Item I2STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
TOTAL COST: 5 : Yes X No
DIFFERENTIAL OF LOCAL PREFERENCE:
COST TO 1 l ' 13 148-50500-530340
PRODUCING:REVENUE Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year
CountyAPPROVED BY: 1 _ Risk Management
Includedof Required
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
CONTRACT SUMMARY
Contract with: S.Fl. Reg. Plan. Council Contract #
Effective Date: 2/20/2013
Expiration Date:
Contract Manager: -Richard Jones
(Name)
2805 Growth Management/ I JVStOA P
(Ext.) (Departim ft/Stop
=0 F. 2
................................
00111 I.W. a WE 9
Total Dollar Value of Contract: $ 50,000 Current Year Portion: $ 17,500
Budgeted? Yes Z No E] Account Codes: 148-50500-530340-
Grant: $
County Match: $
ADDITIONAL COSTS
Estimated Ongoing Costs: $jyr For:
(Not included in dollar value above) ........ ea. maintenance, utilities ad, salaries, etc,
..............................
W 0 11 1.71M 3,11 M
Changes Date Out
Date In Needed Reviewer
Division Director Yes[:] NoE] ................... . . .
Risk Management YesNo
O.M.B./Purc 45ing -31 -13 YesE] Noo fz UT4A_41y1__N
County Attorney jO:� Yes[:] No`,;, L111 ............. -------- .....
Comments:
OTAR Forin Revised 2127/01 MCP #2
AMENDMENT NO.1 TO INTER -LOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN SOUTH FLORIDA REGIONAL PLANNING COUNCIL
AND MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
THIS AMENDMENT NOA TO OTER-LOCAL AGREEMENT is made and entered into this
20th day of February, 2013, between Monroe County Board of County Commissioners (hereinafter
"COLTNIY'or "BOCC") and South Florida Regional Planning Council (hereinafter "SFRPC").
L13#1221
a comprehensive plan amendment adopting the Marina, Siting Criteria into the Monroe County
Comprehensive Plan; and
p 11�� 11 1 il lI I W� 11 111 a,
WHEREAS, additional work still needs to be completed by SFRPC including finalizing the Marina
Siting Criteria, completion of the Marina Siting Plan, and drafting of the comprehensive plan amendment;
and
l�I 11 1 1 1111 111 1 111 111
NOW, TAEREFORE, IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual covenants contained herein, the parties agree
as follows:
The to of the ILA is August 17, 2011, through March 31, 2014. This provision is retroactive to
January 31, 2013.
2. Attachment I of the August 17, 2011, Agreement is hereby amended to delete specific dates in Section
B: Deliverables to reflect extension of deliverable dates and timelines in Section D: Timelines for
Marina Siting Plan and Comprehensive Plan Revisions. Attachment I is appended hereto as amended
and incorporated herein.
C. The remaining provisions of the agreement dated August 17, 2011, not inconsistent herewith, remain
in full force and effect.
SFRPC ILA Amendment 1-28-2013 1
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have set their hands and seal on the day and year first above
written.
rMiM
FINVURIMM1111, 11111
Iffs2mmin
M 1101 *3.4
By
Print Naine:
Title:
M 1 1511511911
On this day of 201_, before me the person whose name is subscribed
above, and who produced as identification, acknowledged that he/she is the
person who executed the above Contract for the purposes therein contained.
.M.
URPC ILA Amendment 1-28-2013 z
Attachment I
Scope of Services
Is r
Revisions to the Monroe County Marina Siting Plan, Perform Needs Analysis &
Prepare Marina Siting Criteria for Adoption into Comprehensive Plan
Section A: Scope of Services
Communicate and coordinate with Monroe County staff, the State Land Planning Agency,
Department of Environmental Protection (DEP), United States Army Corps of Engineers
(USACE), and other pertinent agencies regarding necessary and appropriate revisions to the
current Marina Siting Plan and the development and refinement of marina siting criteria in the
Comp Plan. Include Monroe County Growth Management staff in all phone calls and meetings
with pertinent agencies.
up I TA-1 V-1
I 1 4 1 a
4 1 fj
policies that are recommended for revision) and other pertinent rules, regulations, and
documents.
b) Submit recommendations to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment
(up to two reviews).
c) Submit proposed marina siting criteria, with appropriate revisions based upon Monroe
County Growth Management comments, to the State Land Planning Agency for a courtesy
review.
d) Submit revised recommendations, based upon State Land Planning Agency comments, to
Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews).
I
c) Submit recommendations to DEP and USACE. The submission to DEP and USACE shall
include a cover letter explaining the purpose of the documentation and approval request, on
behalf of the County (see Policy 212.4.1 and Policy 212.4.2).
f) If DEP and/or USACE have concerns or recommendations, South Florida Regional Planning
Council staff and Monroe County Growth Management Staff shall coordinate and review the
DEP and/or USACE comments. Recommended marina siting criteria shall be revised, as
appropriate, and resubmitted to DEP and US ACE for review and approval.
LOW
1= $Torl ANN
me Men is TO WIT-47MIT UT vxIsU118 IIIrt xalm a irve mue TWO, mcluumg Dom marinas
located in municipalities and unincorporated Monroe County. Consult with County staff and
State Land Planning Agency to define a fidl utilization threshold and to finalize the needs
assessment methodology for determining future marina/slip development in the County. Submit
final Needs Analysis methodology recommendations to Monroe County Growth Management
for review and comment (up to two reviews).
c) Perform a Needs Analysis to determine the need for additional marinas/slips, including but
not limited to, the following:
• vessel registration trends;
• the inventory of marine facilities (type and distribution of facilities) included in the April
30,2007, Monroe County Marine Facilities Inventory;
recent County aerials from February 2006 and January 2009 to determine utilization, and
to identify utilization patterns associated with recent economic trends.
• the 2009 FWC Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic Study
(recreational and economic demands); and
• other data sources as appropriate.
I MEMO Iffill 11111TO]", H�=�
r i5 M-1 i. - - -
9
based on the Needs Analysis and marina siting criteria. Submit recommendations to Monroe
County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews).
b) Revise the Site Suitability Analysis Section H.(c)(3.) of the Marina Siting Plan to clearly
identify and explain the criteria utilized to determine and map the Site Suitability Zones
(preferred, conditional and exclusionary). Revise the Suitability Maps utilizing best available
information. Submit revisions to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment
(up to two reviews).
c) Revise the Introduction of the Marina Siting Plan to include a clear and concise purpose of
the Marina Siting Plan.
Analysis, and environmental protection.
e) Include a brief discussion of the goal of preservation of existing marinas and incentives for
the redevelopment of existing marinas to encourage modernization, environmental protection
and public access.
III ?I �illillillilI
urn, r, I I 10i� - 4 �GWRWMM iiiiii , I
a) The completed Marina Siting Plan will meet/address the minimurn requirements of the
December 7, 2007, ORC Report by the State Land Planning Agency [Attachment 11, and the
provisions of Chapter 163, F.S.
N.W.1-=W1 Ill.''W1111111"11 1 1'
and Wroval of marina siting criteria by DEP and USACE:
4 4
(up to two reviews).
b) Submit proposed amendments for Planning Commission and Board of County Commission
(BOCC) review and transmittal to DCA (state land planning agency).
c) If necessary, review & analyze State Land Planning Agency Objections, Recommendation
& Comments (ORC) Report for the transmitted amendments and prepare a response. Submit
recommended response to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment (If
necessary, up to two reviews).
3
7. Particitiate in tauc meetines:
ITMensive
Plan amendment(s) to adopt marina siting criteria; and
• One Planning Commission meeting for consideration of approval of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to adopt marina siting criteria; and
• One BOCC meeting for the transmittal of the proposed marina siting criteria
Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to State Land Planning Agency.
• One BOCC meeting for the adoption of the marina siting criteria Comprehensive Plan
amendment(s).
4
Section B: Deliverables
1. Marina SitingCriteria for DEP and USAC
a) Two copies and I CD copy of the marina siting criteria recommendations for staff review
(up to 2 revisions) by the date indicated in Section D- Timelines.
b) Two copies and I CD copy of draft marina siting criteria for State Land Planning Agency
courtesy review (up to 2 revisions) by the date indicated in Section D- Tinielines.
c) Two copies and I CD copy of revised draft marina siting criteria for staff review (up to 2
revisions) by the date indicated in Section D- Timelines,
d) Two copies and I CD copy of final marina siting criteria and a cover letter addressed to
DEP and ACOE requesting approval (up to 2 revisions) by the date indicated in Section D-
Timel` nes.
a) Two copies and I CD copy of draft Needs Analysis methodology for staff review (up to 2
revisions) by the date indicated in Section D- Timelines.
b) Two copies and I CD copy of final Needs Analysis methodology for staff review (up to 2
revisions) by the date indicated in Section D- Timelines.
o) Two copies and I CD or of Needs Analysis document by the date indicated in Section D-
Timelines.
a) Two copies and I CD copy of draft Marina Siting Plan for staff review (up to 2 revisions)
by the date indicated in Section D- Timelmes.
b) Two copies and I CD copy of second draft Marina Siting Plan for State Land Planniing
Agency courtesy review by the date indicated in Section D- Timelines.
c) Two copies and I CD copy of the third draft Marina Siting Plan for staff review (if
necessary) by the date indicated in Section D- Timelines.
4. CoMprehensive Plan revisions:,
a) Two copies and I CD copy of draft Comp Plan amendments for staff review (up to 2
revisions) by the to indicated in Section D- Timelines.
b) Eight copies and I CD copy of final Comp Plan amendments to staff for Planning
Commission meeting by XXX (meeting date to be determined).
c) Eight copies and I CD copy of final Comp Plan amendments for the BOCC transmittal
meeting, with cover letter addressed to BOCC by XXX (meeting date to be determined).
d) Two copies and 1 CD copy of draft responses (up to 2 revisions) to Objections,
Recommendation & Comments (ORC) Report by XXX (meeting date to be determined).
e) Eight copies and I CD copy of final Comp Plan amendments (up to 2 revisions) for the
BOCC adoption meeting, with cover letter addressed to BOCC by XXX (meeting date to be
determined).
5
Section C: Draw Schedule
The compensation associated with this Scope of Services is $50,000.00 and shall be
distributed as follows -
Upon execution of contract by BOCC
Upon delivery and acceptance of the Needs Analysis
Upon delivery and acceptance of the Marina Siting Criteria
Upon delivery and acceptance of the Revised Marina Siting Plan..
Upon completion of all in deliverables, including the Comprehensive Plan
Revisions and attendance at the final Board of County Commission
Meeting for approval
.3
Section D:
Timelines for Marina, Siting Plan and Comprehensive Plan Revisions
(SEEATTACHED)
I
State Land PlanningAgency December 7; 2007, Objections, Recommendations, and Comments
EMMOMMEM
0
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
'Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
December 74 2007
The Honorable Sonny McCoy
Mayor, Monroe County
530 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
The Department has completed its review of the Monroe County proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DCA No. 07-2), which was received on October 9, 2007.
Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to litspi
-�gencies for their review and their comments are enclosed.
findings concerning the comprehensive plan amendment.
M =I
generally supports the intention expressed by Monroe County, several concerns must be
addressed. The Department has identified objections to the proposed amendments related to
internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan, vague language that does not provide
meaningful and predictable standards or provide meaningful guidelines for how the activities
will be implemented, and the lack of data and analysis to support the amendments. The
Department's id,6nti fied objections reflect the concerns raised by commenting agencies. A
iietailed discussion is provided in the attached Objections, Recoffuncndations, and Comments
Report.
2555 SHUMARD OAK OOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FL 32399-2100
Phone, 860-488-8466/$UNCOM 278-8466 Fax: 850-921-0781/SUNCO M 291-0781
Website: www, a. t III n&
COMMUNUT PLANNING AMEAS OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE MOVIE AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT
Nome: SS04M23WORINCOM 278-23% Phu* 3OS-289-2402
Foc 860-406-3300SUNCOM 278-3309 Fax 30$-2W2442 Fax 850-922-562"UNCOM 292-6$23
The Honorable Sonny McCoy
December 7, 2007
Page'-2
I-ly staff and I are available to assist the County in addressing the issues identified in our
repom If you have any questions, please contactMayte Santamaria, Planner, at (850) 488-4724,
Sincerely,
7 �/ I '
11 4
Mike McDaniel, Chief
Office of Comprehensive Planning
Enclosures, Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Mr. Townsley Schwab, Acting Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
Ms. Carolyn A. Dekle Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council
a
December7, 2007
Division of Community Planning
Areasof Critical State Concern
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule -1 1.010, F.A.C.
INTRODUCTION
Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, Florida
Administrative Code (F.A,C.), and Chapter 163, Part 11, F.S. An • will include a
recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other
cpproaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some objections may have initially
been raised by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the
Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the
[Fiepartment's objection would take precedence.
applicable to its amendment. If that is the case, a statement justifying its non-applic ility
pursuant to Rule 9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a
determination of the non -applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient,
the objection will be considered addressed. I
The comments, which follow the objections and recommendations section, are advisory in
nature. Commentswill not form bases of a determination of non-compliance. They are
included to call attention to items raised by our reviewers. Thecomments can be substantiv
concerning planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing
with grammar, organization, mapping and reader comprehension. I
review agencies and other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form bases of Departmental objections unless they
appear under the "Objections�' heading in this report.
H
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2
NORM
r.oroposed amendment.
TTM�—JE �K# - - I - — UMFWrP7MTN
and redevelopment to maintain and "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the
community and protect thenatural resources..." The objective lacks a specific, measurable,
intermediate end that is achievable and marks progress toward a goal. The objective does not
define the phrase "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the community;" therefore,
there is no measurable provision to determine achievement of the objective of flexibly guiding
the evolving community character. The proposed amendment is creating an internal
inconsistency within the objective with the direction to both "maintain" the character of the
corninunity and to flexibly "guide its evolution."
, �ti 1,61, 1111 J. sil IS "i 114 3 17 7 (9 1 (�tl F - S ,-, Z
------------------- - --
community r To --gulue ILS CVUIUIIUTI E0 Ulluress Inc ITIECTIJUI 111COMINLUTWY. I lie ( ojeclive
must include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and makes
c er- nor are mere eaning p 1ca esan s I e me$ 7 ene
U
UA UdUIE101141 .VM7rTMp=e
and water related uses..
Recommendation: Revise Policy 101.4.5 to include the meanin2ful and predictable
standards and guidelines to guide the evolving community character to the outcome
desired and include a definition of the evolving community character or the desired
outcome or include the guidelines and incentives that will be used to ensure the
maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing. If the policy and Objective 101.4
will guide the development toward the "evolvi ng community character," then "evolving
community character" and the intended outcome needs to be defined.
114,4= =14LU111 �tbt;zlk. t%L:su, 111cliLUC SpMHU glUJUCURCS Or HICCIRIVeS Ulat Will VC USCU EO
encourage affordable and employee housing.
All
S
the proposed increase in density. Furthermore, data and analysis has not been submitted to
address potential water supply issues from the proposed increase in density.
commercial and industrial non-residential floor area that will serve as storm shelters and
Regulations- Section 9.5-120.4 (d) "Development not impacting hurricane evacuation times -
and Section 9.5-124.3 "Development not affected." The proposed amendment defers to the
land development regulations to exempt the construction of public lodging facilities and
coniter-cial art-d itdust.-iaktoTt-resideitial 400r area outsi4te of tVc Permit Allocatiox S%stern
1111!11111111111 11 11 riiiiiiiwrrpi�pil iriik ijit: 111�1111pii�r
M
cubmitted to address potential water supply issues for the proposed increase in density and
intensity.
I
allocations and through what process such allocations were made. Data and analysis has not
been submitted on the locations of the houseboats and meaningful and predictable standards
have not been provided to determine or guide where the allocations attributable to houseboat
can be transferred.
amendment is consistent with the Permit Allocation System, is consistent with the
prohibition on new transient residential, is consistent with maintaining a 24-hour
hurricane evacuation iQ 6"mally cw-sistent with density " inteasiO91
standards for the future land use categories, maintains the balance between residential
and non-residential growth, and is consistent with preserving the port area of Stock
Island.
......... -------
1,
ftovide data and analysis to address potential water supply issues from the proposed
�,,,ncrease in density.
1.
11. Conservation and Coastal Manazernent Element
by Monroe County. The County has not provided data and analysis to demonstrate that the
County has completed the marine facilities survey.
M
. If If 1 0 plgllii!1�11!i�i� 11;
Ifflunwit"W-WN" "isyms1i ; NOW
and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can propose other interim
protections and guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Plan. The
County also needs to provide data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has
completed the marine facilities survey.
W
�W-J Uffmvyt UP. Dy reierence oy laentiTyIng
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
71L NIT TICTIL141 IXTUILIULITEI 1117tina laulnues. .0,113ta ZLIU dirialpas
marks progress toward a goal. In addition, the objective does not define what is considere
"maximum physical advantage"' and "no unreasonable or excessive impacts ... on marnlit
resources."
accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean-going vessels, including
ferries, other pAenger vessels, cruisers and fishing vessels. I
U 11 T I WHO= I'l
Recommendation: Submit data and analysis indicating the needs analysis for additional
matina facilities has been completed. The ne is analysis is necessary in order to
determine if existing marmas will meet the needs of future demand. The County can
0
revise the objective to include the language that directs the County to complete the survey
as well as language that directs the County to periodically update the survey to determine
the future needs for additional marina facilities.
VA Ik
IM
includes a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable for ensu
protection of marine resources with the development of new marrinas and th
redevelopment # expansion of
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
Objection 7: Policy 212.4.2 - The amendment proposes o delete Policy 212.4.2 which requires
Monroe County to complete a survey of all existing recreational and commercial ri ,
including, at a minimum:
1. number of vet and dry slips;
. usage rates of wet and dry slips;
3. breakout of slips by boat size;
4. on -site amenities including the number of parking spaces;
5. surrounding uses and any known or potential compatibility problems;
. availability for public use (recreational marinas only);
7. number of boat ramps provided d the boat lanes for each;
8. condition of facilities,
. existing DER-acc ted documentation of water duality trends;
10. availability of -out facilities;_
11 potential for marina expansion according to siting criteria (See policy 212.4.3).
e County has not provided any data and analysis to demonstratet at the County has
implemented this Policy. The Marina Siting Plan does provide information on the average
densities of marine facilities boat ramps, the total number of marina facilities in the Florida
Keys and the types of marine facilities; however, the County has not provided sufficient data
analysis to ensure that Policy212..2 has been entirely implemented. copy of the Working
Waterfronts s ation Master Plannot submitted with is amendment package. The
Review Working ate onts Preservation Master Plan (dated April 30, 2 7) on Monroe
8
County's website includes a section describing the update of a marine facilities database by
surveys conducted by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission and the Center for
Urban and Environmental Solutions at FAU. The marine facilities database update may satisfy
the tasks of this Policy but data and analysis %vas not submitted to indicate the surveys were
completed.
Failure to complete the survey and instead to delete the requirement is inconsistent with the
Principles for Guiding Development because this information is an essential part of a marina
siting plan, which should both identify—u*z�.j=4-m4 Y;*i tnsiawrt
protection of marine resources.
(Section 163.3177(t), F.S.; Section 163-3177(5)(b). F.S,; Section 163-3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163-3178(2)(b),
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1,2,5,6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.)
Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212.4.2 if the policy has notbeen
+ +
Policy 212.4.2. Also include data and analysis evaluating whether existing marinas will
meet future demand and, if not, include guidelines and standards in the policy to guide
land use decisions toward meeting future demand.
ONection 8- Policy 212.4.3 — The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212.4.3 which directs
Monroe County to develop and adopt marina siting criteria and outlines specific criteria to
consider when adopting marina siting criteria, such as that marina construction not involve the
destruction of any significant marine wetlands or seagiass beds and to consider shoreline
modification when siting marinas. It is presumed that this policy was included in the County
comprehensive plan because these specific criteria were important to address the protection of
natural resources, It is premature to delete Policy 212.4.3 before the Marina Siting Plan is
finalized, approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. Additionally, data and analysis
has not been provided to demonstrate that theMarina Siting Plan incorporates all the criteria
specified in Policy 212.4.3 for the siting of marinas.
Failure to include criteria speced in Policy 212.4.3 and instead to delete the requirement is
U & M
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163-3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3177(9)(1), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (a), (d), (a), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.)
9
Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212.4.3 until the Marina Siting Plan
is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and revise the policy to include meaningful and
predictable standards for ensuring the protection of natural resources with the
development and the redevelopment of marine facilities. These standards can be interim
guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan with criteria as good or better than the criteria specified in Policy
212.4.3 for the siting of marinas.
The County can adopt the'Marina Siting Plan* by reference by identifying the title, date
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted,
predictable standards for exempting marinas in the Maritime Industries district from the dock
siting criteria or meaningful and predictable standards for developing marinas within the
Maritime Industries district.
Recommendation: Address the internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and
revise the policy to delete the reference to the Marina Siting Plan and retain the reference
to Policy 212.4.3 until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan. Provide data and analysis to support exempting marinas in the
Maritime Industries district from the Marina Siting Plan and dock siting criteria. Revise
the policy to include meaningful and predictable standards for the development o
marinas within the MI District.
The Marina Siting Plan should be included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved.
Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting
Plan should remain until the 11a-i & illi,3g
�WMIILJ �MrMUPMe -MM.-Ina.-Ming rian 67 reference 5y wentitying the title date
and author o t e document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
Mmam-
marina siting plan is inconsistent with the protection of marine resources as specified in the
Principles for Guiding Development.
[Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163-3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(,b),
163,3178(6), F.S.; Rule 91-5.00F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C., Rule 9J-5.01 2(3)(b) 1 2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
FA�C�j
.......... . ........................
approved and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan or provide data and analysis
supporting the deletion of this policy.
M-16j""wo
(ORM
�-Uwrity van duopt Inc
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
tocument is being adopted.
#
ME
rgQrgz*,i*,P',21 ant rjVlic nar-c-acie ti6-�w�te Cvvnry wM-I�cxikly Namcc t
protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts with the provision of water -
related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources as well as
evolving local and regional land use needs."
water -related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources
as well as evolving local and regional land use needs."
Objection 12: Policy 219.1.1 - The County has proposed adding Policy 219.1.1. The policy
lacks meaningful and predictable standards because the policy does not define what is to be
considered "evolving community character,** "public values" or the "evolving local and regional
interests and needs." Item 6 in this Policy, allows public access and the creation of public spaces
in the redevelopment of marine facilities "subject to reasonable limits" but does not include
guidelines for determining -reasonable limits," Also, item 7 in this Policy. provides for variances
to be granted to enable traditional uses and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional
interests and needs within the Maritime Industries District, Commercial Fishing Area District,
Commercial Fishing Village District and the Commercial Fishing Special District but does not
include meaningful and predictable standards for determining what are the -traditional
uses —and uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type
of variances will be granted or at criteria will be utilized to grant variances.
[Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b),Section 163.3177(8),Section
163.3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C,; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
WOMIM
Industries (zoning) District. - - - - - - - - - I les in ensi es Wi n e T antil
12
163-3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A-C,,- Rule 9J-5.005(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C]
Recommendation- Revise the policy to explain how densities and intensities within the
Maritime Industries (NII) District will be determined and ensure that the methodology is
not inconsistent with any Comprehensive Plan provisions.
[Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, FS.; Section
163-3177(9)(f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(g) and 6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), Rule 9J-
5.003(90), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1,2,3, and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5012(3)(c)and 9, F.A.C.]
IMM
working waterfronts until new guidelines and standards are adopted based upon the
inventories and analyses specified in the policy.
to ensure continued Commercial, Recreational and Public Access through the identification and
implementation of regulatory incentives, but the policy lacks meaningful and predictable
standards because it does not provide the incentives or the criteria to be use to ensure continued
Commercial, Recreational and Public Access.
OhLection 16: Objective 219.5 - The County proposes adding Objective 219.5 "to promote a
No Net Loss Policy" for working waterfronts. The proposed objective states the loss of working
waterfront in one geographic area must be balanced by a gain elsewhere. The Objective could
result in an oversupply of working waterfronts in one area of the County and an undersupply in
other areas. The Objective does not include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards
on how to achieve a no net less in working waterfronts within geographic areas.
13
Recommendation: Include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards that
defines how the County will achieve no net losses of working waterfronts within each
geographic area [e.g. within the same ROGO sub -area, between ROGO sub -areas, within
or adjacent to Tier I (Natural Areas) or Special Protection Areas].
Objection 17. Objective 219.6 and Policy 219.6.1 — The County proposes adding Objective
219.6 to ensure an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating
access to marine and coastal waters. The Objective does not provide guidance for what is
considered "an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access."
Furthermore, this Objective relies on Policy 219-6.16 to ensure an adequate stock of
Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access, but Policy 219.6. 1, the only
associated policy with this objective, does not include meaningful guidelines to achieve the
objective. The Policy states that the County "may" establish an acquisition program and the
County "may" establish a fund for acquiring lands.
W1 Hn M-11362
M.M..
and 9, F.A.C.]
bonuses to encourage the development of commercial, recreational and public access uses. This
amendment presents various types of potential bonuses (increased FAR, increased number of
slips, parking variances, increased area for water -related uses, or other measure of land use
intensity) but does not provide meaningful and predictable standards for assigning or awarding
the bonuses and it does not establish the increases in density and intensity that will be granted.
M�M
E
intensity that will be granted to encourage the development of commercial, recreational
and public access uses,
the use and development of land and meaningful guidelines for the more detailed land
development regulations.
Recommendation: Revise Policy 219.9.1 to ensure the establishment and implementation
of the working waterfront overlay districts will be completed. Additionally, the County
should develop additional/interim guidelines to promote traditional maritime activities
and protect recreational and commercial working waterfronts until the overlay districts
are co'i pleted.
be established as interim standards until the Design Guidelines and Development
Standards are prepared and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
e C*uw cix adwil W*CKV-4T re&U!cg b%
imd edition of the document is being adopted.
M
Qb e County poposes adding Poli2.1
cy 19.9
jection 20: Policy 219.9.1 & Policy 219.11.Thr
1
to consider establishing a working waterfront overlay district and, when appropriate, establish
design guidelines and development standards in the land development regulations. Additionally,
the County proposes adding Policy 219.11.1 to protect the public's view oft waterfront by
enforcing setbacks, height restrictions, etc as set forth in the Design Guidelines and Development
Standards. This creates an internal inconsistency as Policy 219.11.1 is dependent on Policy
219.9.1 which may or may not be implemented by the County.
(Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
16' b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), (i) and
Section 163.3178(6). F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.003(90), F.A.C., Rule 9J-
5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 91-5.005(5)(a) ' F.A.C.; Rule 9J 5.005(6)) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2)
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b) 1 2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.)
kW 1111111 IiIlpi ii, In I
jz
and edition of the document is being adopted.
Ob Lection 2 1: The Marina Siting Plan — The Marina Siting Plan is inconsistent with proposed
amendment as it refers to Policies 212.4.1 and 212.4.3 in the Comprehensive Plan that are
proposed to be deleted and refers to Policy 212.4.7 which is proposed to be renumbered as
2114.3.
The 'Marina Siting Plan' includes the Marina Site Suitability Maps that depict several coastal
islands from North Key Largo to Key West as conditional areas for marinas. Tlis is inconsistent
with Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.7.2 which directs the County to restrict the activities
permitted on ofTshore islands, for example marinas are not to be permitted on offshore islands.
The Marina Site Suitability Maps are also inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 102.8.2
which states Monroe County shall not create new access via new bridges, new causeways, new
paved roads or new commercial marinas to or on units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
(CBRS).
[Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)(g)2, F.S.; Section
163.3178(2)(a), (b), (a), (a), (f), (g), (i) and 6), F. Section 163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.005(6),
Rule 9J-5.012(4), F.A.C.)
16
Recommendation: Revise the Marina Siting Plan to address the inconsistencies with the
Comprehensive Pl
Additionally, the Florida Fish Wildlife Conservation Commission (F C) provides
the fallowing recommendations: F C recommends that the .Marina Siting Plan be revised t
address the protective measures tat would have been provided by following Policies 212. .1
through 212.4.3 before including it by reference into the comprehensive plan and that it is
premature to rely on the FCC management plan for manatees within the Marina Siting Flan
because the it has not been approved by the FC C Commissioners.
The Department artment of Environmental Protection also offers recommendations: Section 18-
21.0041(1)(b), F.A.C., should be referenced in the Marina Siting. Plan and cited in appropriate
locations throughout the document, such as on page 10 under State Regulations and on page 39
under Site Suitability Analysis: Also, the Site Suitability Zones listed on pages t3,and the
Exclusionary, Preferred and. Conditional Zones described can pages 4t1-41 should e revised to
reflect this regulation. addition.., the _ Department suggests that Monroe County Code subsection
.5.3 ( )(5) may require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged
lands can be built over a benthic community.
e proposed amendments are not consistent with the following Principles for Guiding
Development, Section 3 0.0552(7), Florida Statute. -
Principle (a) To strengthen local govet capabilities for managing land use and
development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the
continuation of the area of critical state concern designation.
Principle To protect shoreline and marine resources, including roves, coral reef
formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish d wildlife, and their habitat.
Principle (c) To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater
wetlands, nativetropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks l s), dune
ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their i at.
Principle (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout
the Florida Keys.
1
Principle (0 To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the
natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic
character of the Florida Keys.
Principle (g) To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
Principle (1) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida
Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
These Principles for Guiding Development inconsistencies can be resolved by addressing the
CI
objections stated above.
Florida Statute, including the following goals and policies:
with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance plans for the safe evacuation of
coastal residents; and require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state
agencies, to adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property and human
lives from the effects of natural disasters. This requirement relates to Objection 4.
Goal (7) Water Resources, Policies (b) 5 and 13: Ensure that new development is
compatible with existing local and regional water supplies and identify and develop
mqwq#- M.
tther uses. This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 21.
0M
natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. This requirement
relates to Ob j ection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18.
Goal (17) Public Facilities, Policies (b) I and 2: Provide incentives for developing land in
a way that maximizes the uses of existing public facilities; and promote rehabilitation slid
reuse of existing facilities, structures, and buildings as an alternative to new construction.
This requirement relates to Objection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18.
Goal (19) Transportation, Policies (b) 5: Ensure that existing port facilities and
airports are being used to the maximum extent possible before encouraging the
expansion or development of new port facilities and airports to support economic
growth. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 9, 10, and 18.
Goal (25) Plan Implementation, Policies (b) 2, 3, and 7: Ensure that every level of
government has the appropriate operational authority to implement the policy
directives established in the plan; establish effective monitoring, incentive, and
enforcement capabilities to see that the requirements established by regulatory
programs are met; and ensure the development of strategic regional policy plans
and local plans that implement and accurately rcflect state goals and policies and
that address problems, issues, and conditions that are of particular concern in a
region. This requirement relates to Objections I through 2 1,
19
South
Florida
Regional
Planning
Council
MEMORANDUM
AGFNDA ITEN-lo6d
DATE: NOVEMBER 5,2007,
ON=
Cl, STAFF
SUBJECT: MONROE COUNTY PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT
.............
Introduction
On September 25, 2007 Council staff received proposed amendment package #07-2 to the Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for review of consistence, with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South
Florida (SRPM. Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 163, Part IL Florida Statutes F.S.), and Rules AJ-5 and At-
11, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
Coxnmuni rofile
Monroe County, incorporated in 1824, is the southernmost county in the State of Florida. The County
consists of a mainland portion (782 square miles) bordered In, Collier County to the no and Miami -
Dade County to the east, and an archipelago, known as the Florida Keys, extending from northeast to
southwest for 120 miles (102 square miles), and separating the Gulf of Mexico from the Atlantic Ocean.
The mainland portion is occupied by Everglades National Park ress National Pre a a d Big Cypd is
virtually uninhabited. According to the Bureau of Economic an n sew, an
it Business Research, the unincorporated
portion of Monroe County had a population of 36,466 in 2006, an approximately 1.2% increase in the
population since 2000, The economy of Monroe County is based on tourism, fishing, retirees, and the
Military.
Monroe County's growth is constrained by a number of characteristics, The vast majority of the County
is environmentally sensitive, comprised of mangrove wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and rare
and endangered species habitats, with world-renowned coral reefs offshore. With one main highway
serving the entire population, traffic is a concern, particularly during hurricane evacuations. Lack of
adequate infrastructure for star seater and wastewater magnifies the effects of population growth on
nears ore coastal waters. The desirability of the County as a place to live and the limited amount of
developable land have made land costs prohibitively expensive, leading to shortages of affordable
housing and adequate school sites. With infrastructure and the environment showing signs of stress and
over 10,000 undeveloped platted lots, most of the Florida Revs has been designated an Area of Critical
State Concern, under Chapter .05. Florida Statutes.
Additional information regarding the County or the region may be found on the Council's website,
3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021
Froward (954) 985-4416, Area Codes 305, 407 and 561 (800) 985-4416
SunCom 473-4416, FAX (9541986-4417. SunCom FAX A?1_AA 17
mr; •
DKMF74� vise 40 Noals, ob�ectives and polices in the Fu i Lire Land Use
and Conservation and Coastal Nlanagement Elements of the Monroe County Year -
plan regarding recreational and commercial working waterfronts, The general location of the COLUnty is
exhibited as Attachment I.
The purpose of the \lonroe County Working Waterfronts Program is to implement the relevant
provisions of Chapter 2005-157 and Chapter 2006-220 of the Laws of Florida. More specifically, the
is # Arotect and#romote 'Nionroe County's recreational and commercial working waterfronts;
Niontoc County; preserve, protect and enhance the cultural heritage and physical character of TIEV "Xz1d-X5-
a working waterfront cornmunity; and enhance the aesthetic character of the area by directing
development in a manner that maintains the working waterfront identity of the County. ss
of recreational and commercial working waterfronts an d the lo
•#
dependentworking waterfronts is not exacerbated by non -water
in oals, objectives and
qP issues. the proposed amendment would amend exist g g
policies and would a dd new goals, objectives dependent facilities currently provided in numerous land use districts and distributed throughout the policies in the Future Land 4se an
CoastalManagement Elements of the Year 2010 Comprehensive
According to the October 3, 2007 letter from Andrew 0. Trivette, Monroe County Division Director of
Growth Management, the proposed amendment is supported by the data and analysis and
* #• County Working
a #
"Monroe Waterfronts Preservation Master Plan" and the
County
Obiection
The proposed amendmentsI • goals, objectives I policies e Future Land Use and
Conservation and Coastal Management Elements of # #e County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan are not clear, contain vague language, are not consistent
CountyWorking
Waterfronts Preservation #... Monroe County
ort the amendments.
# and
analysis has not been (Irovided to supp
for F
development # - I # - to
a.) objective 101.4 requires the County to regulate future
maintain the character of communityI protect
community',ly fuide the evolution of "the character of the i protect
the natural resources. However, the amendment is vague,no policies
implement the policy, no data and analysis has been included tosupportamendment.
b) It is not clear why in Policy 101.4.5 "permanent residential development", other than employee
# # # being are
tosupportamendment.
C) It is not clear in Policy 101.4.7 how natural resources would be protected and areas suitable for
water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, maritime uses, and other water dependent
manufacturing and service uses would be conserved if residential (up to 18 dwelling units/23 rooms
per acre) and commercial facilities, such as public lodging establishments, are permitted in the
"Maritime Industries Distinct." It is also not clear how the residential and commercial facilities
would be compatible with the industrial and maritime uses permitted in the land use category or if
adequate public faculties and services exist to support the residential and commercial uses.
d) Policy 219.1.1 contains vague language and it is not clear how the policy will be implemented.
Until these issues are resolved, the proposed amendment package is incompatible with the is and
policies of the Strategic Regional Policy Plonfor South Florida fSRPP), particularly with the following
goal and policies:
Coal 4 Enhance the economic and environmental sustainabilify of the Region by ensuring the
adequacy of its public facilities and services.
Polity 4.3 Utilize the existing infrastructure Capacity of regional facilities to the maximum extent
consistent with applicable level of service (LOS) standards before encouraging the
expansion of facilities or the development of new capacity.
Coal 11 Encourage and support the implementation of development proposals that conserve
the Region's natural resources, rural and agricultural lands, green infrastructure and.
• utilize existing and planned infrastructure in urban areas;
• enhance the utilization of regional transportation systems;
• incorporate mixed -land use developments,
• recycle existing developed sites; and
• provide for the preservation of historic sites.
Policy 11.10 Decisions regarding the location, rate, and intensity of proposed development shall be
based an the existing or programmed capacity of infrastructure and support services or
on capacity which will be programmed to serve that proposed development, in
addition, consideration should be given to the impact of infrastructure and support
services on natural resources.
GOAL 20 Achieve long-term efficient and sustainable development' Patterns that protect natural
resources and connect diverse housin& transportation, eeducation, and employment
opportunitis.
��blicy 20.2 Guide new development and redevelopment within the Region to areas which are
most intrinsically suited for development, including areas:
a. which are least exposed to coastal storm surge$,
b. where negative impacts on the natural environment will be minimal; and
c. where public facilities and services already exist, are programmed or, on an
aggregate basis, can be provided most economically.
I MEM Eal ii
Staff e, ill continue to, ivork tvith the County staff throughout the amendment process.
The %jOnr0o County Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of the amendment for
rk. it,1v by the Florida Depart ent of Community Affairs by unenimons %-cite at its September 19, 2007
Countv Commissicm meeting.
Recommendation
Find proposed amendment package #07-2 to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan to be
generally inconsistent with the Strategic Regional Policy Plan for South Florida, particularly with
Goals 4, 11 and 20, and Policies 4.3, 11.10, and 20.2. Approve this staff report for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
0
5 TS i0t5t�4lSQi25S2?�Q�.37�t3�5�3
---
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
General Location tdap
Monroe County
Proposed Amendment 407.2
`-tatcv F[ i*,SFit"tlL.4tcyrt�ccCcisas�c ,'F iaC.
tiofe; For boome Eurpt--s- otsiv. Allc#it#Anc,,%.�ri
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
Nfarjory Stonernan Douglas Building
3900 Corranonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-3000
November 14, 2007
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Bureau of Local Planning
IVJ W-14NIOWLWO Ell tril It
W1111:1111
b
Protection (Department) has reviewed the above -captioned package of proposed
comprehensive plan amendments submitted by Monroe County (County), under the
�J-11, Florida Administrative Code fF.A.C..). The Department provides the following
•
to the proposed amendment.
The transmittal package includes policy modifications related to the recreational, com-
mercial and working waterfronts portions of the Future Land Use, Conservation and
Coastal Management Elements of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan. The
County proposes the addition of a new Maritime Industries (MI) district to the County's
existing Indus al land use category, with changes to various policies intended to
establish and conserve waterfront are for maritime uses. Although the Department
generally supports the intention expressed by the County, several concerns must be
addressed.
The County failed to provide the Department with adequate data and analysis on the
potential resource impacts that creation of the new land use district will engender.
Among other things, the amendment establishes a new district that allows high -density
development, exempts new marinas from the requirements of the Monroe County
Marina Siting Plan (MSP), and refers to a policy in the MSP that it proposes to delete.
-Xivre Protection, Less Process"
ioviv.dep.statefl. us
..Mr. D. Ray
Monroe County 07-
November F 00
Page 2 of 7
Po ,.
amendment is to "maintain and enhance the commercial fishing activities within the
Mixed Use/Commercial According to the Support Data and Analysis submitted, the purpose of the proposed
. proposed
the word "evolving" to the descriptioncharacter,
.statedpurposeand
enluincing commercial fishing activities. The
developmentproposed amendment would also add the following underlined phrase: "Employee
housing and commercial apartments are also permitted, along with other germanent
residential . mix of # • The Department
categoriesdoes not believe that the addition of permanent residential development will maintain
or enhance the County's commercial fishing industry. Because the proposed text would
allow all .:
economic pressure on current commercial fishing enterprises to sell out and make way
for large residential structures, thus undermining attempts to preserve # enhance
working waterfronts. The Department therefore recommends that the added text
(including the word "ely"ollylin") be deleted from the proposed policy.
Or. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14,2007
Page 3 of 7
County. In a comprehensive 1999 report entitled Water Quality Concerns in the Florida
Keys: Sources, Effects, and Solutions, William L. Kruczynski states:
Historically, development in the Keys relied on the use of cesspits and
septic tanks which provide little treatment of domestic wastewater in
porous lime rock substrates. In addition, stormwater runs untreated
into nearshore surface waters. Lack of nutrient removal from domestic
wastewattrzza4- st*-,wivraterhas reswltek-xit &tt aiiitl*n *P-rixtrierrt--ridi
waste waters into confined waters and adjacent nearshore areas. The
cumulative effects of these discharges have led to water quality degra-
-iation of these inshore areas.' M
district, Policy 101.4.7 avoids application of important environmental protection
measures to waterfront development.
Objective
Revised Objective Policy 212.4 states that "Monroe County.shall adhere to criteria set
forth in the Marina SitiRg Plan [bj5n for the development of new marinas and the
redevglo Tumor and,gVansicy n of current marine facilities." No further identification of
the intended siting plan is contained in the proposed amendment, and the MSP was not
appended to or adopted by reference in the amendment. Because the RISP was not
Dr. Kruczynski's white paper, prepared under the auspices of the Florida Keys National
Marine Sanctuary's at Quality Protection Program, can be found at the Sancruary?s web
site at ht!p:ZZfloridakeysnoaag_ov_Lresearch momtorm&LW whi!ty .2eLpd
App
Mr- D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 4 of 7
without going through the comprehensive plan amendment process, The Department
OP -oil
Pofigy212.4.1
Proposed Policy 212.4.1 provides that "falpplicants for development approval of
marinas with three (3) or more slips, other than marinas in existing harbors located in
MI District shall meet the following- 1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria set
forth in the Monroe County,,,Mari lanff' This provision will exempt marinas
in an M district from the MSP siting criteria, even though Objective 212.4 states that
"Monroe, CoupU shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Sitiqg.flan for the
m
11111111,141M
Exempting new or expanded marinas located in an MI district from marina siting
P *nsvig P A all f
•
folLcy 219.8.1
The County's proposal to encourage certain types of development along waterfront
areas is vague, lacks adequate definitions or standards, and will lead to increased 1
t
Policy 219.8.1 states: il
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County
November 1 , 007
Page 5 of 7
The Counly shall provide land -use bonuses to encouraec develooment that
rovides Commercial, Recreational and Public Access to the shorelines and
graters of Monroe County. These bonuses maybe Rranted in the form of
increased ,increased number of slipsparking variances increased area
for ter -related uses or ter measure of la use intensity to
er e uses -.on e Parcel(s)proposed for development.
This policy would encourage ore intense development along the shorelines and
waters of Monroe County, thereby leading to increased impacts on the surrounding
waters. No data or calculations were provided with regardto the amount of increases
in intensity t could result from the bonuses. The Department believes Policy 21 ..1
is unnecessary and strongly recommends at the County remove the proposed policy
from the submittal.
followingMarina Sitine Plan
the
No application to lease state owned sovereignty submerged lands for the
purpose of providing# docking considered for
area,approval unless there are no benthic communities present where the boat
mooring basins, mooring
located, excepting any main access docks required to cross benthic com-
acceptable opreclude
usingapplying for consent to use state owned submerged lands for the purpose
of the minimum amountobtain reasonable* #
egress.
Multi -slip docks are defined as three or more slips, and benthic communities includes
seagrass beds, hard and soft corals or sponges. This rule should be referenced in the
MSP and cited in appropriate locations throughout the document, such as on page 10
under State Regulations and on page 39 under Site Suitability Analysis. Also, the Site
Suitability Zones listed on pages 13 and the Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional
Zones described page be revisedregulation.addition,
the Department suggests that Monroe County Code subsection 9.5-349(m)(5) may
require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged lands can be
built over benthic community.
Eubanks
.. Mr. D. Pay
Monroe o 0 -2
November 14,2007
Page 6 of 7
* -tic General Permit: was listed, Monroe County is
specifically excluded from the SPGP. Thus, that reference
should be
The MSP references the North Carolina Waterfront Access Study Committee Final
Report on page 49. The Department can not comment as to its applicability to the MSP,
however, since the report was not included in the submittal
package. . *
includedps
in the MSP depict several
coastal
argo*
forestsy West
as conditional areas for marinas, If those sites remain as conditional marina locations,
they must comply with Rule 18-21.004(1)0), FAC, which should be referenced. In
addition, the maps appear to designate some mangrove areas, especially on North Key
Largo, as conditional marina sites. Mangrove
p
marinas, and the Department suggests the maps be reevaluated and edited.
. * .
rff95r&T *70 MUM Ma
' • • . . 4 ! i
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe Cc" 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 7 of 7
The Department appreciates the opportunitv to provide comments on the proposed
amendment. Should you have questions or require additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Chris Stahl at (850) 245-2163 or Chris.Stahl@dep-,�-t4,t(z,(Ips.
Yours sincerely,
Sally B. Mann, Director
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
SBM/cp;
*
i
w �
t
f-r
*
♦ t -
W'
6
# t
* * �'. t # . !*, # w,. t # a• t t. t t ',, '
i
;.
_ ,-. -, •. .#:.
# .,# #',, *t • # l+ +' i 4!'.. # # #tt .## It# ',4t. t:.'
•
W
Mr- Ray Eubanks
Page 2
No, ember 20, 2007
Inventory) that meet some of the requirements of Policy 212.4.4, but it is not clear host- they were
used to establish the suitability categories.
e Marina Siting Suitability Maps show conditional areas scattered throughout nearly all of the
Keys, except between Crab Key at k4ile Marker 25 and. Key West at Mile Marker 7. The rasps
indicate preferred areas primarily in Islamorada, Marathon, Big Pine Key. and Key West. There
are no exclusionary areas shown on the maps, and we assume that this is because any area not
indicated as preferred or conditional is exclusionary.
Concems and Recommendations
The FWC supports the working waterfronts concept, and has no objection to the removal of the
prohibition of new public access marinas as long as the environmentally protective ures
Currently in the comprehensive plan are not removed- o supports the inclusion of a
marina siting la into the comprehensiveplan; however, we do not recommend incorporation
until the current marina siting plan has been revised. We have concerns about issues not
addressedby the April 2007 Marina Siting Plan. This review does not go into the Marina Sit'
ng
Plan in detail, but highlights the mainproblem points that staff identified.
ttt: While water depth may be an adequate criterion for the protection of magrasses, the
Marina Siting Plano not replace all of the planning guidanceprovided by the removed
Policies 212,4.1 through 212.4.3. for instance:
plan does not appear to address protection ofsignificant marine wetlands (Policy
212.43) or minimization o ` s ore e modifications (Policy212.4.3.3.1). me of e
sit e withinthe Florida o acquisition .
plan icrocodiles, manatees,
sea 1, but guidance appears to be
limited to provisions in Objective 2 7..3 Cdeveloping a marringimpacts gement
program for marine turtles t "), with reference to Objective 203.6 and
associated licies. Objective 203.6 (am
htt : t o co .virtu ltvw It ll. t! 01 Growth/ o -101 is
i to to 'th of i , ding the Floridas
Nano 1 e c a .S. atio Icame and Atmospheric
Agency to identify o tal and regulatory issues d to help formulate plans, it
does not appear to provide guidancen the a planning issues twould
a by oli y 212.4.3.3. file it q e Marina Si g Plan
; does
not provide specific planning i ce.
deletedThe li irequire me very specific issues .., number of wet and dry slips,
breakout ofslips by boat size, availabilityfor public use, availability of pump -out
facilities) be taken intoconsideration in developing e siting rit i s however, the
.Marina Siting Plannot appear to have taken those issues into account. As a reach,
e Marina Siting Plan does not provide i idance with respect to an
acceptable amount finfrastructure f tt' considerations, includinge la
to natural ' resources species.
•Policy 2 2.4.1.2 required p v l of marina siting` by DER, DNR, and ACOF,,
and it is reasonable to assume that this requirement would have and involved e Marine
Patrol t t with d manboth atees, which were in
Subsequent agency reorganizations have placed both of ro fi e
Cy however, e April 2007 Siting Pl s ofcoordinated
i t with these
czmponmts of the FWC.
C Siting lrelics on existing county ordinances and agency
regulatory program for settinge of its sideboards, but this approachnot appear to
r. Ray Eubanks
Page 3
November 20, 2007
provide the value that additional planning guidance would provide via a comprehensive
growth -management Galan. It also relies can PWC's management plan for manatees; however,
this plan has not yet been approved by the P `C Commissioners. Incorporating it into the
comprehensive plan via the Marine Siting Plan before it is approved would be mernature,
!Qn—acern. The application process flowchart in Appendix A-1 indicates that a parcel is
considered "conditional" if it is in an area of known American crocodile range. Map 1
(MorconCounty American Crocodile Habitats) in Appendix D may inadvertently be
confusing because crocodilese been documented as far as Key West and, once, even in
the Dry Tortugas.
Becammermado . We believe that the Marina Siting Plan contains useful information and
guidance; however, we recommend that it be revised to address the protective measures that
would have Seen, provided by following Policies 212..1 through 212.4.3 before including it by
reference into the comprehensive plan. We strongly recommend that the Marina Siting Plan
elude policies for the development of land development regulations that would have is
een
a the l policies. e would be willing to help with this revision, d believe
that g so would be consistent with e intent of Policy 212.4.1.1.
e appreciate the opportunity to review the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan
amendments, and hope we rem helpit sing issues that we touched in this letter. if
you or your staff would like to coordinate on the recommendations contained in this
letter, please contact meat 8 0-410-d272 oremail meat Ma P m(it 4 EWC&
and 1 will be glad to help make the waxessmy arrangements. If your staff has any technical
questions regarding our comments regarding manatees, please contact Mary Deccan by
telephone at 850-922-4330 or by email at hi—anjDuncanfituryfivccom.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann le, Director
Office of Policy and Stakeholder Coordination
assistant
Mo 7 1a 7
ENV a -t-z
b Dennis, DCA, Tallahassee
Maym , DCA.,Tallahassee
Rich County
Kalard Calms, USFWS, Vero Beach
•SOUTH Romm WATER MANAGMEN
3301 Gun Club RYad, fives' Palm Beack Florida 3-406 . (561) OO •FL WATS 1 -#322- C=5 + D? (5561) 69r-? 74
llailirg ri::!. »cs: R O3 Box 24a 0, West Palm Sezzh. FL 33-2 4 Ft}
November 21, 2007
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
Plan Review and Processing
Department of Community Affairs
2555' hu and Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Eubanks -
Subject: Proposed
_ Amendment Comments
Monroe_r
Monroe County has proposed text amendments to the Future n 1 ment and the
Conservation st l Management Element in its Comprehensive Plan to address
redevelopment of waterfronts. The South Florida Water Management District(District)
has completed its review f the proposedamendment package. The District
recommends that additional steps be taken to address potential water supply issues.
The County'sto Policy 1 1..7 signifintly increases the residential
and transient density in the MaritimeIndustry Di t it in the Industrial land use
categoryrt providesfor l housing i any l . Policy
increases 'Allocated _Density' to 8-12 residential n s and from 0 to 1 1
rooms r acre. Further, t Policyincreases t " xi t ns` for affordable
housing 2 to 12«1 residential _ nits n from to 25 rooms r acre.
The amendment should i to address the potentialincreased pota a water
demand that couldresult from higher densities of both residential units n transient
rooms in the Maritime Industry i'ct and affordablehousing units in all districts. I
coordination h the Floridau o , the County should
quantify the additional demand that would be generatedproposed n nt
and demonstratewater supplies andpublic facilities v it l to
meet those demands. [see as. 163.3167(13) & 1 177( )( ), F.Sj. In particular, the
County and FKAA shouldJindicate whether the potential change in demand
accommodated by the FKAA:s consumptive use permit.
If you have*�any questionsor require l information, please call Jon Mulliken,
rr, tr 682-6649.
Supply
Planning Division, t( 1)
Depu
i it or Water Resources
Mr. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
November 20, 2007
Page
NI/kelpv
w Jerry Buckley, DCA (Keys Office)
Carolyn D kl , SFRPC
Bob Dennis, CCA
Kate Edgerton, SFVVMD
Andrew Trivetta; Monroe County
FLOFJDA DEPARTMENT OF STATE
Kurt S. Browning
Secretary of State
]DIR."IsfON OFF HISTORICAL RESOURCES
October ' )0, 2007
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Community Affitirs
Bureau of State Planning
2555 Shumard -Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Historic Preservation Review of the Monroe County (07-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
414111OWN111
Sincerely,
"-
Frederick P. Gaske, Director
$00 S. Bronougb Street * TaUahmsee, FL 32399-0250 * http:fi`Www.fteritjgecom
C3 Diredomes Office (3 Anhaeological Re"Arot V Historic Fmaervation 01tworical Museum
(SM) 24543M # FAX 24541M (WQ) 24S44O - FAX 2454452 nife) 2434M - FAX: 245-607 SISO 245-MOO - FAX 245.&M
0 Soodwaxt Repowl Offke 0 Now0cumt Rawand Office 0CftftdFkddaR*evrWOffice
Florida Department of Transpomaden
CHA C. KOPSLOUSOS
GOVERNOR1000 NNE I I I Avenue, . L 331SECRETARY
Phone: 305-470-5464 ( c
November t 2007
DepartmentMr. Ray Eubanks
Division of Community Planning
Florida
Tdlshssscu� Florida 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Subject: Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Pigs (Ameadmost 07-2)
i t #
Cc: Aileen Boucle, AICP
Phil Statandfler
9 W., PO F W W. mul, I
I I
THIS INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT (ILA) is entered into as of t of
2011, n Monroe County, a politicalsubdivision of the State of Florida
(C T ) and the South Florida Regional Planning Council (S C), a state regional
planning agency.
WHEREAS, the SFRPC was created pursuantto Section 186.501,, Florida Statutes
(1982), as amended and knowne "Florida Regional Planning Council " (the "ACT");
Section 186.505, to ° te, provides that the SFRPC may enterinto
contracts to provide, at cost, such services related to its responsibilities as may be requested y
local governments or organizations within the region is e SFRPC finds feasible
perand
form;
WHEREAS, the COUNTY desiresto hire the SFRPC to provide professional services to
make revisions to the County Marina Siting Plan(Plan) in accordance it the December 7,
7 Objections, Recommendations, and Comments(ORC ) issued y the Florida
Department of Community Affairs (pertaining to the Plan, perform a Needs Analysis for
new slips and marinas, and develop in ii Criteriae recess revisions to e
Monroe County Comprehensive 1_ o those criteria; and
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have agreed upon a Scope of Services for work to be
performedy the SFRPC and attachedhereto and madef as AttachmentIand
E t w
Section 1. Scope and Term. The SERPC and the COUNTY, for the consideration named
agree to perform their respectiveobligations as provid: +
scope of services containedonScope
containedwith the timeline in Attachment 1. Section 1Timeline,attached
incorporatedand by reference. The term of the ILA is August 17, 2011,
2013.
Section 2. Reporting. In consideration of the services above, SFRPC agrees to
provide monthly reports of all of its activities documenting project pro s and completionof
timelines, as well as any general findings related tote services provided. Reports shall be in
writing with supporting doc to ion and deliveredto the Marine Resources Senior
Administrator atthe address listed in Section 9.
W1 R110111111 t lu 777eco 3.51117M. 7ayment to tne 'F C is
contingent upon annual appropriation by the Board of County Commissioners. The CouNTY
will process invoices from SFRPC pursuant to the Local Government Prompt Payment Act. The
Draw Schedule is indicated in Attachment 1, Section C.
Section 4. Termination of Inter -local Agreement. Either party may terminate this ILA
because of the failure of the other party to perform its obligations under the ILA. If the
TY i at 'q t k
9 1
................. ................. ...............
Section 6. Employees Subject to County Ordinance Nos. 010 and 020-1990. The SFRPC
w 4Mtni
I t I t
L t V-1 WTI M A
me ate
Unins m (I
being placed on the convicted vendor list.
Section 8. Insurance. The parties to this ILA stipulate that each is a state governmental
agency as defined by Florida Statutes and represents to the other that it has purchased suitable
public liability, vehicle liability, and WorkersCompensation insurance, or is self -insured, in
amounts adequate to respond to any and all claims which are not limited by Florida Statutes
Section 768.28 and Chapter 440, arising out of the activities governed by this agreement.
Section 9. Communication Between Parties. All communication between the parties should
be through the following individuals or their designees:
Monroe County SFRPC
Richard Jones, Senior Administrator Rachel Kalin, Regional Planner
Monroe County Marine Resources Office South Florida Regional Planning Council
Planning & Environmental Resources Dept. 3440 Hollywood Boulevard, Suite 140
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 400 Hollywood, FL 33021
Marathon, FL 33050
Section I . GoverningInterpretation, Costs, and Fees. This Agreement shall be
governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Florida applicable to
Interlocal Agreements made and to be performed entirely in the State,
Section 11. Venue. In the event that any cause of action or administrative proceeding is
instituted for the enforcement or interpretation of this Agreement, the COUNTY and SFRPC
agree that venue will fie in the appropriate court or before the appropriate administrative body in
Monroe County, Florida.
Section 12. Mediation. The COUNTY and SFRPC agree that, in the event of conflicting
interpretations of the terms or a term of this Agreement by or between any of them the issue shall
be submitted to mediation prior to the institution of any other administrative or legal proceeding.
This Agreement is not subject to arbitration.
Section 13. Severability. If any term, covenant, condition or provision of this Agreement (or
WIi IF tf,
a 9
out-of-pocket expenses . I F11 Qcz
tia. f., I+
this Agreeme t or provision of the services under
COUNTY
1 SFRPC
specifically agree t at no party to this Agreement shall be required to enter into any arbitration
proceedings relate#, to this Agreement.
Section 23. No Solicitation/Payment. The COUNTY and SFRPC warrant that, in respect to
itself, it has neither employed nor retained any company or person, other than a bona fide
employee working solely for it, to solicit or secure this Agreement and that it has not paid or
agreed to pay any person, company, corporation, individual, or firm, other than a bona fide
employee working solely for it, any fee, commission, percentage, gift, or other consideration
contingent upon or resulting from the award or making of this Agreement. For the breach or
violation of the provis on, the SFRPC agrees that the COUNTY shall have the right to terminate
this Agreement without liability and, at its discretion, to offset from monies owed, or otherwise
recover, the full amount of such fee, commission percentage,
I , gift, or consideration.
Section 24. Public Access. The COUNTY and SFRPC shall allow and permit reasonable
access to, and inspection of, a I ocuments, papers, letters or other materials in its possession or
under its control subject to the provisions of Chapter 119, Florida Statutes, and made or received
by the COUNTY and SFRPC in conjunction with this Agreement; and the COUNTY shall have
the right to unilaterally cancel this Agreement upon violation of this provision by SFRpC.
Section 29. Attestatione. SF RPC agrees to execute such documents as the COUNTY may
require, to include a Public Entity Crime Statement, an Ethics Statement, and a Drug -Free
Workplace Statement,
Section 30. No Personal Liability. No covenant or agreement contained herein shall be
&emed to be a covenant or agreement of any member, officer, agent or employee of Monroe
Count in his or her individual ca cit and no memla Iffimi iii, i
Iwo oil
;4iir miTQFW omit
find MITHMI I
Maoaulwwr.
by singing any such counterpart,
Section 32. Section Headings. Section headings have been inserted in this Agreement as a
matter of convenience of reference only, and it is agreed that such section headings are not a part
of this Agreement and will not be used in the interpretation of any provision of this Agreement.
Section 33. Indemnity/Hold Harmless. SFRPC is a state agency as defined in Chapter
768.28, Florida Statutes, and COUNTY is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. Each
agrees to be fully responsible for acts and omissions oft eir agents or employees to the extent
permitted by law. Nothing herein is intended to serve as a waiver of sovereign immunity by any
party to is sovereign immunity may be applicable. Nothing herein shall be construed as
consent by a state agency or political subdivision of the State of Florida to be sued by third
parties in any matter arising out oft is Agreement or any other contract.
IN WIT-NESS WHEREOF each party hereto has caused this Agreement to be executed by its
duty authorized representative.
(SWAL)
Adfat: DANNYL KOLHAGE, CLERK
Deputy Clerk
M
No
APPROVED AS TO FORM
COUNWATTORNEY'S.&FICE
e - / w
CD
—
Cr-
Vo
C-D
BOARD OF C NTY COMMISSIONERS
OF R
By MON Y A
Mayor/Chairman
SouthFI da Regional Planning Council
B. JA STERN LT
B
T'itle Executive Director., SFRPC
Al' D AS TO FORM
YPRV
11Bit
SA EL S. G R SQx
General Counsel to PC
Attachment
Scope of Services
or
Revisions to the Monroe County Marina Sitingy Perform Needs Analysis
MarinaPrepare i iCriteria r Adoption into Comprehensive
July 19,211
e following sections describe the Scope of Services, Deliverables, and Timelines for the
revision and processing of the Monroe County `na Siting Plan and associated c e
CountyComprehensive Plan (Comp Plan)gals, Objectives and olicies:
Section___ Scope of Services
i # #
Communicate and coordinate with Monroe County staff, the State Land Planning Agency,
Department of EnvironmentalProtectioni + of +
(USACE),agenciesregarding
current Marina Siting Plan and the development marina
Comp Plan. Include Monroe County Growth Management staff in all phone calls and meetings
with pertinent agencies.
2. Prevare marina sitine criteria:
documents.a) Compile and document marina siting criteria as specified in the current County Comp Plan
policies that are recommended for revision) and other pertinent rules, regulations, and
b Submit recommendations to Monroe County Growth Management for vie and comment
(up to two reviews).
Managementc) Submit proposed marina siting criteria, with appropriate revisions based upon Monroe
County Growth # the State Land Planning Agency for
# #. # w _ # . # #' # ........E # + + * - #.....
f +
l
"Ism,
KIINE114 re
10
c) Perform a Needs Analysis to determine the need for additional marinas/slips, including but
not limited to, the followi
• vessel registration trends;
• the inventory of marine facilities (type and distribution of facilities) included in the it
30, 2007, Monroe County Marine Facilities Inventory;
• recent County aerials from February 2006 and January 2009 to determine utilization, and
to identify utilization patterns associated with recent economic trends.
• the 2009 FWC Florida Boating Access Facilities Inventory and Economic to
(recreational and economic demands); and
• other data sources as appropriate.
d) InteeTate the findi.-f 2s of t�!e V telp-44,
w2flo
-o11LVHFffT9T11TM7-jKeport [Attachment
issued by the State Land Planning Agency pertaining to the Marina Siting Plan. Revise
Marina Siting Plan to address deficiencies indicated in the ORC Report [Attachment 1]
2
based on the Needs Analysis and marina siting criteria. Submit recommendations to Monro,;
County Growth Management for review and comment (up to two reviews),
b) Revise the Site Suitability Analysis Section IL(c)(3.) of the Marina Siting Plan to clearly
identify and explain the criteria utilized to determine and map the Site Suitability zones
(Preferred, conditional and exclusionary). Revise the Suitability Maps utilizing best available
information. Submit revisions to Monroe County Growth Management for review and comment
# to two 3
c) Revise :.- Introduction of the
Marina Siting #
Sitinglan to include a clear and concise purpose of
the Marina
Include clear recommendations regarding the need and appropriateness of future, new marina
development based on the siting criteria, existing number and distributionof marinas, the Needs
Analysis, and environmental protection.
e) Include a brief discussionof the goal of preservation of existing marinas and incentives o
the redevelopment of existing marinas to encourage tie i do , environmental otection
and public access.
# # I
a..
# #
• # : #
I
7. Participate in ublie eetin s:
SouthFlorida Regional PlanningCouncil staff will attend four public meetings to present the
Marina Siting l ropose Comprehensive Plan amendments to the public, receive input,
and assist with the approvalprocess in accordance with established County procedures,
including:
• e community meetingto discuss the Marina Siting proposed Comprehensive
Plan amendment(s) o adopt marina siting ri e 'a; and
• One Planning Commission meeting for consideration of approval of the proposed
Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to adopt marina siting criteria; d
CC meeting for the transmittal of the proposed marina siting criteria
Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to State Land PlanningAgency.
• e BOCC meeting for the adoption of the marina siting criteria Comprehensive Plan
a en.
e Needs Analysis and Marina Siting Plan shall be submitted as data and analysis for the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment(s) to adopt ` a siting criteria.
Section Q Deliverables
1: Marina
Siting Criteria for DEP and USACE approval
a} Two copies and 1 CD copy of the marinasiting criteria recommendations for staff review
(up to 2 revisions) by December 31, 2011.
} Two copies and 1 CD copy of draftmarina siting criteria for State Land Planning c
courtesy review (p to 2 revisions) by January 31, 2012
c} Two copies and 1 CD copy of revised draftmarina siting criteria or staff review (up to 2
revisions) by February29, 22012.
} Two copies and 1 CD coy of final marina siting criteria cover letter ar s to
DEP and ACNE requesting approval to 2 revisions) by April 1, 2012.
2. Needs Analysis:
a} Two copies 1 CD coy of draftNeeds Analysis methodology for staff review(up to
visions) by September 30, 2011.
} Two copies and 1 CD copy of final Needs Analysis methodology for staff review (up to
revisions) by October 31, 2011.
c} Two copies and 1 CD copy of Needs Analysis document by February 29, 2012.
3. Revised Marina Siting Plan(including Sui ilit a s
a) Two copies and 1 CD copy of draft Marina Siting Plan for staff view (up to 2 visions}
by April 30, 2012.
} Two copies and 1 CD coy of second draft Marina Siting Plan for State Land Planning
Agency courtesy review by May 31, 2012.
c) Two copies and 1 CD coy of the third r rina Siting Plan for staff review (if
necessary) by June 29, 2012.
a) Two copies and I CD copy of draft Comp Plan amendments for staff review (up to 2
revisions) by April 30,2012.
b) Eight copies of finalstaff
meetingCommission by XXX (meeting date to be determined).
c) Eight copies and I CD copy of final Comp Plan amendments for the BOCC transmittal
meeting, with cover letter addressed to BOCC by XXX (meeting date to be determined).
i) Two copies and I CD copy of draft responses (up to
* E,',,
2 revisions) to Objections,
Recommendation * Report
e) Eight copies and I ;copy
BOCC adoption meeting, with cover letter addressed to BOCC by XXX (meeting date to be
e
a
Section Schedule
The compensation associated it s eServices is $50,000.00 and s e
distributed s follows:
Upon execution of contract by BOCC $10,000.00
Upon delivery acceptance of the Needs Analysis $ 5,00 .00
Upon delivery and acceptance of the Marina Siting Criteria $10,000. 0
Upon delivery and acceptance of the, Revised Marina Siting Plan... $ ,500. 0
Upon completion of all final delivembles, including e Comprehensive Plan
Revisions d attendance at final al n of County_ Commission
Meeting for approval $7,500.00
_Total $50,000.00
Section
Timelines for Marina Siting Plan and Comprehensive Plan Revisions
Avgwr 2011: the FLA should be executed by the SFRPC and May— County BC G.
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
'Dedicated to making Florida o better place to call home"
HA L E CRIAT THOMAS O. PELHAH
souemor
December 7. 2007
The Honorable SonnyMcCoy
Mayor, Monroe County
530 Whitehead Street
Key West, Florida 33040
Dear MayorMcCoy:
e Department has completed its review of the Monroe County proposed
Comprehensive Flan Amendment (DCA No. 07-2 , which was received on October 9, 2007.
Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional, and kcal
agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed.
e Department has reviewed e comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with
Rule 1-5, Florida Administrative Coe and Chapter 163, Part H, Florida Statutes and has
prepared the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments Report which outlines our
findings concerning the comprehensive plan amendment.
Monroe County is proposing amendments to address the maintenance and enhancement
of commercial recreational working waterfronts by seeking to guide development in a
manner that preserves the working waterfront identity of the County. Although the Department
generally supports the intention expressed by Monroe County, several concerns must be
addressed. The Department has identified objections to the proposed amendments related to
internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan, vague language that does not provide
meaningful redicta le standards or provide meaningful guidelines for how the activities
will be implemented, n the lack of data and analysis to support the amendments. The
Department's iddraified objections reflect the concerns raised by commenting agencies.
detailed discussion is providedin the attached Objections, Recommendations, and Comments
Report.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARDTALLAHASSEE,
FL 323 9-2100
Phone.- 859-488-8466/SUNCO 278-8 6 Fax: 850-921- 781tsUNCQ 291.0781
esit: w': fat .fi:
COMMON"F MINIMAL STATE CONCERN FIELD F E HOUSING AND COMMIAVY DEVELOPMENT
Phonc U 278- 305r2 7 2
F M 27 F 2 2442 Faw&W-M-56231UNCOM292-6143
The Honorable Sonny McCoy
December 7, 2007
Page 7
:fly staff and I are available to assist the County in addressing the issues identified in our
report If you have any questions, please contact Mayte Santamaria, Planner, at (850) 4 -47255
Sincerely,
Mike McDaniel, Chief
Office of Comprehensive Planning
M s
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review .Agency Comments
cc: Mr. Townsley Schwab, Acting Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
c . Carol A. e le Executive Director, South Florida
anal Planning Council
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONSr RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
FOR THE MONROE COUNTY
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2
December
2007
,
Division of Community Planning
AreasofCritical State Concern
Tbs report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.010, F.A.C.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, _ COMMENTS
COUNTYPROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-2
MONROE
CONSISTENCY_ _ . *C. Ch. 380.0552 x e and Ch. 163, F.S.
The Department identifies the following objections, recommendations and comments to the
proposed amendment.
1. Future Land Use Element
i etl t Objective 101.4 - This objective is directedtoward regulating future development
and redevelopment to maintain and "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the
community and protect the,natural resources..." The objective lacks a specific, measurable,
intennediate end that is achievable ro ess toward a goal. The objective does not
define the phrase "flexibly guide the evolution of the character of the community;" therefore,
there is no measurable provision to determine achievement of the objective of flexibly guiding
e evolving community character. The proposed amendment is creating an internal
inconsistency t i the objective with the direction to both "maintain" the character of the
community and to flexibly "guide its evolution."
(Section l 3.3177(1), F..; Section 1 3.3177(6)(a), ., Section 1 3,3177(9)(e), .S,; Rule J-
5. 3(8 ), ..C.; Rule - . ), .C,; Rule - . 3)(b), . .
Recommendation: evise Objective 10 1.4 to either"maintain!' the character of the
community or to "guide its evo tion`' to address the internal inconsistency. objective
must include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and makes
progress toward the community chacter that the County envisions in its comprehensive
plan.
If Objective 101.4 and its associatedpolicies are revise to "maintain" acter of
the community, then the objective and policies need to identify the cou 'ties to be
maintained. Another objective and associatedpolicies can be established to guide the
"evolving communities" to achieve the Co i s desired outcome for these communities.
Objection Policy 101.4.5 - This policy relates to the Mixed Use/Commercial land use
category to allow retail and office uses "consistent with the evolving communitycharacter
and the natural environment." e policy is also directed to the "maintenance enhancement
of commercial fishing" other relate s "which support e fishing industry." As'with
Objective 101 e , the policyattempts o address two incompatible actions: maintain and enhance
commercial fishing and guide the evolving community character. The policy does not define the
p "evolving community charactercharacterand doesof provide meaningfuland predictable
standards and guidelines for making land use decisions consistent with the "evolving community
character" nor are there meaningful and predictable standards and guidelines toencourage "(e
maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing, and relatedtraditional water dependent
and water related uses.. 5a
(Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163. I77(6)(a), F.S., Section
163.3177( ), F.S.; Section 163.317°7(9)(f), F.S.; Rule 9J- .v (90), .A.C.; Rule -5. 5( )(a),
F. . ., Rule 9 - . t15 6 , .A. .; Rule - :fl f lj, .A. .; Rule 9J-5.006(3)(c), . . .
Recommendation: Revise Policy 1 1.4.5 to include the meaningful and predictable
standards and guidelines to guide the evolving community character to the outcome
desired and include a definition of the evolving community character or the desired
outcome or include the i eli e incentives that will be used to ensure the
maintenance and enhancement of commercial fishing. If the policy and Objective 101.4
will guide the development toward the "evolving community character," then `'evolving
community character" and the intended outcome needs to be defined.
'ect icy 101.4.6 - The policy lacks meaningful'and predictable standards because the
policy does not define what is considered "evolving water dependent and water related uses;"
and does not specify how affordable employee housing will he encouraged.
(Section 163.317 (1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S., Section 163.3177(6)(a), F.S., Section
103.3177(9)( , F.S.; Rule J-5,003(_ 0), . . r, Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.]
Recommendation: ev se Policy 1 1.4.5 to define the "evolving water dependent and
ate, related uses." Also, include specific guidelines or incentives that will be used to
encourage affordable and employee housing.
c•Policy 1 1..7 e County has proposed t n Policy 101.4.7 t include
language describing the Maritime Industries (MI) (zoning)
District within the Industrial re
land use category. The proposed amendment does provide criteria of where or how e MI
(zoning) District can be applied, and it relies upon document that exists outside e
Comprehensive Plan (i.e., Land Development Regulation ZoningMaps).
e proposed amendmentproposes an allocated densityof 8-12 dull • 5 rooms per acre and
a maximum et density of 1 - d 5 rooms per acre for the Maritime Industries (zoning)
District within the Industrial futureland use category. This proposed amendment is internally
inconsistent it olicy 101.4.2 1, the Future Land Use Densities and Intensities Table that
assigns the fikustri e land use category a density of rooms per acre and a
maximumnet density of 2 do per acre. Additionally, data and analysis was not provided to
evaluate the compatibility of the proposeddensity increase with the principal purpose of the
Industrial future land use category "ch is to provide for the development of industrial,
manufacturing,warehouse and distribution uses or with the purpose of the MI (zoning)
District `c is to establish conserve e suitable for water port uses, water -dependent
support ailitie maritime uses such ship it ing, ship repair and other ater
dependent manufacturing service uses. at analysis net providedto evaluate
e suitability oft e locations it the proposed densityincreases a 1 resources.
Data and analysis was not provided evaluatingpotential impacts to hurricane evacuation by
4
## a + a# # E 4#E r# #
.........E - +. # # _ • ' ,, # + # - E. # * . ... ♦. * ;. #
so
e proposed amendment states that "no development order for new residential uses or
structures shall be issued except for portions of the District unsuitable for dockage of
vessels." is language does not provide meaningful and predictable standards related to
determining the suitability of the location for the dockage of vessels or new residential uses.
The proposed amendment proposes to allow "dwelling unit allocations attributable to
houseboats transferable tout s." The proposal to transfer "dwelling it allocations
attributable to houseboat" is internally inconsistent with Policy 1 2.1.1 and 204.2.1 which
state that submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds and mangroves shall not be assigned
y density or intensity s well as Policy 1 1..21 which states that the allocated densities for
submerged bihds, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and that maximum
et densities bonuses shall not be available. Additionally, allocations attributable tc
houseboats appears internally inconsistt with Objective 101.5 and Policies 101.5.1,
101.5.2, and 101.5.4 which direct residential allocations to proposed dwellingis that
encourage a compact form ofresidential growth that results in i fill development in platted,
improved 'subdivisions and provide disincentives for locating well'units within coastal
`high floodData and analysis has not been provided to specify that houseboats
have been awarded residential dwelling unit allocations or that the density for these
structures is recognized under the Comprehensive Plan. Data and analysis has not been
submitted to demonstrate if any or how many houseboats have been awarded dwellingi
7
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.} Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(6)()2, F.S.; Section
16 .3177( ), F.,; Section 163.3177(9)(f), F.S., Section 163.3178(2)(b), (a), (d), (e), , (g), i)
and `), F.S.f Section 163.3 1x8(6), F.S., Rule 9J-5.003(8 ), F.A.C,; Rule 9J- .003( 0), F.A.C.;
Rule 9 -5. 05(2)(a), F.A.C.: Rule 9J-5.0 5(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5. 12(2) F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
. (3)(b) 1 ,2, 3, 5, 6 and 9. F.A.C., Rule 9J-5.612(3)(c) 1 , 6 and 9, F.A.C., Rule 9J-5.012(),
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Any policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in
the Marina Siting Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Flan is finalized, approved
and adopted into the Comprehensive Plan. The County can proposeother interim
protections and guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the Plan. The
County also n to provide to analysis todemonstratethat e County has
completed_ the marine facilities survey.
The County can adopt the 'Marina Shin Plan' by reference by identifying the title, date
and author of the document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
Ob'ectlon 6.- Objective2. - The Objective proposes deleting language t requires
County to complete an analysisoft e need or additional ina facilities. ata and analysis was
not submitted to indicate that the needs analysis was completed or if the study determined a need
for additional marina facilities. The proposed amendment defe the standards to be implemented
to the 'Marina Shin ' for the development of new `n the redevelopment and
expansion of current marine facilities. The Marina Siting1' of included as an
amendment in this package and has not een adopted by MonroeCounty.
The objective o s not meet the definition of an objective see Rule -5.6 3(82), F.A.C.]
because the objective lacks the specific, measurable, intermediate n at is achievable and
marks progress toward a goal. In' addition, the objective oes not define whats considered
maximum physicaladvantage" and "no unreasonable or excessive i p «..on marine
resources."
The objective lacks the specific, a le intermediate end that is achievable and marks
progress o d the goal of preserving and enhancingexisting commercial harbors capable of
accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean-going vessels, including
fervies, other paliaerifier vessels, cruisers ` vessels.
[Section 163.3177(l), F..; Section l . 177(9)(e), F..; Section 3.3178(2)(), (c), (), (e),
0), ( ), (i) and 6),F..; Section 63.31 (6), a, Rule J-5. 3( 2), F.A.C.; Rule J-
(2)( ), F.A.Q Rule 9 -5. 5( ), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5. 12( ), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5. 12(3)(b)1, 2,
3, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5. 12( ), .C.)
Recommendation: Submit data and analysis indicating e needs analysis for additional
marina facilities has beencompleted. The needs analysis is necessary in order to
determine if existing rin ill meet the needs of future demand. The County
7
revise the objective to include the language that directs the County to complete the survey
as well as language that directs the County to periodically date the survey to determine'
the future needs for additional marina facilities.
Revise {objective 2124 , as a policy [see Rule 9 -S. 03(9d}; F.A.C.j with specific and
meaningful standards to define "maximum physical advantage" "no unreasonable or
excessive impacts ... on ine resources." In addition, include anew Objective 212.4 that
includes a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable for ensuring the
protection of marine resources with the development of new marinas and the
redevelopment and expansion of current marine facilities
Include a specific, measurable, intermediate end that is achievable and makes progress
toward the preservation and enhancement of existing commercial harbors capable of
accommodating and servicing deep -draft vessels as well as ocean-going vessels,
including ferries, other passenger vessels, cruisers s in vessels in new Objective
212.4 or include a new ob active with associatedpolicies to address this issue.
e Marina Siting Planshould e included in the Plan when it is finalized and approved.
y policies proposed for deletion because they will be addressed in the MarinaSiting
Plan should remain until the Marina Siting Plan is adopted into the ComprehensivePlan.
e County can adopt the'Marina Siting Plan'y reference by identifying e title, date
d author oft e document and indicate clearly what provisions and edition of the
document is being adopted.
ObjectionIcy 212.4.2 - The amendment proposes to delete Policy 212. .2 which requires
Monroe County to complete a survey of all existing recreational and commercial marinas,
including, at a
1. number of wet and dry slips;
2. usage rates of wet and dry slips;
3. breakout of slips by boat size;
4. on -site amenities including ' the number of parking spaces;
. surrounding uses and any known or potential compatibility problems;
o. availability for public use, (recreational marinas only);
7. number of boat ramps provided and the boat lanes for each ramp;
8. condition of facilities,
9. existing DER -accepted doc nttion of water quality ends;
10. availability of pump -out facilities; and
11. potential for marina expansion according to siting criteria(See Policy 21..3.
The County as not provided any data and analysis to demonstrate that the County has
implemented this Policy. The Marina Sitingl does provide information ant e average
densities ofmarine facilities and boat ramps, the total number of marina facilities in the Florida
Keys and the types of marine facilities, however, the County has not provided sufficient data and
analysis to ensure that Policy 212..2 has beenentirely implemented. o of the Working
Waterfrontss do ter Plan was not submitted wit i amendment package. The
Review Working a tints Preservation Master Plan (dated, 2 7 on Monroe
8
� � � � � • M
�, i
Recommendation: The County should retain Policy 212,43 until the Marina Siting l
is adopted into the Comprehensive Plan and revise the policy to include meaningful an
predictable standards forensuring the protection of natural resources with the
development andthe redevelopment ofmarine facilities; These standards can be interim
guidelines until the Marina Siting Plan is finalized, approved and adopted into the
Comprehensive Plan with criteria as good or better than the criteria specified in Policy
212.4.3 for the siting of marmas.
The County can adopt the 'M`na Siting Plan- by reference by identifying the title, date
and author of the document and indicate clearly- what provisions and edition oft e
document is eing optede
ObjectionPolicy 1 . - The proposed amendment renumbers this policy to 212.4.1, The
proposed d e t states that "applicants for development approval of marinas with t (3)
or more slips, other than in existing rs located in the Maritime Industries)
District, shall meet the following: 1. Monroe County's marina siting criteria set forth in the
Monroe County Marina Siting_ 2. Monroe oun ' dock siting criteria." This is
inconsistent witjective 212.4 which states `' 10 oe County shall adhere to criteria set forth
in the Marina Siting Plan fort e development of new marinas and the redevelopment and
expansion ofcurrent marine facilities." This policy does not provide meaningful and predictable
standards for exempting mar' in the Maritime Industries district from the Marina Siting Plan
or include eani t and predictable standards for developing marinas within the Maritime
Industries district. This amendment is also inconsistent with Policy' 12.5.4 which establishes
restrictions that apply to all structures built over or adjacent to water, such restrictions' on the
maximumi length of docks and the percent of the navigable portionof a man-made
waterbody that must remain ee from obstruction. 's policy does not provide meaningful and
predictable standards for exempting a° in the Maritime Industries district from the dock
siting criteria or meaningful and predictable standards for developing n within e
Maritime Industries district.
(Section 163.3177(l), F..; Section 1 3.317"7(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177( ), .S.; Section
163.3177(9)() and'( , F..; Section 63.317 (2)(b), (c), (), (e), , ), (i) and 6), F..;
Section 1 3.317 (6), F..; Rule 9J-5. 3(9 ), .C,, Rule J-5.005(2)(a), .C.; Rule J-
5.0 5( ), F. .C., Rule 9J-5.1 (2) F. .C., Rule -5. 12(3)(b)1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, F. .C., Rule 91-
5.1(4), F, .C.
Recommendation: Address the internal inconsistencies with the Comprehensive Plan and
revise the policy to delete the reference to the Marina Siting Plan retain the reference
to Policy 212..3 until the Marina Siting1 is finalized, approved and adoptedinto the
Comprehensive Plan. Provide data and analysisto support ti in the
Maritime Industries district frome Marina Siting dock siting criteria.. Revise
e policy to include 1predictable standardsfor thedevelopment of
marinas within the MI District.
The Marina Siting Planshould be included in the Plan whenit is finalized and approved.
y policies proposedor deletion because they will be addressed in the Marina Siting
1
Recommendation: Revise Goal 219 to establish is the long-term n toward which
programs or activities are ultimately directed and accomplished "flexibly bl c ` ]
the protection of recreational and commercial working waterfronts with the provisionof
II
water -related recreational activities and the preservation of coastal and natural resources
as well as evolving local and regional land use needs."
Objection 12: Policy 219.1.1 -- The County has proposed adding Policy 219.1.1. The policy
laths meaningful and predictable standards because the policy does not define what is to be
considered "evolving community character," ``public values" or the "evolving local and regional
interests and needs." Item 6 in this Policy, allows public access and the creation of public spaces
in the redevelopment of marine facilities "subject to reasonable limits" but does not include
guidelines for determining "re onable limits." Also, item 7 in this Police. provides for variances
to b anted to enable traditional uses an uses compatible withthe evolving local and regional
interests and needs within the Maritime ustris District, Commercial Fishing'Area District,
Commercial Fishing Village District and the Commercial Fishing Special District but does not
includemeaningful and predictable standards for determining what e the "traditional
uses...uses compatible with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type
ofvariances will be granted or what criteria ill be utilized to grant variant
[Section 163.3177(l ), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)( ), F.S.; Section 163.3177( ), F.S.; Section
163. 177(9)(, ..S., Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), () (e), , (g), (i) and 6), F.S.; Section
163.317 ; F.S.; Rule 9 -5.003(90), .Cr, Rule -5. 5 ra , F. .C.Rule -5. 5 ,
C., Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C;; Rule -5.012(3)(b) 1 ,2 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C., Rule 9J-5 012( ),
F. .C.
Recommendation: evi e Policy 21 .1.1 to define the "evolving co unity character,"
"public values" and the "evolving local and regional interests and needs.' Include
guidelines for applying "reasonable limits" on public access and the creation of public
spaces in the redevelopment of marine facilities. Also, include meaningful
predictable standards for determining what are't "traditional uses... and uses compatible
with the evolving local and regional interests and needs," what type of variances will be
granted or what criteria will be utilized to grant the variances.
'ecti icy 219.1.2 - The County has proposed adding olicy 219.1.2 that identifies
strategies to Mprotect and enhance recreational and commercial working waterfronts. The Policy
further directs the County to "include all land as definedChapter 380, FloridaStatutes,
including l utilized portfaci i i "to calculate densities intensities within Maritime
Industries (zoning) District.
Chapter 3 .31(, Florida Statutes, defines 11 "the earth, water, and air above, below, or on
e surface, includes y improvements or structures customarily regarded land." is
approach is internally inconsistent it ,the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan as it includes
submerged lands in the calculation of densities and intensities. olic 1 1.4.21 states the
allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangrovesshall be 0.
Furthermore, Policies 102.1.1 and 204.2,1 state that submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater
ponds, and mangrovesshall not be assignedy density or intensity.
(Section l 3.3177(l ), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), .1 Section 1 3.3177(8), F.S.; Section
163.3 77( , F.S., Section 163.317 (2)(b), (c), ), (e), ( , ( ), (i) and ), F.S.; Section
12
163+3178(6), F.S., Rule 9 -5. 03(9 ), F.A.C., Rule 9J-5.005(2)(a), F.A.C., Rule 9J-5.0 5(6),
F.A.C.; Rule 9-5.012(2) F.A. .; Rule 9J-5.012( )() 1 , , 5, 6 and 9, F.A. .a Rule 9J-5.0 2( ),
F.A.C.]
13
[Section 163.3177(l); F.S.; Section 13.3177(5)(b) F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S.; Section
1613177( )(e), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)( ), (c). (d), (e), (0, (g), (i) and 0), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.003(82), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5. 05(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5. (2)(g),
F.A.C; Rule 9J-5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9-5.012(2) . F.A.C.; Rule J-5.012(3)() 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and
9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012( ), F.A.C.)
Recommendation. Include a policy with meaningful and predictable standards that
defines how the County will achieve no net losses of working waterfronts within each
geographic area [e.g. within the same ROGO sub -area, between ROGO sub -areas, within
or adjacent to Tier I (Natural )car Special Protection Areas].
2blection 1Objective 1. l ..1-- The County proposes adding Objective
219.6'to ensure an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating
access to marine and coastal waters. The Objective does not provide i ce for at is
considered "an adequate stock of Commercial, Recreational and Publicly owned boating access."
Furthermore, this Objective relies on Policy 219.6.16 to ensure an adequate stock of
Commercial, Recreational'and Publicly owned 'boating access, but Policy 219.6.1, the only
associated policy with this objective, does not include meaningful guidelines to achieve the
objective. The Policy states that the County "may" establish acquisition program and the
County "may" establish a fund for acquiring lands.
[Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 1 3.3177(5)( ), F.S.; Section 163.3177( )2, F.S.; Section
163.3 77( )( , F.S.; Section 163 3178(2)( ), .S.; Rule 9J-5.003( ), F.A.C.; le J-
5> 3( ), F.A.C.; Rule 9 5.005(6), F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(3)()1 ,2, , _ 9, F.A.C.; Rule 9J-
5. 12(3)(c) I and 9, .C.
Recommendation: i to provide guidelines for what is "an adequate stock of
Commercial, e r ati a ublicly owned boating access" and include a policy with
meaningful d predictable standards that define how this "stock" will be achieved.
"ec on 18: Policy 219.8.1-- The County proposes adding Policy 219.8.1 to provide land use
bonuses to encourage the development of commercial, recreational and publicaccess uses. This
amendment presents various s of potentialuses (increased Fincreased number of
slips, parking variances, increased ea for water-relateuses,car other measure of 1 use
intensity) but does not providemeaningful predictable standards for assigning or awarding
the bonuses and it does not establish the increases in densityintensity that will be granted.
(Section 163.3177(1), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), .S.; Section 163.3177(8), .; Section
163.31 ()( , F.S.; Section. 1 3.317 (2)(b), (c), ( ), (e), 0), ( ), (i) and °), F.S.; Section
163.3178(6), F'.., Rule 9J-5.003(90), F..; Rule 9 - . 5 2 a), F.A.C.; Rule J-5. £),
F.A.C.; Rule 9J-5.012(2) F.A.C.; Rule J-.01 (3)() 1 2, 5, 6 and 9, F.A.C.- Rule 9J-5.012(4),
F.A.C.]
Recommendation: is the Policy to establish in 1 and predictable standards for
assigning or awarding land use bonuses and establish e increases in density
1
Revise Policy 219.9.1 to include meaningful and predictable standards to guide the
development efrecreational and commercial working waterfronts. These standards can
e established interim t ds until the Design Guidelines and Development
Standards r o the Comprehensive Plan.
CountyThe can adopt the DesignGuidelines ever t Standards by reference by
identifying e title, date and author oft e document and indicate clearly t provisions
and edition of the document is being adopted.
1
ection 20: Policy 219.9.1 & Policy 219.11.1 — The County proposes adding Policy 219.9.1
to consider establishing a working waterfront overlay district and, when appropriate, establish
design guidelines and development standards in the land development regulations. Additionally,
the County proposes adding Policy 219.11.1 to protect the public's view oft e w terfro t by
enforcing setbacks, height restrictions, etc as set forth in the Design Guidelines and Development
Standards. This creates an internal inconsistency s policy 219.11.1 is dependent can Policy
319.9.1 which may or may not be implemented by the County.
[Section 163.317 (l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 163.3177(8), F.S., Section
163.3177(9)(b) and (f), F.S.; Section 163.3178(2)(b), (c), (_ ), (e), ( , (g) (i) and 6), .S.;
Section 16 .317 (6), F.S.; Rule 9J-5.E10(( 2), .A.. ., Rule 9J-5. 03(9 , .A.C.; Rule 9 -
5.005(2)(a), F.A.C.; Rule -5.005(5)( , F.A'. .; Rule J- . {} } F.A.C., Rule 9J-5.012(2)
F.A.Cs le J-5. 12(3)() 1 ,2, 5, 6 and 9, .A.C.; Rule -5. 12( ), '.A.C.)
Reconinten tion: Revise Policy 219.9.1 to ensure the development of the design
guidelines. The County should specify when the design guidelines will be completed, or
if need be, provide' a schedule fort e completion oft e design guidelines. The County
should develop additionaVinterim guidelines to promote traditional maritime activities
and protect thepublic's view of the waterfront until the design guidelines are completed
d adopted into the Comprehensive Plan.
e County can adopt esi Guidelines and Development Standards by reference by
identifying the title, date and author of the document and indicate clearly whotprovisions,
and edition of the document is being adopted.
1. Marina Siting
Objection1: The Marina Siting —The Marina Siting Planis inconsistent with proposed
amendment as it refers to Policies 212::1 and 212.4.3 in the Comprehensive Plan that are
proposed to be deleted and refers to Policy 212..7 which is proposed e renumbered
21:.
e 'Marina Siting Plan' includes the Marina Site Suitability Maps that depict several coastal
islands from North Key Largo to Key West as conditional areas for marinas, This is inconsistent
with Comprehensive Plan Policy102.7.2 whis directs the County to restrict the activities
permitted on o s ore islands, for example marinas are not to be permitted on offshore islands.
The Marina Site Suitability Maps are also inconsistent with Comprehensive Plan Policy 1 2..2
whichstates Monroe County shall not create new access via new bridges, new causeways, new
paved roads or new commercial mar`n to or on units oft e Coastal Bander Resources System
(C )e
[Section 163.3177(l), F.S.; Section 163.3177(5)(b), F.S.; Section 1 3.3177( )( )2; F.S.; Section
163.317 (2)( ), ) (c), (), (1), (g), (i) and 6), F.S., Section 163: 7 (6) .; Rule J-5.0 5(6),
F. .Ca; Rule -5. 1 O, )
16
Recommendation: Revise the Marina Siting Plan to address the inconsistencies with the
Comprehensive Plan.
Additionally, the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (F UC) provides
the following recommendations- F C recommends that the Marina Siting Plan e revised to
address the protective treasures that would have been provided by following Policies 212.4.1
through 212.4.3 before including it by reference into the comprehensive plan and that it is
premature to rely on the F C management plan for manatees within the Marina Siting Plan
because the it has not been approved by the FWC Commissioners.
The Department of Environmental Protection also offers recommendations: Section 1 -
21.0041(1)(b) , F.A.C., should be referenced in the Marina Siting Plan and cited in appropriate
locations throughout the document, such as on page 10 under State Regulations and on page 3
under Site Suitability Analysis. Also, the Site Suitability Zones listed on pages 13.and the
Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional Zones described on pages 0-1 should e revised to
reflect this regulation. In addition, the Department suggests at Monroe County Code subsection
.5-34( )(5) may require revision, because it implies that a marina on sovereign submerged
lands can be built over a benthic community.
As stated under the State Regulation section on page 1 l of the Marina Siting Plan, most
Monroe County waters are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OF ). Accordingly,
Subsection 373.414(l), .S., should also be referenced in that section of the Marina Siting Plan,
since activities in OFWs are required to meet higher water quality standards. The references
contained in the Federal Regulation section 4-6) should l verified. For example, although
the State Programmatic General Permit ( ) was listed., Monroe County is specifically
excluded use that reference should be deleted.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
e proposed amendments are not consistent with the following Principles for Guiding
Development, ection 380. 552(7), Florida Statute:
Principle (a) To strengthen local government capabilities for managing land use and
development so that local government is able to achieve these objectives without the
continuation of the area of critical state concern designation.
Principle ) To protect shoreline and marineresources, including oves, coral reef
formation.s, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish wildlife, and their habitat.
Principle(c) To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater
wetlands, native tropical e etation (for example, hardwood hammocksinel ds), dune
ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
Principle (a) To limit the adverse iacts of development on the quality of waterthroughout
the Florida Keys.
17
Principle (0 To enhance natural scenic resources, promote the aesthetic benefits of the
natural environment, and ensure that development is compatible with the unique historic
character of the Florida Keys.
Principle (a) To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys,
Principle (l) To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Florida
Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource;
"These Principles for Guiding Development inconsistencies can be resolved by addressing the
objections stated above:
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE i
PREHENSIVE PLAN
e proposed amendments are not consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 187,
Florida Statute, including the following oats and policies
Goal (6) Public Safety, Policies ) 22 and 23. Require local governments, in cooperation
with regional and state agencies, to prepare advance 1 s for the safe evacuation of
coastal residents; and require local governments, in cooperation with regional and state
agencies, to adopt plans and policies to protect public and private property and human
lives from the effects of natural disasters. This requirement relates to Objection 4.
Goal 7) Water Resources,Policies ) 5 and 13: Ensure that new development i
compatible with existing local and regional water supplies and identify d develop
alternative et o of wastewater treatment, disposal, and reuse of wastewater to reduce
degradation of water resources. This requirement relates to Objection 4.
Goal 8) Coastal and MarineResources, Policies (b) 4, 6, and 10: Protect coastal
resources, marine resources, and dune systems from the adverse effects of development;
encourage land and water uses which are compatible with the protection of sensitive
coastal resources; and give priority in marine development to water -dependent us over
other uses, This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 1.
Goal (9)'Natural Systems Recreational Lands, Policies ) 1, 2, 3, 4 and 7: Conserve
forests, wetlands, fish, marine life, and wildlife to maintain their environmental,
economic, aesthetic, and recreational values; acquire, retain, manage, and inventory
public lands to provide recreation, conservation, and related public benefits; prohibit the
destruction oendangered species and protecttheir habitats; and protect and restore the
ecological functions of wetlands systems to ensure their long-term iro 1,
economic, and recreational value. This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 1.
o 15) Land use, Policy): Consider, in land use planning and regulation, e
impact of land use on waterquality d quantity-, the availability of land, water, and other
1
natural resources to meet demands; and the potential for flooding. This requirement
relates to Objection 4, 5, 6, 8, 9, 10, 12, 16, and 18.
Goal (19) Transportation, Policies b) 5; Ensure that existing port facilities an
airports are being used to the maximum extent possible before encouraging the
expansion or development of new port facilities and airports to support economic
growth. This requirement relates to Objection 4, 9, 10, and 18,
Goal (25) Plan Implementation, Policies ) 2, 5 : Ensure that every level o
government has the appropriate operational authority to implement the policy
directives established in the plan; establish effective monitoring, incentive, and
enforcement capabilities to see that the requirements established by regulatory
programs aremet; and ensure the development of strategic regional policy plants
and local plans that implement cc tely reflect state goals and policies and
that address problems, issues, and conditions that are of particular concern in a
region. This requirement relates to Objections 1 through 1
These State Comprehensive Plan issues can be resolved by addressing the objections stated
above.
s�South
FloridaR
Regional�
Planning4<
Council
MEMORANDUM
AGENDA ITEM F6d
DATE: NOVEMBER 5, 200
TO: COUNCIL MEi 1 BESS
FROM: STAFF
SUBJECT: O COUNTY PROPOSED COJPREHENSFVE PLAN AMENDMENT
Introduction
On September 25,2007 Council staff received proposed amendment package #07-2 to the Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan for review of consistency with the Strategic Regional Policy Plait for Soulk
Florida (SRPW. Staff review is undertaken pursuant to the Local Government Comprehensive Planning
and Land Development Regulation Act, Chapter 165, Part 11, Florida Statutes (.S.), and Rules 9J-5 and 9J-
1, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.).
CommmaiMProfile
MonroeCounty. incorporated 1824, is the southernmost county in e State of Florida. The Co
unty
consists of a mainland portion (72 squaremiles) bordered by Collier County to the north and Miami -
Dade County to the east, and an archipelago, known as the Plorida Keys, extending from northeast to
southwest for 120 miles (102 squaremiles), and separating the Gulf xico fro tlantic e
The mainland portion is occupied by EvergladesNational Park ig Cy less National Preserve ,s
an
virtuallyuninhabited,According to # Bureau f Ec c "c and Business Research, the unincorporated
portion of Monroe County had population of 36,466 in 2006, an approximately 1. % increase
population since 2000. The economy of Monroe County is based on tourism, fishing, retirees, and
the
military.
Monroe Coun 's growth is constrained y a number of characteristics. The vast majority of the Co
unty
is environmentally sensitive, comprised of mangrove wetlands, tropical hardwood hammocks,
rare:.
d endangered species habitats, with world-renowned coral reefs offshore. With one main highway
serving the entire population, traffic is a concern, particularly during hurricane evacuations. Lack of
adequate infrastructure for stor water and wastewater magnifies the effects of population growth on
nearshore coastal waters. The desirability of the County as a place to time and the limited amount of
'developable land have made land costs prohibitively expensive, leading to shortages of affordable
housing and adequate school sites. With infrastructure and the environment showing signs of stress and
over 10,000 undeveloped platted lots, most of the Florida Keys has been designated Area of Critical
State Concern, under Chapter 0.9, Florida Statutes.
Additional information regarding the County or the region may be found on the Cou cil's website;
s,°wry sf c.com.
3440 Hollywood oul v rd. Suite 140, Hollywood, Florida 33021
reward (9 ) 9 5 1B, Area Codes 5, and 61 (8 ) 985- 1
unCom 473- 1 , FAX f 19 5 17. Stand' FAY 1-AA 17
S- um a ° of -StaffAnalysis
Proposed amendment package 0 -2 would revise 40 goals, objectivesand polices in the Future Land C.'w
and Conservation and Coastal I'vlanagement Elements of the Monroe County Yeir2olo Comprehensive
Plan regarding recreational and commercial working watrfronts. The general location of the Count)' is
exhibited &; Attachment 2.
The purpose of the Monroe County Working Waterfronts Program is to implement, the relevant
provisions of Chapter 2003-157 and Chapter 2 -;20 of the Laws of Florida, More specifically, the
purpose is to protect and promote Nlonroe County°s recreational and commercial working waterfronts;
protect and improve commercial, recreational and public access to the shorelines and the waters of
Monroe County; preserve, protect and enhance e cultural heritage and physical character of the area as
a working waterfront community; and enhance the aesthetic character of the area by directing
development in a er that maintains the working waterfront identity of the County.
Monroe County is experiencing e loss of recreational and commercial working waterfronts and the loss
of public access to the water due to the redevelopment of marine facilities, including, but not limited to
marinas, otr s, wet and dry storage, fish pauses and commercial fishing vessel dockage, at
an
unprecedented rate. The County feels that it is ` important to preserve an acceptable level of working
waterfront while still allowing an appropriate mix of water dependent and non -water dependent s°
Fundamental elements of working waterfronts should be preserved to ensure that the ongoing need for
working waterfronts is not exacerbated by non -water dependent development or redevelopment of water
dependent facilities currently provided in rous land use districts and distributed throughout the
County.
In order to address these issues, the proposed amendment would amend existing goals, objectives an
policies and would add new goals, objectives and policies in the Future Land Use and Conservation
Coastal Management Elements of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
According to the October 3, 2007 letter from e G. Trivette, Monroe County vision Director
of
Growth Management, the proposed amendment is supported by the data and analysis
and
recommendations of the "Monroe County Working Waterfronts Preservation piaster Plan" d the
"Monroe ty Marina Siting ".
Old
le-dion
e proposed amendments to 40 goals, objectives olicies in the FutureUse
and
Conservation and Coastal Management Elementsof the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive
Plan are not clear, contain vague language, are not consistent with the cited documents("Monroe
County Workinger oats Preservation MasterPlan" and the "Monroe County Marina Siting
Plan") additional supporting dat and analysis not been provided to support the a a t .
r e_ _ lei
a.objective 101.4 requires the County to regulate future evelo e t and redevelopment to
maintain the character of the community and protect the natural resources. The objective would
amended to maintam"and flexibly guide the evolution of a t e character oft the community and protect
the natural resources. However, the amendment is vague, no policies have been included to
implement the policy, no data and analysis has been included to support the amendment.
1 it is not clear why in Policy101.4.5 "permanent residential development". other than employee
housing and commercial apartments, are being permitted.at and analysis have not been included
to support the aen a t.
cl It is not clear in Policy 101..7 how natural resources would be protected and areas suitable for
water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, maritime uses, and other water dependent
manufacturingand service uses would be conserved if residential (up to 18 dwelling unitsf25 rooms
per acre) and commercial facilities, such as Public lodging establishments, are permitted in the
"Maritime Industries Distinct." It is also not clear how the residential and commercial facilities
would be compatible with the industrial and maritime uses permitted in the land use category or if
adequate public faculties and services exist to supper# the residential and commercial uses:
dl Policy 219.1.1 contains vague language and it is not clear how the policy will be implemented.
Until tee issues are resolved, the proposed amendment ac a is incompatible with the goals a nd
policies the Strategic Regional olicy Wanfor South Florida (S P), particularly wit the following
goal and policies -
Coal 4 Enhance the economic and environmental sustainability of the Region by ensuring e
adequacy of its public facilities and services.
Policy e3 Utilize the existing infrastructure capacity of regional facilities tote maximum extent
consistent wi lice le level of service (L Si standards before encouraging t
he
expansion of facilities or the development of new capacity.
Coal 11 Encourage and supportthe implementation f development proposals that conserve
the e io 's natural resources, rural and agricultural lands, green infrast tct i
• utilize existingan planned infrastructure i urban areas;
• enhance the utilization of regional transportation systems,
• incorporate mixed -land use developments,
• recycle existing developed sites; an
• provide forte preservation of historic sites;
Policy 11.10 Decisions regarding the location, rate, and intensity of proposeddevelopment shall be
based on the existing r programmed capacity f infrastructure and supportservices
or
on capacity which will be programmed to serve that proposed development; in
addition, consideration should be given tote impact of infrastructure and support
services on natural resources.
COAL 20 Achieve long-term efficient sustainable development patterns that protect natural
resources and connect diverse housing,transportation, education, and employment
opportunities.
Policy 20.2 Guide new development and redevelopment within the Region to areas which
most intrinsically suited for development, including areas:
a. which are least exposed to coastal storm surges;
b. ere negative impacts on the natural environment will be minimal; and
c. where public facilities and services already exist, are programmed or, on an
aggregate a is, can be providedmost economically.
Recommendation
Council staff recommends that the amendments to the Future Land Usea Conservation and Coastal
Management Elements oft the Momme County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan be revised to eliminate
vague language, o be consistent with "Monme County Working Waterfronts Preservation Master
Plan" and the "Monroe County Marma Siting Plan" and additional supporting dato and analysis be
provided to support the aen nts,
Staff o iti continue to work with that County staff throughout the amendment Process.
The Moneec County Board of County Commissioners approved the transmittal of the amendment fur
r,_.. ivo by the Florida Department of Cornmunity Affairs by unanimous vote at its September 19, 200
County 6rr mission meeting.
I ecornmjndafion
Find proposed amendment package ##07-2 to the Monme County Year2010 Comprehensive flan to he
generally inconsistent with the Strategic Regional ,Policy .flare for South Florida, particularly with
Goals 4, 11 and 20, and Policies 4. , 11.10, and 20.2. Approve this staff report for transmittal to the
Florida Department of Community Affairs.
Attachment
El
- - - --------- - --
5 S T5 1i35t72t}22573ti353575t}:S�S
COMPREHENSIVEL
General Location eta
Monroe County
Pro"d Amendment 07-2
tart: a DEr, 5FIV*01?. Nfonrtv Cage,n#c: S RIV.
Note: Fear lags n€ng Ur " s ooly. All dj,rjnr`K trc � arc �.eat�l�a.
#i
Florida Department of
Environmental Protection
[FLOR l rjory Stoneman Douglas Building
3900 Commonwealth Boulevard
Tallahassee. Florida 3 3 -; 000
November 14, 2007
lr: D. Ray Eubanks
Bureau of Local Planning
Department of Community fair
555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida32399-2100
e. Monroe County ComprehensivePlan
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
e Office of Intergovernmental Pro a of the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection (Department) has reviewed the above -captioned pack e of proposed
comprehensive l e ents submitted o oe Con (County), under the
required provisions of Chapter , Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.), and Caters 9J-5 and
-11, Florida Administrative Code (F.A"C"). The Department provides the following
cornments and recommendations to assist your agency evelo i e s te's response
to the proposed _ amendment.
OVERVIEW
e transmittal package includes policy modifications related to the recreational, com-
mercial d working waterfrontsportions of the Future Land Use, Conservation and
Coastal a e t Elements of the Monroe County 201Comprehensive lan. The
County ro o s the addition of a new riti Industries I) district to the Con '
existing InduslWal land use category, it es to various policies intended to
establish conserve waterfront areas for maritime uses. Although the Department
generally supports the intention expressed by the County, several concerns must be
addressed.
e County failed to provide the
Department
e a e t °t adequate data and analysis on the
potential resource impacts that creation of the new land use district will engender.
Among other things, the amendment establishes a new district that allows high -density
development, exempts e marinas from e requirements o the o County
MarinaSitingl , and refers to a policy in the MSP that it proposes to delete.
. Alore Prosecsr`crrr, Less Process
wiriv.r ep.stare jl.rrs
• .Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Arlo %oe County 07-
November 14, 007
Page 2 of 7
1 sus r®..ifr��#xii�rsa�rr..
Policy 101.4.5
.
According to the Support Data and analysis submitted, the purpose oft e proposed
amendment is to "maintain and enhance the conmiercial fishing activities within the
Mixed Use/Commercial land use category." The proposed policy revision would add
the word "evolving" to the description of the ct.ci `ty character, which contradicts
the stated purpose of' maintaining and enhancing commercial fishing activities. The
proposed amendment ould also add the following rl` a"Employee
housingand commercial apartments are also permitted, along.withother permanent
residential development. coMgAAble with the `x of uses allowed." The Department
does not believe that the addition of permanent residential dever ent will maintain
or enhance e aunty's commercial fishing industry. ause the proposed text would
allow all categories of residential evelo e t within the district, it would crease
econonric pressure on current commercial fishing enterprises to sell out and make way
for large residential structures, thus undermining attempts to preserve and enhance
working ater on . The Department therefore recommends that the added text
(including the word "evolving'") be deletedfrom the proposedpolicy.
POILCY.101: 7
e County seeks to add a Maritime Industries district to the existing Industrial land
use category. The stated rose of the new district is "to establish and conserve areas
suitable for water port uses, water -dependent support facilities, and maritime uses such
as ship building,ship repair and other water dependent manufacturing and service
uses." While the stated purpose of the new district is acceptable, several components of
the proposal are problematic. No supporting data and analysis was subrnitted upon
whichthe Department could base an analysis of the proposed text. The new liar
language also promotes high -density residential development in environmentally
sensitive areas, and allowssupportive workforce housing in offsite areas. The proposed
density for the MI district i -1du/acre or 10-15 rooms/acre), which is comparable to
e Residential High category in the o 's comprehensive pl e amendment
contained no infunnation on the general areas of the County that may qualify for the
new designation. Also, while the policy states that "no development order for new
residential uses or structures shall be issued e ce t for Rortions of'the MI District
unsuitable for dockage of vessels " the language provides no details about who would
make e suitability dete `o and the criteria upon which that determination
would made.
Other parts of the policy contain vague or contradictory statements. e Support to
and Analysis subn-dtted withthe amendment states that the intent of Policy 101.4.7 "'is
..Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe oe County 0 -2
November 14, 2007
Page 3 of 7
to clarify that the MI land use district's mair purpose is to establish and conserve areas
for maritime uses, including employee housing."' The proposal would, however, allow
high -density "public lodging establishments," which contradicts the intent of the policN
and allows a huge loophole for new hotel/motel development. Other provisions in the
policy, such as" d wellin unit allocations attributable to houseboats shall be transfer-
able to uplands[,]" create additional questions. How many units could be transferred
under thatprovision? Could uplands located anywhere in the County receive'those
transferred density credits? What protection measures are in place toensure that only
existing houseboats receive the density transfer?
If adopted, Policy : ,7 ,.vill allow more high -density residential evelb ent along
the waterfronts of the Florida Keys. In addition to increasing u icane evacuation
times, implementation of the ro ose licy could exacerbate existing water quality
problems. ecent studies have identified nears ore water quality ro l in Monroe
County. In a comprehensive 1999 report entitled Wa er Quality Concerns in the Florida
Keys:: Sources, Effects,rind Solutions, William L. Kruczynski states:
Historically, development in the Keys relied n the use of cesepits
septic tanks which provide little treatment of domestic wastewater i
porous lime rock substrates. In addition, to ater untreated
into neore surface waters. _Lack of nutrient removal from _ domestic
wastewater d stormwater has resulted in the addition of nutrient -rich
waste waters : to confined tr adjacent nearshore areas. The
cumulative effects of these dischargesled to waterquality degra-
dation io of these inshore areas.
y allowing the development of high -density residential development withinthe MI
district, Policy 1 1.4.7 avoids application of important environmental rot tits
measures to waterfront development.
Objective 212-4
Revised .ec `ve Policy 212.4 states that "'Monroe Con l adhere to criteria set
forthin the MarinE SitinLP1an.JMSPfor the development of new marinas and the
re ey ld e t a etc io of c e facilities."" o further identification of
t intended siting Ian is o to ` the proposed amendment, and the MSP wasnot
appendedto or adopted by reference in the amendment. Because the MSP was not
c "s white paper, prepared underis o "National
Marine Sanctuary's Water Quality Protection o , c foundt o c b
site at on s.inoaa. o—v r ear' c .td . to a er<
. a lr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe County 07-2
November 14, 2007
Page 4 of 7
clearly identified in the amendment and has not been adopted into the County's com-
prehensive plan, it can be changed t any time by the Board of County Co lssioners
without going through the comprehensive plan amendment process. The Department
is therefore concerned that significant changes can be made to the MSP without review
y state and regional agencies. The Department recommends that the MSP or other
marina siting criteria be adopted into the County s comprehensive plan..
Department nt staff also notes that the latest draft of the Aril 2 0 es several
references to Policy 212.4.3, which woulddeleted by the proposed amendment. The
Department encourages the County to either retain all policies referenced in the IVISP or
revise the MSP sot ere are no conflicts or on-dssions between the two documents,
lc
Proposed Poi 212.4.1 provides that "a] pplicants fordevelopment a coal of
marinasit 3 or ore slips, other than Ain existing arbors located in
1 District, shall meet t e following: 1. Monroe oun 's marina siting criteria set
forth in the Monroe Coun!y Marina Siftylan This provision will exemptmarinas
in an MI districtfro the MSP siting criteria, even though ve 212.4 states that
"Monroe u shall adhere to criteria set forth in the Marina Sitiffgran for the
devel2pment of,new a° the redevelogment and miggnsion of current e
facilities."
Exempting new or expanded marinas located an MI district from ari siting
criteria is highly inappropriate, since the proposed amendment deletes nearly all of the
o 's current siting ui e e is(Policies 212..1,' 1 .. , 212..3, and 212.4.6), and
the County just invested a great deal of time and money to create a siting lan that
would potect the County'County's fragile and valuable natural eso re. Additionally, no
supporting atanalysis s provided to suggest the areas that ought qualify for
the exemption or the environmental impacts that could result from application of the
exemption, such as degradation of the nears ore water quality. The Department cannot
support e changes contained ro osePolicy 212.4.1 and strongly recommends
that the Countyremove the revisions o' the proposede e t.
e o 's proposal toencourage e ` p s of development along waterfront
areasis vague, lacks adequate definitions or standards, l lea to increased
development - l conjunctioni the on s adoption of the MI district.
Policy 1 ..states:
Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
Monroe o ty 7-
November 14, 2y
Page 5 of
The Countv shall orovide land -use bonuses to enco r develo ent that
provides Commercialrea ion art Public Access to e shorelines and
waters of Monroe County. These bonuses rnU_jM&anted in the form of
increased FAR ed of slis irking variances increased area
for water -related uses,,or other measure of land use intensityappropriate to
Renmitted uses on the arse spro need for development.
This policy would encourage more intense development along the shorelines and
waters of Monroe County, thereby leading to increased impacts on the surrounding
waters. No data or calculations were provided with regard to the amount of increases
in intensity t could result from the bonuses. The Department believes Policy 219.8.1
is unnecessary strongly recommends that the County remove the proposed policy
from the subtruttal.
Maripg§1
Since the MSP is widely referenced and its criteria relied on heavily in the proposed
amendments, Department staff has reviewed the Aprilr ent and offers
e following surmounts.
Section1. 1l , . .C., states as follows:
No application to lease state owned sovereignty submerged lands for the
purpose of providing multi-slipfacilities shall be considered for
approval unfess, there are no benthic co u ° 'es present where the boat
mooringea, turning basins, mooring piles or other structures are to be
located, excepting ° access docks required to cross et `c com-
munities °es to reach c to le areas. This shall not preclude them from
applying for consent to use state owned submerged lands for the purpose
f using the ruirrimum amount necessary to obtain reasonable ingress
egress.
Multi -slip e defined as three or more slips, and benthic conammities includes
seagress, beds, hard and soft corals or sponges. i rule should referenced in the
RISP and cited in appropriate locations throughout the document, such on page 10
under State Regulations and on under Site Suitability Analysis.so, the Site
Suitability Zones listed on pages13 and the Exclusionary, Preferred and Conditional
Zones described on pages 4041 should revised to reflect this regulation. In addition,
e Department suggests that Monroe Countye subsection . 5 y
require revision, because it implies that s marina on sovereign submerged lands can be
built over a benthic community.
r. D. Ray Eubanks
MonroeCounty -
November 14,2007
Page 6 of
As stated under the State Regulation section on page 11 of the MSP, most Monroe
County waters are classified as Outstanding Florida Waters (OF . Accordingly,
Subsection 373: 1 1 ; F.S., should also be referenced in that section of the MSP, since
activities in OFWs are required to meet f d her water quality standards. The references
contained in the .Federal Regulation section (-6) should also be verified. For example,
although the State Programmatic General Per `t P as listed, Monroe County is
specifically excluded from the FPCP. Thus, that reference should be deleted.
The MSP references the North Carolina Waterfront Access Study Committee Final
Report on page 49. The Department can not comment as to its applicability to the MSP,
however, since the report was not included in the submittal package. Finally, the maps
included in the MSP depict several coastal islands from NorthKey Largo to Key West
as conditional areas for marinas. If those sites remain s conditional marina locations,
,,
they complyusti Rule 18- 1; ` {1 , F.A.C, is shoulde reference' In
addition, the maps appear to designate some mangrove areas, especially can North
Largo, as conditional marina sites. Mangrove forests are not appropriate locations for
marinas, and the Department suggests e maps be reevaluatededited.
CONCLUSION AND RECO M�jAM4ENDATIQNS
Based on the information and analysis submitted, the Department finds that the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment s not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part III
F'.F., and Chapter -5, F:A. C., and is therefore objectionable. e proposed amendment
was of supported by adequate data and analysisand contains components that contra-
dict the stated tent of the amendment. One of the most troublesome features is that
proposed e i ies forte AR district are comparable to densities allowed in the existing
Residential -High land use category. In addition, several policies contain vague language
at may lead to further problemsplan policies are implemented. The County should
address the issues uestio contained t.s letter and provide adequate data and
analysis to support the proposed amendment.
e County may also wish to review newter supply guidelines developed by the
Department, the water management districts and the Department of Community
whichprovide detailed on the data analysis local governments s o Affairs,
submit to supportproposed comprehensive l e en e 10-year water
supply facility ork plan dueAugust 1 o rs
e site at ca.state. . f Publications
t: el° s. f.
.:Mr. D. Ray Eubanks
c "oe Cc" 0 -2
November 14,2007
Page 7 of
The Department appreciates the opportunity to provide comments can the proposed
amendment. Should you have questions or require additional information, please do
not hesitate to contact Mr. Chris Stahl at (850) 245-2163 or Chris. ahl � de .state.fi.us.
Yours sincerely,
Sally B. Mann, Director
Office of Intergovernmental Programs
November 20, 2007
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Delta t orcommunity Affairs
2555 Shumard flak Boulevard
Florida is Tallahassee, FL 32 - 10
and Wildlife
Conservation e: Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Flan (Proposed ete:ent 07-02)
Commission
Dear Mr.
carnmrsvongirs
Rodney Deaver Imperiled Species g t Section of the Florida Fish and WilClif: Conservation
Chair Commission (FVVC) has coordinated g review of e referenced ntnent, and provides the
boars' lld ' g comments d o _ tions:
Kathy Barcur
Jacknonvole
Ronald W Bergeron Description
Fort Lauderdale
Richard A. tt Monroe County Proposes to amend its Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan by including r
ramps to address its needs to promote recreational, " 1, and workingfronts. Our review is
Caught stem n limited to the amendments made under Goal212 of the Conservation and Coastal Element. This
Delray Beach , �3
goal t Countyshall prioritize shoreline land uses and establish criteria for
Kenneth W. Wright shoreline development in order to preserve and enhance coastal resources and to ensure the
tniar P"
ns. teat t continued viability of e'County."Objective212. s marine siting, its
flirlaTallahassee policies provide i criteria by is l be site& The amendment
deletes the part of the objective that requires e County to analyze future needs and develop
criteria t of exceed state standards" and deletes Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 and
Exerutiver stash 212.44 It replaces e by incorporating e Marina Siting l r e Catanese
Kenneth , noddedCenter f Ur Environmental SolutionsatFloridatic University t it
€ e direct 2007 (available one a t :11 f .c C mkwat .hurl o oli 212.4.4.1.
Victor J. Roller
Assinowt Executive
DirectorThe policies t are removed include requirements that -
Karen Vchul lia I, Marina siting criteriat be "approved t of Environmental
Deputy Chief of Starr
Regulation], t o lResources] d ACOE., Army Corps of
Engineers)" (Policy 212.4.1.2);
2. the County "shall complete a survey of all existuip recreational and commercial
office of Policy andmarmus," with stipulations to t t survey must include (Policy12. 4.2)$
stage ear I are 'to located places where
c 4l rii a. e is' x u physical v ...a where o unreasonable
Saw AnDirector _ excessive impacts are ftneseen on marine r "
{ 3 4 5279 b. do not destroy "significant marine wetlands or sedgrissis „} and
{) $ -5679 FAX c. consider access through existingchannels, " `c vegetation and faunal
assemblages7',- impacts on crocodiles, sea turtles, and manatees; and
"niburnization of shoreline modification" and areas where prop-doxhung has
been a problem;olicy 212.4.3}
rel t� rsource for theirif long a. it new marinas withmore slips until existing marinas within five miles arc
term well-being the fully utilized (Policy 212.4.6).
benefit of #:
eMarina Siting t is to replace this language relies on GIS data, using waterdepth as
620 south Mefloan street the "critical fac " (see p. 10; Ent full ph), with at liity playing a secondary rote in
323 r�r
- edo Florida e case of conditional areas, to establishcategories ofsuitability for siting
Mace: (riot 498,4676 exclusionary, of and conditional. The MarineSiting Plan includes Siting
Hearragnipimh impaired: Suitability Maps with polygonsshowing the locationsof preferred and conditional aners. The
s 3 ss- r7i €rl plan provides other i I through 43 and in the Map Atlas for Marine Facilities
(_ fps 770(v)
Mylvo.com
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Page 2
No,, _ ember 20, 2007
inventory) that am some of the requirements of Policy 212.4.4, but it is not clear how they were
used to establish the suitability categories,
e Marina Siting Suitability Maps show conditional areas scattered throughout nearly all of the
Keys, except between Crab Key at Mile Marker 25 and Ivey West at Mile Marker 7. The maps
indicate preferred r primarily in lslamorada, Marathon, Big Pine Key, and Key West. There
are no exclusionary s shown on the maps, and we assume that this is because any area t
indicated as preferred or conditional is exclusionary.
Concerns eco e t'
supportsThe FWC the Working Waterhouse concept, and has no objection to the rimeava 1 of the
prohibition of new public access marinas as long as the environmentally protective r
es
currently in the comprehensive plan are not removed. FWC also supports the inclusion of a
tontine siting n into the comprehensive plan; however, we do not recommend incorporation
until the current marina siting plan his been revised. We have concerns about issues not
addressed by the April 2007 Marina Siting Plan. This review not go into the MarinaSiting°
Plan in detail, but highlights the main problempoints that staffidentified.
n fit: While water t d to criterion for the protection of scagrasses, the
MaineSiting Plan does not replace all of the planning guidance provided by the removed
Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3. For instance:
plan does not appear to address Protection ofsignificant marine wetlands (Policy
212.. or'minimization of shoreline modifications (Policy212.4d , .1). Some of the
sites are within the Floridae isition
plan discusses crocodiles, t, and sea turtles,e appears to be
limitedto provisions in ive 207..3 e'derveloping a boatingimpacts management
program for marine turtlesmanatees"), with reference to Objective 203.6 and
associated policies, Objective 203.6
tt :�etrto cafl:�°` ltcnl�allntlFa Wit. c iiF r hr Jafl' iie
f o i e to to 'th oth age i ; iclu 'n Floridas
National
l a San
came and Atmospheric
Agency to identify o l and regulatory issues to help formulate l it
does not appear to provide guidance on the same planning issues that would v
addressed by Policy 212.4.3.3. While it discusses crocodiles, the Marina Siting Plan does
not provide specific,planning guidance.
The deleted policiesu.re some very specific issues e.:, number of wet and dry slips,
breakout of slips by boat size, availability for public ility of out
facilities) be taken into consideration in developing ne siting rit ` ; however, the
Marina Siting does not appear to have taken those issues into account, result,
e Marina Siting Plan does not provide specific planning i e with respect to an
acceptable ant of in s f permittingconsiderations, including a related
to natural resourceslisted species,
Policy 212.4. 1 .2 required o l of marina siting criteria by DER, DNIZ, and AC04
d it is reasonable to assume that this requirement would have involved e
Patrol and the program that dealt with sea turtles and manatees, both of which were in
DNR. Subsequent agency i do have oft eprogramsg r a m the
Ck however,eApril 2007 Siting s not iin those
components of the FWC.
Concern: The Marina Siting Planalso relicson existing county ordinances and agency
regulatory programs for setting some of its sideboards, but this approachnot appear to
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Page 3
provide the value that additional planning guidance would provide via a comprehensive
growth -management plan. It also relies on FWC's management plan for manatees; however,
this plan has not yet been approved y the FWC Commissioners. Incorporating it into the
comprehensive plan via the Siting Plan before it is approved would be pr ture,
Conc e application process flowchart in Appendix ,A -I indicates that a parcel i
considered "conditional" if it is in an area of known American crocodile range. Map 10
(Monroe County American Crocodile Habitats) in Appendix D may inadvertently b
confusing a crocodiles ve been documented as far as Key West and, once, even i
the Dry Tortugas.
Eg_co ti : We believe that the MarinaSiting Plan contains ful information and
i ei however,recommend that it be revisedto address the protective s that
would have been providedby following Policies 212.4.1 through 212.4.3 before including it by
reference into the comprehensive plan. We strongly recommend that the Marina Siting Plan
include policies for the development of land development regulations that would v
e been
addressed by the deleted policies. We would be willing to help with this revision, d believe
that doing so would be consistent with e intent of Policy 212.4.1.1.
We appreciate the opportunity to review the MonroeCounty Comprehensive Plan
amendments, add hope we can help withaddressing issues t we touched in thisletter. if
you or Your staff wouldlike to coordinate further on the recommendations containedin this
letter, please contact me at 5 - -5272 or stand e at b _P Ixx4AI +WC.co
rn
and I will be glad to help make the necessary arrangements.f your staff has any technical
questions regarding our comments regarding manatees, plant contact Mary Duncan by
telephone at 850-9224330 or by mail at M n n'ir.=in flu .tint.
Sincerely,
Mary Ann Poole, _ Director
Office of Policy and StakeholderCoordination
map_t
md
MOM0007_1067
I-92-
cc: Bob isi DCA.. Tallahassee
Mayte S to ia, Tallahassee
RichJones,
County
Kagan Calms, _ _ S, Vero Beach
w...SouTH FLoRiDA
#33CI Gun club Road, Wes* Falm Reach, Florida 3 • (561) GO • FL WATS 1-ECCG 4321-2C45 D7(z61) 64 .?:3x
> Nulling a ;.c=s: O, Box 24683, West •. Palm Eez--,. FL W-4164�54 w xqk,«rAgov
GOV 0
November 21, 200
r. Flay Eubanks, Administrator
Plan Review and Processing
Department of Community'Affairs
2555 Shumard Oaks Boulevard
Tallahassee, FL 32399-210
—1 al oil
_ # •; is • ! # ' t : # !y # — •:. # # t M • l.,..
# # i i i M ' � a '; # ! ',, � ! ♦ ! :. ! ® ..
Ehave any questions or require additional information, please call John Mulliken,
Irjj.iter Supply Planning Division, at (561) 682-6649.
Water
Resources
r. Ray Eubanks, Administrator
November 20, 2007
Page
C %,11kelpv
w: Jerry Buckley, DCA (Keys Office)
Carolyn De le, SFRPC
BobDennis, DCA
Kate Edgerton, SFOIMD
Andrew Triv tte, Monroe County
FLORIDADEPARTMENT OF STATE
Kurt S. Browning
Secretary of State
DIVISION r HISTORIC.AL RESOURCES
October 30, 2007
Mr. Ray Eubanks
Department of Cormunity Affairs
Bureau of State Planning
2555 u _ Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 323 -210
Re: Fhstcaic Preservation Review of the Monroe County (07-2) Comprehensive Plan Amendment
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
According tot is s responsibilities under Sections 163.3177 1' 3.317 , Florida
Shersses, and Chapter 9J-5, filarida A&Wnistrafive Codawe reviewed above document to
determine•_ a r is r v given sufficientconsideration_ the
request o amend the Monroe County_ i i
We reviewed one proposedtext amendment
regarding recreational, commercial and working
to considert"sactionhistoric resources.
cursory reviewthat the proposedmay have no adverse effects on historic
resources, it is t n 's responsibilityt ensure that e proposed revisions i have an
adverse o significant t r historicces in o
nroe County.
If you have any questions
r comments, 1 to contactb f
the "sionws e Review 50) 245-6333,
Sincerely, #`
Frederickr
c: W Bob Dennis
t +Tallahassee, FL 3MM2%p :. +
do r
24" iF 245 }2 -FAX 24() 2456M o FAX2 I M 2 0a FAX 24SM33
CHARLIE CRIST DeErke
Y I KOPELOUSOS
GOVERNOR 1000 III , L FL 33172SECRETARY
Phone: 303470,5464
1
FloridaMr. Bay Eubanks
Division of Commanity, Planning
Flod" Deparoweet of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
Subject: Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehemiye Plan (Amendment 07-2)
Ths
for MEnox County. Based on out Review, the Deperftnad has
Bravo,objections or mwmmcndations at this time. Please contact Phil gressudger, at 305470.
kgg�A�
Alice N. P.E.District Director of Transportation Systems
DMIOPMcnt
Cc. AileenBoucle,_
Phil ._