Item F3
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: July 27,2000
Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item Yes
No X
Department: Planning
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Approval of the Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity for 2000.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development Regulations (LDR's) requires that the BOCC adopt an annual
assessment of public facilities capacity for Monroe County. The Planning Department has prepared a 2000
assessment for the BOCC's consideration and approval.
This year's report finds that solid waste and schools have sufficient capacity to serve growth anticipated through
1999. Permitted potable water allocations are marginally adequate, and Monroe County and the Florida Keys
Aqueduct Authority are taking steps to remedy this. All state and county roads are anticipated to meet level of
service standards, except for the Big Pine Key segment (Segment # 10) of U.S. 1. Since no reserve capacity
exists on this segment of U.S. 1, Florida Statutes and the County's LDR's require that the moratorium on issuance
of building permits for additional traffic generating development be continued on Big Pine and No Name Keys.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOARD ACTION:
The BOCC has approved assessments of public facilities capacity each year since 1987.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION:
Approval.
TOTAL COST:
NA
BUDGETED: Yes
No
X
COST TO COUNTY:
NONE
AMOUNT PER MONTH
N/A
PER YEAR
N/A
APPROVED BY: County Attorney N/ A
OMB/Purchasing N/A
Risk Management N/ A
DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
ctor of Planning
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Timothy J. M
DOCUMENTATION: Included
x
To follow Not required
Agenda Item #: aa
DISPOSITION:
Resolution No.
-2000
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF
MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY FOR 2000 AS
SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations
requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an annual assessment of public facilities
capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, this annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and
WHEREAS, once approved by the Board of County Commissioners, this report becomes
the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed
and approved for the upcoming year; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations provides the
minimum standards for level of service of roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational
facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292 requires the annual assessment of public facilities capacity
to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe County with inadequate or marginally
adequate public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the annual report finds that sufficient capacity exists for solid waste,
potable water, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth through 2000; and
WHEREAS, the transportation section of the annual report is based upon the findings of
the 2000 US-l Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS Griner, the County's
transportation consultant; and
WHEREAS, the annual report indicates that the Big Pine segment of US-l (Segment
#10, Mile Marker 29.5 to 33.0) has remained below the mandated level of service for roads as
indicated in Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the annual report also indicates that there is no reserve capacity for
additional trips on the Big Pine segment of US-I; and
BOCC 2000 PFCA Adoption Resolution
page 1 of2
Initials
2000
MONROE
COUNTY
PUBLIC
FACILITY
CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT
REPORT
PREPARED BY THE
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
2000
MONROE
COUNTY
PUBLIC
FACILITY
CAPACITY
ASSESSMENT
REPORT
PREPARED BY THE
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
TABLE
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
OF
CONTENTS
~~~ljr~jrJIT~ ~ljr1J1r~~)fT ............................................................................. ~
Capacity of US-1 by Segment in 2000 ................................................................................................................ 6
jr~~~~~ljr~~jr~~............................................................................................ ;r
Figure 1: Map of the Service Areas ..................................................................................................................... 9
G~ ~ W~H A~AL )fT~jr~ ................................................................................... 11
Figure 2: PAED Map .................................................... .................. ........... ......... ..... .................. ......... ......... .......... 12
Figure 3: PAED IMileMarker Chart................................... ............ .......... ......... ................. ...... ........... ................... 13
Figure 4: Functional Population of Monroe County 1990-2015 ....................................................................... 14
Figure 5: Functional Population by Service Area 1990-2015 .......................................................................... 14
Figure 6: Changes in Functional Population by Service Area 1990-2015...................................................... 15
Figure 7: Permanent and Seasonal Population in Monroe County 1990-2015.............................................. 16
Figure 8: Permanent and Seasonal Population in Unincorporated Monroe County by Service Area 1990-
201 5 ........................................................................... .... ..... ......................................................... ................... 17
Figure 9: 2000 Population Estimates by PAED ................................................................................................... 18
Figure 10: Projected Change in Population from 1999 to 2000....................................................................... 19
Figure 11: Boundary Comparison Table ............................................................................................................ 21
Figure 12: New Residential and Seasonal Units Permitted by Year for Unincorporated Monroe County ... 22
Figure 13: Comparison of Residential Permits by Service Area, 1998-1999 .................................................. 23
Figure 14: Comparison of Residential Permit Types 1998-1999 ....................................................................... 23
Figure 15: Comparison of Residential Permit Types 1990-1999....................................................................... 23
Figure 16: Types of Permits Issued 1990-1999 ................................................................................................... 24
Figure 17: Nonresidential Permits by Year 1990-1999...................................................................................... 25
Figure 18: Nonresidential Square Footage by Service Area 1990-1999 ........................................................ 25
Figure 19: Nonresidential Permits by Service Area 1990-1999 ....................................................................... 26
~~~~~~~~A~jr~~..................................................................................... ~~
~A~jrLjr~jr~~ .................................................................................................. ~~
Figure 20: Fully-Signalized Intersections ........................................................................................................... 29
Figure 21: Traffic Counts for 1999 and 2000 ...................................................................................................... 30
Figure 22: Historical Comparison of AADTs 1993-2000 .................................................................................... 31
Figure 23: Regression Analysis of AADTs 1992-2000 ......................................................................................... 31
Figure 24: Changes in Median Overall Speed on US-1 1992-2000................................................................. 33
Figure 25: Level of Service Standards Based on Flow Characteristics ........................................................... 34
Figure 26: Map of US-1 Segments ................................................................................................... ................... 35
Figure 27: Description of US-1 Roadway Segments ......................................................................................... 36
Figure 28: Level of Service by Roadway Segment 1999-2000 ........................................................................ 37
Figure 29: Changes in Median Speed by Segment 1992-2000....................................................................... 38
Figure 30: Median Speeds by Segment 1999-2000.......................................................................................... 38
Figure 31: US-1 Segment Status in 2000 .............................................................................................................40
~~~A~L~ ...................................................................................................... ~~
WA~~~........................................................................................................... ~~
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Figure 32: FKAA Facilities............ .............. ............. ...................................... ......................................... .............. 44
Figure 33: Annual Water Withdrawals 1980 to 1999 ......................................................................................... 45
Figure 34: FKAA Annual Water Withdrawal 1990-1999 .................................................................................... 45
Figure 35: Projected Water Demand in 2000-2001 ........................................................................................... 46
Figure 36: Per Capita Water Availability ............................................................................................................ 47
Figure 37: FKAA Capital Improvement Program .............................................................................................. 48
EDUCATIONAL FA CILITIES ..................................................................... 49
Figure 38: Schools by Subdistrict ................................ .......................................... ......... ...... ...... ........................ 49
Figure 39: Educational Facilities in Monroe County ......................................................................................... 50
Figure 40: Fall School Enrollments 1989-1999 ................................................................................................... 51
Figure 41: School Capacity & Projected Number of Students ........................................................................ 52
Figure 42: Preliminary Public School land Needs ............................................................................................ 54
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES ....................................................................... 55
Figure 43: Solid Waste Contractors ..... ......... ...... ........ ....... ...... ......... ............ ......... ......................... .................... 55
Figure 44: Solid Waste Facilities ........... ......... ............ ............ .................. ................................. ........................... 55
Figure 45: Solid Waste Generation by District ................................................................................................... 57
Figure 46: Remaining Capacity, Central Sanitary landfill............................................................................... 58
~A~ ~D ~EC~EATION........................................................................ 5~
Figure 47: Parks and Recreational Facilities ..................................................................................................... 60
Figure 47: Parks and Recreational Facilities (continued) ................................................................................ 61
Figure 48: level of Service Analysis for Activity-Based Recreation Areas .................................................... 62
8
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
EXECUTIVE
SUMMARY
The Monroe County Land Development
Regulations (hereafter referred to as lithe
Code") mandate an annual assessment of
the roads, solid waste, potable water, and
school facilities serving the unincorporated
portion of Monroe County. In the event that
these public facilities have fallen or are pro-
jected to fall below the level of service re-
quired by the Code, development activities
must conform to special procedures to en-
sure that the public facilities are not further
burdened. The Code clearly states that
building permits shall not be issued unless
the proposed use is or will be served by
adequate public or private facilities.
As required by the Code, the Board of
County Commissioners shall consider and
approve the annual report, with or without
modifications. Any modifications that result
in an increase of development capacity must
be accompanied by findings of fact, includ-
ing the reasons for the increase and the
funding source to pay for the additional ca-
pacity required to serve the additional de-
velopment. Once approved, this document
becomes the official report of public facili-
ties upon which development approvals will
be based for the next year.
This report distinguishes between areas
of inadequate facility capacity and margin-
ally adequate capacity. Inadequate facility
capacity is defined as those areas with ca-
pacity below the adopted level of service
standard. Marginally adequate capacity is
defined as those areas at the adopted level
of service standard or that are projected to
reach inadequate capacity within the next
twelve months.
Residential and Nonresidential
Growth for 2000
For the 2000 assessment, a new popu-
lation model that uses a 1990 Census base
data and Monroe County Certificates of Oc-
cupancy to estimate and forecast population
growth was developed by the Monroe County
Planning Department. The new model is
based upon the actual number of residential
units built, and is therefore more accurate
than previous models. The functional popu-
lation of unincorporated Monroe County is
expected to reach 73,969 people by 2000, a
decrease of 21% from 1999 as a result of
the incorporation of Marathon. The perma-
nent population of unincorporated Monroe
County is expected to be 39,273 people in
2000, a decline of 21 % from 1999 (based
upon Marathon's incorporation). The sea-
sonal population is expected to be 34,696
people in 2000, down from 44,329 in 1999.
Due to Policy 101.3.1, the County's non-
residential ROGO policy in the 2010 Com-
prehensive Plan, it is anticipated that only a
limited number of permits will be issued for
new nonresidential development in 2000.
The only projects that will be issued permits
are those that have received a determina-
tion of vested rights or those projects that
are exempt from nonresidential ROGO per
Policy 101.3.4.
Assessment of Public Facilities for
2000
Two of the four facility types addressed
by this report - solid waste and schools - have
sufficient capacity to serve the growth an-
ticipated in 2000 at the adopted level of ser-
vice. The remaining facility types, potable
water and roads, demonstrate marginally ad-
equate capacity or fail to meet the County's
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACllY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
level of service standard in certain isolated
situations. The status of each facility is sum-
marized below.
Solid Waste: The existing solid waste
haul-out contract with Waste Management,
Inc. provides the County with approximately
seven years of guaranteed capacity.
Schools: A 1998 study by the Monroe
County Planning Department, in concert
with the School Soard, has determined that
there is more than sufficient capacity in the
schools to accommodate all fall enrollments
in 2000 and future years.
Potable Water: The Florida Keys Aq-
ueduct Authority's (FKAA) approved and
permitted water supply proved adequate to
meet the needs of Florida Keys water con-
sumers in 1999. However, due to peaks in
water usage in 2000 experienced by the
FKAA, the South Florida Water Manage-
ment District's (SFWMD) permitted with-
drawals from both the aquifer and water
treatment plant were exceeded on several
days. A modified water use permit seeking
additional water withdrawals from the South
Florida Water Management District is pend-
ing.
An analysis of data shows that the resi-
dential and overall LOS standards for wa-
ter consumption, as set out in Objective
701.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan, are being met. It is
anticipated that sufficient potable water will
be available under existing permits for the
remainder of the year. Monroe County al-
lows development to continue if adequate
potable water supply, treatment and distri-
bution are available to support the devel-
opment at these adopted level of service
standards.
However, due to the peaks in water us-
age observed by the FKAA, and the con-
straints of the FKAA permits for both water
treatment plant capacity and withdrawals
from the Siscayne Aquifer, potable water is
considered marginally adequate until such
a time as the FKAA permits are renewed at
higher levels.
Another beautiful day in the Keys...
2000 PuBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The adopted level of service Regulations, a moratorium on new devel-
Roads: opment will be maintained until the level of
(LOS) standard for US-1 is LOS C. Based service is improved.
on the findings of the 2000 US-1 Arterial
Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe There are an additional nine roadway
County, as prepared by URS Greiner Con- segments with a "marginally adequate" level
sultants, the overall 2000 level of service of service, but all have adequate reserve
for US-1 is LOS C. The following table capacity. Development activities in these
shows the available capacity of US-1 by areas will be closely monitored to minimize
segment. the possibility for further degredation in the
level of service.
Capacity of US-l by Segment
in 2000 County roads are subject to a
lower standard (LOS D) than US-1.
Mile Marker 2000 Based on the analysis found in the
# SeQment Range LOS 2000 Status Technical Document of the Monroe
1 Stock Island 4-5 B Adeauate County Year 2010 Comprehensive
2 Boca Chica 5-9 A Adeauate
3 Bia Coooitt 9-10.5 C MARGINAL Plan, all County roads are operating
4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 B Adeauate at or above LOS D.
5 Suaarloaf 16.5-20.5 C MARGINAL
6 Cudioe 20.5-23 A Adeauate
7 Summerland 23-25 B Adeouate Overall, most public facilities con-
8 Ramrod 25-27.5 A Adeauate tinue to be adequate; however de-
9 Torch 27.5-29.5 A Adeauate mands on these facilities continue to
10 Bia Pine 29.5-33 D INADEQUATE grow. The Growth Management Divi-
11 Bahia Honda 33-40 B Adeauate sion is committed to monitoring
12 7-Mile Bridae 40-47 A Adeauate changes in public facility demand and
13 Marathon 47-54 A Adeauate
14 G rassv 54-60.5 C MARGINAL responding to changes in consump-
15 Duck 60.5-63 C MARGINAL tion patterns. The ability to coordinate
16 Lona 63-73 B Adeauate with public facility providers and other
17 L. Matecumbe 73-77.5 C MARGINAL municipalities in the Keys will become
18 Tea Table 77.5-79.5 C MARGINAL more and more critical as we strive to
19 U. Matecumbe 79.5-84 C MARGINAL maintain the quality of life we all en-
20 Windlev 84-86 B Adeauate joy.
21 Plantation 86-91.5 C MARGINAL
22 Tavernier 91.5-99.5 A Adeauate
23 Larao 99.5-106 A Adeauate
24 Cross 106-112.5 C MARGINAL
County regulations allow development
activities to continue in "areas of inadequate
facility capacity" provided traffic speeds do
not fall below the standard by more than
five percent. At this time, Big Pine Key has
no reserve capacity. Thus, pursuant to Sec-
tion 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
INTRODUCTION
About This Report
This report is the annual assessment of
public facilities capacity mandated by Sec-
tion 9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land
Development Regulations (hereafter re-
ferred to as "the Code"). The State of
Florida requires all local jurisdictions to
adopt regulations ensuring "concurrency".
Concurrency means "that the necessary
public facilities and services to maintain the
adopted level of service standards are avail-
able when the impacts of development oc-
cur" (Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Adminis-
trative Code). In other words, local govem-
ments must establish regulations to ensure
that public facilities and services which are
needed to support development are avail-
able concurrent with the impacts of devel-
opment. In Monroe County, these regula-
tions are contained within Section 9.5-292
of the Code.
Section 9.5-292, titled Adequate facili-
ties and development review procedures,
contains two main sets of requirements: the
minimum service standards for the four pri-
mary public facilities (roads, solid waste,
potable water, schools), and an annual as-
sessment process to determine the avail-
able capacity of these public facilities. In
addition, Section 9.5-292 includes an equi-
table procedure for issuing permits when the
rate of growth is likely to outpace the cur-
rent capacity of these public facilities.
Section 9.5-292 also requires the Direc-
tor of Planning to prepare an annual report
to the Board of County Commissioners on
the capacity of available public facilities.
This report must determine the potential
amount of residential and nonresidential
growth expected in the upcoming year, and
make an assessment of how well the roads,
solid waste facilities, water supply, and
schools will accommodate that growth. The
report has a one-year planning horizon, or
only considers potential growth and public
facility capacity for the next twelve months.
In addition, the report must identify areas
of Unincorporated Monroe County with only
marginal and/or inadequate capacity for
some or all public facilities.
In the event that some or all public fa-
cilities have fallen or are projected to fall
below the level of service (LOS) standards
required by the Code, development activi-
ties must conform to special procedures to
ensure that the public facilities are not fur-
ther burdened. The Code clearly states that
building permits shall not be issued unless
the proposed use is or will be served by
adequate public or private facilities.
Board Action Required
Section 9.5-292(b)(4) requires the
County Commission to consider this report
and approve its findings either with or with-
out modifications. The County Commission
cannot act to increase development capac-
ity beyond that demonstrated in this report
without making specific findings of fact as
to the reasons for the increase, and identi-
fying the source of funds to be used to pay
for the additional capacity.
Once approved by the County Commis-
sion, this document becomes the official as-
sessment of public facilities upon which de-
velopment approvals will be based for the
next year.
Public Facility Standards
Section 9.5-292(a) of the Code pertains
to the minimum standards for public facili-
ties. It states, "After February 28, 1988, all
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 7
INTRODUCTION
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
development or land shall be served by
adequate public facilities in accordance with
the following standards:"
(1) Roads:
a. County Road 905 within three (3)
miles of a parcel proposed for develop-
ment shall have sufficient available ca-
pacity to operate at level of service D
as measured on an annual average
daily traffic (AADT) basis at all intersec-
tion and/or roadway segments. US-1
shall have sufficient available capacity
to operate at level of service C on an
overall basis as measured by the US-1
Level of Service Task Force Methodol-
ogy. In addition, the segment or seg-
ments of US-1 , as identified in the US-
1 Level of Service Task Force Method-
ology, which would be directly impacted
by a proposed development's access
to US-1 , shall have sufficient available
capacity to operate at level of service
C as measured by the US-1 Level of
Service Task Force Methodology.
b. All secondary roads where traffic is
entering or leaving a development or
will have direct access shall have suffi-
cient available capacity to operate at
level of service D as measured on an
annual average daily traffic (AADT)
basis.
c. In areas which are served by inad-
equate transportation facilities on US-
1, development may be approved pro-
vided that the development in combi-
nation with all other development will
not decrease travel speeds by more
than five (5) percent below level of ser-
vice C, as measured by the US-1 Level
of Service Task Force Methodology.
(2) Solid Waste:
Sufficient capacity shall be available at
a solid waste disposal site to accom-
modate all existing and approved de-
velopment for a period of at least three
(3) years from the projected date of
completion of the proposed develop-
ment or use. The Monroe County Solid
Waste and Resource Recovery Author-
ity may enter into agreements, includ-
ing agreements under section 163.01,
Florida Statutes, to dispose of solid
waste outside Monroe County.
(3) Potable Water:
Sufficient potable water from an ap-
proved and permitted source shall be
available to satisfy the projected water
needs of a proposed development, or
use. Approved and permitted sources
shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA dis-
tribution systems, individual water con-
densation systems, and any other sys-
tem which complies with the Florida
standards for potable water.
(4) Schools:
Adequate school classroom capacity
shall be available to accommodate all
school age children to be generated by
a proposed development or use.
These are the four primary public facili-
ties which must be monitored for adequate
capacity according to the Code. The avail-
able capacity for each of these facilities may
be either sufficient to accommodate pro-
jected growth over the next year, margin-
ally adequate, or inadequate. In situations
where public facilities serving an area are
projected to be only marginally adequate
or inadequate over the next year, the Code
sets out a review procedure to be followed
when issuing development permits in that
area.
The Code states that "the county shall
not approve applications for development
INTRODUCTION
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY AsSESSMENT
PAGE 8
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
in areas of the county which are served by
inadequate facilities identified in the annual
adequate facilities (Public Facility Capacity
Assessment) report, except the county may
approve development that will have no re-
duction in the capacity of the facility or where
the developer agrees to increase the level
of service of the facility to the adopted level
of service standard." The Code goes on to
state that "in areas of marginal facility ca-
pacity as identified in the current annual
adequate facilities report, the county shall
either deny the application or condition the
approval so that the level of service stan-
dard is not violated." The determination of
an additional development's impact on ex-
isting public facilities in areas with marginal
or inadequate capacity is determined by a
"facilities impact report" which must be sub-
mitted with a development application.
Figure 1:
Map of the Service Areas
(f The Upper Keys
~ MM 112-MM 91
~
~
"
"\
'i>
'l>
The Middle Keys
MM 91-MM 47
(J .l.
... .
.... ~
Service Areas
Section 9.5-292(b)(2) of the Code di-
vides Unincorporated Monroe County into
three service areas for the purposes of as-
sessing potential growth and how public
facilities can accommodate that growth.
The boundaries mentioned in the Code
have been revised to account for recent in-
corporations. The map below shows the
three service areas of the Keys as they are
currently recognized.
The Upper Keys service area includes
all Unincorporated Monroe County north of
the Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Middle
Keys includes the area of Unincorporated
Monroe County between the Seven Mile
Bridge and the Tavernier Creek Bridge. The
Lower Keys is Unincorporated Monroe
County south of the Seven Mile Bridge.
Unfortunately, the data available on
...
._ 0
Q '"
~
"8
GCfp
0..,.
'",
f
, oQ
The Lower Keys
MM 47-MM 4
Source: The Monroe County GIS Department
2000 PuBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 9
INTRODUCTION
o
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
population, permitting, and public facilities
does not always conform to the above
boundaries for the Upper, Middle, and Lower
Keys. Additionally, due to the recent incor-
porations of Islamorada and Marathon
(which are excluded from this assessment
where specified) these boundaries are no
longer valid for unincorporated Monroe
County. This report makes use of the best
available data, aggregated as closely to the
boundaries shown in Figure 1 as possible.
Previous Board Action
Due to the unavailability of any reserve
capacity for traffic on US-1 on Big Pine Key,
the County was required to impose a mora-
torium in 1995 on any new development on
Big Pine Key. In December 1997, as a re-
sult of a change in the methodology used
to determine level of service, the morato-
rium on Big Pine Key was lifted. However,
the results of the 1999 Travel Time and
Delay Study indicated that the segment of
US-1 through Big Pine Key once again fell
below the adopted LOS standard. Due in
part to the re-timing of the intersection of
US-1 and Key Deer Boulevard, the level of
service on the Big Pine segment of US-1
has improved in 2000. However, the level
of service still remains below the adopted
standard. Since Big Pine Key does not have
any reserve capacity for traffic, the morato-
rium must continue.
The rationale for a moratorium is from
Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Develop-
ment Regulations, which states, "...the
County shall not approve applications for
development in areas of the County which
are served by inadequate facilities as iden-
tified in the annual adequate facilities re-
port."
The Planning and Environmental Re-
sources Department is now engaged in a
master planning process with the citizens
of Big Pine Key to identify possible solu-
tions to the traffic problems in the commu-
nity. The Livable CommuiKeys Program is
directed at finding ways of improving the
level of service on US-1 so that the building
moratorium on Big Pine Key may be lifted.
Areas of Critical County Concern
At the County Commission's discretion,
areas with marginally adequate facilities
may be designated as Areas of Critical
County Concern (ACCC), pursuant to Sec-
tions 9.5-473 and 9.5-473.1 of the Code.
The rationale behind this designation is to
assure that development in ACCC areas
does not impact existing public facilities to
the extent that development must be halted
in the area.
Should the Board initiate theACCC des-
ignation process, the Development Review
Committee and Planning Commission must
review the proposed designation. Section
9.5-473(c) requires the designation to in-
clude II Specific findings regarding the pur-
pose of the designation, the time schedule
for the planning effort to be implemented,
identification of the sources of funding for
the planning and potential implementing
mechanisms, delineation of a work program,
a schedule for the work program and the
appointment of an advisory committee, if
appropriate. II
INTRODUCTION
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 10
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
GROWTH
ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the
growth of Monroe County over the last year.
This analysis considers the changes in
population, the number of residential build-
ing permits issued, and the amount of non-
residential floor area (square footage) af-
fected by building permits. Growth trends
will be examined for both the unincorporated
as well as the incorporated portions of the
County.
Population Composition
There are three different measurements
of population in Monroe County: the func-
tional population, the permanent population,
and the seasonal population. The capacity
of most public facilities is designed based
on potential peak demand. To help assess
peak demand, the permanent and seasonal
populations are often combined to give a
"functional" population, or the maximum
population demanding services.
Permanent residents spend most or all
of the year in the County, while the seasonal
population includes seasonal residents and
the tourist population. The seasonal popu-
lation includes the number of seasonal resi-
dents, the number of people staying in ho-
tels, motels, vacation rentals, campsites,
recreational vehicles, live aboard vessels,
and those staying with friends and relatives.
It is important to remember that perma-
nent population figures are for the entire cal-
endar year, while the seasonal population
figures used here is the number of seasonal
residents and visitors in the Keys on any
given evening. Seasonal population figures
are not the total number of seasonal resi-
dents or visitors in the county over the cal-
endar year, but the estimated number who
stay on any given night.
Recent studies by the Tourist Develop-
ment Council indicate that Monroe County
hosts around three million visitors a year,
however not of all these people are in the
Keys on the same evening. Peak seasonal
population figures represent the number of
people who could stay on any given evening
based upon peak occupancy rates, and
therefore represent the peak demand which
could be placed on public facilities from
seasonal visitors on any given evening.
When the peak seasonal population fig-
ures are combined with the permanent resi-
dent population, the result is the functional
population.
PAEDs
PAEDs, or Planning Area Enumeration
Districts, are the basic unit of geographical
analysis used by the Planning and Environ-
mental Resources Department. The PAEDs
are a combination of the "planning areas"
utilized by the Planning Department in the
early 1980s and the US Census Bureau's
"enumeration districts". These two levels
of analysis were combined in 1987 for ease
of use. Since most PAEDs follow island
boundaries, they can be aggregated to
match most service districts for public fa-
cilities.
There are a total of twenty-two (22)
PAEDs in Unincorporated Monroe County.
The City of Key West (including northern
Stock island) is not contained within any
PAED boundaries. The City of Key Colony
Beach is contained within the geographic
area of PAED 8, but is not included with the
PAED population figures. The new City of
Marathon encompasses PAEDs 7,8, & 9,
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTlTlES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 11
GROWTH ANALYSIS
~..'...
VI
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
and its population is contained within Unincorporated Monroe County until 2000. The City of
Layton falls within PAED 11, but its population is disaggregated from Unincorporated Monroe
County. The Village of Islamorada occupies PAEDs 12A, 128, 13, & 14, and has its own
population figures starting in 1998.
PAEDs 19 and 20 are the last PAEDs before the "bend" in US-1 , and have been grouped
together in this report because of data constraints. The dividing line between the two PAEDs
is the centerline of US-1 .
Figure 2: PAED Map
The
Upper
Keys
The
Middle
Keys
J.-~
The
lower
Keys
..
.... ~
I
PAED 5
PAED 6
I
PAED 1
Source: The Monroe County GIS Department
GROWTH ANALYSIS
PAGE 12
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
As mentioned earlier, Section 9.5-292
divides Monroe County into three service
areas. The Upper Keys service area in-
cludes PAEDs 128 through 22, or the area
from Mile Marker 83.5 to 112, the Middle
Keys includes PAEDs 7 through 13 (Mile
Marker 47.5 to 83.4), and the Lower Keys
service area is composed of PAEDs 1
through 6 from Mile Marker 4 to 47.4.
The chart below shows the individual
PAEDs by their mile marker ranges, and also
shows the islands included within a particu-
lar PAED's boundary.
Figure 3: PAED/Mile
Marker Chart
Approx. Mile
PAED Islands Marker Range
1 Stock Island 4-6
2 Boca Chica, East Rockland, Big Coppitt, Geiger, Shark 7-12.4
3 Saddlebunch Keys, Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf 12.5-20.5
4a Cudjoe, Summerland, Ramrod, Big-Middle-Little Torch 20.6-29
4b No Name Key N/A
5 Big Pine Key 29.5-33
W. Summerland, Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, Little
6 Duck, Pigeon Key 34.5-46
7 Knight. Hog, Vaca, Boot, Stirrup (Marathon) 47.5-53.2
8 Fat Deer, Little Crawl, Crawl #5, (Marathon) & (Key Colony Beach) 53.3-56.4
9 Grassy Key (Marathon) 56.5-60
10 Duck Key, Little Conch Key, Conch Key 61-64
11 Long Key, Fiesta Key, (Layton) 65-71
12a Craig Key, Lower Matecumbe (Islamorada) 72-78
12b Windley Key (Islamorada) 83.5-85.5
13 Teatable Key, Upper Matecumbe (Islamorada) 79-83.4
14 Plantation Key (Islamorada) 85.6-91
15 Key Largo (Tawmier area) 91.1-94.5
16 Key Largo 94.6-98
17 Key Largo (Rock Harbor) 98.1-100.6
18 Key Largo 100.7-103.5
19-20 Key Largo 103.6-107.5
21 Key Largo (North Key Largo, Ocean Reef, Card Sound area) N/A
22 Cross Key (18 Mile Stretch area) 107.6-112
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2000
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITlES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 13
GROWTH ANALYSIS
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Functional Population As the chart indicates, the functional
population of Monroe County is expected
The functional population is the combi- to grow by more than 16,000 people from
nation of the number of permanent residents 1990 to 2015. This represents an increase
with the peak seasonal population. The of almost eleven percent (11 %) over the
chart below shows the projected changes twenty-five year period. However, the nu-
in county-wide functional population from merical and percent change columns show
1990 to 2015. that the rate of increase is expected to slow
dramatically over the same time period.
Figure 4: Functional Figure 5 shows the breakdown in func-
Population of Monroe County
1990-2015 tional population by the three service areas.
Functional Numerical Percent Regionally, the Upper Keys accounted for
the largest portion of the 1990 unincorpo-
Year Population Change Change rated functional population (42,171 people,
1990 149,348 * * or 40.9% of the total). This is followed by
1995 154,255 4,907 3.29% the Middle Keys, which comprised 29.6%
2000 159,113 4,857 3.15% (30,443 people) of the total 1990 functional
2005 162,041 2,929 1.84% population; and finally, the Lower Keys,
2010 164,769 2,727 1.68% which contained 30,387 people, or 29.5%
2015 165,366 597 0.36% of the unincorporated functional population.
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, The incorporations of Islamorada and
2000
Marathon account for the drop in unincor-
The above chart shows the functional porated functional population in the Upper
population for all of Monroe County (includ- and Middle Keys service areas by 2000.
ing the incorporated areas), excluding Main-
land Monroe County and the population in Figure 5: Functional
the Dry Tortugas. Population by Service
Area 1990-2015
1990 2000 2015
%01 %01 %01
Functional Unincorp. Functional Unincorp. Functional Unincorp.
Service Area Population Total Population Total Population Total
Unner Kevs 42.171 40.9% 36 615 49.5% 38 362 48.7%
Middle Kevs 30 443 29.6% 3944 5.3% 4206 5.3%
Lower Kevs 30.387 29.5% 33410 45.2% 36 263 46.0%
Unincoroorated Subtotal 103 000 100.0% 73 969 100.0% 78.831 100.0%
Incornorated Areas 46.348 85 144 86 535
Countv Total 149 348 159 113 165 366
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2000
GROWTH ANALYSIS
PAGE 14
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The functional population in the Middle
Keys service area is expected to decline
more than eighty-seven percent (87%),
while the Upper Keys service area lost thir-
teen percent (13%) of its functional popula-
tion as a result of these incorporations. The
Lower Keys service area is expected to
grow almost ten percent (10%) from 1990
to 2000.
By the year 2015, the Upper Keys, with
a functional population of 38,362 people, is
expected to contain 48.7% of the unincor-
porated functional population. The Lower
Keys are projected to have a functional
population of 36,263 people in 2015, or 46%
of the unincorporated total, while the Middle
Keys will been reduced to 4,206 people, or
5.3% of the unincorporated county total.
If current trends continue, the Lower
Keys service area will be the fastest-grow-
ing area of unincorporated Monroe County
by 2015. The Upper Keys service area will
continue to grow, but by the slowest rate.
The Middle Keys service area functional
population is expected to rebound after the
incorporations, growing over six percent
(6%) from 2000 to 2015. It is interesting to
note that by 2015, the functional popula-
tions in the Upper and Middle Keys are ex-
pected to begin a decline, while the func-
tional population in the Lower Keys is ex-
pected to increase.
The graphs in Figure Six show the pro-
jected changes in functional population by
service area over time.
Figure 6: Changes in
Functional Population
by Service Area
1990-2015
1990 Functional Population
Lower
Keys
30,387
Upper
Keys
42,171
Middle
Keys
30,443
2000 Functional Population
PAGE 15
Upper
Keys
36,615
Lower
Keys
33,410
Middle
Keys 3,944
2015 Functional Population
Lower
Keys
36,263
Upper
Keys
38,362
Middle
Keys 4,206
Source: Monroe County Planning Department
2000 PUBLIC F AClLTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
GROWTH ANALYSIS
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Permanent and
Seasonal Population
Permanent residents are those people
who spend all or most of the year living in
Monroe County, and as such, exert a rela-
tively constant demand on all public facili-
ties. The seasonal population is composed
of seasonal residents spending less than six
months in the Keys, and the tourist popula-
tion. The seasonal population has a higher
cyclical demand on some public facilities like
roads and solid waste.
The total permanent resident population
in Monroe County is projected to grow from
78,855 people in 1990 to a potential 90,654
people by 2015, an increase of fifteen per-
cent (15%) over the twenty-five year period.
The permanent resident population as a per-
centage of the functional population fluctu-
ates between 52.8% and 54.8% over the
period. The years 1991 and 1993 were the
only years in which the county-wide perma-
nent resident growth rate exceeded one
percent (1 %) per year. Growth rates are
expected to remain under 1 % per year for
160,000
140,000
c 120,000
0
:;:::
ClI
'3 100,000
Q,
0
Q.
80,000
60,000
40,000
A
149,348
.A
154,255
.A
159,113
85,622
.
82,990
78,855
.
~'_~~.m.""..".'m"""ill>.m"'"''%'''''''
;;".W'~""~""""""'-;(W""';;""'''''''>''>''-,",<''''W'-'
70,493 71,266
73,491
1990
1995
2000
.", Seasonal Population
the remainder of the years under study, and
are expected to decline after the year 2003.
The peak seasonal population in Mon-
roe County is projected to grow from 70,493
people in 1990 to a potential 74,712 people
by 2015, an increase of six percent (6%)
over the twenty-five year period. The peak
seasonal population as a percentage of the
functional population fluctuates between
45.2% and 47.2% over the period. The
county-wide peak seasonal population
growth rate exceeded four percent (4%) in
1993. Growth rates fluctuated between
-1.7% and 1.9% for the remainder of the
years under study, and are expected to
steadily decline after the year 2003.
The graph below shows the projected
changes in the permanent and seasonal
populations for all of Monroe County for the
years from 1990 to 2015.
Figure 7: Permanent
and Seasonal Population
in Monroe County
1990-2015
.A
162,041
.A
164,769
165,366
.A
88,305
.
90,236
.
90,654
.
'YNWi>!',,,,,:::,,,,::<,;~,,,,::;':~,,,,""="'::<fj:':M=~""~""':--;""
-w"".~{*"~'7
73,737
74,533
74,712
2005
2010
2015
_Permanent Population
___Functional Population
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2000
GROWTH ANALYSIS
PAGE 16
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The graphs below show the changes in permanent and seasonal population from 1990 to
2015 for the three service areas of unincorporated Monroe County. The declines in popula-
tion that occur between 1995 and 2000 are a result of the incorporations of Islamorada in
1998 and Marathon in 1999.
Figure 8: Permanent and Seasonal Population in Unincorporated
Monroe County by Service Area 1990-2015
Permanent Population
1990 1995 2000 2005 2010 2015
20 345 21 963 17435 18 007 18510 18 569
13 952 14 467 1 098 1 147 1 174 1172
18446 19 852 20741 21 662 22 458 22 733
52 743 56 282 39 273 40 816 42 142 42474
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2000
2000 PUBLIC FACILTlTlES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 17
GROWTH ANALYSIS
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
As indicated in the graphs in Figure 8,
the projected seasonal population is larger
than the permanent resident population in
the Upper and Middle Keys from 1990 to
2015. The Lower Keys consistently have a
lower projected seasonal population as com-
pared to the number of permanent residents.
Overall, permanent residents outnumber the
peak seasonal population on any given
evening in unincorporated Monroe County.
The incorporations of Islamorada and
Marathon have created substantial reduc-
tions in both permanent and seasonal popu-
lation for the Upper and Middle Keys ser-
vice areas. As mentioned in a previous sec-
tion, the Upper Keys service area lost 13%
of its functional population (permanent
population + seasonal population), and the
Middle Keys service area is expected to lose
87% of its functional population as a result
of these incorporations.
The chart below shows the estimated
permanent, seasonal, and functional popu-
lation by PAED and incorporated area for
2000.
Figure 9: 2000 Population
Estimates by PAEO
2000 Permanent 2000 Seasonal 2000 Functional
PAED PODulation PODulation Population
1 4730 1 283 6013
2 3,333 1 282 4,615
~ 3 2 183 1,731 3,914
Q) 4a 4975 3178 8154
~
~ 4b 58 23 81
0 5 5022 3289 8311
...J
6 440 1,883 2323
Subtotal 20.741 12.669 33410
7 - - -
8 - - -
~ 9 - - -
Q)
~ 10 719 835 1,553
Q)
:c 11 379 2011 2,391
"C
~ 12a - - -
13 - - -
Subtotal 1 098 2.846 3944
12b - - -
14 - - -
15 2991 1,759 4749
rJl 16 2,352 4,554 6,905
>-
Q) 2,683 5783
~ 17 3 100
CD 18 4516 4580 9097
0.
0. 2.764 2,400 5163
:::l 19-20
21 1 647 3,101 4,748
22 65 104 169
Subtotal 17 435 19 180 36615
'UN,liilio.alliiitioiltfr ...............F .....""
'''F
Villaae of Islamorada 7,665 8,644 16,309
City of Layton 208 163 372
Citv of Kev Colony Beach 1 101 1,641 2742
City of Marathon 11 ,272 10182 21,455
City of Key West 26,102 }1'1..1IlI 18,165 44,267
'#';! ..m AA - III
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2000
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
GROWTH ANALYSIS
PAGE 18
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The functional population for all of Mon- Figure 10: Projected Change
roe County is projected to increase by 1,941 in Population from 1999 to
people from 1999 to 2000, a percent in- 2000
crease of 1 .23%. Unincorporated Monroe
County is projected to decline from 94,565 %
to 73,969, (a total of 20,596 members of Chan e
the functional population) from 1999 to 0.82%
2000. The functional population decline is -84.27%
a result of the incorporation of Marathon in 0.72%
late 1999. This is a net decrease of 21.7%
for unincorporated Monroe County. 94 565 73 969 -21.78%
The functional population in the Upper 62 607 85 144 36.00%
Keys service area is expected to increase COUNTY
from 36,317 people to 36,615 (0.82%) from TOTAL 157 172 159 113 1.23%
1999 to 2000. This projected increase re-
sults from the addition of 85 permanent resi-
dents and 213 in the seasonal population. %
From 1990 to 2000, the functional popu- Area Chan e
U er Ke s 0.49%
lation in the Middle Keys service area is Middle Ke s -91 .07%
projected to decline a total of 21,133 people Lower Ke s 0.76%
from 25,077 to 3,944 (a percent change of Unincorp.
-84.2%). The projected decline includes the Subtotal 50 236 39 273 -21.82%
removal of 11 ,203 permanent residents, and Incorporated
9,929 members of the peak seasonal popu- Areas 34 878 46 349 32.89%
lation from the Middle Keys service area. COUNTY
TOTAL 85 114 85 622 0.60%
The functional population of the Lower
Keys service area is expected to increase
0.72% from 33,171 in 1999 to 33,410 in
2000. The Lower Keys are projected to add %
157 permanent residents, and 82 members Po ulation Chan e
of the seasonal population from 1999 to 19180 1.13%
2000. 2846 -77.72%
12 669 0.66%
The charts in Figure 10 show the pro- 44 329 34 696 -21.73%
jected changes in population from 1999 to
2000. 27 729 38 795 39.91 %
COUNTY
TOTAL 72 058 73491 1.99%
Source: Monroe County Planning Department,
2000
2000 PUBLIC FACILTlTlES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 19
GROWTH ANALYSIS
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Number of
Residential Permits
The second major component of the
Growth Analysis Section is the number of
residential permits issued. The majority of
the new residential permits issued are for
permanent residential use. However, some
of the permits issued for permanent dwell-
ings are used by the seasonal population.
One issue to remember when consider-
ing growth based upon building permits is
the time lapse which occurs between when
a permit for a new residence is issued, and
when that residence is ultimately occupied.
The knowledge that the Rate of Growth Or-
dinance (ROGO) was about to be adopted
in the early 1990s caused many property
owners to obtain building permits prior to
when they were prepared to construct their
dwellings. As a result, there are many dwell-
ings in the Keys which have permits, but are
not yet fully constructed or are only partially
complete. Based upon this time lapse, the
number of residential permits issued over-
states the actual number of new residential
dwellings which currently require public fa-
cilities.
The number of dwelling units (permanent
and seasonal) which can be permitted in
Monroe County has been controlled by
ROGO (Rate of Growth Ordinance) since
July of 1992. ROGO was developed as a
response to the inability of the road network
to accommodate a large-scale hurricane
evacuation in a timely fashion. A series of
complex models developed during the first
evacuation study identified an approximate
number of additional dwelling units which
could be permitted and which would not
have a detrimental effect on the amount of
time needed to evacuate the Keys. The
ROGO system was developed as a tool to
GROWTH ANALYSIS
equitably distribute the remaining number
of permits available both geographically and
over time.
The ROGO system distributes a set
number of allocations for new residential
permits on a yearly basis from July 14 of
one year to July 13th of the following year.
Year 8 of the ROGO system ends on July
13, 2000, and Year 9 of the system starts
on July 14, 2000. The current ROGO sys-
tem will expire on July 13, 2002. Each ser-
vice area of unincorporated Monroe County
and several of the incorporated areas re-
ceive a set number of allocations for new
residential permits which can be issued
during that particular ROGO year. The num-
ber of allocations available to a particular
area was based upon the supply of vacant
buildable land located in that area prior to
the start of the ROGO system. The Ocean
Reef area of north Key Largo is exempted
from the ROGO system due to its proximity
to Card Sound Road, an alternate evacua-
tion route.
The ROGO system allowed 255 alloca-
tions for new residential units in unincorpo-
rated Monroe County each year for the first
six years of the ROGO system. The num-
ber of allocations available was reduced by
the State of FloridaAdministration Commis-
sion during Year 7 of ROGO based upon a
lack of progress on the implementation of
the Year 201 0 Comprehensive Plan. Avail-
able allocations were reduced by twenty
percent (20%), taking the available figure
from 255 to 204 new residential units.
The number of available allocations in
unincorporated Monroe County was further
reduced by the incorporation of Islamorada,
which now receives 22 residential alloca-
tions per year. The incorporation of
Islamorada reduced the number of available
allocations in unincorporated Monroe
PAGE 20
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
County from 204 to 182. This number was
further reduced by the incorporation of
Marathon, which received a total of 24 new
residential allocations. The incorporation
of Marathon reduces the number of avail-
able new residential allocations in unincor-
porated Monroe County from 182 to 158.
In unincorporated Monroe County, the
ROGO system will now allocate 57 units to
the Upper Keys service area, 9 units to the
Middle Keys service area, and 92 units to
the Lower Keys, for an annual total of 158
additional residential units each ROGO
year. Twenty percent of these units in each
subarea are set aside for affordable hous-
ing.
The table on the following page presents
the number of residential permits issued by
subarea in unincorporated Monroe County
during the 1999 calendar year. The data
presented in the table does not include per-
mits issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach,
Layton, or Islamorada. Also, the boundaries
between the Upper and Middle Keys ser-
vice areas, and the boundaries used for this
data are slightly different. The chart below
compares the boundaries. Basically, the
service areas from the Codes break at
Whale Harbor Channel, and do not include
Upper and Lower Matecumbe in the Upper
Keys, while the permitting records break at
Channel Five and do include Upper and
Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys.
Figure 11: Boundary
Comparison Table
Figure 12 shows the breakdown of new
residential permits issued for unincorpo-
rated Monroe County through the 1990s.
According to Building Department records,
4,099 residential permits were issued dur-
ing the 1990s, with 80% (3,266) being is-
sued to single family residences. Only 9%
of the new residential permits were issued
to duplex, multifamily, or mobile home
projects. Almost 53% (2, 139) of all the resi-
dential permits issued in the 1990s were
issued from 1990 to 1992 as applicants
were attempting to obtain permits prior to
ROGO.
According to Building Department
records, a total of 335 residential permits
were issued in unincorporated Monroe
County in 1999, an increase of 24% from
1998. A portion of this figure relates to a
series of permits issued to Ocean Reef to
vest a portion of the community from the
"Habitat Evaluation Index" (HEI) require-
ments . Also, a percentage of the permits
were issued for replacement of existing
mobile homes or other existing residences.
There were more new residential per-
mits issued in 1999 than any previous year
back to 1992.
AREA
UnDer Keys
Middle Keys
Lower Keys
SERVICE AREAS
Mile
Marker
RanQe
83.5-112
47.5- 83.4
4-47.4
PERMIT OFFICE
Mile
Marker
Range
71-112
47.5-70.9
4-47.4
PAEDs
Included
128-22
7-13
1-6
PAEDs
Included
12A-22
7-11
1-6
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTlTIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 21
GROWTH ANALYSIS
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 12: New and Replacement Residential and Seasonal
Units Permitted by Year for Unincorporated Monroe County
Single Multi- Mobile Hotell
Family Duplex Family Home/RV Motel TOTAL
1990 Upper Keys 310 2 10 35 32 389
Middle Keys 68 8 4 0 0 80
Lower Keys 300 0 0 1 0 301
Subtotal 678 10 14 36 32 770
1991 Upper Keys 283 2 119 28 117 549
Middle Keys 75 6 0 6 27 114
Lower Keys 176 0 0 2 0 178
Subtotal 534 8 119 36 144 841
1992 Upper Keys 190 38 0 6 23 257
Middle Keys 67 0 0 1 0 68
Lower Keys 189 0 14 0 0 203
Subtotal 446 38 14 7 23 528
1993 Upper Keys 104 0 0 5 0 109
Middle Keys 55 2 0 1 0 58
Lower Keys 80 0 0 1 0 81
Subtotal 239 2 0 7 0 248
1994 Upper Keys 109 0 0 3 0 112
Middle Keys 94 0 0 0 0 94
Lower Keys 36 0 0 1 0 37
Subtotal 239 0 0 4 0 243
1995 Upper Keys 131 2 0 4 0 137
Middle Keys 27 2 2 1 5 37
Lower Keys 144 0 0 0 0 144
Subtotal 302 4 2 5 5 318
1996 Upper Keys 114 0 3 3 0 120
Middle Keys 40 0 15 0 0 55
Lower Keys 83 0 0 6 0 89
Subtotal 237 0 18 9 0 264
1997 Upper Keys 89 0 12 0 0 101
Middle Keys 27 4 0 0 77 108
Lower Keys 73 0 0 0 0 73
Subtotal 189 4 12 0 77 282
1998 Upper Keys 78 0 0 3 0 81
Middle Keys 13 0 0 0 110 123
Lower Keys 66 0 0 0 0 66
Subtotal 157 0 0 3 110 270
1999 Upper Keys 138 0 0 2 0 140
Middle Keys 20 0 0 24 63 107
Lower Keys 87 0 0 0 1 88
Subtotal 245 0 0 26 64 335
TOTALS 3.266 66 179 133 455 4.099
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2000
GROWTH ANALYSIS
PAGE 22
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figures 13 and 14 show the distribution
of new residential permits issued in unin-
corporated Monroe County during 1998 and
1999. Figure 15 shows the distribution over
the 1990s.
Figure 13: Comparison of
Residential Permits by Service
Area, 1998-1999
1998
1999
Lower
Keys
24%
Mddle
Keys
46%
Lower
Keys
26%
Mddle
Keys
32%
Source: Monroe County Building Department,
2000
900
850
800
750
700
.!! 650
.- 600
E 550
8? 500
'0 450
.. 400
~ 350
E 300
:::I 250
z 200
150
100
50
o
Figure 14: Comparison of
Residential Permit Types
1998-1999
1998
I-bteVM>tel
(Vested or
FDGO
Exerrpt)
41%
Aeplacerrent
M:>bile
I-brreIRV
1%
1999
f-bteL/M:)te
(Vested or
FO:1)
Exerrpl)1
19%
RlpIacerre
III M:lbiIe
H:mlIRV
8%
QJplex
0%
OJpIex
0%
Silgle Farrily
58%
MJIli-Fanily
0%
Mllti-FaniIy
0%
SngIe
FaniIy
73%
Source: Monroe County Building Department,
2000
Figure 15: Comparison of
Residential Permit Types
1990-1999
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2000
l1'ZI HotellMotel
. Mobile
Home/RV
. MJlti-
Family
. Duplex
o Single
Family
2000 PUBLIC F AClLTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 23
GROWTH ANALYSIS
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 13 shows an increase in the total
number of permits issued in the Upper and
Lower Keys service areas relative to the
number issued in the Middle Keys from 1998
to 1999. In addition, there were 90 more
new residential permits issued in 1999 than
1998.
Figure 14 shows the composition of new
residential permits issued in 1998 and 1999.
No new duplexes or multifamily units were
permitted in either year. Single family resi-
dential permits occupy the largest percent-
age in both years, with 88 more new single
family permits being issued in 1999. New
hotel and motel units continued to be per-
mitted in both years, 82% of the total hotel/
motel permits issued during 1998 and 1999
were issued in the Middle Keys service area
to a property which was vested from ROGO
and the 2010 Comprehensive Plan require-
ments.
Figure 15 shows the total number of per-
mits issued in unincorporated Monroe
County from 1990 to 1999. The chart shows
a swell in permitting activity prior to the adop-
tion of ROGO, and then declines following
its adoption.
Figure 16 below shows the breakdown
in the types of residential permits issued over
the 1990s.
Figure 16: Types of Permits
Issued 1990-1999
HoteV
M:lbile M:ltel
Home/RV 11 %
Source:
Monroe
County
Building
Dept.,
2000
MJlti-
Farrily
4%
Duplex
2%
Non-Residential
Square Footage
Nonresidential permitting also plays a
role in growth analysis. Nonresidential per-
mits are just as the name implies every thing
that is not residential, which includes, but is
not limited to, industrial, commercial , non-
profit and public buildings, and replacement
or remodeling of existing nonresidential
structures. Also included are vested and
ROGO exempt hotel-motels, campgrounds,
marinas and other commercial facilities.
With very little industrial and agricultural
activity in the Keys, the predominant form
of nonresidential development is commer-
cial. In Monroe County, there are two pri-
mary types of commercial development:
retail trade and services (which includes
tourism-related development like hotels and
restaurants). Therefore, the impacts of non-
residential development on public facilities
varies significantly based on the type of
commercial use.
Nonresidential and residential develop-
ment tend to fuel one another. Residential
populations provide markets for nonresiden-
tial activities. Nonresidential development,
in turn, helps to drive population growth by
providing services and employment. Cer-
tain types of nonresidential development
also concentrate the demand for public fa-
cilities within certain locations and during
peak periods.
The Monroe County Building Depart-
ment tracks the number of commercial per-
mits by subdistrict in unincorporated Mon-
roe County (just like new residential per-
mits). In addition to the number of permits,
the Building Department tracks the amount
of floor space (square footage) affected in
in each commercial building permit issued.
Figure 17 shows the number of non-
residential isssued indicating possible
trends in commercial permitsing over the
1990s.
GROWTH ANALYSIS
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 24
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 17: New & Redevelop-
ment Nonresidential Permits
by Year
#of
Permits Floor Area
Area Issued (Sa. Ft.)
1990 UDDer Kevs 20 91 097
Middle Kevs 5 14 142
Lower Kevs 8 40 535
Subtotal 33 145.174
1991 UDDer Kevs 35 46 641
Middle Kevs 20 103 293
Lower Kevs 9 42 770
Subtotal 64 192 704
1992 UDDer Kevs 15 40 506
Middle Kevs 2 7263
Lower Kevs 5 1 529
Subtotal 22 49.298
1993 UDDer Kevs 4 16334
Middle Kevs 4 24.812
Lower Kevs 4 27 236
Subtotal 12 68.382
1994 UDDer Kevs 4 24 648
Middle Kevs 7 31 079
Lower Kevs 4 0
Subtotal 15 55 727
1995 UDDer Kevs 24 147319
Middle Kevs 12 109.331
Lower Kevs 8 10004
Subtotal 44 266.654
1996 UDDer Kevs 17 102 795
Middle Kevs 6 93 334
Lower Kevs 2 14 149
Subtotal 25 210.278
1997 UDDer Kevs 14 93 503
Middle Kevs 83 8420
Lower Kevs 2 18 327
Subtotal 99 120.250
1998 UDDer Kevs 4 60.936
Middle Kevs 73 16304
Lower Kevs 1 24.152
Subtotal 78 101 392
1999 UDDer Kevs 8 14861
Middle Kevs 68 84 715
Lower Kevs 1 2054
Subtotal 77 101.630
TOTALS 469 1.312.089
Source: Monroe County Builiding Department,
2000
The subdistricts shown in the chart do
not directly correspond to the service areas
mandated in section of 9.5-292 of the Land
Development Regulations. Refer to the
boundary descriptions found in Figure 11
of this report to compare the two areas.
As indicated in Figure 17, a total of 469
nonresidential permits have been issued in
unincorporated Monroe County over the
1990s.(note that these figures do not include
the nonresidential permits issued in the in-
corporated areas over the same period).
Nonresidential permitting trends were
very similar between 1998 and 1999, with
only 1 more permit and an additional 238
square feet permitted in 1999.
The figure below shows the relative
amount of square footage permitted in each
of the three service areas over the 1990s.
Figure 1 8: Commercial Square
Footage by Service Area
1990-1999
Lower
Keys
14%
180,756
sq. ft.
Mddle
Keys
38%
492,693
sq. ft.
LPper
Keys
48%
638,640
sq. ft.
Source: Monroe County Building Department,
2000
2000 PUBLIC FAClLTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
GROWTH ANALYSIS
PAGE 25
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 19 shows the trends in the amount of nonresidential permitting activity have fluctu-
ated throughout the 1990s. The permiting activity based on square footage affected gener-
ally declined from 1990 through 1994 with a major jump in affected area occurring in 1995
which resulted from the knowledge of an impending implementation of a nonresidential per-
mit allocation system similar to the ROGO system for residential development.
Figure 19: Nonresidential Permits by Service Area 1990-1999
CD
~ 275,cro
'0 2fAJ,cro
.f 225,cro
CT 2OO,cro
en 175,cro
~ 150,cro
i 125,cro
~ 100,cro
! 75,cro
5 5O,cro
z 25,cro
i 0
-
~ 1900 1991 1992 1993 1994 1~ 1900 1997 1998 1999
:t:
~
-~~
...1110'W) M..+..Ie k"'0l~
. .. ~~",~,,~ \..1..1 I v;;;yo
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2000
Since residential development is con-
strained through the Rate of Growth Ordi-
nance and the Permit Allocation System, it
was thought that nonresidential (commer-
cial) development should also be con-
strained in the interest of maintaining a bal-
ance of land uses.
At the time the Comprehensive Plan was
prepared in 1991, 17.6% of the land was
under residential use, while 4.6% was used
for commercial development as indicated in
Table 2.1, Monroe County Existing Land
Uses, in the Monroe County Year 201 0 Com-
prehensive Plan Technical Document. It was
determined that this balance was appropri-
ate given the knowledge available at the time
the Comprehensive Plan was prepared.
c:::J lDAer ~
..... Year1yTdaI
To assure that balance was maintained,
the Comprehensive Plan proposed Policy
101.3.1, which states:
"Monroe County shall maintain a
balance between residential and non-
residential growth by limiting the gross
square footage of nonresidential de-
velopment over the 15 year planning
horizon in order to maintain a ratio of
approximately 239 square feet of non-
residential development for each new
residential unit permitted through the
Permit Allocation System..."
GROWTH ANALYSIS
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPAClTI' ASSESSMENT
PAGE 26
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
In other words, the Comprehensive Plan
limits the square footage of new commer-
cial development which may be permitted.
The commercial square footage allocation
is 239 square feet for each (1) new resi-
dential permit issued. This equates to
around 61 ,000 square feet of new commer-
cial development per year throughout unin-
corporated Monroe County.
The Comprehensive Plan was adopted
in by the Board of County Commissioners
in 1993, but did not have the full force of
law until ratified by the Department of Com-
munity Affairs and the Administration Com-
mission, which did not occur until 1996. In
the interim period between 1993 and 1996,
many property owners applied for and re-
ceived permits for new commercial square
footage based upon the knowledge that the
ability to obtain a permit would be con-
strained after the ratification of the Compre-
hensive Plan. The net result was that over
411 ,441 square feet of new commercial
square footage was permitted over the pe-
riod from 1993 to 1996. If the Comprehen-
sive Plan had the full force of law during
this three-year window, it would have only
been possible to obtain permits for a total
of 256,447 square feet of new commercial
development based upon Policy 101.3.1.
As a result, the lapse between the time
the Comprehensive Plan was adopted and
implemented more square footage was per-
mitted (154,994 sq. ft.) than would have
been allowable by the Comprehensive Plan.
This situation is the reason for the current
de facto commercial moratorium. The mora-
torium must continue until the balance be-
tween new residential uses and the exist-
ing commercial development is reestab-
lished or the comprehensive plan is
amended.
Figure 12 of this report indicates that
1,930 residential building permits have been
issued from 1993 to 1999. Following the
239 square foot rule mandated in the Com-
prehensive Plan, a total of 461 ,270 square
feet of nonresidential development could
have been permitted, and the balance been
maintained.
According to Figure 17,924,313 square
feet of new nonresidential development
have been permitted from 1993 to 1999.
However, all the commercial square foot-
age permitted during and after 1996 is ei-
ther vested from the rules in the Compre-
hensive Plan, exempt from the Plan require-
ments (nonprofit and public services are
exempt), replacement of existing square
footage, or located in the Ocean Reef area
(where new development is not subject to
ROGO or the commercial balance require-
ments). As a result, the figures reported in
Figure 17 can not be fully relied upon to
determine the status of permitting as it re-
lates to the rules in the Comprehensive Plan
which address the balance between resi-
dential and nonresidential uses.
The Planning and Environmental Re-
sources Department is now preparing a
study which will give the exact status of resi-
dential and nonresidential permitting as they
relate to the de facto commercial morato-
rium. However, the Comprehensive Plan
also calls for the development and imple-
mentation of a nonresidential permit allo-
cation system similar to the one used for
residential development. The nonresiden-
tial permit allocation system must be devel-
oped and integrated in the Land Develop-
ment Regulations before any additional non-
residential square footage may be devel-
oped.
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
GROWTH ANALYSIS
PAGE 27
o
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Summary
To summarize, this growth analysis is
based upon projected changes in popula-
tion as well as residential and nonresiden-
tial permitting in unincorporated Monroe
County.
There are two groups composing the
population in Monroe County: the permanent
resident population, and the peak seasonal
papulation. The sum of these two groups
gives the functional papulation, or the maxi-
mum number of people in the Keys on any
given evening.
The functional population of all of Monroe
County is expected to grow by more than
16,000 people from 1990 to 2015, an in-
crease of 11 % over the period. Planning
Department projections show the rate of in-
crease in functional population is expected
to slow after the year 2000.
The functional population of unincorpo-
rated Monroe County is expected to reach
73,969 people by 2000, a decrease of 28%
from 1990 due to the incorporations of
Islamorada in 1997 and Marathon in 1999.
The Upper Keys portion of unincorporated
Monroe County accounts for 49.5% of the
unincorporated functional population, while
the Lower Keys portions accounts for 45.2%
in 2000. These percentages are expected
to remain relatively constant through 2015.
The permanent population of all of Mon-
roe County is projected to grow from 78,855
people in 1990 to 90,654 by 2015 (an in-
crease of 15%). The peak seasonal popu-
lation for all of Monroe County is projected
to grow from 70,493 in 1990 to 74,712 by
2015 (an increase of 6% over the period).
The permanent resident population for
unincorparated Manroe County is expected
to be 39,273 peaple in 2000, while the peak
seasonal populatian is projected to. be
34,696 peaple. Both of these figures are
lower than in 1999 due to. the incarporation
of Marathon. County-wide grawth rates in
the functianal, permanent, and seasanal
populatians equal 1.23%, 0.6%, and 1.99%
respectively from 1999 to 2000.
In terms of the number of new residen-
tial permits, a total of 335 new residential
permits (including vested or ROGO exempt
hotel rooms) were issued in 1999, an in-
crease of 24% from 1998. Mo.re new resi-
dential permits were issued in 1999 than
the previous 6 years due in part to the alle-
viation of the back log of permits created
by the Cesspit Replacement Program
which is tied to the awarding of residential
ROGO Allocations..
Over the 1990s (1990-1999) 80% of the
new residential permits (3,266) were issued
to single family residences, while only 9%
(378) were issued for new multifamily, du-
plex, or mobile homes. A total of 245 per-
mits (73%) were issued for new single fam-
ily residences in 1999.
The current rate of growth guidelines in-
dicate that unincorporated Monroe County
has a total of 182 permits it may issue dur-
ing the ROGO year (not including the addi-
tional 90 replacement affordable housing
units which were allowed by the DCA based
upon the lower enclosure removal program).
After the incorporation of Marathon, this
number fell to 158 permits a year. Year 8 of
ROGO will come to a close on July 13, 2000,
leaving two years remaining in the current
ROGO system.
PAGE 28
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACllY ASSESSMENT
GROWTH ANALYSIS
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
TRANSPORTATION
FACILITIES
This section of the report investigates
the current capacity of the transportation
network in Monroe County. This analysis
includes changes in traffic volumes, the level
of service on US-1 , the reserve capacity of
the highway and county roads, and the
Florida Department of Transportation Five
Year Work Program for Monroe County.
Roads are one of the four critical public
facilities identified for annual assessment
in the Land Development Regulations. In
fact, roads are the only public facility with
clear and specific standards for level of ser-
vice measurements identified in the Land
Development Regulations and Comprehen-
sive Plan. The regulations require all seg-
ments of US-1 to remain at a level of ser-
vice of 'C', and all County roads to be re-
main at a level of service 'D'. Subsequent
portions of this section will explain the level
of service measurements, and how the level
of service is calculated.
Existing Roadway Facilities
Monroe County's roadway transporta-
tion system is truly unique. Nowhere else
is there a chain of islands over 100 miles
long connected by 42 bridges along a single
highway. This single highway, the Overseas
Highway (US-1), functions as a collector, an
arterial, and the "Main Street" for the Keys.
US-1 is a lifeline for the Keys, from both
economic and public safety perspectives.
Each day it carries food, supplies, and tour-
ists from the mainland. In the event of a
hurricane, it is the only viable evacuation
route to the mainland for most of Monroe
County.
US-1 in Monroe County is predominantly
a two-lane road. Of its 112 total miles, ap-
proximately 80 miles (74%) are two-lane
segments that are undivided. The four-lane
sections are located on Key Largo (MM 90
to 106), the Marathon area (MM 48 to 54),
Bahia Honda (MM 35 to 37), and from Key
West to Boca Chica (MM 2 to 9).
In addition to US-1 , there are 450 miles
of County (secondary) roads with 38
bridges. US-1 and the County (secondary)
roads have a combined total of approxi-
mately 340 intersections in the Keys. The
Monroe County Division of Public Works is
charged with maintaining and improving
secondary roads which are located within
the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe
County. The Florida Department of Trans-
portation (FDOT) is responsible for main-
taining US-1.
The following list identifies the traffic sig-
nals in operation along the US-1 corridor
(excluding those found on the island of Key
West).
Figure 20: Fully-Signalized
Intersections
Mile
Marker
4.4
4.6
4.8
30.3
48.5
50
52.4
52.5
53
53.5
84.5
90
90.5
91.5
99.5
101
104
2000 PUBLIC FACILTlTIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 29
o
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts can be very useful in as-
sessing the capacity of the road network,
and help determine when capacity improve-
ments need to be made. The two primary
measurements for determining traffic vol-
umes are the average daily traffic in an area
(referred to as an "ADT"), and the annual
average daily traffic (referred to as an
"AADT'). Average daily traffic counts are
collected from both directions over seven
twenty-four hour periods which usually in-
clude a weekend. The amount of traffic
counted over the week is then divided by
five or seven to yield the average daily traf-
fic for a particular location. The liS-day ADT'
measurement considers only weekdays, and
the "7 -day ADT' includes the weekend. The
ADT information can then be used in a for-
mula called a "weekly factor" to estimate the
annual average daily traffic, which is an es-
timate of the average amount of traffic at a
particular location on any given day of the
year.
In Monroe County, traffic counts have
been conducted in the same locations since
1992. These counts occur at Mile Marker
84 on Upper Matecumbe, Mile Marker 50 in
Marathon, and at Mile Marker 30 on Big Pine
Key. The counts are usually performed dur-
ing the six-week peak tourist season which
begins in the second week of February. This
year's counts were completed between
March 4 and March 10, 2000.
Figure 21 compares the traffic counts for
1999 with those for 2000.
Figure 21: Traffic Counts for
1999 and 2000
Big Pine Key (MM 30)
5-Da ADT
7 -Da ADT
AADT
1999
25 819
24 955
20 843
%
Chan e
3.98%
4.47%
4.47%
2000
26 846
26 070 .
21 774
Marathon (MM 50)
5-Da ADT
7 -Da ADT
AADT
1999
38 619
36818
30 750
%
Chan e
-5.67%
-5.64%
-5.64%
2000
36 431
34 742
29 017
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
%
1999 2000 Chan e
5-Da ADT 26512 26642 0.49%
7-Da ADT 26465 26831 1.38%
AADT 22103 22410 1.39%
Source: 2000 Arterial Travel Time & Delay Study,
URS Greiner, Inc.
The average weekday (5-Day ADT) and
the average weekly (7 -Day ADT) traffic vol-
umes, compared to last year, have in-
creased at the Big Pine and Upper
Matecumbe locations, and dropped at the
Marathon location. The AADTs followed a
similar trend, with increases on Big Pine and
Upper Matecumbe, and decreases in Mara-
thon. According to the report by URS
Greiner, traffic volumes during the study
period were generally found to be "heavy".
The amount of traffic was uniform through-
out the counting period in the Upper Keys,
while higher weekday traffic volumes were
observed in Marathon and the Lower Keys.
A detailed historical comparison of the
AADT traffic counts at all three locations for
the period from 1993 to 1999 is shown in
Figure 22.
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 30
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 22: Historical Comparison of AADTs 1993-2000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
19 738 17743 22 688 21 186 21 496 19866 20 843 21 774
27 688 26 297 28 927 27 924 28 930 28 651 30 750 29 017
19296 19 593 20473 20 083 21 599 21 301 22103 22410
32,500
30,000
27,500
25,000
I- 22,500
c
c( 20,000
c(
17,500
15,000
12,500
10,000
1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
o Big Pine Key . Marathon III Upper Matecumbe
Source: 2000 Arterial and Travel Time Delay Study, URS Greiner, Inc.
The chart shows that the Marathon lo-
cation consistently records the highest traf-
fic volumes throughout the period, with
counts generally in the upper 20,000 range.
The AADT counts for Big Pine and Upper
Matecumbe hover in the low 20,000 range
over the period.
A regression analysis of the AADT at
each of the three locations over the last eight
years indicate that traffic volumes in the Big
30,000
Ul
"0
c:
I1l
(/) 25,000
::::l
0
.c
t:.
(/)
Q) 20,000
:Q
.c
Q)
>
'0 15,000
'**'
.
Pine Key segment have been increasing at
a rate of 1.3% per year. Traffic volumes in
the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe seg-
ments of US-1 have been increasing at a
rate of 1.4% and 2.4% per year respectively.
The historical growth in traffic on U8-1 is
depicted in the regression graph below.
Figure 23: Regression
Analysis of AADTs
1992-2000
.
Marathon
· Rate of Grow th
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - = 1.390/0 per Vear
U. Matecurrbe
Rate of Grow th
= 2.37% per Vear
- -1""'M",c"""M'" '''''''li[",''''
H@
wiil
1993
1994
1995
Big Pine Regression Line
Big Pine Data Points
~W"
.:.
.
... ..
<%"",,;;~,,;;;;;*,~m=ll<<~;""m<i~
~~;;;
,..,..,.<",.;.;,,;;;{;/,,,;;;;,(~,,<k;.;~;:;i;:':;'
- --- Big Ane
Rate of Grow th
= 1.30% per year
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
-Marathon Regression Line
. Marathon Data Points
-U.Matecumbe Regression Line
.. U. Matecumbe Data Points
Source: 2000 Arterial and Travel Time Delay Study, URS Greiner, Inc.
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTlTlES CAPACIIT ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 31
o
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Level of Service Background
Monroe County has conducted travel
time and delay studies of US-1 on an an-
nual basis since 1991. The primary objec-
tive of the US-1 Arterial Travel Time and De-
lay Study is to monitor the level of service
on U.S. Highway 1 for concurrency manage-
ment purposes pursuant to Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the
Land Development Regulations. The study
utilizes an empirical relationship between the
volume-based capacities and the speed-
based level of service methodology devel-
oped by the US-1 Level of Service Task
Force.
The US-1 Level of Service Task Force is
a multi-agency group with members from
Monroe County, the Florida Department of
Transportation, and the Florida Department
of Community Affairs. A uniform methodol-
ogy was developed in 1993 and amended
December 1997. The methodology adopted
considers both the overall level of service
from Key West to the mainland, and the level
of service on 24 selected segments. The
methodology was developed from basic cri-
teria and principles contained in Chapters 7
(Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Ru-
ral Two-Lane Highways) and Chapter 11
(Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985
Highway Capacity Manual.
Overall Level of Service on US-l
Overall speeds are those speeds re-
corded over the 1 08-mile length of the Keys
between Key West and Miami-Dade County.
Overall speeds reflect the conditions expe-
rienced by long distance traffic traveling the
entire length of the Keys. Given that US-1
is the only principal arterial in unincorporated
Monroe County, the movement of long dis-
tance traffic is an important consideration.
The overall level of service or capacity
of the entire length of US-1 is measured in
the average speed of a vehicle travelling
from one end to the other of US-1.. The
level of service (LOS) criteria for overall
speeds on US-1 in Monroe County, as
adopted by the US-1 Level of Service Task
Force, are as follows:
LOS A
LOSB
LOSC
LOSD
LOS E
LOS F
51 mph or greater
48 mph to 50.9 mph
45 mph to 47.9 mph
42 mph to 44.9 mph
36 mph to 41.9 mph
below 36 mph
Both Monroe County and the Florida
Department of Transportation have adopted
a level of service 'C' standard for the over-
all length of US-1. In other words, a vehicle
travelling from Mile Marker 4 to Mile marker
112 (or vice versa) must maintain an aver-
age speed of at least 45 mph to achieve
the level of service 'C' standard.
The median overall speed during the
2000 study was 46.4 mph, which is 0.3 mph
lower than the 1999 median speed of 46.7
mph. The mean operating speed was 45.7
mph with a 95% confidence interval of plus
or minus 0.8 mph. All of these measure-
ments correspond to LOS C conditions.
The highest overall speed recorded in
the study was 49.0 mph (1.2% higher than
1999 highest overall speed), which occurred
on a re-run on Friday, March 24, 2000 be-
tween 3:45 p.m. and 6:13 p.m., in the south-
bound direction. The lowest overall speed
recorded was 40.2 mph (2.3% higher than
1999 lowest overall speed), which occurred
on Tuesday, March 7, 2000 between 2:15
p.m. and 5:15 p.m. in the southbound di-
rection. A drawbridge delay event which
TRANSPORTATION
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 32
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
lasted over 10 minutes in Cross Key seg-
ment was the primary cause for the Tues-
day southbound run to be the lowest speed.
The second lowest overall speed recorded
was 41.9 mph (4.3% lower than 1999 low-
est overall speed), which occurred on Sat-
urday, March 11,2000 between 10:45 a.m.
and 1 :36 p.m. in the northbound direction.
The chart below examines the changes
in the median overall speed on US-1.
Figure 24: Changes in
Median Overall Speed
on US-1 1992-2000
County-wide
Median Functional
Year S eed LOS Po ulation
1992 46.9 C 150 668
1993 47.4 C 0.5 154 575
1994 47.3 C -0.1 154 022
1995 47.8 C 0.5 154 255
1996 47.1 C -0.7 155 886
1997 46.5 C -0.7 156 700
1998 45.7 C -0.8 156 120
1999 46.7 C 1.0 157 172
2000 46.4 C -0.3 159 113
48.0
47.4
47.5
"
C1) 47.0
8-
C/)
c 46.5
as
:c
C1)
:E 46.0
"iii
..
C1) 45.5
>
0
The charts show that the overall median
speed for US-1 has remained between 45.7
mph and 47.8 from 1992 to the present. It
is interesting to note that most changes in
the median speed show a reduction. Should
the overall median speed fall ever below 45
mph (the minimum LOS C standard), then
the US-1 capacity would be considered in-
adequate.
Level of Service on US-l Segments
In addition to a determination of the over-
all capacity throughout the entire 108 mile
length of US-1 between Mile
Marker 4 and 112, Section 9.5-
292 of the Land Development
Regulations requires that the ca-
pacity of portions or "segments"
of US-1 also be assessed annu-
ally. There are a total of twenty
four (24) segments of US-1 from
Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112.
A map and description of the seg-
ment boundaries can be found in
Figures 26 and 27. The segments
were defined by the US-1 Level
of Service Task Force to reflect
roadway cross sections, speed
limits, and geographical bound-
aries.
Numeric
Change in
Po ulation
3907
-553
233
1 631
814
-580
1052
1 941
45.0
44.5
46.4
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Sources: 2000 Arterial & Travel Time Delay Study, URS
Greiner, Inc. & Monroe County Planning Department,
2000
The capacity or level of ser-
vice for a US-1 segment is mea-
sured in median speeds, similar
to the overall capacity measure-
ment. Segment speeds are the
speeds recorded within individual
links of US-1 , and reflect the con-
ditions experienced during local
trips. However, the determination
of the median speed on a seg-
ment is a more involved process
than determining the overall level
of service since different seg-
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 33
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
ments have different conditions.
The Land Development Regulations re-
quire each segment of the highway to main-
tain a level of service of 'e' or better. The
level of service criteria for segment speeds
on US-1 in Monroe County depends on the
flow characteristics and the posted speed
limits within the given segment. Flow char-
acteristics relate to the ability of a vehicle to
travel through a particular segment without
being slowed or stopped by traffic signals
or other devices. Segments with a series of
permanent traffic signals or other similar traf-
fic control devices in close proximity to each
other are considered to be "Interrupted Flow
Segments", and are expected to have longer
travel times due to the delays caused by
these signals or control devices. Roadway
segments without a series of signals or con-
trol devices are considered to be "Uninter-
rupted Flow Segments". Uninterrupted seg-
ments may have one or more traffic signals,
but they are not in close proximity to one
another as in the interrupted segment case.
The methodology used to determine median
speed and level of service on a particular
segment is based upon that segment's sta-
tus as an interrupted or uninterrupted flow
segment.
There are two interrupted segments of
US-1 in the Keys: Segment 1 in Stock Is-
land, and Segment 13 in Marathon; the re-
mainder of the segments are considered as
uninterrupted. However, there are some un-
interrupted segments which do have signal
controls, like Segment 10 on Big Pine Key.
In these situations, the travel time taken to
traverse an uninterrupted segment with a
traffic signal is reduced by 25 seconds to
account for the possible delay resulting from
traffic signal.
In addition to different methodologies,
there are different level of service standards
for interrupted or uninterrupted roadway
segments. The following chart shows the
different standards for a roadway segment
based upon its flow characteristics.
Figure 25: Level of Service
Standards Based on
Flow Characteristics
Level of
Service
A
B
C
D
E
F
Level of
Service
A
B
C
o
E
F
A map of the segment boundaries, and
a description of their locations are found on
the following pages.
TRANSPORTATION
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 34
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 26: Map of
US-l Segments
The number inside the box
is the roadway segment
number. The letter in pa-
renthesis is the 2000 level
of service (LOS) measure-
ment for the segment.
~-
~
~21 (C) I
The Middle Keys '" ~
..
'\ );9(Cl2lO B
\~
~
->" ~
'\ ~
Gili]
:'i , .
The Lower Keys
t
~.
... ~
Source: 2000 Arterial and Travel Time Delay Study & The
Monroe County GIS Department
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 35
TRANSPORTATION
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 27: Description of US-l Roadway Segments
Segment Approx. Mile Approx.
Number Marker Ranae Control Points Key( s) PAED
Beainnina Endina Beainnina Endina
Stock Island, Key
1 4.0 5.0 Cow Key Bridae (N) Key Haven Boulevard Haven 1
2 5.0 9.0 Kev Haven Boulevard Rockland Drive Boca Chica, Rockland 2
3 9.0 10.5 Rockland Drive Boca Chica Road Bia Coooitt 2
Harris Channel Bridge
4 10.5 16.5 Boca Chica Road (N) Shark, Saddlebunch 3
Harris Channel Bridge Bow Channel Bridge Lower & Upper
5 16.5 20.5 (N) (N\ Suaarloaf 3
Bow Channel Bridge
6 20.5 23 (N) Soan ish Main Drive Cudioe 4A
7 23 25 Spanish Main Drive East Shore Drive Summerland 4A
Torch-Ramrod Bridge
8 25 27.5 East Shore Drive (5) Ramrod 4A
Torch-Ramrod Bridge N. Pine Channel
9 27.5 29.5 (5\ Bridae (N\ Little Torch 4A
N. Pine Channel
10 29.5 33 Bridae (N) Lona Beach Drive Bia Pine 5
W. Summerland,
11 33 40 Lona Beach Drive 7- Mile Bridae (5) Bahia Honda, Ohio 6
12 40 47 7- Mile Bridae (5) 7- Mile Bridae (N) 7 -Mile Bridae 6
Vaca, Key Colony
13 47 54 7- Mile Bridae (N) Cocoa Plum Drive Beach 7
Toms Harbor Ch Fat Deer Crawl,
14 54 60.5 Cocoa Plum Drive Bridae (5) Grassv 8
Toms Harbor Ch
15 60.5 63 Bridae (5) Lona Key Bridae (5) Duck, Conch 10
16 63 73 Lonq Kev Bridae (5\ Channel #2 Bridae (N) Lona, Fiesta, Craiq 11
Lignum Vitae Bridge
17 73 77.5 Channel #2 Bridae (N) (5) Lower Matecumbe 12A
Lignum Vitae Bridge Tea Table Relief
18 77.5 79.5 (5) Bridae (N) Fill 12A
Tea Table Relief Whale Harbor Bridge
19 79.5 84 Bridae (N) (5) UDDer Matecumbe 13
Whale Harbor Bridge Snake Creek Bridge
20 84 86 (5) (N) Windlev 12B
Snake Creek Bridge
21 86 91.5 (N) Ocean Boulevard Plantation 14
22 91.5 99.5 Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard Tavernier 15 & 16
23 99.5 106 Atlantic Boulevard C-905 Kev Larao 17 - 20
24 106 112.5 C-905 Countv Line Sian Kev Laroo, Cross Key 22
NOTE: (N) and (5) refer to the north and south side of the bridges respectively
Source: 2000 Arterial Delay and Travel Time Study, URS Greiner, Inc.
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 36
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The median segment speeds recorded
for the 2000 Arterial and Travel Time Delay
Study range from a maximum of 58.4 mph
(LOS A) in the Boca Chica segment to a
minimum of 30.5 mph (LOS B) in the Stock
Island segment. The median overall speed
during the 2000 study was 46.4 mph, which
is 0.3 mph lower than the 1999 median
speed of 46.7 mph. The chart below sum-
marizes the level of service scores for all
24 segments of US-1 in 2000 and 1999.
Figure 28: Level of Service by
Roadway Segment
1999-2000
Seg- LOS in LOS in Change
ment # Key 2000 1999 in LOS
1 Stock Isl. B C f
2 Boca Chica A A .....
3 Bia Coppitt C C .....
4 Saddlebunch B B .....
5 Suaarloaf C B .
6 Cudioe A A .....
7 Summerland B B .....
8 Ramrod A A .....
9 Torch A A .....
10 Bia Pine D E 't
11 Bahia Honda B B .....
12 7 Mile Bridae A A .....
13 Marathon A A .....
14 Grassy Key C C .....
15 Duck Kev C C .....
16 Lona Key B B .....
17 L. Matecumbe C D .
18 Tea Table C D +
19 U. Matecumbe C C .....
20 Windley B B .....
21 Plantation C B .
22 Tavernier A A .....
23 Kev Lamo A A .....
24 Cross C B .
Source: 2000 Arterial Travel Time & Delay
Study, URS Greiner, Inc.
As depicted in the chart, the breakdown
in roadway segments by their level of ser-
vice in 2000 is as follows:
LOS A (8)
LOS B (6)
LOS C (9)
LOS D (1)
LOS E (0)
LOS F (0)
Compared to last year's (1999) study
results, there are changes to seven seg-
ments. The Stock Island segment experi-
enced a LOS increase from 'C' to 'B', the
Lower Matecumbe and Tea Table segments
experienced a LOS increase from 'D' to 'C',
and Big Pine Key experienced a LOS in-
crease from 'E' to 'D'. The Sugarloaf, Plan-
tation and Cross Key segments decreased
from a LOS 'B' to LOS 'C'. The remaining
seventeen segments maintained their level
of service from 1999 to 2000.
In addition to the level of service, the
2000 Arterial Delay and Travel Time Study
investigates the median speed for each
roadway segment. The median speed is
the speed which falls in the middle of all the
speeds recorded during the 28 required trips
through a roadway segment. During the
2000 study, the median segment speeds de-
creased in 8 of the 24 segments ranging
between 0.2 mph to 3.0 mph. The remain-
ing sixteen segments experienced an in-
crease in median speeds, ranging between
0.1 mph to 3.1 mph. None of the changes
in median speed could be attributed to any
specific change in conditions except the
changes in traffic volumes, and the signal
timings.
The following graphs show the changes
in segment speed for each of the three ser-
vice areas. The source for these graphs is
the 2000 Arterial Travel Time and Delay
Study prepared by URS Greiner, Inc.
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 37
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 29: Changes in Median
Speed by Segment 1992-2000
60.00
55.00
50.00
"0 45.00
Q)
Q)
tli 40.00
c
al
'6 35.00
Q)
:::i:
30.00
25.00
~~
RlCJ- RI":J ~ RI':> Rll"o ~ RICO RIO) rS:)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Stock Island __ Boca O1ica Big Coppitt
--+0-- Saddlebunch ____ Sugarloaf ____ Cudjoe
--+- Surrrrerland - RanTod - Torch
---.- Big Ane Bahia I-bnda
60.00
55.00
50.00
"0 45.00
Q)
Q)
tli 40.00
c
al
'6 35.00
Q)
:::i:
30.00
25.00
~. L-~---i
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RI ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
7-Mle Bridge ~ fv1arathon
__ Grassy Duck
--x-- Long ____ L. fv1atecurrtJe
60.00
55.00
50.00
"0 45.00
Q)
Q)
tli 40.00
c
al
'6 35.00
Q)
:::i:
30.00
25.00
~
~--.-.'"ii--~
~/ ~(
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ RI ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ Tea Table __ U. fv1atecurrtJe
Windley -x-- Aantation
____ Tavernier ____ Largo
--+- Cross
It is important to remember that the level
of service criteria varies by segment. In
other words, a segment may maintain an
LOS of 'C' or higher, but may have a me-
dian speed below 45 mph. This results from
the fact that the LOS requirements for seg-
ments are adjusted based upon the posted
speed limit and presence of traffic signals
or other traffic control devices. This is how
some segments may have a median speed
as low as 30.5 mph, but maintain an LOS
of '8'.
The chart below lists the median speeds
by segment for 1999 and 2000.
Figure 30: Median Speeds by
Segment 1999-2000
Stock Island 27.3 30.5 3.1
Boca Chica 57.0 58.4 1.4
Bi Co itt 45.5 46.9 1.4
Saddlebunch 52.8 53.5 0.7
Su artoaf 51.4 49.4 -2.1
Cud'oe 47.6 48.7 1.1
Summertand 45.2 45.3 0.1
Ramrod 47.8 47.1 -0.7
Torch 47.7 47.1 -0.7
Bi Pine 34.1 35.8 1.7
Bahia Honda 52.1 53.0 0.9
7 -Mile Brid e 52.6 52.4 -0.2
Marathon 37.4 38.2 0.8
Grass 50.7 50.8 0.1
Duck 53.1 53.5 0.4
Lon 52.1 52.5 0.4
L. Matecumbe 50.4 50.7 0.4
Tea Table 49.6 50.3 0.7
U. Matecumbe 41.6 41.2 -0.3
Windle 38.4 39.5 1.2
Plantation 42.0 39.0 -3.0
Tavernier 49.1 48.8 -0.3
Lar 0 45.7 46.8 1.1
Cross 50.5 47.7 -2.7
Source: URS Greiner, Inc.
PAGE 38 2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Reserve Capacities
The difference between the median
speed and the LOS C standard gives the
reserve speed, which is converted into an
estimated reserve capacity of additional traf-
fic volume and corresponding additional
development.
The median overall speed of US-1 in
2000 is 46.4 mph, which is a decrease of
.03 mph from the 1999 overall median
speed of 46.7 mph. Comparing the 2000
overall median speed to the LOS 'c' stan-
dard of 45 mph yields an overall reserve
speed of 1.4 mph. By using a formula de-
veloped by the US-1 Level of Service Task
Force, the reserve speed for 2000 can be
converted into an estimated reserve capac-
ity of approximately 25,966 trips for US-1.
The reserve capacity for US-1 was reduced
5,564 trips from 1999 to 2000.
The estimated reserve volume (25,966
trips) can then be converted into an esti-
mated capacity for additional residential de-
velopment, assuming balanced growth of
other land uses, and using the following for-
mula:
Residential Capacity = Reserve Volume
Trip Generation Rate x % Impact on US-1
Residential Capacity = 25.966
(8 trips per day per unit) x 0.8
Residential Capacity = 4,926 units
Applying the formula for reserve volume
to each of the 24 segments of US-1 indi-
vidually gives maximum reserve volume of
trips for all segments. The maximum re-
serve volume for all segments equals
93,693 total trips for US-1. This maximum
reserve volume is unobtainable due to the
constraint imposed by the overall reserve
volume of 25,966 trips mentioned above.
As statedearlier, the Land Development
Regulations mandate a minimum level of
service of 'C' for all roadway segments of
US-1. However, the regulations and FDOT
policy do allow segments that fail to meet
the LOS C standards in a given year to re-
ceive an additional allocation of trips pro-
vided the median travel speed for the seg-
ment is within 95% of the of the LOS C
speed for that segment. This additional al-
location is referred to as the "reserve ca-
pacity" for the segment.
The resulting flexibility allows a limited
amount of additional land development to
continue until traffic speeds are measured
again next year or until remedial actions are
implemented. These segments are candi-
dates for designations as either "back-
logged" or "constrained" by FDOT. Appli-
cations for new development located within
backlogged or constrained segments are re-
quired to undergo a thorough traffic analy-
sis as part of the review process.
Based on this year's results, the Big Pine
Key segment (# 10) continues to be below
the LOS C threshold since the median travel
speed (35.8 mph) is below the minimum
speed required to maintain LOS C condi-
tions (37.7 mph). In addition, since the
median speed is less than 95% of the re-
quired minimum speed, this segment has
no reserve capacity, which means that no
additional trips can be allocated to this seg-
ment of US-1. When no additional trips can
be allocated to a particular roadway seg-
ment, then it is considered as "inadequate"
from a public facility standpoint. The Land
Development Regulations indicate that no
additional development which could impact
an inadequate public facility may be per-
mitted. As a result, the current moratorium
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 39
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
on development activities which would cre-
ate additional traffic on US-1 must be main-
tained on Big Pine and No Name Key.
The Big Pine Key segment is the only
segment of US-1 that can be considered as
inadequate based upon the 2000 Arterial
Travel Time and Delay Study. The 1999
study indicated that two segments (Seg-
ments 17 Lower Matecumbe & 18 Tea Table)
in addition to the Big Pine segment were
inadequate in 1999.
In addition to the requirement that areas
with inadequate public facilities be identified
in the annual assessment, the Land Devel-
opment Regulations also require those ar-
eas with marginally adequate public facili-
ties to be identified. For the purposes of
this report, US-1 segments with reserve
speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph in
2000 are considered as "marginally ad-
equate". Any applications for new develop-
ment which would generate traffic in mar-
ginally adequate areas must submit a de-
tailed traffic report for consideration during
review.
This year's report indicates that the 1.5
mile segment of US-1 beginning at MM 9.0
on Rockland Key to MM 10.5 in Shark Key
(Segment # 3), the 4 mile segment on Up-
per and Lower Sugarloaf (Segment # 5), the
30 mile stretch of US-1 beginning at MM 54.0
in Grassy Key to MM 84 in Upper
Matecumbe (Segments 14-19), Plantation
Key (Segment # 21), and Cross Key (Seg-
ment # 24) are all marginally adequate. The
1999 report indicated only four segments as
marginally adequate, but this number has
increased to nine segments in 2000.
Figure 31 summarizes each segment's
status in 2000.
Figure 31: US-1 Segment Status
in 2000
2000
# Segment LOS 2000 Status
1 Stock Island B Adeauate
2 Boca Chica A Adenuate
3 Bia CODDitt C MARGINAL
4 Saddlebunch B Adeauate
5 Suaarloaf C MARGINAL
6 Cudioe A Adeauate
7 Summerland B Adeauate
8 Ramrod A Adenuate
9 Torch A Adeauate
10 Bia Pine D INADEOUATE
11 Bahia Honda B Adeauate
12 7 -Mile Bridae A Adenuate
13 Marathon A Adeauate
14 Grassv C MARGINAL
15 Duck C MARGINAL
16 Lona B Adenuate
17 L. Matecumbe C MARGINAL
18 Tea Table C MARGINAL
19 U. Matecumbe C MARGINAL
20 Windlev B Adeauate
21 Plantation C MARGINAL
22 Tavernier A Adeauate
23 Larao A Adenuate
24 Cross C MARGINAL
Source: 2000 Arterial Delay & Travel TIme
Study, URS Greiner, Inc.
Level of Service on County Roads
Section 9.5-292 of the Land Develop-
ment Regulations establishes a level of ser-
vice standard of LOS D for all County roads,
as measured on a volume or annual aver-
age daily traffic (AADT) basis.
Based on the results of this analysis as
shown on Table 4.7 in the Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical
Document, all of the County roads exam-
ined are operating at or above the County
standard of LOS D.
TRANSPORTATION
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 40
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Improvements to Roadway
Facilities
Major improvements scheduled for US-
1 are outlined in the Florida Department of
Transportation Five-Year Work Program.
The major project for unincorporated Mon-
roe County in the current FDOT Work Pro-
gram (1999/2000 to 2003/04) is to replace
the Jewfish Creek drawbridge with a high-
level fixed-span bridge and the installation
of culverts to improve the tidal flow to the
surrounding wetlands. The construction
phase for this project is 2001/02.
Other projects on the 5-year transporta-
tion plan include planning, project develop-
ment and environmental design for decreas-
ing vehicular interactions with Key Deer on
US-1 between North Pine Channel and the
Spanish Harbor Bridge. Another project is
the planning, project development and en-
vironmental design for adding turn lanes to
US-1 on Big Cop pitt Key from the Rockland
Channel Bridge to Old Boca Chica Road.
Additionally, the repair/rehabilitation of the
Jewfish Creek Bridge deck and the resur-
facing of US-1 from South of the Jewfish
Creek Bridge to the Dade County line are
scheduled for 2003/04.
In addition to road projects on US-1 , the
construction of bicycle paths are also on the
work schedule for the upcoming five years.
These projects include construction of bike
paths in the following locations:
- Big Coppitt Key from MM 11 to MM 15
- Grassy Key from MM 54.5 to MM 59.5
- connecting Bahia Honda to Little Duck Key
- connecting Bay Point on Saddlebunch Key
to Sugarloaf Key
- connecting MM 5.2 on Key Haven to MM
9.6 on Big Coppit Key
- MM 59.2 on Grassy Key to MM 65.2 on
Long Key
- MM 25 on Summerland Key to MM 37 on
Bahia Honda Key
- MM 16.5 Sugarloaf Key to MM 24.5 on
Summerland Key
- MM 68.4 to MM 73.8
Finally, the FDOT is planning a recre-
ational pedestrian facility for MM47 on
Knights Key, known as Sunset Park.
Copies of the FDOT's most recent Five
Year Work Program are available at the
Monroe County Planning Department of-
fices in Marathon.
Summary
The Land Development Regulations pro-
vide clear guidance for assessing the ca-
pacity of the roadway system in Monroe
County. US-1 is required to maintain at least
a level of service of 'C', while County roads
must maintain a level of service of 'D'. Level
of service is determined using the speed-
based methodology developed by the US-
1 Level of Service Task Force in 1993. The
speed based methodology utilizes the em-
pirical relationship between volume-based
capacities, and median vehicle speeds. The
level of service for US-1 is measured for
the overall 1 08 miles of the roadway as well
as for the 24 individual segments making
up the roadway in the Keys.
The traffic volumes on US-1 have in-
creased since 1999. The three count loca-
tions on US-1: Big Pine, Marathon, and
Upper Matecumbe, have shown a histori-
cal traffic growth (based on a regression
analysis) of 1.3%, 1.4% and 2.4% per year
respectively. The seven day traffic volumes
recorded at Upper Matecumbe during the
2000 study was the highest over the eight
years for that segment.
The overall travel speed on US-1 for
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTlTIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 41
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2000 is 0.3 mph lower compared to the 1999
overall travel speed. The reserve speed for
the entire length of US-1 is 1.4 miles per
hour. This means that the entire segment is
operating with only marginal capacity.
Compared to 1999 data, the travel
speeds on 16 of the 24 segments increased.
They are:
Grassy (+0.1 mph)
Summerland (+0.1 mph)
Duck (+0.4 mph)
Long (+0.4 mph)
L. Matecumbe (+0.4 mph)
Tea Table (+ 0.7 mph)
Saddle Bunch (+0.7 mph)
Marathon (+0.8 mph)
Bahia Honda (+0.9 mph)
Cudjoe (+ 1.1 mph)
Key Largo (+ 1.1 mph)
Windley (1.2 mph)
Big Coppitt (+1.4 mph)
Boca Chica (+1.4 mph)
Big Pine (+1.7 mph)
Stock Island (+3.1 mph)
Travel speeds on remaining eight seg-
ments have decreased. They are:
7-Mile Bridge (-0.2 mph)
Tavernier (-0.3 mph)
U. Matecumbe (-0.3 mph)
Ramrod (-0.7 mph)
Torch (-0.7 mph)
Sugarloaf (-2.1 mph)
Cross (-2.2 mph)
Plantation (-3.0 mph)
Compared to last year's (1999) study
results, there are changes to seven seg-
ments. The Stock Island segment experi-
enced a LOS increase from 'C' to 'B'. The
Lower Matecumbe and Tea Table segments
experienced a LOS increase from 'D' to 'C' ,
and the Big Pine Key segment experienced
a LOS increase from 'E' to 'D'. The
Sugarloaf Key, Plantation Key and Cross
Key segments dropped from LOS 'B' to LOS
'e'.
The largest speed increase of 3.1 mph
was recorded in Stock Island Key segment.
The same segment was recorded for larg-
est reduction during the last year's study.
The largest speed reduction of 3.0 mph was
recorded in the Plantation Key segment for
this year's study.
US-1 segments with reserve speeds of
less than or equal to 3 mph are considered
to be "marginally adequate" and should be
given particular attention when approving
development applications. These segments
include: the 1.5 mile segment of US-1, be-
ginning at MM 9.0 on Rockland Key to MM
10.5 in Shark Key, the 4 mile segment be-
ginning at MM 16.5 on Sugarloaf Key to MM
20.5 in Cudjoe Key and the 30 mile stretch
of US-1 beginning at MM 54.0 in Grassy
Key to MM 84 in Upper Matecumbe, a 5.5
mile stretch segment beginning at MM 86.0
in Plantation and ending at MM 91.5 in
Tavernier, and a 6.5 mile stretch segment
beginning at MM 106.0 in Cross Key and
ending at MM 112.5.
The Big Pine Key segment has the low-
est level of service in the County.
Thissegment has a LOS of 'D', which is be-
low the mandated capacity. Further, the
segment is at 95% of the LOS C threshold
and has no reserve capacity. Therefore it
should be considered as an inadequate
segment. As a result, the development
moratorium for activities which could gen-
erate additional traffic should be maintained.
All County roads have levels of service
above the required standard of 'D'.
TRANSPORTATION
PAGE 42
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
P 0 TA
W A T
B L E
E R
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
(FKAA) is the provider of potable water in
the Florida Keys. The Biscayne Aquifer is
the groundwater supply source for the
FKAA. The wellfield is located in a pineland
preserve west of Florida City in Dade
County. The FKAA wellfield contains some
of the highest quality groundwater in the
State, meeting or exceeding all regulatory
standards prior to treatment. Strong laws
protect the wellfield from potentially con-
taminating adjacent land uses. Beyond the
County's requirements, FKAA is committed
to comply with and surpass all federal and
state water quality standards and require-
ments.
The groundwater from the wellfield is
treated at the J. Robert Dean Water Treat-
ment Facility in Florida City, which currently
has a maximum water treatment capacity
of 22.5 million gallons per day (MGD). The
facility has regulatory approval to withdraw
up to 19.19 MGD of water from the wellfield.
In 1999, the FKAA distributed 5.953 billion
gallons of water to the Florida Keys.
The water treatment process consists
primarily of lime softening, filtration, disin-
fection and fluoridation. The treated water
is pumped to the Florida Keys through a
130 mile long pipeline at a maximum pres-
sure of 250 pounds per square inch (psi).
The pipeline varies in diameter from 36
inches in Key Largo to 18 inches in Key
West. The FKAA distributes the treated
water through 641 miles of distribution pip-
ing ranging in size from % inch to 12 inches
in diameter. In 1999, the FKAA replaced
over 74,000 feet of various size distribution
water mains. The FKAA's Water Distribu-
tion System Upgrade Plan calls for the up-
grade or replacement of 118,720 feet of
water main during fiscal year 2000-01.
The FKAA maintains storage tank facili-
ties which provide an overall storage capac-
ity of 39.7 million gallons system wide. The
size of the tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million
gallons. These tanks are utilized during
periods of peak water demand and serve
as an emergency water supply. Since the
existing transmission line serves the entire
Florida Keys (including Key West), and stor-
age capacity is an integral part of the sys-
tem, the capacity of the entire system must
be considered together, rather than in sepa-
rate service districts.
In the summer of 1999, two reverse os-
mosis (RO) desalinization plants were
brought on line to produce emergency wa-
ter supplies. The RO desalinization plants
on Stock Island and in Marathon are op-
erational, but are not yet capable of pro-
ducing their designed capacities of 2.0 and
1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of water,
respectively.
At present, Key West is the only area of
the County served by a flow of potable wa-
ter sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key
West, firefighters rely on a variety of water
sources, including tankers, swimming pools,
and salt water either from drafting sites on
the open water or from specially constructed
fire wells. Although sufficient flow to fight
fires is not guaranteed in the County, new
hydrants are being installed as water lines
are replaced to make water available for fire
fighting purposes.
A map of the various FKAA facilities in
the Keys is included on the following page.
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
POTABLE WATER
PAGE 43
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 32: FKAA Facilities
i
i
i
~
~
~ u..~
@;)W2
w:>
52 a::1l..
lr! ~~
~~!;l
~ON
~~~
III :>
'n.
a:: 11.
~g:x:
() a:: on
O<(~
a:::r:....
\
~
u~...
<(~ z
9 ~o
a:: f) W
g ~ 2 'Z~!r~
u... ... ~,,:l!
ffi 3~i? it
cr 11. Q.
\Q 0 ....g:x::r:
~ :l! 0200
,... III ~ "!~ ~
N~N""
"'~
3:
w
>
cr::
w
>
o
::=
w
l-
V>
>-
V>
z
2
l-t;
oZi
05 Iii
2a..~
CD'
.0",
'-ci15
~
~
~
~
""11
a..n.
2::l!
I- ::>::>
if) Q.. 0-
WQ..Q..
3: I:r:
00
>- 00
w~'"
"Y: N~'
t---
Ov>
za..
<(2
...1::>
(f)Q..
-a..
"X: I
(.)0
o~
l-
if)N
~
lrlr
22
zi?i?
011.11.
~:x::x:
~8SS
<(Ill'"
:2:NN
a..
2
::>
11.
11.
:I:
o
N
'"
a..
:l!
::>
a..
a..
I
I()
co
...
>-
w
::.:
I=lr
_:l!
a.i?~
g,a. ri:E
u;ro~
"g
mN
~
~
<(lr
Gl~
a:: 11.
Oil..
~~
If)
-N
~
::.:
"
z
o
...J
@;)
I/>
Q..
~~.
:l<:Q..
-1 a.
~:J:
<(g
a::
u'"
5@)~
:r:: III
~U'1 . ~
IX 11.
~~ i ~
11. ..,
l-a.
Vl;r
~g @)~
01 1500lr
tON 2
Z:>
011.
Ill.
~:r
~~
::iN
L:iVl~
"X:~Iii:!
:>O.n
WQ.. .
ZQ..
iiz
o
0n
mN
lr@;)
~ lir:l!
Q. 15l'o!
0.
:2: :I
~>- U1
:::>W ~
(f)"x: N
POTABLE WATER
PAGE 44
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY AsSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Demand for Potable Water
Demand for potable water is influenced
by many factors, including the size of the
permanent resident and seasonal popula-
tions, the demand for commercial water use,
landscaping practices, conservation mea-
sures, and the weather. The following table
summarizes FKAA's historic withdrawals, in
millions of gallons. The table also shows
the percent change in withdrawal from one
year to the next, the existing Water Use Per-
mit (WUP) withdrawal limits, and the reserve
capacity available for future development
under the existing WUP.
Figure 33: Annual Water
Withdrawals 1980 to 1999
Annual WUP WUP
Withdrawal % Limit Reserve
Year (MG) Chanae (MGl (MG)
1980 2.854.9 - N/A N/A
1981 3 101.1 8.6% N/A N/A
1982 3.497.3 12.8% N/A N/A
1983 3 390.2 -3.1% N/A N/A
1984 3.467.5 2.3% 4450 982.5
1985 4139.2 19.4% 4.450 310.8
1986 4 641 .5 12.1% 5110 468.5
1987 4 794.6 3.3% 5.110 315.4
1988 4 819.8 0.5% 5110 290.2
1989 4 935.9 2.4% 5110 174.1
1990 4 404.1 -10.8% 5560 1 155.9
1991 4 286.0 -2.7% 5.560 1 274.0
1992 4 461.1 4.1% 5560 1 098.9
1993 5 023.9 12.6% 5560 536.1
1994 5 080.0 1.1% 5560 480.0
1995 5 140.4 1.2% 5778 637.6
1996 5 272.0 2.6% 5778 506.0
1997 5 356.0 1.6% 5778 422.0
1998 5 630.0 5.1% 5778 148.0
1999 5.935.3 5.4% 5778 0.0
WUP = 'SFWMD Water Use Permit"
Source: FKAA, 2000
The following graph shows the relation-
ship between the amount of water with-
drawn on an annual basis and the limit of
the Water Use Permit through the 1990s.
Figure 34: FKAA Annual Water
Withdrawal 1990-1999
6,000.0
~ 5,500.0
.Q
Iii
C) 5,000.0
'0
~ 4,500.0
~
~ 4,000.0
1,400.0
~ 1,200.0
o
'iij 1,000.0
C) 800.0
'0
en 600.0
c:
~ 400.0
~ 200.0
0.0
p'>l::) P.>..... p'>'l- p'>":J p.>~ p.>" p'>!O ~ p.>CO p'>C?I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
t!*,,<,*,. Annual Withdraw I
~ WUP Urrit
WUP Reserve
p'>l::) P.>..... p'>'l- p'>":J ~ p.>" p'>!O ~ p.>co p'>C?I
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
Source: FKAA, 2000
FKAA's current Water Use Permit (Per-
mit # 13-00005W) from the South Florida
Water Management District was obtained
in 1995, and is good for a period of ten
years. The current WUP allows an aver-
age daily water withdrawal of 15.83 million
gallons per day (MGD), a maximum daily
withdrawal of 19.19 MGD, and a yearly
maximum of 5.778 billion gallons.
PAGE 45
In April of 1999, the FKAA exceeded its
maximum daily withdrawal amount of 19.19
MGD (with permission from the SFWMD).
Data for 1999 indicated peaks in water us-
age during the months of March, April and
May. During these months, the maximum
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
POTABLE WATER
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
daily withdrawal was exceeded on random
days, with approval from SFWMD. Also,
based on 12 month running average daily
withdrawal, as opposed to calendar year
represented here, the existing WUP limit for
March, April and May 1999 was exceeded
by 1, 2 and 3%, respectively. These rea-
sons behind these high withdrawals were a
strong tourist season demand combined with
an unusually severe drought. The drought
fostered the need for frequent, deep irriga-
tion to establish new landscaping installed
to replace that damaged by Hurricane
Georges and Tropical Storm Mitch.
The FKAA has recognized the need to
modify its current Water Use Permit to in-
crease the maximum allowable withdrawals
to ensure that the demand for potable wa-
ter will be met. In April of 1999, the FKAA
submitted a request to modify WUP 13-
0005DW from an average daily water with-
drawallimit of 15.83 million gallons per day
(MGD) to 21.51 MGD; a maximum daily with-
drawal from 19.19 MGD to 24.9 MGD; and
from a yearly maximum of 5.778 billion gal-
lons to 7.357 billion gallons. Increases in
permanent and seasonal population, in-
creased commercial demand, and weather
conditions were listed as the reasons for the
permit revision request.
The FKAA has been working with
SFWMD and Monroe County to resolve is-
sues related to changes in county-wide
population and the associated per capita de-
mand for water. The number of day visitors
and the demand they place on the potable
water supply is one of the major issues un-
der consideration. The revised permit is
pending, but the actual amount of the in-
crease has not been resolved.
The following chart shows the projected
water demand for the Keys in 2000-2001.
Figure 35: Projected Water
Demand in 2000-2001
FKAA
Permit 1999
Thresholds PumDage
2000
Water
Demand
Proiected
Average
Daily
Withdrawal 15.83 16.31
Maximum
Daily
Withdrawal 19.19 20.24
Annual
Withdrawal 5 778 5 953
(all figures are in millions of gallons)
Source: FKAA, 2000
16.8
20.8
6132
As indicated in the above chart, the pro-
jected demand is expected to exceed the
available withdrawal limits in 2000. The
maximum daily withdrawal projection of 20.8
million gallons has already been realized in
May of 2000. Preliminary figures for 2000
indicate a total annual consumption of 3,247
million gallons as of June 1, 2000. It is likely
that the annual withdrawal threshold of 5.7
billion gallons will again be surpassed in
2000. The FKAA is aware of the situation,
and is working with SFWMD to finalize the
revised WUP to reflect the increases in
water demand.
Research indicates that regardless of
changes in the functional population from
1998 to 2000, there are no instances where
the amount of water available per capita is
insufficient to serve the population at the
maximum rate of withdrawal permitted by
FKAA's existing permit. The chart on the
following page demonstrates the amount of
water available on a per capita basis.
POTABLE WATER
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 46
.
w
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 36: Per Capita Water
Availability
Year
1998
1999
2000
Maximum
Daily
Withdrawl
allons
19190000
19190000
19190000
156120
157 172
159 113
As the chart indicates, there are over 100
gallons of water available per person per
day. The 100 gallons per person per day
standard is commonly accepted as appro-
priate, and is reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of
the Year 201 0 Comprehensive Plan. Since
residential and overall levels of service are
met by the current maximum daily with-
drawal, and the water use permit was ex-
ceeded in the Spring of 1999 and again in
2000, it can be reasoned that variables other
than population demand for water are af-
fecting the water consumption rates in Mon-
roe County. These variables should be iden-
tified and planned for.
The 1999 Public Facility Capacity As-
sessment Report indicated four recom-
mended actions to be considered by the
Board of County Commissioners with re-
spect to potable water:
- Continue to monitor water consump-
tion and return to the Board for further
direction
- Prepare and adopt a series or ordi-
nances related to water conservation,
including plumbing efficiency standards,
a landscaping ordinance, and a perma-
nent irrigation ordinance
- Work with the FKAA and SFWMD to
examine bulk water sales
- Enter into a memorandum of under-
standing with the FKAA to address the
above three items
The Growth Management Division has
continued to work with the FKAA on water
consumption patterns and the revisions to
the FKAA Water Use Permit. Revised
plumbing efficiency standards have been
implemented, and a landscaping ordinance
is now in draft form. Efforts on a perma-
nent irrigation ordinance should be coordi-
nated with the Stormwater Master Plan ef-
forts. The Growth Management Division
has offered to work with the FKAA on the
development of an intergovernmental team
to discuss water conservation options since
conservation efforts must be undertaken by
all jurisdictions in the Keys to be success-
ful.
Improvements to Potable Water
Facilities
FKAA has a long-range capital improve-
ment plan for both the distribution system
and the transmission and supply system,
as shown in the table below. The total cost
of the scheduled improvements exceeds
$40 million over the next 6 years. These
projects are to be funded by hookup fees
and water revenues.
The scheduled distribution system im-
provements include replacing and upgrad-
ing lines in various subdivisions throughout
the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. These
improvements began in 1989, when FKAA
embarked on the Distribution System Up-
grade Program to replace approximately
190 miles of galvanized lines. For the 1999/
2000 fiscal year, FKAA is scheduled to up-
grade approximately 69,300 feet of distri-
bution water mains.
2000 PUBLIC FACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
POTABLE WATER
PAGE 47
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
In addition to improvements to the distribution system, FKAA also has significant improve-
ments planned for the transmission and supply system. FKAA expects to expand the treat-
ment capacity at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment Plant to meet future water demands.
Also, the FKAA is planning improvements to the pump stations to improve flow and pressure
and construction of water storage tanks to provide additional emergency water supply.
The chart below shows a small example of the capital improvements to the potable water
system planned by the FKAA.
Figure 37: FKAA Capital Improvement Program
Project 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 t TOTAL I
Water Treatment Plant
$ 175000 $ 500 000 $ 600 000 $ 1 275 000
$ 500 000 $ 300,000 $ 600 000
350 000 $ 150 000 $ 500 000
250 000 $ 250 000 $ 500 000
750 000 $ 750000
1 100000 $ 1,100000
250 000 $ 125,000 $ 375,000
01
stributlon ;;vstem
Replace Distribution
PiDe $ 3 000 000 $ 3 000 000 $ 3 000 000 S; 3 000 000 s; 3 000 000 $ 2 000 000 S; 17 000 000
Key West Plan S;
PumD Station $ 50 000 $ 750 000 $ 700 000 1 500 000
Big Coppitt Tank &
Pumo Station $ 550,000 $ 550 000
Summerland/Cudjoe
Tank & Pumo Station $ 50 000 $ 350,000 $ 350 000 $ 750 000
Vaca Cut Tank &
PumD Station $ 250,000 $ 250 000 $ 500 000
Islamorada Tanks $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 200 000
Big Pine Pump
Station $ 65 000 S; 65 000
Storage Tank Drain
Wells $ 150 000 $ 150,000
Transmission S stem
Water Tank Long
Ke Station
Water Tank Ramrod
Station
Add Pump a
Marathon
$ 1,250,000
$ 1,250,000
$ 1 250 000
1 250 000
$ 500 000
$ 500 000
Jewfish Creek DOT
Cross Ke
Key Largo Beoste
Pum Station $
$ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000
$ 1,200 000 $ 1 ,200 000 $ 2 400 000
200 000 $ 2 200 000 $ 2,200 000 $ 4,600 000
Source: FKAA, 2000
POTABLE WATER
PAGE 48
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
EDUCATIONAL
FACILITIES
This element of the Public Facilities
Capacity report will be omitted once Policy
1401.4.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan is implemented. This
policy requires the establishment of a Con-
currency Management System (CMS). The
CMS will ensure that no new development
permits will be issued unless adequate pub-
lic facilities needed to support the develop-
ment at the level of service (LOS) stan-
dards for all of the public facility types are
available concurrent with the impacts of
development.
Existing School Facilities
The Monroe County School Board over-
sees the operation of 13 public schools lo-
cated throughout the Keys. Their data in-
cludes both unincorporated and incorpo-
rated Monroe County. The system consists
of three high schools, one middle school,
three middle/elementary schools, and five
elementary schools. Each school
offers athletic fields, computer labs,
a cafeterium that serves as both a
cafeteria and auditorium, and bus
service. Roughly 90 school bus-
ses transport about 4,452 students
to and from school each day. In
addition to these standard facilities,
all high schools and some middle
schools offer gymnasiums.
The school system is divided
into three subdistricts that are simi-
lar, but not identical to the service
areas outlined in Section 9.5-292
of the Land Development Regula-
tions. One difference is that the
Coral Shores High
School 9-12
Key Largo
Elementary/Middle
School K-8
Plantation Key
Elementary/Middle
School (K-8)
School Board includes Fiesta Key and the
islands that make up Islamorada in the Up-
per Keys (Subdistrict 1), while the Land De-
velopment Regulations place them in the
Middle Keys (Subdistrict 2). Also, the
School Board includes Key West in the
Lower Keys (Subdistrict 3), while the Land
Development Regulations do not consider
Key West. The data presented in this sec-
tion are based on the School Board's sub-
districts.
Subdistrict 1 covers the Upper Keys from
Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and
includes one high school and two elemen-
tary/middle schools, as shown in Figure 39.
Subdistrict 2 covers the Middle Keys from
Long Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and in-
cludes one high/middle school and one el-
ementary school. Subdistrict 3 covers the
Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West
and includes one high school, one middle
school, one elementary/middle school, and
five elementary schools.
The chart below lists the schools by sub-
district and school type.
Figure 38: Schools by
Subdistrict
Subdistrict 1
Subdistrict 2
Marathon
Middle/High
School 7-12
Subdistrict 3
Key West High
School 9-12
Stanley Switlik
Elementa K-6
Source: Monroe County School Board, 2000
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
EDUCATION
PAGE 49
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 39: Educational
Facilities in Monroe
County
Key Largo Elementary
The map below shows the loca-
tions of the educational facilities in
Monroe County.
....
Plantation Key
Elementary/Middle
Coral Shores
High
Stanley Switli k
Elementary
Marathon Hig,
Horace O'Bryant
Middle
Poinciana Elementary
Sigsbee Elementary
Gerald Adams 't:Jh "\
Elementary "
0: .
.
.. . or
Key West High
Glynn Archer Elementary
Reynold Elementary
Source: Monroe County GIS Department
EDUCATION
PAGE 50
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Demand for School Facilities
The population of school age children
in Monroe County is influenced by many fac-
tors, including the size of the resident and
seasonal populations; national demo-
graphic trends such as the "baby boom"
generation and decreasing household size;
economic factors such as military employ-
ment and the price and availability of hous-
ing; and the movements of seasonal resi-
dents.
The School Board collects enrollment
data periodically throughout the year.
Counts taken in the winter are typically the
highest, due to the presence of seasonal
residents. The following charts show the
fall school enrollments from 1989 to 1999
by subdistrict as taken from the School
Board's Fall Student Survey.
Figure 40: Fall School
Enrollments 1989-1999
I 1989 1990 I 1991 1992 I 1993 T 1994 T 1995 1996 I 1997 I 1998 T 1999
Subdistrict 1
Coral Shores (H) 544 582 550 605 597 649 702 672 701 757 758
Kev Larno (ElM) 976 1 029 1 008 1 310 1 213 1235 1 198 1223 1273 1253 1 183
Plantation (E/M) 530 598 627 718 698 721 737 730 703 675 643
Subtotal 2050 2209 2.185 2633 2.508 2605 2.637 2625 2.677 2.685 2.584
Subdistrict 2
Marathon (H) 513 517 516 545 523 578 642 637 612 637 660
Switlik (E) 720 689 731 734 775 776 769 782 815 834 791
Subtotal 1.233 1.206 1247 1.279 1.298 1.354 1.411 1.419 1.427 1.471 1.451
Subdistrict 3
Kev West (H) 1 155 1 114 1 076 1 114 1 120 1 155 1255 1 237 1 327 1372 1 344
O'Brvant (M) 761 788 772 852 902 876 909 897 863 899 814
Suaarloaf (ElM) 827 863 934 899 810 1039 1 013 987 960 937 913
Adams (E) 470 518 522 541 529 516 486 500 499 574 566
Archer (E) 441 440 493 480 441 462 454 454 520 493 460
Poinciana (E) 485 503 507 521 566 613 626 637 608 620 632
Siasbee (E) 482 528 476 471 400 431 431 398 404 423 393
Sands 44 63 86 81 81 85 52 52 58 1
Subtotal 4665 4817 4866 4.959 4849 5177 5226 5.162 5239 5.319 5.122
TOTAL 7.948 8.232 8.298 8.871 8.655 9.136 9.274 9.206 9.343 9.475 9.157
10,000
9,500 9,136 9,343 9,157
8,871
9,000 9,274 9,206 9,475
8,500 8,232
8,000 8,655
8,298
7,500 7,948
7,000
1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999
--+- Total Fall School 81rollment
Source: Monroe County School Board, 2000
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
EDUCATION
PAGE 51
e
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Level of Service of School
Facilities
The Monroe County Land Development
Regulations do not identify a numeric level
of service standard for schools (such as 1 0
square feet of classroom space per student).
Instead, Section 9.5-292 of the regulations
requires classroom capacity "adequate" to
accommodate the school-age children gen-
erated by proposed land development.
The School Board uses recommended
capacities provided by the Florida Depart-
ment of Education (FDOE) to determine
each school's capacity. All schools have
adequate reserve capacity to accommodate
the impacts of the additional land develop-
ment activities projected for 2000. Figure
41 shows each school's capacity and the
projected number of students.
Figure 41: School Capacity &
Projected Number of Students
Recom- Students Students
mended Projected Projected
Capacity 1999-2000 2001-2002
Subdistrict 1
Coral Shores 868 851 851
Kev Larao 1240 1223 1223
Plantation 971 798 791
SUBTOTAL 3079 2.872 2.865
Subdistrict 2
Marathon 1 018 703 703
Switlik 925 787 787
SUBTOTAL 1.943 1.490 1.490
Subdistrict 3
Kev West 1 349 1.230 1230
O'Brvant 833 838 838
Suaarloaf 1 356 934 934
Adams 547 510 510
Archer 470 409 409
Poinciana 660 643 643
Siasbee 534 332 332
Sands - - -
SUBTOTAL 5.749 4.896 3789
TOTAL 10.771 9.258 8.144
Improvements to School Facilities
Florida Statute 163.3177 requires coun-
ties to identify lands and zoning districts
needed to accommodate future school ex-
pansions. In order to bring the Monroe
County Year 201 0 Comprehensive Plan into
compliance with this statute, in 1998 the
Monroe County Planning Department and
School Board conducted research to deter-
mine the existing school capacity and the
potential need for future educational facili-
ties in Monroe County.
This study focused on land requirements
for each of the schools expansion needs.
Overall, the County has sufficient vacant
and appropriately zoned land to meet the
area's current and future school siting
needs. The specific land requirements for
the public schools in the County are dis-
cussed below.
Key Largo School
Meeting the substantial land require-
ments of Key Largo School is a top pri-
ority of the School Board. The Depart-
ment of Education (DOE) has instructed
the Monroe County School Board to
construct an additional 37,375 square
feet of school space. However, current
land use regulations prohibit the School
Board from construction of any addi-
tional facilities on or adjacent to its cur-
rent site due to the environmental sen-
sitivity of the area. The School Board
recently made an unsuccessful attempt
to purchase a new site on which to build
the required school facilities. Unless
the Board is able to provide these fa-
cilities in Key Largo they will be non-
compliant with the minimum DOE stan-
dards. Fully utilizing the current Key
EDUCATION
PAGE 52
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Largo site would enable the School
Board to meet their DOE requirements
and to minimize other secondary envi-
ronmental impacts associated with the
construction of a new school. It has
been determined that the School Board
may clear the required amount of land,
but the location of the clearing is still
under review by the Planning and En-
vironmental Resources Department.
Plantation Key School
The DOE has instructed the Monroe
County School Board to construct an
additional 54,81 0 square feet of school
space for this school. The parcel of land
for this school is not large enough to
accommodate this development and
regulations prohibit the School Board
from constructing any_additional facili-
ties on, or adjacent to, its current site
due to the environmentally sensitive
nature of the area. The new Village of
Islamorada will address plans for Plan-
tation Key School and other educational
facilities in its comprehensive plan.
Stanley Switlik Elementary
Expanding the existing school facilities
into the two parcels of land flanking the
current site will accommodate the land
requirements for Stanley Switlik El-
ementary. The school has a new caf-
eteria/kitchen/multipurpose building as
well as new parking and ballfields.
Construction on the new facilities will
be complete in August of 2000.
Marathon High and Middle School
The land requirements for Marathon
High and Middle School are currently
being met. The School Board would
like to build a new 13,000 square foot
auditorium for this school that could also
serve as a community center.
Coral Shores High School
The School Board's plan is to demolish
the old school buildings and construct
a new 200,000 square foot school on
the same site. Construction is to occur
in phases, with the school buildings
scheduled for completion in 2.5 years.
The second stage of construction will
focus on the provision of athletic facili-
ties. Demolition of the old structure be-
gan in 2000.
Overall, the School Board needs to add
around 100,000 square feet to its current
facilities to meet or exceed the Department
of Education's requirements for school size.
Figure 42 is a table showing the results
of the investigation completed by the Mon-
roe County School Board and Planning De-
partment in 1998.
2000 PUBLIC FACILTITlES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
EDUCATION
PAGE 53
....
u
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 42: Preliminary Public
School Land Needs
Land Needed
Developed Site 2003 Potential Sites (acres and
Schools (acres and zoning) 1998 (estimate) zoning)
There are approximately 70
acres of vacant land zoned SR
13.25 acres and 65 acres zoned NA
Kev Laroo (SC & SR) 2 acres (1) o acres surroundina the current site.
Plantation Kev 8.29 acres (SR) N/A (2) N/A N/A
Coral Shores Hiah 20.13 acres (SR) N/A (2) N/A N/A
There are approximately 5.1
Stanley Switlik 35.4 acres acres of vacant land zoned SC
Elementarv 9.43 acres (SC) (3) o acres surroundinn the current site.
There are approximately 21
Marathon High and 40.30 acres acres of vacant land zoned NA
Middle Schools 14.12 acres (SR) (4) o acres surroundinn the current site.
There are approximately 4.27
acres of vacant land zoned SC
and 8.6 acres of vacant land
Big Pine Neighborhood zoned IS surrounding the
Elementarv 4.5 acres (SC) o acres o acres current site.
There are approximately 27
acres of vacant land zoned NA
and 34 acres zoned SR
Suoarloaf 24 acres (SC & NA) o acres o acres surroundina the current site.
1 The School Board is working with Monroe County Planning Department to meet this need prior to 2003.
2 The Village of Islamorada will address plans for Plantation Key School, Coral Shores High School and other educational
faciltites in their comprehensive plan.
3 The School Board purchased two lots zoned SC adjacent to the current school site to expand onto in 1998.
4 The School Board wants to partner with the County to create an auditorium that also serves as a community center.
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2000
EDUCATION
PAGE 54
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Site
Kev Laroo
Lona Kev
Cudioe
Old Site Closed 2/25/91 No Lonaer Active 0
New Site None Currentlv Inactive 180 000
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Division,
2000
SOLID WASTE
FACILITIES
Monroe County's solid waste facilities
are managed by the Solid Waste Manage-
ment Division, which oversees a compre-
hensive system of collection, recycling, and
disposal of solid waste. Prior to 1990, the
County's disposal methods consisted of in-
cineration and landfilling at sites on Key
Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe Key. Com-
bustible materials were burned
either in an incinerator or in an
air curtain destructor. The re-
sulting ash was used as cover
on the landfills. Non-combus-
tible materials were deposited
directly in the landfills.
I n August 1990, the County
entered into a contract with
Waste Management, Inc.
(WMI) to transport the solid
waste to the contractor's private landfill in
Broward County. In accordance with
County-approved franchise agreements,
private contractors perform collection of
solid waste. Residential collection takes
place two or three times a week; nonresi-
dential collection varies by contract. The
four (4) contractors currently serving the
Keys are identified in the table below:
Figure 43: Solid Waste
Contractors
UDDer Keys
Middle Keys
Lower Keys
Keys Sanitary
Service
Ocean Reef
Club Inc.
Mid-Keys
Waste. Inc.
Waste Management
Inc./Bland DisDosal
As a consequence of these franchise
agreements, the County's incinerators and
landfills are no longer in operation. The
landfill sites are now used as transfer sta-
tions for wet garbage, yard waste, and con-
struction debris collected throughout the
Keys by the four curbside contractors and
prepared by WMI for shipment out of the
Keys. The table below summarizes the sta-
tus of the County's landfills and incinera-
tors.
Figure 44: Solid Waste
Facilities
Incinerators
Closed 12/31/90
Closed 1/7/91
Reserve
Capacity
Landfills . (cubic yards)
No Lonaer Active 0
No Lonaer Active 0
All County landfills are now officially
closed. However, it is important to note that
the new site on Cudjoe Key could be re-
opened if necessary.
The County's recycling efforts continue
to expand. Beginning in October 1994,
curbside collection of recyclable materials
was made available to all County residences
and businesses. Recycling transfer centers
have been established in the Lower, Middle,
and Upper Keys. Waste Management, Inc.
continues to process yard waste into mulch.
The mulch product is then made available
to the public. In addition to County efforts,
other government agencies are mulching
and reusing yard waste, and private enter-
prises are collecting aluminum and other
recyclable materials.
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
SOLID WASTE
PAGE 55
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
White goods, waste oil, batteries and
tires are handled separately, with collection
sites operating at each landfill/transfer sta-
tion site. The County collects household
hazardous waste at the Long Key and
Cudjoe Key sites. Hazardous waste from
small quantity generators is collected once
a year, as part of an Amnesty Days program.
Demand for Solid Waste Facilities
For solid waste accounting purposes, the
County is divided into three districts which
are similar, but not identical to the service
areas outlined in Section 9.5-292 of the Land
Development Regulations (LDRs). One dif-
ference is that Windley Key, which is con-
sidered to be in the Upper Keys district in
the LDRs, is included in the Middle Keys
district for purposes of solid waste manage-
ment. Another difference from the LDRs is
that the cities of Layton and Key Colony
Beach are included in the Middle Keys dis-
trict for solid waste management.
Although Islamorada incorporated on
December 31, 1997, the municipality con-
tinued to participate with Monroe County in
the contract with Waste Management Inc.
until September 30, 1998. Data for Monroe
County solid waste generation is calculated
by fiscal year which runs from October 1 to
September 30. Therefore, the effects of
Islamorada's incorporation on solid waste
services appear in the 1999 data. Data for
the City of Key West and the Village of
Islamorada is not included in this report.
Demand for solid waste facilities is influ-
enced by many factors, including the size
and income levels of resident and seasonal
populations, the extent of recycling efforts,
household consumptive practices, landscap-
ing practices, land development activities,
and natural events such as hurricanes and
tropical storms. Analyses provided by a
private research group indicate that the av-
erage single-family house generates 2.15
tons of solid waste per year. Mobile homes
and multifamily units, having smaller yards
and household sizes, typically generate less
solid waste (1.96 and 1.28 tons per year,
respectively) .
The graph and table on the following
page summarize the solid waste generated
by each district. The totals for each district
are a combination of four categories of solid
waste: garbage, yard waste, bulk yard
waste and other (includes construction and
demolition debris).
SOLID WASTE
PAGE 56
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 45: Solid Waste Generation by District
100,000
80,000
60,000
1Il
c:
0
I-
40,000
20,000
0
Year Key Largo Lona Key Cudioe Key Total % Chanae
1984 29 018 28 799 14819 72 635 -2.0%
1985 28.585 28 890 15 938 73413 1.0%
1986 30 367 31 623 20715 82 705 13.0%
1987 32.193 37 094 22 206 91 493 11.0%
1988 35 362 38 101 26 045 99 508 9.0%
1989 31.173 33 931 23 033 88_137 -11.0%
1990 28 430 31 924 22 988 83 342 -5.0%
1991 26 356 28 549 20 699 75 604 -9.0%
1992 27 544 26 727 18.872 73.143 -3.0%
1993 37 211 28 986 22 198 88 395 21.0%
1994 30110 30 662 24.831 85.603 -3.0%
1995 28 604 30 775 25 113 84.492 -1.0%
1996 31 573 31 845 27 823 91 241 8.0%
1997 32 003 33 625 29 350 94.978 4.0%
1998 33119 36 440 30 920 100 479 6.0%
1999 27 303 28 135 30 409 85.847 -14.6%
Note: The figures from 1984 to 1991 include white goods, tires, construction debris, and yard waste.
They do not include source-separated recyclable.
The figures from 1992 to 1998 do not include white goods and tires since these items are recycled.
_ Key largo
c:::J Long Key
.'''''i>'''''''' OJdjoe Key
~ Total
1984 1985 1986 1987 19881989 1990 1991 1992 1993 19941995 1996 1997 1998 1999
Sources: (1) 1984 data taken from Hazen & Sawyer Site Screening Report, August 1987.
Yearly rates = daily rates x 365.
(2) 1985-1999 data taken from County tonnage reports.
After reaching a peak in 1988, the data uted to the demolition and rebuilding asso-
shows a general decline in the total amount ciated with Hurricane Andrew, which made
of solid waste generated throughout the landfall in South Florida in late August 1992.
County. However, in 1993 there was an For the next two years the amount of solid
increase of 21 percent in the amount of solid waste generated in the County was once
waste generated. This increase is attrib- again on the decline. However, from 1996
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 57
SoLID WASTE
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
onward the amount of solid waste gener-
ated has been on the increase until 1998,
when it reached its highest level yet. This
increase is attributed to the debris associ-
ated with Hurricane Georges, which made
landfall in the Keys in September of 1998.
A portion of the decline seen from 1998 to
1999 may be attributable to the reduction in
solid waste collected from Islamorada.
Level of Service of Solid Waste
Facilities
Section 9.5-292 of the Land Develop-
ment Regulations requires that the County
maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate
all existing and approved development for
at least three (3) years. The regulations
specifically recognize the concept of using
disposal sites outside Monroe County.
As of December 1999, Waste Manage-
ment Inc., reports a reserve capacity of ap-
proximately 20 million cubic yards at their
Central Sanitary Landfill in Sroward County,
a volume sufficient to serve their clients for
another 40 years. The chart below shows
the remaining capacity at the Central Sani-
tary Landfill.
Figure 46: Remaining
Capacity. Central Sanitary
landfill
1997
1998
1999
34 million 27 million 20 million
Remaining Capacity cubic cubic cubic
I (volume) vards vards vards
Remaining Capacity
I (time) 42 vears 41 vears 40 vears
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste
Management Division, 2000
Monroe County has a contract with WMI
authorizing use of the facility through Sep-
tember 30, 2006, thereby providing the
County with approximately seven years of
guaranteed capacity. In addition to this con-
tract, the 180,000 cubic yard reserve at the
County landfill on Cudjoe Key would be suf-
ficient to handle the County's waste stream
for an additional four to five years (at cur-
rent tonnage levels), should the County
choose to discontinue haul-out as the
means of disposal.
The combination of the existing haul-out
contract and the space available at the
Cudjoe Key landfill provides the County with
sufficient capacity to accommodate all ex-
isting and approved development for ten to
eleven years.
SOLID WASTE
PAGE 58
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
PARKS AND
RECREATION
An annual assessment of parks and
recreational facilities is NOT mandated by
Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe County
Land Development Regulations, though
it is required for concurrency management
systems by the Florida Statutes. The fol-
lowing section has been included in the
2000 Public Facilities Capacity Assess-
ment Report for informational purposes
only.
Level of Service standards for parks
and recreational facilities are not men-
tioned in the Land Development Regula-
tions, but are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of
the Monroe County Year 2010 Compre-
hensive Plan.
Parks and Recreational
Facilities Level of Service
Standard
The level of service (LOS) standard for
neighborhood and community parks in
Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1 ,000
functional population. To ensure a bal-
ance between the provision of resource-
and activity- based recreation areas the
LOS standard has been divided equally
between these two types of recreation
areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are:
0.82 acres of resource-based recre-
ation area per 1 ,000 functional popu-
lation
0.82 acres of activity based recreation
area per 1 ,000 functional population
The LOS standards for each type of
recreation area can be applied to unin-
corporated Monroe County as a whole or
to each subarea (Upper, Middle, and Lower
Keys) of unincorporated Monroe County. In
determining how to apply the LOS standard
for each type of recreation area, the most
important aspect to consider is the differ-
ence between resource- and activity-based
recreation areas. Resource-based recre-
ation areas are established around exist-
ing natural or cultural resources of signifi-
cance, such as beach areas or historic sites.
Activity-based recreation areas can be es-
tablished anywhere there is sufficient space
for ball fields, tennis or basketball courts,
or other athletic events.
Since the location of resource-based
recreation areas depends upon the natural
features or cultural resources of the area
and cannot always be provided near the
largest population centers, it is reasonable
to apply the LOS standard for resource-
based areas to all of unincorporated Mon-
roe County. Since activity-based recreation
areas do not rely on natural features or cul-
tural resources for their location and be-
cause they can be provided in areas with
concentrated populations, it is more appro-
priate to apply the LOS standard to each
subarea of the Keys.
It is important to note that the subareas
used for park and recreational facilities dif-
fer from those subareas used in the popu-
lation projections. For the purpose of park
and recreational facilities, the Upper Keys
are considered to be the area north of
Tavernier (PAEDs 15 through 22). The
Middle Keys are considered to be the area
between Pigeon Key and Long Key (PAEDs
6 through 11). The Lower Keys are the area
south of the Seven Mile Bridge (PAEDs 1 .
through 6). Although the Middle and Lower
Keys subareas both contain portions of
PAED 6, the population of PAED 6 is lo-
cated in the Lower Keys subarea.
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTlTlES CAPACITI ASSESSMENT
PARKS & RECREATION
PAGE 59
e
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
An inventory of Monroe County's parks and recreational facilities is presented on the
following pages. The facilities are grouped by subarea and are classified according to the
principal use (resource or activity).
Figure 47: Parks and Recreational Facilities
ub r a
Undevelo ed
Undevelo ed
Basketball courts (2), playground, ball field, picnic shelters, and public
Friendshi Park restrooms.
A soccer field, two (2) ball fields, six (6) tennis courts, a jogging trail, three
(3) basketball courts, roller hockey, volleyball, playground, picnic shelters,
ublic restrooms, and ro osed swimmin 001.
Waterfront ark with a boat ram .
Har Harris
Settler's Park
Sunn Haven
Old S.R. 4-A
Key Largo
Elementa
Coral Shores High
School
Plantation Key
Elementa
Facilities
1.50
0.46
1.92
14.00
1.20
16.40
3.00
0.09
0.30
3.40
10.10
Pro osed facilities include ark benches, trails, and a historic latform.
Undevelo ed
Undevelo ed
track, indoor m.
Coco Plum Beach
Waloriss (Calle
Ensenada
Aviation Boulevard
Sombrero Beach
Jessie Hobbs Park
Marathon
Communi Park
Marathon Yacht
Club
Sunset Park on
Kni hts Ke
Baseball field, football field, softball field, 5 tennis courts, indoor m.
Pia round, 1 tennis court, 1 basketball court, 1 baseball field.
Undevelo ed
23.61
0.29
0.10
8.6
0.61
12.00
2.00
10.00
5.00
7.80
icnic shelters, beach area and ublic restrooms.
Basketball court, la round, and benches.
Proposed facilities include event field, 2 ball fields, 2 soccer fields, 6 tennis
courts, 3 basketball courts, roller hocke and a'o in trail.
Basketball court teen club, and a boat ram
Fishin area.
Historic structures, research/educational facilities, and a railroad museum.
Baseball and football field, softball field, 3 tennis courts, 3 basketball
courts, indoor m.
PARKS & RECREATION
PAGE 60
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 47: Parks and Recreational Facilities (continued)
Classification
and Size a res
Facilities Resource Activi
West Summerland
Heron Avenue
Palm Villa
Big Pine Leisure
Club
Blue Heron Park
Watson Field
Ramrod Key Swim
Hole
Summerland
Estates
Little Torch Boat
Ram
Ba oint Park
Palm Villa Park
Rockland
Hammock
Boca Chica Beach
Delmar Avenue
Boat Ram
Big Coppitt Fire
Department
Pia round
Wilhelmina Harvey
Children's Park
Bernstein Park
East Martello
West Martello
, and beach area.
25.50
3.50
31.80
0.69
0.44
1.75
5.50
2.40
0.50
0.13
0.10
1.58
0.13
2.50
6.00
0.20
0.75
0.65
11.00
14.58
0.80
5.06
0.77
Boat Ram .
Undevelo ed
Pia round and benches.
Swimmin area with no facilities.
Undevelo ed
tennis courts, and icnic area.
Undevelo ed
Beach area
Boat ram
Pia round and benches.
Passive reen s ace with no facilities.
Ball field, soccer, basketball court, tennis courts, playground, and
volle ball.
Historic structures, teen center, and icnic area.
Historic structure
Five (5) tennis courts, playground, volleyball, picnic shelters, beach area,
ier, and ublic restrooms.
Subarea
U er Ke sTatal
Middle Ke s Total
Lower Ke s Total
Overall Total 132.94
Note: these figures include undeveloped lands
Source:
Monroe
County
Planning
Department,
2000
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PAGE 61
PARKS & RECREATION
o
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Level of Service Analysis for
Resource-Based Recreation
There are currently 123.81 acres of re-
source-based recreation areas either owned
or leased by Monroe County. The resource-
based acreage figures subtracts 9.13 acres
of undeveloped lands from the 132.94 total
shown in Figure 47. Using the functional
population projection for 2000 of 73,969
persons in unincorporated Monroe County,
and the LOS standard of 0.82 acres per
1,000 functional population, the demand for
resource-based recre-
ation areas is approxi-
mately 60.60 acres. The
county currently has a re-
source-based recreation
land to meet the level of
service with an extra
63.21 acres of reserve
capacity.
Level of Service
Analysis for
Activity-Based
Recreation Areas
Subarea
UDDer Kevs Total
Middle Kevs Total
Lower Kevs Total
Overall Total
1,000 functional population in unincorpo-
rated Monroe County, the demand for these
recreation areas are 30.01 , 3.19 and 27.38
acres for the Upper, Middle, and Lower
Keys, respectively.
There is currently a reserve of 52.03
acres of activity-based recreation areas for
all of unincorporated Monroe County. The
following table shows the level of service
analysis for activity-based recreation areas
in each subarea.
Figure 48: Level of Service
Analysis for Activity-Based
Recreation Areas
2000
Functional
Population
36615
3944
33410
73 969
Total
Active-
based
Acreage
Available
47.52
33.51
31.58
112.61
Demand (.82 Reserve
ACJ1,OOO Capacity
people) (in acres)
30.01 17.51
3.19 30.32
27.38 4.2
60.58 52.03
Source: Monroe County Planning Department, 2000
The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan al-
lows activity-based recreational land found
at educational facilities to be counted to-
wards the park and recreational concur-
rency. There is currently a total of 112.61
(113.07 AC - 0.46AC of undeveloped lands)
acres of activity-based recreation areas ei-
ther owned or leased by Monroe County and
the Monroe County School Board. This to-
tal represents 47.52 acres in the Upper Keys
(including Plantation Key in Islamorada),
33.51 acres in the Middle Keys (including
Marathon), and 31.58 acres in the Lower
Keys. Based on a LOS standard of 0.82
acres of activity-based recreation areas per
Acquisition of Additional Recre-
ation Areas
The Monroe County Year 201 0 Compre-
hensive Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that
"Monroe County shall secure additional
acreage for use and/or development of re-
source-based and activity-based neighbor-
hood and community parks consistent with
the adopted level of service standards." The
elimination of deficiencies in LOS standards
for recreation areas can be accomplished
in a number of ways. Policy 1201.2.1 of
the Comprehensive Plan provides six (6)
mechanisms that are acceptable for solv-
ing deficits in park level of service standards,
as well as for providing adequate land to
PARKS & RECREATION
PAGE 62
2000 PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING & ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
satisfy the demand for parks and recreation
facilities that results from additional residen-
tial development. The six (6) mechanisms
are:
1. Development of park and recre-
ational facilities on land that is already
owned by the county but that is not be-
ing used for park and recreation pur-
poses;
2. Acquisition of new park sites;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Mon-
roe County School Board that would
allow for the use of existing school-park
facilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorpo-
rated cities within Monroe County that
would allow for the use of existing city-
owned park facilities by county resi-
dents;
5. Intergovernmental agreements with
agencies of state and federal govern-
ments that would allow for the use of
existing publicly-owned lands or facili-
ties by county residents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or
joint use agreements with private enti-
ties that would allow for the use of pri-
vate park facilities by county residents.
To date, the county has employed two
of these six mechanisms - acquisition of
new park sites (number 2 above) and
interlocal agreements with the School Board
(number 3 above). However, these agree-
ments need to be examined more closely
to determine the amount of available acre-
age for calculating concurrency. Further-
more, Monroe County cannot rely upon joint
use facilities to eliminate existing deficien-
cies or meet future LOS requirements until
interlocal, intergovernmental, or private use
joint agreements are executed. For in-
stance, the County is currently reviewing
and revising the InterlocalAgreements with
the Monroe County School Board to pro-
vide greater day time accessibility for stu-
dents to public recreational facilities. Once
executed, these agreements will ensure that
the facilities will be available for general use
to Monroe County residents to meet peak
season, weekend, or time of day recreation
demands.
2000 PUBLIC F ACILTITIES CAPACITY ASSESSMENT
PARKS & RECREATION
PAGE 63