solar a aratus• utilijy poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. Exeeptions will be allowed fef apptH4ea&Hees to buildi , Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are owned and overated a public utilL, have an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service USFWS and the turbines comply with relevant State and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act Bald and Golden Ea le Protection Act and National Environmental Policy Act. Applications proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height within the MIAI overla y shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment. In the case of airport districts there shall be no exceptions to the 35 foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. File 2015 -006 Page 15 of 20 c 0 r cs a� r 0 CL r x c 0 a CL E 0 U r N N 0 U (L W U) CD 0 0 LO T " O N 2 0 N r X w r c W E 0 r r a Packet Pg. 1806 J.1.p Policy 101.5.32 In order to ro tect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs for property owners, a Flood Protection Height Exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 as follows: 1. For new structures which are voluntarily elevated to exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit maybe permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE; and 2. For existing_ structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE, and 3. Existing structures which do not currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30, may be permitted a heig exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessary, to voluntarily elevate the structure to meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 one additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.33 A lawfully established existing structure which currently exceeds the height Iimit of 35 feet in Polic y 101.5.30 may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to its existing height, provided the structure is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection He iWit Exception for a lawfully established existing structure exceeding the 35 foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy 101.5.30 and are voluntarily elevated to meet and /or exceed the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone, an exception of up to five (5) feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus the amount of voluntary efevation above BFE; and 2. Lawfully established existing structures which currently exceed the height limit of 35 feet in Policy may be permitted a height File 2015 -006 Page 16 of 20 0 r cs a� 0 a x (L CL 0 u r N N O u CL w U) CD 0 0 LO 0 N t N r X w Z.; a� 0 a Packet Pg. 1807 J.1.p exception of more than five (5) feet, if necessM, to voluntarily elevate the structure meet the structure's minimum required FEMA BFE based on the flood zone plus 1 (one) additional foot above BFE. Policy 101.5.34 In order to incentivize the development of affordable and employee /workforce housing, an exception shall be provided to the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as Tier 3._ A structure developed as affordable or employee/workforce housing for very low, low and /or median income categories may be developed with a maximum height of 44 feet (to provide for up to three stories over parking or development over nonresidential floor areal Heiaht is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the hi hest part of any structure, Including mechanical equipment, excluding the exceptions listed in Policy 101.5.30. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations 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 N Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 x rating. w r c Policy 217.1.6 m Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to t promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements 0 contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage Q caused by storms. File 2015 -006 Page 17 of 20 Packet Pg. 1808 J.1.p 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; 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 pen allocation systems. (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the Florida Keys. File 2015 -006 Page 18 of 20 X w Z.; m E m Q Packet Pg. 1809 J.1.p (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 the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers; Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the r Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual w interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and r process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and 4) the Planning Commission. E m The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall Q review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board File 2015 -006 Page 19 of 20 Packet Pg. 1810 0 of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECONN1fMENDDATION VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing X W Z.; C d >_ t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 20 of 20 Packet Pg. 1811 J.1.p EXHIBIT 3 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, March 24, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, March 24 , 2015, beginning at 1:02 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 Townsley Schwab, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present 3 10 W a Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Emily Schemper, Principal Planner Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Schwab stated Item 2 will be heard first because the applicant for Item 1 is delayed. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Schwab approved the minutes of the February 24, 2015, DRC meeting as is. MEETING New Items: 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.2+6 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; AND CREATING POLICY 101.5.34 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT EXCLUSIVELY FOR AFFORDABLE OR EMPLOYEE /WORKFORCE DWELLING UNITS THAT MEET THE INCOME LIMITS FOR THE VERY LOW, LOW AND /OR MEDIAN X w r c m E w a Packet Pg. 1812 1.1.p INCOME CATEGORIES ON PROPERTIES DESIGNATED AS TIER 3; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) (1:03 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated that Items 2 and 3 will be held as a workshop discussion versus a staff report with comments. Both items are from the comp plan update and were proposed within the 2030 comp plan. The BOCC has asked staff to remove the policies as they were in the comp plan and process them separately so that there is public understanding and public input through the process. This item will be brought back two or three times to ensure revisions can be made with public input. Ms. Santamaria first addressed Policy 101.4.26. Ms. Santamaria explained that the current height definition is the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure and it is measured from either grade or the crown of the nearest road. Multiple height exceptions have been proposed in order to address a variety of issues. The first one is the wind turbine for facilities owned and operated by a public utility. An avian protection plan would be required. The height exception would be for those wind turbines that facilitate green technologies and alternative energy sources. Ms. Santamaria informed Deb Curlee there are no applications for wind turbines currently. Alicia Putney commented that her personal experience has been that wind turbines are not able to generate enough current to be deemed useful unless the sustainable winds were above 20 -25 miles an hour. Consequently, wind is more questionable than solar energy at this point. Ms. Curlee is not in favor of wind turbines because of their aesthetics. Ms. Santamaria will draft a version of the policy as the BOCC has proposed it next to a version that includes the public's input. Bill Eardley asked that staff obtain an analysis of FKEC's two wind turbines located on Cudjoe Key before proceeding with this policy. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 1.01.5.31. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy is specific to Ocean Reef. In permitting for that community staff has had to deal with architectural features just above the 35 -foot height limit. Staff has recommended the architectural features could exceed the 35 -foot height limit by five feet, not to exceed 40 feet, and can contain no habitable space up there. Joel Reed was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association and Ocean Reef Club. x Mr. Reed stated even though Policy 101.5.31 is intended to address non - habitable architectural w decorative features, it is only one and the least significant of three provisions that Ocean Reef has requested. Mr. Reed explained that Ocean Reef has its own architectural review committee E that projects go through as well. One of the longer term issues facing Ocean Reef Club is that they still own a number of buildings and condominiums that currently exceed the 35 -foot height a restriction. These are aging buildings coming to the end of their useful life. There is concern if they are ever destroyed they would not be able to build back to their current heights. Mr. Reed agrees with being proactive by building above the FEMA flood heights. One policy request from 2 Packet Pg. 1813 Ocean Reef is for the ability to build back on a story -by -story approach rather than to the pre- existing height. Mr. Reed feels allowing this way of rebuilding with an increase in the slab -to- slab measurement to 11 feet would encourage owners to remodel their buildings rather than tearing them down. Another issue important to Ocean Reef is the Cultural Center building. Because the flyover space in this building is limited, the ability to have productions in this building is limited also. Mr. Reed suggested that a height of 65 feet would accommodate that flyover space. Mr. Reed emphasized that the proposed story -by -story rebuilding process is being requested for Ocean Reef only, which is an isolated and gated community, not visible from the roadway. Ms. Santarnaria asked that Ocean Reef provide information of the cultural center, such as a map depiction and its existing height information. Mr. Reed agreed to provide that information, as well as a list of inventoried buildings at Ocean Reef including their existing heights. Ms. Curlee asked for an estimate of the height of a building with an 11 -foot slab -to -slab allowance plus the flood elevation. Mr. Reed replied that it depends on the flood zone and the average existing grade or crown of road of each site. Ms. Putney proposed Ocean Reef go through a variance procedure for each of the specific buildings because of all the variables associated with each building. Mr. Reed agreed that consideration needs to be given for each building individually and stressed that losing a floor would not be an option in rebuilding. Mr. Reed further explained that some communities have minimum ceiling heights so that a more adaptable building into the future is built. Ms. Putney asked if Ocean Reef has its own community master plan containing its own design criteria. Mr. Reed responded that there are architectural design guidelines for Ocean Reef that are followed currently and a process is being gone through to update and create a new master plan for Ocean Reef. Ms. Santarnaria clarified that it is for Ocean Reefs own development internally, but a Livable CommuniKeys plan or even an overlay district can be proposed. Ms. Putney voiced concern that this policy would open the door for other gated communities throughout the Keys to increase their height restriction. Ms. Santarnaria noted that the reason the BOCC was even considering this policy is because Ocean Reef is not only gated, but it is isolated and separate from the rest of the Keys. Bill Hunter, present on behalf of Sugarloaf Property Owners Association (SPOA), will be taking this request by Ocean Reef back to SPOA members for their input. SPOA recognizes that Ocean Reef is isolated and very different from the rest of the Keys. Mr. Hunter commented that the BOCC has said in the past they do not want to treat Ocean Reef differently than the rest of the County. SPOA is neutral on this policy as long as this does not affect the rest of the County. Mr. Reed explained that there is language that allows Ocean Reef to go through a letter of understanding process without going through a conditional use process. Mr. Reed feels perhaps some stronger language would help address the concerns being voiced. Ms. Putney again suggested Ocean Reef have their own Livable CommuniKeys plan which is protected by the comp plan. Mr. Reed pointed out that Ocean Reef has stricter regulations than the rest of the County has, such as setbacks. Ms. Putney suggested adding language referring to gated communities over a certain size. Ms. Curlee believes, regardless of Ocean Reef being isolated and gated, the public will expect the same consideration that Ocean Reef receives. Ms. Putney agreed. Ms. Putney asked to underscore that the BOCC does not want to have special rules for 3 Packet Pg. 1814 J.1.p Ocean Reef. Mr. Reed added that he believes only one Commissioner has expressed that sentiment. Ms. Santamaria stated the BOCC will make the decision of what they choose to adopt and /or transmit to the State and will ultimately make the decision of which communities, which policies and where they will apply to. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policies 10 1.5.32 and 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained these policies are an attempt to provide existing and new structures the ability to redevelop or lift the existing structure to come into compliance with their flood zone. New FEMA maps are expected in four years. The first provision of Policy 101.5.32 is for new structures to voluntarily elevate their structures up to five feet above the 35 -foot height limit. It is based on what they choose to elevate above flood. The second provision of the policy is for existing structures to be able to meet their base flood zone or to exceed it. Again, they can go up to five feet above the 35 -foot height limit, but this is based on the amount they choose to go up. The third provision is for those structures that need to go a little bit higher to meet their flood zone. The addition of one foot of freeboard above the base flood elevation is provided for. Bill Eardley stated raising an existing structure is impractical due to the cost. It is simpler to pay off the mortgage and cancel the flood insurance. Mr. Eardley feels there is no need for the exception on new construction because the building can be designed to meet the current standards. Ms. Santamaria explained the exception was proposed because the BOCC did not want people to lose living space and be squeezed into smaller homes. FEMA representatives have informed staff a grant program may be created to help with the cost of elevating a home. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that some existing structures may not be able to be raised due to its structural integrity. Mr. Roberts pointed out that there has been discussion about including bonus points or points under the CRS for communities that provide for an opportunity for property owners to elevate their base floor one to three feet above base flood elevation on a voluntary basis. Dottie Moses from the Upper Keys Homeowners Federation stated that the CRS looks at encouraging people not to build in low -lying areas. Ms. Santamaria explained that is why the inventory of flood zones was done. Mr. Hunter expressed concern that the County is somehow encouraging building in a very low -lying area where roads will eventually no longer be maintained by the County. Ms. Santamaria clarified that Number I is applicable when people tear down and build a new structure. Ms. Putney stated that the number of homes built before FEMA came in to Monroe County in '78 built below the base flood would be a small enough number that they could be dealt with through some kind of a development review mechanism as opposed to a carte blanche rule. Ms. Schemper noted that this would give property owners the allowance to do it rather than being penalized because of their unique circumstance. Ms. Santamaria stated staff will evaluate that. Ms. Santamaria then described a situation of a property owner in North Florida who built a home less than ten years ago at three feet above flood. The new FEMA maps now show that home being three feet below flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that the new FEMA maps could impact a substantial number of people whose flood insurance premiums are going to skyrocket up because of this situation. FEMA is supposed to take sea level rise into account when creating their new maps. Staff is trying to think into the future to try to facilitate people's ability to protect their homes and investments. Mr. Hunter suggested, because it is unknown what the maps will show, introducing the concept and making allowances for the solution in the comp 4 Packet Pg. 1815 J.1.p plan and holding off on the details of the actual solution since modifying the LDRs in the LDC is an easier process. Mr. Schemper cautioned the longer addressing this issue is put off, the more homes will be built that are going to be affected. Ms. Moses stated that at an Army Corps meeting comments were made that all of the "easy" lots have been built on and what is left will require mitigation and other issues. Ms. Santamaria will try to run an analysis of the flood zone of the vacant parcels in the County. Mr. Hunter clarified that when he suggested splitting the concept in the comp plan and the detail in the LDRs, he was not suggesting delaying the LDRs. Mr. Hunter further stated more public outreach would help in educating the public more on climate change and sea level rise. Mr. Roberts clarified for Mr. Hunter that the County does not have policies in place yet regarding replacement of infrastructure in areas potentially susceptible to sea level rise, so the County has to proceed under existing policies and directives, which obligates the County to maintain the roads. Ms. Santamaria described a situation in St. Augustine where property owners are suing the municipality to maintain a road in a low -lying area so that the people would have access to their fire service. Ms. Curlee asked about regulations regarding filling a lot. Mr. Roberts explained that whether fill is allowed depends on the flood zone. Ms. Putney added that runoff from higher lots into the road is creating a problem for the neighbors and in the canals, as well as blocking views and creating shade. Mr. Williams clarified that situation does not create a property rights issue. Ms. Santamaria noted that the variance procedure could create a staggered view line in an area. Ms. Moses stated the Federation has taken the position they do not want the 35 -foot height limit raised under any circumstance. The County has managed to get by under that height limit to date with new construction. Mr. Hunter on behalf of SPOA agreed with Ms. Moses' comments. Mr. Hunter personally believes more education is needed about freeboard and the benefits of freeboard. Ms. Putney on behalf of Last Stand stated existing buildings should have some kind of mechanism for special approval, but that the total raised building could not exceed 40 feet and the space created under the first floor should be non - habitable. Secondly, Last Stand is opposed to new construction receiving an exception to the 35 -foot height limit. Mr. Williams noted that there is a potential map amendment process to appeal to FEMA to make an exception for a lot. The expense of that process was discussed. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria explained that this policy r addresses existing structures that currently exceed the height limit, such as a three or four -story c condo. By redeveloping to upgrade the building, coming into compliance with the flood zone may result in loss of a story of that condo. That could potentially result in 20 people on the top r floor no longer having the ability to rebuild their home. Ms. Putney questioned why it is w perceived to affect the top story as opposed to the first story. Ms. Santamaria stated half of the people would lose their home regardless of which story it is. This policy provides for allowing m five feet above their existing height. Ms. Putney stated Last Stand supports this policy provided that the footprint of the structure is not changed. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee there is r no cap on the height. Staff does not have a clear inventory of those structures this policy would a encompass, but estimates only a handful. Mr. Reed asked that those who do support this policy consider giving some additional slab -to -slab height when rebuilding. Ms. Putney replied Last Stand supports the grandfathering of nonconforming height to certain buildings in Monroe Packet Pg. 1816 J.1.p County when redevelopment is involuntary provided the new building height does not exceed that of the old building. As such, compliance with FEMA along with any additional voluntary clearance above base flood elevation must be equal to or less than the height of the old nonconforming building. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA agrees as long as the redevelopment is involuntary, such as because of fire or flood. Ms. Santamaria asked if the public in attendance considers the new FEMA maps deeming a structure below base flood involuntary. Mr. Reed does not Iike the "involuntary" language because it is a very tricky threshold to meet. Ms. Santamaria noted the BOCC has tried to direct staff to focus on redevelopment versus trying to facilitate a lot of new development. Mr. Reed clarified that while there is no magic slab -to- slab number, floor to ceiling heights should be created that are adaptable and can continue to be remodeled throughout future years. Ms. Curlee expressed concern that what is "involuntary" to one person may open the door to let somebody else take advantage of this policy. Ms. Santamaria clarified for Ms. Curlee that in almost all situations exceptions to the height limit will not allow people to add a story. In some situations that would be possible. Ms. Putney believes that language should be included to limit in what situations it would be allowed. Mr. Hunter suggested more detail of the buildings in Ocean Reef be gathered to realize the effect this could have on the County. Mr. Reed clarified that his comments regarding slab -to -slab increases were specific to the Ocean Reef policy, but feels it might be worth considering for all of unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Moses is concerned about taking people's property rights away from them. Mr. Hunter then commented that the "historical designation" language should be eliminated. Ms. Santamaria then addressed Policy 101.5.34. Ms. Santamaria explained this came out of the session of the BOCC at the October meeting to address a different height maximum for very low, low and median income affordable employee and work force housing on properties designated Tier III. This was to facilitate having nonresidential development on the first story and allowing a couple stories of affordable housing on top. Mr. Hunter stated SPOA is opposed to this amendment. SPOA believes that the County has the benefit of seeing what the cities have done to address this issue before they make a decision on solutions. Another issue for SPOA is using height as a solution to affordable housing in the County where there is more land than the County has ROGO allocations for. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to raising the affordable housing limit. Key Largo does not have an affordable housing issue. There are affordable housing projects in the Upper Keys district already and some of the way those projects are being managed are not the way their deed restrictions have been written. Ms. Moses pointed out there is no definition for "workforce housing" in the code. Ms. r Santamaria replied the Affordable Housing Committee will be addressing that soon. The BOCC w hired the FSU Consensus Center to provide a report on the County's affordable housing issue. Ms. Schemper added that the LDC uses the term "affordable housing" or "employee housing," which are defined terms. "Work force housing" is a more general term. Mr. Reed argued that E there is a demand and a need still in the Upper Keys for affordable housing. Mr. Reed then r stated it is a severe challenge to find appropriate land of a certain size to accommodate a affordable housing. Mr. Eardley is concerned this amendment would open the door for all kinds of other development. Mr. Eardley agrees there are ways to address work force housing without going higher, such as making the units smaller. Ms. Curlee added when talking about truly 0 Packet Pg. 1817 J.1.p affordable housing that would be rentals. Ms. Putney believes this issue is complex and the height exception for affordable housing should be dealt with within the arena of the affordable housing discussion separate from what is being done today. Ms. Santamaria clarified this amendment would provide the opportunity to build more units, but it also will raise those units above base flood. Ms. Santamaria thanked the public for their comments and stated these comments will be included in the staff report and will be back before the DRC again for more comments. 1.Pla a Largo Resort 97450 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 97.5: A public meeting concerning a request for an Amendment to a Major Conditional Use Permit. The requested approval is required for the development of a proposed 177 -unit hotel and associated accessory uses. The subject property is legally described as Tracts 4B and 5B, Amended Plat of Mandalay (Plat Book 2, Page 25), Key Largo, and also a tract of submerged land in the Bay of Florida fronting said Tract 5B (TIIF Deed No. 22416), Monroe County, Florida, having real estate number 0055 5 010. 000000. (File 2015 -031) (2:32 p.m.) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this applicant currently has an approved major conditional use permit from 2007 and it has had several deviations and time extensions over time. It is still active. The most recent deviation has approved the site plan for 162 transient units and one commercial apartment, which was previously on the site. The applicant has been issued a number of building permits. This amendment to the major conditional use permit is to add an additional 15 transient units into the hotel, the building of which has already been permitted, and that would bring them up to their max number net density. It does not change any footprint on the site plan. All of the required criteria are in compliance. The only issue that is still outstanding is the traffic and access. The applicant had supplied a Level 2 traffic study with this application, and because of the threshold of what is being proposed a Level 3 traffic study is needed. This may also impact the requirement for a right -turn deceleration lane leading into the property. Ms. Schemper recommended approval with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria commented that the Planning Commissioners will likely want to see the traffic studies so they can take that data into account in their decision - making and make sure that it is compliant. Mr. Roberts asked that Number 7 of the recommended actions be reworded to specify the number of allowed docks. Mr. Roberts will supply that number to Ms. Schemper. Jorge Cepeda, present on behalf of the applicant, stated he was familiar with the conditions w contained in the original approval. Mr. Cepeda asked that Condition 8, the transportation shuttle for guests and employees, be considered in the traffic study because that has less of an impact on traffic. Mr. Cepeda asked that the second portion of the language about adequacy of public E facilities on Page 6 of the report remain part of the recommended action. Mr. Cepeda clarified r that no trees will be cut for the mulch exercise path, but there may be some underbrush that may a need to be accommodated. Mr. Roberts specified that "clearing" is the removal of any native vegetation regardless of the size. Mr. Roberts asked the applicant to inform staff if the applicant is planning on clearing or removing additional vegetation that has not been previously accounted Packet Pg. 1818 J.1.p for in the site plan. Ms. Schemper will look again at the deviation to see exactly how it is worded and get back to the applicant regarding the clearing. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Ms. Moses asked whether the proposed commercial apartment is bayfront. Ms. Schemper explained it was a previously existing unit, so the residential use and density is protected. Mr. Cepeda stated the apartment is in the same location as the prior developer's site plan. Ms. Moses then pointed out the site plan shows two entrances. Ms. Schemper explained one is an emergency access drive requested by the fire department. Ms. Moses then noted that the front buffer that faces US -1 looks to contain lead tree. Mr. Cepeda replied that the landscaping will be done in the final stage. The main entrance is the original American Outdoor entrance and at the end stage the exotics will be removed and landscaping will be done to complete that buffer. Ms. Moses commented that there are a lot of non - native species on the vegetation list. Mr. Roberts explained that the required vegetation is 100 percent native vegetation, but anything planted above the minimum requirement can be anything the developer wants. The developer is overplanting the required landscaping significantly. Ms. Schemper clarified for Ms. Moses that the docking facility on the property is a hotel accessory dock, not a marina. 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -007) (2 :49 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria stated this item also comes from the comp plan update project. The BOCC asked staff to remove these policies that were included in the comp plan and process them separately since it was a new topic and received a lot of attention and people wanted to provide input on the topic. These policies relate to the transfer of ROGO exemptions, density rights, as well as where the development would be directed to. Ms. Santamaria addressed Policy 101.5.8. Ms. Santamaria explained that, again, this item will he handled today more like a workshop -type item. Bart Smith, Esquire, was present on behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith asked staff to address all of the policies together. Mr. Smith thanked staff for planning multiple workshops to allow these policies to be vetted over a period of time where everyone can work together. Mr. Smith asked staff to provide notice to the affected property owners of these meetings so they can actively engage in this process. Mr. Smith asked staff to contemplate the unintended consequences of these policies of not allowing the TDRs and TREs to be transferred to offshore islands and designating all offshore islands as Tier I. Mr. Smith believes this negates the tier system, which is the primary tool for determining whether a parcel is suitable for development. These policies 8 Packet Pg. 1819 J.1.p put an inordinate burden on the property owners. These property owners have some development right, all residential in nature. The code only has two ways that residential can be built: Through ROGO allocation or ROGO exemption. These islands do not have ROGO exemptions because they do not have homes on them, so in order to build residential one would have to get a ROGO allocation or transfer a ROGO exemption from somewhere else. These policies eliminate the ability to transfer. A property is left with requiring a ROGO allocation, but the property is designated Tier I. This would be so limiting that the only use left would be bee- keeping and temporary camping by the owner. Mr. Smith asked that staff look at how these policies would operate as a whole to get a complete picture of how it would operate. Ms. Santamaria clarified individual property owners were not notified because this is not property- specific and not all properties have their issues resolved with ownership. This is a policy that would impact all privately -owned or even publicly -held offshore islands. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that while the policy has direction of discouraging development by designating Tier I does not mean it is an automatic Tier 1. That designation would have to go through its proper process to apply a designation to a property. Ms. Santamaria commented that this policy is not a huge change regarding the TREs and the TDRs. This is a proposed change based on the discussions from the BOCC of where to direct the remaining allocations or exemptions and where is the most appropriate place to direct development. Julie Dick on behalf of Last Stand and Florida Keys Environmental Fund thanked staff for the workshop process and allowing the public the opportunity to participate in this process. Last Stand thinks that the policies generally are consistent with the concepts of the tier overlay system for offshore islands. Last Stand is generally supportive of the changes. Ms. Dick commented that there are some inconsistencies with the acreage on the inventory. Ms. Santamaria explained the Property Appraiser does not have the exact acreage of a property. A boundary survey is required to determine the upland portions of a property. Ms. Santamaria will look into any discrepancy reported to her. Ms. Dick further stated Last Stand agrees with the sender and receiver site criteria. For evacuation purposes it make sense to discourage additional development on offshore islands. Last Stand recommends removing significant upland habitat as a criteria in Policy 206.1.2. The reasons to protect offshore islands go beyond whether or not they are suited to upland habitat, such as containing bird rookeries. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that under Policy 206.1.2 the significant upland habitat is one of the criteria and it is being made consistent with the Tier I criteria. Ms. Putney asked whether there was a determination made that offshore islands were Tier I when the County went to the tier system. Ms. Santamaria explained Policy 102.7.3 stated that designating offshore islands as Tier I lands was one method used to discourage developments proposed on offshore islands. The only offshore islands that are not designated Tier I were the ones that were missed by accident and undesignated, but this policy does not automatically designate them. They would still have to go through that process. The provision exists in the LDC that any islands without a specific land use designation shall be considered zoned as offshore islands. The approximately ten offshore islands that were missed and not designated were discussed. Packet Pg. 1820 J.1.p Ms. Santamaria thanked the members of the public for their participation and invited them to participate in the workshop -style meetings scheduled in the future. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 3:15 p.m. X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q Its] Packet Pg. 1821 J.1.p EXHIBIT 4 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: May 17, 2015 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: May 26, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 I. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendment to revise the height limit policy to provide an exception to the height limit for wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility; create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; create Policies 10 1.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs; and create Policy 101.5.34 to provide an exception to the height limit exclusively for affordable or employee /workforce dwelling units that meet the income limits for the very low, low and/or median income categories on properties designated as tier 3. 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 File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 9 X W Z.; m E m r Q Packet Pg. 1822 J.1.p (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101.5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies far addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and continents from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, heisrht and rude are defined as follows: HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any w structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires and/or steeples on c structures used for institutional and/or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna, d flagpoles; solar apparatus utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna t supporting structures with attached antenna and/or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. r However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to Q 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. File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 1823 J.1.p 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 andlor 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 + 3D , For this example, a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE 51`1 Crown of Road 5ft' Crown of the road Natural Elevation aft • I it Motion 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 211 of fill needed to reach 5ft flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as; anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection NOTE. See exhibits for additional information related to flood protection and freeboard. d. File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 9 X W r c G) E m r r Q Packet Pg. 1824 J.1.p IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are men "--- and additions are underlined Policy 101.451630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only chimneys; radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles; solar a aratus• util poles and/or transmission towers- and certain antenna sqpporting supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. Exeeptiens will be allowed for appuftenanees te Wind turbines may also exceed the 35 foot height limit provided the site and the turbines are owned and operated by a public utility, have an Avian Protection Plan approved by the United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS )aand the turbines comply with relevant State and federal wildlife protection laws such as the Endangered _ Species Act Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act, and National Environmental Policy Act Applications by a public utility proposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height shall require a public heariniz before the Board of County Commissioners and a BOCC Resolution supporting the proposal and specifying the maximum approved height, t prior to issuance of any county _permit or approval. ApplicationLproposing wind turbines which exceed 35 feet in height within the MIAI overlay shall be transmitted to NASKW for review and comment In the case of gjMort districts there shall be no excep to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a master planned community of 100 or more acres in area, which is gated, isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding communitv, and has a distinct community character buildings include non - habitable architectural decorative features such as finials rails widow's walk) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or an architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the communiq is operated and maintained by the community including the pLovision of comprehensive private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its member Policy 101.5.32 By XXXX date Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 (height limit) not exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet to promote public health safety and general welfare; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm torm surge and other hazards; File 2015-006 Page4of9 0 a� 0 a W x c �a a CL E 0 U cc r N N 0 U (L w U) CD 0 0 LO 0 N r t P W N r X W Z.; W 0 r a Packet Pg. 1825 p rotect property from flooding and minimize damages; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control _ pro jects and for recovery from flood events; mitigate rising flood insurance premiums; and reduce flood insurance rates bL facilitating/improving the County's Community Rating System score. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot hei ht limit shall be provided to allow buildings to voluntaril elevate up to three 3 feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future ex enditures of p ublic funds for recovery from flood events. LDR Section XXX• 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 up to three (3) feet above the 35 foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exce tion shall be a maximum of three (3) feet, and shall be no eater than the amount of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall a new building exceed 38 feet in height; and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35 -foot height Emit and are voluntarily elevated to meet and/or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of up to five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be a maximum of five 5 feet and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE plus up to three 3 feet of voluntary elevation above BFE. In no event shall an existin building be elevated to exceed a total building height of 40 feet; 3. No exce tip "on shall result in a total building height that exceeds 40 feet; and 4. No exception shall be provided to properties located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone. Policy_ 101.5,33 As of the effective date of this policy, a lawfully established existing building, which exceeds the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to meet refit aired FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and We of use For buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be r uired prior to issuance of any county permit or approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. LDR Section XXX• As provided in Policy 101.5.33 lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed to meet the FEMA BFE provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity floor area density and type of use. File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 9 c 0 a� 0 a x c �a (L CL 0 U cc N N 0 U CL w U) CD 0 0 LO 0 N t P N r X W Z.; C d E �a a Packet Pg. 1826 J.1.p A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully established existing building exceeding the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily elevated to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE an exception of up to five 5 feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be a maximum of five (5) feet, and shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE• and 2. For Iawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily elevated to meet the-building's minimum required FEMA BFE, but will require a height exception of more than five (5 )feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any co permit or approval. The BOCC shall consider: 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; and 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 A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 c Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting t structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The N Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable x interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. w Z.; c 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. r Q 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 -006 Page 6 of 9 Packet Pg. 1827 J.1.p 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; c 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; N 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; a 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; • 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; r 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; w 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. c W E (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and 0 replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection;. treatment and disposal m facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and Q disposal systems. 0) 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 -006 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 1828 J.1.p 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 3$0.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle_ C. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Part H of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(1), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical„ environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. Vl. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 9 X w Z.; m m r r Q Packet Pg. 1829 J.1.p public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 5. Excerpt of CRS Coordinator's Manual, pages 430 -10 through 430 -15 6. FEMA Lowest Floor Elevation Fact Sheet 7. www.floodsmart.gov basic info on insurance and flood risk 8. What is Freeboard? www.dnr.maryland.aov /CoastSmart 9. Using Freeboard to Elevate structures above Predicted Floodwaters — Massachusetts Office of Coastal Zone Management 10. Floodplain Management in Florida Quick Guide, pages 1-28 11. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC meeting (side by side comparison) X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Packet Pg. 1830 0 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, May 26, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, May 26, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (V floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning and Environmental Resources Present Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Rey Ortiz, Planning & Biological Plans Examiner Supervisor Present Lori Lehr, Floodplain Administrator Present Tiffany Stankiewicz, Development Administrator Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA There were no changes to the agenda. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Ms. Santamaria approved the minutes of the April 28, 2015, DRC meeting with one correction of a section number that will be submitted to Ms. Creech. MEETING New Items: 1. 99700 Overseas Highway, Key Largo, mile marker 99: A public meeting concerning a request for a major deviation to a major conditional use permit. The requested approval is required for the proposed development to increase the existing walk -in cooler and to increase the size of the existing bathrooms which would increase the amount of non - residential floor area on the property. The subject property is legally described as Lazy Lagoon — A revision of Amended Plat of Curry's Corner, Plat Book 2, Page 120 of public records, Monroe County, Section 33, Township 63 South, Range 39 East, Key Largo, Monroe County, Florida (legal description in metes and bounds is provided in the application /file), having real estate number 00497540.000000. X w c m m a Packet Pg. 1831 J.1.p (File 2015 -093) (1:01 p.m.) Mr. Ortiz presented the staff report. Mr. Ortiz reported that the applicant is requesting a major deviation to a major conditional use application. The applicant wants to expand the bathroom by approximately six square feet, add a modular component to the rear of the building for a walk -in cooler and expand an existing cooler that is currently within the setbacks on the rear property line. The only criteria not met is regarding the variance requirement that the site is going to need. Mr. Ortiz recommends approval to the Planning Commission with conditions. Those conditions were outlined. Ms. Santamaria confirmed that the applicant has submitted a variance application. Hany Haroun, the applicant, emphasized that this renovation is necessary. Many hours have been spent with Wendy's International and the County to make this work. The new kitchen configuration in the center of the restaurant is a requirement from Wendy's International, which takes away from the cooler /freezer space and the current storage area. The extension for the sides is due to making the bathrooms ADA compliant. None of this will be visible from the front. The only setback issue is for the cooler /freezer. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, Key Largo resident, does not object to what is being asked for. Ms, Moses likes the proposed landscaping along the highway. Ms. Moses commented on the poor drainage that exists on the property. Mr. Haroun explained that the main road was built to drain out towards Buttonwood Drive and consequently it floods there all the time. That is on the County right -of- way. The County and State agreed to dig out the French drain and fill it with gravel to address the flooding problems. The tides also affect the drainage in this area. Ms. Santamaria noted when building permits are applied for the applicant will have to comply with the stormwater requirements. Mr. Williams suggested that the applicant provide some documentation from Wendy's International to show the hardship imposed on the applicant for purposes of the variance. Mr. Ortiz asked the applicant to provide an updated site plan. 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.26 TO PROVIDE AN EXCEPTION TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT FOR WIND TURBINES OWNED AND OPERATED BY A PUBLIC UTILITY; CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) 2 Packet Pg. 1832 J.1.p (1:12 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this item started with the comp plan update. There were policies to amend the height policies, address the wind turbines, affordable housing and the flood protection. The BQCC asked staff to process this as a separate stand -alone amendment. This was before the DRC in March where a lot of comments were received. The flood protection policy generated concerns about the overall height exception. Staff has proposed a policy that includes the reasons why there, would be an exception with a max height limit of 40 feet and it would be to elevate property three feet above base flood elevation (BFE). The exception for new buildings is to exceed BFE, not just to meet it, up to three feet above BFE. The exception for lawfully existing buildings is to either meet or exceed BFE because there are circumstances, depending on the flood zone, where this exception will not allow you to exceed BFE. If it is exceeded, it is only that amount it is exceeded that one gets to go above BFE. Again, it is capped at 40 feet. The exception would not be allowed in high -risk areas. Ms. Santamaria introduced Ms. Lehr and asked for an update and information on flood zones. Ms. Lehr explained that one of her roles is to help the County get into the Community Rating System (CRS) program, which would result in some discount in flood insurance. When property owners voluntarily elevate their properties they get a reduced premium on their flood insurance. For every foot of elevation, the savings is about a quarter of the premium. After the cap of three feet, the discounts fall off. The cost to elevate a property is recouped quickly in flood insurance savings. Ms. Lehr believes the future of the Florida Building Code and other legislation is going to be moving towards the implementation of some sort of freeboard, some sort of elevation requirement above BFE. Ms. Lehr further explained the County is going through a mapping process currently, It will be 2018 before those new maps come out, but the general feeling of those maps is that the elevations in some areas will increase, so the required elevations will increase. Ms. Lehr clarified for Ms. Moses a community has to require a higher regulatory standard above a what is required on the flood insurance rate amounts to get CRS credit. Florida in general has a U) some of the highest scoring communities in the nation. Ms. Lehr believes Monroe County is o doing a lot of things to address the flooding that will be worth CRS credit. There will be changes in the Florida Building Code coming up in the next couple of years to address BFE. Ms. c Santamaria explained the CRS does not address the top height, so the BOCC gave staff direction r to look into elevating the height limit so home owners are not squeezed in from the top, causing c homes to become smaller and smaller. Ms. Lehr noted that credits are being given for existing buildings being elevated as opposed to rebuilt. The CRS program is very adamant that r communities do what is good for their floodplain management and protection of their citizens' x investments. w r c m Ron Miller, Planning Commissioner and Key Largo resident, questioned why the County has E become concerned about someone losing habitable space in their structure, because in URM r parking spaces were required to be under homes, which takes away from habitable space. Ms. a Santamaria clarified this proposal is not zoning - specific. Mr. Miller feels homeowners should be amenable to some give- and -take in the loss of some habitable space. Mr. Miller believes the people interested in more living space and more stories are those who are renting illegally. Ms. Packet Pg. 1833 J.1.p Santamaria clarified that the BOCC has become aware of the new FEMA maps coming out and want Monroe County to get into the CRS and help the community better protect their property and investments. So they have directed staff to address this issue by allowing people to make that financial choice themselves. The whole intent was to better protect our community. Bill Hunter, Sugarloaf resident, suggested that a definition of "elevate" be proposed. Mr. Hunter mentioned different scenarios of what could fail under the definition of "elevate." Ms. Santamaria said that staff will consider and look into those different scenarios. Ms. Lehr clarified if a bottom floor was knocked out and used for parking with penthouses built on top of the structure, those structures would still be limited by the height restriction from BFE. Ms. Santamaria noted that Policy 101.5.33 is for lawfully established existing buildings which already exceed the 35 -foot height limit and a top cap of 40 feet is in place unless the owners go to a public hearing before the BOCC. Mr. Hunter then asked for an explanation of why the different numbers of 38 and 40 feet are used. Ms. Santamaria explained that discounts arc given for one, two and three feet above BFE. Since discounts are not given above that, the new buildings were capped at 38 feet. The 40 -foot limit was added for existing buildings in case they needed to raise their property a little bit higher because they do not meet base flood today. Ms. Lehr clarified that the flood insurance policy associated with a structure would receive a different rating because of the elevation of that property. The discount for CRS is completely different. The discount for CRS could be in addition to the different rating on the insurance policy for an elevation. Ms. Santamaria noted that no exception will be given to either new or existing structures in AE10 through VE10. That came from the comments made at prior DRC meetings about not facilitating redevelopment or new development in higher -risk areas. Mr. Hunter stated he agrees with Mr. Miller about the ability of Monroe County citizens to live under the 35 -foot height limit, but is more sympathetic to the owners of existing homes than to new construction. Mr. Miller is concerned for the properties in such a high AE or VE that they would not be able to develop a home that was attractive. Mr. Miller proposed keeping the 35- foot height limit in the comp plan and allowing for a variance for those so limited that they would not be able to develop something architecturally acceptable to the community. Ms. Santamaria stated it would be difficult to create a variance for architectural or visual issues. There is no real hardship in that instance. Naja Girard, Key West resident, commented that people are more concerned over encouraging new development in AE and VE areas as opposed to elevating existing homes in those areas. Mr. Miller agrees with limiting infrastructure in flood -prone areas, but feels a minimal -size house could be able to punch through the height barrier if the owners could show a hardship when asking for a variance. Ms. Lehr explained that the CRS does not take away points. The CRS program credits activity. Prohibiting development in high -risk areas is credited under the CRS. The emphasis of the program has always been to build safer, more resilient communities. Jim Hendrick was present on behalf of Ocean Reef Community Association (ORCA) regarding Policy 101.5.31. Mr. Hendrick stated Ocean Reef is an isolated and gated community with a distinct community character. The planning process in Ocean Reef is very tough. Mr. Hendrick said Ocean Reef would like the extra five feet for architectural features. The largest concern with this policy for Ocean Reef is its cultural center. The cultural center does not have the head 4 Packet Pg. 1834 J.1.p room needed to be able to house events that could potentially be put on at this facility. Mr. Hendrick asked for a height limit unique to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center, which was built and paid for by the people of Ocean Reef. Another concern that ORCA has is that any multi -story building in existence on the effective date of this policy be able to replace their existing number of stories up to I I feet slab to slab per story. The Ocean Reef hotels are currently dated with a ceiling height of only eight feet. Ms. Santamaria noted that at the last meeting Joel Reed presented this information on behalf of Ocean Reef Club. Staff had asked for an inventory of existing heights of the various structures throughout Ocean Reef. Nothing has been received to date. Mr. Hendrick will send the complete list to Ms. Santamaria. Mr. Hendrick emphasized this is being asked to apply to Ocean Reef only, which is isolated and does have a distinct community character. Deb Curlee, resident of the Lower Keys, noted that Ocean Reef is still part of Monroe County. Mr. Hendrick replied there is an abundant body of policy already recognizing the unique circumstances of Ocean Reef. Ms. Santamaria asked that Ocean Reef consider proposing an Ocean Reef specific overlay to address height issues in Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick replied Ocean Reef has a very effective self- governance program within the community. Ms. Santamaria asked that the information regarding the various heights as well as the total heights at Ocean Reef be sent in to help staff understand what the request is from Ocean Reef. Mr. Hendrick then explained for Ms. Girard how Ocean Reef is self- governed. Ms. Moses stated the Federation is opposed to punching through the height limit and they feel that the 35 -foot height limit has been accommodating and there is still room for elevating the floodplain. Ms. Girard on behalf of Last Stand stated that a majority of the properties should be able to elevate the buildings as much as needed and still have adequate living space. Last Stand would like to see this turned into a hardship situation that would have to be triggered to go through the height barrier. Mr. Miller asked what would happen to those properties whose flood zone was changed due to a the FEMA flood maps. Ms. Santamaria reminded Mr. Miller that no exceptions being given to a properties in AE10 or VE 10 or higher was a result of members of the community not wanting to c facilitate development of homes within those flood zones. The owners of those properties would c have to work within the rules or not build at all. Ms. Santamaria then confirmed for Mr. Hunter c that reconstructed structures in Policy 101.533 includes those that are demolished and rebuilt. r Ms. Santamaria explained that the BOCC resolution that specifies the maximum approved height c is done on a building -by- building basis. There is currently no limit to that height because it is not known what would be needed to meet base flood. Ms. Santamaria explained that buildings r over 35 feet currently could only rebuild to 35 feet if they were wiped out by a hurricane. w r Ms. Curlee asked why no caps are placed in Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Santamaria replied that building heights would be different depending on how it was measured. Ideas were proposed for E the BOCC to consider when making the decision on how high they can go. Mr. Hunter suggested considering the community's desire to limit the height. Ms. Santamaria noted a public a hearing would require surrounding property owner notices being sent out. Packet Pg. 1835 J.1.p Mr. Haroun stated he finds it unreasonable to not allow a condo to be built back up so that no owners would lose their living space. Ms. Santamaria pointed out that is why a flood exception is being proposed for those property owners. Mr. Miller noted that his concern is not whether they can build back what they had or not, but his concern is that the potential for more habitable space in this county is being increased as a result of seeking relief from sea level rise. Ms. Santamaria then stated the affordable housing has been struck from this proposal at this point in time. Staff will work with the BOCC and the Affordable Housing Committee further in that regard. The other item in this stand -alone amendment is the wind turbines owned and operated by a public utility. At the last meeting members of the public asked what the results were from the Keys Energy demonstration project. It was concluded that the wind towers have been proven to be ineffective. Ms. Moses proposed striking this item altogether. Ms. Girard stated on behalf of Last Stand they would like to see the whole exception to the wind turbines stricken. If someone comes forward and proposes a great plan in the future, then it can be looked at with specific considerations in mind. Ms. Santamaria stated the plan is to bring this amendment back to the DRC and get more data for community - specific amendments. It will be brought back as two items: One as a comp plan and an LDR for more discussion and more input. 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING A DEFINITION OF OFFSHORE ISLAND; AMENDING POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICY 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -007) (2:38 p.m.) Ms. Santamaria presented the staff report. Ms. Santamaria reported that this c amendment has stemmed from the comprehensive plan update process. There was a lot of r discussion on where to direct and how to direct development in the future and if it is appropriate c to go to offshore islands. The BOCC asked staff to remove this from the general comp plan update and process it as a stand -alone amendment. The definition of "offshore island" has been r included. The new provision is that TDRs and TREs would not be allowed to transfer to an x offshore island. W c m Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. E �a Attorney Nick Batty was present on behalf of FEB Corporation with respect to a Wisteria Island. Mr. Batty stated the issues that FEB has with this proposed amendment pertain to the receiver sites for TREs have to be within a Tier III designated area and must not be an offshore island. Policy 206.1.2 provides that Monroe County shall discourage the development 0 Packet Pg. 1836 J.1.p of offshore islands which have no prior development and have significant upland habitat by discouraging the extension of public facilities and designating the offshore islands as Tier I. That makes a scenario where ROGO exemptions cannot be transferred to those islands and at the same time bumps them down to a Tier I level for the ROGO allocation program. Mr. Batty pointed out there is no definition proposed for "significant upland habitat." Significant upland habitat does not necessarily coincide with environmentally sensitive areas. As a result, areas like Wisteria Island, which does not have significant areas of environmentally sensitive habitat, would by default be lumped in with a Tier I designation, which is contrary to the intent of the code. Bumping them down to a Tier I in terms of the ROGO allocation system and not allowing any transfers of TREs to the area would result in a situation where there would be no beneficial uses for the properties. Mr. Roberts replied that using the blanket and undefined term "significant upland habitat" does not account for the differences in the natural features of those properties and effectuate the intent of the Tier I and Tier III definitions. Ms. Santamaria added that no changes are being proposed to the Tier III criteria for designating any land. Mr. Batty replied that islands which currently do not have a tier designation and would fit whatever the definition is determined to be of "significant upland habitat" and have no prior development would be pushed into that Tier I category without any other consideration. Ms. Santamaria stated no particular tier designation is being proposed for any offshore island. This is simply policy, not property specific. Ms. Santamaria will review this further and consider proposing a definition for "significant upland habitat." Ms. Girard, on behalf of Last. Stand, stated it makes very little difference what is on the upland, whether or not there even is upland, because offshore islands are surrounded by shallow waters and environmentally sensitive benthic resources and are important for avian species. Ms. Girard emphasized a survey containing 76 different species of native plants and a report regarding the importance of Wisteria Island for the white crown pigeons a couple of hundred feet away from Wisteria Island are on file with the County. Last Stand thinks it is extremely appropriate that offshore islands be given Tier I designations and that they not be considered as receiver sites because they are inappropriate for development in a county that has a limited number of ROGOs and is basically facing build -out. Ms. Santamaria clarified that this is not a property - specific amendment. Ms. Santamaria further clarified that the tier designations are based on upland habitat. Mr. Roberts clarified for Ms. Girard that native areas that provide corridors or wildlife access between other larger native areas are part of the Tier I designation. Mr. Batty pointed out it is important to make sure the intent of the code is being effectuated. Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed. X Ms. Santamaria stated staff will review all the comments made and will look at defining w "significant upland habitat" and bring this back to the DRC for one more round of public input before taking it to the Planning Commission. E ca ADJOURNMENT a The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m. Packet Pg. 1837 J.1.p EXHIBIT 6 vn MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & EN iRONMENTAL 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: August 17, 2015 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON- HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. Meeting: August 25, 2015, continued from March 24, 2015 and May 26, 2015 1. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing an amendments to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 9 X W c m m Q Packet Pg. 1838 J.1.p 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 flan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: x w r In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ade are defined as follows: W E HEIGHT is defined as: the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding chimneys; spires andlor steeples on Q structures used for institutional andlor public uses only; radio andlor television antenna, flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles andlor transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna andlor collocations as permitted in chapter 146 File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 9 Packet Pg. 1839 J.1.p 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. Height limit #35_ 03° For this example, a 3 story home may be developed 7 within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE Sft Crowh of Rood 5ft' Crown of the road Natural Elevation aft • ir telt[tiop to mean sea level lW 5. The vertical distance between grade (crown of mad, 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 In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. For review convenience, a transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached (Exhibit 1). Additional information related to flood protection File 2015 -006 Page 3 of 9 X NJ Z.; W m r Q Packet Pg. 1840 J.1.p Ifs'. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are stfieken dtFau and additions are underlined Policy 101.45.25 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including mechanical equipment and landfills to 35 feet. Heiuht is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding sires and/or steeples on structures used ' far institutional and/or public uses only; chimneys; radio and/or television - antennas• flagpoles• solar a aratus; utilit y poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supi2ortin structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. buildings In the case of qjWort districts there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5,31 For Ocean Reef, a 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 rails widow's walk that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order a2vroved the county where p ublic access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the communit including the provision of comprehensive private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which reizulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5 30 (height limit not exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet to promote public health safe!Y and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding storm surge and other hazards; protect p rop erty 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 recover from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to voluntarily elevate up to three (3, ) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovea from flood events. File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 9 c 0 a� 0 a r x c �a a CL E 0 U cc N N 0 U a tr U cc 0 0 L0 r O N N_ X w Z.; W E 0 �a a Packet Pg. 1841 J.1.p LDR Section XXX: As provided in PoHey 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 excel2tion 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; and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed the 35 -foot height Emit 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 hei ht limit may be permitted. The amount of the height exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary 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: and 4. No exception shall be provided to prgperties located in an AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zone. LDR Section XXX• Elevate means the action of retrofitting, moving or raising a building to a higher positun. Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest elevated floor raised above the ground level by foundation walls shear walls posts piers,_pihngs or columns Floodproofing means any _combination of structural or nonstructural changes or adjustments included in the design, construction, or alteration of a building that reduce or eliminate flood damage to the building and its contents. Relocation means (in retrofitting), the process of moving a building to a new location outside the flood hazard area. Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its ex osure to flooding and raise the living area above flood levels. In general retrofitting_ involves lifting the building and _constructing a new foundation or extending the existing foundation below it or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floors stem within the building_ or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only parking, building access,_ or storage. Retrofitting means making changes to an existin g building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 9 c 0 m 0 a x c �a CL CL E 0 U cc N N O U CL w U) CD 0 0 LO 0 N r N r X W Z.; m �a a Packet Pg. 1842 J.1.p Policy 101.5.33 As of the effective date of this policy, a lawfully established existing building, which exceeds the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30 may be repaired improved or reconstructed (demolished and rebuilt) to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area density-and type of use. For buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height _of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commissioners shall be required prior to issuance of any county permit or a royal. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum a roved height. LDR Section XXX: As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established buildings which exceed the 35 foot height limit may be repaired, improved or reconstructed(demolished and rebuilt) to meet the FEMA BFE provided the building is limited to the lawfully established existing intensity, floor area, density and type of use. A Flood Protection Height Exception for a lawfully _established existing building exceeding the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided as follows: 1. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum re uired FEMA BFE an exception of a maximum of five 5 feet may be permitted. The amount of the exception shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE• and 2. For lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit that are voluntarily retrofitted to meet the building's minimum required FEMA BFE but will require a height exception of more than five (5) feet, a public hearing before the Board of County Commission shall be required prior to issuance of any county permit ar approval. The BOCC shall consider: a. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel; b. The susceptibility of the existin building and its contents to flood dama c and the effects of such damage on the property owner; c. The ogi bilit 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, in additional threats to public safer • result in extraordinary public expense- create nuisance; or cause fraud on or victimization of the public • and f. Community character. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. File 2015 -006 i' 6 (it 9 0 a� 0 a x c �a (L CL E 0 U cc N N 0 U a a U) CD 0 0 LO 0 N t P N r w Z.; c m E �a r r a Packet Pg. 1843 J.1.p V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. Objective 6013 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 w 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, E wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. 0 m (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical Q 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. L File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 9 Packet Pg. 1844 J.1.p (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 the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 1633161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and c enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result N from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive r planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public i j health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and Z.; general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and E protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 0 r 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies Q for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 9 Packet Pg. 1845 J.1.p ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment.. VII, STAFF RECOMMENDATION hll 19 WI: 16 IN K` I . Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing a 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes N 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report r 5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes w 6. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County m 7. Table with proposed amendments from March 24, 2015 DRC meeting and May 26, 2015 DRC meeting (side by side comparison) �a 8. Chapter 5.0 Elevating Your Home, excerpt from FEMA's Homeowner's Guide To Retrofitting Q 9. Ocean Reef Club request and data. File 2015 -006 Page 9 of 9 Packet Pg. 1846 J.1.p EXHIBIT 7 DEVELOPMENT REVIEW COMMITTEE Tuesday, August 25, 2015 MEETING MINUTES The Monroe County Development Review Committee conducted a meeting on Tuesday, August 25, 2015, beginning at 1:00 p.m. at the Marathon Government Center, Media & Conference Room (1 floor, rear hallway), 2798 Overseas Highway, Marathon, Florida. CALL TO ORDER ROLL CALL by Gail Creech DRC MEMBERS Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator, Environmental Resources Present Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Present Kevin Bond, Planning & Development Review Manager Present STAFF Steve Williams, Assistant County Attorney Present Matt Coyle, Senior Planner Present Devin Rains, Senior Planner Present Thomas Broadrick, Senior Planner Present Gail Creech, Planning Commission Coordinator Present CHANGES TO THE AGENDA Mr. Roberts announced Items 5 and 6 will be heard first. MINUTES FOR APPROVAL Mr. Roberts deferred approval of minutes to the next DRC meeting. MEETING New Items: S. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY r COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN w CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL c DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF COMMUNITY; AND CREATING E 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 a REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING Packet Pg. 1847 J.1.p FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -006) Mr. Roberts presented the staff report. Mr. Roberts reported that while working on the comp plan update the BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to pull the proposed changes for further review and submit as a separate amendment. The proposed text amendment has been reviewed at two prior DRC meetings. Policy 101.5.30 adds mechanical equipment to the 35 -foot limit while excluding certain structures. There are no exceptions to the height limitation in Airport districts. Policy 101.5.31 for Ocean Reef, which is a gated and isolated community with a distinct community character, includes non - habitable architectural decorative features that exceed the 35 -foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed five feet above the building's roof line. There are Land Development Code amendments to reflect these policies. Policy 101.5.32 provides that certain buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35 -foot height limit. New buildings voluntarily elevated to exceed the building's minimum required BFE may exceed the 35 -foot height limit by three feet. For lawfully established existing buildings which do not exceed 35 feet and are voluntarily retrofitted to meet and /or exceed the building's minimum required BFE, an exception of a maximum of five feet above the 35 -foot height limit may be permitted. Bill Hunter, resident of Sugarloaf Key, asked for the rationale for the difference of an extra two feet between an existing building and a new building. Mr. Coyle explained that it is to allow a homeowner more room to get into compliance and go up. Mr. Hunter then asked for clarification on the definition of "retrofit." Mr. Roberts stated that retrofitting means making changes to an existing building to protect it from flooding or other hazards. Demolition and reconstruction of a new structure would not fit within that definition. Dottie Moses, on behalf of the Federation of Homeowners Association, stated that the Federation a consistently maintains its opposition to raising the height limit. Ms. Moses asked who is a requesting the height increase. Mr. Roberts replied that this amendment was staff - initiated at the o direction of the BOCC. Ms. Moses believes that the recent change in the code that allows setbacks being used for parking in URM zones will result in another floor of bedrooms being c added under this amendment, which will increase density. The hurricane evacuation issue is r always a concern in the community, also. Ms. Moses then asked where the exception provided c for properties located in the AE 10 or VE 10 or greater FEMA flood zones originated. Ms. Schemper will look into that for Ms. Moses. Ms. Schemper added that this item will be brought r back to the DRC one more time. x w Joel Reid, on behalf of Ocean Reef Club and Ocean Reef Community Association, commented that these two associations have asked for height changes to address their community concerns. E Mr. Reid expressed disappointment that some items Ocean Reef has been asking for have not been included in the staff report. Mr. Reid then asked for clarification regarding architectural a elements exceeding 40 feet under Policy 101.5.33. Ms. Schemper explained that Policy 101.5.33 applies to lawfully established buildings that are already over 35 feet high. The intent is if it was a pre - existing feature, then the BOCC could approve it, but if it is a proposed architectural 2 Packet Pg. 1848 J.1.p feature an exception would not be given if it is over 40 feet. Mr. Reid stated Ocean Reef would like some protection in order for residents to be able to build back their structures without losing their views. Ms. Schemper pointed out that this amendment is to protect what is already in existence while also meeting the flood requirements. The existing intensity or density type of use would be protected. Policy 101.5.33 does not specifically address increasing slab -to -slab heights. That would have to be approved by the BOCC if over 40 feet. The mechanism of going through the approval process to the BOCC has not been thoroughly fleshed out. That would be in the Land Development Code portion of the amendment. Mr. Reid asked how rebuilding and doing modifications to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center and boat storage area would be handled. Ms. Schemper responded that the full amount of data in those issues has not been received by staff at this point. 6. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICIES 101.5.8 AND 101.13.5 WITHIN THE FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT AND POLICIES 207.1.2 WITHIN THE CONSERVATION AND COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT TO FURTHER CLARIFY THE DEVELOPMENT OF OFFSHORE ISLANDS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -007) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is another item U originally contemplated during the camp plan update. Staff was directed by the BOCC to pull it out as a separate text amendment. This was already reviewed at two DRC meetings and has been continued to this meeting to get additional public review, input and discussion. The proposed changes are about where development in terms of TDRs and the transfer of ROGO exemptions c are directed. Existing Policy 101.5.8 allows for the transfer of units based on certain criteria. a The new policy expands the criteria and has additional standards to utilize the tier system. The W sender site must be located in Tier I, 11, or III -A, or any tier designation if it is within the military o installation impact overlay. The receiver site must have a future land use category ability and zoning district that allows the use, must meet the adopted density standards, include all c infrastructure, be located within Tier III and may not be within a V zone or a CBRS unit. The "' r comprehensive plan specifies specific habitat types and the certain zoning districts that were c allowed on sender site TDRs. The offshore island zoning category is specifically identified as an eligible sender site. The new proposed policy utilizes the tier designation to specify the sender r site because this already accounts for both habitat types and zoning districts that were in the x existing policy. The new policy states only parcels designated Tier III can be receiver sites and w r they must have an adopted maximum net density standard, which would be based on their zoning category. Ms. Schemper reviewed Policy 206.1.2, which prohibits development on offshore E islands, and the definition of significant native upland habitat. This item will be brought back to the DRC one more time. a Julie Dick with Everglades Law Center, present on behalf of Florida Keys Environmental Fund and Last Stand, believes Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and is addressed somewhere else in the 3 Packet Pg. 1849 J.1.p comp plan. Ms. Dick suggested eliminating the entire policy because any confusion resulting from this policy leaves the door open to misinterpretation. Ms. Dick supports Policy 101.6.8 in making sure that offshore islands are not receiver sites. Bart Smith, Esquire, commented that generally he appreciates the revisions made to the obtaining and transferring of TDRs. On behalf of FEB Corp. Mr. Smith stated most of the receiver site criteria in the staff report seems very logical. Mr. Smith does not, however, feel that the sixth criteria that blanketly prohibits offshore islands from being receiver sites is logical because there is not any data and analysis identifying the reasons why an offshore island cannot be a receiver site. Mr. Smith feels that the definition of "significant native upland habitat" is a well- thought -out definition. Mr. Smith stated everything in the proposed ordinance makes logical sense and is conforming except for the blanket prohibition of offshore islands. Naja Girard, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, addressed Mr. Smith's comments by responding that one thing different about offshore islands is that shallow waters surround the offshore islands and include benthic resources that the camp plan directs the County to protect. Encouraging development on offshore islands would require the acceptance of all the boating traffic that would be created as a result of that development. Ms. Girard agrees that Policy 206.1.2 is redundant and changes the normal way offshore islands are designated Tier I, which could result in confusion on its interpretation. Ms. Girard believes this weakens the protection of all offshore islands. Ms. Girard also believes there is not accurate data on what actually exists on these islands. 1. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) AND COMMERCIAL FISHING AREA (CFA) TO MIXED USE (MU), FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, BIG COPPITT KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00120940.000100, AND FROM INDUSTRIAL (I) TO COMMERCIAL 2 (C2) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT APPROXIMATE MILE MARKER 9, DESCRIBED AS FOUR PARCELS OF LAND IN SECTION 21, TOWNSHIP 67 SOUTH, RANGE 26 EAST, ROCKLAND KEY, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00122080.000000, 00122081.000200, 00122010.000000 AND 00121990.000000, AS PROPOSED BY ROCKLAND OPERATIONS, LLC AND ROCKLAND COMMERCIAL CENTER, INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2012 -069) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this item is a zoning amendment to accompany a FLUM amendment which has already been transmitted by the BOCC to DEO. Staff has received the objections, recommendations and comments report on the FLUM amendment. DEO's objection was that it was increasing the potential residential 4 Packet Pg. 1850 J.1.p development and should be revised to allow other residential uses. The original deadline for adopting that FLUM amendment was September 19, but staff has asked for an extension based on the applicant's delay and the new deadline is March 15, 2016. The current zoning amendment would be required to match the FLUM amendment. The applicant is required to revise the total FLUM amendment to include a comp plan policy that would limit any residential development on the site to affordable housing only. This affects only the northernmost L- shaped parcel on the map. The southern parcels are proposed to become commercial with no residential density. Today's discussion concerns the zoning portion of the amendment. The net change in development for the entire site will actually be a reduction in residential density. The Big Coppitt portion of the site would have an increase in affordable residential, but the proposed camp plan policy will limit all residential development to affordable housing on that site. Staff has found that any impact is not anticipated to have an adverse effect on community character. Staff has found no adverse effects for traffic circulation. There is sufficient capacity for the public facilities for potential development under this zoning amendment. Staff has found that the proposed amendment is consistent with the Monroe County comprehensive plan and the Land Development Code. The proposed zoning map amendment is necessary to be consistent with the proposed FLUM amendment that the BOCC has already recommended and transmitted to the State. Staff recommends approval of the proposed amendment. This is contingent on the adoption of the FLUM amendment. Deb Curlee, resident of Cudjoe Key, asked what the Navy has to say about this amendment. Ms. Schemper replied that the portion of affordable housing is actually in the noise zone at the greatest distance compared to the rest of the property. Bart Smith, Esquire, agreed and added that the requirement to sound - attenuate to the level the Navy requests is specifically written in to the site - specific zoning. 2. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY FUTURE LAND USE MAP FROM RESIDENTIAL CONSERVATION (RC) TO RECREATION (R) AND CONSERVATION (C), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND FOR AMENDMENT TO THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -047) 3. AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE MONROE COUNTY LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP FROM NATIVE AREA (NA) TO PARKS AND REFUGE (PR) AND CONSERVATION DISTRICT (CD), FOR PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS A PARCEL OF LAND IN SECTION 24, TOWNSHIP 59 SOUTH, RANGE 40 EAST, KEY LARGO, 0 Packet Pg. 1851 J.1.p MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, AND ALSO BEING A PORTION OF TRACT A, HARBOR COURSE SOUTH, SECTION ONE, OCEAN REEF PLAT NO. 14 (PLAT BOOK. 7, PAGE 9), KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00573690.003900, AS PROPOSED BY OCEAN REEF CLUB INC.; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR AMENDMENT TO THE LAND USE DISTRICT (ZONING) MAP; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File 2015 -048) Ms. Schemper presented the staff reports. Ms. Schemper reported that these two amendments are FLUM and zoning amendments that coordinates with one another for a parcel within Ocean Reef proposed by Ocean Reef Club. The site is 11 acres and currently has a FLUM designation of Residential Conservation with a zoning category of Native Area. The property owners would like to develop a park on a portion of the site and are requesting to change the FLUM to 9.5 acres of Conservation and a little over 1.5 acres of Recreation for the FLUM and, corresponding to that, 9.5 acres of Conservation zoning and 1.5 acres of Park and Refuge zoning. The density and intensity change for this amendment would be a decrease in both residential and non - residential density and intensity. There is no adverse impact on community character and no additional impact foreseen for any of the public facilities. Staff has found both proposed amendments would be consistent with the comp plan and the Land Development Code and is consistent with the principles for guiding development. These amendments support Ocean Reef's desire to increase some of the park and recreational space within the community based on an increase in the number of families with children currently in their community. If the corresponding FLUM amendment is transmitted to the State and adopted, then the zoning plan would be required to remain consistent with the FLUM. Staff is recommending approval of the FLUM amendment from Residential Conservation to Conservation and Recreation and staff is recommending approval of the zoning amendment from Native Area to Parks and Refuge and Conservation district. The zoning recommendation would be contingent on the approval and effectiveness of the proposed FLUM amendment that corresponds with this. Joel Reid, the representative of the applicant, stated that Ocean Reef Club is always looking to enhance the community's experience and meet their needs for the community members. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, asked whether Mr. Roberts had any concern with clearing c of upland habitat of protected species of 1.71 acres for the sole purpose of providing a park for homeowners. Mr. Roberts replied that the applicant is required to coordinate directly with U.S. r Fish & Wildlife for the protection of these species. The County's clearing requirements would x fall back to the original development orders for Ocean Reef Club because it is not dictated by the w tier clearing limits in the code. E �a 4. PL OCEAN RESIDENCES, 97801 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO, MILE a MARKER 98: A PUBLIC MEETING CONCERNING A REQUEST FOR A MINOR CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT. THE REQUESTED APPROVAL IS REQUIRED FOR THE DEVELOPMENT OF A PROPOSED 24 ATTACHED DWELLING UNITS DESIGNATED AS 11 Packet Pg. 1852 J.1.p AFFORDABLE HOUSING, 28 DETACHED DWELLING UNITS OF MARKET RATE HOUSING, AND ASSOCIATED AMENITIES. THE SUBJECT PROPERTY IS DESCRIBED AS PARCELS OF LAND LOCATED IN SECTIONS 5 AND 6, TOWNSHIP 62 SOUTH, RANGE 39 EAST, KEY LARGO, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBERS 00090810.000000, 00090820.000000, 00090840.000000, 00090840.000100, AND 00090860.000000. (File 2015 -049) Ms. Schemper presented the staff report. Ms. Schemper reported that this is a request for a minor conditional use permit which is required because the applicant is requesting to develop 24 attached dwelling units. Within the Urban Residential zoning category that use requires a minor conditional use permit. The development is reviewed by staff as a whole for consistency sake. The total proposal is requesting 24 attached dwelling units as affordable housing and 28 detached dwelling units as market rate housing. The site's current characteristics and zoning were described. The site has ROGO exemptions for 20 permanent dwelling units. Ms. Schemper then listed the categories where staff has found either compliance is still to be determined or the site was found not in compliance. Compliance with the residential ROGO is to be determined because at the time of the building permit is when the applicant applies for their ROGO allocations. An additional eight market rate ROGO allocations and 24 affordable housing ROGO allocations would be needed. Permitted uses is listed as not in compliance because the attached residential dwelling units are permitted with the condition that sufficient common areas for recreation are provided to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be developed. Compliance is to be determined on residential density and maximum floor area because the site requires 7.6 transferred development rights which are done at the time of the building permit. Compliance is to be determined on required open space because the calculations were not comparable of the upland area on the site plan. Mr. Roberts noted that the indicated shoreline setbacks were either incorrect or not clearly depicted on the site plan. Ms. Schemper continued to report that most of the non- shoreline setbacks are in compliance at a this point, but the setback lines shown on the site plan are not necessarily the correct lines in o every situation. The surface water management will be dealt with for full compliance at the time c of permit application. Mr. Roberts noted that there was conflicting information on the site plan Ul) 0 regarding the depth to ground water. Ms. Schemper continued to report that there are r inconsistencies on the site plan regarding the height of the fencing and privacy wall. The privacy c wall shown on the site plan separates the site completely between the attached units and the detached units, which basically turns the parcel into two separate developments and they would r each need to meet all of the land development regulations on their own. Some sort of connection w is needed between the two. Compliance for flood plain, energy conservation and potable water r is to be determined, as well as environmental design criteria and mitigation, at the building permit stage. The required parking is also affected by the separation between the two types of E units on the site plan. The total number of parking spaces is sufficient if the site is viewed as a a whole. The required bufferyards are not in compliance because the site plan shows some a incorrect bufferyards. Mr. Roberts added that the property was rezoned from URM to UR and the URM boundary buffers are being shown. 7 Packet Pg. 1853 J.1.p Ms. Schemper continued to report that the square footage of the signage proposed has some issues and recommended that the signage be done separately as part of the fence permit at the time of the building permit. The access is currently under review by the County's traffic consultant. The site plan shows the County standards on U.S.1, but also needs to comply with FDOT standards. Compliance is to be determined on inclusionary housing at the time of the building permit because when the tenth permanent market rate unit gets its certificate of occupancy, a certificate of occupancy is required on at least three of the affordable housing units, and a proportional increase continues accordingly throughout the development. Given all of those items, staff still recommends approval. A list of 22 conditions required are listed in the staff report. Jorge Cepero, present on behalf of the applicant, clarified that there is still one structure, a gatehouse, in the front of the property that was not demolished. Robert Ginter, owner of an adjoining property, is concerned about the fencing and buffers to protect the neighborhood. Ms. Schemper explained that there are quite a few buffers on the site plan. There is an access off of First Street for a portion of the property. Ms. Schemper will make the site plan available to Mr. Ginter at the end of today's meeting. Mitch Harvey, resident of Key Largo, is concerned that this is the one time that the public has a chance to review this proposal and there are so many items still not deemed to be in compliance. Ms. Schemper explained that there is a 30 -day notice that goes out that says the Planning Director intends to issue the minor conditional use permit, as well as a legal ad. The Planning Director's decision will not be made until these items are all fulfilled. The revised proposal will be available through the Planning Department. ADJOURNMENT The Development Review Committee meeting was adjourned at 2:32 p.m. X W r C d E t V ca r r Q 8 Packet Pg. 1854 J.1.p EXHIBIT 8 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Mayte Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Froth: Mayte 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 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) Meeting: October 27, 2015 - continued from March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015 & August 25, 2015 1. REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101,532 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. H. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. File 2015 -006 Page I of S X W Z.; c m E m Q Packet Pg. 1855 J.1.p 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 -awned offshore islands, Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to N allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and x comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a w future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, E 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. m r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 8 Packet Pg. 1856 J.1.p III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, height and rg ode are defined as follows: 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. Height limit + 30 . For this example, a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height L limit and the flood zone of AE 511 "town of Road 5tt■ Crown of the road Natural Eievatloo aft Ir teww to mean Im le„d AE 5' File 2015 -006 The vertical distance between grade (crown of road, based on definition, for this example) and the highest part ofthe structure Height 2fl of fill needed to reach 5ft flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet Page 3 of 8 X W c d t V to r Q Packet Pg. 1857 J.1.p In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are atAeken- tiz�ewgh and additions are underlined Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately. Policy 101.452630 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between gade and the highest Rart of any structure including mechanical equipment, but excludin spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only, chimneys radio and/or television antennas; flagpoles solar apparatus; utilijy 12oles and/or transmission towers- and certain antenna supp orting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall an of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations except as s2ecifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. P*eaeptiens will be all buildings, transmission tewem and efliep stmetu In the case of airport districts there shall be no exce tions to the 35 - foot height limitation. Poligj 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef a master planned community which is Rated, inaccessible to the surroundin community, and has a distinct community character buildings may include non, habitable architectural decorative features such as finials railings widow's walk parapets that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof linc. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned commuWV means a planned community of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the communily is operated and maintained by the communily including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entt which regglates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. X W Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 9. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. v m r r EN File 2015 -006 Page 4 of 8 Packet Pg. 1858 J.1.p PoliEy 101.5.32 Within in I 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, h safety and general welfare: allow adaptation to coastal flooding,,_ storm surge and other hazards- protect property from flooding and minimize i e dama s, minimize public and private losses due to ° g . 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 0 a maximum of five 5 feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be a voluntarily elevated up to three (3 ) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood o p rotection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of vublic funds for recovery from flood events In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result �o in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet C Policy 101.5.33 Within in I year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe Court shall adopt Land Development a X ° Rep,ulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing E buildings, exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, to_promote�ublic health, safety and r g eneral welfare adaptation to coastal flooding, storm sure and other hazards roe from a► flooding and minimize damages, inimize public and private losses due to flooding: minimize future = expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recove from flood events; and mitig rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired improved, a retrofitted or redeveloped to meet required FEMA base flood elevation FE provided the building does a not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet and the building is limited to the lawfully 0 established existing intensi1y, floor area building envelope floor to floor height) density and use. 0 � For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public to hearing before the Board of Courts Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum anproved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development anproval. A BOCC resolution ry shalt specify the maximum approved height. N o U a W rn W. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, to o0 THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT LO A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the T " 0 N Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: 2) Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of ° t N County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. r X W Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting c m structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The t 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. Q File 2015 -006 Page 5 of 8 Packet Pg. 1859 J.1.p Policy 217.1.5 Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 rating. Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. 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 goveming 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 ce government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. N Iq (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, o wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. U (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical a � vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinclands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and rn their habitat. ca 0 (d) Ensuring the maximum well -being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic q development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. N (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. c (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. t (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost - effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major N public investments, including: r X W 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; m 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; E t 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; r 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; Q 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and File 2015 -006 Page 6 of S Packet Pg. 1860 J.1.p 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. Q) 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 the Part II of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.316] (4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of Iand within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies N for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the W 0 area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and q strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to r ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the N principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued c to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the t inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those N programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the r comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development w regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and Y development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development (1) and use regulations. E t 0 VT. PROCESS Q Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual File 2015 -006 Page 7 of S Packet Pg. 1861 J.1.p interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMINMNI)ATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5, May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 8. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 9. Ocean Reef Club request and data. X W r C d E t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 8 Packet Pg. 1862 J.1.p EXHIBIT 9 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 (I' 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 X w c m E �a a Packet Pg. 1863 J.1.p 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 x property. Ms. Santamaria responded that this is a map amendment only and the specific w 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 E 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 a 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. Packet Pg. 1864 J.1.p 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 ea meeting on the proposed comp plan amendments for the height provisions. The BOCC asked c staff to work on the height policies that were in the comp plan update and process them r separately so that they could be fully vetted and worked through as one topic versus within the N entire comp plan update. The previous various staff reports are attached to show how these c 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 N well. That height is defined as "The vertical distance between grade and the highest part of the x structure." w r c m Ms. Santamaria reported that the next amendment is to Policy 101.5.31, Ocean Reef - specific, E 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 a 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. Packet Pg. 1865 J.1.p 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 Ivey Largo Federation of Homeowners, voiced concern these policies could spill over into Unincorporated Monroe County. Ms. Curlee agreed. Ms. Santamaria explained that staff would like to start to move this item toward the Planning Commission unless members of the public would like to have another DRC meeting to get more input. Alicia Putney, speaking on behalf of Last Stand, reiterated what Ms. Moses stated regarding spillover into Monroe County. Ms. Santamaria then reported that the next proposed amendment is to Policy 101.5.32, and this is to create a flood protection height exception up to five feet above the 35 -foot height limits to allow buildings to go three feet above their base flood elevation. In no event under this policy will a building be over 40 feet. The policy is specific to new buildings and for existing buildings. If the building is not being elevated to meet at least the required base flood elevation this exception cannot be used at all. This exception would not be provided for buildings located in the very hazardous flood zones. Ms. Santamaria asked for public comment. X Ms. Moses commented that adding an extra three feet to meet base flood elevation should be w 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 E 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, a but it is not available at this time. Ms. Santamaria confirmed for Ms. Moses that this policy refers to elevating existing structures. If a house is torn down it must be rebuilt to a 35 -foot height limit. Ms. Santamaria then explained between the last DRC meeting and today the 4 Packet Pg. 1866 J.1.p 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 N concerns because they would like to elevate, but if they do they are going to lose rack space x when they already cannot supply the need that they have. Mr. Hendrick then asked that the w 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 E definition of "building." r a Ms. Santamaria asked for further public comment. There was none. Packet Pg. 1867 0 C 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 Iand 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 c� "severability" as used in the agenda. Ms. Santamaria explained that the one provision of x offshore island could be appealed and extracted out without overturning the rest of the ordinance w 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. E Kyle that the fact that his island is only 800 feet from US -1 does not give it any kind of special consideration. a Gidget Jackson asked whether there is any flexibility in the restricted use for the islands for camping. Ms. Santamaria responded that the zoning category allows for camping of the owner 6 Packet Pg. 1868 J.1.p 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. VA Packet Pg. 1869 1.1.p 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 IikeIy 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. X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1870 EXHIBIT 10 Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County X W Z.; c m E t v cc r Q Packet Pg. 1871 FEMA Flood Zone Number of % of total % of total # of Private - Parcels Vacant Parcels X 1,935 3.40% 462 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 03 5.16% R CHANCE FLOOD HAZARD 999 1.76% 165 v � o 2 AE 5 1 0.00% - AE 6 1,964 3.46% 95 3 AE 7 8,996 15.83% 296 C o � N tq AE 8 14,824 26.08% 2,699 o 0 AE 9 I1,272 19.83% 1,916 AE 10 6,835 12.02% 1 098 ' 83.48% AE 11 2,983 5.25% 326 3 AE 12 121 0.21% 12 AE 13 418 0.74% 5 b o ° cv AE 14 36 0.06% - AE 15 3 0.01% o AE 16 1 0.00% - VE 9 5 0.01% 1 3 story VE 10 327 0.58% 67 VE 11 1,019 139% 272 VE 12 1,443 2.54% 265 3 VE 13 1,069 1.88% 127 p VE 14 1,815 3.19% 52 VE 15 352 0.62% 52 VE 16 31 0.05% 7 ` 10.76% o VE 17 33 0.06% 2 VE 19 5 0.01% - VE 20 1 0.00% VE 21 8 0.01% - 3 VE 22 7 0.01 %° o VE 23 1 0.00% b o VE 24 1 0.00% 0 r, VE 26 2 0.00% - OPEN WATER 10 0.02% 2 total parcels 56,843 7,921 Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. X W Z.; c m E t v cc r Q Packet Pg. 1871 J.1.p EXHIBIT 11 Ocean Reef Height Policy Staff s draft height Policy for Ocean Reef, as set forth in the DRC Staff Report, reads: Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, structures may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, rails, widow's walls) that exceed the 35 foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the structure's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a structure or any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. The Staff Report accurately states that "Draft Policy 10 1.5.31 is intended to address non - habitable architectural decorative features ". However, architectural decorative features are only one (and the least significant) of three provisions that Ocean Reef has requested. Staff is occasionally presented with requests by Ocean Reef property owners to allow extra height for widow's walks and other such features, so staffs focus on that element is understandable. But of greater long -term importance to ORCA are provisions allowing story -by -story replacement of existing multi- family buildings, and an allowance for the unique requirements of a modernized Cultural Center. As proposed by ORCA, the Ocean Reef height Policy would read: Pollcv 101.5.31 0 For Ocean Reef, a gated community which is isolated and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, the N following policy shall apply: o 1. Structures maV include non - habitable architectural decorative a features (such as finials, rails, and a widow's walk) that exceed the y 35 foot-height limit in Policy 101.5.30, provided that such features o do not extend more than 5 feet above the structure's roof line. T 11 2. Multi -story buildings in existence on the effective date of this N Policy may be replaced at their existiniz number of stories up to Cr 11' slab -to -slab per story. W 3. The height limit applicable to the Ocean Reef Cultural Center shall r be 65 feet above grade. w r The above Policy is carefully tailored to the needs and circumstances of the Ocean E Reef Community. The general language of proposed Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33, allowing an additional 5' of height for replacement of existing buildings exceeding r 35', does not facilitate replacement of Ocean Reefs multi -story buildings, because it Q would force undesirable design features such as low ceiling heights. Nor does it accommodate the additional height needed for Cultural Center stage performances. Packet Pg. 1872 J.1.p Sa -Ma e From: RC3WORLD <joelreed55 @gmail.com> Sent: Tuesday, June 09, 2015 7:50 AM To: Santamaria -Mayte Cc: David Ritz, Jack Duncan; Jim Hendrick; Michael G. Leemhuis Subject: Re: height Comprehensive Plan amendment and Ocean Reef Club Attachments: Height_data_table_2015- 06- 09.pdf, ATT00001.htm Follow Up Flag: Follow up Flag Status: Completed Categories: Blue Category Mayte, As was requested please find a list of buildings and corresponding data related to structures that exceed the 35' height limit in Ocean Reef Club. We are still collecting additional data onC.Q, Pompano, and Water Tower. We will submit any additional detail that we have on these structures once the data is obtained.. I know we also discussed sending the existing heights on the cultural center, which we are working on and will send over as soon once it is available. Please do not hesitate to contact me if you or your staff have any additional questions or comments as you prepare your next round of staff reports. Sincerely, Joel Reed, AICP Phone: 404.403.2925 joelreed55 @ amail.corn X W Z.; C d >_ t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1873 J.1.p c 0 r m r 0 L _ M Table 1 OCEAN REEF EXISTING STRUCTURES > 35' DATA TABLE Name Primary Use Levels of habitable Downstairs! Storage/ Enc. Overall H eight to Soffit or Tap of Beam Overall Height to Top of Roof Floor to Floor Avg, Slab Thicknes e Grade Flood Zone Amberjack Hotel 3 No 29 • 1 112" 33 112" 8" to 2'6' Unknown Unknown Boat Barn Comm. NIA NIA Unknown 37' NIA Unknown Unknown Creek House Condo Unk. Unknown Unknown a35' Unknown Unknown Unknown Dolphin Hotel 4 Unknown 43' -2" —a' —5 AE11 Harbor House Condo 4 Yes Unknown -8' Unknown AE9 Madin Hotel 3 Yes 38' " —8° 4' -8112' VE Plaza Comm. 3 Yes 28' - 6" 6` Unknown Unknown Yachtsman Condo 3 Yas 35' -9' NJ tJnkrWWn Unknown Unknown Fcmpano Hotel TBD TBD TBD C.O. Dormitory Res. TBD TBD TD Water Tower NIA N1A N!A TBD NOW Amberjack and Plaza added as pre -firm structure because height would be over 35' with redevelopment it built above flood ' Estimated roof to be 6' Prepared by RMINORLD, Inc. 101612014, fast modified 6fgf2015 t Z C fC FL CL E 0 U N N CD U (L M U) (D CD CD kf> CD N r M Cl Z M N r X W r C d E t V ca r r Q Packet Pg. 1874 Exhibit 12 MEMORANDUM MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT To: Monroe County Development Review Committee Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources From: Mayt6 Santamaria, Senior Director of Planning & Environmental Resources Emily Schemper, Comprehensive Planning Manager Date: January 15, 2016 Subject: AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN CREATING POLICY 101.5.31 TO ADDRESS HEIGHT EXCEPTIONS FOR NON - HABITABLE ARCHITECTURAL DECORATIVE FEATURES WITHIN THE OCEAN REEF MASTER PLANNED COMMUNITY; AND CREATING POLICIES 101.5.32 AND 101.5.33 TO PROVIDE CERTAIN EXCEPTIONS TO THE HEIGHT LIMIT IN ORDER TO PROTECT PROPERTY FROM FLOODING AND REDUCE FLOOD INSURANCE COSTS; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR REPEAL OF CONFLICTING PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY AND THE SECRETARY OF STATE; PROVIDING FOR INCLUSION IN THE MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN; PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE. (File # 2015 -006) Meeting: January 26, 2016 - continued from March 24, 2015, May 26, 2015, August 25, 2015 and October 27, 2015 L REQUEST The Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources is proposing amendments to create Policy 101.5.31 to address non - habitable architectural decorative features within the Ocean Reef community; and create Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 to provide certain exceptions to the height limit in order to protect property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs. II. BACKGROUND INFORMATION The County has been working on the Comprehensive Plan update and has held numerous public hearings on the proposed amendments. Most recently, the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) held special public meetings on March 21, 2014, April 23, 2014 and May 22, 2014, to review proposed amendments to the Comprehensive Plan. A special BOCC public hearing was held on July 23, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County File 2015 -006 Page 1 of 12 Packet Pg. 1875 J.1.p 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and this hearing was continued to October 7, 2014. The Monroe County Board of County Commissioners held a special meeting on October 7, 2014, to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO) and the hearing was continued to December 10, 2014, to discuss the following: • Policies 101. 5.31 and 101.5.32: BOCC directed staff to work on height policies for addressing the replacement of existing buildings which exceed the 35ft height limit, architectural features, flood protection purposes and affordable housing. Staff to present drafts during the regular December BOCC meeting. • BOCC directed staff to work on an inventory /data of privately -owned offshore islands. Staff to present draft during the regular December BOCC meeting. A transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing, is attached as Exhibit 1. During the regular December 10, 2014 BOCC meeting, a public hearing was held to discuss proposed height and offshore island policies and to consider the transmittal of the proposed amendments (the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan) to the DEO. The BOCC directed staff to maintain the existing adopted height and offshore island policies and to extract the proposed changes to the height limit policy and process it as a separate amendment. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on March 24, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the March 24, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 2. Minutes from the March 24, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 3. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on May 26, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the May 26, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 4. Minutes from the May 26, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 5. DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on August 25, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the August 25, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 6. Minutes from the August 25, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 7. File 2015 -006 Page 2 of 12 cc N N 0 U (L W U) CD 0 0 LO T " 0 N 2 W N r X W C W E �a a Packet Pg. 1876 J.1.p DRC At its regularly scheduled meeting on October 27, 2015, the Monroe County Development Review Committee reviewed the proposed text amendment and held a workshop format meeting to allow for extensive public review and comment. The information provided in the staff report and comments from the public were discussed at the meeting. The text amendment was continued to a future DRC meeting to allow for additional public review, input and discussion early in the process. The staff report from the October 27, 2015 DRC is attached as Exhibit 8. Minutes from the October 27, 2015 DRC are attached as Exhibit 9. III. ANALYSIS OF PROPOSED AMENDMENT HEIGHT: In unincorporated Monroe County, hem and rg ade are defined as follows: 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 highestpart 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 -006 Page 3 of 12 Packet Pg. 1877 J.1.p Height limit + 3 For this example, a 3 story home may be developed within the 35 foot height limit and the flood zone of AE 511 4 10 Crown of Road 5W Crown ofthe road Natural EIevoldor ifs it relallor to mear 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 211 of fill needed to reach 511 flood zone requirement from the natural elevation of 3 feet In the Comprehensive Plan update, recommendations to amend and expand the height policy have been made to clarify the measurement of height to match the recently amended land development code (Ordinance 003 -2011) and to address new issues, such as: anticipating new FEMA flood maps and creating a mechanism to assist property owners to protect their property from flooding and reduce flood insurance costs as well as issues in permitting relative to architectural decorative features. Excerpt below from a recent GreenKeys! Project, including vulnerability assessment of homes and commercial building structures and to model adaptation scenarios within Monroe County in Key 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) Jonathan T. Lockman, AICID Samuel B. Merrill, PhD Alexander Gray, MS CATALYSIS ADAPTATION PARTNERS, LLC 1 242 Sawyer Street, South Portland, ME 04106 18 November 2015 > ERIN L. DEADY, P.A. Entire report can be accessed here: http:// fl- monroecountyclimate .civicplus.com/DocumentCenter /View /l03 File 2015 -006 Page 4of12 X W c W E m r Q Packet Pg. 1878 J.1.p 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Catalysis Adaptation Partners, LLC (Catalysis) specializes in analyzing impacts from storm surges and long -term sea level rise using its COastal 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 over time 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 GreenKeysl project. Working with 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 for "no- action" and three (3) adaptation action scenarios: 1) Elevating and floodproofing buildings; 2) building barriers close to shore; 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'. Those projections included a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2030 of 3 and 7" respectively, as well as a low and high estimate of sea level rise in 2060 of 9" and 24" respectively. As requested by workshop participants, a lower sea level rise projection was also employed in the analysis based only on 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, for a very low scenario of sea level rise of 1.82" in 2030 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 I Southeast Florida Regional Climate Change Compact Counties, Sea Level Rise Ad Hoc Technical working Group (April 2011). File 2015 -006 Page 5of12 Packet Pg. 1879 J.1.p • 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 coast 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 it cost to implement them. Ratios less than 1 represented actions that would cost more than the amount of reduced damages in the future (i.e., not cost effective). The action that had the best benefit -cost ratio was elevating and floodproofing 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 (meaning for every $1.00 spent on elevating and floodproofing, the avoided damages would range from $5.48 to $13.70), depending on the sea level rise scenario (high, low or tide gauge trend) and construction cost estimates (high and low). Building barriers had the second highest benefit -cost ratios, but with all results below 1 (0.40 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 floodproofing buildings was their most preferred action. In addition, residents thought the County should pursue sources of funding to help private property owners implement this strategy. The modeling results and community engagement process enabled the Project Team to provide o 0 the County residents with a context for beginning more difficult conversations and decision - making Ul) T " CD processes regarding their vulnerabilities. Discussions of factors outside of the model should lead to diverse C14 r co- benefits (e.g., choosing to restore mangrove forests to not only improve coastal ecosystems but also c 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 most important to a r community in planning how to adapt to sea level rise and future storm surges. w Z.; c However, these results do not mean that the County should begin implementing a program to m E elevate and floodproof residential and commercial buildings. Catalysis recommends that the County use m this information to: Q • 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 -006 Page 6of12 Packet Pg. 1880 J.1.p • 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 APPENDIX: PUBLIC INPUT AND COST CONSIDERATIONS OF PROPOSED STRATEGIES 6.1 KEYPAD POWNG RESULTS FROM COMMUNITY WORKSHOP #2 GreenKEYSI Keypad Polling Results from the COAST community modeling exercise conducted November 5 2014 at the Nelson Government Center In Key Largo, FL Question ill: Currently in Key Largo, 40% of properties are already elevated. What percentage of additional Key Largo V -zone buildings do you want to see elevated in this model? 1 a 25% 9 29% b 5096 2 6% c 75% 2 6% d The draft input of 100% 14 45% blank 4 13% Total 31 1 OD'I Question 02: What percentage of Key Largo A -zone buildings do you want to see floodproofed in this model? 2 a 25% 2 6% Question 2 b 509 5 16% 20 16 c 75% 4 13% to d The draft input of 100% 16 52% 2 4 blank 4 13% 0 6 Total 31 100% a c d Mara Question 03: Currently in Key Largo, new buildings are required to be elevated to the 100 -year flood elevation, which ranges from 6 to 15 feet across the Key. For parcels that will be elevated in the model, do you want them to be elevated up to this code or to something higher? 3 a Up to current code 12 39% Question 3 b Up to current code plus 1 3 ON 20 a 15 c Up to current code plus 3 is 48% 10 blank 1 3% , 3 ' t Total 31 11J(} 0 a B c 61a "k Question #4: The model estimates floodproofing to a certain height. How high would you like to see: parcels floodproofed? c d I t 0 O% uc5i U;1 4 L. 3 It 8 26% 20 C ,, It 3 10% t0 8 d The draft input of 8 ft 16 SZ% p 3 bl,"r 4 13% 0 , Twa 31 10096 a b c d blar File 2015 -006 Page 7 of 12 cD N N O U a U) cD O 0 to O N t 2 t N r X W r C d E t V tts r r Q Packet Pg. 1881 J.1.p IV. PROPOSED AMENDMENT (Deletions are °*r -ieke t h - .i, and additions are underlined Land Development Code amendments are being processed separately. Policy 101.4 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of any structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and /or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only, chimneys, radio and /or television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus, utility poles and /or transmission towers, and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and /or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. L-�Eeeptiaas will be allowed for- apput4enanees to buildings, tr-ansmission towers and athe si mil a r - stpdetur -es. In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this bolicv_ a master Manned community means a Manned communitv of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development standards and monitors development requests by its members. Note, Ocean Reef Club has requested additional amendments, attached as Exhibit 11. To date, sufficient data has not been submitted to evaluate the requested amendments. Policy 101.5.32 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be File 2015 -006 Page 8 of 12 X W Z.; C d E �a a Packet Pg. 1882 J.1.p voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding, minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before efore the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. A BOCC resolution shall specify the maximum approved height. V. CONSISTENCY WITH THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN, THE FLORIDA STATUTES, AND PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT A. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically, the amendment furthers: Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources. Policy 217.1.4 Monroe County shall continue its policy of reviewing the current Building Code and, as appropriate, adopting structural standards and site alteration restrictions that meet or exceed the minimum FEMA requirements. The Building Code shall be reviewed and revised at least every five years. The recommendations of the applicable interagency hazard mitigation report shall be considered in revisions to the Code. Policy 217.1.5 N Monroe County shall continue to participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) Community r Rating System (CRS) to the maximum extent possible and shall seek to improve its current CRS Class 9 w rating. d Policy 217.1.6 Monroe County shall continue to enforce federal, state and local setback and elevation requirements to w promote the protection and safety of life and property. Revisions to the existing setback requirements Q contained in the Land Development Regulations shall be considered as a means of reducing property damage caused by storms. File 2015 -006 Page 9 of 12 Packet Pg. 1883 J.1.p Objective 601.3 By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall increase implementation efforts to eliminate substandard housing and to preserve, conserve and enhance the existing housing stock, including historic structures and sites. Policy 601.3.2 The County Code Enforcement Office and Building Department will enforce building code regulations and County ordinances governing the structural condition of the housing stock, to ensure the provision of safe, decent and sanitary housing and stabilization of residential neighborhoods. B. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute. For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles, the principles shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions. (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical state concern designation. (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat. (c) Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat. (d) Ensuring the maximum well -being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound economic development. (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida Keys. (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character of the Florida Keys. (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys. (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost - effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities; 2. Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities; 3. Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities; 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities; 5. Transportation facilities; 6. Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries; 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned properties; 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co -op; and 9. Other utilities, as appropriate. (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation, maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems. 0) 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. File 2015 -006 Page 10 of 12 X W Z.; C m Q Packet Pg. 1884 J.1.p (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 the Part 11 of Chapter 163, Florida Statute (F.S.). Specifically, the amendment furthers: Section 163.3161(4), F.S. — It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and resources, consistent with the public interest; overcome present handicaps; and deal effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety, comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water, sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and protect natural resources within their jurisdictions 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards, and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental, and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated, modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the comprehensive plan but rather to require identification of those programs, activities, and land development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of more detailed land development and use regulations. VI. PROCESS Comprehensive Plan amendments may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the Planning Commission, the Director of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review and process applications as they are received and pass them onto the Development Review Committee and the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning & Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and findings to the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff recommendation, and the File 2015 -006 Page 11 of 12 Packet Pg. 1885 1.1.p testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not recommend transmittal to the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity (DEO). The amendment is transmitted to DEO, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has 180 days to adopt the amendments, adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment. VII. STAFF RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends APPROVAL of the proposed amendments. VIII. EXHIBITS 1. Transcription of the BOCC height discussion, from the October 7, 2014 public hearing 2. March 24, 2015 DRC Staff Report 3. March 24, 2015 DRC Minutes 4. May 26, 2015 DRC Staff Report 5. May 26, 2015 DRC Minutes 6. August 25, 2015 DRC Staff Report 7. August 25, 2015 DRC Minutes 8. October 27, 2015 DRC Staff Report 9. October 27, 2015 DRC Minutes 10. Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County 11. Ocean Reef Club request and data. X W Z.; C d E t V ca r r Q File 2015 -006 Page 12 of 12 Packet Pg. 1886 cc ill f) 1'T U �y$_ p fd L - J 2Z C 2 S O �Q 3o D 1 J.1.p H� LA l V O V O CL O _O / L lV �A C Exhibit 13 rD rD w o a m O O °h a x w ° m a as IF, m O b w o a w b w W n o„ w p nq N C O ° 0 O rD rD y o I'D �• o n n rr n a '•� a ° c N O a p bQ o n "b CC 0 � D V� '� D rD �, rt a (D �F ° 0 P C 2D a b O vx OIQ m G rL b a o rD O rqD rD b P7' Q w O rD rD O w a 0 rD Q V rD ° co CD A+ � w n p., �' 0'Q �• w n . V w r�i� n rD r N m n rD b rD 0' O ° o p a G Q N 0 Q 0 a w a rD 0 n. m Q p m m N w Q 0 rD O E rD N '' rD d (D w rD rD rD �7 a O rD A �7 rD O bQ 1 J.1.p H� LA l V O V O CL O _O / L lV �A C cc N N O U a w cc 0 0 rD w o O °h 4L `n ° w o a as o b w o o • n o„ N ° rD I'D w a (OD ° c N a o a w V� a �F O• 2D w a N RfnD C ° O 0 p � Q V ° h O V n rD 0' ° o n rD a cc N N O U a w cc 0 0 J.1.p n OIQ O n n n a c bQ C n ^C n t n w sv oQ '� Ky rD w z bQ C � rt O L Q lw I� f lw . txi � � w �rJ L=1 c I 4A o� O cf, 00 \o O � CD H o ;.P O � \ O O � K H �P O N \ V I� \ O � K H (A C-,' 1�0 0 O O � 0 0 o rD � O o O p.+ bd � a w� e4 N O � � N rD � � O a a ME r• 0 F a a as O p r• �n CD o 14 a p rD a a a � � n a ° n o � � � o �s rD n rD rD O rt 0 rD o a 0 rD �:j• 0 O rD rD W n a Q rD rD y p O G ''Od O rD Q 0 rD 0 " O , . �7" r po m w n w p � o o n n n 2 o a� N n o c rD o A n I~ N m a s a a p r rD a o n O �i O � v � a s n G O a s rp n rD O rD rD a n n rD 1 (A C-,' 1�0 0 O O � 0 0 o rD � O o O p.+ bd � a w� e4 N O � � N rD � � O a a ME r• 0 F a a as O p r• �n CD o 14 a p rD a a a � � n a ° n o � � � o �s rD n rD rD O rt 0 rD o a 0 rD n 0 a n 0 0 b O �Q a dQ O n O n aQ 5, Ir rD n ✓ v n �r cc v N N 0 U a w to 0 0 0 N tm .A t N_ X w c m r a Packet Pg. 1888 rD rD rD W n a Q rD rD �. n . �7" r m w n w p n rD a a� o A rD a r n rD n O �i n 0 a n 0 0 b O �Q a dQ O n O n aQ 5, Ir rD n ✓ v n �r cc v N N 0 U a w to 0 0 0 N tm .A t N_ X w c m r a Packet Pg. 1888 Rebuilding in an AE Zone rebuild higher? Is When they applied for a building permit, local officials told them to build at least 2 feet above grade to meet the current building code that accounts for potential flood levels.' Their insurance agent told them that if they built even higher than required, they could lower both their premiums and their flood risk. 'Communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are required to have all buildings constructed in high -risk areas to be built to at least the elevation shown on the flood maps. This is known as the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and represents the height floodwaters from a one - percent chance flood will reach or exceed in any given year. To help ensure a safer community, many communities require construction to be a foot or two higher than the BFE. The ParkerS realized that weather is unpredictable and that flood risk can change. Another big flood could happen at any time. But could they really afford to build higher? It was time to break out the calculator and do the math. �,U r ' FEMA NATIONL OD INSURANCE PROGRAM �D r Option 1: Building to the current requirements N . • Estimated construction costs: $250,000 N 0 • Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,122 a • Flood insurance premium: $143 per month or $1,716 per year N • Total monthly costs: $1,265 to CD 0 Option 2: Building 3 feet above the current requirements o I • Estimated construction costs: $252,125 T 11 0 N r • Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,132 a� • Flood insurance premium: $46 per month or $552 per year • Total monthly costs: $1,178 N Note: This comparison is based on a 1 -story home in an AE Flood Zone built at BFE and 3 feet. above BFE c r . concrete or CMU perimeter with vents. It has the NFIP maximum coverage of$250,000 building coverage W $100,000 contents coverage with a$1,000 deductible. Elevation costs are estimated at roughly 0.85 perci of total construction costs per additional foot of elevation. Cost savings could vary for different constructi ++ methods. Insurance premiums are based on rates published in the Jan. 2013 NFIP Manual. Mortgage pay are based on a 30 -year fixed -rate mortgage at 3.5 percent APR for the full construction amount and exclu insurance costs. Flood insurance must be paid in full at the beginning of the coverage year. t V �,U r ' FEMA NATIONL OD INSURANCE PROGRAM J.1.p Not every case is the same. Consider your situation. The Parkers' story is only one example. There are many variables that will impact your decision about how you rebuild. Talk to your community officials, insurance agent, builders, and other experts to answer the following questions: 1. What is my current flood zone? Different flood zones require different kinds of construction. How you rebuild will depend in part on your zone and local building requirements. 2. How high does my community require me to build? If the building is in a high -risk zone (beginning with the letter "A" or "V "), there is a required minimum elevation for construction. Many communities have a requirement to build even higher. This is called a "freeboard requirement." 3. What are Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), and how will they affect me? ABFEs sometimes are issued after a major flooding event when FEMA has more current flood hazard data available than exists in the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps in a given area. ABFEs are provided to communities as a tool to support them in recovering in ways that will make them more resilient to future storms. 4. Is there a chance I could be mapped into a new flood zone or have a higher Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in the future? FEMA is working to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps nationwide. If your community has outdated maps, the new ones could show your home in a higher risk area or with a higher BFE. 5. How close am I to a high -risk flood area? Flood risk changes over time. If you are near a high -risk zone, you might want to rebuild in a way that would comply with that zone in case maps change in the future. If you are near a coastal high -risk zone (a zone starting with "V "), consider rebuilding on posts, piles or piers. 6. How might my flood risks change in the future? Physical changes can affect how much water reaches flooding sources, how far the water spreads when floods occur, and the manner in which buildings are exposed to a flood. In addition, new data gathering and modeling technology allows FEMA to identify and map flood hazard areas more accurately now than in the past. 7. How much will flood insurance cost? w National Flood Insurance Program premiums reflect flood risk. In general, if your building is in a high -risk area, the higher you build above the BFE, the lower your premium and potential for flood damage. In E high -risk VE zones, any enclosed structure below the first floor of the building typically will double t insurance premiums. Certain types of enclosures will further increase those premiums. r r Q Packet Pg. 1890 When they applied for a building permit, local officials told them to build at least 5 feet above grade to meet the current building code that accounts for potential flood levels.' Their insurance agent told them that both their premiums and flood risk would be lower if they built higher than required. 'Communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are required to have all buildings constructed in high -risk areas to be built to at least the elevation shown on the flood maps. This is known as the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and represents the height floodwaters from a one - percent chance flood will reach or exceed in any given year. To help ensure a safer community, many communities require construction to be afoot or two higher than the BFE. The Smiths realized that weather is unpredictable and that flood risk can change. Another big flood could happen at any time. But could they really afford to build higher? It was time to break out the calculator and do the math. AL FF [$ 1 � E c O r m r O CL O O O c O r CL (D U X m E r t a� 2 c m a CL O U cc Option 1: Building to the current requirements r . N • Estimated construction costs: $400,000 c • Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,796 a Flood insurance premium: $878 per month or $10,536 per year • Total monthly costs: $2,674 N to CD Option 2: Building 3 feet above the current requirements I? 0 . • Estimated construction costs: $403,600 T 11 N • Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,812 t • Flood insurance premium: $315 per month or $3,780 per year Total monthly costs: $2,127 N Note: This comparison is based on a 1 -story home in a VE Flood Zone built on wood pilings at BFE r and 3 feet above BFE with the NFIP maximum coverage of $250,000 building coverage and $100,000 K contents coverage with a $1,000 deductible. Elevation costs are estimated at roughly 0.3 percent of 1 W construction costs per additional foot of elevation. Insurance premiums are based on rates published Z.; in the Jan. 2013 NFIP Manual. Mortgage payments are based on a 30 -year fixed -rate mortgage at 3. C percent APR for the full construction amount and exclude all insurance costs. Flood insurance must b paid in full at the beginning of the coverage year s V 1. What is my current flood zone? Different flood zones require different kinds of construction. How you rebuild will depend in part on your zone and local building requirements. 2. How high does my community require me to build? If the building is in a high -risk zone (beginning with the letter "A" or "V "), there is a required minimum elevation for construction. Many communities have a requirement to build even higher. This is called a "freeboard requirement." 3. What are Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), and how will they affect me? ABFEs sometimes are issued after a major flooding event when FEMA has more current flood hazard data available than exists in the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps in a given area. ABFEs are provided to communities as a tool to support them in recovering in ways that will make them more resilient to future storms. 4. Is there a chance I could be mapped into a new flood zone or have a higher Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in the future? FEMA is working to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps nationwide. If your community has outdated maps, the new ones could show your home in a higher risk area or with a higher BFE. 5. How close am I to a high -risk flood area? Flood risk changes over time. If you are near a high -risk zone, you might want to rebuild in a way that would comply with that zone in case maps change in the future. 6. How might my flood risks change in the future? Physical changes can affect how much water reaches flooding sources, how far the water spreads when floods occur, and the manner in which buildings are exposed to a flood. In addition, new data gathering and modeling technology allows FEMA to identify and map flood hazard areas more accurately now than in the past. 7. How much will flood insurance cost? National Flood Insurance Program premiums reflect flood risk. In general, if your building is in a high -risk area, the higher you build above the BFE, the lower your premium and potential for flood damage. In high -risk VE zones, any enclosed structure below the first floor of the building typically will double .A insurance premiums. Certain types of enclosures will further increase those premiums. J.1.p X W r c m E t m w Q Packet Pg. 1892 J.1.p Exhibit 14 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPEMNT CODE AMENDMENTS Policy 101.45.30 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between trade and the highest Dart of anv structure. including mechanical eauibment_ but excluding spires and /or steeples on structures used for institutional and/or public uses only, 0 chimneys; radio and /or television antennas, flagpoles, solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers, and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or o collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to C permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as 0 specifically_ permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. ;r_ . In the case of airport 0 districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. 2 CL (D 0 X Policy 101.5.31 (D For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding E community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may_ include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the = c _ building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural a decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. E As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community of 100 or more 0 acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order approved by the county where public access is restricted and the community is operated and maintained by the community N including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services o within its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entity which regulates development a standards and monitors development requests by its members. y Policy 101.5.32 W c Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development c 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 c, 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 w Height Exception of up to a maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood E elevation in order to promote flood protection, minimize flood damage, reduce flood insurance premiums and minimize future expenditures of public funds for recovery from flood events. In no 2 case shall a Flood Protection Height Exception result in a building exceeding a maximum height of a 40 feet Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit, to promote public health, safety and general Packet Pg. 18 3 J.1.p Exhibit 14 welfare, allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards, protect property from flooding and minimize damages, minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events, and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum approved height prior to issuance of any count permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. Section 101 -1. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Elevate means the action of retrofitting or raising a building to a higher positon. Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest floor raised above the ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its exposure to flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general, retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or extending the existing N foundation, or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floor system c within the building or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant a enclosure that is used only for parking, building access, or storage. CO W 0 LO Sec. 130 -187. - Maximum height. N No structure or building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet. a, 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 w 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. a 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 2 specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 In the case of airport districts, the Q 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, Packet Pg. 18 4 J.1.p Exhibit 14 railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. B. As provided in Policy 101.5.32, buildings voluntarily elevated to meet or exceed the FEMA Base Flood Elevation (BFE) may exceed the 35 -foot height 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 building_ s 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. As provided in Policy 101.5.33, lawfully established EXISTING multi - family buildings which exceed the 35 -foot height limit may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet the required FEMA BFE provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. A 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 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 countv 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. c 0 (D 0 a 0 0 .0 c 0 CL (D 0 X (D E M 0 x R a CL E 0 U N N O U a 0 0 LO 0 N N r x W c aD E a Packet Pg. 1895 J.1.p Exhibit 14 1. 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. 2. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are not eligible for this exception. 2. A BOCC resolution shall specify the findings of criteria of D.1. a. though g. (above) and specify the approved maximum total height for the proposed building. c 0 a� 0 CL 13 0 0 0 0 CL (D 0 X (D E 2M x R a CL E 0 U 0 N N 0 U a CO 0 0 0 LO 0 N a+ t C1 M N r K W C G1 E t V R Q Packet Pg. 18 6 J.1.q 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 County Resolution 131 -92 was read into the record by Mr. Wolfe. SUBMISSION OF PROPERTY POSTING AFFIDAVITS AND PHOTOGRAPHS r Ms. Creech confirmed receipt of all necessary paperwork. W r c SWEARING OF COUNTY STAFF E County staff members were sworn in by Mr. Wolfe. R r r CHANGES TO THE AGENDA a 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. 1897 J.1.q 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. 1898 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. 1899 1.1.q 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. 1900 J.1.q 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. 1901 J.1.q 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. 1902 J.1.q 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. 1903 J.1.q 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. 1904 J.1.q 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. 1905 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. 1906 J.1.q 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, BI: "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 approve with the language adjustments as read by staff as directed by the Planning c Commission. Commissioner Wiatt seconded the motion. Commissioner Lustberg asked Legal staff about unintended consequences these changes will bring about. Mr. Williams stated r that there are always consequences, but as long as the County does not infringe on property w owners' rights as they currently exist everything should be fine. Chair Werling clarified that the information submitted today by Ocean Reef is not included in this motion. Commissioner E Ramsay - Vickrey added that the Planning Commission is willing to address those requests when they comes before the Commission through the existing process. There was no opposition. Q The motion passed unanimously. 11 Packet Pg. 1907 J.1.q 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. 1908 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. 1909 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. 1910 J.1.q 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. 1911 0 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 n some kind of event, so to have every guest register for every single event is not realistic. Mr. Q Cepero suggested using the language "hotel related uses." Commissioner Wiatt emphasized the fact that parking is the concern if the bar is open to non - registered guests. Mr. Cepero responded N that the applicant is only restricted in not advertising for people to come into the bar and be c served at the bar. Mr. Wolfe explained parking for a hotel contemplates functions like weddings. a 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 and registered guests at events at the hotel facility." Mr. Mulick asked to broaden the language r slightly to include special events or catered events. Commissioner Lustberg noted that guests of w a conference would be registered guests even if staying elsewhere. Mr. Cepero noted that is often controlled by people putting on the wedding or the event, not by the hotel. E Commissioner Ramsay - Vickrey supports the Commission's attorney and County staff on this Q 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. 1912 J.1.q from the resolution. Mr. Williams pointed out that the concern is not with the present applicant, but with what may happen two or three owners down the road who are not aware of everything that is agreed to here. Ms. Santamaria re -read Planning Commission Resolution P39 -07 aloud. Chair Werling asked for public comment. Dottie Moses, resident of Key Largo, was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and then asked Mr. Cepero if the restaurant at the waterfront was no longer going to be open to the public as was previously believed. Mr. Williams pointed out that public comment is not an opportunity for the public to question the applicant. Ms. Moses stated that she had been told that the waterfront apartment was for employee housing only, which is not being called a commercial unit. The two residential areas on either side of this resort are members of the Federation of Homeowners Associations and are very concerned about any kind of impact the parking, traffic and noise will cause in those neighborhoods. Ms. Schemper added that some of these issues were dealt with during the conditional use approval. The approval on that site is for a hotel with restaurant and bar areas that are accessory uses to the hotel. The commercial apartment was approved as a commercial apartment, which means it can be for either employees or the owner to use on the site. One of the conditions in the conditional use permit is that there will be no outdoor entertainment past 10 p.m. Ms. Moses stated the noise ordinance in place now is not working. Joyce Newman, resident of Big Pine Key, was sworn in by Mr. Wolfe and then repeated the story from a prior meeting about a piece of property on Big Pine Key that was proposed as a family restaurant and in short time became Coconut's Lounge. Ms. Newman cautioned the Commissioners to keep the big picture in mind. The neighbors of this resort are not only dealing with a drastic change in community character, but the whole community is dealing with a loss of affordable housing, so the developer ought to be able to give up something. Chair Werling asked for further public comment. There was none. Public comment was closed Commissioner Wiatt pointed out in fairness to the applicant that they have supplied affordable housing for their workers, but stated he is not willing to compromise on the parking. Chair Werling and Commissioner Miller agreed. Motion: Commissioner Wiatt made a motion to approve staffs recommendation with the language read by the Planning Director at the request of the Planning Commission. Commissioner Miller seconded the motion. There was no opposition. The motion passed unanimously. GROWTH MANAGEMENT COMMENTS Ms. Santamaria reminded the Commissioners that on March 1 and April 13 the adoption hearings for the Land Development Code and the comprehensive plan will be held. Staff is trying to organize a training session for the Planning Commission on March 17 from 1:00 to 2:30 p.m. on fair and effective zoning hearings. Commissioner Lustberg stated she will be out of the country, but would be happy to read any written minutes of the meeting. Ms. Santamaria will check to see if the video can be purchased for those who cannot attend. 17 Packet Pg. 1913 J.1.q ADJOURNMENT The Planning Commission meeting was adjourned at 2:12 p.m. c 0 r m r 0 CL 0 0 4- 0 c 0 r CL m 0 x (D r E r M a� x c m a CL E 0 U cc r N Iq O d 0 i CL CL Q cc r N N O U a r a� M r X W r C d E t V ca r r Q 18 Packet Pg. 1914 Js .r Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County (D Q 0 (D M E c 13 c R a> C 0 N 13 0 0 Q W LL t x W c a> E t R Q Packet Pg. 1915 Number of # of Private - FEMA Flood Zone % of total % of total Parcels Vacant Parcels X 1,935 3.40% 462 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 5.16% o CHANCE FLOOD U HAZARD 999 1.76% 165 o AE 5 1 0.00% - 3 AE 6 1,964 3.46% 95 AE 7 8,996 15.83% 296 o NM o AE 8 14,824 26.08% 2,699 0 AE 9 11,272 19.83% 1,916 AE 10 6,835 12.02% 1,098 83.48% AE 11 2,983 5.25% 326 AE 12 121 0.21% 12 o AE 13 418 0.74% 5 N" AE 14 36 0.06% - AE 15 3 0.01% - CZ AE 16 1 0.00% - VE 9 5 0.01% 1 3 story VE 10 327 0.58% 67 VE 11 1,019 1.79% 272 VE 12 1,443 2.54% 265 3 VE 13 1,069 1.88% 127 0 o VE 14 1,815 3.19% 52 VE 15 352 0.62% 52 VE 16 31 0.05% 7 o N ` 10.76% VE 17 33 0.06% 2 0 VE 19 5 0.01% - VE 20 1 0.00% - VE 21 8 0.01% VE 22 7 0.01% - VE 23 1 0.00% - o o C VE 24 1 0.00% - o VE 26 2 0.00% - OPEN WATER 10 0.02% 2 total parcels 56,843 7,921 Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. (D Q 0 (D M E c 13 c R a> C 0 N 13 0 0 Q W LL t x W c a> E t R Q Packet Pg. 1915 n pooh aol uol ;deoxe ;!wall VAIGH ueld dwo:D) s ;eoyse ;ep pl!ngaa )Ioeq pl!nq VW3=1 94 'x3 : ;uGwt43e ; ;V N 7 a U W W U W f� pooh aol uo! ;deoxe ;!wil PAIGH ueld dwo:D) s ;aayse ;ep pl!ngaa )Ioeq pl!nq VW3=1 94 'x3 : ;uGwt43e ; ;V b W cu w o � ° o U o tX b rt v w � b b o o w � a � b U � b G ° o a, tX 0 o b o b 0 u 0 G . G 0 o a o �r o E o v .o G z o i-q o ao Ln 4 tx ° o o: U o . w � N S � x x 0 _. O O c� ri w � O V w v � PQ N � �o o o v � v � w M b v O U O O W v O O O O eq � 0 � A. b o ° p m w � � u b u o 0 0 w °�� o ti a u Z o o b H PQ o H o � N d� �o o� � O o� O O L O p� O L G� to W w �a W w �a G 0 x ao - d o u 7E N o O 0 a G t tX G ao G S c 0 ao G r Cl a m ca a G o r 0 o V W cu w o � ° o U o tX b rt v w � b b o o w � a � b U � b G ° o a, tX 0 o b o b 0 u 0 G . G 0 o a o �r o E o v .o G z o i-q o ao Ln 4 tx ° o o: U o . w � N S � x x 0 _. O O c� ri w � O V w v � PQ N � �o o o v � v � w M b v O U O O W v O O O O eq � 0 � A. b o ° p m w � � u b u o 0 0 w °�� o ti a u Z o o b H PQ o H o � N d� �o o� � O o� O O L O p� O L G� to W w �a W w �a G 0 x ao - d o u 7E N o O 0 a G t tX G ao G S c 0 ao G r Cl a m ca a All Rebuildin in an AE Zone ,U FEMA NATIOFLOOD INSURANCE PROGRAM When they applied for a building permit, local officials told them to build at least 2 feet above grade to meet the current building code that accounts for potential flood levels.' Their insurance agent told them that if they built even higher than required, they could lower both their premiums and their flood risk. 'Communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are required to have all buildings constructed in high -risk areas to be built to at least the elevation shown on the flood maps. This is known as the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and represents the height floodwaters from a one - percent chance flood will reach or exceed in any given year. To help ensure a safer community, many communities require construction to be a foot or two higher than the BFE. The ParkerS realized that weather is unpredictable and that flood risk can change. Another big flood could happen at any time. But could they really afford to build higher? It was time to break out the calculator and do the math. 0 rebuild higher? ■ Estimated construction costs: $250,000 • Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,122 • Flood insurance premium: $143 per month or $1,716 per year • Total monthly costs: $1,265 -. Estimated construction costs: $252,125 • Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,132 • Flood insurance premium: $46 per month or $552 per year • Total monthly costs: $1,178 to r N d t . to fSf m m I cs . R I Q w LL J.1.s Not every case is the same. Consider your situation. The Parkers' story is only one example. There are many variables that will impact your decision about how you rebuild. Talk to your community officials, insurance agent, builders, and other experts to answer the following questions: 1. What is my current flood zone? Different flood zones require different kinds of construction. How you rebuild will depend in part on your zone and local building requirements. 2. How high does my community require me to build? If the building is in a high -risk zone (beginning with the letter "A" or "V "), there is a required minimum elevation for construction. Many communities have a requirement to build even higher. This is called a "freeboard requirement." 3. What are Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), and how will they affect me? ABFEs sometimes are issued after a major flooding event when FEMA has more current flood hazard data available than exists in the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps in a given area. ABFEs are provided to communities as a tool to support them in recovering in ways that will make them more resilient to future storms. 4. Is there a chance I could be mapped into a new flood zone or have a higher Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in the future? FEMA is working to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps nationwide. If your community has outdated maps, the new ones could show your home in a higher risk area or with a higher BFE. 5. How close am I to a high -risk flood area? Flood risk changes over time. If you are near a high -risk zone, you might want to rebuild in a way that would comply with that zone in case maps change in the future. If you are near a coastal high -risk zone (a zone starting with "V "), consider rebuilding on posts, piles or piers. 6. How might my flood risks change in the future? Physical changes can affect how much water reaches flooding sources, how far the water spreads when floods occur, and the manner in which buildings are exposed to a flood. In addition, new data gathering and modeling technology allows FEMA to identify and map flood hazard areas more accurately now than in the past. 7. How much will flood insurance cost? FL National Flood Insurance Program premiums reflect flood risk. In general, if your building is in a high -risk w area, the higher you build above the BFE, the lower your premium and potential for flood damage. In high -risk VE zones, any enclosed structure below the first floor of the building typically will double E insurance premiums. Certain types of enclosures will further increase those premiums. M FEW m r r Packet Pg. 1919 When they applied for a building permit, local officials told them to build at least 5 feet above grade to meet the current building code that accounts for potential flood levels.' Their insurance agent told them that both their premiums and flood risk would be lower if they built higher than required. 'Communities that participate in the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) are required to have all buildings constructed in high -risk areas to be built to at least the elevation shown on the flood maps. This is known as the Base Flood Elevation (BFE) and represents the height floodwaters from a one - percent chance flood will reach or exceed in any given year. To help ensure a safer community, many communities require construction to be afoot or two higher than the BFE. The Smiths realized that weather is unpredictable and that flood risk can change. Another big flood could happen at any time. But could they really afford to build higher? It was time to break out the calculator and do the math. AL FF [$ 1 � E • Estimated construction costs: $400,000 • Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,796 • Flood insurance premium: $878 per month or $10,536 per year • Total monthly costs: $2,674 • Estimated construction costs: $403,600 'a • Estimated monthly mortgage payment: $1,812 • Flood insurance premium: $315 per month or $3,780 per year Q • Total monthly costs: $2,127 W Note: This comparison is based on a 1 -story home in a VE Flood Zone built on wood pilings at BFE LL and 3 feet above BFE with the NFIP maximum coverage of $250,000 building coverage and $100,000 U7 contents coverage with a $1,000 deductible. Elevation costs are estimated at roughly 0.3 percent off construction costs per additional foot of elevation. Insurance premiums are based on rates published W in the Jan. 2013 NFIP Manual. Mortgage payments are based on a 30 -year fixed -rate mortgage at 3.. percent APR for the full construction amount and exclude all insurance costs. Flood insurance must b Z+ paid in full at the beginning of the coverage year d s E 1. What is my current flood zone? Different flood zones require different kinds of construction. How you rebuild will depend in part on your zone and local building requirements. 2. How high does my community require me to build? If the building is in a high -risk zone (beginning with the letter "A" or "V "), there is a required minimum elevation for construction. Many communities have a requirement to build even higher. This is called a "freeboard requirement." 3. What are Advisory Base Flood Elevations (ABFEs), and how will they affect me? ABFEs sometimes are issued after a major flooding event when FEMA has more current flood hazard data available than exists in the current effective Flood Insurance Rate Maps in a given area. ABFEs are provided to communities as a tool to support them in recovering in ways that will make them more resilient to future storms. 4. Is there a chance I could be mapped into a new flood zone or have a higher Base Flood Elevation (BFE) in the future? FEMA is working to update Flood Insurance Rate Maps nationwide. If your community has outdated maps, the new ones could show your home in a higher risk area or with a higher BFE. 5. How close am I to a high -risk flood area? Flood risk changes over time. If you are near a high -risk zone, you might want to rebuild in a way that would comply with that zone in case maps change in the future. 6. How might my flood risks change in the future? Physical changes can affect how much water reaches flooding sources, how far the water spreads when floods occur, and the manner in which buildings are exposed to a flood. In addition, new data gathering and modeling technology allows FEMA to identify and map flood hazard areas more accurately now than in the past. 7. How much will flood insurance cost? National Flood Insurance Program premiums reflect flood risk. In general, if your building is in a high -risk area, the higher you build above the BFE, the lower your premium and potential for flood damage. In high -risk VE zones, any enclosed structure below the first floor of the building typically will double .A insurance premiums. Certain types of enclosures will further increase those premiums. J.1.S X w r c m E m r r Q Packet Pg. 1921 J.1.t Exhibit 16 PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AND LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE AMENDMENTS (Deletions are sti4e4 thr-E) gk and additions are underlined Comp Plan text amendments are in black text. Land Development Code (LDC) amendments are being processed separately from the Comprehensive Plan amendments. LDC text is identified in green. Planning Commission recommendations are shown with deletions in blue with a and additions in blue with a double underline Staff recommendations are shown with deletions in red with a and additions in red with a double underline Policy 101.5.30 In order to preserve the existing community character and natural environment, Monroe County shall limit the height of structures including landfills to 35 feet. Height is defined as the vertical distance between grade and the highest part of M structure, including mechanical equipment, but excluding spires and/or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only; chimney radio and /or television antennas; flag solar apparatus; utility _poles and /or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antennas and/or collocations. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated above be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the applicable height limitations, except as specifically_ permitted in Policies 101.5.31, 101.5.32 and 101.5.33. . In the case of airport districts, there shall be no exceptions to the 35 -foot height limitation. Policy 101.5.31 For Ocean Reef, a gated master planned community which is inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non - habitable architectural decorative features (such as finials, railings, widow's walk, parapets) that exceed the 35 -foot height limit in Policy 101.5.30, but such features shall not exceed 5 feet above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any architectural decorative feature with a height that would exceed 40 feet. As used in this policy, a master planned community means a planned community CL of 100 or more acres in area subject to a master plan or other development order x approved by the county where public access is restricted and the communi . is w operated and maintained by the community including the provision of comprehensive, private utilities and transportation facilities and services within a Packet Pg. K2 J.1.t Exhibit 16 its boundaries and a homeowners association or similar entitv which regulates 0 development standards and monitors development requests by its members. 0 L Policy 101.5.32 Q c Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt .° Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height L 0 Exception to Policy 101.5.30 to promote public health, safety and general 0 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 E flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A Flood Protection Height Exception of up to a (D maximum of five (5) feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to allow lawfully existing buildings to be voluntarily elevated up to three (3) feet a above FEMA base flood elevation; and a flood protection height exception of a E maximum of three (31 feet above the 35 -foot height limit shall be provided to 0_ allow new (new construction or substantially proved) buildings to voluntarily N elevate up to three (3) feet above FEMA base flood elevation. These exceptions o 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 E existing building exceeding a maximum height of 40 feet. E a Policy 101.5.33 Within in 1 year of the effective date of this policy, Monroe County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which provide a Flood Protection Height Exception for lawfully established existing buildings which exceed the 35 -foot c height limit, to promote public health, safety and general welfare; allow adaptation to coastal flooding, storm surge and other hazards; protect property (D from flooding and minimize damages; minimize public and private losses due to flooding; minimize future expenditures of public funds for flood control projects and for recovery from flood events; and mitigate rising flood insurance premiums. A lawfully established existing building may be repaired, improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet required FEMA base flood elevation (BFE) 0 provided the building does not exceed a total maximum building height of 40 0 feet, and the building is limited to the existing lawfully established intensity, floor area, building envelope (floor to floor height), density and type of use. For 0 lawfully established existing buildings that are proposed to exceed a total height of 40 feet, a public hearing before the Planning Commission and the Board of a. W County Commissioners shall be required to review and specify the maximum w gpproved height prior to issuance of any county permit or development approval. The Planning Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the E a Packet Pg. K3 J.1.t Exhibit 16 maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution specifying the maximum approved height. Section 101 -1. - Definitions. The following words, terms and phrases, when used in this Land Development Code, shall have the meanings ascribed to them in this section, except where the context clearly indicates a different meaning: Elevate means the action of retrofitting or raising a building to a higher positon. Elevated Building means a building that has its lowest floor raised above the ground level by foundation walls, shear walls, posts, piers, pilings, or columns. Retrofit means methods to modify a lawfully established existing building to reduce its exposure to flooding and raise the living area to meet or exceed flood levels. In general, retrofitting involves lifting the building and constructing a new foundation or extending the existing foundation, or leaving the building in place and either constructing a new elevated floor system within the building or adding a new upper story and converting the ground level to a compliant enclosure that is used only parking, building access, or storage. Sec. 130 -187. - Maximum height. No structure or building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet. Exceptions will be allowed for chimneys; spires and /or steeples on structures used for institutional and /or public uses only; radio and/or television antenna; flagpoles; solar apparatus; utility poles and/or transmission towers; and certain antenna supporting structures with attached antenna and /or collocations as permitted in chapter 146. Exceptions will be allowed for flood protection as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 and listed below. However, in no event shall any of the exclusions enumerated in this section be construed to permit any habitable or usable space to exceed the maximum height limitation except as specifically permitted in Policies 101.5.32 and 101.5.33 In the case of airport districts, the height limitations therein shall be absolute and the exclusions enumerated in this section shall not apply. A. Within the Ocean Reef master planned community which is gated, isolated a and inaccessible to the surrounding community, and has a distinct community character, buildings may include non - habitable architectural w 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 E al Packet Pg. K4 J.1.t Exhibit 16 above the building's roof -line. This exception shall not result in a building together with any it 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 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 new construction and to the substantial improvement of buildings, whether voluntary or not. 2. For lawfully established EXISTING .,Jf; - ( 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 maepermitted. 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 maw paired, improved, redeveloped and /or elevated to meet the required FEMA BFE provided the building does not exceed a total c O O CL 13 O O L .° O CL (D C.) X E x a CL E O U N C O M E E a 0 O U E CL O 0 J C R R a CL E O U as U) O CL O L a x W E a Packet Pg. K5 J.1.t Exhibit 16 maximum building height of 40 feet. and the building is limited to the 0 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 'a 0 building's minimum required FEMA BFE. The amount of the exception .° shall be no greater than the amount of elevation necessary to meet BFE. L 0 Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA BFE are 0 not eligible for this exception. CL X D. As provided in Policy 101.5.33, for lawfully established EXISTING multi- E 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 T before the Planning Commission and Board of County Commissioners to review and specify the maximum approved height shall be required prior to a issuance of any counly permit or development approval. The Planning E Commission shall provide a recommendation to the BOCC on the m i 0 maximum height of a building. The BOCC shall adopt a resolution N specifying the maximum approved height. 0 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, E 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 a provided by the BOCC based on the following criteria: c 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 redeven lop o 0- the subject parcel without a height exception: 0 c. The physical characteristics of the existing building and parcel, o 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; 5 f The availability of alternate solutions; 0- g. If the new proposed building height will result in increased flood 0 risk; result in additional threats to public safety; result in extraordinary public expense; create nuisance; or cause fraud on or 0 victimization of the public; h. Community character; and a. i. Buildings not being elevated to at least meet the required FEMA w BFE are not eligible for this exception. E a Packet Pg. K6 J.1.t Exhibit 16 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. X w c a� E R Q Packet Pg. K7 Examples: Height Measured from Crown of Road �O T TIO �UU �O o O o O o C4 v, O X m N Q 3 Z 0 O O �p cl i m O � m O � ~ 0 0 0 w 35ft � I height = cn � � G , oon 35ft � a � I �1 co m rt 0 O 37ft o yy 0 o y m 0 o O O O N rn o I height = a� N W + L �i 37ft o o a m o cr ° N � � _ height = � + cn I 40ft �1 D 0 rrI rn s D = m o o o 0 o i*1 o ° �� • height = V N 40ft i cn � � I • M O m 0 0 3 Z 0 O O �p m N O � m O � ~ height = c0 N w 35ft � I rn m N � � D oon 0 0 m a height = N J N 37ft o � � I D L R Y o o a m o cr ° N �� M'il� _ height = � + cn 40ft � � I D m • N r I� CD W CT1 Y ' I Q 3 Z 0 O O �p m c F O � m O ° < o ~ O O o a N w r I� CD W CT1 Y ' 3 • I o . 1 I S � c F ° O m -o m 0 0 O O o ° L4 L R Y • • •.I 3 • I o . 1 I S � c F ° O m -o m 0 0 O O o ° L4 Examples: Height Measured from Crown of Road as �1 rn M2 rt rn 0 o' rrI �1 0 D m N 0 o n 'rn 0 0 N c rn m mcrD rt c �O T TIO �UU �O 0 0 0 C 0 0 C4 � a O X rt c N - TI U N D fr1 N ° < o + 0 0 m height = 41 35ft I D m 0 0 i -P� height = N + 37ft � f N � I O IIII�I - height = (A N + � I 40ft D m a� N cn TI N c N - TI �I N O m o N ° < o + cn D m I height = 35ft _ height = 37ft I O height = 40ft I u tG m o D m Q LO 3 • Z 0 m =' ° o CD c F ' 61 N O m o O ° < o H ° ° a N cn I height = 35ft _ height = 37ft I O height = 40ft I u tG m o D m N Iti I 3 • Z r I� _ ; CD tG� W CJ1 0 c F w » 0 3 M g^ 0 ° o ° o ° w IIIIIIIII ® ®� N Iti I 3 • Z r I� _ ; CD tG� W CJ1 0 c F w » 0 3 M g^ 0 ° o ° o ° w Table of FEMA flood zones and number of private, vacant parcels in unincorporated Monroe County C O O CL O 0 L O c O CL (D V X (D E CM x c R a. CL E O U A a> L R CL 0 L M E c c R (D C O N O O Q W U- c (D E Q Packet Pg. 1930 Number of # of Private - FEMA Flood Zone % of total % of total Parcels Vacant Parcels X 1,935 3.40% 462 0.2 PCT ANNUAL 5.16% o CHANCE FLOOD U HAZARD 999 1.76% 165 o AE 5 1 0.00% - 3 AE 6 1,964 3.46% 95 AE 7 8,996 15.83% 296 o NM o AE 8 14,824 26.08% 2,699 0 AE 9 11,272 19.83% 1,916 AE 10 6,835 12.02% 1,098 83.48% AE 11 2,983 5.25% 326 AE 12 121 0.21% 12 o AE 13 418 0.74% 5 N" AE 14 36 0.06% - AE 15 3 0.01% - CZ AE 16 1 0.00% - VE 9 5 0.01% 1 3 story VE 10 327 0.58% 67 VE 11 1,019 1.79% 272 VE 12 1,443 2.54% 265 3 VE 13 1,069 1.88% 127 0 o VE 14 1,815 3.19% 52 VE 15 352 0.62% 52 VE 16 31 0.05% 7 o ` 10.76% a VE 17 33 0.06% 2 0 VE 19 5 0.01% - VE 20 1 0.00% - VE 21 8 0.01% VE 22 7 0.01% - VE 23 1 0.00% - o o VE 24 1 0.00% - o VE 26 2 0.00% - OPEN WATER 10 0.02% 2 total parcels 1 56,843 1 7,921 Note: As of October 2014 there are approximately 56,843 parcels in unincorporated Monroe County. The total from the spreadsheet will be different as some of the submerged parcels do not fall within the FEMA Zones. C O O CL O 0 L O c O CL (D V X (D E CM x c R a. CL E O U A a> L R CL 0 L M E c c R (D C O N O O Q W U- c (D E Q Packet Pg. 1930