Loading...
Item F3 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AGENDAITEMSU~RY Meeting Date: March 22, 2001 Division: Growth Management Bulk Item: No X Department: Planning & Env, Resources AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Briefing on the Big Pine and No Name Keys Development Alternatives Report, ITEM BACKGROUND: The Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys is a community driven planning effort through which a community vision and development alternatives will be inserted directly into the ongoing Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process for these two islands in order to ensure that community needs are addressed in the development scenario for which a federal endangered species incidental take permit will be sought. A Development Alternatives report has been prepared by an environmental consultant for URS, Inc, PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: The BOCC entered into a memorandum of agreement with the United States Fish & Wildlife Service (USFWS) and State agencies to participate in the HCP on October 26, 1998. A Joint Participation Agreement between Monroe County, FDCA and FDOT in January of 2000 further defined the County's role in applying for the "Incidental Take Permit" and funding the HCP. CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: No action needed at this time TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No COST TO COUNTY: N/A REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No X AMOUNT PER MONTH Year DOCUMENTATION: Included X isk Management _ APPROVED BY: County Arty _ OMB/P DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL: Not Required To Follow DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM # ~ .. F 3 ReVi~~Ol MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES r ."., . < D cr ~ CO ,., o 3 :I c. :s ".. . ~ '< '" -(;) c8 .. D 3 BIG PINE KEY & No NAME KEY DEVELOPMENT ALTERNATIVES REPORT PREPARED BY: Patricia L. McNeese, ENvIRONMENTAL CONSULTANT on behalf OF URS, Inc. K Marlene Conaway, MONROECOUNIY DEPARTMFNTOF PLANNING AND ENvIRoNMENTALREsJURCES Date: March 6, 2001 LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS PROGRAM FOR BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY Development Alternatives Report March 6, 2001 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The Livable CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys is a community driven planning effort through which a community vision and development alternatives have been developed thus far. The LCP-generated development alternatives will be inserted directly into the ongoing Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) process for these two islands in order to ensure that community needs are addressed in the development scenario for which a federal endangered species incidental take permit will be sought. The Livable CommuniKeys Program and the Habitat Conservation Plan share an over-all goal of determining the appropriate amount, type and location of additional development and what mitigation will be required for it. The HCP process is set up basically to determine the needs of the endangered species and is technically based. The LCP process is a planning effort designed to determine the needs of the human community. This document outlines, in detail, the LCP to its current stage. Thus far, workshops and meetings have been held with the community and conceptual development alternatives have been generated for residential, commercial and recreational development. A planning analysis of each alternative is included in the report. The relative impacts on the endangered species and their habitat will be determined through analysis of the alternatives in a "population viability" computer model being developed as part of the HCP process. COMMUNITY VISION We envision Big Pine and No Name Key as: o A rural community with a small town atmosphere and way-of-life where people feel a connection with their friends and neighbors. o A community rich in natural and scenic resources including endangered habitat like nowhere else in the world. o A unique community in the Florida Keys where people can live in harmony with the natural world. oWhere residents and visitors can take advantage of the local goods and services without fighting traffic. oWhere kids of all ages have plenty of recreational opportunities. oWhere the dreams of home ownership and planting roots in the community can be realized. oWhere government regulations make sense and work for the betterment of all. oAbove all, we envision a community that responds to the needs of all its inhabitants. *The vision was developed from responses collected at the community workshops. - i - LIVABLE COMMUNI KEYS PROGRAM FOR BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY Development Alternatives Report TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page No. BACKGROUND INFORMATION 1 Island Setting 1 Demographics and Land Use 2 Comprehensive Planning Process 5 Endangered Species Concerns 5 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Involvement 5 Need for a Habitat Conservation Plan 6 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN 8 Endangered Species Act 8 HCP Process for Big Pine and No Name Key 8 LIV ABLE COMMUNIKEYS PLAN 10 Existing Conditions/Regulatory Framework 10 Goal and Objectives 10 LCP Citizen Participation Process 11 Community Workshops and Newsletters 11 Alternatives Analysis and HCP Modeling 12 LCP ALTERNATIVES DEVELOPMENT 14 Objectives 14 Level of Development 14 Transportation Analysis 14 New and Existing Public and Institutional Uses 15 Alternatives Scenarios 17 Residential 17 Commercial 24 Community Facility/Recreational 30 Transportation 33 MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT 36 LITERATURE CITED 36 Appendix 1. Memorandum of Agreement Appendix 2. Joint Participation Agreement Appendix 3. Existing Conditions / Regulatory Framework Appendix 4. LCP Newsletters and Mailings Appendix 5. Development Alternatives Maps - II - LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS PROGRAM FOR BIG PINE KEY AND NO NAME KEY Development Alternatives Report BACKGROUND INFORMATION The Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) for Big Pine Key and No Name Key ultimately will provide for community-driven creation of a Master Plan for future development and community facilities for these two Lower Keys islands. The primary purpose of this document is to present the LCP development alternatives and how they were formulated. The Regional Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Big Pine Key and No Name Key provides for the mechanism by which future development and infrastructure will be permitted and managed in the context of natural resource conservation. Included in this document will be an explanation of how the two processes, LCP and HCP, relate to and compliment each other. Island Setting Big Pine Key and No Name Key form the largest group of the Lower "oolitic" Florida Keys formed by north to south sweeping of marine sedimentary deposits over ancient patch reefs (Hoffmeister, 1974). Primarily because of their size and geologic composition there formed on these keys an unlikely assemblage of highly diverse freshwater-based plants and animals. The ensuing rise in sea level isolated a freshwater dependent flora and fauna under harsh pressure to adapt to island "life at sea." Excellent accounts of the natural history of the Keys and the freshwater Keys in particular can be found in Hoffmeister (1974), Tomlinson (1980) and Lazell (1989). The presence of year- round freshwater is the underlying factor on Big Pine Key enabling support of viable populations of freshwater plants and animals, including birds, mammals, reptiles and amphibians. It also enabled the early settlement of this island when freshwater was at a premium in the Keys (see account of Mitzpah Watson in Simpson, 1982). Island-connecting bridges and water lines opened the way for modem development of the Keys. A "land-boom" occurred in the 1950s - 60s, primarily in the Middle and Upper Keys with platting and development of several subdivisions. Lower Keys islands were slower to develop but many subdivision plats were filed. As human alteration of the habitat progressed some land was eventually set aside for preservation with establishment of Key Deer Refuge in 1959. Habitat removal and alteration on remaining private lands continued and the population on Big Pine Key and No Name Key continued to increase steadily through the 1970s. A "housing boom" occurred during the late 1970s and into the 1980s. These events brought about significant change in the configuration of native habitat on the islands and in the composition of the human community. The housing trend showed no sign of slowing and faced with thousands of potentially developable lots, the consequences of unmanaged growth on the natural and human communities was - 1 - cause for concern. This led the Governor and Cabinet of Florida to designate the Florida Keys as an Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) in 1975. Demographics and Land Use The Islands of Big Pine and No Name consists of7,207 acres. Big Pine Key is larger with 6,036 acres. From a population of 1,200 in 1970, the community of Big Pine and No Name Keys has grown to approximately 5,080 full time residents. This is an increase of nearly 4,000 individuals. An additional 3,312 people move to the area for the winter season. The majority (82%) of the population lives north of U.S. 1. Population in 2WO B 1 - 26 _ 27 - 66 _ 67 - 71 _72- 115 _116-213 Owolings Units in 2000 DO 1,,'11 - 5 _ 6 - 32 _ 33- 50 _ 51 - 79 _ 80-135 Big Pine and No Name Keys W \.-\vable C'ommUn\Keys ?togtam LCP-HCP STUDY A ~~~~..eM.,._.,c.?~~ l"~~ ~~' ~; -2- Land ownership on the islands is split between public and private ownership, with 72% of No Name Key and 63% of Big Pine Key in public ownership. (Property Appraiser 2000 Tax Role Database.) Public ownership includes federal, state, and locally owned lands. Only 12% of the islands are developed in private ownership, the remaining land in private ownership, estimated at more then 3,000 parcels, is undeveloped. Eighteen acres, 31 parcels, of vacant land in private ownership were classified as Commercial. Public Lands. Private Lands OwnershiJ! # of # of % Public parcels Acres parcels Acres Owned Patterns 2,879 3,802 6,207 2,234 63% No Name Ke 303 840 208 331 72% SoIree: MO'II'OtI County Property Total 3,182 4,642 6,415 2,565 Apprai_ 2000 TbRoU Oalatl_ Big Pine Key No Name Key Public 63% - 3 - \ \ :'\ ., \. BIG PINE KEY ~ \...\vab\e Comm"n"Keys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Vacant Private Buildable Lots Auguat 2<4, 2000 . , ~ Buildable Vacant Private _ Vacant public parcels _ Non-Buildable Habitat _ Developed, Parcels Zoning Districts _ Conservation/Native _ Commercial Fishing _ ResorVRV _ Industrial _ Commercial o Residential . . I L N W.E - . ~ s Monroe County .. Planning and Environmental W Resources Department ThIs map Is for Monroe County Growth Management Division purposes only. The datil contained herein Is lUustratlve only and may notllCCUIlItaIy depict boundarles,parcels, roads. right of weys, or IdentlflcaUon InformaUon. Comprehensive Planning Process 1986 - 2000 Under the ACSC designation, a mandated comprehensive planning process culminated in the adoption of the Florida Keys Comprehensive Plan in 1986. In that plan a portion of Big Pine Key and most of No Name Key were designated an "Area of Critical County Concern" (ACCC). The comprehensive plan outlined requirements for development of a Focal Point Plan for the two islands under the ACCC designation. The Focal Point Plan process was intended to specifically address and resolve local community and natural resource issues. A plan was developed and adopted but the State of Florida did not accept it. The process languished and was eventually abandoned. Meanwhile, the state had adopted the new Growth Management Act, which mandated comprehensive plans for all Florida counties with the coastal counties, including Monroe, being a first priority. In 1990, a short four years after adopting their comprehensive plan under ACSC, Monroe County found itself engaged in another comprehensive planning process. The Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan was adopted in 1993. Ensuing intervention and litigation by both environmental and development interests delayed the effective date of that plan for up to four more years with the last portions becoming effective in July 1997. Endangered Species Concerns A particularly contentious issue during the intervention was the still unresolved status of development interests and natural resource conservation interests on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. At the center of this controversy was the federally-endangered Florida Key deer, Odocoi/eus virginian us clavium, an endemic subspecies of white tailed deer whose population is dependent upon these islands. The current and future impacts of land development and U.S. Highway 1 roadway improvements on the remaining Key deer population and habitat were of concern. The concern was heightened by the fact that past platting and subdividing of land had resulted in thousands of individual parcels representing substantial private development potential. In addition, the highway capacity and local traffic configuration on Big Pine Key had deteriorated to unacceptable levels. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Involvement During this period while the comprehensive plan was being debated, a parallel process was proceeding through court known as the "FEMA lawsuit." The Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) exercises jurisdiction over issuance of flood insurance in the Florida Keys including Big Pine and No Name. Virtually the entire area is within the lOO-year flood plain as depicted on FEMA's flood maps. Monroe County administers the flood plain laws under the oversight of FEMA. A lawsuit was brought against the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) in federal court essentially stating that the flood insurance program, being federally funded, must comply with Endangered Species Act consultation requirements as do other federally-funded projects (see later discussion). The resulting ruling caused FEMA to enter into formal consultation with the USFWS regarding endangered species impacts of issuing flood insurance which of course enables building to occur. The consultation process (see further explanation below under HCP) is generally initiated where alteration of habitat is proposed. The final effect of the - 5 - consultation process is that any landowner who now proposes to alter habitat of federally endangered species in the Florida Keys must go through consultation and may be required to develop an HCP. Need/or a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) In the meantime, as the comprehensive plan stalemate continued over Big Pine Key issues the HCP process began to emerge as the most attractive solution to resolving issues in a holistic approach. The HCP would bring all interests together for another attempt at the overall planning process for these two islands. This process is mentioned only once in the comprehensive plan in Policy 301.7.3, which presents a carrot-on-a-stick approach to motivate initiation of an HCP. It essentially states that additional lanes might be added to U.S. 1 to ease traffic congestion but that such improvements "shall be deferred until the completion of a Habitat Conservation Plan for the island." The HCP process became the focal point of discussion in the search for solutions to all parties' concerns for Big Pine and No Name Keys. The Big Pine Key and No Name Key HCP process brought together three levels of government: federal, state and local, each committing to move towards the best possible resolution of these issues. During 1997 and 1998 members of the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), the Florida Highway Patrol, the Monroe County Sheriffs Office, Monroe County's Planning and Engineering Departments and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) met to explore options to alleviate traffic congestion on U.S. Highway 1 in the business area of Big Pine Key. The main obstacle to any roadway improvement on Big Pine Key was the potential negative impact on the endangered Key Deer. The USFWS agreed to allow an interim intersection improvement project to proceed on the condition that a signed agreement and a firm commitment be in place to prepare the HCP. A Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) was signed by the USFWS, Monroe County, and the three state agencies having management and regulatory interest on the islands agreeing to fund and move forward with the Habitat Conservation Plan on October 26,1998. (Appendix 1) The state agencies involved were the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT), the Florida Department of Community Affairs (FDCA) and the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FFWCC). The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), as the federal representative, holds management responsibility for the deer and its habitat. The USFWS suggested that Monroe County include in a HCP all anticipated future development and infrastructure plans for Big Pine and No Name Keys. The county would apply through the HCP process to the USFWS for a permit to carry out the development plan, which would include ways to address any impacts to federally endangered species. The plan would have the "trickle down" effect of also addressing many of the impacts to endemic and state listed species not on the federal list. An HCP coordinating committee has been formed upon which the state and local agencies serve along with two local citizen representatives. Monroe County, FDCA and FDOT subsequently signed a Joint Participation Agreement (Appendix 2) to become joint applicants for the incidental take permit and agreeing to fund the project. The former two - 6- agencies' interests focused on the planning of additional residential, commercial, recreational and public infrastructure development while the FDOT's interests lay solely with future improvements to U.S. Highway 1. The FDOT agreed to take the lead in the HCP effort by engaging and managing a consultant to write the plan and permit application. The Coordinating Committee is meeting regularly to share information and guide all aspects of the process from development of the scope of work to development of the implementation plan. 28.000 a 27.000 'I: 28.000 I- ~ 25.000 S 24.000 & 23.000 I! i 22.000 21,000 20,000 11192 1993 2&,'" 24,'" Source: Monroe County Public Facilities Capasity Assesment reports: 1990-1999 IIl94 1995 1998 1997 1998 1999 Median Travel Year Speed (In mph) Median Travel Speed 1993 37.7 1994 36 Jr 1-j ! '0 II 1995 35.1 1996 37 . 1997 36.7 1998 33.9 1893 1994 11195 1996 1997 1998 1889 1999 34.1 - 7 - HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN Endangered Species Act The Endangered Species Act (ESA) provides for the protection and management of federally listed wildlife species and their habitats. There are eight of these species that are known to be currently inhabiting or using land areas of Big Pine and/or No Name Keys: Florida Key deer, Odocoileus virginian us c/avium Lower Keys marsh rabbit, Sylvilagus palustris hefneri Arctic peregrine falcon, Falco peregrinus tundrius Southern bald eagle, Haliaeetus leucocephalus Atlantic loggerhead sea turtle, Caretta caretta caretta Eastern indigo snake, Drymarchon cora is couperi American alligator, Alligator mississpiensis Keys tree cactus, Cereus robinii Garber's spurge, Chamaesyce garberi The goal of the ESA is to provide for the management of listed species and their habitat towards recovery to sustained viability. Management includes determining the needs of the species and regulating the human alteration of suitable habitat. In cases where alteration of habitat is proposed a determination is made as to whether the alteration or loss of the habitat will impact the viability of the species. If it will, an "incidental take" of the species, i.e., an indirect presumed removal of individuals or potential individuals from the population, may be allowed under certain circumstances. The USFWS administers the permitting program for take of listed species under Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA. If it is determined that a federal action (e.g., spending of federal funds for highway widening, issuance of flood insurance, etc.) will result in incidental or direct "take" of a federally listed species a formal consultation process is initiated (Section 7 of the ESA). Because this consultation process would be initiated if significant road improvements to U.S. 1 were proposed, the FDOT became very interested in trying to resolve endangered species concerns up front. Section 10 of the ESA allows the "developer" to apply up front for an incidental take permit. The incidental take of a species may be permitted in some cases where there are "mitigating circumstances" connected with the development wherein there results a status quo or even a net gain for species viability by allowing the development to proceed. The mitigation is in the form of a "Habitat Conservation Plan" proposed by the permit applicant which includes actions that will be taken to offset the impact of the development. HCP Process for Big Pine Key and No Name Key The Regional Habitat Conservation Plan for Big Pine Key and No Name Key is the effort being led by FDOT to package an application for incidental take which includes road improvements, development plans determined by Monroe County and mitigating actions - 8- to offset impacts. Completion of this plan will allow two basic actions. First, FDOT will be able to proceed on the permitted road improvements. Second, the permitted development scenario will address the "FEMA lawsuit" concerns mentioned previously. Under that ruling, proposed alterations of habitat must be individually mitigated with individual HCPs. The Regional HCP will provide comprehensive coverage of Big Pine and No Name Keys disposing of the need for individual HCPs. The Habitat Conservation Plan includes two basic elements: a proposed action or development and a proposed mitigation. In the implementation section, the plan describes in detail how these two items will be carried out, including timing, funding, responsible parties, etc. The HCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys will address all of the federally listed species found there but it focuses primarily on two chosen "indicator" species: the Florida Key deer and the Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The tri-party application proposed by Monroe County, the FDCA and the FDOT will outline future development and road improvements along with actions to mitigate any incidental take of federally listed species. Monroe County has seized upon this joint effort to give community planning on Big Pine Key another chance through the Livable CommuniKeys Program for Big Pine Key and No Name Key. - 9 - LIVABLE COMMUNIKEYS PLAN While the idea of "planning" is certainly not a new one for these islands over the last 15+ years, the Master Plan concept is a new and logical next step in resolving land use dilemmas for Big Pine and No Name Keys. The Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) shares an overall goal with the HCP program of determining the appropriate amount, type, and location of additional development and what mitigation will be required for it. The HCP process is set up basically to determine the needs of endangered species and is more technically based. The LCP process is a planning effort designed to determine the needs of the human community and is being completed by the citizens and property owners in the community under the guidance of Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources Department. This document outlines in detail the LCP process to its current stage. Thus far, workshops and meetings have been held with the residents and conceptual development alternatives have been generated for residential, commercial and recreational development. The development alternatives will be refined and combined into scenarios to be run in the HCP model (see later discussion). Existing Conditions/Regulatory Framework Although the LCP process sought to "wipe the slate clean" to some extent and to minimize barriers to creative community planning, existing regulatory constraints needed to be acknowledged during the process. First there are regulatory constraints that limit development outside the scopes of the LCP/HCP processes, and then there are concurrent processes such as planned upgrades of sewage treatment and stormwater systems. The most significant of these factors are outlined in Appendix 3. Goal and Objectives for the Livable CommuniKeys Program The goal of the LCP process is to provide a staff-facilitated community planning effort through which the needs and desires of the property owners of Big Pine Key and No Name Key will be identified. These needs and desires have been developed into future development alternatives. The chosen development scenario will then be refined to generate a Master Plan for these islands. The objectives of the process are to: 1. Bring the residents of Big Pine Key and No Name Key together for a series of informational and interactive workshops whereby community needs, desires, and designs can be collected and assimilated into future development alternatives, 2. Involve both residents and non-resident property owners in the process through a series of informational mailings, 3. Collect, organize and present basic land use and population data for consideration by the residents in their planning effort, 4. Develop some planning guidelines to use in concert with citizen participation in creating development alternatives, 5. Create a series of GIS mapping products geared towards use as a planning and query tool for planning and for future implementation, 6. Produce a document describing the process and results of alternatives development. 7. Refine alternatives into a Master Plan and outline an implementation strategy. - 10 - LCP Citizen Participation Process As previously mentioned, planning processes are nothing new to Big Pine and No Name Keys. There are several possible ways to approach the creation of development alternatives and county staff first considered several aspects that might help define how the process could best be conducted: 1. The rate of development had slowed considerably since the last island planning process (Focal Point Plan) partly due to countywide restrictions and partly due to island-specific restrictions, 2. Several acquisition processes were proceeding on these islands, 3. New information about the Key deer population was being collected and analyzed by researchers for the USFWS, 4. Many of the residents and business-owners who would participate in the process were relatively well-educated in the governmental regulatory arena and interested in the process, 5. The opportunity to dovetail this effort into a pending HCP plan could not be missed as it would provide a final decision by multi-level agencies for a future development scenario on Big Pine and No Name Keys. The Planning Department decided that an open approach, driven by the citizen participants would be best and that the process should move at a good pace. Everything should be done within one year if possible. The basic approach was first to gain input on the community's preferences and concerns in the most efficient manner possible. These community ideas would be presented graphically as a series of development alternatives to be re-evaluated by the public. There was an emphasis on encouraging unrestrained creativity by residents and planners with only the coarsest level of limiting constraints analysis conducted. For example, basic controls such as hurricane evacuation were considered at this stage while site-specific constraints such as cost, ownership, development suitability, and regulatory factors were generally not. The idea was to obtain feedback on the alternatives and then only perform detailed analysis on those that gained some support from the citizen participants. Two community meetings and one workshop have been held thus far in the process. An information campaign was concurrently conducted via newsletters and questionnaires sent to all landowners and renters on Big Pine Key and No Name Key (Appendix 4). Community Work Shops and Newsletters The first LCP community meeting was held on April 6, 2000, two months after the first HCP informational meeting on Big Pine Key. Monroe County staff had attended the HCP meeting and coordinated directly with FDOT, the lead agency on the HCP, to produce a follow-up mailing (Appendix 4). The mailing not only included "Frequently Asked Questions" and an update on the HCP process, but served as a community invitation to the first LCP community meeting. The community participated in a visioning exercise and produced general vision statements for Big Pine and No Name Keys. The results of that workshop were presented in a second newsletter (Appendix 4). That newsletter also presented summary information on pending wastewater facilities for Big Pine Key and the results of the Monroe County Planning Department's U.S. - 11 - Highway 1 Origin/Destination Study conducted in March 1999 on Big Pine Key. The newsletter included an invitation and agenda for the second workshop. The second meeting was conducted on May 25, 2000 on Big Pine Key and included focused exercises to empower the citizens in planning their community. A traffic exercise was conducted which allowed participants to express ideas and gauge reaction levels to specific methods of relieving traffic problems on Big Pine Key. A second exercise focused on specific ideas and levels of desire for different types of development on Big Pine and No Name Keys. The third exercise gauged the community's responses to the general idea ofa town center concept and beautification of the U.S. 1 corridor. The results of the second workshop as well as existing conditions data on population and land use were presented in a third newsletter. After the second workshop the Planning Department went to work on development of alternatives for future residential, commercial and recreational/community facility development on Big Pine and No Name Keys. The Planning Department's traffic consultant was concurrently developing traffic configuration alternatives for U.S. 1 and local roads. The third and final LCP workshop was conducted on September 21, 2000 and consisted of simple graphic presentation of several development alternatives that were drafted from information gathered at the previous workshops. Some general features were listed to accompany a graphic depiction for each alternative but detailed plans were not developed at this stage. Traffic alternatives were also presented at that workshop. Take-home handouts and comment cards were available at the meeting for all of the alternatives. A follow-up newsletter was released on October 15, 2000 repeating the community vision statement and providing a narrative description of each alternative. A one-page questionnaire on local traffic configuration was also included for respondents to mark up and return through the mail. Alternatives Analysis in the HCP Model The next step for the Livable CommuniKeys Plan process for Big Pine and No Name Keys is to analysis the alternatives in the computer model being developed as part of the Habitat Conservation Planning process. As part of the HCP scope of work a population viability model has been developed for the Key Deer and for the Lower Keys marsh rabbit, two federally endangered species upon which the incidental take permit will focus. In basic terms population viability analyses help researchers model the likelihood of extinction over a period of time, in this case 100 years. These models will enable the contractor to roughly define the relationship between patterns of land development and species population viability. The level of land use change that can be evaluated by the model is a function of the model's sensitivity. In the case of the Lower Keys marsh rabbit the model is fairly sensitive and site-specific, even to the level of single residence impacts. In the case of the Key deer, modeling is less sensitive because of the gregarious and wide-ranging nature of this herding animal. Primary and secondary impacts on population viability can be modeled in the case of the Key deer in terms of perhaps 50 to 100 residential unit intervals. What this means is that the model will not necessarily generate a lot by lot picture of allowable development based on Key deer viability impact - 12 - but rather will generate a level of development that will provide an allowable range in the projected population viability. It is anticipated at this point that the HCP process and incidental take permit application will include a general development proposal consisting of three main portions: road improvements, total number of new residential units and level of expansion of non- residential units (commercial, institutional, public, etc.) both in terms of primary (habitat) impacts and secondary (traffic) impacts. The LCP alternatives presented in this report provide the basis for a development layout proposal for the incidental take permit application. Based on HCP results the development layout proposal may be further defined through modification of either the location or the amount of development, or both. From the HCP perspective these modifications will be made with respect to impacts on population viability of the Key Deer and the marsh rabbit. Finally, it will be left up to the LCP Master Planning process to create a parcel-specific land use plan and a detailed implementation strategy for Big Pine and No Name Keys. - 13 - Lcp DEVELOPMENT AL TERNA TIVES The LCP alternatives were based mainly on planning objectives, which were developed from two major sources: citizen input and the existing conditions data. Summaries of existing conditions data presented at the meetings and workshops are found in Appendices 4 and 5. Citizen input was summarized and grouped into general topics such as the desire for more development, the desire to maintain rural character, the desire for more land preservation, etc. This was combined with a general planning analysis of existing population, land use data and traffic data. The objectives limit the scope of the alternatives to those which, best meet the vision and address the needs of the community. Objectives 1. To minimize the need for local trips on U.S. 1 (because there are few local east/west connections on the islands a large percentage of the traffic on U.S. 1 are local trips.) 2. To discourage new development on No Name Key, 3. To encourage additional commercial development to be oriented to the local community rather than to the regional or tourist communities, 4. To continue to allow some development but generally keep the level low to achieve the maintenance of a "rural community" envisioned by the citizens, 5. To provide for a community gathering center and for some active recreation, Level of Development The planning department also set some general parameters to work with on levels of development. The level of future residential development over the planning horizon was set at 200 units. The original planning horizon for the LCP process was 25 years and the 200 new residential units figure was simply calculated at the 8 unit/year rate now contained in the comprehensive plan. When the planning horizon for the HCP was subsequently set at 20 years, there was no need to revise the 200 unit number since it was simply proposed for use in the planning exercise. The final cap on the number of residential units, of course, could not be known at this stage because it will be defined both by the HCP process and the hurricane evacuation study. The corresponding level of future commercial development over the planning horizon was calculated to be 47,800 square feet of floor area based on the 200 new residential units. Transportation Analysis As previously noted, traffic issues were treated concurrently with but apart from the LCP process. The existing transportation network on Big Pine Key consists of a primary throughway, U.S. Highway 1, which serves the local community as well as all traffic traveling between the Lower and Middle Keys. Like most other inhabited islands in the Keys U.S. 1 is the only road for through traffic. However, unlike the other islands, Big Pine is the only one with a land mass configuration and resulting residential population which is so disproportionate to the length of the U.S. 1 roadway, it severely limits the number of possible major "collector" roads through which to funnel local traffic. The severity of this situation is best observed during peak traffic times at the intersection of - 14 - Ship's Way and U.S. 1. Those wishing to exit Ship's Way and travel eastbound on U.S. 1 are often delayed for long periods before they can make the left-hand turn. I ORIGINS Outside the I Keys ORIGIN FROM Big Pine/No Name Keys 1.431 41% FROM Key West 952 28% FROM The Lower Keys 202 6% FROM The Middle & Upper Keys 467 14% FROM Outside the Keys 404 12% Key West ,-- ------, DESTINATIONS Outside the DESTINATION Keys TO Big Pine/No Name Keys 1,058 25% TO Key West 1,272 31% The Middle TO The Lower Keys 497 12% & Upper Keys TO The Middle & Upper Keys 630 15% TO Outside the Keys 712 17% i ~ Monroe County has retained a traffic consultant to compile previous traffic data and county reports into a study of the overall traffic system designed to resolve the congestion and flow problems on Big Pine Key: U.S. 1 and local roads. The study was conducted concurrently with the LCP process so that residents and planners could develop land use options that include various options for dealing with traffic issues. The study entitled, "Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study," is being drafted by Raj Shanmugam, P .E. of URS Greiner and will expand in much greater detail on the traffic analysis used to generate traffic alternatives. New and Existing Public and Institutional Uses The computer model analysis of the impacts of development on the endangered species will include a baseline of future expansion, maintenance and development of new and existing public and institutional uses. For the community to remain viable the public facilities and infrastructure must be maintained and improved, and the community churches and other institutional uses need to be able to address the needs of their members. Therefore, the following list of possible community improvements will be part of the HCP analysis for each alternative: 1. County roads will be maintained and widened to the standard width for their classification. (see map below). - 15 - Big Pine Key and No Name Key Roadways Local Roads & Minor Collectors outaide the CARL Area ^ / ag Ph. Ro.. wllido CARL , V Iv. 3:25,_ Propooed 5 wd....ng. 1,829,930 oq It. Big Pine and No Name Keys Roadway within the CARL Area Noles: 1. These calculations do not indude widening or the Couplet aIlemative for US#1. 2. This map is for MalfC8 Colrlly Growth Management Division jU'pa&es only, The dllla contained herein is illustrative only. Major Collectors: N K8y De. a1l<1 29.218 'wllln hi CNlLA... PrqlOMd lS' widorilll -438,270oq, It WIIIon BlId, 7358 wllln .. CNlLA... PrqxIIC 1S'_rilll . 110,370 oq It ~ ~N....R_ ~ ll158' wll1n .. CNlLA... P\'qx>Md 1O'widori'll -87,511 oq t, IV N WId. R_ 6421' wll1n .. CNlLA... PrqlOMd lS'widori'll - ll8,31Soq.lt Local Roads & Minor Collectors: N ~:'~7~~~~ N ::"~~\Y .. CNlLA... Plllposed .. CNlLA.. PlllpoMd It wd....ng. 867.llIl5 oq. t. It wdring - 30,345 oq .. Private Roads: lV ag Ph. Pove. _I S9,lJilol' wthinl1.CARI. Iv. Road...y ill'l'lll....1I'I1 hllnknld .......rs.. lri<n0Nl'111111l1 ~m. AI ~ N.... Pive. Roadl 2,352' wihn CNlLA... Ro_yinplll.......t hllnknl d.......1I .. .......0NI'111111'i1 ~me Uvable ComlllJniKeys' Proposed Local Road Alternatives : Ly1Ions Way : upgrade 6300' to 24' Minor Collector 5' add~ional pavemert for County owned area included in previous figures, 2650' cI private roadway to be acquired = 2650 @ 24' = 63,600 sq. ft, Main SUet: Upgrade 8800' 10 24' Minor Collector 5' add~ional pavement for County owned area included in previous figll'es. 4,350' of new roadway to be construcled = 4,350 @ 24' = 104,400 sq. ft South Street : Upgra:le 6550' 10 24' Minor Collector 5' add~ional pavement for County owned area included in previous figures . 2220' cI private roadway to be acquired = 2220' @ 24' = 53,280 sq, fj, Monroe County ii~ Ranft'" tIId EnllironmentClI .........'i-o RUClJrca OIpartm..t ., o.Lilt.'I t'\V01'''II..",J(~& Prtl9..... --._...;-----..~'" .n f'or:N/: - ]6 - 2. All churches and community non-profit organizations will expand to their maximum possible coverage of land currently owned. 3. The post office will expand by 1000 square feet. 4. The Overseas Heritage Trail will be constructed along U.S. 1 to a width of 12 feet. 5. Sewage treatment plants will be installed as planned . 6. Storm water management will be implemented as planned. 7. Any additional new public facilities will be constructed as planned in the community facility/recreational alternatives - these will also be tested with each alternative. Overview of Alternatives Scenarios The alternative scenarios are presented in four major categories: residential, commercial, community facility/recreational and transportation. The rationale and broader explanations of the scenarios are presented below. Some mechanisms for implementation are already in place and some new ones may have to be developed, so the lists below generally present the "what", "when", "where" and "why" of each alternative but not necessarily the "who" or "how". Once scenarios are chosen they are developed further and those questions are answered later in the Master Plan and HCP. A cursory planning analysis is presented below to address the advantages and disadvantages of each alternative in areas such as acquisition, affordable housing, redevelopment, environmentaVlandscape, infrastructure planning, implementation logistics/costs and identified community needs. Residential Alternatives Conceptual maps for the five residential alternatives are included in Appendix 5. A brief explanation of some of the terms used in the LCP residential alternative summaries is appropriate here. Official definitions of many of these terms can be found in the county's land development regulations (LDRs). "Residential building permits" refers to permits issued for development of residential units. "Transfer of development rights programs" refers to the existing system of transferable development rights (TDRs) within the county LDRs wherein development rights can be moved under certain circumstances from one property to another where they are used to construct residential units. "ROGO" refers to the dwelling unit allocation ordinance. "ROGO exemptions" refers to "grandfathered" units on certain properties that are built over the density allowed by the current code (i.e., built prior to current code). If the property were to be redeveloped, it would need to conform to the current density requirements. The excess units could be transferred and rebuilt elsewhere in conformance with code densities and not have to obtain a dwelling unit allocation since the units were already counted in the hurricane evacuation model upon which ROGO is based. Hence the reference in these alternatives to "transfer of ROGO exemptions" or TREs. - 17 - Alternative #1: No New Residential Development This is the "no growth" alternative and includes the following features: · No new residential building permits issued on Big Pine and No Name Keys. Permits for replacement and/or modification of existing dwelling units would be allowed. · The 28 property owners with current ROGO allocations would be issued building permits. · Redevelopment of over-density properties will be encouraged, but any dwelling units removed by redevelopment (TREs) must go to other islands. · No opportunity for construction of new higher-density affordable housing based upon transfer of ROGO exemptions. Currently available affordable housing stock may experience future losses. · Transfer of development rights programs for undeveloped properties will not be instituted. Planning Analysis: One advantage of a no growth alternative is that it obviates the need for an HCP addressing residential development since there would be no additional endangered species impact. It is also a simple way, in concept, to prevent removal of remaining habitat or alteration of the existing landscape. This alternative also addresses the desire expressed by a significant segment of the community to maintain a rural character and to prevent further development/population growth. In all probability it would also provide the impetus for redevelopment and improvement of existing homes on these islands. There are several disadvantages to this alternative. First as noted above it does not address the existing U.S. 1 traffic level of service problem and therefore an HCP for U.S. 1 improvements would still be needed. Without the addition of new units there would be little impetus for provision of affordable housing or even maintenance of the existing stock especially given the potential for redevelopment of existing units. The most immediate problem with this alternative would be the high cost of implementation. It must be assumed that there would be an immediate cost for acquisition of vacant private properties to compensate owners who would be prevented from building. It would be difficult to spread this cost over time since this alternative essentially imposes an immediate moratorium on all vacant residential properties with no foreseeable relief. This alternative also ignores the desire of a significant segment of the community for additional "sensible" and "low-impact" single family residential development, especially on improved subdivision lots. The preliminary planning conclusion for this alternative is that it may go further than necessary at this stage to maintain environmental integrity and the desired rural community atmosphere. The immediate cost of implementation could potentially be very large. The current regulations give owners some relief in providing the opportunity to compete for a building permit while spreading acquisition opportunities over time. It is felt that the advantages of a residential no growth alternative do not outweigh the high cost of implementation and drastic changes to the current regulatory - 18 - system. It also does not significantly improve on the slow growth system currently in place. Basic Concepts for Alternatives 2 through 5: Alternatives 2 through 5 all anticipate some level of new residential development. There are some basic concepts common to all of these alternatives: · The total nwnber of new residential building permits for properties on Big Pine and No Name Keys would be limited to 200 over the 20-year duration of the HCP. · Interim regulatory changes that relate to the level of service for U.S. 1 would be developed to allow residential permitting to recommence. What is envisioned here is an interim agreement to allow permit issuance to move forward based on pending road improvements. · The current yearly allocation of eight new residential building permits for Big Pine Key would continue over the duration of the HCP. · The 28 property owners who currently have RaGa allocations would be the first to obtain building permits. · Additional development on No Name Key would continue to be discouraged. · Current acquisition programs may be modified based upon the HCP results. Alternative #2: Clustered Development The clustered alternative focuses development into existing improved subdivisions and could likely include the following features: · New residential development would be focused in an area north ofU.S.1 and south of Watson Blvd. (also includes Doctors Arm area) where over 50% of the population now resides. All residential development would be directed to vacant buildable Improved Subdivision (IS) - zoned lots in seven target areas. Major IS subdivision areas in which building would be clustered include: · Doctors Arm · Punta Brisa · Tropical Bay · Palm Villa · Whispering Pines North · Eden Pines Colony · Pine Channel Estates Vacant properties outside of the target areas would not be developed. Includes a transfer of RaGa exemption (TRE) program for over-density properties where extra dwelling units may be transferred into the target areas on Big Pine Key. Much of the new residential development would be focused into areas of relatively low or moderate environmental sensitivity. . . Tropical Key Colony Big Pine, Inc. Linda Lorna Whispering Pines South Sands area Pine Hammock area . . . . . . . . Planning Analysis: In many ways, the clustered scenario is similar in effect to the current regulatory system since RaGa already directs development largely into improved subdivisions. Therefore, this alternative would not be a drastic change to the current situation for these two islands. Acquisition efforts would continue to focus - 19 - mainly on natural areas leaving the majority of platted improved subdivision lots free to compete for building permits as they do now. Habitat alteration would be limited to improved subdivisions so the vast majority of alteration would occur in lower quality habitat. In addition the discouragement of habitat alteration contained in the ROGO process would still be in place. Use of TREs on Big Pine Key could be a positive change for affordable housing to at least maintain and possibly increase the stock. The ROGO advantages for affordable housing currently in place would also continue to function. The target subdivisions in this alternative are largely supplied with roads and utilities and all are programmed into the planned installation of sewer systems and presumably stormwater systems. This alternative meets virtually all citizens expressed concerns at least half way. It maintains a low but reasonable rate of mainly single family residential development maintaining the rural character. Implementation would be relatively simple and low in cost, focusing on fine-tuning the existing system. The disadvantages of this alternative are few and minor. Some habitat alteration within subdivisions could still be permitted but again, on an island-wide scale the landscape location of this habitat alone makes it of relatively low quality. Also, re- focusing of acquisition could possibly address any critical corridors or other special habitat needs located in subdivisions. Another disadvantage of this alternative is that it would immediately render many lots on Big Pine and No Name unbuildable again possibly creating a glut of lots for which timely acquisition would be advisable to avoid legal problems. Most of these lots, though are outside subdivisions and already contained within acquisition boundaries now so the process would simply need to be modified to perhaps address issues of acquisition timing and reprioritization. The preliminary planning conclusion for this alternative is that it is reasonable and highly feasible. Alternative #3: Scattered The scattered alternative is basically the system that is in place now with no changes. The features include: · No substantial changes to the current residential point system in ROGO. · Properties on Big Pine continue to compete against each other for the available supply of building permits. · No specific "target areas" for additional residential development. · New residential development could conceivably occur in areas other than those zoned Improved Subdivision (IS). · Redevelopment of over-density properties will be encouraged, but any dwelling units removed by redevelopment would go to other islands. · Increased flexibility for property owners seeking to build residences. · The opportunity for the provision of affordable housing would be by following the existing ROGO allocation process. . Transfer of development rights (TDR) programs would not be used in this alternative. - 20- Planning Analysis: The major advantage to this alternative is that it allows local government to avoid an immediate takings situation by continuing the current system wherein each property owner has some inherent level. of building expectation. No substantial changes to the current acquisition program would need to be made so priorities would not necessarily change. There would be virtually no new implementation costs for this alternative. Under the current ROGO system affordable housing would continue to receive incentives while habitat alteration would continue to be discouraged. This alternative meets many of the citizens' expressed concerns. It maintains the low rate and overall level of development (i.e., rural character) while at the same time allowing a reasonable level of single family home development. The major disadvantage to this alternative is that because nothing changes, the current system is not improved upon and we know by virtue of engaging in this planning process that the current system is not satisfactory. Lot owners that would have a low potential for obtaining a building permit would not be provided with the immediate relief afforded by a final decision on their property which the integrated HCP/LCP process seeks to provide. The timing of acquisition would not be assured and they would remain "in limbo" to some extent. Also, this alternative would be difficult to permit with an HCP because the level of incidental take of endangered species is in large part connected with the location of development. The scattered alternative can provide a rough idea of the anticipated amount of habitat alteration perhaps based on past ROGO competition but it cannot provide an absolute number thereby weakening the HCP. This alternative also does nothing to improve upon the current affordable housing situation since there would be no provision for use of TREs on Big Pine Key. This alternative definitely does not meet a major community need expressed repeatedly that a final decision be rendered concerning individual lot buildability. The preliminary planning conclusion for the scattered alternative is that it is not preferred mainly because it is a continuation of the status quo. Alternative #4: Main Street The main street alternative focuses development largely within one central area on Big Pine Key creating a "town center" type of development which would serve the outlying rural area of the remaining island. Features include: · Creation of an area north of U.S. I via zoning overlay district which would receive all new residential development. · No new residential development in areas outside the Main Street area. · This alternative would include a program for transfer of development rights (TDRs) into the Main Street area from vacant lots outside the Main Street area. · Includes a transfer of ROGO exemption (TRE) program for over-density properties where extra dwelling units may be transferred into the Main Street area. · All new residential development will occur at higher densities (not more than 12 units/acre) as an incentive for the provision of affordable housing. · New residential development focused in areas of relatively low to moderate environmental sensitivity. - 21 - . IS Subdivisions included are part of Tropical Key Colony, Big Pine Inc., Pine Hammocks and Roger Lowe. Planning Analysis: The main street alternative came about as a result of several coincidental emerging patterns. First, Big Pine population data shows that the majority of residents already live north of the highway and this alternative would basically minimize the need for them to cross it (see planning objectives previously discussed). Second, the citizens repeatedly expressed the need for community-focused development and a community center. Third, some local road alternatives could be focused into a main street. These features are some of the advantages of this alternative. Another advantage is that it provides certainty as to the permitted location of residential development and a means for re-prioritizing acquisition. Habitat alteration due to residential development would also not occur outside the main street area. Because of the high density incentives and mixed commercial/residential use features affordable housing could conceivably expand in the main street area. As previously mentioned, the desire for a community center would be accomplished and this alternative would also maintain the rural character of most of Big Pine Key while allowing for some building. The main street alternative would be a significant departure from the current development pattern on Big Pine Key and as such the logistics of implementation would be formidable. First, the majority of currently buildable improved subdivision lots are outside the main street area and would be rendered immediately unbuildable under this alternative. As mentioned for previous alternatives (e.g., "no growth") this makes it more difficult to spread acquisition dollars over time. Although this alternative may encourage expansion of affordable housing stock within the main street area it would probably have to employ additional incentives over and above the density bonus. The density bonus has been in place now since 1986 and has not in itself served to stimulate development of affordable housing. Another obstacle to be overcome in implementing this alternative is that it covers two main corridors of native habitat that have in the past been considered to be important as wildlife greenways for movement between north and south Big Pine Key. Some of this greenway is under the ownership of wildlife management agencies and use of any portion of it would need to be negotiated with them. The preliminary planning conclusion for this alternative is that it is very ambitious as proposed and has some major implementation problems, but it has some very good features that could be incorporated into a final development scenario for Big Pine Key. Alternative #5: Timed to Public Sewer Availability This is identical to the "clustered" alternative (Alternative #2 above) except that the list of subdivisions contained in that alternative is increased here with the addition of three more: Port Pine Heights, Cahill Pines and Palms, and Pine Key Yacht Club Estates. These areas along with the list of subdivisions in Alternative #2 are programmed to receive connection to central sewer within the planning period (i.e., by - 22- 2010). The exact layout and specific lots to be connected are still being refined as part of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (see earlier description). Exhibit 6-1 of that plan lists the five hot spots on Big Pine Key that are planned for connection to public sewer. The major features of this alternative are: · New residential development will only occur in areas, which have public sewer. · The numbers indicate the planned priority order for the extension of sewer service. · This allows for additional residential dwellings outside the target subdivisions mentioned in other alternatives. · The installation of infrastructure directs the timing and location of development. Planning Analysis: The advantages and disadvantages of this alternative are identical to the clustered alternative with a few minor additions. The major differences between the two alternatives are location and timing of development. First we will address the timing issue. Development of residences under this alternative would be held until public sewer was installed. Even if the programmed completion year of 2010 for sewer installation could be met it would likely not be initiated for a few years. The first priority area for sewer connection on Big Pine (Sands Subdivision area) ranks eighth in priority for the Keys overall (see Exhibit 6-1 of the sewer master plan) so it might be safe to surmise that construction would not commence until perhaps 2005. This is not necessarily a disadvantage in the larger picture. It simply means that the temporary moratorium on development now imposed by traffic level of service would in effect be extended to a longer period waiting for public sewer service. This allows acquisition efforts to continue to "catch up." The assurance of building at some point for certain subdivisions would still exist. This alternative simply avoids the cost to an owner of installing a wastewater system that will be obsolete in five to ten years when public sewer service is installed. That is also an advantage with respect to the goal of maintaining and improving nearshore water quality which is after all the primary reason for installation of public sewer. At the current eight unit per year development rate and an overall development cap of 200 units proposed in the LCP process it may not make much difference in terms of water quality whether or not new units wait for sewer. The location of development in the sewer alternative basically adds two major areas to the clustered alternative: Port Pine Heights subdivision which is at the north end of Key Deer Boulevard and Cahill Pines and PalmslPine Key Yacht Club Estates subdivisions which are located along U.S. 1 at the southwest comer of Big Pine Key. The former area is a focus of acquisition currently because of its landscape location with respect to natural habitat and also because of the potential for wildlife roadkill on Key Deer Boulevard due to the travel distance to U.S. 1. Those are the reasons this subdivision was not included in the clustered alternative. The two subdivisions south of U.S. 1 were also not included in the clustered alternative but mainly because of the objective of minimizing cross-highway traffic. Cross-highway travel to and from these subdivisions, however, happens to be very convenient compared to the rest of south Big Pine because the connector roads are at the extreme west end of the island. - 23 - The preliminary planning conclusion for this alternative is that it really does not improve on the clustered alternative (Alternative #2) especially at the currently proposed development rates. This alternative might be considered as a variation of the clustered alternative. Residential Development Alternatives - Planning Analysis The clustered alternative (Alternative #2) is generally the most advantageous for residential development but a final scenario should also include some type of incentive for affordable housing, probably using aspects of the main street alternative. In addition the southwest grouping of improved subdivisions along U.S. 1 (Cahill Pines and Palms and Pine Key Yacht Club Estates) should be included in a final scenario based on clustering. The timing of development with respect to installation of public sewer should be left up to the builder. Commercial Alternatives Conceptual maps for the six commercial alternatives are included in Appendix 5. Alternative #1: No New Non-residential Development This alternative basically limits commercial development to its current level and types of uses essentially making it a commercial "no growth" alternative. Its features include: · No non-residential permits for new construction or expanded redevelopment would be issued on Big Pine and No Name Keys. Permits for repair and replacement at identical intensities would be allowed. . There is little incentive for redevelopment of over-density properties since over density floor area will be lost to other islands. . There would be no substantial increases in commercial-generated local traffic. . A beautification program may take place. Planning Analysis: The advantages of the "no growth" commercial alternative are similar to those of the "no growth" residential alternative in that it makes habitat conservation planning very simple. No changes in area or intensity would translate to no increase in direct or secondary impacts to habitat and wildlife. This alternative also has the advantage of maintaining the current feel of a ruraVsmall town community on Big Pine Key and meets the desire of a significant segment of citizens for a halt on additional development. The results of the temporary commercial moratoriwn on Big Pine Key for the past four years or so basically show a picture of Big Pine under this alternative. The major disadvantage is that this alternative does not provide incentive for even a "face-lift" of current Big Pine Key commercial floor area since there is no redevelopment flexibility. Many citizens named commercial areas as "favorite places" on Big Pine Key and expressed a desire for additional and redeveloped commercial space. This alternative does not achieve that desire. - 24- The preliminary planning conclusion is that this alternative, like the residential "no growth" alternative is "overkill" especially with respect to redevelopment of existing commercial. Basic Concepts for Alternatives 2 through 6: Alternatives 2 through 6 all anticipate some level of new commercial development. There are some basic concepts common to these scenarios: · Big Pine Key currently has 603,147 square feet of commercial floor area (not counting outdoor storage or seating areas). · Big Pine Key could add around 47,800 square feet of new commercial floor area over the twenty-year time span of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (assuming 200 additional residential building permits are issued). · A non-residential permit allocation system would be developed for Big Pine Key which would allow for expansion of non-residential development. · Redevelopment of currently under-utilized commercial properties would be a central focus. · The transfer of non-residential floor area to remain on Big Pine Key for redevelopment would be encouraged, but use of transferred floor area would be governed by design guidelines. · There would likely be some reduction of development potential in vacant properties along U.s. I in certain areas. Alternative #2: Redevelopment of Existing Uses Only This alternative works with the existing businesses and floor area to allow for upgrades and expansion. Its features include: · Limited expansion of existing commercial floor area for conforming uses inside the redevelopment area boundary. · Undeveloped properties in the redevelopment area would generally remain undeveloped. · Redevelopment of non-conforming properties would be encouraged through incentives. · Transfer of floor area from existing over-density non-residential development to existing conforming non-residential development would be allowed, but transfer to undeveloped properties generally would not. · Areas outside of the redevelopment area would be rezoned to a lower development potential (Le., non-commercial) or purchased depending on the accompanying residential alternative implemented. · This alternative offers the potential for better utilization of existing commercial land and available floor area than in place currently. · Some beautification efforts for the U.S. I Corridor would likely be included and this alternative would seek to directly address redevelopment of historic properties/structures without losing them. Planning Analysis: The obvious advantage of this alternative is that existing commercial areas would be provided some incentive to redevelop and improve their - 25 - properties. This alternative would also dovetail into a residential alternative that anticipates some form of affordable housing linked with commercial as well. The redevelopment boundary also meets the objective of focusing most of the commercial on the north side of U.S. 1 to minimize cross-highway travel. Implementation would be relatively simple and it meets citizens' desires to maintain a rural character and limit new development but also to allow some reasonable level of flexibility for commercial uses. The need for acquisition of remaining undeveloped commercially-zoned properties would likely increase under this alternative but it is not a critical problem. First, the total amount of commercial floor area is limited both on this island and county-wide so the need for acquisition exists now. Second, the amount of vacant commercial land on Big Pine Key is relatively small when compared with the amount of residential land and the parcels generally occur in larger chunks making acquisition of vacant commercial more manageable. The preliminary planning conclusion considering the current configuration of commercial development on Big Pine Key is that this alternative is attractive in its simplicity and flexibility. At the same time it fits in with the vision for Big Pine and No Name Keys. Alternative #3: Clustered The clustered alternative focuses development around a central area especially north of U.S. 1 and within the existing commercial center of Big Pine Key. Its features include: . Focus of new non-residential development around the Winn Dixie Plaza shopping center and the intersection of Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder Road. . Some negotiation and possible transfer of publicly-owned properties in this area may be required. . A transfer of development rights program would be developed to increase the potential amount of commercial floor area inside the target area and reduce non- residential development potential outside the target area. . May include an incentive program for the redevelopment of existing properties inside the target areas to higher densities. . Vacant commercial land inside the target area would be allowed to develop. . Commercial properties outside the cluster target area would not be allowed to expand. . Mixed uses containing commercial and residential uses will be encouraged. Planning Analysis: The clustered commercial alternative has some of the same advantages as the redevelopment alternative but limited to within the cluster area. It provides for a focus of commercial on the north side of U.S. 1 meeting the objective of minimizing cross-highway traffic. It also meets many of the citizens desires including maintenance of a rural community character, providing a community focus, and providing for some limited expansion of commercial development. - 26- As with the redevelopment alternative, acquisition of vacant properties outside the cluster area boundary would be an immediate but manageable need if this alternative were implemented. This alternative has the disadvantage, however, of the loss of redevelopment flexibility for existing commercial development outside the cluster area. Although the clustered alternative focuses a large amount of commercial land area north of U.S. 1 it doesn't really present an advantage over the existing commercial configuration which also has minimal development south of U.S. 1 (see redevelopment alternative boundary map). Another disadvantage to the clustered alternative is the relatively large amount native and publicly owned lands within the conceptual boundary. This puts into question the availability of land for new commercial development within this boundary and also increases the likelihood that new development would alter native habitat. The preliminary planning conclusion for the clustered alternative is that it does not appear to present significant advantages over the redevelopment configuration, especially given the low level of floor area allocated over the planning period. Alternative #4: Main Street The main street theme in residential. alternative #4 is carried through here to include the commercial component. Its features include: · Commercial uses on the north side of U.S. 1 reorient themselves to the new Main Street. · Focus on redevelopment of existing commercial properties along Main Street to higher intensity mixed uses at a pedestrian scale. · Major beautification programs along Main Street and U.S. 1. · Use of publicly-owned lands in the Main Street area as habitat lands and green spaces with walking paths. · An incentive program to increase intensities in the Main Street area, including redevelopment and development of vacant lands. · Focus on higher intensity mixed use development with residential above commercial. · New commercial floor area would only be allowed within the Main Street area. · A transfer of development rights program would be developed to increase the potential amount of commercial floor area inside the target area and reduce non- residential development potential outside the target area. · This alternative would require realignment of several streets in the Main Street area. · May include a traffic circle for better traffic circulation. Planning Analysis: The main street alternative is the ultimate attempt to build on the "town center" idea and envisions a pedestrian-friendly system that orients itself to the local Big Pine Key community. The biggest advantages are the focus to a community center and the minimizing of travel on the highway afforded by a local road configuration north of U.S. 1. Affordable housing would also be a focus and would be encouraged as part of the commercial layout. - 27- The major disadvantage of the main street alternative is the potential difficulty of implementation. As noted for the residential main street alternative this would involve drastic changes to current commercial and street layouts as well as a significant public investment for those items plus planned beautification. To achieve the desired commercial layout and land use mix through regulatory means alone would also be extremely difficult. Much would depend on the intentions and participation of the individual landowners within the main street boundary. These difficulties are not insurmountable but the benefits of main street must be weighed against the cost and current situation on Big Pine. With less than 50,000 square feet of commercial space to work with over the planning horizon the costlbenefit ratio may be too high. Also, other commercial properties on Big Pine Key would suffer stagnation due to lack of flexibility for redevelopment. Another obvious disadvantage is the existence of habitat and publicly owned habitat in the proposed main street area. Use of these parcels would need to be negotiated with resource agency owners and this may present difficulties although the accompanying proposal of no new development outside main street may be an attractive trade-off. The preliminary planning conclusion for the commercial main street alternative is that it is not practical for implementation at this stage. Parts of the plan are very attractive, however, and might be incorporated into a final commercial scenario. Alternative #5: Scattered This alternative presents the idea of small neighborhood oriented commercial service centers. Its features include: . Creation of neighborhood commercial centers so that residents in northern areas do not have to drive down to U.S. 1. . Neighborhood commercial centers are for development intended to serve local residents only. . Would require some rezoning of residential land for nonresidential land uses. . Residents would be able to use alternative forms of transportation. . The impacts of neighborhood commercial centers on adjacent residential uses would have to be minimized. . May help create more cohesive neighborhoods. . Would include incentives for allowing increases in residential density through the transfer of ROGO exemptions around the neighborhood commercial centers. Planning Analysis: The neighborhood commercial idea again would be a significant change from the current commercial layout on Big Pine Key. The general principle has been proposed and even partially implemented in other parts of the Keys with mostly minimal success. The advantage of this alternative of course is that it minimizes automobile travel distances and trip numbers by the residents of the neighborhood being served and provides much more convenient access to the subject commercial area. The major disadvantage of this alternative is the difficulty in ensuring its future success. Market conditions will dictate what types of businesses establish themselves - 28- in the neighborhood centers, who uses them and whether they could be supported by neighborhood use alone. Although the trip reduction goal might be realized with respect to the neighborhood directly being served there would be no way to control incoming trips to the business from outside the neighborhood thus defeating the purpose. Implementation techniques such as control of advertising, hours, etc. generally are burdensome on business owners and on local government and have been shown to be largely ineffective in the past. The goal of trip reduction may not be realized and in fact could possibly be defeated with actual trip increases on secondary roads (e.g., Key Deer Blvd., Wilder Road) from outside neighborhoods. Also, with less than 60,000 square feet of commercial floor area available over the planning horizon and the disincentive in this alternative to the expansion or improvement of existing businesses implementation would be difficult. This type of idea might be more appropriate for a heavily developing area of fast growing groups of neighborhoods but is not appropriate for Big Pine Key. The preliminary planning conclusion for the scattered alternative is that implementation is not practical nor is it likely to achieve the primary goal of changing traffic flow patterns. Alternative #6: Couplet The couplet commercial alternative is proposed to match one of the proposed U.S. 1 roadway alternatives meant to relieve traffic congestion (see later discussion). The features include: · New commercial development to be located between the northbound and southbound lanes ofre-aligned U.S. 1. · May lead to placement of new commercial uses in or near prime habitat, and would be automobile oriented. · Would include major beautification programs along U.S. 1. · An incentive program to increase intensities in the target area, including redevelopment and development of vacant lands. · Focus on higher intensity mixed use development with residential above commercial. · New commercial floor area would only be allowed within the target area. · A transfer of development rights program would be developed to increase the potential amount of commercial floor area inside the target area and reduce nonresidential development potential outside the target area. · Would require a major acquisition program and possible building demolition. · This alternative may increase the number oflocal trips on U.S. 1. Planning Analysis: This alternative can be pictured as similar to the highway median commercial development on much of Key Largo. The major advantage really has more to do with the configuration of the roadway than that of the commercial development (see later discussion of transportation alternatives). There are numerous disadvantages to this alternative. First it does not meet one of the primary planning objectives of keeping local traffic as much as possible on the north - 29- side of U.S. 1 since it allows commercial expansion/development only on the south side of the current highway. Businesses north of U.S. 1 would have no flexibility to redevelop or improve. Second, it involves alteration of remaining native habitat including potential filling of critical freshwater wetlands. This is a problem with the roadway configuration as well (see later discussion). Third, it is potentially limiting to the types of businesses that could locate within the median area to expansion or redevelopment of existing businesses. This may not necessarily be a detriment but should be considered. Key Largo median businesses provide good examples of the types of commercial uses that would potentially locate in a couplet design. Also, the roadway configuration itself would involve some major public and private property acquisition, reconfiguration of properties and demolition of some existing development. Although some of these difficulties are not insurmountable the benefit for commercial development and achievement of planning and citizen objectives just isn't there. The preliminary planning conclusion for the alternative is that it has a high level of implementation difficulty and lacks achievement of the planning objectives. The roadway configuration might still be considered (see later discussion) but the restriction of commercial development to within the median is problematic at best. Commercial Development Alternatives - Planning Analysis Alternative #2: Redevelopment of Existing Uses Only is considered to be the best commercial alternative in general. Some aspects of Alternative #4: Main Street might be used in combination with Alternative #2 especially with respect to encouragement of existing and new business expansion and accompanying affordable housing within the main street area. Community FacilitylRecreational Alternatives Conceptual maps for the six community facility/recreation alternatives are included in Appendix 5. Unlike the residential and commercial alternatives, the community facility/recreational alternatives are meant to be combined into something that meets the community's needs. Therefore all of the alternatives are presented first and then an overall planning analysis and final conclusion is presented last. Basic Concepts Applicable to All Alternatives . Efforts to acquire and develop recreation lands would focus on active recreation opportunities like ball fields & soccer fields. . The determination for community facilities would be based solely on community need since that need is greater than the ratio of 1.64 acres per 1,000 people required to meet recreation and open space Level of Service (LOS) standards in the comprehensive plan. . Intergovernmental agreements with federal and state agencies for use of existing publicly-owned lands or facilities may be required for some alternatives. . The placement of a new community center should be considered in the alternatives. - 30- · May consider altering ROGD to allow more points for dedicated lots near priority acquisition areas to support community facilities. Alternative #1: No New Facilities This is essentially the "no growth" alternative presented as a baseline. Its features include: · No additional facilities to address deficits in community need for active recreation lands. · Requires residents to travel off of Big Pine Key to fulfill recreational needs not provided by existing facilities on Big Pine Key thereby having the potential to increase local U.S. 1 traffic. . Does not require acquisition programs. Alternative #2: Expand/Redevelop Existing Facilities This alternative basically involves expansion of existing county facilities which in reality only includes one facility: Blue Heron. Watson Field is the only other existing county facility and cannot be expanded due to surrounding wetlands. The features of this alternative include: · Does not allow for the inclusion of a sports field or other facilities that may require large amounts of land area. · Requires residents to travel off of Big Pine Key to fulfill recreational needs not provided by existing Big Pine Key facilities. · Acquisition of public lands may be necessary. · Takes advantage of recreation infrastructure already in place. Alternative #3: New Water Related Recreation Areas This alternative is directed solely at development of waterfront recreation but could include additional facilities depending on the property. The features include: · Provides primarily water-based recreation opportunities. · Requires use of federally owned sites for water based recreation facilities. . May allow for the development of disturbed sites. . Would potentially provide beach access on Big Pine Key. . Potential for increased local traffic on U.S. 1. · Requires limited acquisition and negotiation for use of federally-owned land. Alternative #4: New Community Facilities This alternative looks at some likely parcels for creation of new recreational facilities. Its features include: . Some sites may require negotiations for land acquisition. · Additional active recreation lands south of U.S. 1 may create additional U.S. 1 local traffic since most of the residential population is north of the highway. · Creates potential for additional traffic from areas outside of Big Pine Key. . Promotes a reduction in community facility costs since there is no required duplication of ancillary requirements (i.e., parking, utilities). - 31 - . Increases the sense of community and community gathering opportunities providing a community focus. . Potential to make efficient use of otherwise under-utilized sites like the flea market and B&B junkyard. . Provides adequate property size for development of all community facility needs. . Potential sites have relatively low environmental value. Alternative #5: Main Street To carry out the main street theme this alternative proposes some recreational development in a specific area of main street. The features include: . Promotes a reduction in community facility costs since there is no required duplication of ancillary requirements (i.e., parking, utilities). . Provides opportunity for shared parking arrangements with other uses. . May foster Main Street development through increased people presence in the Main Street area. . Increases sense of community and community gathering opportunities providing a community focus. . The limited availability of large contiguous parcels of land will require intensive land acquisition process and land swaps with other public land owners. . Creates potential for additional traffic from areas outside of Big Pine Key. . Opportunity for integration with other open space properties to form a green space network with habitat value. Alternative #6: Scattered Sites This alternative takes into account existing facilities that are very small and proposes improvement of those. Its features include: . Saves money on land acquisition since this scenario is based on development of existing county owned parcels. . Limited in the capability to provide large scale recreation opportunities since land acquisition efforts through Monroe County have been limited. . Increases the overall cost of site development through the duplication of ancillary requirements (i.e., parking, utilities). . Dispenses the impact of local traffic across Big Pine Key. . Provides recreation opportunities closer to individual neighborhoods. . County owned properties are relatively small and will not be able to accommodate all of the community needs. Planning Analysis: The planning analysis in this case will focus on opportunities and constraints of the various alternatives. Really the only alternative that meets the stated needs of the citizens to have more active recreation is Alternative #4: New Community Facilities. None of the others taken individually anticipate the space needed for active recreation except perhaps Alternative #5: Main Street. But the problem with the main street alternative is that a large part of the land area within the boundary that is potentially available for recreational development is located within unbuildable wetlands and pineland habitat (see Appendix 5 map). The lands shown in the New - 32- Community Facilities alternative are all either developed or vacant with relatively low habitat value. Alternative #3: New Water Related Recreation is attractive as an added recreational feature although the Long Beach extension may present some constraints. First, it may involve alteration of important loggerhead turtle nesting habitat and Key deer habitat. Second the need for beachfront recreation is judged by some to be minimal for Big Pine Key since residents have access to the world-class Bahia Honda Beach State Park just two more miles east on U.S. 1. Alternative #6: Scattered Sites presents another opportunity to compliment an overall recreational plan as it provides the opportunity primarily for protected neighborhood playgrounds. These areas might also be used for some limited adult recreation such as tennis courts, volleyball or canoe/kayak launching. Constrained alternatives include #1: No New Facilities which obviously does not meet any of the stated community needs. Alternative #2: Expand/Redevelop Existing Facilities is also severely constrained since there is only one facility, Blue Heron, which could conceivably expand and that would involve alteration of pineland habitat. For those same reasons as cited above the Main Street alternative (#5) is also constrained. Community Facility/Recreational Development Alternatives - Planning Analysis Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 taken together with some slight modifications where necessary would meet the needs of the citizens and take maximum advantage of existing publicly owned parcels. The three alternatives together provide potential for adequate active recreation plus waterfront recreation and appropriate limited neighborhood recreation. Transportation Alternatives As mentioned previously, detailed information on the transportation study and development of each alternative will be presented in the Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study (Shanmugam, 2001). Transportation alternatives were developed, with the input of the community, to address two separate areas of traffic flow, that occurring on local roads of Big Pine Key and flow on U.S. 1. The primary problem needing resolution on U.S. 1 is the LOS. As previously stated the LOS is below the required Standard C for that roadway. Local roads meet their required LOS Standard D and are expected to do so into the future. The problem to be addressed for local roads is primarily how to maximize safety and convenience for local trips, and to determine if by providing local alternatives the level of service on U.S. can be improved. The transportation study is an on-going process and will include analysis of the impacts on the public roads of the chosen future residential, commercial and community facility development scenario. Local Transportation Alternatives Maps of eight proposed local road alternatives are presented in Appendix 5. The primary goal of each alternative is to allow the majority of local residents who live north of U.S. 1 to reach local daily destinations conveniently and safely without - 33 - having to traverse any part of U.S. 1, or, having to do so as little as possible. The original eight alternatives underwent additional technical analysis and a survey of local residents was conducted to learn which alternatives would be used the most (Schanmugan 2001). Based on the results several alternatives were discarded or combined into three final alternatives listed below, ranked in order as the top three choices of the resident survey respondents This alternatives will be analyzed in the HCP Model: . Alternative #1: Provide Lytton's Way connector road to Ships Way and remove traffic barriers on Harbor Lights and Journeys End Roads. . Alternative #2: Main Street: A local connector north of existing U.S. 1 alignment bordering the back of the commercial development west of Key Deer Boulevard and utilizing the existing frontage road east of Key Deer Boulevard. This was also called "Big Pine Way" in the original listing of options. . Alternative #3: Provide Lytton's Way connector to Sandy Circle only without removing traffic barriers on Harbor Lights and Journeys End Roads. Planning Analysis: It should be noted that the two groups of options: local roads and U.S. 1 must ultimately be analyzed in combination since LOS on U.S. 1 is affected and can be improved depending on what is done solely with the local road network. Schanmugan (2001) presents a detailed analysis of the options and combinations from a traffic standpoint only. Each of the above alternatives must also be viewed from a land use planning and implementation standpoint. The Main Street or "Big Pine Way" alternative utilizes an existing frontage road to the east of Key Deer Boulevard but would require purchase and construction of additional public right of way. As conceptually configured (see Appendix 5) the western end of Big Pine Way would traverse some private existing private easement and a small portion of existing right of way but the remainder would be required to traverse existing slash pinelands and possibly one or more freshwater solution holes. Some of the habitat is federally owned. To the east of Key Deer Boulevard the existing frontage road formed by Avenue A would be used. That road ends just east of the Big Pine Motel so additional right-of-way would need to be purchased in front of existing businesses to bring that frontage road to Key Deer Boulevard. The Main Street alternative was ranked second by Big Pine residents when given a choice of local road configurations to use. The Lytton's Way alternative utilizes an existing cleared path to the east of Key Deer Boulevard running along a private easement that is part of the Pine Key Acres plat. To the west of Key Deer Boulevard the unimproved path continues through Pine Key Acres plat and then across two dedicated streets, Sandy Circle and Harbor Lights Road to end at Ships Way in Pine Channel Estates Subdivision. The idea of utilizing this roadway for local traffic circulation north of U.S. 1 is nothing new. The road actually was used for years by local residents who knew of it, even though it consists merely of a cleared path on caprock ridden with solution holes. There was an attempt by local residents in the early 1990s to have this roadway dedicated and improved by the - 34- county but the project was never completed and the roadway was subsequently blocked. This route was the top choice of local residents in the survey of local road use preferences. A modified configuration of this route which involves stopping it at Sandy Circle rather than Ships Way was ranked third by the residents. u.s. 1 Transportation Alternatives Maps of the original six proposed U.S. 1 alternatives are presented in Appendix 5. The projected LOS was analyzed, among other things, for each of the alternatives. Based on further technical analysis four alternatives are presented for further analysis in the HCP model: · Alternative #1: Reduce the daytime speed limit to 35 miles per hour. · Alternative #2: New U.S. 1 Alignment: U.S. 1 relocated to a new 2-lane alignment south of the existing U.S. 1 bordering the back of the commercial development. No signal along the new alignment. Existing alignment functions as a local street, with existing signal controlling the local traffic. This was originally called the "Couplet" alternative. · Alternative #3: Three lane (center turn lane) U.S. 1 from Ships Way to east of First Street. · Alternative #4: Four lane (no separate turn lanes) U.S. 1 from Ships Way to east of First Street. All of these alternatives showed some reserve capacity in U.S. 1 LOS to the planning horizon of 2025. As might be expected, Alternative 1 showed the least reserve capacity while Alternatives 3 and 4 showed the most (Schanmugan, 2001). Planning Analysis: Of the four U.S. Highway 1 alternatives presented, the "New U.S. 1 Alignment" also known as the "Couplet" alternative involves a large amount of right-of-way acquisition for construction of a road to highway standards through existing hammock and freshwater wetlands with little or no existing cleared path. The option of lowering the speed limit does little to relieve existing congestion and in fact simply serves to artificially raise the LOS for a time. The three and four lane alternatives result in virtually the same LOS improvement and reserve capacity within the planning horizon making the three-lane alternative the more attractive of the two from a construction cost and impact standpoint. Transportation Alternatives - Planning Analysis Preferred alternatives for traffic will depend on two primary factors: the final preferred development scenario and the environmental and wildlife impacts. All of the traffic alternatives will raise the U.S. I LOS at least for a portion of the planning horizon. Therefore, a final conclusion on the preferred roadway configuration will be held until the joint LCP/HCP alternatives refinement provides a preferred development scenario. - 35 - MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT A community master plan is different from current and previous comprehensive plans in that it is very specific to the target development area in terms of both location and implementation mechanisms. Big Pine and No Name Keys present implementation strategy opportunities that are different from other islands. The final master plan will be based on the information learned in the HCP computer model analysis and on the information gathered in the community planning process. It will provide the detailed blueprint that coordinates all of the requirements of the comprehensive plan and the incidental take permit. A draft master plan will be developed first and presented to the community. Once a final master plan is adopted it will also address at least some of the following issues: 1. cost analysis 2. public expenditure programming and layout (roads, parks, sewer, stormwater, etc.) 3. agreement mechanisms for interagency participation 4. land development implementation strategies which could include a variety of features such as: a. changes in comprehensive policies and land development regulations, b. tax incentives, c. flexible design alternatives to encourage redevelopment, d. property-specific strategies such as conservation easements or development agreements, 5. revised acquisition priorities LITERATURE CITED Hoffmeister, J.E. 1974. Land from the Sea: The Geologic StOry of South Florida. University of Miami Press, Coral Gables, Florida. 143 pp. Lazell, J.D. 1989. Wildlife of the Florida Keys: A Natural History. Island Press, Washington D.C. 250 pp. Shanmugam, R. 2001. Big Pine Key Transportation Improvement Study. URS Greiner, Miami, Florida. In preparation. Simpson, Lois. 1982. History of Big Pine Key. Florida: 1873-1982. Mayfield Printing Company, Mayfield, Kentucky. 211 pp. Tomlinson, P.B. 1980. The Biology of Trees Native to Tropical Florida. Harvard University Printing Office, Allston, Massachusetts. 480 pp. - 36- APPENDIX 1 Memorandum of Agreement -~ MEMORANDUM OF AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN u.s. FISH AND WILDLIFE SERVICE, FLORIDA GAME AND FRESH WATER FISH COMMISSION, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, MONROE COUNTY, and the FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT A TION TO ESTABLISH A PROGRAM FOR THE CONSERVATION OF CERTAIN ENDANGERED AND THREATENED SPECIES ON BIG PINE AND NO NAME KEYS, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, INCLUDING THE KEY DEER (Odocoileus vireinianus c1aviurn). This Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) is made and entered into on the last date ascribed here below, by and between the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hereinafter called the USFWS, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, hereinafter called the FGFWFC, the Florida Department of Community Affairs, hereinafter called the FDCA, Monroe County, and the Florida Department of Transportation, hereinafter called the FDOT (collectively, the "Public Agencies"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Public Agencies are among the federal, state and local agencies that have regulatory authority or responsibility under certain federal and state statutes, including the Endangered Species Act of 1973, as amended (ESA), 16 V.S.C. 1531 et seq., the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (NEPA), 42 V.S.C. 4321 et seq., the constitution of the State of Florida, and state and local planning and zoning laws to conserve certain federally listed threatened and endangered flora and fauna identified herein (the "Covered Species") and their habitats on Big Pine and No Name Keys, Monroe County, Florida from adverse effects resulting from public and private development actions, and WHEREAS, the multiple sources of authority under which the Public Agencies operate do not provide any individual agency with the authority to implement a comprehensive program enlisting the efforts of all levels of government, to provide for the long-term survival of the Covered Species on Big Pine and No Name Keys, and WHEREAS, the Public Agencies desire that their respective concerns and responsibilities with regard to the conservation of Covered Species and public and private development of Big Pine and No Name Keys be integrated and coordinated in such a manner as to insure effective, timely, and mutually beneficial resolution of such issues on Big Pine and No Name Keys, and 2 WHEREAS, all state and county roadway improvements and all other public and private development actions on Big Pine and No Name Keys, as well as all beneficial actions or improvements to the Covered Species and/or their habitat on Big Pine and No Name Keys, are subject to individual review as stand alone projects by the USFWS, and do not enjoy the benefits that would be gained from a comprehensive review by USFWS of all proposed actions, with their negative and positive impacts taken together, and WHEREAS, the preparation of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) under Section 10 of the ESA allows for a comprehensive review by USFWS of all proposed actions, with their negative and positive impacts taken together, and WHEREAS, many stringent conservation measures are already in place on Big Pine and No Name Keys, including Monroe County's Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Comp Plan") and Land Development Regulations (LDRs), the FDCA's Florida Keys Area of Critical State Concern (ACSC) designation, and other various federal, state, local and private conservation programs and land acquisition efforts, and WHEREAS; the recent court decision in the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) case (No. 90-I0037-CIV-MOORE) involving issuance of flood insurance resulted in requirements for USFWS to review all proposed development involving FEMA participation in 3 Monroe County, including Big Pine and No Name Keys, which may adversely affect the Covered Species Florida Key Deer v. Stickney, 864 F. Supp. 1107 (S.D. Fla. 1994), and WHEREAS, the traffic Level of Service (LOS) on U.S. I in Big Pine Key is currently below the adopted standard and is anticipated to continue to worsen over the coming years as visitor and residential traffic in the Florida Keys continues to grow, and WHEREAS, it is the USFWS's assessment that, aside from very limited Transportation System Management (TSM) changes, no improvements can be made to U.S. I on Big Pine Key without addressing impacts to the Covered Species of Big Pine and No Name Keys, and WHEREAS, the USFWS has agreed to allow the FDOT to proceed with the construction of a short-term intersection improvement project on U.S. I on Big Pine Key under the condition that the FDCA, Monroe County, and the FDOT (collectively, the "RCP Co-Applicant Agencies") have a signed MOA in place to develop and fully implement an RCP, and WHEREAS, the existing regulatory and statutory impediments to providing adequate highway capacity, the significant scoring penalties under Monroe County's Rate of Growth Ordinance (RaGa), and the limited maximum number of annual residential permits that can be issued due to Policy 103.1.1 of the Comp Plan, create hardship and uncertainty for property owners on Big Pine and No Name Keys, which can be best addressed in a comprehensive manner using the HCP 4 process, and WHEREAS, transportation, traffic LOS and land use in the Florida Keys are inextricably tied, and WHEREAS, all the Public Agencies agree that a comprehensive HCP on Big Pine and No Name Keys is vital to the long term survivability of the Key deer and other Covered Species on Big Pine and No Name Keys, as well as to the long term economic viability of these Keys, and WHEREAS, all Public Agencies agree that it is in the best interest of the public, including visitors and island residents, to cooperate jointly in the development of an HCP in order to insure the conservation of the Covered Species and their habitat on Big Pine and No Name Keys and to provide for continued economic growth and development and a healthy economic environment for the citizens and businesses of Big Pine and No Name Keys, THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed and understood that: 1.0 PURPOSE{)F MEMORANDUM The Public Agencies have entered into this MOA to define relationships and cooperative agreements among these agencies, to work together in the development of an HCP for Covered Species on Big Pine and No Name Keys, Monroe County, Florida. The preparation of this HCP provides a comprehensive strategy. Based on the analysis and strategies developed in the HCP, 5 appropriate growth and build out levels will be determined. This MOA also establishes a multi- agency HCP Coordinating Committee for the purpose of consultant acquisition and management, establishes funding obligations among the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies, defines the desired outcome of the HCP, and defines Public Agency roles. As a condition of formal submittal of this document and the associated Incidental Take Permit application to the USFWS, all the HCP Co- Applicant Agencies must first approve the HCP. 2.0 PURPOSE OF THE PROGRAM The purpose of this program is to develop a comprehensive long-term HCP and obtain an Incidental Take Permit from the USFWS that authorizes an acceptable level of impact to the Covered Species resulting from identified public and private improvements on Big Pine and No Name Keys. It is recognized among the five signatories to this MOA that the results of this program are likely to alter Monroe County's existing Comp Plan, Long Range Transportation Plan (LRTP), and LORs already in place on Big Pine and No Name Keys. Therefore, another purpose of this program is to provide policy guidance to Monroe County, with the concurrence, support, and facilitation of the FOCA, in amending the existing Comp Plan and LORs to incorporate and better implement the results of the HCP, including establishing an equitable balance between the public interest to protect and conserve the Covered Species and the rights of individual landowners. This program is intended to result in the development of an HCP which assists Monroe County and other agencies in the implementation of the Comp Plan, LDRs, and other conservation measures, including habitat acquisition, for the Covered Species on Big Pine and No Name Keys (including the recent requirement ofFEMA) by concentrating on a coordinated interagency approach to conservation of these species. 3.0 COMPONENTS OF THE PROGRAM The program will include the following components: 3.1 Endan~ered Species Element: This Element will consist of the Covered Species to be addressed in the HCP and include in summary form the current conservation measures in place to conserve them, and threats to their existence. 6 3.2 Development Actions Element: This Element will address the rate, location and type of all proposed development on these Keys for a planning horizon of at least 20 years, including identifying all needed transportation and other public infrastructure improvements necessary to support this development. At a minimum, at least two development scenarios will be prepared and evaluated, with input from the public and signatory parties to this MOA, including one scenario based on the current Comp Plan. Based on the information assembled for this Element, a determination will be made of the impacts likely to result from the proposed taking of the species for which permit coverage will be requested under each development scenario. This Element will also address alternative actions the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies have considered that would not result in take, and the reasons why such alternatives are not being utilized. A preferred development scenario will be prepared based on the results of this Element, which will be finalized in the HCP and other associated documents, including the Implementing Agreement (IA). 3.3 Conservation Measures Element: This Element will address measures the HCP Co- Applicant Agencies will undertake to monitor, minimize, and mitigate the impacts to the Covered Species, and the procedures to deal with unforeseen circumstances. It is anticipated that the bulk of these conservation measures are already in place on Big Pine and No Name Keys, due to the very stringent land use restrictions and other conservation activities already ongoing or in place on these Keys. Examples include, but are not limited to, the restrictions inherent in Monroe County's Comp Plan, the RaGa, the additional requirements placed on USFWS to review flood insurance participation activities on these Keys, Monroe County Animal Control Program, existing regulations prohibiting open space fencing, existing invasive plant control programs, existing federal, state, local and private land acquisition programs, the FDOT's plans to build wildlife crossings under U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key, and speed limit controls on U.S. 1. It is also anticipated that some additional conservation measures will be necessary. These may include augmentation of existing conservation programs such as wildlife law enforcement, invasive plant control or land acquisition, or new conservation measures. The details of this Element will be finalized in the HCP and other associated documents, including the Implementing Agreement (IA). 4.0 IMPLEMENTING AGREEMENT. Concurrent with the development of the final HCP document, an Implementing Agreement (IA) 7 will be prepared by the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies which outlines in detail the specific conservation actions to ensure conservation of the Covered Species, and how these actions will be accomplished. Responsible parties for each action will be identified, and specific details will be included regarding funding of these measures. This IA will also outline in detail how monitoring and implementation will be accomplished and funded. Furthermore, the IA will outline in detail the relationship and responsibilities of the signatories to the IA in sharing fully and cooperatively in the implementation and defense of the HCP, and the resolution of constitutional issues relating to the taking of private property without just compensation, related to the lA's implementation, including provisions of the Comp Plan necessary for the HCP's effectuation by Monroe County. As part of the lA, the FOCA will agree to process and approve the necessary amendments to the Comp Plan and LORs without change as well as providing full support and commitment to signing an interim implementation agreement, as authorized by Section 380.032, Florida Statutes. Such 380.032 agreement will implement on an interim basis, at the conclusion of the HCP, the necessary revisions to the Comp Plan and LORs until such time as these authorized revisions may be formalized through amendments' to the Comp Plan and LORs. Notwithstanding the intended use of a section 380.032 agreement, nothing in this MOA shall be construed as relieving the County of its duty under section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, and other applicable laws, to follow the usual public notice and public hearing procedures for revising its LORs and Comp Plan. In addition to the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies, the IA may include other signatory agencies. All signatory parties to the IA will have ample opportunity to review the IA document and determine whether they wish to proceed. All signatory parties to the IA must review and agree to all conditions of the IA prior to circulation f~r signature, otherwise circulation of the IA for signature will not proceed. The IA will include all the necessary informational requirements to allow the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies to enjoy the benefits of the HCP Assurances ("No Surprises") regulations, as finalized by the USFWS on February 23, 1998 (63 Fed. Reg. 8859) and codified as Title 50 C.F.R. Part 17. Such benefits will ensue upon approval of the HCP, lA, and issuance of the Incidental Take Permit to the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies (which then become co-permittees) by the USFWS. Under HCP Assurances, the USFWS, when negotiating unforseen circumstances provisions for this HCP, will not require the commitment of additional land, property interests, or financial 8 compensation beyond the level of mitigation that was otherwise adequately provided for a Covered Species under the terms of a properly functioning conservation plan. Moreover, the USFWS will not seek any other form of additional mitigation from the co-permittees except under unforseen circumstances. However, if additional mitigation measures are subsequently deemed necessary to provide for the conservation of a species that was otherwise adequately covered under the terms of a properly functioning conservation plan, the obligation for such measures will not rest with the co-permittees. If the USFWS determines that additional mitigation is required due to unforseen circumstances, such mitigation shall be provided on federal land to the maximum extent possible. Only if the protective measures available on then- existing federal land are insufficient may the USFWS seek additional mitigation from the co- permittees, as long as the original terms of the Permit, lA, and/or HCP are maintained to the maximum extent possible. In no case shall additional mitigation requirements involve the contribution of additional compensation, land, or water, or involve additional restrictions on the use of land, water (including quantity and timing of delivery), or other natural resources, otherwise available for development or use beyond the level agreed to in the Permit, lA, and/or HCP. 5.0 COORDINATION 5.1 COORDINATING COMMITTEE An HCP Coordinating Committee will be established which will consist of two (2) representatives from each of the MOA signatory agencies (USFWS, FGFWFC, FDCA, Monroe County, and FOOT). The persons sitting on the Coordinating Committee shall be appointed by the agency head, and shall act as liaison with, and official staff representatives for, their respective agencies. The role of the Coordinating Committee will be primarily to assist in the management of the RCP consultant pursuant to the consultant contract. The Coordinating Committee shall assist the Contracting Agency in selection of an experienced professional consulting finn to prepare the HCP and associated documents. Each member of the Coordinating Committee shall sit as the Consultant Selection Technical Review Committee for the purpose of making a recommendation regarding consultant selection to the Consultant Selection Committee of the Contracting Agency. 9 5.la HCP CO-APPLICANT AGENCIES For purposes of this MOA, the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies are identified as the FDCA, Monroe County, and the FDOT. 5.1 b TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE AGENCIES The USFWS and FGFWFC agree to act as the Technical Assistance Agencies to assist the Coordinating Committee and selected consultant in collecting and assimilating the best available scientific and commercial information on the Covered Species. The FGFWFC agrees to make available adequate staff resources to participate on the Consultant Selection Technical Review Committee and participate in a technical assistance capacity on the Coordinating Committee. The USFWS agrees to provide sufficient staff resources to ensure that the Coordinating Committee and selected professional consulting finn receive ample and consistent technical and procedural advice on development of a complete application package, including the HCP, lA, and associated NEPA (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.) docwnents. The submitted complete application package from the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies will be evaluated by the USFWS under Sections 7 and 10 of the ESA, 16 U.S.C. 1536 and 1539, and other applicable federal laws to ensure that it satisfies the requirements of those and other applicable statutes. Staff resources shall be made available from the USFWS' Regional Office in Atlanta, Georgia and the South Florida Ecological Services Office in Vero Beach, Florida. At a minimwn, one USFWS representative from each office shall be available at all times for purposes of implementing the terms and commitments outlined in this MOA and its intended outcomes. 5.2 CONTRACTING AGENCY For purposes of this MOA, the HCP Contracting Agency is identified as the FDOT. The primary responsibilities of the Contracting Agency will be to finalize consultant selection and to perform consultant contract administration in coordination with the Coordinating Committee. 10 6.0 FUNDING The three participating HCP Co-Applicant Agencies (the FDCA, Monroe County, and the FOOT) will share proportionally in the cost ofthe development of the HCP in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per agency. A separate funding agreement in the form of a Joint Participation Agreement (JP A) between the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies will be prepared to finalize the details of funding, following a more detailed scope of services development and consultant cost estimate. The JP A will further outline the processes to be followed for consultant selection and contract administration. 7.0 COVERED SPECIES The primary focus of the HCP will be to address the impacts of proposed activities on the federally endangered Key deer (Odocoileus viriinianus clavium.). A review of impacts will also be made for the following species: Federally listed fauna: -Lower Keys Marsh rabbit (SylvilaillS palustris hefneri) --- [endangered] -Silver Rice rat (Oryzomys palustris natator) --- [endangered] -Stock Island Tree snail (Orthalicus reses reses) --- [threatened] -Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi) --- [threatened] Federally listed flora: -Garber's spurge (Chamaesyce iarberi) --- [endangered] -Keys Tree cactus (Cereus robinii) --- [endangered] A final determination of the Covered Species to be specifically addressed in the Endangered Species Element and any area-specific conservation plan will be made based upon 11 recommendations to be provided by the Coordinating Committee. 8.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT It is the intent of the parties to this MOA that the public will be afforded sufficient opportunity to provide input to the Endangered Species Element and the Conservation Measures Element for Big Pine and No Name Keys, not only during the required NEPA review process, but throughout the development of the HCP and IA. A Public Involvement Plan (PIP) will be developed which includes, at a minimum, regular, periodic public workshops or meetings to inform the public of the status of the HCP and to obtain public input into the developing plan. 9.0 INCIDENTAL TAKE APPLICATION SUBMITIAL Upon completion of the HCP, which includes a signed IA document, the three HCP Co- Applicant Agencies (the FDCA, Monroe County, and the FDOn shall have the opportunity to thoroughly review the HCP. The formal submittal of the HCP and its associated documents and application for an Incidental Take permit shall npt be made until such time as all three HCP Co- Applicant Agencies are in agreement with the submittal. 1 0.0 POST-APPLICATION COOPERATION Upon approval and joint submittal of the HCP and Incidental Take permit application by all three HCP Co-Applicant Agencies to the USFWS, all three agencies will share fully and cooperatively in carrying the HCP / Incidental Take permit process to completion. This includes full cooperation in responding to any questions or requests for additional work or information by the USFWS during processing of the application or review of the HCP and its associated documents. 11.0 MISCELLANEOUS GENERAL TERMS AND CONDITIONS During the performance of this agreement, the MOA signatory agencies will abide by the terms of Executive Order 11246 on non-discrimination and will not discriminate against any person because of race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. The MOA signatory agencies will ensure that participants or employees are employed without regard to their race, color, religion, sex, or national origin. 12 No member of or delegate to Congress shall be admitted to any share or part of this agreement, or to any benefit that may arise herefrom, but this restriction shall not be construed to extend to any benefit from this agreement if the benefit is to a corporation for its general benefit. No transfer or assignment of this agreement or any part hereof or interest herein, directly or indirectly, voluntary or involuntary, shall be made unless such transfer or assignment is first approved by all parties in writing. The rights and privileges conferred by this agreement shall be subject at all times to the laws of the United States government and to the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder, whether in force or hereafter enacted or promulgated. Nothing herein shall be construed as obligating the USFWS to expend in anyone fiscal year any sum in excess of appropriations made by Congress for the purpose of this agreement for that fiscal year, or to involve the USFWS in any contract or other obligation for the future payment of money in excess of such appropriations. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, THE PARTIES HERETO have executed this MOA, effective on the date last ascribed below. By: Date: /tJ-...2. 6 .. 9 R Printed Name: Sa In D. flam; /.f..o,., Regional Director, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Atlanta, Georgia Witne~ 1M~J! a.~ 13 By: Date: I 0 - ( -C( ~ Printed Name: A 1lc '1. L EJ~e (T- Executive Director, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Tallahassee, Florida Witness: ,~~ APPROVED AS TO FORM jAND LEUF~ '~l A By:9-AA~ Printed Name: ~ ~ It{ )1f,,(r-/~>/ Date: '/ /z,119~ Secretary, Florida Department of Community Affairs, Tallahassee, Florida Witness ~/;:' R:~~-f.!; Date:.JJ~~ 9. 1'l9! ." 1 , 5 Q.. c.J::: L 0 f"\ J..o '" Mayor, County of Monroe, State of Florida Witness: - ~," i'~\~A"~L~ ~~ \ ~~\~ 14c _.A- . \ "/~ ~:',...r__.,_. ~ .~I~ \ ,'~,.:- " l ~ L.-U-,-iC',E:-:,:< < ,"1::~ co'" (1/ . ~.~ \t~.;./. 14 By: Printed Name: Date: Ie -6 ..t] g Secretary, Florida Department of Transportation, Tallahassee, Florida Le~2.I:-: :,',-:s'.'," /1'_l7 -tjf Witness '1YI (}Jj/lllnJ &3 ,1A.1'J Pr- 15 [' ,~ .A:r' .,' ~~--- --. / APPENDIX 2 Joint Participation Agreement JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS, 2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard Tallahassee, Florida 32399 MONROE COUNTY, 2798 Overseas Highway Marathon, Florida 33050 and FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION 1000 NW HUh Avenue, Room 6101 Miami, Florida 33172 HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN ON BIG PINE AND NO NAME KEYS, MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA This Agreement, entered into this Z()d, day of~ 2000, by and between the Florida Department of Community Affairs, hereinafter ~ the FDCA, Monroe County, hereinafter referred to as the COUNTY, and the Florida Department of Transportation, hereinafter referred to as the FDOT. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, on October 26, 1998, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, hereinafter referred to as the USFWS, Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, hereinafter referred to as the FGFWFC, the FDCA, the COUNTY, and the FDOT entered into a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) for the development of a Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys; and WHEREAS, an RCP Coordinating Comminee, consisting of two representatives from each of the MOA signatory agencies (USFWS, FGFWFC, FOCA, COUNTY, and FOOT) and two citizen representatives designated by the COUNTY, was established for purposes of assisting the Contracting Agency (FOOT) in selection of an experienced professional consulting fIrm to prepare the RCP and associated documents, hereinafter referred to as the "PROJECT"; and WHEREAS, the FOCA, COUNTY, and FOOT (RCP Co-Applicant Agencies) agree in this MOA to proportionally share the funding of the PROJECT, in an amount not to exceed $100,000 per agency; and WHEREAS, the MOA was signed by the COUNTY by unanimous vote on September 9, 1998; and WHEREAS, the FOCA, COUNTY, and FOOT have determined that it would be in the best interest of the general public and to the economic advantage of all three parties to enter into this JOINT PARTICIPATION AGREEMENT to facilitate implementation of the project. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants, promises, and representations herein, it is agreed by these parties as follows: 1.00 PURPOSE OF AGREEMENT: The purpose of the agreement is for the FOCA and the COUNTY to provide funding to the FOOT for PROJECT consultant services. All of the consultant services for the PROJECT will be completed in accordance with the attached Scope of Services. 2.00 PROJECT COSTS: The total estimated cost of said PROJECT is $300,000, for which the FOCA, COUNTY, and FOOT shall participate equally in the amount of $100,000 per agency. 3.00 FDOT PARTICIPATION: The FOOT agrees to contribute funding for the PROJECT, outlined in the attached Scope of Services, as a one-time lump sum amount of $100,000. 2 4.00 AGENCY RESPONSIBILITIES: 4.10 The FDOT's District Six Office will be the Contracting Agency for the PROJECT, and will be responsible for consultant selection, contract administration, consultant evaluation, and other related activities. The FDOT's "Acquisition of Professional Services" procedure will be utilized in the selection of a professional consulting firm for the PROJECT. 4.20 The Contracting Agency will be responsible for making all payments to the consultant for the PROJECT, according to the attached Scope of Services. The HCP Coordinating Committee will assist the Contracting Agency, in determining approval of PROJECT status reporting prior to payment. 4.30 The HCP Coordinating Committee shall ensure that the burden of the workload associated with PROJECT management is not placed solely on anyone agency. Disputes concerning this Agreement shall be handled through arbitration. 4.40 There shall be a continual full staff effort by all agencies participating on the HCP Coordinating Committee. If a Committee member can no longer serve, the agency shall appoint an interim member until a new permanent member can be appointed. 4.50 Prior to the approval and joint submittal of the HCP and Incidental Take permit application by the HCP Co-Applicant Agencies to the USFWS, decisions and specific details regarding funding of various mitigatory measures identified in the HCP may be incorporated in the Implementing Agreement. These funding decisions will be separate from the terms of this Joint Participation Agreement. 5.00 ACCOUNTING RECORDS: 5.10 The PROJECT Account shall be made available upon request by the FDCA or COUNTY at any time during the period of the Agreement and for five (5) years thereafter. 3 5.20 All costs charged to the PROJECT shall be supported by properly executed payroll. time records, invoices, contracts, or vouchers evidencing in detail the nature and propriety of the charges. 6.00 THE FDOT FURTHER AGREES: A. To maintain books, records, documents and other evidence according to generally accepted governmental accounting principles, procedures, and practices which sufficiently and properly reflect all costs of any nature incurred by the FDOT in the performance of this Agreement as outlined in the attached Scope of Services, and to retain said books, records, documents, and other evidence for a period of five years after termination of this Agreement. B The aforesaid records, books, and documents and other evidence shall be subject at all times to public access and inspection, review or audit by an independent Auditor State personnel of the Office of Auditor General, Office of Comptroller and other State or County personnel authorized by the FDCA or COUNTY. Upon each anniversary of this Agreement, an independent audit shall be performed of all receipts and disbursements . C. To include standard FDOT audit and record keeping requirements in contracts and subcontracts thereto entered into by the FDOT with any party for work required in the performance of this Agreement. D. To provide the FDCA and COUNTY upon termination of this Agreement with a certification to the FDCA and COUNTY that the PROJECT has been completed in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Agreement, and a report which shall specify not only the total direct PROJECT costs paid from funds made available by the FDCA and COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement, but also the balance of any unexpended PROJECT funds. E. Upon termination or expiration of this Agreement in any manner, any funds made available by the FDCA and COUNTY pursuant to this Agreement that remain 4 unexpended at that time shall be returned to the FDCA and COUNTY. Any surplus_ money shall be returned in proportion to the contributions made by the participating parties. 7.00 REQUISITION AND PAYMENTS: 7.10 The FDCA and COUNTY each agree to furnish, within twenty-five (25) days of becoming budgeted and available for disbursement, an advance lump sum deposit in the amount of $100,000.00 to FDOT, for full payment of the estimated PROJECT cost for Financial Management Number 40580612201 (Contract Number 00605). 7.20 The payment of funds under this Agreement will be made directly to the FDOT for deposit into the State Transportation Trust Fund. 8.00 TERM OF CONTRACT: Unless terminated earlier, the term of this Agreement shall commence on the date inscribed above and shall continue until completion of the PROJECT as described in the attached Scope of Services. In such case, the term of this Agreement shall continue until completion of the PROJECT in a timely fashion. 9.00 THE FDCA, COUNTY, AND FDOT FURTHER AGREE: a) This Agreement may be modified upon the written mutual consent of the parties. b) This Agreement is executed in triplicate originals. 10.00 By execution hereof, the parties covenant that the provisions of this Agreement have been duly approved and signatories hereto are duly authorized. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused their hands and seals to be set to this Agreement the day and year first above written by their respective officials duly authorized. 5 By: Steven Florida . Date: )- /~ '00 tary C mmunity Affairs, Tallahassee, Florida ATTEST: Legal Review: _D~ ~ ~ Date: ~/; ~ 6 0 COUNTY OF MONROE Date: \ 0 I - ~ 0 - 00 "\ B}\:- Shirley Freeman, M yor County of Monroe, State of Florida .; CSEAl) , '.... (:"'rO::L~ .~-~~ S;';';:";~RK ATTEST: Legal Review: Date: '/2,1!2CCO I I FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION Date: ~-q-~ ransportation, District Six, Miami, Florida . '89~ ATTEST: Legal ReVi~W.: 1~;:, ~Date I 9JehiP 6 .... APPENDIX 3 EXISTING CONDITIONS/REGULA TORY FRAMEWORK - EXISTING CONDITIONS!REGULATORY FRAMEWORK Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Work Programs The comprehensive plan and land development regulations for Monroe County outline planning and regulatory parameters intended to guide future development county-wide. There are many policies and regulations that define allowable development for individual sites, including zoning and density requirements, restrictions on building in wetlands, open space requirements, and others. Listed here are selected comprehensive plan policies that place nwnerical and geographic limits on potential development options to be considered during the LCP process for Big Pine and No Name Keys. Those policies include the following: Policy 101.2.13 - Limits and requires allocation of new residential growth based on hurricane evacuation. Also ties allocation to timeline goals of a Seven Year Work Plan to implement some of the major goals of the comprehensive plan. Policies 101.3.1, 101.3.3 and 101.3.4 - Limits and requires allocation of new non- residential growth based on the rate of new residential growth. These policies are explained in detail below under Commercial Allocation. Policy 101.3.4 exempts public facilities and non-profits from the required limits so these policies mainly target commercial development. Policies 101.4.5 and 101.4.6 - Limit commercial and commercial fishing development in pinelands, hammocks and disturbed wetlands to low intensity of 0.1 0 FAR or less with no transfer of residential units into the property. Policy 101.4.21 - Sets forth density and floor area limits for future land use categories. Policy 101.5.4 - Dwelling unit allocation point system is outlined in this policy. It essentially does not limit planning options but does set the tone for continued stiff Lower Keys competition and slow release of Big PineINo Name permits. See especially Items 6, 7 and 8. Policy 101.5.5 - Non-residential permit allocation and point system is outlined in this policy. The small amount of floor area available to Big Pine Key due to other limiting policies may limit LCP planning options both in terms of allocation and distribution via point criteria, especially Items 5, 6 and 7. Policy 101.13.6 - Places restrictions on how transferable development rights (TDRs) and potential development credits (PDCs) are used. Policy 101.2.6 - Places a temporary moratoriwn on transient units until December, 2001 and indicates that the moratoriwn may be extended to December, 2006. Policy 103.1.1 - This policy applies entirely to Big Pine and No Name Keys. It limits residential permit issuance to 8 units per year, limits commercial floor area to 239 square feet per residence, sets trip generation standards for total trips and trips generated from outside Big Pine Key, and it references required dwelling unit allocation point criteria (Policy 101.5.4 above). Policy 301,7.3 - Defers any lane additions to U.S. 1, Big Pine, until the HCP is completed. This is one of the primary policy decisions which motivated the FDOT to take such an active role in the HCP process. Dwelling Unit Allocation Ordinance 3- 1 - Originally adopted in 1992 and now a part of the comprehensive plan the dwelling unit allocation ordinance also known as the Rate of Growth Ordinance or "ROGO" controls the number and rate of development of residential dwelling units throughout the unincorporated Florida Keys. The total number of allowable units is limited by the ability of residents to evacuate the islands in the event of a major hurricane. This was based on a hurricane evacuation planning model simulating the evacuation of the modeled population. This model is currently being updated under the direction of the State of Florida. The original model generated a total number of 2,550 allowable new units. These were allocated for a lO-year period (1992-2002) at the rate of 255 units per year. The units were also allocated by "sub-area" of Upper, Middle and Lower Keys. Big Pine and No Name Keys are in the Lower Keys subarea. The total number and rate of development of residential units are ultimately limited by this ordinance. Applications for residential building permits must compete with each other within the individual subareas through a point system that implements some of the environmental, planning and building design objectives of the comprehensive plan. We are currently in Year 9 of the original ordinance and several events have occurred to affect the current and future numbers of residential permits. This will have a very profound effect on the outcome of the HCP permit since the hurricane evacuation clearance time upon which the ROGO is based will represent a limit on the ultimate number of units separate and apart from natural resource limitations. Therefore it is appropriate to go into detail here on the current status of the numbers. As mentioned, the original ROGO allocated 255 units per year over a ten year period starting in July, 1992. Based on previous trends in permit issuance for new house the 255 units were allocated by subarea were as follows: Upper Keys allocated 99 new units per year, Middle Keys allocated 41 new units per year, and Lower Keys allocated 115 new units per year. The Upper and Middle Keys allocations have changed over the years for various reasons among which is the incorporation of two new cities. We are concerned only with the Lower Keys allocation since that is the area in which Big Pine Key and No Name Key compete for permits. The Lower Keys subarea extends from the seven mile bridge to the city limits of Key West. When the ROGO went into effect Big Pine and No Name Key applicants competed with the rest of the Lower Keys for the allocated 115 units per year. This pattern proceeded unchanged for the first five years of the ordinance. In October 1995 (end of the first quarter of Year 4) the traffic level of service (LOS) fell below adopted standards resulting in a moratorium on permit issuance (see discussion below about traffic LOS) but permit applications continued to be accepted, processed and awarded allocations as applicable. Issuance was held pending improvement of traffic LOS and subsequent lifting of the moratorium. During Year 6 (July, 1997 through June 1998) three major changes to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and accompanying state rules drastically altered the previous pattern of dwelling unit allocation. The first was a requirement for elimination of cess pools from the entire county through a system that would tie implementation directly to issuance of building permits. The second was a required timeline for implementation of the Seven Year Work Plan that was again tied to the number of allowable permit 3- 2- allocations. Since the second change went into affect the total Lower Keys allocation has been reduced to 92 units annually due to the county's failure to achieve certain tasks within the Seven Year Work Plan. It is not entirely clear at this point whether the excess allocations that were withheld will be returned once the Work Plan objectives are achieved. The third change affecting ROGO in Year 6 was a group of new point system criteria which essentially made permit applications from Big Pine and No Name non- competitive in the Lower Keys. The point criteria were heavily weighted towards achievement of environmental objectives specific to these two islands. No new allocations have been awarded since the third quarter of Year 6 (quarter ending in April 1998) because of the competitive disadvantage of Big Pine and No Name applications. There are currently 28 permit allocations that were previously awarded for Big Pine Key (none on No Name Key). Permits for these allocations cannot be issued until the traffic moratorium is lifted. It was previously mentioned that the ROGD was originally placed into effect for a ten- year period. With an effective date of July 1992 the allocations under the current ordinance run out in July 2002. In anticipation of this the Governor and Cabinet initiated a new study of hurricane evacuation to determine the new development cap, if any is allowable, to be applied once the current ROGO runs out. That study is currently underway but final results are not yet available. To summarize the current situation, the ROGO has 1.5 years remaining and it is safe to assume that changes to the comprehensive plan as a result of the LCP/HCP process will not be effective until after that time has passed. Therefore, whatever future development cap on these islands is recommended through the LCP process and permitted through the HCP process will ultimately still be controlled through an additional mechanism: the original ROGO process based on hurricane evacuation. Commercial Allocation The comprehensive plan requires that commercial floor area be allocated to coincide with the rate of residential growth. The rate established in the plan is 239 square feet of floor area for every new residential unit and was calculated based on historic development trends. The policy in the plan requires that the rate be revised upon completion of an economic baseline analysis. The plan also requires that a point system for non-residential permit allocation be established similar to the one already in place for residential permit allocation. A defacto moratorium on new commercial floor area county-wide has been in place since January 4, 1996 because the amount of non-residential floor area built between plan adoption in April 1993 and the effective date of the plan had significantly exceeded the 239 square foot ration established by the plan. A non-residential rate of growth ordinance is currently under review, which would lift the moratorium and provide development of some non-residential floor area. As might be expected this has resulted in a dramatic increase in redevelopment of existing floor area. Traffic Level of Service on U.S. Highway 1 The Monroe County 2010 comprehensive plan specifies target "Levels of Service" for public facilities, one of which is roadways. The Level of Service (LOS) standards are set to ensure that public facilities are not used beyond their capacity by a growing population 3- 3 - to the extent that the integrity of service is degraded to an unacceptable level. Traffic flow is measured using a methodology adopted by Monroe County, which rates the LOS on a scale of Standards, A through F with A being the best. The methodology measures speed and rate of flow as opposed to the traditional volume method and has been in use here since 1991. The minimum adopted LOS standard for traffic flow on U.S. Highway 1 is Standard C. As mentioned previously the traffic LOS on U.S. 1 fell below acceptable standards in October 1995 to its current level, Standard D, resulting in a moratorium on permit issuance. The 28 permits currently waiting to be issued are those that were processed and awarded allocations during the traffic LOS moratorium, still in effect. In addition to U.S. 1 congestion, there are also noticeable traffic circulation problems for local residents on Big Pine Key due to the configuration of existing roads, residential areas and location of commercial and public facility destinations. However the LOS Standard C for Monroe County represents the primary measurable constraint on development beyond the LCP/HCP process. Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater and Storm water Master Plans This master planning process was initiated in 1997 to fulfill requirements of the comprehensive plan and the Seven-Year Work Program. To address sanitary wastewater issues the work program requires provision of sanitary sewer service to Keys "Hot Spots" by July 2010. It also requires elimination of all illegal cess pools and upgrading of all on- site sewage disposal systems in Keys "Cold Spots" by 2003. The Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan was completed in June 2000 and it essentially lays out a strategy for implementing the Keys-wide upgrade of sewage treatment. The definition of Hot Spots/Cold Spots and the study data used to develop them are explained in detail in the plan. Identified Hot Spots for Big Pine Key are listed in Exhibit 6-1 of the plan. All of these activities are projected to occur well within the LCP/HCP planning horizon of20 years. Therefore the LCP/HCP processes must consider this pending action and allow for the programming, siting and construction of required facilities. The stormwater master plan, also required by the comprehensive plan, is currently being drafted and should be finalized over the next year. In the context of the LCP/HCP process, there will need to be acknowledgement of this pending action and allowance for programming, siting and construction of required facilities. 3- 4- APPENDIX 4 LCP Newsletters and Mailings First News Letter March 6, 2000 Meeting AjJUo6, ~ 1.i:~~:~:::Key:,~'~'~:I,. , ~ -: ...., 'TObog,"~:~~::'::::=:",thoHCP ..... 0) -: c:::.... ,TheU__Chun:honKeyc-._, .....~ -: ..., __ . ThIn<ley """116 2000 Irom 7 00 pm 10 \HlO pm e ,..., WHO IHOULD COlE? \: "" -"""""'''''''Io~IOJOIICI____Ior. ~ _,otho_onIllgPino_NoNamoI<Alya e Q)' A/1y<Inewllo - on or_ r.:::'"' on IIIg Pone - No_ IIlIt!- WHAT TO MHO? O C '''_orllolofyour'''_P*eoonIllgPinoorNO N_1<AIya o . "good -- end.....good_ tf1:~ . Mon,oe County PI.nnlng Depertmenl 2798 0__ Highway SulIe 410 -, MlIrolhon, FL 33050 ATTN: Island Planning T-.2 ~1""""'p"-~ Tho Uv_ c-nunlKoyo Progrom _ _ PIon- nlng ,-..,.... irWIiIiItva 01 the Monroe Cc:u1ty GnM1Il "-" OM_ "'" tho ....... CounIy -..nu- T_ J, -..Ilw....... G<vwth__ K _ eo.-oy. Ilw-.r.. "'- tI1= (30') ..0.2500 h.." (305) 218-2538 hnp:J1Www.OtJ.mont'Oe.'."" Ulwch 8. 2000 Vol. 1 No. t $I ; ; . I,;' ':; ~ -. ; ~ ~ <: - ~ <~':lf~ <~~iIl. }j: ~"I... J""",,,~ . "" ~'.~.~t')j:: " ."' ,;lt~'":.\}\':~~~ -_"'L_~oyoP__lodo_'" HIIlJi. III ~ PIon lor IIIg Pine end No _1<AIya? Tiley Ihont tho _of-.......-. typo, end _of IddItionoI ~ .... -...y _...... end _ mi1IgoIion will be roq_. The H_eor--. PIon wi. identify _ _ _ _ will encl...~_~IIIld_tion__onBIg -- No _ Koyo by providing. pIonnIng rr.__ _llII- -____oftho_____'ound on the - For"'pto be_, _......belwO_"""*,,,in_. One elIort d lie 10 _ IhI .- .. ... ondIngered ___. TIliI willie led by IhI....Wting finn of 0_ _ Moore in ""'*'""""" - the CoordInolIng C__, ..- up of __ from US FiSh _ W...... IhI ~ or T_, _ CounIy, 0eII0ttnw>t of Community AfI_. F-. _e Con- _Commiooion, _1ItI__, TII' ~ CommunlKeyo P_ Is the _ning eI- lort_"_"'_oIIhIClIIOl'II1lDty, lhe L1"..... C_KIJa p,...,_ I. 'hO ........ by whlclolflo..__"'_. TIIiI......._ pleWd by tho __ -'Y __ in tho_ munlty _ ,_ __from ... PIennIng 0.- _end 1IIe II_ PIennIng T_ E-.pIoool__ond____ _IItouoIng,__luHO,_nteh>- Ing ... IUI'III _.. 01 ... _I. Incr_ polbIlc -.... porka end _. c:hengeo to tho ,_...... - - design. IIlghwey beeutifoeatiOn. or ...... _ neetlo __ by .he a>mmunity, Tile modeling _,. CiH of lhe Habit.- Conaervation Plan will a:wnbine the _01__ planning_ _ _.. III of poHible IOIuIiono wNc:h will b.....oolhl_ of humono end tho _ngertId _cIel, Finding . __ 10... _ _tion on Big Pine Key .. one 01'" mejor '....... for I.WldorIeklng the H_ eo-.etion PIon. By h"p""1ng IhII01d .....ort< lor bo.h Ioc:eI end through 1nI11ic, th. community con begin 10 _110 goo.. for gre.... t..-ry, Tile lint olep In the _" II 10 como together .. . COII-.nlIy .nd bog" telling lIbout _'s opec:ialin IlleCOlmlUnlly, _ __lie _. P_ _ _tlmlllllnldng.bout Whet.s._ on Big Pine _ No N..... Koyo. end whet II _d 100, The COI'MIUn6tv meetina on AprlG. 2000 will be the beoinn6na of..... Df'OCeU... tf1:~ 'tIGIurN.-....,'.....' Th0t9...numerouo_... ~tIIe~...-..y. ~ end 0 vanetyol OU- ~-ftIo!tl.........- _Ion But _'Onol"'_oI"'~hero 100 W._lDfInd._.....,..., 01 _. ond_ICtionO'IhI~-lThO_~ PIon II .xpected to be IMd\' by thIo.... ne.. _.,AIiryj' we .- to bogin ptlljlIMg._ for... _ __ in ty ThaI kInd 0I1mportent pIonnIng cen~ left up .. or consu__.ijcenOniYIle_'1"'~ I ) Tllis _tter contIinI . Y8IIIly 01 ~ on , the _tet C~ Pion Cor "',HC"l, the Llveble CommuntKey. Progfa"':"YOOl;...I".nd ) ~~~=:-"'~-::O-dII~ I .nsw.rw 10 tho key q- ......, ...~... (/ I Conoervotion PIon In odcIlion 10 tllIM_. tit / -__ ......~on...LiYebjl(.' CommunlK.yo P'ogram.iMldilow _ lito inl~ ~ IIeId by your Illend -...ng T_1n I'_ark 01 IIIe HCP, You .... ..... nnf"1jIfIII /' _n with tho Monroe County P1enning In'cwmation on your neW! leIand Pl8MinI "'-nlr..; Oepertnwnt T"""" a~ tho IoIks wllo"hero'O IIeIp you elIOI lor your community, FoneIy...._~ ~_ 01_ or.... you _.. =:r;=:I:.o;p~~~~ ::==...:: ":'.:-..~= April 6. 2000 .. 7;00 PM .. the Unlled MltllodIot 10' III. II....." hRllIt wm ... _I." 'If Cllun:ll on Key llMr __d. Thls",D lie . -"",lIIe 10...._ _ _ ~ oIyour_nIIy. We"","" ___I WE HEARD YOU... Aller.... _teleonoer..ltion PIon MMIlng on FelIruIry 1", we_ thel you Mked Queattonl. but .. ........ ......, avail8ble yet You wont reedy 10 __. _ row. weWlllllOprovide you _..._ to_you 10 do 10, You'~~ --.gwllyyou_1Iey .._, Tile quid<..._ to ..... your kruwledgo of your --..nity il ctitiClOy __ _ we _ you' Togell1or. we.....1 dI9IIop. pion lor coordlneliOn -.. ___ __1nd11umon _on Big Pine and No Name Keys. I. N S. D E Anew.,. to yow HCP CIIIMlIOM The UVIIbIe Commun~ Prvgrwn BIg Pine Key IUncI PlMnlng T_ AprtI .. 2000 C--*Y IIMIIng tf1:~ . - ....It ....-. _ T__ CIoelI-. MrJ""'" - YOW' II_ PIennIng T.....' _ _ .. ".,. 10 IIeIp you ...... for VOW -.rnunIIy. The 1_ PIennIng TIIIl1 II..... __1leinG _ to provide __eel pIonnlng _ _ _ to cIlIzonl 01 Monroe County. 1._ PIennIng T...... _ ..- up ",.aIoling .- lI1If1IlIIIIIII _ _ - inlo_ mull1c1ocip1lno1y ......_ore ,--...IorClllOl'll1lDty __..__ pIonnlng ~ _end~_s, TIIe_oI-progromllto_____ pIonnIng __ to __ of tho _ .........._ In ....... ~_County, EICII PIonning T IIIl1 ......... of . ~YI P1_. 0eYII0pment _ _, PIerriIg T_,1IioIogIoI. _ Code E_I L_. lhe _ PIInning TIIIl1Io rwoponolllle for _ng ~, --.g ~ __,lIIldd_to__-.ryin_ _nt. T.....-... _lOgIIhorto__ _....10..._10 __, Teem On... __ for Key Lergo _ T_, or.... _ ""'" MIle 101_ 81 nortIlwIrd to MilI...oedI County, T..... Twoill__lorllle_from MIe _.. 1SIO MIle_46. rondudingU_&~Sugorloof, Cudjoe, _. __lIIeT_, Big Pine,No_, _ -. _WIIl_Koyo). TIIIl1 Th.... Is ,___ for tile _. from Mile M._ 4 10 Mile Me"'.. 16 C- SIOCI< _, IIIg Coppillllnd S_nch Koyo), _tile.... ""'" 101" M"".. 60 to 73 (Indudlng Oudl, Long, ConclI. FIeoIl end Croig KllyI), Your.._ P1eml", TIIIl1Io T..... Two. Clled M-. 10 VOW ~ PIonner. Jetty _y Ie YOW'~'R_P_. Richerd_lsyourPlennlngT___loyour_ glol,endTomS_loyourCodeE_~ 0- llie......... _. __, -"'_"'_01"'_ nlng Deport..... d... --.g -. you on -.oping ... LNo _ CtlInnlnil(oyo porion of.... _ Cono_ PIon eI- ,_. f~~\ ' ~ .' --...;::"'~ -".-"" -- ~~~.",. -- _1_ PIonning Toom _ _ deYIlOped 10 ..... III - ~ Stell...... _ 10'" ..........-y, _feel _10 giv. ...... co., Tiley...".,. to 1IeIp. Tile Ptennlng ~ p/IonI _ II 2111-2500. _ ... ,.. n_102._, v.u...,........., ~3 UA- \.......C~.1'>or-i IVtn~ Second News Letter May 8, 2000 Meeting tf11 tOMr.tIlNIT., MEE11NG MA Y 25, 2000 6:30 PM . 8:30 PM METHODIST CHURCH KEY DEER BLVD. TRANSPORTATION ISSUES CURRENT LAND CONDITIONS COMMUNITY NEEDS Monroe County PlaMlng Depart".,l 2798 0- Highway 5Uil8410 M....lhon. F~ 33050 ATTN: Island Planning T earn 2 PRESORTED STANDARD u.s. POSTAGE. PAlO MARATHON.FL PERMlTNO.41 T..u.-.~"-1I1d __ ....T_..__d.._Counly _ ""'-" ~ ond.. _ County -..- T-.J. -.y.Dlr.-dGovwt>.-- K. _ Conowoy. oo.u d-" tf1 \.ivableC....m~niJ(eys PtGgtCllll (3O!l) 2I$-2!lOO loa; (3O!l) 2IHUI _:Jtwww.OO.mcnroI....... .... .. >tlOO Vd,' No 2 Results from the First Livable CommuniKeys Program meeting April 6. 2000 n.~__....oI..__..IolI'_~~..IrII~Comnu- I1KeyI Pnvam..-.o...IIgPNKey. W....llIId.... pollIIIo_D_" _, and___ we wlIlry to........... 1lI..-. _.. we _ Duo D _ _we _.....- III _or.__inlhio_.Dut.._.....PIln*'9~...we...._._ .... _~ CoomUlI<eya..-.o'" 1Uy25lh, ExwciIc 1 F.....,. P1_ - --- ._~_. ..- AMc -.----- ------~.__._._,- - .,......,. - "'- ~d~~ ~VL - -- ..." WhOlwe__"~._"'_ _________at..,. _ ptoco-In...-, P.-1luiIcIongI and goIlOItng-'*'''---'''- ......._boIII_and____ _~ponlIIt(2111101_..._. ito pI8C8. ~.:.,,: ....,.;'-.., - ~~ '., ' . '--~--' ",~ ~-,. iJ '" ,Ii ;f i :, ~ . " ___..pecilllin..CClIIlIYUllty.__ ......... __ 'Iud. Ie the _ __ ............, at 1IIe', ThII_'_ by..8IM- _...~d.._ T..lriendlypooplo ..... .. oingIo ..... - Del ..._ in 1lI_ nily"_by..""" _. ."-*'IID ...-tiat*V...-. ....... _ Mw ........ re,pon.. ,.... In bolt! --. ....... ................. ,...,. Gf IIig fIWo . No NMw....dIunltICIICUtyMI..............._ What's Exwd.. 2 laI In TIM ., ~ f_".,... i - - - w__ - --- .. J'Q .. .. .00 11'0 IXl 1:10 tt1i~ trt ~~_::.n~~s i>.og~j. 1IlS~~I~_..._ Origin/Destination Study Results T"~9ludy...""'-by"_Ccu1IyPlln*'9~il___.- -.. in _ '" IlI98, n. IlUcIy _ ~ D irMIlIgelI" _ ~ ...IIgPineKey. end.. ._D__~onIllgPineKey"_by__."-_"'_ ........... us 1 dwinglllpuk __0I1l198(Fridey, _ I''''lleIleder- -20). n.__ _ ...... "'lhelley 1indil9: The Traflc Volume CompIlriIClf'l 1'1'IIffIIr: v.-..-a ' chert_ "__in_ _anIligPine~lnlmlllll2 "IlI98. Thedlen_lwI.... - _._in._ _v..,..' __ n.__........ '" __byl411_.. _ lIIl_~ V..we_rnoIIirG_1T_D___ joinedin"InI~~-..a"'ApIiI ell. 0- 100.......... _... D ___ .. LCP'" _ _ -.g T_....... D sjvo"~~----""" ...... TIlnlugj\._oI__. portIcI- _8lqlloinod__........in..CllIlIIl'UIItr- _ _lllbodlMgod,...__....oI_ _or___n.-.g__ __lilln_.._oI..-.g. By-.gIle_IwI__...fIIel ~~..-.g...lllIftll**Ig._. _~dwing"_~l'len -. ...rram _ _. we _ deWIclped . ___tor..IligPine...No_K..- ...........' ThiI__."_D_ _.. alfmUIily is. _ __.... _._ -, we__youwilljoinu.tor"_~_Com- nu1iKeyIPnlgnwn.-.g DUI..-_..."'" .. _ _ we plIn D begin --.g...._ _____In.- int ill8I tor Thlndav. Mav 25, 2000 _ &;30 PM III ':30 PM 81..lJnIod _ CIu<I1... ~ 0.._,_......10......_.......... _le_ IN THIS ISSUI! --"-'- OoleIIan"'_'-~_ s..mor,d"'_20_~-_ lM:rnlIIioPCW\........, __in'" ~ _.....~- '--";;',---.-"" =L :1. TM _., CIlI..1tlc:al1on --... ....- 1.000 more ruklenta then _onUSl....._t .... 01.. __rram lIlg_orNo_. _t-- _t-. _i w_ ,L ...- -- -- -~ - - - ".:".:' ,~~ ~.~,'... :. 1(,......:.. -:. ,,' I.~._.:>..\~.. __ .~!l ' ~ __\a. _, .......... --......................, ... .............,................... w. -'-Ion ... Pl_ CIIId No ~ os... ..... nrol CIOtIOIII!i!y wl1h ......_ _ ......... _ war..Hfe ....... ........ feel . __ ..1h 1heir fritIIde ""'........... A -.ity rich in naturGI _ ...... .. ........Induding 1IIdqond......_ wry ~ hebi1llt 1Ike....lw......the-w. A .........-.my in the I'Ioride 1Cays....... ........ _ ... lol "-'-'Y ...1h the ........ -'<<I, Whore~_""_1IIoe ad-.a of the IeClII .... _ ..-.1_ ..1hout fithtiot 1NffIc. Whore Ii4t .f .. ages "- ,....,., of .....-tienoI ......,.... _ Whore tile ~ of '---.. _ pllIIling I'8ltIS in the ~ _ ... realized. Whore ...-'"' ~ ...... _ _ -" fer the__of eft, _ all, _ IIWition . --"tv thet ......... lothe...".., .1 Its 1nhGbI_.... .... T.... T.... II -- - ..... ..... r.... 9..,J ,.... It._ 10 U ."n to .......- --'.., ...... : -- j - " :- -1- -:- l 0'1 - -. _ _: --' i ~,.........J i r a.......- . . .1.... .,01' 100 The OrIgIn & lleItin.1ion _ _ ==:::.::.:== IlIa1lIIdDIIII ~~~:. ~:E-:as~ I E~~: [I -.;~,~--'~~~:l , ,J -'-'-' tt1i~ Second News Letter for May 25, 2000 Meeting Second Livable CommuniKeys Program Meeting 1t1i~ MID Thursday, Mar 2!l, 2000 6:30 PM to 8:30 PM WIIIrl al9 PI.. Unlt~ Methodist Ollrch ICcy Deer Boulcwrd, aig Pi.. ICcy ............. Th& community'. vision .... about ... _ porticipctioollll .,. ........ a vi..... for tho ......ty Report on existing conditions I..... about tho diffarGllt kind. of land _.... _ IIlcnII Monroe County regulations .... about tho ............ ...........t. and ... thay could c:t...,. baIod ...... tho HCl'.and LCP ......... The "dcwlopmcnt budget" ...., c:t...,.s an tho illand.... MNt......... to.,...1 w...... &.rciua ..... do .. get thaN *'- .....1 . ami.. -..d _ ~ lIuckt$. 5jlendi....... dewlapoMnt doIlcr. IIacury i. in tho eya of tho boholdor " boos US I neod a f~ft? i2lIII To idormfy 10_ tranIporllltian ~ oItemoti_ To 0>qlI.... whort typu of addi_ ".~... clcIired To i"...meato "-1ifl_ and _ty idontIty oplions _,_r""'4 Wa.tewater ...ue. On 81g Pine & No Name Keys The_c-..eySOnlllryW_"'_PIon.~ _ by'" v.. 2010 ~ PIon. .... ...1ro1 .....1IIp in """,",",,"--<JlIIlY aI..KoyI. The _ PIon ~ .. moot 0CXlI0gicaIy _ .... ---,_woyal-.g___ .... 0IIp000I in... Kayo. The PIon ~o_al_ __.._al.-....ad__ liH.............. -.g. In _ID ___ on" _....._..._I'ton__ _.....___IIocm. _ID a _ pion. ...... prtoIIly 01'. _1n_...,_IIo_ The PIon_"-'~_aI __.....-IDIIo__", 0I'___..11ClI1Io_1D ony--...... TheIl'llllID"~_~_~ __In.._PIon. .... 11..............- _ only. The II'IIlI _ ............. _ ...._ad _pIon.Ont_II_..FIN -........ _ II on _ on... Themop__*__.._ _for__......._ 1n_...,_IIo__ _1n_..HOT_for _ID"'__ Prop. OIty_In....._.._lDuIi- 1izo....0I10 .,..... 01' _ad ~ ...... Again. ........_ on"'_ _ PIon. _ . "" eIog<ommo1lc: ..... -only -_on..._eo.n.,_ 1ary__PIonil_. ......:_i_-._ VClUmoy - _ GoCll'vt GInolt, 0lr0cIDt aI .... -Counly--~ melt tor mont 1ntcwrMIon. 27a8o..- H~, SuiIo410 _,Fl33060 (305) 21l9-2SOQ iMi~ ~of~-'..... _____.............. .c.- . ____ NOr......~. "cwRl ~....... -.-,.... ~~~_~!~~l~~~~~f(~~~~~~~_~L;';~.t~:~~~~~.to/t~~ !-(~ L .~:J: TheAptl2P -.u..-" _1D"*'YaI....__ ~_by_al..._ - - -...ng..- ~--~ CGrMluniKoyo ...... Kev DMr BIoIoav _~._T_AlMUoI- ....""'_~_on Kay Doorbialogy -.Iorll*Y aI IlI88. The olIjoc:liwe aI hIo aIdy _ to __... -.. aI.. __ A_..."lnl_ 72 __........ _ 200 IDm_in.._KoyI, ProIimnIIy_al-.aIdy _.......~""' __..i0oi30,... ID _ 800.... 700-" .. on Big Pine .... No N_ Kayo, .... __ 100 ID 200 in ..lUlal.._, TIlI___ .... iI_....growtrv at._ aI~5015"por_. .....1Ilon 200 __Inppod ....-..--.- .........___110 _...._.F_ ___twolD..., __ ..... 1_ .. ...... bul ---.-- _, The mojOI1ly aI.... _ .._In..........porIof .._ _"mojorIIyal" _.._In"""'" The mojCll' - IW* pIOIonocl by 'h. d.., Ire nemmockl end ........... - by doWlIDpocI _:IlIy-_.- ....--. By haYIng I boll" undorllonding alb fllllI1lI WI cycIo of ... koy ~ . J ' I _ J : !: - - '- - tM~bD_~~~~ ..--'~......-- ICer 0....... _ "'-11 OI.lfa,IIIJJ . ....:e:....~ _1_1Io,..-1D_ .... ..... . nMCIIId to........ __al.~_. ""-l9n_ ..-..aI...._...._ --in'4ln>wod__ ...... ""' _occurring on.. _. TheHCP"__ _............11...- _..__al.._.... gino ID _, Woyo ID"""" .. n.,... aI de............. on... Kay_.._IIo.porIaI.. aIdy. -..--...- __ I ......... for _ of ---....-.- ..........,---... .... 1.-_ ___ _ _.The____ grwn"""_KayDoor RIIuge,*_In--, aI~:UOO_531I aI Big _ .... No ..... Kayo. The _ --.. III c..- Ion.... _lindo...... grwn (CNll,). '* __ ". _. TheCaony_..._ _'25_. The_ Caony lind AuIlorIy _ ... Uvoiy ,",Ill ... .- ID ___ CARl_....__ 1o____..CML -- Land OwnershlD end lMd Acaulaltlon Big _ .... No ..... KoyI.. taMlD'''''- aI........... -.,ad _ and ..... In ~aI'" _ID... IOU,,"" 0......... The por1lciporU __ .... primIty ... aI ~-""...~ -........... _ _......... lOa....., 1O._lIIl .............. or _ .... ......- _ .. In plow .. "'" wol1llng. POI1icipInIo ... IoIII11Ol .... ",,",-ID "'--,"pIom (IncUJ- ing us ~IY ,......_ -1"_. Till IIwd mojCll' _ alnoodod chInto __ "'_of_~In"_ nily. Thoportional....dlI~___ lion" _ _..._ -.g Ihol..... i.toomuc:ll_~ln"_ nily. Till _ _ _ ..-rv portiCipInII_ __alllingI...............,_ Thelltg- OII_al__to...._,.,_ _....____ The_for"""'" woy----.._.~- .1Io___ID.._""...... ............... proIoctlon, ~ - by ... _ID_~_ By -.g hi _, ..... _..... ___.~ID..COll'II'U1Iy,_ _ ID 110 d\anood. .... -IW* alllingo .. _by..............-y. The_'-"-COm- _ayo "- -.g wII IllIlIore ..... .. __._doIper__ .....lDbuiId.......... -""... COIMUliIy', -p.... &..- 0wMrs/lIp _ on... ......&No.... Kop .- "- ~e= ....., c...r -- .. ... .wA- \........r~,..... ""n~ e--. 3 WIMt ....... to be -- ~~ =Q'- ,. '::- EurdM 4 WIMt Does file '--"Y NNd1 .m___~m__ _ ~ I I i 00.._ .. -~~~ N6. - .. The_OI'___ID____. _."-"'~(2IlI.25OCll.""" "-oopioI."-~~ Progown -.g. TN'- '-- ~ Progown -.g . 101 ""TIuIdoy, May __.:30 ID 8:30 ........Illg _Kay ~_Cluoh on Kay Ooor_ 1t1i~ Uk Uvab\e Comm""iKeys \,togtam -IV' ,,~~~ BIG PINE KEY & NO NAME KEY TRANSPORTATION IMPROVEMENT PRIORITY SURVEY Alternative #2: Lyttons Wa.; and removal of barriers on other local roads Alternative #3: Lyttons Wa.; only ~. ;-"'1 ...J' .' ;, _~ r,." .r -~ .. >'H j .~-~< '- ' ~~: ! , i )'--~1! .'-i \ Alternative #4: Main Street frontage road behind post office ~_~:.~lIIt~;~ -"'!_~ ..............~...,....- .... '_"".' c.... fj't>ii~~!.{~~ i< -.:,;;....,:'_:< '- Alternative #5: Couplet ""-"lot Acldili..... two ..... road _ of .>Cim.. U5#\ with choogcd ftooffic poltar.. Please complete the following survey to assist the Livable Communi Keys Program Planning Teams identify the local transportation needs for Big Pine Key and No Name Key. ALTERNATIVE RANK (1 best to 5 least) DOES THIS HELP YOU AVOID US #1? IF YES, HOW COMMENTS: MANY US #1 ROUND TRIPS PER DAY? #1 No change #5 Couplet .Alosseoeu e60-lSod ON .Pesolo edo-l- puo 1104 UI AeI\JnS PIO:J (~;~~cJ)IJl)~ ~Q~JJ, ~JJ,~~@W@~ @JJ, ~WQJJ, ~~JJ, lSt11J Q ~ tQ) JJ, cJ) @ P IJl) @ A ~ t11J tQ) ~JL ~UO~JodWI S! a~!O^ ~3 m OORm~ 1fTES BUSINESS REPLY MAIL FIRST CLASS PERMIT No.4 MARATHON, FLORIDA ATT: LCP Planning Teams Monroe County Planning Department 2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410 Marathon, FI. 33050-9980 lullllll M IIIIIM.llluMuMuIIIM 1111111 M - ...... It.,,,,. :::::~:~~~,"f~ ',',Af~~I..lt~:" I7tI 0-......, --- ..... - '- X>>" JNt ..._~..."- IItG p",~ KEY NO NAMe KH . -, . ..-...- -,. ..._1_.,..... ..- - . -- Third News Letter October 15, 2000 Meeting - II.Ut.....,....... L.... I. II.UI", All.,.... u.. i A_llt.. ....... Li.. 1 "aUI"" U.,.... Lt...... IIdU,. ......... U.. , *M\.~ OPPORTUNlnES FOR YOU TO PARTICIPATE A __et,utic me<<inp. ......._ ~_...~to__.. ~or"""""'''' L~." ~i~~"'WIOI'bbopII_ ....~~ltyflcHCP_ U. _....,..., (.~....... [Jrc.. ........ r~ led....... art fceuI.. __*~"'c-....Iior ~1pIaH"oMcIioIi_""HCP blCkl ... ""--2I1lqwaau W work- ........-of... UwllM C.-iKql ,...... .1. (~. ...~__ .... thr---*t'............ ...&*0.. tr. of' KtMlIeI II) he,..mill'*' .Ifta'_lfn'..~ nw.nl rntlIiIlUI& .11 f.ICUlI.. IN H('P and iI~~b"UwId"_or Nl;'wmb<<2(1l'1O u......c-<<..,. ~ ......~......~llt1 ALTERNAnvESOENAR~S 1M l.lwbk C...._lilC.~ PIupaJ rc. 8iJ. I'w Ll7 ad: M.:l Mamt KC)' bu ~ 0( ~1OCCbIIp."""'''''~ <1M __..or. -"b...........!IlftHI and ...~. Bucd oa cD JIRI'- we Mn' i4eMiW u.en.aw ~ ollflllure 4twt- ..... _.... _..... 1k.......ft or dw......... ~ "'I dw ".......,. lit. ...... fm SqlIcmIIG 21. 2IlOD IW. "*-M ('(1M.......... /IIIQ.JMi......... caI.... 1M fedml....-. ...., ar"-=e. ....1lltYe beoI ~fial.....IliU.....m- ...tofuIdnnerot~ llwIt ......IW ....... 'MIl "" ..._ .. tlnrd.~IlCl~I'ClCft1IOII&rm .... ~_ dIIa..-.n.dIlJ" ...... cllUNITIb_l'I.DiRChc...-.... Ilo'l N.wpN IO.........~.... RESIDENTIAl SCENARIOS I. Noarw~"""'" 2 C1IIIIIIId a tanH.........m be tJ. 'ctNlO~ IUWIble ~... __ (15)... -.nc4__.wdc olfllllM.......... , ~4n~-Al~ .. to ccnpctD iacmm,.1lOGO 4 ~$nclI-Nrw~~ ... r..wN mot """-10" M.ia ........ .. T....wMnrutU'__~....... ..... Ttlew~~.......,._.... ~h:~)'I'U~~_ FOOTIfCP____ ~....~: CdIrmw. Owft.1K7' ProJm..,....,.".. FDOT~~(:wh 11M NfT I lit_ A--...... "UU ""-iJ"JrwUaJJI.1) ~: .JDJ 4'M JJW Fa -'OJ 410 JlOJ E..u:~,..,..,_*~~ F<<~"'~~. llWllk('~PNaraa; W-(~~If1(""""" :""'(JttrJwflSH~.r,5fdlt-410 ~f""lJu.J1n.sn Pr.:-. J(Jj m]J<<} Ftu J6j 2891jjd 1:.'_,l:~:1WiJ.~Jl_~ .,... I..... 3 ~1plleIelI...1beIt"'~.1bt ...,.. _11lUt llr fOON'lt on ,......1.* bul.,.be~..lhr~..-uof CIIdI ""..,;0. ne NWf1II .JlernIt"",,.,. tle 0IIIIIIMaN _dl&Iwc4.. * ..........IlI'DCaI ~. Wt)1ll(lrlllitl..lNfIIIItt.flI~~l- ~ .nJbe...tW.I~CIJItIIU.nd dill..- Iollhr ........,.u.. ~ .;u .b.,. nec:dlObepcmllted_p.utllfIbeHfll And. ",,~"""'~-.h~ ~1IIIIrric.-e~tDtl'" incl \.fIlC'rYlD:OD US'I J\Eno....,....... ,-. ay pnlpOIIlJd ......ol... ~.-it he p.nIIIwd .... ....1Ih.. ~ _.--b1In_1W .... ....I"..-..cabt.~ i1edktalbl"~","'G\oW* 1lIUI20,..,.. n..aUowI;"~'Y") lCll'oq*Itt two",- Jl'III: ....... 10 ..~. __........10...-. nnI ~ .-tfI.-n-.-...... ......__.....~w..-n.~ pI*,".;._20IO("~l'''' wtlIdtluAl""~~"'''1I&IIli .,... TlIcIhmalM~~aIIobt ~kl~"''''' Qftul... -----caP.....pcI',..-. n....y dilll!n:nccra_~all____ -..- COMMEROAL DEVELOPMENT ALTERNAnvES No_~Wai~ ~-N_"'_~Y ~Iopod wGUId be:,..-.d w..... .... ........ Ut .... JlkwNd b,I.... ...... 3 o..c..d ~ New ....madcllUal...... .....wIdealybePiftlllDedin..... -..d dill........ ccnICI'''' lIE an- lO!:lItII'IofK.,.llwrfN....WUOWRd. 4 ~~.F\~OD~ttf ....._....._IIlI1lllI..~....... .....,.'"_M.~__ i.~.~ld~ -. fold) .NrnIlJW" MlIId ...w.ItiIIIlfWUII.t- IUldYIOJlOOSIfIWt'fmot~W 0," IftlI OWl Cbe __:u,." Thit l1li"" .2J9~fcctf'Dfadl~lunL. ~oI..dw~I{)""" n.aIwmluwJg' ..-CIOUW .......-ly-.lli>~.... ImpKIlll build... ftllft tban 10.000 ..pre f...or~~ - 1t1; ~. 1II.we tIN iuueI - - --- -- -- -- - - -..-... ............ -..... '"- -- . ............. ........- .. -........ -1looIt . ......~.. -- . ..........- .... ,-- - .-- ..- L1.....~"'Ptogoc. 1lo~_I(e,.-tHII~1C.y ...... c..." I"...,..., " flJi..... a... I.."....,.... """C" -...- .....1. ..... Livable CoolDumiKeys Program Bi<< ~ IV)' aud ~o ~- Ke)' PLANNING FOR THE FUTURE 1bel.Jwblcol~""""'ilPYll1l )'QIIl.~IO.....,...rortbtlnN ol)UlWiIIIn1~. T__to.... __.."....... JiwI..... ~ 11()WI' --- 1bel..ivaNcC~f"rIJtam(I.cp)iI ..... rill_ 0-'-" fINIIPC'!')' 0lWftm w__l}.....IJ'IlCS___or~ -~~...w-~,.Di.J f"iIIf IKf)'InriNu "'k.,.IDIIf'" iIr_ ~ _bJaQafNd............. OQ:... JMI1IUI fI\lm IJiFWS will '" ftllIl,ind. lblft6n..., 00WIl7......, _ in1IIIt:... ~ot.i.biII(~" 4HO'Ifurtlat.... T1wHCPiU",~ w...._c.....- &r_~ -.mw.....&JI~ICIMIiII_ "~lIpIllCift.lbrlk..,..ube... "....,. _1J5FWS aD..... fI._ -......~~ Untc: _ --- of_Ill.,.... CoUl7" ........ -" -..... -- ......... .... ... ... ...-... -- ._lOlhe 2OIO(~ClIIpeo ..,.. -- .""...., - --f .........;,~,_'" WE ENVISION BIG PINE AND NO NAME AS ..... ".nnI~wid&.......~ ~1Ri.."..m-lilie~pegpkW .___.....IiiaDdsIDlil..--. A cn-r rich..........-c re. ItlWIOM ....~.....uu.. .tJeftdlriftw'4l'Uffd. AwbqtIII~illtht~~ ....1*11* c-.IM. ~..... lilt .....1 worJd WIleN"""'. "u.... caa IIbIdvaD- ..(II{tMkICII.........~~ ti......tBfk. "''hm bk of aJllIL" bI~ pkaty Qt' ~ ooa.I &lIlfl&......,. COMMUNIrf FAaLlTIIS AND RECIlIAnON ALTERNAnVES ~I.""" ~ne""l'aciIl11ef; f~"II1'.elIllIl..lIl:ih.,.M w...... t)cld Illd HI_ IIaon lWL ~ Mn- "1IeI r.... . F.llflkoq ,....WIIu.. ... MaMm.1-Ull tiQd ald.II Ow -S"UIlnMI Hok.~ . NewNl'lmMltr1filclhucs- PuaIbI"'1C:I ((Ir.MwllldlMklbc:11alMft....* BI: II ... yard., RaM ..,....... Mannl:n ~ MlBIlr"'-'l.lkfm..CdnIIhIlIiIy...1 ~_""I\nhl)'.~.u\lli"". inJ euJUlllitrs'" dl.cI1.urc. me im- "'rIIlu.ffic.Jl'llJSII'I Saidllftl4ll11r1- ___~..~ IimdI dIilt amftJr.-e CIJUllI)'--' "':.dI a111im1lm-. '-d on pI'('\14q.... b_~r..&tiwl'Wl8&iua~ ...neb it. -.rcddeANoolwc..-il,. (.. li_f<<aanr~ocncr_"" bet.a~led""pI"4II1IIc,lIcca>>t" _Jllrit)...rthe ftJAi...rmIdclM of die -. rnuMI)' 1Iw: ..tIl..cus t1I'l,lllI eaci....... kJClIled. 'Il'beIre,.-ibk. tto.tIe U1b. fxcpo Ii.,... ........ ....,.,..01....... batJf prMllIldy bod ~<<t.llN"1dt" .,.,.._. TlANSPORTAnON ALTERNAnvES r..--. _d...-lll fIE...,..... taoa.,.... WI.... III "'...-...... ()( _~C~P__ Tbte..- 1Al~ un Rit tw K~" Nu NIn Key .un-h oftw Lc-.d ofScftk'rl' ILOS! o)Ill~'1 W.)'J....llIIfINWwU)Snbcina ~t.,.~<...uIaIaI P!d~ ...,"".IAIiiaIlc.... ~~ ...kJll!l. ~t.~..NIhq"".-J ~MB..,..",dw LO'IOM~ _L..1lIOIlhi____dw~epccd It.l:lSqil. UI' CI&lrtr. ~ lIIIIJ'" c..... ....ald lIOCd w lIcnablnlkt~tf*1Iamt:aw: ~..limt lLiaf1iacwrll H(.,......... ower.... '..... _US 1'1 LOS ~IocaIInpIODU5"t.___"'ay 10 ~dte IDS. rial'll: ~ in MIrda ofl99901l"PlncEcy~dlIl "'''di*,II'If'iOl US'I~oaBi& Ptnolftll No NInx~. WllIIlD%ofdlc poruIaion hWil lkdI of lIS 11'1 aM ~ !AI nIIIIk bku.d, QII r.o do.....,.. IltktYWlIllril:bbont.lAN__.."eo USltl. Does Big Pine Key want a "Main Str~t~? (M;abauhR..bldt~""pl:a'Od~ "'~.I........_..'illhth1clltd bducltlxbulull:wlaatbt-naAkarus ~I, cs. .........., Tha"""""lllN\II .......i:mpIuw1bc-lewIoftlll"\'Kl'lLOSI... IlS't..y".....II1....-.w t.wthrMl. oknD oltlle__)' k)"lo~ II'GUDd Ibt lIlIod.dwNh,,....iItI; tr'rf'too ll~'1 ~ fIoOUkIbc ml:.-,cd.11I provwk ...'C'eHs<<h~lyfMJlldw~.I)'~Te- awd"Muls.w..~ ~...t,.,... "pI~ll w'IJIli4~~. Anynnr coaucrad..~ ....~Iiab- 1~"''C1U14 be ~ dO_ aNa. dwNby ~.......u.-I dndopnIcn 1ltuk ....~..nnt~...~ ......oflht..f1ldle..... -Ma-. su.cc~ ..ouId pr""""= . c.-..uauy ru.- NS. .... fur l'k'Mlblln....... Iftd <om. ....,~Ir~~n 'llI'ooWl4dl(l dalJ,lCIlIeofpll<<.,,"l(BlaPiDt IIId No x... kJ ......, ....or~~_ P.....__ .1br~e_lac... - Wblft ~.............__ trMl b.., hnr.- old, A___..._____..~...,... .... k'llht....;tl1U ill....... . n. ~..~...,...... NI<<ttd . tbt l'.-aiIIr....... ~ -. . ... -........, -, c....._......_.. .............-.- ..........-..... LOt....... "'.1. II "- -- APPENDIX 5 Development Alternatives Maps N W*E s .,,'. ~"~~~. . 'c' '_~"";' il'i _ ,. :~.l:~,c"~.i,~',~' .!t' , "J ", ._-....,,j-~ Alternative' 1: No N_ Raldenll" Development , No ~ resklenUal building permlls Issued on BIg PIne Key (pennita for replllcement and/or modiliclllon of existing dwelUng unIta WIll be allOWllCl) , The 28 propel1y ownell wilh ROGO eUocatiOna wlU be Issued building pennlta , RecIeveIopment of over-denslty properties wlU be encouraged, but any dwe.IIing unilI removed by redevelopment mUll go to olher 1118nd. , The IlkeIIhood for COl'IIlrucllon of ~ h1gher~ alfordable houllng bued upon ~fer of ROGO exempllona remains amaU , Transfer of d~ rights program. for undewtloped properties wlU not be InsllIuled ....._I..........C~__________..,. .. ............ ............. ........,... ............ ~..-...............-...- -~._-----"...-_._-_.._._.~_...~.----_._..._.._---- --~--~._.._--_._-,~------------._.__.__.- - .-.-.....- - --.-..-.-.---..-.....-... BIG PINE KEY 'kt"'1\ \..\vab'e C'omm\l"\Keys ptogtam LCP-HCP Study Residential Alternatives Map Alternative #1: No New Residential Development August 24, 2000 Legend o Exisling Rosldontilll Usa. iL ~ . i<~~ . .... 'fm ~'I"'" ~.' ,.-- . .' _Il~ ,"."'. ....~ "'~.I'...'...-. :~'~'{r"~: ...- . ---- .1 :.~ \ ~.. ~~~ " - , G'." ."; . ( '~.. t , ~ '. -:- J;::.'~;, , i , ..~. ~::-_::'__,r '..... 7i' -if ~.. -. ,. \\ \~-\ . '. .~" ,~'..;;iJ'" . ~.... '~~~nW . iju'e an~ Monroe County A PJonning oncI Env;l'OlVllefItcaI ~ Rcsourca Oeportnwlt Legend LJ Existing Re.idential Use. D Tcrgct Subdivi.ions w N *E f.~'~"'~ r. I ( i s Basic Concepts , The total number of new residential building permits for properties on Big P'IIMI Key wiU be nmked to 200 over the 20- year durallon of the HCP , Interim regulatory changes related to the Ievel-of-18Nlce for US-1 will be developed to alow residential permltting to recommence , The current yearly allocation of 8 new residential building permits for BIg Pine Key wII continue over the duration of the HCP . The 28 property ownars who currently have ROGO allocations will be the ftrstto obtain building permits , Addillonal development on No Name Key will continue to be discouraged , Current acquisition program. will be somewhat modified based upon the HCP rellils A1l11maUva . 2: CIu.l8red , New resldenllal development wiU be focused In an area norlh of US-1 and south ofWataon. but including the Doctors Ann araa , All relldenllal development will be dIrecled to vacant buildable Improved Subdivision (IS) loll In 7 target areal . Vacant propel1iel outalde of the target area. will not be alowed to develop , Thla aJlemative win Include a program for "transfer of development rights' Into target areas from vacant buildable loll outalde the target areas . Includes a "transfer of ROGO exemption' program for over. density propertiea where extra (over-denally) dweIIlng units may be tranlfemld into the target areal on BIg Pine Key , New resldenllal development win be !oalaed In the IeaIt envlronmenlally.senalllve arelS 17' .. 100 118 21 - 187 221 78 72 .... 22 3M 100 151 151 21 ... 57 2.t88 'OF .OF 'OFVACANT . 01' LOTS IlEVElOPID VACANT aUllDA8Ll '75 58 53 188 21 227 100 I 41 I" 322 51 t.JCI NAIIE OF T.utQeT N TOTAL . 01' 4 130 172 704 .. 847 303 215 173 11 ... 100 4,2%7 52 lIll 431 57 1,7" ORSARM 2 NTA BRISA 3 TROPICAL. BAY 4 PALM vUJ.A 5 WHISPERiNG PINES.1 o EDEN PINES 7 PINE CHAN l IT I<EY " UNDI\ LOIIA AREA 10 ISPERlHG PINES 12 11 SN<DS 12 PINE HAMIIOCK ANa ENVIRONS TOTAl.8 .(18)..........,......- -.....-...."'-- SOURCE' MONROE COUHTY PlANNING OEPARTWENT & PROPERTY APPRAISER DATA NY I 172 5&2 45 847 303 15 183 . .T 04 J,M2 __....._c~.._________...... ...._...........HI.__....,...__..___...-a ~.........,.."_.w.......IIII___ tt1\ ~--_"':-.-.'1';iiI,.,.r."~- , ''''i.,~ti' , , , ",I ,;~"i -, ~. ;';' I_,t' f"i.:: ' ~'l'.; .' . ,;:: '1 ..--------- BIG PINE KEY \..\vable Comm""\Keys \>togtam LCP-HCP Study Residential Alternatives Map Alternative #2: Clustered Development Auguat 24, 2000 '1"'., it:, R ~: rRt~~L/ ~'...'..' \:. " .~._- _d_"",_: u,---.-'. .:-/' ,.-',,"' "'"'.'l, ~-~:;" ~'::~:- .-_"0' ; "~':r-(,~~~:~.t\ =;';fj,~;;),f: '1""'. Monroe County A PIonning and Env~taJ 9 Rcsoureu DcportIMnt '. ,t . _1 I ;;. i \. .~,\ "'t",-'" ~t '- "'.' ' -}':" ~~l \"! ~" -. .' . ..J ,'~. ".~----rr-.' . . , . I, " I' , ~; ..~ .~... .. , . N w E s S_1e Concepla , The loIaI number of new _I building pennb lot properties on BIg Pile Key wII be 1m.... 10 200 o.-the 20- year d...tion of the HCP , IrUrim reglUIIlly ~ rated 10 the -.of.MrvicII lot US-, will be doveIoped 10 8IIow resIdenUII pennlIIIng to ntCOIMlIInce , TIle cunenI ye8IIy ._ of 8 new _ buIIcIlng pennb lot BIg Pile Key wII contnue 0.- the dundIon of the HCP , The 28 pn>per1y -.era who c:urrenUy hove ROGO aIocauona wlI be the .. 10 obIaln building permb , Addllional ~ on No Name Key wi! continue to be dIocourogecl , C.......cqWItJon programa will be _1_ baeduponlhllHCP_ AIIemotIve. 3: ~ , No IUbIlanUal c:/Iangea 10 the cun.n11Uiclonlla1 point syolem inROGO , Pfoper1ieI on Blg PIne continue to cornpele againIleacll olher lor the .....- ouppIy 01 building pemiIa , No.pecific~I_.Ior__1 cIovolopment , New reslclenUal cIovelopnwd could c:oncoIvobly 0CQlI' In areal other then ... zone<IlmpnwecI Subdivision (IS) , R~ 01 oyer-.lty proper1Iea wII be encaurogocl, but 11ft dMIIng unIIa _ by redowlopment nut go 10 oIher Ialandl , Incre.sed tIeldbilly lor proper1y lIWIlIIra oeeldn8 10 build re.ldentlal cIwelIIngI , The oppol1unily lot the pnMoIon of olIonIeB houoing _ be by following the existing ROGO aIIocallon procesa , T........ of cIewIopmont rlgIU PfIlllranll coukI not be used In 1hIo ._ , Contlnued iow-(j.....ty development of _I..... wlI be baed upon tho c:unent ROGO system 1IoI...II.._C_____......._..... -.----..........---............ --..................------ BIG PINE KEY ~ Uvab\e Comm""\Keys ptogtam LCP-HCP Study Residential Alternatives Map Alternative #3: Scattered August 24.2000 Legend . ___Uooo tcJEllIomg_Uooo t' 1<9: .t~1 ."\ - . , ,.r ~J;' '.~"" .-~, 1(~-:.- r;~''',--,_ ~_~r,J;p _~ -)""~""" I' e ,,> ....;..,......,... J . _u, -i.,:.{ . . 'Cil ""~'~ -'~ "'II" ' Ë~-- "'~ ' : ~ , -if ,~~_ CIC~---_~. ~~\" -L1LTdifj .'.- '"b\=:..Jl~~ _l~.liPB. j'f.' ~.II;'';' ';. ,~\\.~ "II;. _ '," \ ~ \W!' -~ I:l i \. ., ,.. ,~, 'ld' :. ~I j,.. ..", .,II' ~, \ ' \ ' \ \ , \ -'....~ ;~~' nPv ~~ ~. .~~~. ti 9 &&<llla- Monroe County . Planning and Envi_~ Ra.eurcc. [)cpar'-t ~ ". ',; "~..\ '.... \ ~...:~: I N W*E s Legend E2l Emting Residential u.u [ill PropoM" Main S_t Area Basic Concepla , The lotal number of new residenllal building pannits for properties on Big Pine Key will be limited to 200 over the 20- year durallon of the HCP , Interim regulatory changes relaled to the Ievel-of-servlce for U8-1 will be developed 10 allow realclenllal pennllting 10 recommence , The currenl yearly allocation of 8 new residential building pennlts for Big Pine Key will continue over the duration of the HCP , The 28 property ownera who currently have RooO aUocallons will be the liral to obtain bullcling permits , Additional developmenl on No Name Key will continue to be discouraged , Current acquislllon programs wlU be somewhal modilled based upon the HCP results Alternative. 4: Main Streel . Creation of an area north of U8-1 which will receive aU new residential developmenl . No new relldentlal developmenlln areas outsIdc the Main Slreel area , ThIs allernatlve wUllndude a program for "tranafer of developmenl rights. Inlo the Main Street area from vacant buildable lots outside the Main Street area , Includes a "transfer of ROOD exemption. program for over- denslly properties where extra (over-<lenslty) dwelUng units may be transferred Into the Main Streel area , All new residential development wi. occur al higher denaIIiea (not more than 12 unltslaae)as an IncenIlve for the provltIon of allordable housing , New reaidenllal development focused In the Ieas1 en~~ta~areu ............__ C-.ly.~..................-... .. -...................... .........-........... ............,......................................... ~ BIG PINE KEY \..\vab\e Comm~n\Keys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Residential Alternatives Map Alternative #4: Main Street August 24,2000 ..~ .,.,1(-' :~~ ,~~ " ~ln, .r, r". --='<1 ' ..---- <:.- fl;;~~, " ~. -1~ Th(j~i ":"J:Ij."--! a ,','" ...l~;.",,' :".~,:::'9F .". 0( :~ .., '";...\1,,, ,-~-",~~:;..),.-;/ ':~~.-\t ." '\,\\ /~ -; \ \\ .J f! Ji ~,...,." ::';-::-:1:-:i.. J-~'_ .(~-,,,, .'- , tl.t'o'~ \.\ ~\ " -:=;::-=------.,~ .~ Possible Main Street Alignment Monroe County . Planning and Env~ ReSOll'C&S Dapartl\llrlt .1 ~'" ~..', - ~~, jf;, .'1' i ,-'_~ d"'__,,_! t"l';' .~::, i j '~"Y:i""';"":" ." .\; J;\i::: . . '. e L ,11 ; I J"' 1 '':'-'.' , I ,0::- N W*E --;"t s ~:',:-~r~",liit ,..' .~ "..- ....._,~, tl --'~!) ..\1.. , Basic Concepts " The lotaIlIlImber of new residential bulldlng pennlls for properties on Big Pine Key wUI be Hmltecllo 200 over the 2()' year duration of the HCP " Intllrlm regulatllly changes related to the IcveI-of.seNloe for US-1 wiD be developed to Blow resldenllal permllllng 10 recommence " The current yearly allocation of 8 new resldenllal building pennils for Big Pine Key wiD continue over the dlJ'ation of the HCP " The 28 property owners WhO cunenUy have ROGO allocations will be the mtlo obIsin building permits " Additional development on No Name Key wiI continue to be - discouraged " Current acquisition programs will be somewhal modified balled upon the HCP results Alternative II II: Timed " New residential development wi. only 0CClJ' In BAl" which have public _ " The numbers Indica\e the planned priority order for the extension of _ .ervice " This aUows for eddltlonal residenlial dwellings outside the Iargel subdivisions mentioned in olher allemativea " The InslaJllllion of infra.tructure direcls the liming and location of development I-'..~---------'I ----............------........ --.....................----.. I{. ~ .~!t~..~~~.~ '., .... , ~, :~n_ __ -A. ,;. 1/ _. . ~. ~'" ,,,' " BIG PINE KEY ~ \-i",ab'e Comm""iKeys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Residential Alternatives Map Alternative #5: Timed Residential Areas Au t 24, 2000 Legend D e.o.......-....w u.. 1.,."',...;,.,.,,.','.'1 AN............ AoU_o.~ot Ct,. ............ --.....,-- ';'1"; "._-torrs-.s.-. f.',,'." (a-4......_'-ty_torr W_'__l ,.j,l:~B'(' .', .JI, ..2,.~,~__ \ -~, -:::. ..,;"'~ j,""\\ .,:. ~. -.</' ,.,. ~G",~~ , ~, ~.G\I \Ia~ y U:ij 1lII~' Monroe County . PIonning cand Envir........11.1 Ruourcc. ~t r ~ BIG PINE KEY ~ \..\vab\e COmm"n\J<eys ptogtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Altemative #1: No New Non-residential [)evelo~t AIJ t 24, 2000 ~~:;~~~j d::. jj '~~tn~.J ~:l! :i~~l d Mlf ',-~ N W+E Legend . Existing """","",,iclI U_ ~ PropertiU with c-n-cilll Z-.g s '1~/ ~,' \,". ~':'-:.'~:.~,. .. ;,'SiliiGf,\ 8~~ i:;'- +1- "'''',0' ',''':~~-..~. .\_ .-:'~ , '~" "'!t;4.~..~ "~r.~' _'rv' :I,h:, U.. ":Q~. ....,....." \ f''-~ - Bale Concepla . Big Pine CUITlllItIy has 603,147 Iquate feet of COl1lI1*Cial noor area (not COWlling outdoor slarage or ...ting _) . Big Pine Key 00UId lIdd around 80.000 IqUlll'll fMl of 11M c:ornmen:iaI noor area over the t-uy-yur time span of !he HCP and remain COI1IiIl8nl wIlh tile Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (uaumlng 200 8ddlllonel realden1181 building permill.,. lllued) . A non__idenllal permlt aJlocallon ayatarn wll be developed for Big Pine Key whk:h wII snow for expansion of exIaling and new non-reaidential development . Redevelopment of currently under.utIIIzed commen:lal propertles wiI be a centnll focus . The transfer of IlOIHeIIdenlIal noor ... for redevelopment wII be 8flCOU/1Iged. blA llI8 of translemld lIoor area wll be governed by detign guidelines . There wllllkely be some reduction of develOpment potenllal In weant properties along US.1 in certain arelS AltllrlllUv. . 1: No New Non....ldentlallllYllloprnent . No new llOIHeIldentiel permlts for new construdion or redevelopment of housing wlU be I8aued on BIg Pine Key (pennill for repair and replacement at idenllcallnlenallies wIU lie allowed) . The moratorium on new non-teaidenllal conslNclion wIU remain in place . Th8fll1l UllIe incentive for redevelopment of over-denllly propertles since over denally units wi! be Ioalto other islands . There wll be no IUbllanllallncrea..s In local trafIlc . No redevelopment of outdoor _ wiU occur . A beaull1lcllllon program may take place '.-~'.' I , -= -#. ;:. --ir~ :-- ,--"l ...~nn --=-- ~~ .~i '~..:-c-~~~f~",: r.;;"",'.''1iJ~~._~;'U.._;M., .y~, ,$>I '!'~"'''''.i9-;.IfI!8''n~''''';'''''';~ 'p c~ii~~j. 'if.. ~~~i", tIJt". " t' -'~\1 vt~ ~~ ...,' \,,~, ..." ~., 'i II,' 'VI ....... ...........c-r................................. ....---....................-.......... ..............,.........---....-....~ Monroe County . Planning and Environmental ,( Resources DcpartlMnt L ... , ~ ~ N W*E s Basic Concepti . Big Pine culTllf1lly ha. 603,147 square feet of commerclal floor area (not counting outdoor storage or seating areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80,000 square feet of new commercial floor area over the twenty.year time span of the HCP and remain consistent wIlh the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (auumlng 200 addilional realdentlal building permits are issued) . A non-resldential pennlt aUoc:allon system will be developed for Big Pine Key which will alow for expansion of ellisling and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currently lJ1der-utilized commercial properties wlU be a central fccu8 . The transfer of non-resldenUal floor area for redevelopment wUl be encouraged, but use of transferred floor area wUl be governed by design guidelines . There will ikely be some reduction of development potential in vacant properties along US-1 In certain areas Alternative' 2: Redevelopment of Non.Resldentlal Us.. . Umited expansion of ellistlng commercial floor area for conforming properties inside the redevelopment area boundary . Undeveloped propertieS In the redevelopment area will remain undeveloped . Redevelopment of non-conformlng properties wiU be encouraged through Incentives . Tran.fer of floor area from existing non-resldential development to existing conforming non-resldentlal development wUl be allowed, but transfer to undeveloped properties will not . Areas outside of the redevelopment area will be rezoned to a lower development potential . This altemative offers better uUUzation of exlsUng commercial land and available floor area than in place currently . Some beautificaUon efforts for the US-1 Corridor will likely be Included ........ .....- ,................-...........,...... .... ............................ ....-----..... ............... ,........"..... ..................... ~ BIG PINE KEY 1;t"/\ \..\vable Comm\l"\Keys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #2: Redevelopment of Existing Uses Only 24 2000 .,-\ Legend . Existing COI1VIlCI'Cial Uses Properties with Commercial Zoning D ll&dcvdopment AI'8CI , f.'), ?~i~~, ',~1- . '4~~L ~:::~'4 t:: ':Or: -p: 'l7,::::"'- Inc '-i'_ Jl1 ~'-"'-\ i~__ i:~~l . , .-, :.~~ ., ~~ct '.J ,- , , } .'-'~:~ 'f if' '~', !,; ".,.,- :id~ , ,-:', ',':':'"'-il- .-,~ ~- __I ;=~~ ..,::.-' \ ,J ~. '- .,"'.'\::;, ...., .", ';~,.i' ii' Monroe County ~ Planning and Envlronmcn1lll ~ Rcsour-ccs Deportment ,. ~ ~ (~~lH ij,iJJii1-4:, iJI~if,J, ,q", tJ~ " trrl-1", 'I"' \'i:3 !'iLl) ,; :, . I un N W+E s Baalc Concepts . Big Pine currently has 603.147 square feet of commeldal lloor area (not counting outdoor storage or sealing areas) . Big Pine Key could edd around 80,000 square feet of new commerciallloor area over the twenty-year time .pan of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (assuming 200 additional residential building perrnas are Issued) . A non-nlsldentlal penna aUocallon system wlU be developed for Big Pine Key which wiU aJJow for expansion of existing and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currenUy under-utilized commercial properties will be a central focus . The transfer of non-resldentiallloor area for redevelopment will be encouraged. but use of transferred floor area will be governed by design guidelines . There will Ukely be some reduction of development potentlal In vacant properties along US-1 In certain areas Alternative' 3: Clustered . This will focus new non-resldentlal development around the Shopping Center and the Intersection of Key Deer Boulevard and Wikler . Some negotiation and possible transfer of publicly-owned properties in Ihls area may be required . A transfer of development rights program will be developed to increase the potential amount of commerciaJ lloor area inside the target area and reduce non-residentlal development potential outside the target area . May Include en Incentive program for the redevelopment of existing properties Inside the terget areas 10 higher densities . Vacant commercial land inside the target area will be allowed to develop . Commercial properties outside the cluster target area will not be allowed to expand . Mixed uses containing commercial and residential uses will be encouraged . Opportunity for the provision of affordable housing as well as vacation rentals .................~~.....-~....-_. .. ........................ ...-...----..... ~....................................... lo.. BIG PINE KEY ~ \.\vab\e Commv"\Keys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #3: Clustered Auguet 24, 2000 Existing Commercial Uses Proposed Area af Commercial Clustering Properties with Commercial Zoning :i...u. .'-'-','-- ';:\:~:L~1 ~--j\: ,=~.--,;~ ";i.\ :;,--~I:r--- ,:0' 1",1, I ',,",C, .-- :lii ~' Ii: ;lli .~~- ~-----'i--"" " -~~, .~.:\ "- '< , -,*,,', >~;,. ;\.~, - :~1 ~ . "i~-~~ _ . .'-7 *L's:~'gli'" -,,'"O;!. 1"i7"""', --=---. - ., ~~~;, \~ " -:- [~: " '~-~~ , .A' ~", -~. !':'; ':\ '-. \~ '.~ "~-, ~ ",_.'CO ,..t Monroe County A Planning ond Environmentale~ Resources Dcportl1llnt ~ ", N W~E s Legend law II M~n Street Area ~ ~ Exitting Camroercial Uses . Properties with C_rcial Zaning Baalc Concepta . Big Pine currenUy has 603,147 square feet of commercial ftoor area (not counting outdoor storage or aeatlng areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80,000 square reet of new commercial ftoor area over the twenty-year time span of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (assuming 200 8ddlllonal residential building pennlts are Issued) . A non-residential pennlt allocation system will be developed for Big Pine Key which will allow for expansion of existing and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currently under-utillzed commercial properties will be a central focus . The transfer of non-residenliallloor area for redevelopment will be encouraged, but use of transferred ftoor area will be governed by design guidelines . There wiU likely be some reduction of development potential in vacant properties along U8-1 in certain areas Alternative' 4: Main Street . Commercial uses on the north side of US-1 reorient themselves to the new Main Street . Focus on redevelopment of existing commercial properties along Main Street to higher intensity mixed usea at a pedestrian acale . Major beautification programs along Main Street and U8-1 . Use of publicly-owned lands in the Main Street area as habitat landa and green apacea with walking paths . An Incentive program to Increase Intenaillea In the Main Street area, including redevelopment and development of vacant lands . . Focus on higher intenaity mixed use development with residential above commercial . New commercial ftoor area will only be allowed within the Main Street area . A transfer of development rights program will be developed to increase the potential amount of commercial ftoor area inside the target area and reduce nonofeaidential development potential outaide the target area . This alternative will require realignment of several streets in the Main Street area . May Include a trafflc circle for better trafflc clrculaUon fth..Io.........C_.............._....._....... ...---......-..---.............. ....-.-...................,..---.-- .. '! ~I 1;11\ BIG PINE KEY \.\vab'e Commu"\Keys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #4: Main Street ~ 24,2000 "1.~ "'......."c, =~~~ . a...........,--.- :l~.:L ,. \~~~~ ~ ,'1'Y:""'fl, " "'!;\~.,~,:J - ,_ . .~=:- P;';1-;-:;-' . _ '>;'; -~.' I'R ,-- ,- ~'( , tE'. ,.",-...... r~., --"\ tt J~fGj~,_ 'f=::_ '~-). .c:; ,:.J v~ t:= :~ ' 'lo' ~;,i C:' ;;%:"11-' ---~ " ~, -:...:L- ::-:- -"# ~.- '~::'...;!#'-, ~, hi. ~C"::-- \ \. ~TI;rrl~, -', --~ ~._n ~ i~--~~i?j... ~s::...cZ:J ~-~-:- -"\ ~~-0 :~,\ ~ '~&~ r:' -...i": ,JIlt 1lJ!!I ~~i') '\ rr...w ~.., '\ - - -:~,-,{~~.<>" ,....: \.- ~.. r~ \ ;. ...,. ~ Possible Main Street Alignment Monroe County .. Planning and Envil'anmcntcal ~ Rcsourca Dcp<rtrgnt " ~ , . BIG PINE KEY \.\vab\e Comm""\Keys \,togtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #5 : Scattered AuguBt 24. 2000 ~;n,~ ~. ,.,.J." '"C"""'--'- ! cl~:niPf\iU ~,' ir:llf': ' ,'1 "':"t,,,',, t!~.:,:r!~:q!illt!.:ti ' , N W+E r ~; Legend . Existing COIlIrncrcial Uses '* Scattered CGlIIlllUeial Sites Properties with Commercial Zoning s '~-,*' ", ".\.'-. ,,~~l.i~f, ", -,'1 ..oJ'...,... '-'.; .'. '. '," (>~...-- ~:-~ -'~':~,?, ;-~) -" I...i',' I:il; i~_~~. * -.,......,.:, ,-ilj-'1'""', ~ '.l;."~;;, - -=It ...:-- i +- Basic Concepts . Big Pine currently has 603,147 square reet of commercial ftoor area (not counting outdoor atorage or seating areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80,000 square feet of new commercial ftoor area over the twenty-year time span of the HCP end remain conaistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (assuming 200 additional residential building pennits are issued) . A non-residential pennit allocation system will be developed for Big Pine Key which will allow for expansion of exiatinQ and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currenUy uncler-utilized commercial properties will be a central focus . The transfer of non-residential ftoor area for redevelopment will be encouraged. but use of transferred floor area will be governed by design guidelines . There will likely be some reduction of development potential In vacant properties along US-1 in certain areas Alternative' 5: Scattered . Creation of neighborhood commercial centers so that residents in northem areas do not have to drive down to US-1 . Neighborhood commercial centers are only for development intended to serve local residents only . Will require some rezoning of residential land for non- residential land uses . Residents will be able to use alternate forms of transportation . The impacts of neighborhood commercial centers on adjacent residential uses will have to be minimized . May help create more cohesive neighborhoods . Will Include Incentives for allowing Increases In residential density through the transfer of ROGO exemptions around the neighborhood commercial centers , .-- ,.. i,l\.. t' :"f:/~~'\ :~-~~~. l,., ;' --~-"-~\ '-~-::-~.., --~ ..~;--";-- ,~' ~~""r:.. ,,"' r~-rE~"'~~ "1."1'.: .'.~"'~,.;.'..,~ 11..-i' i::.-._.:'.:-;f;n-~('lIp~~1irtF~.<~ , ..: 'L' I ' .'.. 1';);:,,: ."" ,..-.;;::-.:_L~.J-::L:__ :;..,..". 1-"'''~_ \l"d i~ ";~ \ ' '~ ...., . ..._..,.-..-c-,.._........-Dl___.... ..................~...._.....,_............. ~......_I...._...........---- Monroe County A Ploming and Environmental 9 Resources Department .. ~ ", '.., '-; 'i .'.:;~7~:~',;, ;T~-u1.V mrjlLtL':~ , , '" i'!;U4fJJPj;"d LJU, ,,)jillJ:Hi ' ' N W*E s Basic Concepta . Big Pine currently has 603,147 square feet of commercial noor area (not counting outdoor storage or seating areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80,000 square feet of new commercial ftoor area over the twenty-year time span of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (assuming 200 additional resldentlal building pennlts are Issued) . A non-residential pennlt allocation system will be developed for Big Pine Key whi<:h will allow for expansion of existing and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currently under-utilized commercial properties will be a central focus . The transfer or nol'HllSldentlal ftoor area for redevelopment will be encouraged, but use of transferred ftoor area will be governed by design guidetines . There will tikely be some reduction of development potential in vacant properties along U8-1 in certain areas Alternative # 6: Couplet . New commercial development to be located between the northbound and southbound lanes of re-aligned U8-1 . May lead to placement of new commercial uses In or near prime habitat, and will be automobile oriented . WlIIlnciude major beautification programs along U8-1 . An Incentive program to Increase Intensities In the target area, Including redevelopment and development of vacant lands . Focus on higher intensity mixed use development with residential above commercial . New commercial floor area wlII only be allowed within the target area . A transfer of development rights program will be developed to increase the potential amount of commercial ftoor aree inside the target area and reduce non-residential development potential outside the target area . Will require a major acqulsltlon program and posslble building demolition . This alternative may Increase the number of local trips on US- 1 . There may be potential negative effects on some properties south of US-1 ..._...... It-. e--..,................................-. 1Iw_.-......................___........... .................,......,...,............................. .. I *Hi BIG PINE KEY \.\vable Commv"\Keys Vtogtam AUlluat 24, 2000 "-" P_" ',\,:,.~.l......,:;:;-' ; '" " t' . iil ]',1 ::P - 'kc ,. ...., , '-"",;', \. \~j ---- ----';-' ," ?,\ .'~ " LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #6: Couplet Legend . Existing Commercial Uses [ITIj Commercial Cauplct ~ Properties with Commercial Zoning f"~,~1~~\ . ~c=~, t-l.t "".'; :, , '.--.... .~~ iJ" ',--~';:;\ 1 Monroe County .. Planning and Envil'OfllllMtaJ ~ Resources [)epcrtJMnt {~:: { r'-"'....I._, .,~~! lJ}'11;.;., ~i ~~L __~=':'_ 1- _ '_. --nif ~. ,: n .... '1.... n__"" _, '~ mr: D :[}j=~~~ ;:. .....' -:-- ~.~ ;... Jt,. ,-." ", ~ BIG PINE KEY ~ ~\vab'e Commv"\Keys \>togtClm LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #1: No New Non-residential Development ~ t 24. 2000 q!T:~nr" , i'J~MM~0+';';tTIJA ' )~ii;:dJJ kim .........-. ~ , Legend . Existing Carnmcrcial UM' Prapcrt.... with Commercial Zanong N W+E s t .t:~~~<"~,...,.,,.,.::4, -r._ " .<"I~."1.:;........; ~ ~t~) ~ rrr'-, -c-", .il1r' on." .iL .. F-~4, ..... " __ __.........J~ C # IluIC ConC8pta . Big Pine currently has 603,147 square feet of commerclal Door area (not counting outdoor stcnge or aeating areas) . BIg Pine Key could add around 80,000 square twet of '- commercial Door area over the ~-year lime span of the HCP and remain consialent wIlh the Year 2010 Comprellenslve Plan (assuming 200 additional residential building permits are iasued) . A non-resldentlal permll allocation system will be de..,oped for Big Pine Key which will allow for expansion of existing and new non-reaidentlal development . Redevelopment of currenUy under-utilized commercial properties will be a central focus . The transfer of nOlH8Sidentlal floor area for redevelopment will be encouraged, but use of tranalerred ftoor area wll be governed by design guideUn.. . There will likely be some reduction of development potential In vacant properties along US-I In ceI1aln areas AlI8rnaUve . 1: No New Non-rnlden1lal Development . No r.w non-residential permit. for r.w construction or redevelopment of housing wlY be Issued on BIg Pine Key (permits for repair and replacement at Identical intensllles wlI be allowed) . The moratorium on new non-resldentlal construction wiI remain In place . There ia little Incentive for redevelopment of overo(jenslty properties slnce over density units wlI be loBI to other Islands . There will be no substantiallncreaaes In locallralllc . No redevelopment of outdoor _ will occur . A beautlficatlon program may take place , ; ~~:~I~ 'W:~tL~~1~~~; ""', ,\1r""'7r~~i:~~~:_~,:, "\ ';;,}!'H ., 'tit ~2; .'c, ~,.' :\:,'..;",t..'.."".' '. t" j, J~~~ --- ,'~ )';' \ <;. '~, ...' ".., ' ..... ........ '-"..........._Dl................. ..----..--.....------.... ..........................,~......-............ Monroe County A Planning and Environmental ~ Resources Department .. ... (, N W*E '.-'- r '. -..',.!"'7= '.j 'I', v' ~L~""~ "~l'i: ~;riJt1_li . _ h' "',"-~'.'r'.'''' U~_'_ ~:i; _- :1 "~ -- ~'~~~ t"{' '1" J .1.:' ~ s Basic ConcepW . Big Pine currenUy has 603,147 square feet of commercial ftoor area (not counting outdoor storage or seating areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80,000 square reet of new commercial ftoor area over the twenty-year time span of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (assuming 200 additional residential building permlta are issued) . A non-residential permn aUocaUon system will be developed for Big Pine Key which wiD aUow for expansion of existing and new non-resldenUal development . Redevelopment of currently under-utilized commercial properties win be a central focus . The transfer of non-residenUal ftoor area for redevelopment wUI be encouraged, but use of transferred ftoor area will be govemed by design guidelines . There will Ukely be some reduction of development potential in vacant properties along U8-1 in certain areas Alternative' 2: Redevelopment of Non-Resldentlll Usea . Umlted expansion of existing commercial ftoor area for conforming properties inside the redevelopment area boundary . Undeveloped properties in the redevelopment area will remain undeveloped . Redevelopment of non-conforming properties win be encouraged through Incentives . Transfer of ftoor area from existing non-residential development to existing conforming non-resldenUal development will be allowed, but transfer to undevelOped properties will not . Areas outside of the redevelopment area will be rezoned to a lower development potential . ThIs altemative offers better uUllzation of exlaUng commercial land and available ftoor area than in place currenUy . Some beautification efforts for the U5-1 Corridor willUkely be included ......, ....__ '-Y.............O'-......-'Y. ....................."........ -'Y......_.......... .............-....,.........rt~......._.,..... .. " ,}:: -~l~l ~ ',- - " .~-~ I] I "" 1""-:l ,-'='- -------\ . .-'" q \ ~l ' ~ - ~ l'r".I- ~t . ~ ~ - ,,", :~~ BIG PINE KEY ~ \.\vab'e Commu"\Keys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #2: Redevelopment of Existing Uses Only Au t 24 2000 Legend . exiSting CGlIIlllCI'CiaI Vses II Prapertiet with Cammereial Zaning IETIl RedevclaplllCllt Arco ~ .:..~t~~~) ~ - ~~ \ '\J ~ \, t1 : , , ,_.~\ '.; '" #~. ) W '''" I ....,. ] /' L./" ~ ;, , ' '~~'~~~il 'i' .-' ~.-:3l!&'. .( , ',<,,,, _.~ '~i~ ''''~~) -~:':'~~,~\. . .-~:~.-J~~;:!_~>. .;' "- --. ..... - \.. . \, ~\ .,r /I.. ~~. \ Monroe County 8pbIning ond Envil'Olllll8ll1al , Rcsourccs Clcpartmcnt ", ~ (.T BIG PINE KEY ~ \..\vab\e Commu"\Keys \>togtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #3: Clustered Auguet 24, 2000 ~'.~~l)Jl~l-i "~:fr:t, -f'I, .-' i;t:1Wt ; ,~. -T'l.~~"'"~ f ~'HI.i.:J1 JJ' ','T'i~r" ,"ITr" t',lr'!'111!,';diT! Legend . Existing Commercial Uses Gill Praposed Area af Carnmercial Clustering N W*E s Praperties with Commercial Zaning " ~~'J_~_ _~~-" H-~-ir~- . ,II; '....~--_.._, .,:,~~. '~;fV' r~~ ~h, "'~.' " ~-'~~,' f,,!:;' ....,~ ':\ -~';)- f-:~::-~:. - Baalc Concepta . Big Pine currently has 603.147 square feet of commercial ftoor area (not counting outdoor storage or _ling areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80.000 square feet of new commercial ftoor area over the twenty-year time apan of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 201 0 Comprehensive Plan (aasuming 200 additional residential building pennita are Issued) . A non-resldentlal pennlt allocation aystem wiU be developed for Big Pine Key which will allow for expansion of existing and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currently under-utilized commercial properties will be a central focus . The transfer of non-realdential ftoor area for redevelopment will be encouraged, but use of transferred floor area will be governed by design guidelines . There will likely be some reduction of development potential In vacant properties along U8-1 In certain areas Alternative. 3: Clustered . This will focus new non-residential development around the Shopping Center and the Intersection of Key Deer Boulevard and Wilder . Some negotiation and possible transfer of publidy-owned properties In this area may be required . A transfer of development righta program will be developed to increase the potential amount of commercial ftoor area Inside the target area and reduce non-residential developmenl potential outside the target area . May Indude an Incentive program for the redevelopment of existing properties inside the target areas to higher densities . Vacant commercial land inside the target area will be allowed to develop . Commercial properties outside the cluster target area will not be allowed to expand . Mixed uses containing commercial and reaidential uses will be encouraged . Opportunity for the provision of affordable housing as well as vacation rentals ".. n~__:! : !jr" r'" ~ . . 71t.l.tiiL~~ ,J4 '< \"'-.. ..... . 1llI....1........~..._......-1ll____.... lilt ...............__... ......,.__............ ..........................."............-.......... Monroe County A Planning and Envil"OMlCl'ltol ~ Resources Department .. -. .. N W~E \. s Legend m M~n Street Area II Existing Can\nlercial Uses . Properties with C_rcial Zaning J' Baalc Concepta . Big Pine currenuy has 603,147 square reet of commercial ftoor area (not counting outdoor storage or seating areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80,000 square reet of new commercial ftoor area over the twenty-year time apan of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehanslve Plan (assuming 200 additional residential building pennlts are Issued) . A non-residential pennlt allocation aystem will be developed for Big PIne Key which wiD allow for expansion of existing and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currently under-utillzed commercial properties wiU be a central focua . The transfer of non-residentlal ftoor area for redevelopment will be encouraged, but use of tranaferred Iloor area wUI be governed by design guldellnes . There wiD Dkely be some reductJon of development potenUal in vacant properties along US-1 in certain areas Alternative" 4: Main Street . Commercial uses on the north side of US-1 reorient themselv8a to the new Main Street . F ocua on redevelopment of existing commercial properties along Main Street to higher intensity mixed uses at a pedestrian 8C8Ie . Major beaulificalion programs along Main Street and US-1 . Use of publicly-owned lands in the Main Street area as habitat lands and green spaoea with walking patha . An incentive program to Increase intensities In the Main Street area, including redevelopment and development of vacant lands . Focus on higher intensity mixed use development with residential above commerclal . New commercial ftoor area wUI only be allowed within the Main Street area . A transfer of development rights program will be developed to increase the potential amount of commercial ftoor area Inside the target area and reduce non-residential development potential outaide the target area . This a~ernative will require realignment of several streets In the Main Street area . May include a trafflc circle for better trafflc circulation ..............c___...__........_..... ...-.......-..........-...---..... ~...................._.............--.... .. BIG PINE KEY 1;11\ \.\vab'e Commu"\Keys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #4: Main Street ~ 24.2000 \~:~~ ~~ ,'"\ ,1f:~_, < ~,""~.t:'." q~, \; ~\~;l.~.~~.,.{; . "'~=:--~O""_ ",r .~.' I.ll ", . -', ' I,' /1 ,>:J'~ , '-i'"\ --~\ -~'-. l':" ~~Lk,,~..._:.,:.~,.~t,:_,~.:,'.,ql/] '; j~Eil!_~~~ ~ ~ -~.-, " .~~:~ ' !~ H.-;.; e, ~~! \ \ I . r , ./.; .-l/ri. ~"1;:'" - ".:" ~ '" \ " ,L~" ~" ~~~-=f"', ", \ \ -.r\ 'i ("')'( ,r , " !~./ ~~~'~~._~_.;! 'T ~~illWfi~~ -'-"'-,-." "t-~~ ;~il~li\ ,..~,:i'~> "\it J./~,..~~j.:7:/.. ~~;. \ \" I h , ~ y ? \ ,.... A =' f ; I ~ . 6 Possible Main Street Alignment Monroe County A PlaMing CI'Id Environnlcntal ~ Aaourcu Dcportlllcllt ... ", ~ (1Frrn ' " ,,.,..t'OL't1 ,,', (.'J;,~;X:)~~J_, ,\~. ;_.~ ,,;:'i'I,I',';;1,!,'!,',i,,,~,',' _LJrrrnrr;rrIT[t~ N W*E s Basic Concepts . Big Pine CUlT8nlly has 603,147 square reet of commercial ftoor area (not counting outdoor storage or seating areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80,000 square feet of new commercial ftoor area over the twenty-year time span of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (assuming 200 additional residential building pennits are /aSUed) . A non-residential pennit allocation system will be developed for Big Pine Key which will allow for expansion of existing and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currently under-utilized commercial properties will be a central focus . The transfer of non-residential ftoor area for redevelopment will be encouraged, but use of transferred floor area wiu be governed by design guidelines . There will likely be some reduction of development potential In vacant properties along US-1 in certain areas Alterrultlve ## 5: Scattered . Creation of neighborhood commercial centers so that residents in northem areas do not have to drive down to US-1 . Neighborhood commercial centers are only for development intended to serve local residents only . Will require some rezoning of residential land for non- resldentialland uses . Residents will be able to use alternate fonns of transportation . The impacts of neighborhood commercial centers on adjacent residential uses will have to be minimized . May help create more cohesive neighborhoods . Will Include Incentives for allowing Increases In residential density through the transfer of ROGO exemptions around the neighborhood commercial centers L No...II,.___c-........~a.....__..... ""'............ -.......... ...........- -.........., ---............ .....fI_. ......._--..... ---.,*- BIG PINE KEY \..\vab'e Commun\Keys \,togtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Alternative #5 : Scattered Auguat 24, 2000 Legend . Existing Commercial Vses *' Sc:attCl'ed Cornmucial Sites &l~ Properties with Commercial Zoning ',';_\ ,ru~, ~~. "~~ ''-'':'{, ~~';' '. . ..: ~-::-~'p~~ ---. ,:,'~~' I'~, '"I.e. ",:,: .lr' , 1,1: I, ;~j:'I, ,,;,;.;. ;"L+:,~ - "',1i'~~;" *- "-'~'-"-~:I' : ~. .., '. -- ~~~<: !" ;;i~ ~'-' .''\. "s.~- .... I" Monroe County A Plaming ond Environmental 9 Resources Department .; ", ~ N W+E s 1'-..-" -.~ \. ',; '...,::; (.,~~.;,~~ ':1 1-.' . " ~'-"~'.- Basic Concepta . Big Pine currently has 603,147 square reet of commercial floor area (not counling outdoor storage or sealing areas) . Big Pine Key could add around 80,000 square feet of new commercial ftoor area over the twenty-year time span of the HCP and remain consistent with the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan (assuming 200 additional residential building pennlts are lIsued) . A non-resJdentlal pennlt allocation system will be developed for Big Pine Key which will allow for expansion of existing and new non-residential development . Redevelopment of currently under-ulillzed commercial properties will be a central focus . The transfer of non-resldentlal ftoor area for redevelopment will be encouraged, but use of transferred ftoor area will be governed by design guideUnes . There will Ukely be some reduction of development potential In vacant properties along US-1 in certain areaa Alternative' 6: Couplet . New commercial development to be located between the northbound and southbound lanea of re-aIigned US-1 . May lead to placement of new commercial uses In or near prime habitat, and wlU be automobile oriented . Will Include major beautification programs along US-1 . All Incentive program to Increase Intensities In the target area, Including redevelopment and development of vacant lands . Focus on higher Intensity mixed use development with residenlial above commercial . New commercial ftoor area wlU only be allowed within the target area . A transfer of development rights progrem wig be developed to increase the potential amount of commercial ftoor area inside the target area and reduce non-residential development potential outside the target area . Will require a major acquisition program and possible building demolition . This altematlve may Increase the number of local trips on US- 1 . There may be potential negative effects on some properties south of US-1 'n. ....... "-c...,................~-.-__. 1110 ..........................,.....,.....,._.-..,.... ....-......._.........., ---.. ...-r....-... .. " .oJ ,i~~L m 'l~~:; BIG PINE KEY 1;11\ \.\vab\e Comm\ln\Keys \>togtam LCP-HCP Study Commercial Alternatives Map Altemative #6: Couplet Auguat 24. 2000 Legend . Existing Commerc:ia1 Uses ~ Commercial COl4llet iii PropertieS with Commercial Zoning '~_:\'-:-:7~~" ,.:'': '{ , ~, ~~.~-- IJi' Ji,'n ,Ip .. .n ~ ...._.;,.-~ \ , i'-, - --;;-.. ~~\ ,~ :- ';.c111""'" III ~'\;l.~;~~.:' ,;: " , \ J'i . ...,' .~~ \,-~.=~~-- -~;;f : - ",~,~~- --.: j---' ," '~'~" ':~k' \'\ .~ A " c\. " "'-'1 --- ~\ ., Monroe County Apbvling and &Ivironmental ~ RIISOW'CCS l>cpartmcnt .. -~ . EIIoItIIo_....-....__.._.. ---.....-.-- . -_ far..........,_..IIo_.. -----....-.g,..._'ooo --_........_far_ .... Opon s,.c. .__-...___0Illl_ __ far_" -.g...........- _ or_ _1Io_1or__ . --...-_..,-_110 c::GnIiIINcIft.......~ . .... -- -.. AOGO" _..... _ far -....----..- -- -.,:...-- . No__..__.._._- ...--- . _-....-oIl..IIIg.....-.yIo_ --.........-by-.g_..1IIg -Key . F...... ~ trI6; on U$1 . 0000....___ . ........ impIc:t to .. ...... enwonn.nt N W*E s L"'_q. ,1IJI~1:~ tWI(~ll. .. i,-i-;- [ ;:~-~- ,1, 1f:' Alternative #1: No New Facilities Monroe County A Planning and Environmental U Resources DepartlMnt ......... ..,........ c__._.........~.......... 11M .................. ..........,....,................ .................,....., ...........-.....----. BIG PINE KEY ~ Uvab\e C'omm""\Keys ptogtam LCP-HCP Study Recreation Facilities Map Auguat 24, 2000 --... . _"_OIllldtvolap__..._.. ---.....-.-- '__far__-..IIo_.. _-.._....-.g 1,"_'000 ___"~"_far_ 0Illl Opon ~ . ~lito"'_"'FeOIrIlI"''''' __far_"-.g~_or_ _1Io_ror__ . n. p/IMlInw1t of . rww carnmurar ClIfMr I1'1.III be -..-- . Moy--.. AOGOIo_....._1or -....____10_ --- AIIImIIIft'2:~". '1'UdI 11.1......'...... 'L.--Ior___~ --..- . __Io_oII..IIIg.....-.yIo_ --...._by-.glllg-Key -- . ___...._IorIl1o__...__ or___....__._fII__ . 0001........"....... _ _.... -- .~....--.~- . T___or__...,.._ .--.....-- N W*E s Legend . e.....,Raaut.......... III "'-"E__........... ..._~ .;~.i"l::ii . JV Alternative #2: Expand I Redevelop Existing FaciUties -~ . Elbla.._ond___..""""on ___...loiii_&__ . __.............,_...._on __._......-.g ',14_'OOCl poopo---"~"-"'- ond o,on__ . ~6I'N'IW1I8l""""",,,, FecIIraI and SUIe --........-..--...- ...,..-...-- . --...---....... CDfWCIefed In moll ......... . lIoy_~ ROOO"__"",,,, -....-fI'IoltIy--..- .........., - _.S:___ . -prImoIIy---- . .--.........F-.oy--....- --- . MIy_......._al__ ....._--...._alBlllP..K-r . FOIIIrI ncrMIiICI trifle on US1 ._-__..01_ N W*E s .Y.;, \ "~:',i/__. T..., e-.t..,RccrutICll'l Arcos t":", " Alternative #3: New Water Related Recreation Areas Monroe County A Planning and Environmental 9 Resources Department ...._..........c.......................~,..,........ ...-.-..-.....................-.-...... -.........-....._.~........... BIG PINE KEY ~ \.\vab'e Comm\l"\Keys \,>togtam LCP-HCP Study Recreation Facilities Map August 24, 2000 -~ . e_.._ond___"_on ____......-a-- . __..........,_...._on ..........,_ __.... -.. '."_llClO poopo___"LlvllGI_"'_ ond o,on__ . '-....................__ondSlllt __.........-.~_OI_ -..-...-- . --...-......,--.. --.-- . lIoy_~ ROOO..__......... _I0Il..."..,__.._ -- _..,--....,,- . ---...........-....-- ._____01118....,- _1181"'Il1o__.,...__ II _ 01.. """- . CN-._...--___GI BlIl PIno K-r . PramcMI.........ln CDImVIIIy fKItIy ClGItI........ llno_~of_....._.... _._) ._...._of_"""""""._ - . u..._...ar___ _...... .... rnorkoI ond BIB JunkyonI .---...........-..- .. 01" ,... for communly..... . PoIenIII.... heW.... erMn:lnmInIIIv-.. . -............,goIIIIing- N W*E s Legend . e.tstinfR&crMt..ArIw IIIJI Ncwc-..ty,.iIit.. '\. ,~ r~~~;~, Alternative #4: New Community FaclUtles II I _0_ . EJIortt 10 KqUft ........... fIlCIUIiDn 1iIndII.. m. on ....,........,~............,_.... . TM........... tor ClOI'IIftUIIr....... bII a..d an ClCNMU'tIW'nMi. ___" ........1.14~1000 ....... ~ tD l.....,.....IDrRendM ... Opon.... .ll.....__..._.............~n__ ~tor.._....~....ar..... ...., &....... 101M......... . ThI--...,.....~__""*bIt CIIfIIIdINd In............. . MlfICllNllidlr...... RDCJO............... ~- - ..........-........ -- ......... . I: ..... ..... . ,........1Wuc:Ion n.......,,..,......,.,. ill no............., 01.-...., ~ CiA. _.-1 .--..---- -- .....------ people ~ in" w.in....... . Inn-. __ rI.,.....,llftI'lIidInII. ~... ......---- . The.............,.,'-II ClllInIIgUOla,... oA.... wII ..... '"*lIhle IInd ~ plQCIIIMd -...:l ..... """...pubIIc........ . c...... ~ b............ hm.... ~ fII ...-... . ~tIr..........wIIh....OpefI....~ 10 form . gNIIn II*lI ..... will MtlMllva. N W*E s Legend . . Exct.., Iit&a-.atIOn Arcos '*"" .$frect Am -~ r.~~~:i}ti.t.~ . -'~"-;i' ; Alternative #5: Main Street Monroe County O. Planning and Environmental '" Resources Department ................. c-...-...........~..,......... ... -............."'.......... .....---........... --..,....,.....,......~-~ Itn I BIG PINE KEY Uvab'e C'omm""\Keys \>togtam LCP-HCP Study Recreation Facilities Map August 24, 20 -- . e_"_WIlI___..._an ___......_a__ . Tllo_..-...,_......_... .......,ay _....-.... _. .,.._GOO ........_-...-..~a1_for_ WIll Open~ . ~......,..".".. will ~....... __Ior_"_~_ar_ _bo_Ior__ . Tllo ___ a1. _........-y__ bo ClOnIldIred ... moll ........ . Moy__ROGO..___for -....-......,--..- -.nIy- -.1:-- . Sa.-....-.y on IMd IlCqUiIIlon Va IHII01fWiO II __ an~ol_.CounIy-_ .~...._.._--- ------- CounIy- -- . _.. ........_al...__.. ~a1onci1ory~lI_f..,,..., -I . Olopoo.-Iho _ aI_ _ 8lg I'NKoy .----..- -- .__10.._-_-_ inCIMIa poinIIlQr ROOO dIduCIionI.,.... .... . _c___............,_WIlI... not'" _.. _.. a1.. COIM1lOlIIy_ N W*E s ~~iif[> ..- Legend . &m-...,RccrcotJOn Are.. III Pon'" Sc:IIf1CNd Rca-ut_ Sit.. ""r ,~~ .t~ ,-~ _":- qr Alternative #6: Scattered Sites I ~ J l j ~ . C ~ ! I i ~ Alternative #1: No Change (except intersection improvement at Key Deer Blvd.) l J J ~ j; " . 0 ~ ! I ~ ~ Alternative #2: 4 Lane f ~ 1 ~ ~ j ~ J -8 ~ i ~ Alternative #3: 3 Lane l )- J " t ;~ o I --- l ~ ~ i ~ 1 Alternative #5: Frontage Road f ~ ~ ~ ~ j j 1 ! I Alternative # 6: Daytime Speed Limit Reduction BIG PINE KEY 1;11\ \.\vab'e Comm...n.,Keys \,togtam LCP-HCP Study US #1 Transportation Alternatives Map August 24, 2000 N W*E s SPEED LIMIT 35 ......... ...16-. c..,................................. ... ....................... ..,................. ..............-....~.........-.-......... Monroe County . Planning ond Environmental , AesoIll'CCS Department ! I ~.._-_..~_.-,~_. _.- - .......... ! -j-~ -- 1 -I I - I _h --i~ t 1 i 1: ,. -I - '~.__1~.\ .- 1 f I ,- I- _w,'. ~ i I J r f ! . t.... ... I i i ........--- .-"...... ' '..,...-- f i ' ... -- ~ ....., Alternative #5: "Big Pine Way" Alternative #7: Avenue A (with some intersection closures) f -, ----'i1 . II- i _..~ . -- t j J --- ,...... -- --........ .~ A I 1 ~ I -.. I. I L- J 1 -.. b .IJ fJ Ii ,'"".::;. i ,.....::..;.."",.-....1Wo ......... Alternative #6: Barrier Removal Alternative #8: Angelfish Road BIG PINE KEY 1;11\ \.\vab'e Comm\ln\Keys Vtogtam LCP-HCP Study Local Transportation Alternatives Map August 24, 2000 N W*E ...... ....--.. c.-,...................,...-...... ........-.........~... ......................-.. ..........,...,..........................~ Monroe County A Planning and Environmental 9 Aesourcu DcJlCll'fment s