Item F4
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date:
August 16. 2001
Division:
Growth Management
, ,
Bulk Item: Yes No X Departmept: Planning
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Resolution to approve the Annual Assessment of Public Facilities Capacity for 2001.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
Section 9 .5-292(b) of the Land Development Regulations (LDR' s) requires that the BOCC adopt an annual
assessment of public facilities capacity for Monroe County. The Planning Department has prepared a 2001
assessment for the BOCC's consideration and approval.
This year's report finds that solid waste and schools have sufficient capacity to serve growth anticipated
through 2001. Permitted potable water allocations are marginally adequate, and Monroe County and the
Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority are taking steps to remedy this. All state and county roads are anticipated
to meet level of service standards, except for the Big Pine Key segment (Segment # 10) of U.S. 1. Since no
reserve capacity exists on this segment of U.S. 1, Florida Statutes and the County's LDR's require that the
moratorium on issuance of building permits for additional traffic generating development be continued on
Big Pine Key.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
The BOCC has approved assessments of public facilities capacity each year since 1987.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
None
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Approval
TOTAL COST:
N/A
BUDGETED: Yes N/A No
COST TO COUNTY: N/ A
AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A Year
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes N/ A No
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
Risk Management N/ A
APPROVED BY: County Atty X
r of Growth Management
To Follow_
Not Required_
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X
DISPOSITION:
AGENDAITEM#~Y
Revised 2/27/01 ~
~~
RESOLUTION NO.
- 2001
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS ADOPTING THE ANNUAL ASSESSMENT OF
MONROE COUNTY PUBLIC FACILITIES CAPACITY FOR 2001 AS
SUBMITTED BY THE MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND
ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT.
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292(b) of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations
requires the Board of County Commissioners to adopt an annual assessment of public facilities
capacity for unincorporated Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, this annual assessment is used to evaluate the existing level of services for
roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational facilities; and
WHEREAS, once approved by the Board of County Commissioners, this report becomes
the official assessment of public facilities upon which development approvals will be reviewed
and approved for the upcoming year; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations provides the
minimum standards for level of service of roads, solid waste, potable water, and educational
facilities; and
WHEREAS, Section 9.5-292 requires the annual assessment of public facilities capacity
to clearly state those portions of unincorporated Monroe County with inadequate or marginally
adequate public facilities; and
WHEREAS, the annual report finds that sufficient capacity exists for solid waste,
potable water, and educational facilities to meet anticipated growth through 2001; and
WHEREAS, the transportation section of the annual report is based upon the findings of
the 2001 US-1 Travel Time and Delay Study prepared by URS Griner, the County's
transportation consultant; and
WHEREAS, the annual report indicates that the Big Pine segment of US-1 (Segment
#10, Mile Marker 29.5 to 33.0) has remained below the mandated level of service for roads as
indicated in Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations; and
WHEREAS, the annual report also indicates that there is no reserve capacity for
additional trips on the Big Pine segment of US-I; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 163 of the Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe
County Land Development Regulations require a building moratorium for all development which
would generate additional traffic on the Big Pine segment needs to be maintained; and
WHEREAS, the building moratorium for the Big Pine segment of US-l will continue
until next year when an analysis of the capacity of the US-1 segment can be re-examined; and
NOW THEREFORE,
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, that the annual assessment of Monroe County Public
Facilities Capacity for 2000 is ADOPTED, and continuance of the subsequent building
moratorium for Big Pine Key as mandated by the Monroe County Land Development
Regulations is APPROVED.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County, Florida,
at a regular meeting of said Board held on the 16th day of August, A.D., 2001.
Mayor George Neugent
Mayor ProTem Nora Williams
Commissioner Murray Nelson
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
Commissioner Charles "Sonny" McCoy
(Seal)
Monroe County Board of Commissioners
Attest:
By:
Clerk of Court
Mayor
.. .
. .' .
. . .. .. .......... . . . ..' .
. . .
.. .' . . . . .
. ..' . .... . . .
.' . . .' . .' ..
.' .. . .. ..' . . . . ....
.' . ." . . .. .. .. .
. . . . .' .. . . . . . .' .
. ..' .... . ." ......... .
. . ." .. .. .. . .... . . .' . . . . . .
.. .... . . . .. .. .... . .
.. . . .... . . .' .... . ..' . .
.. .. . . .... . . .. . . .... .. ....
.. . ..' .. . . .... .
. . .. . . . . . .. .' . . .' ... . . . .. .
.. ... . .' ... .. .' . . .
. . . . . . ..... . . . ." .
.' . ... . . . ... .' .
. . .. .. .. . . . .... ..... ......
. . ..' . . . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . ...... . . . . ..
. . .. ..' . .. . .. ..... .
. . . .. ." .' .. .. ." ..'
. ... ....2...0..0..... . .. .............
.. . ........ ..' . . . .
. .. . ..' . ..' . .. . .
..' .... . . . . . . .' .
. . . . . .. .. . .' .
. . .' . . . . - . .
...... ...... .... .1... ......
. . . .... ." ..' ..
. . . . ' . . ..
. . . .. .. .... . . . .
. .... .' .. ." .'
. . . . - . . . . . - . . . . . .
. ....... ..' . . .
. .., . ..' ... .
. . . . . .. . .. .' . .. .
. . . . .. .... . . . ..
. . . .M... .0. ...N... .R. .0. ...E. ....C. . .0. ..U. . ..N. . .YY. . .... .
. .. .' .... .' ' .
... .' . , . .
., ' . . . . .,. . .. .
..' .' . ..' . .. .
. ... . ..' ..'
.' .' . ... .....
. .. .' .. . .... ..'
. . . ..' . . . ..... . . .
. . . .. .. . . . - . .....
: ::' ..' ....:-< -.:"< : .". :-..-:- " : :" " .-:'. ..' :-.-',.,:-: :.... . :
. .. . . . . . . . .
... ....p...U. ..B..L>.I..C. · . .F. .A.. ..C.....I. .t...I..Y. . .I.E.. .S....
. . . . ,.' .' -. ....... .
. . . . .. ." .........
..' . ." . ,. ....... .. .
. .' . .. . . ....... . .. ..
. . ... ." . . . , . . . . . . .
. . . . .' . . .. . .. . .
. . .' . .. .' . . . . . . .
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. ..... - . " . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
. . ..' . .. . . . . .. . .
.. ' . ..' . ..' . .
.' . .' ........... .
.. .' ... . .' .. . .... .
... . . C....A...P....A...C...I.YY. ...Ao...S..S...E..S.. .S...M....E...N...oY....
. . .." . .. . . .' . .
. .. .' .' ". . ..'
. ...... ." ..' .. .. ....
.. .... ..... .. .. . .' . . .
. . .. . . ..' . .' ..
.. .,.. . . .. . .. ..' . . . .
. . .' . ..... . . ..' . .. . .
. '.' :" :" -: . .::'. < :" :: - ::. ::: .:: . :.,': "'. :.:., :.: .'. :::.:::.....::.::..:..::
(GROWTH ANALYSIS)
[TRANSPORTATION J
(POTABLE .WATEA: )
[:EDUcATION::.:.:.::::.: ..::.:::.:..:. J
[SOLID \WASTE: : )
[PARKS: ANp. RECREATION.:: J
. .. .. . . .. .
. . . . . . , .
. . . . . . . .' . .
. .. ... .
. . . . .. .. . .
. PRfPARfDB'(t:H~ ...... ..
.. .. . . . ... . .' .
. .... ........ ,.. ....... .' . ..'
.. ..... ... . . ..,..........
. . .. .. .. . .. .........
. . . . . . .. .. ........ . . .,. .' . . . ..
.. . . .. .. .... .... .. ...............
. ....... .... . .. ...
. .. . . . . . . . . . . . .. .
. .. .... .. . .., .. ..
. . .. .. .. .... .. . . . . . .
M. O. .N. R. .O.E. e.o. U...NTY. . . ... ... . . .... .....
. ..., . . .' .. . .. .
. . . ... . .. .' . .
. .. . . . .... . .. .
. ..' . . ... '.'. .' '. ". .... ........
: bfvlstO:N.::OF.GROVVTHMANAGEME:NT .... .
. . . .. ...... ......... ...
. .' ............. ....., .
. ... .. . ..'
. .. ......... ...........
..' . , .. .. . .
. .. .". ....... ..., .
. T~m.McGarry,Director". . ....
MoNROECiJuNTY DEPAIm1ENTOF PlANNING AND EMIJRcN.1ENTAL REsa.RcEs
EXECUTIVE SU M MARy.................................. I-I................................. 1
Capacity' of U5-1 by Segment in 2001.................................................................................. 3
INTRODUCTION.............................................................................. 4
Figure 1: Map of the Service Areas...................................................................................... 7
GROWTH ANALYSIS ........................................................................ 9
Figure 2: PAED Map.. II.. .... ....... ..... ....... ......... ... II' ..... .... ....................... ....... ......... ....... ... ... .10
Figure 3: PAED/Mile Marker Chart ..... ................ ............... ..... ........................ .................... .11
Figure 4: Functional Population of Monroe County' 1990-2015..............................................12
Figure 5: Map of Census Designated Places ........................................................................13
Figure 6:Trend in Functional Population Changes ................................................................14
Figure 7: Functional Population Rate of Increase............ .................. ............ ............... ....... .14
Figure 8: Functional Population by Service Area ..................................................................15
Figure 9: Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population in Monroe County' 1990-2015..........16
Figure 10: Boundary Comparison Table......................... ............. ......... ...............................18
Figure 11: New and Replacement Residential and Seasonal Units Permitted by Year for
Unincorporated Monroe County' .... ..... ....... ........ ... ..... ....... ... ...... .... ......... ................ ........19
Figure 12: Comparison of Residential Permits by Service Area, 1999-2000 .............................20
Figure 13: Comparison of Residential Permit Types1999-2000..............................................20
Figure 14: Comparison of Residential Permit Types 1990-2000.............................................21
Figure 15: Types of Permits Issued 1990-2000............................................. ...... ....... ......... .21
Figure 16: New & Redevelopment Nonresidential Permits by Year ........................................23
Figure 17: Commercial Square Footage by Service Area 1990-2000......................................24
Figure 18: Nonresidential Permits by Service Area 1990-2000..............................................25
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES....................................................... 28
Figure 19: Fully-Signalized Intersections............................................. ....................... .........29
Figure 20: Traffic Counts for 2000 and 2001.......................................................................30
Figure 21: Historical' Comparison of AADTs 1994-2001 ............................... .................. ...... .31
Figure 22: Regression Analysis of AADTs 1993-2001 ...........................................................32
Figure 23: Changes in Median Overall Speed on US-11993-2001.........................................34
Figure 24: Level of Service Standards Based on Flow Characteristics ....................................36
Figure 25: Map of US-1 Segments ........................... .............................. .............................37
Figure 26: Description of US-1 Roadway Segments .............................................................38
Figure 27: Level of Service by Roadway Segment 2000-2001...............................................39
Figure 28: Changes in Median Speed by Segment 1993-2001 ..............................................41
Figure 29: Median Speeds by Segment 2000-2001 ..............................................................42
Figure 30: US-l Segment Status in 2001 ................................... ............... ...................... ....43
POTABLE WATER ................ ..................... .............. .... ............. ......48
Figure 31: FKAA Facilities.. ..... ... ..... ......... ................ .... ..... ..... ............. ...... ......... .......... ..... ..49
-1-
MoNROEClVNTY DEPAlUM8'I1'OFPlANNING AND ENviRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
Figure 32: Annual Water Withdrawals 1980 to 2000............................................................50
Figure 33: FKAA Annual Water Withdrawal 1991-2000.........................................................51
Figure 34: Projected Water Demand in 2000-2001 .... ............................ ........................... ...52
Figure 35: Per Capita Water Availability ............................................................................. .52
Figure 36: FKAA Capital Improvement Program...................................................................55 -
EDUCA.TION FACILITIES .................................................................56 -
Figure 37: Schools by Subdistrict.............................. ......................................... ........... ......56
Figure 38: Education Facilities in Monroe County .................................................................58
Figure 39: Fall School Enrollments 2000-2001.....................................................................59
Figure 40: School Capacity & Projected Number of Students ................................................60
Figure 41: Preliminary Public School Land Needs................................................................ .63
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES.............................................................. 64
Figure 42: Solid Waste Contractors. .... .... ..... ........... ...., ..... II... .... .... II.. II' ...... .... II.. ............. II .64
Figure 43: Solid Waste Facilities .........................................................................................65
Figure 44: Solid Waste Generation by District......................................................................66
Figure 45: Remaining Capacity, Central Sanitary Landfill......................................................67
PARKS AND RECREA. TION... ............................................................ 68 -
Fig u re 46: Pa rks and Recreationa I Facilities......................................................................... 69
Figure 47: Level of Service Analysis for Activity Based Recreation ........................................71 _
- ii-
MoNROE COiJN1YDEPAHI:JlENTjaEPiANNINt; 'AN!) ENviRoNMENTAL RESOURCES
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
I .
The M9nroe<:ourity Land i Development Regulations (hereafter referred to as lithe
Coden) mandate an anjiual assessment of the'roads, solid waste, potable water, and
school facilities serVing;the unincbrporated'portionof'Monroe County. In the event that
these public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall below the level of service
required by the Code, development activities' must conform to special procedures to
ensure that the public facilities are not further burdened. The Code clearly states that
building permits shall not be issued unless the proposed use is or will be served by
adequate public or private facilities.
As required by the Code, the Board of County Commissioners shall consider and
approve the annual report, with or without modifications. Any modifications that result
in an increase of development capacity must be accompanied by findings of fact,
including the reasons for the increase and the funding source to pay for the additional
capacity required to serve the additional development. Once approved, this document
becomes the official report of public facilities upon which development approvals will be
based for the next year.
This report distinguishes between areas of inadequate facility capacity and
marginally adequate capacity. Inadequate facility capacity is defined as those areas
with capacity below the adopted level of service standard. Marginally adequate
capacity is defined as those areas at the adopted level of service standard or that are
projected to reach inadequate capacity within the next twelve months.
Residential and Nonresidential Growth for 2001
For the 2001 assessment, a population model that uses a 1990 Census base data
and Monroe County Certificates of Occupancy to estimate and forecast population
growth is used. The model is based upon the actual number of residential units built,
and is therefore more accurate than previous models. The projected functional
population of unincorporated Monroe County is expected to reach 74,388 people by
2001, a slight increase from 2000.
Due to Policy 101.3.1, the County's nonresidential ROGO policy in the 2010
Comprehensive Plan, it is anticipated that only a limited number of permits will be
issued for new nonresidential development in 2001. The only projects that will be
issued permits are those that have received a determination of vested rights or those
projects that are exempt from nonresidential ROGO per Policy 101.3.4.
-1-
MoNROE COtNTY DiFARTMENTOF PlANMNG AND ENvIRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
Assessment of Public Facilities for 2001
Two of the four facility types addressed by this report - solid waste and schools -
have sufficient capacity to serve the growth anticipated in 2001 at the adopted level of
service. The remaining facility types, potable water and roads, demonstrate marginally
adequate capacity or fail to meet the County's level of service standard in certain
isolated situations. The status of each facility is summarized below.
Solid Waste: The existing solid waste haul-out contract with Waste Management,
Inc. provides the County with approximately seven years of guaranteed capacity.
Schools: A 1998 study by the Monroe County Planning Department, in concert with
the School Board, has determined that there is more than sufficient capacity in the
schools to accommodate all fall enrollments in 2001 and future years.
Potable Water: The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority's (FKAA) approved and
permitted water supply proved adequate to meet the needs of Florida Keys water
consumers in 2000. However, due to peaks in water usage in 2000 experienced by the
FKAA, the South Florida Water Management District's (SFWMD) permitted withdrawals
from both the aquifer and water treatment plant were exceeded on severar days. A
modified water use permit seeking additional water withdrawals from the South Florida
Water Management District is pending.
An analysis of data shows that the residential and overall LOS standards for water
consumption, as set out in Objective 701.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan, are being met. It is anticipated that sufficient potable water will
be available under existing permits for the remainder of the year. Monroe County
allows development to continue if adequate potable water supply, treatment and
distribution are available to support the development at these adopted level of service
standards. However, due to the peaks in water usage observed by the FKAA, and the
constraints of the FKAA permits for both water treatment plant capacity and
withdrawals from the" Biscayne Aquifer, potable water is considered marginally adequate
until such a time as the FKAA permits are renewed at higher levels.
Roads: The adopted level of service (LOS) standard for US-l is LOS C. Based on
the findings of the 2001 US-l Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County,
as prepared by URS Greiner Consultants, the overall 2001 level of service for US-l is
LOS C. The table on the next page shows the available capacity of US-l by segment.
County regulations allow development activities to continue in "areas of inadequate
facility capacity" provided traffic speeds do not fall below the standard by more than
five percent. At this time, Big Pine Key has no reserve capacity. Thus pursuant to
Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development Regulations, a moratorium on new
development will be maintained until the level of service is improved.
-2-
MoNROECouNTY DEPAirrMENrOF PlANNING AND ElMRcwMENTAL RBJuRCES
There are five roadway segments with a "marginally adequate" level of service, but
all have adequate reserve capacity. Development activities in these areas will be
closely monitored to minimize the possibility for further degradation in the level of
service.
County roads are subject to a lower standard (LOS D) than US-l. Based on the
analysis found in the Technical Document of the Monroe County Year 2001
Comprehensive Plan, all County roads are operating at or above LOS D.
Overall, most public facilities continue to be adequate; however demands on these
facilities continue to grow. The Growth Management Division is committed to
monitoring changes in public facility demand and responding to changes in consumption
patterns. The ability to coordinate with public facility providers and other municipalities
in the Keys will become more and more critical as we strive to maintain the quality of
life we all enjoy.
Highway Capacity on US1 by Segment
# Segment Mile 2001 2001 Status
Marker LOS
Ranoe
1 Stock Island 05-Aor B Adeauate
2 Boca Chica 09-May A Adeouate
3 BiQ Coppitt 9-10.5 B Adeauate
4 Saddlebunch 10.5-16.5 B Adeouate
5 Sucartoaf 16.5-20.5 C Marainal
6 Cudioe 20.5-23 A Adequate
7 Summertand 23-2. B Adeauate
8 Ramrod 25-27.5 A Adeauate
9 Torch 27.5-29.5 A Adeauate
10 Bic Pine 29.5-33 E Inadequate
t1 Bahia Honda 33-40 A Adeouate
12 7 -Mile BridQe 40-47 A Adeouate
13 Marathon 47-54 A Adeauate
14 Grassy Key ~0.5 C Marainal
15 Duck Key 60.5-63 B Adequate
16 LonQ Key 63-73 B Adequate
17 L. Matecumbe 73-77.5 C Marainal
18 Tea Table 77.5-79.5 D Marginal
19 U. Matecumbe 79.5-84 C Marainal
20 Windley 84-86 B Adeauate
21 Plantation 86-91.5 B Adequate
22 Tavernier 91.5-99.5 A Adequate
23 Larao 99.5-106 A Adeouate
24 Cross 106-112.5 C Marainal
-3-
MoNROECOJN7Y DEPAfm.fENTCF PlANNING AND ENvIRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
INTRODUCTION
About This Report
This report is the annual assessment of public facilities capacity mandated by
Section 9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations (hereafter
referred to as lithe Code"). The State of Florida requires all local jurisdictions to adopt
regulations ensuring "concurrency". Concurrency means "that the necessary public
facilities and services to maintain the adopted level of service standards are available
when the impacts of development occur" (Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida Administrative
Code). In other words, local governments must establish regulations to ensure that
public facilities and services which are needed to support development are available
concurrent with the impacts of development. In Monroe County, these regulations are
contained within Section 9.5-292 of the Code.
Section 9.5-292, titled Adequate facilities and development review procedures,
contains two main sets of requirements: the minimum service standards for the four
primary public facilities (roads, solid waste, potable water, schools), and an annual
assessment process to determine the available capacity of these public facilities. In
addition, Section 9.5-292 includes an equitable procedure for issuing permits when the
rate of growth is likely to outpace the current capacity of these public facilities.
Section 9.5-292 also requires the Director of Planning to prepare an annual report to
the Board of County Commissioners on the capacity of available public facilities. This
report must determine the potential amount of residential and nonresidential growth
expected in the upcoming year, and make an assessment of how well the roads, solid
waste facilities, water supply, and schools will accommodate that growth. The report
has a one-year planning horizon, or only considers potential growth and public facility
capacity for the next twelve months. In addition, the report must identify areas of
unincorporated Monroe County with only marginal and/or inadequate capacity for some
or all public facilities..
In the event that some or all public facilities have fallen or are projected to fall
below the level of service (LOS) standards required by the Code, development activities
must conform to special procedures to ensure that the public facilities are not further
burdened. The Code clearly states that building permits shall not be issued unless the
proposed use is or will be served by adequate public or private facilities.
Board Action Required
Section 9.5-292(b)(4) requires the County Commission to consider this report and
approve its findings either with or without modifications. The County Commission
cannot act to increase development capacity beyond that demonstrated in this report
-4-
MoNRCECOiJNTy DER4RTMENrOFPlANNINt; ANDENvlRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
without making specific findings of fact as to the reasons for the increase, and
identifying the source of funds to be used to pay for the additional capacity.
Once approved by the County -Commission, this document becomes the offidal assessment of
public facilities upon which development approvals will be based for the next year
Public Facility Standards
Section 9.5-292(a) of the Code pertains to the minimum standards for public
facilities. It states, "After February 28,,1988, all development or land shall be served by
adequate public facilities in accordance-with thetollowing standards:"
(1) Roads:
a. County Road 905 within three (3) miles of a parcel proposed for development
shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of service 0 as measured
on an annual average daily traffic (AAOT) basis at all intersection and/or roadway
segments. US-1 shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of
service C on an overall basis as measured by the US-1 Level of Service Task Force
Methodology. In addition, the segment or segments of US-1, as identified in the
US-1 Level of Service Task Force Methodology, which would be directly impacted by
a proposed development's access to US-1, shall have sufficient available capacity to
operate at level of service C as measured by the US-1 Level of Service Task Force
Methodology.
b. All secondary roads where traffic is entering or leaving a development or will
have direct access shall have sufficient available capacity to operate at level of
service 0 as measured on an annual average daily traffic (AAOT) basis.
c. In areas which are served by inadequate transportation facilities on US-1,
development may be approved provided that the development in combination with
all other development will not decrease travel speeds by more than five (5) percent
below level of service C, as measured by the US-1 Level of Service Task Force
Methodology.
(2) Solid Waste:
Sufficient capacity shall be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate
all existing and approved development for a period of at least three (3) years from
the projected date of completion of the proposed development or use. The Monroe
County Solid Waste and Resource Recovery Authority may enter into agreements,
including agreements under section 163.01, Florida Statutes, to dispose of solid
waste outside Monroe County.
(3) Potable Water:
Sufficient potable water from an approved and permitted source shall be available
-5-
MoNRCECOUNTY lJB:wm.tENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsouRcEs
to satisfy the projected water needs of a proposed development, or use. Approved
and permitted sources shall include cisterns, wells, FKAA distribution systems,
individual water condensation systems, and any other system which complies with
the Florida standards for potable water.
(4) Schools:
Adequate school classroom capacity shall be available to accommodate all school
age children to be generated by a proposed development or use.
These are the four primary public facilities which must be monitored for adequate
capacity according to the Code. The available capacity for each of these facilities may
be either sufficient to accommodate projected growth over the next year, marginally
adequate, or inadequate. In situations where public facilities serving an area are
projected to be only marginally adequate or inadequate over the next year, the Code
sets out a review procedure to be followed when issuing development permits in that
area.
The Code states that "the county shall not approve applications for development in
areas of the county which are served by inadequate facilities identified in the annual
adequate facilities (Public Facility Capacity Assessment) report, except the county may
approve development that will have no reduction in the capacity of the facility or where
the developer agrees to increase the level of service of the facility to the adopted level
of service standard." The Code goes on to state that "in areas of marginal facility
capacity as identified in the current annual adequate facilities report, the county shall
either deny the application or condition the approval so that the level of service
standard is not violated." The determination of an additional development's impact on
existing public facilities in areas with marginal or inadequate capacity is determined by
a "facilities impact report" which must be submitted with a development application.
Service Areas
Section 9.5-292(b)(2) of the Code divides unincorporated Monroe County into three
service areas for the purposes of assessing potential growth and how public facilities
can accommodate that growth. The boundaries mentioned in the Code have been
revised to account for recent incorporations. The map below shows the three service
areas of the Keys as they are currently recognized.
The Upper Keys service area includes all Unincorporated Monroe County north of the
Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Middle Keys includes the area of Unincorporated Monroe
County between the Seven Mile Bridge and the Tavernier Creek Bridge. The Lower
Keys is Unincorporated Monroe County south of the Seven Mile Bridge.
-6-
MoN~COiJNTy DEPAfm.tENrOFPtANNING-AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsouRCES
Figure I-Map of the Service Areas
'.
't
The Middle Keys
MM 91-47
The Upper Keys
MM 112-91
~ ~ v"-
~~ cP\ .,' ~,'
r.,~ ' ~ ~
J - 0 ....,...
. .. " I..
,1,.1 · .
" ... ...
)
I
I
....
... ".
.a,
.Il.
..
The Lower Keys
MM 47-4
. .
. .
.... :: .
Unfortunately, the data available on population, permitting, and public facilities does
not always conform to the above boundaries for the Upper, Middle, and Lower Keys.
Additionally, due to the recent incorporation's of Islamorada and Marathon (which are
excluded from this assessment where specified) the boundaries identified in Section
9.5-292(b) are no longer valid for unincorporated Monroe County. This report makes
use of the best available data, aggregated as closely to the boundaries shown in Figure
1 as possible.
-7-
MoNRCECDiNTY DEPAlnMENTOF PlANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL REsouRCES
Previous Board Action
Due to the unavailability of any reserve capacity for traffic on uS~ 1 on Big 'Pine Key,
the County was required to impose a moratorium in 1995 on any new development on
Big Pine Key. In December 1997, as a result of a change in the methodology used to
determine level of service, the moratorium on Big Pine Key was lifted. However, the
results of the 1999 Travel Time and Delay Study indicated that the segment of US-1
through Big Pine Key once again fell below the adopted LOS standard. Due in part to
the re-timing of the intersection of US-1 and Key Deer Boulevard, the level of service on
the Big Pine segment of US-1 improved in 2000, but decreased in 2001. However, the
level of service still remains below the adopted standard. Since Big Pine Key does not
have any reserve capacity for traffic, the moratorium must continue. Commercial
development in the Lower Keys is evaluated to determine if it will result in additional
trips on the Pig Pine Key segment. If any additional trips are projected on Big Pine Key,
the proposed development will be denied.
The rationale for a moratorium is from Section 9.5-292(b) of the Land Development
Regulations, which states, "...the County shall not approve applications for development
in areas of the County which are served by inadequate facilities as identified in the
annual adequate facilities report."
The Planning and Environmental Resources Department is now engaged in a master
planning process with the citizens of Big Pine Key to identify pOSSible solutions to the
traffic problems in the community. The Livable CommuniKeys Program is directed at
finding ways of improving the level of service on US-1 so that the building moratorium
may be lifted. '
Areas of Critical County Concern
At the County Commission's discretion, areas with marginally adequate facilities may
be designated as Are?Js of Critical County Concern (ACCC), pursuant to Sections 9.5-473
and 9.5-473.1 of the Code. The rationale behind this designation is to assure that
development in ACCC areas does not impact existing public facilities to the extent that
development must be halted in the area.
Should the Board initiate the ACCC designation process, the Development Review
Committee and Planning Commission must review the proposed designation. Section
9.5-473(c) requires the designation to include "Specific findings regarding the purpose
of the designation, the time schedule for the planning effort to be implemented,
identification of the sources of funding for the planning and potential implementing
mechanisms, delineation of a work program, a schedule for the work program and the
appointment of an advisory committee, if appropriate."
-8-
MONROECDtJN1YPlANNlNG AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
GROWTH ANALYSIS
This section of the report examines the growth of Monroe County over the last year.
. - . .
This analysis considers the changes in population, the number of residential building
permits issued, and the amount of nonresidential floor area permittable. Growth trends
will be examined for both the unincorporated as well as the incorporated portions of the
County.
Population Composition
There are three different measurements of population in Monroe County: the
Functional population, the Permanent population, and the Seasonal population. The
capacity of most public facilities is designed based on potential peak demand. To help
assess peak demand, the permanent and seasonal populations are often combined to
give a "functional" population, or the maximum population demanding services.
The projected permanent population is based on a methodology created by The
Division of Planning and Environmental Resources, and is based on 1990 Census data.
Permanent population figures received from the preliminary 2000 Census data reflect a
discrepancy in the estimates. When complete 2000 Census data is received in late
2001, the methodology for population projection will be revised.
Projected Permanent residents spend most or all of the year in the County, while the
seasonal population includes seasonal residents and the tourist population. The
seasonal population includes the number of seasonal residents, the number of people
staying in hotels, motels, vacation rentals, campsites, recreational vehicles, live aboard
vessels, and those staying with friends and relatives.
It is important to remember that permanent population figures are for the entire
calendar year, while the seasonal population figures used here is the number of
seasonal residents and visitors in the Keys on any given evening. Seasonal population
figures are not the total number of seasonal residents or visitors in the county over the
calendar year, but the estimated number who stay on any given night.
The Tourist Development Council indicate that Monroe County hosts around three
million visitors a year, however not of all these people are in the Keys on the same
evening. Peak seasonal population figures represent the number of people who could
stay on any given evening based upon peak occupancy rates, and therefore represent
the peak demand which could be placed on public facilities from seasonal visitors on
any given evening.
When the peak seasonal population figures are combined with the permanent
resident population, the result is the functional population. Actual 2000 Census data
for the permanent population indicates a trend towards a higher seasonal percentage of
the functional population.
-9-
MONROE COUNTY PlANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
PAEDs
PAEDs, or Planning Area Enumeration Districts, are the basic unit of geographical
analysis used by the Planning and Environmental Resources Department. The PAEDs
are a combination of the "planning areas" utilized by the Planning Department in the
early 1980s and the US Census Bureau's "enumeration districts". These two levels of
analysis were combined in 1987 for ease of use. Since most PAEDs follow island
boundaries, they can be aggregated to match most service districts for public facilities.
There are a total of twenty-two (22) PAEDs in Unincorporated Monroe County. The
City of Key West (including northern Stock Island) is not contained within any PAED
boundaries. The City of Key Colony Beach is contained within the geographic area of
PAED 8, but is not induded with the PAED population figures. The new City of Marathon
encompasses PAEDs 7, 8, & 9, and its population is contained within unincorporated
Monroe County until 2000. The City of Layton falls within PAED 11, but its population is
disaggregated from Unincorporated Monroe County. The Village of Islamorada occupies
PAEDs 12A, 12B, 13, & 14, and has its own population figures starting in 1998. PAEDs
19 and 20 are the last PAEDs before the "bend" in US-l, and have been grouped
together in this report because of data constraints. The dividing line between PAEDs is
the center of US-l.
FIGURE 2: PAED Map
.A. .
PAEO 17
PAED 1S
.PAEO 15
PAEO 14
PAED 9
I !to '-
PA E D 10
.JII" '" .
'"
. -
...
I
PAED 1
Source: Monroe County Growth Management-GIS
-10-
MONROE COUN7Y PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
As mentioned earlier, Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations (LDRs)
divides Monroe County into three service areas. The Upper Keys service area includes
PAEDs 126 through 22, or the area from Mile Marker 83.5 to 112, the Middle Keys
includes PAEDs 7 through 13 (Mile Marker 47.5 to 83.4), and the Lower Keys service
area is composed of PAEDs 1 through 6 from Mile Marker 4 to 47.4.
The chart below shows the indiyidual PAEDs by their mile marker ranges, and also
shows the islands included within a'particular PAED's boundary.
Figure 3-PAED/Mile Marker Chart
PAED Islands Approx. Mile
Marker Range
1 Stock Island 4-6
2 Boca Chica, East Rockland, Big Coppitt, Geiger, Shark 7-12.4
3 Saddlebunch Keys, Lower Sugarloaf, Upper Sugarloaf 12.5-20.5
4a Cudjoe, Summerland, Ramrod, Big-Middle-Little Torch 20.6-29
4b No Name Key N/A
5 Big Pine Key 29.5-33
6 W. Summerland, Spanish Harbor, Bahia Honda, Ohio, Missouri, Little 34.5-46
Duck, Pigeon Key
7 Knight, Hog, Vaca, Boot, Stirrup (Marathon) 47.5-53.2
8 Fat Deer, Little Crawl, Crawl #5, (Marathon) & (Key Colony Beach) 53.3-56.4
9 Grassy Key (Marathon) 56.5-60
10 Duck Key, Little Conch Key, Conch Key 61-64
11 Long Key, Fiesta Key, (Layton) 65-71
12a Craig Key, Lower Matecumbe (Islamorada) 72-78
12b Windley Key (Islamorada) 83.5-85.5
13 Teatable Key, Upper Matecumbe (Islamorada) 79-83.4
14 Plantation Key (Islamorada) 85.6-91
15 Key Largo (Tavernier area) 91.1-94.5
16 Key Largo 94.6-98
17 Key Largo (Rock Harbor) 98.1-100.6
18 Key Largo 100.7-103.5
19-20 Key Largo 103.6-107.5
21 Key Largo (North Key Largo, Ocean Reef, Card Sound area) N/A
22 Cross Key (18 Mile Stretch area) 107.6-112
-11-
MONROEaJUNTYPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
2000 Census Population
A Census Designated Place (COP) is a statistical entity, defined for each decennial"
census according to Census Bureau guidelines, comprising a densely settled ::'
concentration of population. A COP is not within an incorporated place, but is locally
identified by a name. COPs are delineated cooperatively by state and local officials and
the Census Bureau, following Census Bureau guidelines. Beginning with Census 2000
there are no size limits to COP's. The map on the following page show Monroe County
COP's and the population reported in the 2000 Census. This is the only detailed 2000
Census population data for Monroe County that was released.
Functional Population
The functional population is the sum of the number of permanent residents and the
peak seasonal population. Figure 4 shows the functional population for all of Monroe
County (including the incorporated areas), excluding Mainland Monroe County and the
population in the Dry Tortugas. The functional population of Monroe County is expected
to grow by more than 16,000 people from 1990 to 2015. This represents an increase of
almost eleven percent (110/0) over the twenty-five year period.
Figure 4- Projected Functional Population of Monroe County
Year County-Wide Numerical Percentage
Functional Change Change
Population
1990 149,348 * *
1995 154,255 4,907 3.18%
2000 159,113 4,857 3.05%
2005 162,041 2,929 1.81%
2010 164,769 2,727 1.66%
2015 165,366 597 0.36%
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2001
-12-
j
~ J
~ j
I !
~ f
~ ;
! s
& '0
~
~
~
~
~
a.
IQ
:E
I
in
!
::s
l
m
~
mo
1:0
Q)O
ON
~ ~
mii:"
1:0
00
;.........
..!m
~ Q)
C.U
o IQ
n.ii:
~"C
- Q)
1:_
~ IQ
o I:
O.~
Q) m
o Q)
"'0
I:
o
:e
,',:: j,o. ,/ I
tIJ
z+~
~
<l
'5~
l!l.l5~
IV E .
5.!l!'"
!IJ
'" ... '" ... .. oo .. oo .. '" .. 0 r-
.. ... .. . . oo oo r- oo '" . .... ...
'" 0 .. . oo r- oo . .... ... 0 . ....
... '" .... .. .... '" 0 .... . ...
.... ... ....
..
'C
C
..
....
..
....
..
0
8
..
~ .c
>- ~ CJ g
II .... ..
: ~ > II ...
'" ..
.. '"
" " >- >- ~
g, ~ >- 'C g g,
~ " .. "
'" C II ... ~ ... .. "
0 .... ~ " 0 0 .. ~ c
U 0. 0 E U '" S 0 ;; ...
.~ .~ :a ... ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ CJ
CJ ... 0
" " .. 0 "
.. '" u " .... " " " '" " '"
o
o
o
N
--
Vl
a.
o
~
Vl
"0
C
.!l!
.!!!
Vl ....
Q) 0
u Q).c
nl Clu
A.:>. .!l!nl 0
Q) =Q) Cl
"O~:>. >lD 16
$::Q):>' cO:>' ...J-g
~"-~ Q):>."O C 0_ C:>.nl....
Cl2:Q)~ Q) nlS! ~~ 03Cii"~
"iii8 C Q)~ 00 nl> c.c"- C
Q) a::"~~ EO...J> oCij.c't3lil
o Cl Cl"O U nl :>. :>. :>. >. 16 1:: 0 >
Vl"-.-.:::1:J'iii Q) Q) Q) nl""" 0_ nl
:JlDlDOO_~~~...J"""zc/)f-
Vl rIU1~~@lI"lSJm~lllJIIImll
~19~~~!ti8~~ lIIIJ~18
.c
~
_10
~ >-81
""~....
<)8 Vl ~
>- Q)
.i ~ ";1
co
C")
0
C")
c:!i
co
.....
N
.....
co
0
co
'58111
.2;-:6N,.
.- ;0
<):;-
>-
"
~~
.~ .
"0-
:>
t)
o~~
>-~ ..
5 ~:i
:.:
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 6 shows the trend in Functional Population Changes from 1990 to 2015.
Figure 6- Trend in Functional Population Changes
170,000
c: 165,000
.Q
iii
~ 160,000
o
, a..
i m
g 155,000
'B
c:
:::J
U. 150,000
145.000
~ i N .., ~ '" ~ .... GO ~ 0 8 N .., ... '" 8 .... GO '" 0 N .., ... '"
~ '" ~ 8l 8l 0 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 (; (; ~ (; (; (;
~ 0
- - - N N N N N N N N N N N N N N N
: - Trend in Population Changes i
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2001
However, the numerical and percent change columns show that the rate of
increase is expected to slow dramatically over the same time period (see Figure 7).
Figure 7-Functional Population Rate of Increase
Functional Population
1 3.00%-
(!) 2.50% ~
.~ 2.00%
~ 1.50%
g. 1.00%
~ 0.50%
.~ 0.00%
lii -0.50% ~
B -1.00%
~ g m ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ m
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
8 0 ~ 8 ~ ~ 8 ~ ~
o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
N N N N N N N N N
~ 0
g (;
N N
.... N (') 'o:t If)
c; C; C; 0 C;
N N N N N
I--+- Functional Population !
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2001
Figure 8 shows the breakdown in functional population by the three service areas.
Regionally, the Upper Keys accounted for the largest portion of the 1990
unincorporated functional population (42,171 people, or 40.90/0 of the total). This is
followed by the Middle Keys, which comprised 29.60/0 (30,443 people) of the total 1990
functional population; and finally, the Lower Keys, which contained 30,387 people, or
29.50/0 of the unincorporated functional population. For the year 2001, Upper Keys still
-14-
MONROECOUNTY PlANNING AND ENVlRONMBVTAL RESOURCES
has the largest unincorporated functional population (36,744, or 490/0 of the total),
followed by the Lower Keys (33,618, or 45% of the total). The unincorporated
Functional Population of the Middle Keys decreases dramatically to only 4,026 people or
5.410/0. This sharp decrease in Middle Keys numbers is due to the incorporation of the
City of Marathon.
Figure S-Projected Functional Population by Service Area 1990-2015
Service Area 1990 2001 2015
Functional %of Functional %of Functional %of
Population Unincorp. Population Unincorp. Population Unincorp.
Total Total Total
Upper Keys 42,171 40.90% 36,744 49.40% 38,362 48.70%
Middle Keys 30,443 29.60% 4,026. 5.41% 4,206 5.30%
Lower Keys 30,387 29.50% 33,618 45.19% 36,263 46.00%
Unincorporated 103,000 100.00% 74,387 100.00% 78,831 100.00%
Subtotal
Incorporated Areas 46,348 85,453 86,535
County Total 149,348 159,840 165,366
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2001
The incorporations of Islamorada accounts for the drop in unincorporated functional
population in the Upper Keys service areas by 2001. The functional population in the
Middle Keys service area is expected to decline more than eighty-seven percent (870/0),
while the Upper Keys service area lost thirteen percent (130/0) of its functional
population as a result of these incorporations. The Lower Keys service area is expected
to grow almost 8.5% from 1990 to 2001.
By the year 2015, the Upper Keys, with a functional population of 38,362 people, is
expected to contain 48.7% of the unincorporated functional population. The Lower
Keys are projected to have a functional population of 36,263 people in 2015, or 46% of
the unincorporated total, while the Middle Keys will be reduced to 4,206 people, or
5.30/0 of the unincorporated county total.
Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population
The total permanent resident population in Monroe County was projected to grow
from 78,855 people in 1990 to a potential 86,117 people by the end of 2001 and
90,654 people by 2015, an increase of fifteen percent (15%) over the twenty-five year
period. The projected permanent resident population as a percentage of the functional
population fluctuates between 44% to 45.5% from 2001 to 2015. The years 1991 and
1993 were the only years in which the county-wide permanent resident growth rate
exceeded one percent (10/0) per year.
-15-
MONROE COUNTY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURces
Figure 9;' Projected Permanent and Seasonal Population 1990~201S
1990 1995 2000 2001 2005 2010 2015
Seasonal Population 70,493 71,266 73,491 73,723 73,737 74,533 74,712
78,855 82,990 85,622 86,117 88,305 90,236 90,654
Permanent Population
Functional Population 149,348 154,255 159,113 159,840 162,041 164,769 165,366
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2001
The peak seasonal population in Monroe County was projected to grow from 70,493
people in 1990 to 73,723 people by the end of 2001 and a potential 74,712 people by
2015, an increase of six percent (60/0) over the twenty-five year period. The peak
seasonal population as a percentage of the functional population fluctuates between
45.20/0 and 47.20/0 over the period. The county-wide peak seasonal population growth
rate exceeded four percent (40/0) in 1993. Growth rates fluctuated between -1.70/0 and
1.90/0 for the remainder of the years under study, and are expected to steadily decline
after the year 2003.
The incorporations of Islamorada and Marathon have created substantial reductions
In both permanent and seasonal population for the Upper and Middle Keys service
areas. As mentioned in a previous section, the Upper Keys service area lost 130/0 of its
functional population (permanent population + seasonal population), and the Middle
Keys service area is expected to lose 870/0 of its functional population as a result of
these incorporations.
The functional population in the Upper Keys service area is expected to increase
from 36,615 to 36,744 (0.350/0) from 2000 to 2001. This projected increase results
from the addition of 84 permanent residents and 44 in the seasonal population.
The functional population in the Lower Keys service area is expected to increase
from 33,410 to 33,618 (0.620/0) from 2000 to 2001. This projected increase results
from the addition of 155 permanent residents and 53 in the seasonal population.
Number of Residential Permits
The second major component of the Growth Analysis Section is the number of
residential p~rmits issued. The majority of the new residential permits issued are for
permanent residential use. However, some of the permits issued for permanent
dwellings are used by the seasonal population.
One issue to remember when considering growth based upon building permits is the
time lapse which occurs between when a permit for a new residence is issued, and
when that residence is ultimately occupied. The knowledge that the Rate of Growth
-16-
/t1atIRcE Ck:JuNry DEPARTMENT OF PlANNING AND EfMRa./MENTAL REsouRCES
Ordinance . (ROGO) was about to be adopted in the early 1990s caused many property
owners to obtain. building permits prior to when they were prepared to construct their
dwellings. . As a. result, there are many dwellings in the Keys which have permits, but
are not. yet fully; constructed or are only partially complete. Based upon this time.lapse,
the number of residential permits issued overstates the actual number of n~w
residential dwellings which currently require public facilities.
The number of dwelling units (permanent and seasonal) which can be permitted in
Monroe County has been controlled by ROGO (Rate of Growth Ordinance) since July of
1992. ROGO was developed as a response to the inability of the road network to
accommodate a large-scale hurricane evacuation in a timely fashion. A series of
complex models developed during the first evacuation study identified an approximate
number of additional dwelling units which could be permitted and which would not have
a detrimental effect on the amount of time needed to evacuate the Keys. The ROGO
system was developed as a tool to equitably distribute the remaining number of permits
available both geographically and over time.
The ROGO system distributes a set number of allocations for new residential permits
on a yearly basis from July 14 of one year to July 13th of the following year. Year 9 of
the system started on July 14, 2000. The current ROGO program will expire on July 13,
2002. Each service area of unincorporated Monroe County and several of the
incorporated areas receive a set number of allocations for new residential permits which
can be issued during that particular ROGO year. The number of allocations available to
a particular area was based upon the supply of vacant buildable lots located in that area
prior to the start of the ROGO system. The Ocean Reef area of north Key Largo is
exempted from the ROGO system due to its proximity to Card Sound Road, an alternate
evacuation route.
The ROGO system allowed 255 allocations for new residential units in
unincorporated Monroe County each year for the first six years of the ROGO system.
The number of allocations available was reduced by the State of Florida Administration
Commission during' Year 7 of ROGO based upon a lack of progress on the
implementation of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Available allocations were
reduced by twenty percent (20%), taking the available figure from 255 to 204 new
residential units.
The number of available allocations in unincorporated Monroe County was further
reduced by the incorporation of Islamorada, which now receives 22 residential
allocations per year. The incorporation of Islamorada reduced the number of available
allocations in unincorporated Monroe County from 204 to 182. This number was further
reduced by the incorporation of Marathon, which received a total of 24 new residential
allocations. The incorporation of Marathon reduces the number of available new
residential allocations in unincorporated Monroe County from 182 to 158.
-17-
MoNROEcaJNry DEPAR7MENTa:: PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL RESOuRCES
In unincorporated Monroe County, the ROGO system will now allocate 57 units to
the Upper Keys selVice area, 9 units to the Middle Keys selVice area, and 92 units to
the Lower Keys, for an annual total of 158 additional residential units each ROGO year.
Twenty percent of these units in each subarea are set aside for affordable housing.
Figure 15 presents the number of residential permits issued by subarea in
unincorporated Monroe County during the 2000 calendar year. The data presented in
the table does not include permits issued in Key West, Key Colony Beach, Layton, or
Islamorada. Also, the boundaries between the Upper and Middle Keys selVice areas,
and the boundaries used for this data are slightly different. The chart below compares
the boundaries. Basically, the selVice areas from the Code breaks at Whale Harbor
Channel, and does not include Upper and Lower Matecumbe in the Upper Keys, while
the permitting records break at Channel Five and do include Upper and Lower
Matecumbe in the Upper Keys. Figure 16 explains these differences.
Figure IO-Boundary Comparison Table
SERVICE AREAS PERMIT OFFICE
AREA PAEDs Mile PAEDs Mile
Included Marker Included Marker
Range Range
Upper Keys 12B-22 83.5-112 12A-22 71-112
Middle Keys 7-13 47.5- 83.4 7-11 47.5-70.9
Lower Keys 1-6 4-47.4 1-6 4-47.4
Figure 16 shows the breakdown of new residential permits issued for unincorporated
Monroe County through the 1990s. According to Building Department records, 4,314
residential permits were issued from 1990 to 2000, with 680/0 (3,412) being issued to
single family residences. Only 160/0 of the new residential permits were issued to
duplex, multifamily, or mobile home projects. Almost 490/0 (2,139) of all the residential
permits issued in the 1990s were issued from 1990 to 1992 as applicants were
attempting to obtain permits prior to ROGO. A total of 215 residential permits were
issued in unincorporated Monroe County in 2000, a decrease of 350/0 from 1999. There
were more new residential permits issued in 1999 than any previous year back to 1992.
-lEt
MGNROECOUNTY DEPAJm4ENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
I Single I Duplex I Multi- Mobile IHotellM I TOTAL
Family Family I Home/RV otel
1990 Upper Keys 310 2 10 35 32 389
Middle Keys 68 8 4 0 0 80
Lower Keys 300 0 0 1 0 301
Subtotal 678 10 14 36 32 770
1991 Upper Keys 283 2 119 28 117 549
Middle Keys 75 6 0 6 27 114
Lower Keys 176 0 0 2 0 178
Subtotal 534 8 119 36 144 841
1992 Upper Keys 190 38 0 6 23 257
Middle Keys 67 0 0 1 0 68
Lower Keys 189 0 14 0 0 203
Subtotal 446 38 14 7 23 528
1993 Upper Keys 104 0 0 5 0 109
Middle Keys 55 2 0 1 0 58
Lower Keys 80 0 0 1 0 81
Subtotal 239 2 0 7 0 248
1994 Upper Keys 109 0 0 3 0 112
Middle Keys 94 0 0 0 0 94
Lower Keys 36 0 0 1 0 37
Subtotal 239 0 0 4 0 243
1995 Upper Keys 131 2 0 4 0 137
Middle Keys 27 2 2 1 5 37
Lower Keys 144 0 0 0 0 .144
Subtotal 302 4 2 5 5 318
1996 Upper Keys 114 0 3 3 0 120
Middle Keys 40 0 15 0 0 55
Lower Keys 83 0 0 6 0 89
Subtotal 237 0 18 9 0 264
1997 Upper Keys 89 0 12 0 0 101
Middle Keys 27 4 0 0 77 108
Lower Key~ 73 0 0 0 0 73
Subtotal 189 4 12 0 77 282
1998 Upper Keys 78 0 0 3 0 81
Middle Keys 13 0 0 0 110 123
Lower Keys 66 0 0 0 0 66
Subtotal 157 0 0 3 110 270
1999 Upper Keys 138 0 0 2 0 140
Middle Keys 20 0 0 24 63 107
Lower Keys 87 0 0 0 1 88
Subtotal 245 0 0 26 64 335
2000 Upper Keys 67 0 35 0 0 102
Middle Keys 4 0 0 0 34 38
Lower Keys 75 0 0 0 0 75
Subtotal 146 0 35 0 34 215
TOTALS I 3,412 I 66 I 214 133 I 489 I 4,314
Figure II-New and Replacement Residential and Seasonal Units
Permitted by Year for Unincorporated Monroe County
-19-
MoNRCECOUNrY DEPAKTMENTOF PlANNING AND E/MRONMENTAL REsouRCES
Figures 12 and 13 show the distribution of new residential permits issued in
unincorporated Monroe County during 1999 and 2000.
Figure 12- Comparison of
Residential Permits by Service
Area 1999-2000
Figure 13- Comparison of
Residential Permit Types
1999-2000
1999
1999
Lower
Keys
26%
I-btellMotel
(vested or
ROOD
exelTJl.ll.
19%
Mllli-Farrily
0%
Upper
Keys
42%
Replace-
ITllnl Mobile
I-brrelRV
8%
Single
Farrily
73%
Duplex
0%
Middle
Keys
32%
2000
2000
Lower
Keys
35%
Upper
Keys
47%
HoteVMotel
(vested or
ROGO
exempt)
Replace- 16%
ment Mobile
HomeIRV
0%
Multi-Famil
16%
Single
Family
68%
Middle
Keys
18%
Duplex
0%
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2001
Figure 12 shows an increase in the total number of permits issued in the Upper and
Lower Keys service areas relative to the number issued in the Middle Keys in 1999 and
2000. In addition, there were 120 fewer new residential permits issued in 2000 than
1999.
-20-
MoNROECOUNTY DEPARTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRaVMENTAL REsouRCES
Figure 13 shows the composition of new residential permits issued in 1999 and
2000. No new duplexes were permitted in either year. Single family residentiaL permits
occupy the largest percentage in both years, with 99 fewer single family permits being
issued in 2000.
Figure 14 shows the total number of permits issued in unincorporated Monroe
County from1990 to 2000. The chart shows a swell in permitting activity prior to the
adoption of RaGa, and then declines following its adoption.
Figure 14-Comparison of Residential Permit Types 1990-2000
900
850
800
750
III 700
. == 650
E 600
; 550
Q. 500
'0 450
... 400
Q) 350
.Q 300
~ 250
z 200
150
100
50
o
, I
I C Hotel/Motel :
I
I. Mobile
. HomelRV
I
,
,. Multi-Family: :
I i I
I 'I
'I
i.Duplex j I
II
Ii
I
1990 1991
10 Single
I Family
1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 I
Figure 15 shows the breakdown in the types of residential permits issued over the
19905.
Figure 15- Types of Permits
Hotel!
Motel
11%
M.lIti-
Farrily
5%
D.Jplex I, Single
2% '- Farrily
79%
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2001
-21-
MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OFPLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Non-Residential Square Footage
Nonresidential permitting also plays a role in growth analysis. Nonresidential
permits include everything that is not residential, like: industrial, commercial, nonprofit
& public buildings, and replacement or remodeling of existing nonresidential structures.
Also included are vested and ROGO exempt hotels, motels, campgrounds, marinas and
other commercial facilities.
With very little industrial and agricultural activity in the Keys, the predominant form
of nonresidential development is commercial. In Monroe County, there are two primary
types of commercial development: retail trade and services (which includes tourism-
related development such as marinas and restaurants). Therefore, the impacts of
nonresidential development on public facilities varies significantly based on the type of
commercial use. -
Nonresidential and residential development tend to fuel one another. Residential
populations provide markets for nonresidential activities. Nonresidential development,
in turn, helps to drive population growth by providing services and employment.
Certain types of nonresidential development also concentrate the demand for public
facilities within certain locations and during peak periods.
The Monroe County Building Department tracks the number of nonresidential
permits by subdistrict in unincorporated Monroe County. In addition to the number of
permits, the Building Department tracks the amount of square footage affected in each
nonresidential building permit issued.
Figure 16 shows the trends in nonresidential permitting from 1990 to 2000. The
subdistricts shown in the chart do not directly correspond to the service areas
mandated in section of 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations. Refer to the
boundary descriptions found in Figure 16 of this report to compare the two areas. Four
more Nonresidential biulding permits were issued in 2000 than in 1999 with 9131 fewer
square feet permitted in 2000.
The Figure 17 shows the relative amount of square footage permitted in each of the
three service areas from 1990 to 2000.
-22-
MONROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 16- New and Redevelopment Nonresidential Permits by Year
Area # of Permits Issued Floor Area (Sq. Ft.)
1990 Upper Keys 20 91,097
Middle Keys 5 14...142
Lower Keys 8 40,535
Subtotal 33 145,774
1991 Upper Keys 35 46,641
Middle Keys 20 103,293
Lower Keys 9 42,770
Subtotal 64 192,704
1992 Upper Keys 15 40,506
Middle Keys 2 7,263
Lower Keys 5 1,529
Subtotal 22 49,298
1993 Upper Keys 4 16,334
Middle Keys 4 24,812
Lower Keys 4 27,236
Subtotal 12 68,382
1994 Upper Keys 4 24.648
Middle Keys 7 31,079
Lower Keys 4 0
Subtotal 15 55,727
1995 Upper Keys 24 147,319
Middle Keys 12 109,331
Lower Keys 8 10,004
Subtotal 44 266,654
1996 Upper Keys 17 102,795
Middle Keys 6 93,334
Lower Keys 2 14,149
Subtotal 25 210,278
1997 Upper Keys 14 93,503
Middle Keys 83 8,420
. . Lower Keys 2 18,327
Subtotal 99 120,250
1998 Upper Keys 4 60,936
Middle Keys 73 16,304
Lower Keys 1 24,152
Subtotal 78 101,392
1999 Upper Keys 8 14,861
Middle Keys 68 84,715
Lower Keys 1 2,054
Subtotal 77 101,630
2000 Upper Keys 8 33,873
Middle Keys 68 75,584
Lower Keys 5 19,168
Subtotal 81 128,625
TOTALS 515 1,440,714
-23-
MONROE COUtflY PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Figure 17-Commercial Square. ..
Footage by Service Area 1990-2~~ ..
Ii
"
Lower
Keys
9%
Mddle
Keys
60%
Source: Monroe County Building Department, 2001
Figure 18 shows the trends in the amount of nonresidential permitting activity have
fluctuated throughout the 1990s. The permitting activity based on square footage
affected generally declined from 1990 through 1994 with a major jump in affected area
occurring in 1995 which resulted from the knowledge of an impending implementation
of a nonresidential permit allocation system similar to the ROGO system for residential
development.
Figure lS-Nonresidential Permits by Service Area 1990-2000
275,000
~ 250,000
ctl
g 225.000
u.
& 200,000
CJ) 175,000
]2
i: 150,000
Q)
~ 125,000
Q)
E 100,000
'0
: z 75,000
"0
:.s 50,000
,(,,)
. ~ 25,000
o
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
_ Upper Keys
I>' "IMddle Keys
c::::J Lower Keys
........ Yearly Total
-24-
MONROE COUNTY PlANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
Since residential development is constrained through the Rate of Growth Ordinance
and the Permit Allocation System, it was thought that nonresidential (commercial)
development should also be constrained in the interest of maintaining a balance of land
uses.
At the time the Comprehensive Plan was prepared in 1991, 17.6% of the land was
under residential use, while 4.6% was used for commercial development as indicated in
Table 2.1, Monroe County Existing Land Uses, in the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan Technical Document. It was determined that this balance was
appropriate given the knowledge available at the time the Comprehensive Plan was
prepared.
To assure that balance was maintained, the Comprehensive Plan proposed Policy
101.3.1, which states:
"Monroe County shall maintain a balance between residential and nonresidential
growth by limiting the gross square footage of nonresidential development over the 15
year planning horizon in order to maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of
nonresidential development for each new residential unit permitted through the Permit
Allocation
In other words, the Comprehensive Plan limits the square footage of new
commercial development which may be permitted. The commercial square footage
allocation is 239 square feet for each (1) new residential permit issued. This equates
to around 61,000 square feet of new commercial development per year throughout
unincorporated Monroe County.
Between adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan on April 15, 1993, and July 13,
2000, permits were issued for 430,300 square feet of non-residential floor space, which
was not exempted from the comprehensive plan defined non-residential permit
allocation system. . }"his amount of non-residential floor space includes permits for
development within the Village of Islamorada and City of Marathon prior to their
respective incorporations.
Of the total square feet permitted, 276,641 square feet was permitted after April 15,
1993 (adoption of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan) and prior to January 4, 1996. The
remaining 153,659 square feet was permitted after that date for projects vested from
the non-residential permit allocation system provisions of the 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Between April 14, 1993 (Third Quarter, ROGO Year 1) and July 13, 2000 (Fourth
Quarter, ROGO Year 8), 1687 allocations were awarded and permits issued for
residential development. [Note: these allocations do not include those awarded by
Islamorada and Marathon subsequent to their incorporation.] This number of
residential permits would allow a total of 403,193 square feet of non-residential floor
-25-
MONROE COUNTY PlANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
space (239 square feet per residential permit times the number of residential permits
issued under ROGO). Therefore, as of July 13, 2000, the county had permitted
approximately 27,100 square feet more non-residential floor space than could have
been available for allocation at that time under Policy 101.3.1, the non-residential
permit allocation system.
It is anticipated that for ROGO Years 9 and 10 (July 14, 2000, through July 14,
2002), 348 residential ROGO allocations will be awarded in unincorporated Monroe
County. This amount of residential permits provides for an additional 83,172 square
feet of non-residential floor area.
Combined with the 403,193 square feet authorized previously in Years 1 through 8,
the total amount of non-residential floor space that could be permitted under Policy
101.3.1 would be 486,365 square feet. Therefore, the net amount of non-residential
floor space that could be made available for allocation under a non-residential permit
allocation system through the end of July 14, 2002, would be 56,065 square feet.
(486,365 square feet allowable - 430,300 square feet previously permitted = 56,065
square feet available). The amount of square feet available for allocation was furthered
reduced by a recent Settlement Agreement, leaving a net of 44,292 square feet of
non-residential floor space that could be made available for allocation.
Summary
To summarize, this growth analysis is based upon projected changes in population
as well as residential and nonresidential permitting in unincorporated Monroe County.
There are two groups composing the population in Monroe County: the permanent
resident population, and the peak seasonal population. The sum of these two groups
gives the functional population, or the maximum number of people in the Keys on any
given evening.
The functional po.pulation of all of Monroe County is expected to grow by more than
6,000 people from 1990 to 2015, an increase of 110/0 over the period. Planning
Department projections show the rate of increase in functional population is expected
to slow after the year 2000.
The functional population of unincorporated Monroe County is expected to reach
73,969 people by 2000, a decrease of 280/0 from 1990 due to the incorporations of
Islamorada in 1997 and Marathon in 1999. The Upper Keys portion of unincorporated
Monroe County accounts for 49.50/0 of the unincorporated functional population, while
the Lower Keys portions accounts for 45.20/0 in 2000. These percentages are expected
to remain relatively constant through 2015.
-26-
MONROECOUNTY PlANN/NG.AND ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES
The permanent population of all of Monroe County, according to the 2000 Census
was reported as 79, 589 , an increase of 734 from the 1990 Census. This is 6,528 less
than the projected 2001 population. When the complete 2000 Census data is received,
new population proj~ctioris wiU- be prepared. : , -
. .,.. ~ .
, I ~ ; r J
In terms of the number of new residential permits, a total of 215 new residential
permits (including vested or ROGO exempt hotel rooms) were issued in 2000, an
increase of 350/0 from 1999.
From 1990 to 2000, 79%-'of the new residential permits (3,412) were issued to
single family residences, while only 160/0(403) were issued for new multifamily, duplex,
or mobile homes. A total of 146 permits (68%) were issued for new single family
residences in 2000.
The current rate of growth guidelines indicate that unincorporated Monroe County
has a total of 182 permits it may issue during the ROGO year (not including the
additional 90 replacement affordable housing units which were allowed by the DCA
based upon the lower enclosure removal program). After the incorporation of
Marathon, this number fell to 158 permits a year. Year 9 of ROGO came to a close on
July 13, 2001, leaving one year remaining in the current ROGO system.
If the Nonresidential Rate of Growth Ordinance is adopted as proposed, an
additional 22,000 square feet of nonresidential development may be permitted.
-27-
MoNROE COJNry DEPAmMENTOF PlANMNG AND ENvIRONMENTAL REDuRCES
TRANSPORTATION FACILITIES
This section of the report investigates the current capacity of the transportation
network in Monroe County. This analysis includes changes in traffic volumes, the level
of service on US-1, the reserve capacity of the highway and county roads, and the
Florida Department of Transportation Five Year Work Program for Monroe County.
Roads are one of the four critical public facilities identified for annual assessment in
the Land Development Regulations. In fact, roads are the only public facility with clear
and specific standards for level of service measurements identified in the Land
Development Regulations and Comprehensive Plan. The regulations require all
segments of US-1 to remain at a level of service of 'C', and all County roads to be
remain at a level of service '0'. Subsequent portions of this section will explain the level
of service measurements, and how the level of service is calculated.
Existing Roadway Facilities
Monroe County's roadway transportation system is truly unique. Nowhere else is
there a chain of islands over 100 miles long connected by 42 bridges along a single
highway. This single highway, the Overseas Highway (US-1), functions as a collector,
an arterial, and the "Main Street" for the Keys. US-1 is a lifeline for the Keys, from both
economic and public safety perspectives. Each day it carries food, supplies, and tourists
from the mainland. In the event of a hurricane, it is the only viable evacuation route to
the mainland for most of Monroe County.
US-1 in Monroe County is predominantly a two-lane road. Of its 112 total miles,
approximately 80 miles (74%) are two-lane segments that are undivided. The four-lane
sections are located on Key Largo, Tavernier (MM 90 to 106), the Marathon area (MM
48 to 54), Bahia Honda (MM 35 to 37), and from Key West to Boca Chica (MM 2 to 9).
In addition to US-1, there are 450 miles of County (secondary) roads with 38
bridges. US-1 and the County (secondary) roads have a combined total of
approximately 340 intersections in the Keys. The Monroe County Division of Public
Works is charged with maintaining and improving secondary roads which are located
within the boundaries of unincorporated Monroe County. The Florida Department of
Transportation (FOOT) is responsible for maintaining US-1.
The following figure identifies the traffic signals in operation along the US-1 corridor
(excluding those found on the island of Key West).
-28-
MoNROE COUNTY DEPARTMENTOF PlANMNG AND ENvIRoNMENTAL RE!DURCES
Figure 19-Fully-Signalized Intersections
Mile Key Street
Marker
4.4 Stock Island College Road
4.6 Stock Island Cross Street
4.8 Stock Island MacDonald Avenue
30.3 Big Pine Key Key Deer Blvd.
48.5 Marathon School Crossing
50 Marathon Sombrero Beach Blvd.
52.4 Marathon 107th Street
52.5 Marathon 1 09th Street
53 Marathon School Crossing
53.5 Fat Deer Key Key Colony Causeway
84.5 Windley Key C-905 @ Holiday Isle
90 Plantation Key Woods Avenue
90.5 Plantation Key Sunshine Road
91.5 Tavernier Ocean Boulevard
99.5 Key Largo Atlantic Boulevard
101 Key Largo Tradewinds
104 Key Largo School Crossing
Traffic Volumes
Traffic counts can be very useful in assessing the capacity of the road network, and
help determine when capacity improvements need to be made. The two primary
measurements for determining traffic volumes are the average daily traffic in an area
(referred to as an an "ADT"), and the annual average daily traffic (referred to as an
"AADT"). Average daily traffic counts are collected from both directions over seven
twenty-four hour p~riods which usually include a weekend. The amount of traffic
counted over the week is then divided by five or seven to yield the average daily traffic
for a particular location. The "5-day ADT" measurement considers only weekdays, and
the "7-day ADT" includes the weekend. The ADT information can then be used in a
formula called a "weekly factor" to estimate the annual average daily traffic, which is an
estimate of the average amount of traffic at a particular location on any given day of
the year.
In Monroe County, traffic counts have been conducted in the same locations since
1992. These counts occur at Mile Marker 84 on Upper Matecumbe, Mile Marker 50 in
Marathon, and at Mile Marker 30 on Big Pine Key. The counts are usually performed
during the six-week peak tourist season which begins in the second week of February.
This year's counts were completed between March 27 and April 2, 2001. Figure 20
compares the traffic counts for 2000 with those for 2001.
-29-
MoNROEcaJlflY DEPARTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENviRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
Figure 20- Traffic Counts for 2000 and 2001
Big Pine Key (MM 30)
Marathon (MM 50)
2000 2001 %
Change
5-Day ADT 26,846 23,403 -14.71%
7 -Day ADT 26,070 22,648 -15.11%
AADT 21,774 19,991 -8.92%
2000 2001 %
Change
5-Day ADT 36,431 33,777 -7.86%
7 -Day ADT 34,742 32,106 -8.21%
AADT 29,017 28,340 -2.39%
Upper Matecumbe (MM 84)
2000 2001 %
Change
5-Day ADT 26,642 24,177 -10.20%
7 -Day ADT 26,831 24,719 -8.54%
AADT 22,410 21,819 -2.71%
The average weekday (S-Day ADT) and the average weekly (7-Day ADT) traffic
volumes, compared to last year, have decreased at the Big Pine, Upper Matecumbe,
and Marathon locations. The MOTs followed a similar trend, with decreases on Big
Pine, Upper Matecumbe, and in Marathon. According to the report by URS Greiner,
traffic volumes during the study period were generally found to be "heavy". The
amount of traffic was uniform throughout the counting period in the Upper Keys, while
higher weekday traffic volumes were observed in Marathon and the Lower Keys.
A detailed histor!cal comparison of the MDT traffic counts at all three locations for
the period from 1994 to 2000 is shown in Figure 21.
-3D-
MoNROE COtJN7Y DEPAIm1ENTOF PlANNING AND &MRoNMENTAL R&JuRCES
Figure 21-Historical Comparison of AADTs 1994-2001
Area 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001
Big Pine Key 17,743 22,688 21,186 21,496 19,866 20,843 21,774 19,-991
Marathon 26,297 28,927 27,924 28,930 28,651 30,750 29,017 28,340
Upper Matecumbe 19.593 20,473 20,083 21,599 21,301 22,103 22,410 21,819
32500
30000
27500
25000
ti 22500
~ 20000
17500
15000
12500
10000
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
D/itea
. Big Pine Key
. Marathon
EJ Upper Matecumbe
Source: 2001 Arterial and Trayel ftime Delay Study, URS Greiner, Inc.
The chart shows that the Marathon location consistently records the highest traffic
volumes throughout the period, with counts generally in the upper 20,000 to 30,000
range. The AADT counts for Big Pine and Upper Matecumbe hover in the low 20,000
range over the period.
A regression analysis of the AADT at each of the three locations over the last eight
years indicate that traffic volumes in the Big Pine Key segment have been increasing at
a rate of 1.30/0 per year. Traffic volumes in the Marathon and Upper Matecumbe
segments of U5-1 have been increasing at a rate of 1.40/0 and 2.40/0 per year
respectively. The historical growth in traffic on U5-1 is depicted in figure 22.
-31-
MoNROEcaJtm' DEPARTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRoNMENTAL REDtJRCES
Figure 22-Regression Analysis of AADTs 1993-2001
30,000
'iil
"C
c:
ClJ
~ 25,000
o
.c
C.
. . ...------.-_.
-----~---- .
.
Ul
CD
u 20,000
:c
CD
>
'0
~
a-
./ ~ .... ~"H"'~~
............)......... H .- .
rf
~ ..................;.;
......,..~,.....~.,.,.,.~ ..
..~.HHlIl..
II ...;.:.:.:.::.:....~......~
H'II
"""'0
15,000
.
.
.
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
C Big Pine Data Points
. Marathon Data Points
. U. Matecumbe Data Points
:.....Upper Matecumbe Regression Line
- -Linear (Marathon Regression Line)
- Big Pine Regression Line
Source: 2001 Arterial and Travel/time Delay Study, UR5 Greiner, Inc,
Level of Service Background
Monroe County has conducted travel time and delay studies of US-1 on an annual
basis since 1991. The primary objective of the US-1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay
Study is to monitor the level of service on U.S. Highway 1 for concurrency management
purposes pursuant to Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Section 9.5-292 of the Land
Development Regulations. The study utilizes an empirical relationship between the
volume-based capacities and the speed-based level of service methodology developed
by the US-1 Level of Service Task Force.
The US1 Level of Service Task Force is a multi-agency group with members from
Monroe County, the Florida Department of Transportation, and the Florida Department
of Community Affairs. A uniform methodology was developed in 1993 and amended
December 1997. The methodology adopted considers both the overall level of service
from Key West to the mainland, and the level of service on 24 selected segments. The
methodology was developed from basic criteria and principles contained in Chapters 7
(Rural Multilane Highways), Chapter 8 (Rural Two-Lane Highways) and Chapter 11
(Urban and Suburban Arterials) of the 1985 Highway Capacity Manual.
Overall Level of Service on US-l
Overall speeds are those speeds recorded over the 108-mile length of the Keys
between Key West and Miami-Dade County. Overall speeds reflect the conditions
experienced by long distance traffic traveling the entire length of the Keys. Given that
US-1 is the only principal arterial in unincorporated Monroe County, the movement of
long distance traffic is an important consideration.
-32-
MoNROECOUNTY DEPARTMENTa: PlANMNG AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsouRCES
The overall level of service or capacity of the entire length of US-1 is measured in
the average speed of a vehicle travelling from one end to the other of US-l. The level
of service (LOS) criteria for overall speeds on US-1 in Monroe County, as adopted by
the US-1 Level of Service Task Force, are as follows:
LOS A
LOSB
LOSC
LOSD
LOS E
LOS F
51 mph or greater
48 mph to 50.9 mph
45 mph to 47.9 mph
42 mph to 44.9 mph
36 mph to 41.9 mph
below 36 mph
Both Monroe County and the Florida Department of Transportation have adopted a
level of service 'C' standard for the overall length of US-l. In other words, a vehicle
travelling from Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112 (or vice versa) must maintain an
average speed of at least 45 mph to achieve the level of service 'C' standard.
The median overall speed during the 2001 study was 47.4 mph, which is 1.0 mph higher
than the 2000 median speed of 46.4 mph. The mean operating speed was 46.9 mph with a
950/0 confidence interval of plus or minus 0.8 mph. All of these measurements correspond to
LOS C conditions.
The highest overall speed recorded in the study was 49.4 mph (0.8 % higher than 2000
highest overall speed), which occurred on Tuesday, March 20, 2001 between 10:30 a.m. and
1:02 p.m., in the northhbound direction. The lowest overall speed recorded was 40.3 mph
(0.30/0 higher than 2001 lowest overall speed), which occurred on Tuesday, March 13,
2001 between 10:15 a.m. and 1:11 p.m. in the southbound direction. Two congestion delay
events which lasted almost 11 minutes in Plantation Key segment was the primary cause for the
Tuesday southbound run to be the lowest speed. The second lowest overall speed recorded was
41.8 mph (0.20/0 lower than 2000 lowest overall speed), which occurred on Saturday, March 17,
2001 between 10:45 a:.m. and 1 :37 p.m. in the northbound direction.
Figure 23 examines the changes in the median overall speed on US-1.
-33-
MoNROE CouNTY DEPARTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL R&JuRCES
Figure 23-Changes in Median Overall Speed on US-1 -1993-2001
Year Median LOS Numeric
Speed Change
in Speed
1992 46.9 C -
1993 47.4 C 0.5
1994 47.3 C -0.1
1995 47.8 C 0.5
1996 47.1 C -0.7
1997 46.5 C -0.7
1998 45.7 C -0.8
1999 46.7 C 1.0
2000 46.4 C -0.3
2001 47.4 C 1
48.0
47.5
't:I
I 47.0
Q.
t/)
I; 46.5
i
:E 46.0
'ii
_ 45.5
>
o
45.0
44.5
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
The charts show that the overall median speed for US-1 has remained between 45.7
mph and 47.8 from 1992 to the present. It is interesting to note that most changes in
the median speed show a reduction, however the overall median speed has improved
since 1992. Should the overall median speed fall ever below 45 mph (the minimum
LOS C standard), then the US-1 capacity would be considered inadequate.
-34-
... ..i .. o.v fI' . ;""'1'1 .~,
McwROECIJUNTY DEPAKTMENTOF PlANNING AND EfMRatIMENTAL R&JuRCE5
Level of Service on US-l Segments
- . . I, . ~ _ r
In addition to a determination of theoveran eapacitythroughoutthe entire 108 mile
length of US-1 between Mile Marker 4 and' 112, 'Section 9.5-292 of the Land
Development Regulations requires that the capacity of portions or "segments" of US-1
also be assessed annually. There are a total of twenty four (24) segments of US-1 from
Mile Marker 4 to Mile Marker 112. A map and deS!cription of the segment boundaries
can be found in Figures 25 and 26. The s~gments were defined by the US-1 Level of
Service Task Force to reflect roadway cross sections, speed limits, and geographical
boundaries.
The capacity or level of service for a US-1 segment is measured in median speeds,
similar to the overall capacity measurement. Segment speeds are the speeds recorded
within individual links of US-1, and reflect the conditions experienced during local trips.
However, the determination of the median speea o'n a segment is a more involved
process than determining the overall level of service since different segments have
different conditions.
The Land Development Regulations require each segment of the highway to
maintain a level of service of 'C' or better. The level of service criteria for segment
speeds on US-1 in Monroe County depends on the flow characteristics and the posted
speed limits within the given segment. Flow characteristics relate to the ability of a
vehicle to travel through a particular segment without being slowed or stopped by
traffic signals or other devices. Segments with a series of permanent traffic signals or
other similar traffic control devices in close proximity to each other are considered to be
"Interrupted Flow Segments", and are expected to have longer travel times due to the
delays caused by these signals or control devices. Roadway segments without a series
of signals or control devices are considered to be "Uninterrupted Flow Segments".
Uninterrupted segments may have one or more traffic signals, but they are not in close
proximity to one another as in the interrupted segment case. The methOdology used to
determine median speed and level of service on a particular segment is based upon that
segment's status as an interrupted or uninterrupted flow segment.
There are two interrupted segments of US-1 in the Keys: Segment 1 in Stock Island,
and Segment 13 in Marathon; the remainder of the segments are considered as
uninterrupted. However, there are some uninterrupted segments which do have signal
controls, like Segment 10 on Big Pine Key. In these situations, the travel time taken to
traverse an uninterrupted segment with a traffic signal is reduced by 25 seconds to
account for the possible delay resulting from traffic signal.
In addition to different methodologies, there are different level of service standards
for interrupted and ininterrupted roadways segments. The following chart shows the
different standards for a roadway segment based upon its flow characteristics. A map
-35-
MoNROE COtJNry DEPAJm1ENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL REDuRCFS
of the segment boundaries, and a description of their locations are found on the
following pages.
Figure 24- Leyel of Service Standards
Based on Flow Characteristics
Level of Uninterrupted Flow Segment
Service
A 1.5 mph above speed limit
B 1.5 mph below speed limit
C 4.5 mph below speed limit
D 7.5 mph speed limit
E 13.5 mph below speed limit
F > 13.5 mph below speed limit
Level of Interrupted Flow Segment
Service
A 35 mph
B 28 mph
C 22 mph
D 17 mph
E 13 mph
F < 13 mph
-36-
MoNROE COUNTY DEPARTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL RBJuRCES
Figure 2S-Description of US1 Roadway Segments
Segment Approx. Mile Control Points Key(s) Approx.
Number Marker Range PAED
Beginning Ending Beginning Ending
1 4.0 5.0 Cow Key Bridge (N) Key Haven Boulevard Stock Island, Key 1
Haven
2 5.0 9.0 Key Haven Boulevard Rockland Drive Boca Chica, Rockland 2
3 9.0 10.5 Rockland Drive Boca Chica Road Big Coppitt 2
4 10.5 16.5 Boca Chica Road Harris Channel Bridge Shark, Saddlebunch 3
(N)
5 16.5 20.5 Harris Channel Bridge Bow Channel Bridge Lower & Upper 3
(N) (N) Sugarloaf
6 20.5 23 Bow Channel Bridge Spanish Main Drive Cudjoe 4A
(N)
7 23 25 Spanish Main Drive East Shore Drive Summerland 4A
8 25 27.5 East Shore Drive Torch-Ramrod Bridge Ramrod 4A
(S)
9 27.5 29.5 Torch-Ramrod Bridge N. Pine Channel Little Torch 4A
(S) Bridge (N)
10 29.5 33 N. Pine Channel Long Beach Drive Big Pine 5
Bridge(N)
11 33 40 Long Beach Drive 7- Mile Bridge (S) W. Summerland, Bahia 6
Honda, Ohio
12 40 47 7- Mile Bridge (S) 7- Mile Bridge (N) 7-Mile Bridge 6
13 47 54 7- Mile Bridge (N) Cocoa Plum Drive Vaca, Key Colony 7
Beach
14 54 60.5 Cocoa Plum Drive Toms Harbor Ch Fat Deer Crawl, 8
Bridge (S) Grassy
15 60.5 63 Toms Harbor Ch Long Key Bridge (S) Duck, Conch 10
Bridge(S)
16 63 73 Long Key Bridge (S) Channel #2 Bridge (N) Long, Fiesta, Craig 11
17 73 77.5 Channel #2 Bridge (N) Lignum Vitae Bridge Lower Matecumbe 12A
(S)
18 77.5 79.5 Lignum Vitae Bridge Tea Table Relief Fill 12A
(S) Bridge (N)
19 79.5 84 Tea Table Relief Whale Harbor Bridge Upper Matecumbe 13
Bridge (N) (S)
20 84 86 Whale Harbor Bridge Snake Creek Bridge Windley 12B
(S) (N)
21 86 91.5 Snake Creek Bridge Ocean Boulevard Plantation 14
(N)
22 91.5 99.5 Ocean Boulevard Atlantic Boulevard Tavernier 15 & 16
23 99.5 106 Atlantic Boulevard C-905 Key Largo 17 - 20
24 106 112.5 C-905 County Line Sign Key Largo, Cross Key 22
NOTE: (N) and (S) refer to the north and south side of the bridges respectively
-37-
MoNROECOUNTY DEPAR7MENTOF PuwMNG AND ENvIRONMENTAL R&JuRCES
Figure 26-Map of
US1 Segments
~ ~ 'U'-
~~ p~ "
~ 1:4< i.;
.J ~ ~
IQ .J:. () ...
J-.~ G .
'f'
..- P",
'll
.....
\, .".
. ..up
'.
,
,
, ."
...
-38-
.'!.~. 'r /.) .' ,
'" -
MoNROE CaJNTY DEPARTMENTa= PLANNING AND EtMRoNMENTAL REDuRCES
";i' ... ~ .; ;I ;
The median segment speeds recorded for the 2001 Arterial and Travel Time Delay
Study range from a maximum of 59.6 mph (LOS A) in the Boca Chica segment to a
minimum of 32.9 mph (LOS B) in the Stock Island segment. The median overall speed
during the 2000 study was 47.4 mph, which is 1 mph lower than the 2000 median
speed of 46.4 mph. The chart below summarizes the level of service scores for all 24
segments of US-1 in 2001 and 2000.
Figure 27-Leyel of Service by Roadway Segment 2000-2001
Seg- Key LOS in LOS in Change
ment # 2000 2001 in LOS
1 Stock 151. B B
2 Boca Chica A A
3 Big Coppitt C B
4 Saddlebunch B B
5 Sugarloaf C C
6 Cudjoe A A
7 Summerland B B
8 Ramrod A A
9 Torch A A
10 Big Pine 0 E
11 Bahia Honda B A
12 7 Mile Bridge A A
13 Marathon A A
14 Grassy Key C C
15 Duck Key C B
16 Long Key B B
17 L. Matecumbe C C
18 Tea Table C 0
19 U. Matecumbe C C
20 Windley B B
21 Plantation C B
22 Tavemier A A
23 Key Largo A A
24 Cross C C
-39-
MoNROE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PlANNING AND ENviRoNMENTAL REsoURCES
As depicted in the chart, the breakdown in roadway segments by their level of
service in 2000 is as follows:
LOS A (9)
LOS B (8)
LOS C (5)
LOS D (1)
LOS E (1)
LOS F (0)
Compared to last year's (2000) study results, there are changes to six segments. Bahia
Honda segment experienced a LOS increase from 'B' to '/{, three segments of Big Coppitt, Duck
and Plantation Keys had experienced a LOS increase from 'C' to 'B~ while Big Pine key
experienced a drop from 'D' to 'E Tea Table segment dropped from LOS 'C' to 'D~ The
remaining eighteen segments maintained their level of service from 2000 to 2001.
In addition to the level of service, the 2001 Arterial Delay and Travel lime Study investigates
the median speed for each roadway segment. The median speed is the speed which falls in the
middle of all the speeds recorded during the 28 required trips through a roadway segment The
median segment speeds c:lecreased in 7 of the 24 segments ranging between 0.2 mph to 2.9
Compared to last year's (2000) study results, there are changes to six segments. Bahia Honda
segment experienced a LOS increase from 'B' to '/{, three segments of Big Coppitt, Duck and
Plantation Keys had experienced a LOS increase from 'C' to 'B~ while Big Pine key experienced a
LOS mph. Fifteen segments experienced an increase in median speeds, ranging between 0.4
mph to 4.1 mph. None of the changes in median speed could be attributed to any specific
change in conditions except the manges in traffic volumes, and the signal timings.
The following graphs show the changes in segment speed for each of the three service
areas. The source for these graphs is the 2001 Arterial Travel lime and Delay Study prepared by
URS Greiner, Inc.
It is important tq remember that the level of service criteria varies by segment. In
other words, a segment may maintain an LOS of 'C' or higher, but may have a median
speed below 45 mph. This results from the fact that the LOS requirements for
segments are adjusted based upon the posted speed limit and presence of traffic
signals or other traffic control devices. This is how some segments may have a median
speed as low as 32.9 mph, but maintain an LOS of 'B'.
-40-
MoNROE caJN1Y DEPAKTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENviRoNMENTAL RBJuRCES
~ 45.00
Gl
Gl
~ 40.00
t:
~ 35.00
Gl
:::i:
Figure 28-Changes in Median Speed by Segment 1993-2001
60.00
55.00
50.00
~~
~+ I I ~
30.00
25.00
~";) ~~ ~':> ~ro ~ ~'b ~C!l _C\~ ..(\....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~
-+- Stock Island ___ Boca O1ica Big Coppitt
~ Saddlebunch ........ Sugartoaf -+- Cudjoe
~ Sumrerland - RanTod - Torch
-+- Big Ane Bahia Honda
60.00
55.00
60.00
55.00 ~~~;.~
50.00 ~I .;
-u 45.00
Gl
Gl
~ 40.00 ..-..-..-..-......
t: ~-..-..-.
III
'6 35.00
Gl
:::i:
30.00
25.00
~";) ~ ~':> ~ eft ~'b ~C!l #' ~....
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
I - - 7.MIe Bridge - ~ - M1rathon I
____ Grassy .. . ... IlJck
~ Long ___ L. M1tecurrbe
50.00
~ 45.00
J 40.00 ;-iIr~
t:
III
1i 35.00
:::i:
30.00
25.00
r..~~-Qo,~!O~O....
n.C!l n.~ C!lQl n.'!> C!lC!l C!lQJ C!lQl 1::)c::5 I::)~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
-+- Tea Table
Windley
........ Tavernier
~ Q-oss
___ U. M1tecurrbe
_ Aantation
-+- Largo
-41-
MoNRoECalNTY DEPAR'lMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRoNMENTAL RESouRCES
The chart below lists the median speeds by segment for 2000 and 2001.
Figure 29- Median Speeds by Segment 2000-2001
Segment 2000 Median 2001 Median Numeric
Speed Speed Change
Stock Island 30.5 34.6 4.1
Boca Chica 58.4 59.6 1.2
Big Coppitt 46.9 48.6 1.7
Saddle bunch 53.5 53.0 -0.5
Sugarloaf 49.4 49.2 -0.2
Cudjoe 48.7 47.6 -1.1
Summerland 45.3 44.9 -0.4
Ramrod 47.1 47.5 0.4
Torch 47.1 47.6 0.5
Big Pine 35.8 32.9 -2.9
Bahia Honda 53.0 54.7 1.7
7 -Mile Bridge 52.4 53.2 0.8
Marathon 38.2 37.7 -0.5
Grassy 50.8 51.3 0.5
Duck 53.5 55.1 1.6
Long 52.5 54.4 1.9
L. Matecumbe 50.7 51.3 0.6
Tea Table 50.3 50.0 -0.3
U. Matecumbe 41.2 41.2 0.0
Windley 39.5 39.5 0.0
Plantation 39.0 42.5 3.5
Tavemier 48.8 49.7 0.9
Largo 46.8 47.5 0.7
Cross 47.7 48.9 1.2
Reserve Capacities
The difference between the median speed and the LOS C standard gives the reserve
speed, which is converted into an estimated reserve capacity of additional traffic
volume and corresponding additional development.
The median overall speed of US-1 in 2001 is 47.4 mph, which is a increase of 1 mph
from the 2000 overall median speed of 46.4 mph. Comparing the 2001 overall median
speed to the LOS 'c' standard of 45 mph yields an overall reserve speed of 2.4 mph. By
using a formula developed by the US-1 Level of Service Task Force, the reserve speed
for 2001 can be converted into an estimated reserve capacity of approximately 44,513
-42-
MoNROECOUNrY /JEP-AKT'MENTOFPlANNING AND&MRoNMENrAL RE!D.JRcEs
trips for US-l. The reserve capacity for US-1 was increased 18,547 trips from 2000 to
2001.
. ' ,
~, ~;O,
The estimated reserve volume (44,513 trips):can ,then 'be"< converted il'l1:o' an
estimated capacity for additional residential development, assuming balanced growth .of
other land uses, and using the following formula:
Residential Capacity = Reserve Volume
Trip Generation Rate x % Impact on US-1
Residential Capacity = 44.513
(8 trips per day per unit) x 0.8
Residential Capacity = 6,955 units
Applying the formula for reserve volume to each of the 24 segments of US-1
individually gives maximum reserve volume of trips for all segments. The maximum
reserve volume for all segments equals 111,373 total trips for US-l. This maximum
reserve volume is unobtainable due to the constraint imposed by the overall reserve
volume of 44,513 mentioned above.
As stated earlier, the Land Development Regulations mandate a minimum level of
service of 'C' for all roadway segments of US-l. However, the regulations and FOOT
policy do allow segments that fail to meet the LOS C standards in a given year to
receive an additional allocation of trips provided the median travel speed for the
segment is within 950/0 of the of the LOS C speed for that segment. This additional
allocation is referred to as the "reserve capacity" for the segment.
The resulting flexibility allows a limited amount of additional land development to
continue until traffic speeds are measured again next year or until remedial actions are
implemented. These segments are candidates for designations as either "backlogged"
or "constrained" by FOOT. Applications for new development located within backlogged
or constrained segments are required to undergo a thorough traffic analysis as part of
the review process.
Based on this year's results, the Big Pine Key segment (# 10) continues to be below
the LOS C threshold since the median travel speed (32.9 mph) is below the minimum
speed required to maintain LOS C conditions (37.7 mph). In addition, since the median
speed is less than 950/0 of the required minimum speed, this segment has no reserve
capacity, which means that no additional trips can be allocated to this segment of US-l.
When no additional trips can be allocated to a particular roadway segment, then it is
considered as "inadequate" from a public facility standpoint. The Land Development
Regulations indicate that no additional development which coulc impact an inadequate
public facility may be permitted. As a result, the current moratorium' on development
-43-
MoNROE CoumY DEPARTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvJRatIMENTAL RBJuRCES
.
activities which would create additional traffic on US-1 must be maintained on Big Pine
and No Name Key.
The Big Pine Key is considered inadequate based upon the 2001 Arterial Travel Time
and Delay Study. The Tea Table segment is at a level of service D but does have
reserve capacity.
In addition to the requirement that areas with inadequate public facilities be
identified in the annual assessment, the Land Development Regulations also require
those areas with marginally adequate public facilities to be identified. For the purposes
of this report, US-1 segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph in
2001 are considered as "marginally adequate". Any applications for new development
which would generate traffic in marginally adequate areas must submit a detailed traffic
report for consideration during review.
Figure 30-USl Segment Status
in 2001
# Segment 2001 2001 Status
LOS
1 Stock Island B Adequate
2 Boca Chica A Adequate
3 Big Coppitt B Adequate
4 Saddlebunch B Adequate
5 Sugarloaf C MARGINAL
6 Cudjoe A Adequate
7 Summerland B Adequate
8 Ramrod A Adequate
9 Torch A Adequate
10 Big Pine E INADEQUATE
11 Bahia Honda A Adequate
12 7 -Mile Bridge A Adequate
13 Marathon A Adequate
14 Grassy C MARGINAL
15 Duck B MARGINAL
16 Long B Adequate
17 L. Matecumbe C MARGINAL
18 Tea Table D MARGINAL
19 U. Matecumbe C MARGINAL
20 Windley B Adequate
21 Plantation B Adequate
22 Tavernier A Adequate
23 Largo A Adequate
24 Cross C MARGINAL
This year's report indicates that the 1.5
mile segment of US-1 beginning at MM 9.0 on
Rockland Key to MM 10.5 in Shark Key
(Segment # 3), the 4 mile segment on Upper
and Lower Sugarloaf (Segment # 5), the 30
mile stretch of US-1 beginning at MM 54.0 in
Grassy Key to MM 84 in Upper Matecumbe
(Segments 14-19), Plantation Key (Segment #
21), and Cross Key (Segment # 24) are all
marginally adequate. The 1999 report
indicated only four segments as marginally
adequate, but this number has increased to
eight marginally adequate and two inadequate
segments in 2000. Figure 35 summarizes each
segment's status in 2001.
-44-
MoNRCE Cl:xJNrY DEPAIUMENT OF PlANNING AND ENvJRa.IMENTAL RE!!DiJRcEs
Level of Service on County Roads
Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations establishes a level of service
standard of LOS 0 for all County roads, as measured on a volume or annual average
daily traffic (AADT) basis.
Based on the results of this analysis as shown on Table 4.7 in the Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document, all of the County roads examined
are operating at or above the County standard of LOS D.
Improvements to Roadway Facilities
Major improvements scheduled for US-1 are outlined in the Florida Department of
Transportation Five-Year Work Program. The major project for unincorporated Monroe
County in the current FOOT Work Program (2000/2001 to 2005/06) is to replace the
Jewfish Creek drawbridge with a high-level fixed-span bridge and the installation of
culverts to improve the tidal flow to the surrounding wetlands. The construction phase
for this project is 2006.
Other projects on the 5-year transportation plan include the construction of wildlife
roadway crossings to decrease vehicular interactions with Key Deer on US-1 between
North Pine Channel and the Spanish Harbor Bridge. Another project is the planning,
project development and environmental design for adding turn lanes to US-1 on Big
Coppitt Key from the Rockland Channel Bridge to Old Boca Chica Road. Additionally,
the repair/rehabilitation of the Jewfish Creek Bridge deck and the resurfacing of US-1
from South of the Jewfish Creek Bridge to the Miami-Dade County line are scheduled
for 2003/04.
In addition to road projects on US-1, the construction of bicycle paths are also on
the work schedule for the upcoming five years. These projects include construction of
bike paths in the follqwing locations:
- Big Coppitt Key from MM 11 to MM 15
- Grassy Key from MM 54.5 to MM 59.5
- connecting Bahia Honda to Little Duck Key
- connecting Bay Point on Saddlebunch Key to Sugarloaf Key
- connecting MM 5.2 on Key Haven to MM 9.6 on Big Coppitt Key
- MM 59.2 on Grassy Key to MM 65.2 on Long Key
- MM 25 on Summerland Key to MM 37 on Bahia Honda Key
- MM 16.5 Sugarloaf Key to MM 24.5 on Summerland Key
- MM 68.4 to MM 73.8
Finally, the FOOT is planning a recreational pedestrian facility for MM47 on Knights
Key, known as Sunset Park.
-45-
Ma<<ECWNrY OEI'AKTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsouRCES
Copies of the FOOT's most recent Five Year Work Program are available at the
Florida Department of Transportation offices in Marathon.
Summary
The Land Development Regulations provide clear guidance for assessing the
capacity of the roadway system in Monroe County. US-l is required to maintain at least
a level of service of 'C', while County roads must maintain a level of service of '0'.
Level of service is determined using the speed-based methodology developed by the
US-l Level of Service Task Force in 1993. The speed based methodology utilizes the
empirical relationship between volume-based capacities, and median vehicle speeds.
The level of service for US-l is measured for the overall 108 miles of the roadway as
well as for the 24 individual segments making up the roadway in the Keys.
The traffic volumes on US-l have decreased since 2000. The three count locations
on US-l: Big Pine, Marathon, and Upper Matecumbe, have shown a historical traffic
growth. The traffic volumes recorded at Big Pine, Marathon and Lower Matecumbe
have decreased compared to the traffic volumes during the 2000 study.
The overall travel speed on US-l for 2001 is one mph lower compared to the 2000
overall travel speed. The reserve speed for the entire length of US-l is 1.4 miles per
hour. This means that the entire segment is operating with only marginal capacity.
Compared to 2000 data, the travel speeds on 15 of the 24 segments increased. They are:
-Ramrod (+0.4 mph)
-Grassy (+0.5 mph)
-Key Largo (+0.7 mph)
-Tavernier (+0.9 mph)
-Cross (+ 1.2 mph)
-Big Coppitt (+1.7 mph)
-Long (+2.0 mph)
-Stock Island (+4.1 mph)
- Torch (+0.5 mph)
- Lower Matecumbe (+0.6 mph)
- 7-Mile Bridge (+ 0.8 mph)
- Boca Chica (+ 1.2 mph)
- Duck (+1.6 mph)
- Bahia Honda (+ 1. 7 mph)
- Plantation (+3.5 mph)
Travel speeds in seven segments have decreased. They are:
-Sugarloaf( -0.2 mph)
-Summerland (-0.4 mph)
-Marathon (-0.5 mph)
-Big Pine (-2.9 mph)
- Tea Table (-0.3 mph)
- Saddlebunch (-0.5 mph)
- Cudjoe (-1.1 mph)
Travel speeds in Upper Matecumbe and Windley Keys remain unchanged.
Compared to last year's (2000) study results, there are changes to six segments.
Bahia Honda segment experienced a LOS increase from 'B' to 'A', the three segments
of Big Coppitt, Duck and Plantation Keys had experienced a LOS increase from 'C' to
-46-
MoNROEClXINTY DEPA/mtfENTOF PlANNING ANDENvlRONMENrAL RBJuRCES
'B', while Big Pine key experienced a LOS drop from '0' to 'E'. Tea Table segment
dropped from LOS 'C' to '0'. . ..
The largest speed increase of 4.1 mph was recorded in Stock Island Key.segment.
The same segment was recorded for largest reduction during the last year's study; The
largest speed reduction of 2.9 mph was recorded in the Big Pine Key segment for this
year's study.
U.S. 1 segments with reserve speeds of less than or equal to 3 mph should be given
particular attention when approving development applications. The 4 mile segment of
U.S. 1, beginning at MM 16.5 to MM 20.5 in Sugarloaf Key, the 6.5 mile segment of U.S.
1, beginning at MM 54.0 to MM 60.5 in Grassy Key, the 11 mile segment of U.S. 1,
beginning at MM 73.0 to MM 84.0 ,including the Lower Matecumbe, Tea Table and
Upper Matecumbe, and the 6.5 mile segment of U.S. 1, beginning at MM 106.0 to MM
112.5 in Cross Key are in this category.
The Big Pine Key segment of US1 has the lowest level of service in the County and
is considered inadequate. As a result, the development moratorium for activities which
could generate additional traffic should be maintained.
All County roads have levels of service above the required standard of '0'.
-47-
MoNROE COUNTY DEPAKTMBffOF PlANNING AND ENviRONMENTAL RESOURCES
POTABLE WATER
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the provider of potable water in the
Florida Keys. The Biscayne Aquifer is the groundwater supply source for the FKAA.
The wellfield is located in a pineland preserve west of Florida City in Miami-Dade
County. The FKAA wellfield contains some of the highest quality groundwater in the
State, meeting or exceeding all regulatory standards prior to treatment. Strong laws
protect the wellfield from potentially contaminating adjacent land uses. Beyond the
County's requirements, FKAA is committed to comply with and surpass all federal and
state water quality standards and requirements.
The groundwater from the wellfield is treated at the J. Robert Dean Water
Treatment Facility in Florida City, which currently has a maximum water treatment
capacity of 22 million gallons per day (MGD). The facility has regulatory approval to
withdraw up to 19.19 MGD of water from the wellfield. In 2000, the FKAA distributed
6.228 billion gallons of water to the Florida Keys.
The water treatment process consists primarily of lime softening, filtration,
disinfection and fluoridation. The treated water is pumped to the Florida Keys through
a 130 mile long pipeline at a maximum pressure of 250 pounds per square inch (psi).
The pipeline varies in diameter from 36 inches in Key Largo to 18 inches in Key West.
The FKAA distributes the treated water through 649 miles of distribution piping ranging
in size from 3f4 inch to 12 inches in diameter. In 2000, the FKAA replaced over 40,000
feet of various size distribution water mains. The FKAA's Water Distribution System
Upgrade Plan calls for the upgrade or replacement of 60,750 feet of water main during
fiscal year 2001-02.
The FKAA maintains storage tank facilities which provide an overall storage capacity
of 39.7 million gallons system wide. The size of the tanks vary from 0.2 to 5.0 million
gallons. These tanks are utilized during periods of peak water demand and serve as an
emergency water slJPply. Since the existing transmission line serves the entire Florida
Keys (including Key West), and storage capacity is an integral part of the system, the
capacity of the entire system must be considered together, rather than in separate
service districts.
Also, the rehabilitated and new saltwater reverse osmosis (R.O.) plants, located on
Stock Island and Marathon, are available to produce potable water under emergency
conditions. The RO desalinization plants are capable of producing their designed
capacities of 2.0 and 1.0 million gallons per day (MGD) of water, respectively.
At present, Key West is the only area of the County served by a flow of potable
water sufficient to fight fires. Outside of Key West, firefighters rely on a variety of
water sources, including tankers, swimming pools, and salt water either from drafting
sites on the open water or from specially constructed fire wells. Although sufficient flow
-48-
MoNROE CoumY DEPARTMENTOF Pl.ANN1NG AND EIMRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
to fight fires is not guaranteed in the County, new hydrants are being installed as water
lines are replaced to make water available for fire fighting purposes.
A map of the various FKAA facilities in the Keys is shown below.
Figure 31-FKAA Facilities
MAINTENANCE DEPARTMENT
SYSTEM OVERVIEW
.~ FLORIDA CITY----!' ~1 --oiiT'
!.~1~, 1~I~r~
! I~l~: r~----
~~ r~, OCEAN mr-
22 weD TREATMENT Pl4NT 2 40 HP PUNPS '~
(18.6 ..co PERIolITTEO) kf-
2 500 HP PUWPS ,; (
.3 800 HP PUIo4PS J
'" 1000 HF' DtESEl PUMPS )/
EMERGENCY BACKUP " 'I
I,
4
~
.;J)
w
(o;sf',
I DISTRIBUTION I....~,~
I STATION ) l~1 ---'
~
~ KEY WEST
\ 2 100 HP PUMPS
\ I 200 HP PUWPS
\~
, ,
\ DISTRIBUTION i
\ I STATION I
\ STOCK ISLAND
\ 2 JOO HF' PUMPS
\
\
\
\
~'--,
I BAC'PUMP I
I ST A,~~N I
c.: '
1 685 HP PuwP
I.~'
~~1
~I, Stole ,!
r~:~
i SMG jl~l
~.:-~
5 MG
~
------~
I BOOSTeR PUMP' RAtolROD KEY
I STATION I' 10DO HP PUMP
I c; I 1 600 HF' PUMP
SUtoltolERLAND KEY -
2 1 S HP PUMPS ~ \
:~;
BIG PINE KEY ~
1 2 30 HP PUMPS :~;
I
I __~
0.9 Meo
R.O. PLANT
tolARATHON ~
2 40 HF' PUMPS ~J
~
ISLAtolORADA ,~l~
1 .30 HP puwP I~
tolARA THON ,
CRAWL KEY ~~l
,,_ ~ 2 30 HP PUMPS I~l
''''--69th ST tolARATHON
2 .30 HP puwPS ~::.
'~i
J 600 HP PUMPS
1.8 WGD
R.O. PLANT
:tolARATHON
--~~
I BOOSTER PUMP
SUTlON
~
~
~~
i J MG i
~
~"',' STOCK ISLAND
,~l ",
:~II OI~TT~rl~~ON I ~~?S~ rt~~~~~DpuLPESAL)
l,~,11 l:l:':'>iPPUI,.lPS
2 500 HP PUMPS
2 650 HP PUMPS
Demand for Potable Water
Demand for potable water is influenced by many factors, including the size of the
permanent resident and seasonal populations, the demand for commercial water use,
landscaping practices, conservation measures, and the weather. The following table
summarizes FKAA's historic withdrawals, in millions of gallons. The table also shows
-49-
MoNRCE CouNTY DEPAfm.fENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsouRCES
the percent change in withdrawal from one year to the next, the existing Water Use
Permit (WUP) withdrawal limits, and the reserve capacity available for future
development under the existing WUP.
Figure 32-Annual Water Withdrawals 1980 to 2000
Year Annual % WUP WUP
Withdrawal Change Limit Reserv
(MG) (MGl e (MG)
1980 2,854.9 - N1A N/A
1981 3,101.1 S.6% N1A N/A
1982 3,497.3 12.S% N1A N/A
1983 3,390.2 -3.1% N1A N/A
1984 3,467.5 2.3% 4,450 982.5
1985 4,139.2 19.4% 4,450 310.8
1986 4,641.5 12.1% 5,110 468.5
1987 4,794.6 3.3% 5,110 315.4
1988 4,819.8 0.5% 5,110 290.2
1989 4,935.9 2.4% 5,110 174.1
1990 4,404.1 -10.S% 5,560 1,155.9
1991 4,286.0 -2.7% 5,560 1,274.0
1992 4,461.1 4.1% 5,560 1,098.9
1993 5,023.9 12.6% 5,560 536.1
1994 5,080.0 1.1% 5,560 480.0
1995 5,140.4 1.2% 5,ns 637.6
1996 5,272.0 2.6% 5,ns 506.0
1997 5,356.0 1.6% 5,ns 422.0
1998 5,630.0 5.1% 5,ns 148.0
1999 5,935.3 5.4% 5,ns 0.0
2000 6,228.0 10.6% 5,ns 0.0
" source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, June 2001
-50-
MoNRCE Ca1NTY DEPAK1MENra:PlANNING AND ~ REsouRcEs
The following graph shows the relationship between the amount of water
withdrawn on an annual basis and the limit of the Water Use Permit through the 1990s.
, 1'.'--,
Figure 33-
FI(M.,Annual Water Withdrawal
7,000.0
6,500.0
t
F"'1 ~ 1\. I
t
'"
~ €i,OOO.O
iii
(!) 5,500.0
'0
/I) 5,000.0
c
~ 4,500.0
~
4,000.0
~" ~'10 ~";) ~t;. ~~ ~9;) ~ ~'O g,Q) ..(\c;:)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
. r::::::J Annual Withdrawal
-++- WUP LilT'it
WUP Reserve
1,400.0
~ 1,200.0
o
15 1,000.0
~ 800.0
o
~ 600.0
~ 400.0
~ 200.0
0.0
. ~" -0\'10 ~":> rI" g,~ AO ~ -0\'0 rP.l ~c;:)
~ ~-~ ~ ~ ~~ ~~~
source: Florida Keys ,6queclud: Authority, June 2001
FKAA's current Water Use Permit (Permit # 13-00005W) from the South Florida
Water Management District was obtained in 1995, and is good for a period of ten years.
The current WUP allows an average daily water withdrawal of 15.83 million gallons per
day (MGD), a maximum daily withdrawal of 19.19 MGD, and a yearly maximum of
5.778 billion gallons. The maximum permitted annual withdrawal was exceeded in both
1999 and 2000.
-51-
MoNROE Ca.1NTY DEPAfm.1ENTOF PlANMNG AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsouRCES
The following chart shows the projected water demand for the Keys in 2001-2002.
Figure 34-
Projected Water Demand in 2001-2002
""UUl
FKAA Water
Permit 2000 Demand
Thresholds Pumpage Projected
Average
Daily
Withdrawal 15.83 17.06 15.36
Maximum
Daily
Withdrawal 19.19 20.79 19.15
Annual
Withdrawal 5,778 6,228 5,606
(all figures are in millions of gallons)
source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, June 2001
As indicated in the above chart, the projected demand is expected to decrease in
2001 due to the severe drought and water restrictions imposed by SFWMD since
December of 2000. The maximum daily withdrawal projection is 19.15 million gallons.
Preliminary figures for 2001 indicate an average reduction in water use of 10 percent
through May compared to 2000 figures. It is likely that the annual withdrawal will be
below the threshold of 5.7 billion gallons in 2001. The water restrictions are expected
to continue through 2002.
Research indicates that regardless of changes in the functional population from 1998
to 2000, there are no instances where the amount of water available per capita is
insufficient to serve the population at the maximum rate of withdrawal permitted by
FKAA's existing permit. The following chart demonstrates the amount of water
available on a per capita basis.
Figure 35- Per Capita Water Ayailability
Year Functional Maximum Water
Population Daily Ayailable
Withdrawal Per Capita
(gallons) (gallons)
1998 156,120 19,190,000 122.9
1999 157,172 19,190,000 122.1
2000 159,113 19,190,000 120.6
2001 159,840 19,190,000 120.1
-52-
MoNROE CouNTY DEPAlrTMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRa-IMENTAL REsoiJRCES
As the chart indicates, there are over 100 gallons of water available per person per
day. The 100 gallons per person per day standard is commonly accepted as
appropriate, and is reflected in Policy 701.1.1 of the Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Since residential and overall levels of service are met by the current maximum daily
withdrawal, and the water use permit was exceeded in the Spring of 1999 and again in
2000, it can be reasoned that variables other than population demand for water are
affecting the water consumption_rates in Monroe County. These variables should be
identified and planned for.
The 1999 Public Facility Capacity Assessment Report indicated four recommended
actions to be considered by the Board of County Commissioners with respect to potable
water:
- Continue to monitor water consumption and return to the Board for further
direction
- Prepare and adopt a series of ordinances related to water conservation, including
plumbing efficiency standards, a landscaping ordinance, and a permanent irrigation
ordinance
- Enter into a memorandum of understanding with the FKAA to address the above
three items
The Growth Management Division has continued to work with the FKAA on water
consumption patterns and the revisions to the FKAA Water Use Permit. Revised
plumbing efficiency standards have been implemented. Efforts on a permanent
irrigation ordinance should be coordinated with the Stormwater Master Plan efforts.
The Growth Management Division has offered to work with the FKAA on the
development of an intergovernmental team to discuss water conservation options since
conservation efforts must be undertaken by all jurisdictions in the Keys to be successful.
Improvements to Potable Water Facilities
FKAA has a long-range capital improvement plan for both the distribution system
and the transmission and supply system, as shown in the table below. The total cost of
the scheduled improvements exceeds $60 million over the next 6 years. These projects
are to be funded by hOOkup fees and water revenues.
The scheduled distribution system improvements include replacing and upgrading
lines in various subdivisions throughout the Lower, Middle, and Upper Keys. These
improvements began in 1989, when FKAA embarked on the Distribution System
Upgrade Program to replace approximately 190 miles of galvanized lines.
-53-
MoNROE COiJNTy DEPAJm.tENT OF PlANNING AND ENviRoNMENTAL R.Eso/JRCE5
In addition to improvements to the distribution system, fKAAalso has significant
improvements planned for the transmission and supply system. 'FKAA expects to
expand the treatment capacity at the J. Robert Dean Water Treatment:Plant to. meet
future water demands. Also, the FKAA is planning improvements to the pump stations
to improve flow and pressure and construction of water storage tanks to provide
additional emergency water supply.
The table on the following page shows a small example of the capital improvements
to the potable water system planned by the FKAA.
-54-
Moft/R(E, CJ:xmY 1JEJ:1AJ:ffNENTa: AANN1NG AM) ENv1RtJNt.Em:4L R&Ji.RCE5
,Figure 36- FKAA 2001 Capital Improvement Program "
fmj, f!!!.i!!g " 2001 ,,- ;m 2004 2005 2006 BY!iI!!
No. I , " r " .,
" ,I,,"
Water Treatment Plant I
1065 Phase 1- Tank, Line Slaker, Wf!1I1s, 01em 750,000 2,179,9JO 2,929,9C
1069 Phase 11- AdcItia1aI Fber 175,000 1,100,000 1,275,OC I
1071 Phase 11- HigI Service Pl.nl> & VFD 300,000 ,500,000 Im,OOOI
1062 Higl Service Bec:lricaI GlB" 312,432 312,~
1071 Phase II- TralSfer Pl.nl> lJpgaje 250,000 125,000 , 375,OC, I
Aqlifer 51aage and Reoowry (ASR) 100,000 1,300,000 1,4OO,OOOJ
Distribution System ~ "
Replace Dislrtlulia1 Pipe 4,500,000 6,000,000 " 3,500,000 " 3,500,000 3,500,000 2,000,000 23,OOO,OCvI
2186 Key west Plant PInp S1aIion 50,000 350,000 1,100,000 1,500'~1
2130 Big Coppitt Tn and Pl.nl> Station 350,000 200,000 - 55O,OC
2183 Sl.mner1anc1'Cu Tn & Pl.nl> Station 0 50,000 350,000 350,000/ 750,OC_1
2191 Vaca Cut Tn & Pl.nl> Station 250,000 250,000 500,000
."
2187 IsIaTaada TanksIDisIributi 1!Tll. 100,000 100,000 2OO,OC
2189 Big PIne Pl.mp Station 85,000 200,000 285,OCvI
2190 Slcrage Tn Drain WeIs (3@5OK) 75,000 75,000 150,~
2143 Oalan Reef Pl.nl> S1aIion 150,000 150,OC
Transmission System "I
WaErTank L..oog Key Slation 1,250,000 1,250,00QL
WaEr Tank Ramxl S1aIion 1,250,000 1,250,OC
Add Pl.nl> at Marathon 500,000 500,0001
1042 Jewfish Creek (DOT) 1,000,000 1,500,000 2,5OO,<XXll
1051 Crass Key (JPA wJDOT) 1,200,000 1,200,000 2,4OO,OC
North RooleYeIt BM:l (JPA wIFOOT) 850,000 400,000 1,250,0001
1058 Cathodic Prolec:Iicr1 System 50,000 350,000 500,000 9JO,OC--
1068 VaNe Replacement 50,000 400,000 0 45O,OC
3054 DASlFrcrne Relay! Aqualrol Replacement 50,000 50,0001
10n Big Pine TICIIISmission Main Relocation 100,000 550,000 650,OC--
1064 Key ~ BoalIer Pl.nl> S1aIion 200,000 500,000 3,9JO,OOO 4,OOO,OC
Facilities and Structures I
3038 CalsIrudion Crew YarG'S1orage Facility 450,000 100,000 55O,OC
3068 Fuel Management Faciities 378,Im 378,8C
3037 Marathon Maint Garage 458,648 458,6481
3069 Key ~ Mainl Garage 268,000 400,000 668,OC
3073 DesaI SeawdII & Dciptins 50,000 250,000 200,000 5OO,OC
3047 Tavemier CS Buiking 558,204 700,000 1,258,2041
Acmn Bldg. Renov/RVS1rgelAC'Fire 375,000 375,OC
Acmn Bldg. - Pun:hase 2,500,000 2,500,000 5,OOO,OC
Marathon Central Warehouse 250,000 500,000 750,0001
3074 Front S1reetIRO Plant Force Main 38,000 38,OC--
Marathon RO Plant Aocustic WaJ 50,000 50,00
TOTALS 8,789,084 17,389,9JO 15,800,000 6,875,000 7,950,000 3,200,000 00,003,9641
source: Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority, June 2001
-55-
MoNROECOUNlY DEPAfm.fENTa= PlANNING AND &MRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
EDUCATION FACILITIES
This element of the Public Facilities Capacity report will be omitted once Policy
1401.4.1 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is implemented. This
policy requires the establishment of a Concurrency Management System (CMS). The
CMS will ensure that no new development permits will be issued unless adequate public
facilities needed to support the development at the level of service (LOS) standards for
all of the public facility types are available concurrent with the impacts of development.
Existing School Facilities
The Monroe County School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools
located throughout the Keys. Their data includes both unincorporated and incorporated
Monroe County. The system consists of three high schools, one middle school, three
middle/elementary schools, and five elementary schools. Each school offers athletic
fields, computer labs, a cafeterium that serves as both a cafeteria and auditorium, and
bus service. Roughly 90 school busses transport about 4,452 students to and from
school each day. In addition to these standard facilities, all high schools and some
middle schools offer gymnasiums.
The school system is divided into three subdistricts that are similar, but not identical
to the service areas outlined in Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations.
One difference is that the School Board includes Fiesta Key and the islands that make
up Islamorada in the Upper Keys (Subdistrict 1), while the Land Development
Regulations place them in the Middle Keys (Subdistrict 2). Also, the School Board
includes Key West in the Lower Keys (Subdistrict 3), while the Land Development
Regulations do not consider Key West. The data presented in this section are based on
the School Board's subdistricts.
Figure 37- Schools by Subdistrict
Subdistrict 1 Subdistrict 2 Subdistrict 3
Coral Shores High School Marathon Middle/High School Key West High School (9-12)
1(9-12) (7-12)
Key Largo Elementary!Middle Stanley Switlik Elementary Horace O'Bryant Middle School
School (K-8) lK-6) 1(6-8)
Plantation Key Elementary Sugarioaf Elementary!Middle
!Middle School (K-8) School (K-8)
Adams Elementary (K-5)
Archer/Reynolds Elementary
(K-5'
Poinciana Elementary (K-5
Sigsbee Elementary (K-5
Big Pine Key Neighborhood
School (Pre K-2'
-56-
MoNRCECiJuNrr DEPAmMENTOF PlANNING AND ENIIIRa-IMENTAL REsouRCES
Subdistrict 1 covers the Upper Keys from Key Largo to Lower Matecumbe Key and
includes one high school and two elementary/middle schools, as shown in Figure 38.
Subdistrict 2 covers the Middle Keys from Long Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and
includes one high/middle school and one elementary school. Subdistrict 3 covers the
Lower Keys, from Bahia Honda to Key West and includes one high school, one middle
school, one elementary/middle school, and five elementary schools.
Demand for School Facilities
The population of school age children in Monroe County is influenced by many
factors, including the size of the resident and seasonal populations, national
demographic trends (such as the "baby boom" generation), that result in decreasing
household size, economic factors such as military employment, the price and availability
of housing, and the movements of seasonal residents.
The School Board collects enrollment data periodically throughout the year. Counts
taken in the winter are typically the highest, due to the presence of seasonal residents.
The following charts show the fall school enrollments from 1989 to 1999 by subdistrict
as taken from the School Board's Fall Student Survey.
~
,p,
Key Largo
E1emenlary
Figure 38- Monroe County
Education Facilities
Plantation Key
E1emenlaryl MiddJe
~ ~ v",
OJ~ r!. ,iI'~:{\' :;'.
~ ".,
. .... A.
J..1 . . . ~
-.. ."..~
Stanely Swilik
E1emenlary
..
. .
. _.
.
/'
,;&1
Caal Shores
High SchOOl
Maralhon High School
Poinciana E1emenla~
Hcrace O:Sryant
Mddle SChOol/). ..
I.... ..
Glynn Archer Elementay
-57-
MoNROE COUNTY DEPARTMENTOF PlANNING AND EMIJRoNNENrAL REsouRCES
Figure 39- Fall School Enrollments 1990-2000
1990 1991 11992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997199811999 2000
Subdistrict 1 ' " - -
.
Coral Shores 582 550 605 597 649 702 "672 701 757 758 800
I(H)
Key Largo 1,029 1,008 1,310 1,213 1,235 1,198 1,223 1,273 1,253 1,183 1,173
I (ElM)
Plantation ElM) 598 627 718 698 721 737 730 703 675 643 668
Subtotal 2,209 2,185 2,633 2,508 2,605 2,637 2,625 2,6n 2,685 2,584 2,641
Subdistrict 2
Marathon H) 517 516 545 523 578 642 637 612 637 660 679
Switlik (E) 689 731 734 775 776 769 782 815 834 791 671
Subtotal 1,206 1,247 1,279 1,298 1,354 1,411 1,419 1,427 1,471 1,451 1,350
Subdistrict 3
Kev West H 1,114 1,076 1,114 1,120 1,155 1,255 1,237 1,327 1,372 1,344 1,305
O'Bryant (M) 788 772 852 902 876 909 897 863 899 814 838
SUQar10af ElM) 863 934 899 810 1,039 1,013 987 960 937 913 941
Adams (E) 518 522 541 529 516 486 500 499 574 566 513
Archer (E) 440 493 480 441 462 454 454 520 493 460 393
Poinciana (E 503 507 521 566 613 626 637 608 620 632 599
Sigsbee (E) 528 476 471 400 431 431 398 404 423 393 358
Sands 63 86 81 81 85 52 52 58 1
Subtotal 4,817 4,866 4,959 4,849 5,177 5,226 5,162 5,239 5,319 5,122 4,947
TOTAL 8,232 8,298 8,871 8,655 9,136 9,274 9,206 9,343 9,475 9,157 8,938
10,000
9,274 9,475
9,500
9,000 9,343
9,206 9,157
8,500
8,000 8,232
7,500
1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
: -.- Total Fall School Enrollment i
Source: Monroe County School Board, 2001
-58-
MoNRCECOUIVTY DEFt4KTMfM'.()FPlANNING'AND~REslXJRCEs
Level of Service of School FaciUties ,,".L.' ;'t ''-If,~ ,..~ .'.
--.~~.. :--: t 'i .~ -.":
The Monroe County Land Development Regulations do not identify a numeric level
of service standard for schools (such as 10 square feet of classroom space per student).
Instead, Section 9.5-292 of the regulations requires classroom capacity "adequate" to
accommodate the school-age children generated by proposed land'development.
The School Board uses recommended capacities provided by the Florida Department
of Education (FDOE) to determine each school's capacity. All schools. have adequate
reserve capacity to accommodate the impacts of the additional land development
activities projected}or 2000. Figure 40 shows each school's capacity and the projected
number of students.
Figure 4O-Sc:hool Capacity &. ProjecIed Number of Students
Recom-mended Studen1s Studen1s
Capacity Projected 1999- Projected 2001-
2000 2002
Subdistrict 1
Coral ShOres 868 851 831
Kev Laroo 1,240 1,223 1,191
Plantation 971 798 645
SUBTOTAL 3,079 2,872 2,667
Subdistrict 2
Marathon 1,018 703 667
Switlik 925 787 668
SUBTOTAL 1,943 1,490 1,335
Subdistrict 3
Kev West 1,349 1,230 1,312
Q'Brvant 833 838 818
Sugarioaf 1,356 934 941
Adams 547 510 506
Archer 470 409 398
Poinciana 660 643 585
Siasbee 534 332 357
Sands - - -
SUBTOTAL 5,749 4,896 4,917
TOTAL 10,n1 9,258 8,919
-59-
MoNROECOUNrr DEPAlnMENTOF PlANMNG AND ENvIRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
Improvements to School Facilities
Florida Statute 163.3177 requires counties to identify lands and zoning districts
needed to accommodate future school expansions. In order to bring the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan into compliance with this statute, in 1998 the
Monroe County Planning Department and School Board conducted research to
determine the existing school capacity and the potential need for future educational
facilities in Monroe County.
This study focused on land requirements for each of the schools expansion needs.
Overall, the County has sufficient vacant and appropriately zoned land to meet the
area's current and future school siting needs. The specific land requirements for the
public schools in the County are discussed below.
Key Largo School
Meeting the substantial land requirements of Key Largo School is a top priority of
the School Board. The Department of Education (DOE) has instructed the Monroe
County School Board to construct an additional 37,375 square feet of school space.
However, current land use regulations prohibit the School Board from construction
of any additional facilities on or adjacent to its current site due to the environmental
sensitivity of the area. The School Board recently made an unsuccessful attempt to
purchase a new site on which to build the required school facilities. Unless the
Board is able to provide these facilities in Key Largo they will be non-compliant with
the minimum DOE standards. Fully utilizing the current Key Largo site would
enable the School Board to meet their DOE requirements and to minimize other
secondary environmental impacts associated with the construction of a new school.
It has been determined that the School Board may clear the required amount of
land, but the location of the clearing is still under review by the Planning and
Environmental Resources Department.
Plantation Key School
The DOE has instructed the Monroe County School Board to construct an additional
54,810 square feet of school space for this school. The parcel of land for this
school is not large enough to accommodate this development and regulations
prohibit the School Board from constructing any additional facilities on, or adjacent
to, its current site due to the environmentally sensitive nature of the area. The new
Village of Islamorada will address plans for Plantation Key School and other
educational facilities in its comprehensive plan.
-60-
MoNROEcaJN7y DEPARTMENTa: PlANNING AND ENvIRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
Stanley Switlik Elementary
Expanding the existing school facilities into the two parcels of land flanking the
current site will accommodate the land requirements for Stanley Switlik Elementary.
The school has a new cafeteria/kitchen/multipurpose building as well as new
parking and ballfields. Construction on the new facilities has been completed.
Marathon High and Middle School
The land requirements for Marathon High and Middle School are currently being
met. The School Board would like to build a new 13,000 square foot auditorium for
this school that could also serve as a community center.
Coral Shores High School
The School Board's plan is to demolish the old school buildings and construct a new
200,000 square foot school on the same site. Construction is to occur in phases,
with the school buildings scheduled for completion in 2.5 years. The second stage
of construction will focus on the provision of athletic facilities. Demolition of the old
structure began in 2000.
Overall, the School Board needs to add around 100,000 square feet to its current
facilities to meet or exceed the Department of Education's requirements for school
size.
Figure 47, on the following page, is a table showing the results of the investigation
completed by the Monroe County School Board and Planning Department in 1998.
-61-
MoNROE COUNTY DEPAFm1ENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRoNMENTAL REsaJRCES
Figure 41-Preliminary Public School Land Needs
Land Needed
Schools Deyeloped Site 1998 2003 Potential Sites (acres and
(acres and (estimate) zoning)
zoning)
Key Largo 13.25 acres 2 acres (1) o acres There are approximately 70
(SC & SR) acres of vacant land zoned
SR and 65 acres zoned NA
surrounding the current site.
Plantation Kev 8.29 acres (SR) N/A/ 2) N/A N/A
Coral Shores Hiah 20.13 acres (SR) N/A 2) N/A N/A
Stanley Switlik 9.43 acres (SC) 35.4 acres o acres There are approximately 5.1
Elementary (3) acres of vacant land zoned
SC surrounding the current
site.
Marathon High and 14.12 acres (SR) 40.30 o acres There are approximately 21
Middle Schools acres (4) acres of vacant land zoned
NA surrounding the current
site.
Big Pine 4.5 acres (SC) o acres o acres There are approximately
Neighborhood 4.27 acres of vacant land
Elementary zoned SC and 8.6 acres of
vacant land zoned IS
surrounding the current site.
Sugarioaf 24 acres (SC & o acres o acres There are approximately 27
NA) acres of vacant land zoned
NA and 34 acres zoned SR
surrounding the current site.
1 The School Board is 'MlIi<ing y"flh Morvoe Cou1ty Planning OeparVnent to meet this need prior to 2003.
2 The Village c:J IsIcmoracla wiD address plans for Plantation Key School, Coral Shores HigI School and other educational
fadlliles in their cxmprehensive plan.
3 The School Board purchased tYoO lots zcned SC adjacent to the QJrrentschool site to expand onto in 1998.
4 The School Board wants to partner y"flh the County to aeate an auditorilJ11lhat also serves as a ronmunity center.
-62-
MoNROE CalNTY DEPA/(TMENT OF PlANNING AND ENvIRoNMENTAL REsouRCES
SOLID WASTE FACILITIES
Monroe County's solid waste facilities are managed by the Solid Waste Management
Department, which oversees a comprehensive system of collection, recycling, and
disposal of solid waste. Prior to 1990, the County's disposal methods consisted of
incineration and landfilling at sites on Key Largo, Long Key, and Cudjoe Key.
Combustible materials were burned either in an incinerator or in an air curtain
destructor. The resulting ash was used as cover on the landfills. Non-combustible
materials were deposited directly in the landfills.
In August 1990, the County entered into a contract with Waste Management, Inc.
(WMI) to transport the solid waste to the contractor's private landfill in Broward County.
In accordance with County-approved franchise agreements, private contractors perform
collection of solid waste. Residential collection takes place four times a week(2
garbage/ trash,l recycling, 1 yardwaste); nonresidential collection varies by contract.
The four (4) contractors currently serving the Keys are identified in the table below:
Figure 42-Solid Waste Contractors
Middle Ke
Mid-Keys
Service Waste, Inc.
Ocean Reef Club, Inc.
Lower Ke s
Waste Management IncJ
Bland Dis sal
As a consequence of these franchise agreements, the County's incinerators and
landfills are no longer in operation. The landfill sites are now used as transfer stations
for wet garbage, yard waste, and construction debris collected throughout the Keys by
the four curbside contractors and prepared by WMI for shipment out of the Keys.
However, it is impo~ant to note that the new site on Cudjoe Key could be reopened if
necessary. The table below summarizes the status of the County's landfills and
incinerators.
Figure 43- Solid Waste Facilities
Site Incinerators Landfills Reserve Capacity
(cubic yards)
Key Largo Closed 12131/90 No Longer Active 0
Long Key Closed 1/7/91 No Longer Active 0
Cudjoe
old Site Closed 2/25/91 No Longer Active 0
new Site None Currently Inactive 180,000
-64-
MoNROE COlmr DEPAmMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsJuRCES
The County's recycling efforts continue to expand. Beginning in October 1994,
curbside collection of recyclable materials was made available to all County residences
and businesses. Recycling transfer centers have been established in the Lower, Middle,
and Upper Keys. Waste Management, Inc. continues to process yard waste into mulch.
The mulch product is then made available to the public. In addition to County efforts,
other government agencies are mulching and reusing yard waste, and private
enterprises are collecting aluminum and other recyclable materials.
White goods, waste oil, batteries and tires are handled separately, with collection
sites operating at each landfill/transfer station site. The County collects household
hazardous waste at the Long Key and Cudjoe Key sites. Hazardous waste from small
quantity generators is collected once a year, as part of an Amnesty Days program.
Demand for Solid Waste Facilities
For solid waste accounting purposes, the County is divided into three districts which
are similar, but not identical to the service areas outlined in Section 9.5-292 of the Land
Development Regulations (LDRs). One difference is that Windley Key, which is
considered to be in the Upper Keys district in the LDRs, is included in the Middle Keys
district for purposes of solid waste management. Another difference from the LDRs is
that the cities of Layton and Key Colony Beach are included in the Middle Keys district
for solid waste management.
Although Islamorada incorporated on December 31, 1997, the municipality
continued to participate with Monroe County in the contract with Waste Management
Inc. until September 30, 1998. Data for Monroe County solid waste generation is
calculated by fiscal year which runs from October 1 to September 30. Therefore, the
effects of Islamorada's incorporation on solid waste services appear in the 1999 data.
Data for the City of Key West and the Village of Islamorada is not included in this
report.
-.
Marathon's incorporation was effective on October 1, 2000 and continues to
participate in the Waste Management contract. Effects of the incorporation will appear
in the 2001 data.
Demand for solid waste facilities is influenced by many factors, including the size
and income levels of resident and seasonal populations, the extent of recycling efforts,
household consumptive practices, landscaping practices, land development activities,
and natural events such as hurricanes and tropical storms. Analyses provided by a
private research group indicate that the average single-family house generates 2.15
tons of solid waste per year. Mobile homes and multifamily units, having smaller yards
and household sizes, typically generate less solid waste (1.96 and 1.28 tons per year,
respectively).
-65-
MoNROECOUNTY DEPA/(TMENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTALRE9:JuRCES
The graph and table on the following page summarize the solid waste generated by
each district. The totals for each district are a combination of four categories of solid
waste: garbage, yard waste, bulk yard waste and other (includes construction and
demolition debris).
Figure 44-Solid Waste Generation by District
Year Key LargO Long Key Cudjoe Key Total % Change
1985 28,585 28,890 15,938 73,413 1.0%
1987 32,193 37,094 22,206 91,493 11.0%
1989 31,173 33,931 23,033 88,137 -11.0%
1990 28,430 31,924 22,988 83,342 -5.0%
1991 26,356 28,549 20,699 75,604 -9.0010
1992 27,544 26,727 18,872 73,143 -3.0010
1993 37,211 28,986 22,198 88,395 21.0%
1994 30,110 30,662 24,831 85,603 -3.0%
1995 28,604 3O,n5 25,113 84,492 -1.00/0
1996 31,573 31,845 27,823 91,241 8.00/0
1997 32,003 33,625 29,350 94,978 4.0010
1998 33,119 36,440 30,920 100,479 6.00/0
1999 27,303 28,135 30,409 85,847 -14.6%
2000 29,550 28,361 32,675 90,586 5.5%
Note: The figures frtm 196410 1991 indude v.tIiIe goods, tires, CXJ'1SII\Jdion debris, and yard waste.
They do not indude SOt.ICEHlepaI'a recyclable.
The figures frtm 199210 2000 do not indude v.tIiIe goods and tires since these items are ~.
80,000
100,000
60,000
III
C
0
I-
40,000
,
'-~
~,
20,000 ~'
;. ~~
;:
o
1985 1987 1989 1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
i_Key Largo c:=:J Long Key C=:::J OJdjoe Key ~ Total
I
I
,I
I
Source: Monroe County Solid Waste Management Department, 2001
1985-2000 data taken from County tonnage reports
-66-
MoNROE COUNTY /JEPAIV"MENTOF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsouRCES
After reaching a peak in 1988, the data shows a general decline in the total amount
of solid waste generated throughout the County. However, in 1993 there was an
increase of 21 percent in the amount of solid waste generated. This increase is
attributed to the demolition and rebuilding associated with Hurricane Andrew, which
made landfall in South Florida in late August 1992. For the next two years the amount
of solid waste generated in the County was once again on the decline. However, from
1996 onward the amount of solid waste generated has been on the increase until 1998,
when it reached its highest level yet. This increase is attributed to the debris
associated with Hurricane Georges, which made landfall in the Keys in September of
1998. A portion of the decline seen from 1998 to 1999 may be attributable to the
reduction in solid waste collected from Islamorada.
Level of Service of Solid Waste Facilities
Section 9.5-292 of the Land Development Regulations requires that the County
maintain sufficient capacity to accommodate all existing and approved development for
at least three (3) years. The regulations specifically recognize the concept of using
disposal sites outside Monroe County.
As of December 1999, Waste Management Inc., reports a reserve capacity of
approximately 20 million cubic yards at their Central Sanitary Landfill in Broward
County, a volume sufficient to serve their clients for another 40 years. The chart below
shows the remaining capacity at the Central Sanitary Landfill.
Figure 45- Remaining Capacity, Central Sanitary Landfill
1997 1998 1999 2000
Remaining 34 million 27 million 20 million 28 million
Capacity (volume) cubic cubic cubic cubic
yards yards yards yards
Remaining 42 years 41 years 40 years 14 years
Capacity (time)
Source: Monroe County Solid ~ Management Department, 2001
Monroe County has a contract with WMI authorizing use of the facility through
September 30, 2006, thereby providing the County with approximately seven years of
guaranteed capacity. In addition to this contract, the 180,000 cubic yard reserve at the
County landfill on Cudjoe Key would be sufficient to handle the County's waste stream
for an additional four to five years (at current tonnage levels), should the County
choose to discontinue haul-out as the means of disposal.
The combination of the existing haul-out contract and the space available at the Cudjoe Key
landfill provides the County with suffident capacity to accommodate all existing and approved
development for ten to eleven years.
-67-
MoNROE COUNTY DEPAKrMENTOFPlANNING,ANOffNVIRoNMENTAL REsouRcEs
PARKS AND RECREA TION
An annual assessment of parks and recreational facilities is not mandated by Section
9.5-292 of the Monroe County Land Development Regulations, though it is required for
concurrency management systems by the Florida Statutes. The following section has
been included in the 2000 Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report for informational
purposes only.
Level of Service standards for parks and recreational facilities are not mentioned in
the Land Development RegLilations, but are listed in Policy 1201.1.1 of the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, ,
Parks and Recreational Facilities Level of Service Standard
The level of service (LOS) standard for neighborhood and community parks in
unincorporated Monroe County is 1.64 acres per 1,000 functional population. To
ensure a balance between the provision of resource- and activity-based recreation areas
the LOS standard has been divided equally between these two types of recreation
areas. Therefore, the LOS standards are:
0.82 acres of resource-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population
0.82 acres of activity-based recreation area per 1,000 functional population
The LOS standards for each type of recreation area can be applied to
unincorporated Monroe County as a whole or to each subarea (Upper, Middle, and
Lower Keys) of unincorporated Monroe County. In determining how to apply the LOS
standard for each type of recreation area, the most important aspect to consider is the
difference between resource- and activity-based recreation areas. Resource-based
recreation areas are established around existing natural or cultural resources of
significance, such as beach areas or historic sites. Activity-based recreation areas can
be established anywhere there is sufficient space for ball fields, tennis or basketball
courts, or other athletic events.
Since the location of resource-based recreation areas depends upon the natural
features or cultural resources of the area and cannot always be provided near the
largest population centers, it is reasonable to apply the LOS standard for resource-
based areas to all of unincorporated Monroe County. Since activity-based recreation
areas do not rely on natural features or cultural resources for their location and because
they can be provided in areas with concentrated populations, it is more appropriate to
apply the LOS standard to each subarea of the Keys.
It is important to note that the subareas used for park and recreational facilities
differ from those subareas used in the population projections. For the purpose of park
and recreational facilities, the Upper Keys are considered to be the area north of
-68-
MoNROE COUNTY DEl'AKrMENTOF PlANNING AND ElMRONMENTAL REsouRCES
Tavernier (PAEDs 15 through 22). The Middle Keys are considered to be the area
between Pigeon Key and Long Key (PAEDs 6 through 11). The Lower Keys are the area
south of the Seven Mile Bridge (PAEDs 1 through 6). Although the Middle and Lower
Keys subareas both contain portions of PAED 6, the population of PAED 6 is located in
the Lower Keys subarea.
An inventory of Monroe County's parks and recreational facilities is presented on the
following pages. The facilities are grouped by subarea and are classified according to
the principal use (resource or activity).
Figure 46- Parks and Recreational Facilities
Serving Unincorporated Monroe County
Classification
and Size (acres)
Name Facilities Resource Activity
Upper Keys Subarea
Garden Cove Undeveloped 1.50
Hibiscus Park Undeveloped 0.46
Friendship Park BaskelbaD courts (2), playground, baD field, picnic shelters, parking and public restrooms. 1.92
Key Largo A soccer field, tv.o (2) baD fields, six (6) tennis courts, a jogging trail, three (3) basketball 14.00
Community Park courts, roller hockey, volleyball, playground, picnic shelters, public restrooms, parking ( ) and
proposed swimming pool.
Sunset Point WaIeIfront park with a boat ramp. 1.20
Harry Hams Two (2) ball fields, playground, restrooms, picnic shelters, beach, parking (89) and boat 16.40
ramp.
Settler's Park P1a}9round, park benches, trails, and a historic p1atfonn. 3.00
Sunny Haven Undeveloped 0.09
Old S.R. 4-A Undeveloped 0.30
Key Largo Monroe County School District; Playground, baseball field, running track, indoor gym. 3.40
Elementary
Coral Shores High Monroe County School District; Baseball field, football field, softball field, 5 tennis courts, 10.10
School indoor gym.
Plantation Key Monroe County School District; playground, 1 tennis court, 1 basketball court, 1 baseball 1.70
Elementary field.
SUBAREArOT~~7:';:,,~.,}; . ,-" . .... . ...i 6.09 47.98
~. '. .'i';i"":*~~..d;,Y;"~:,_:,,
Middle Keys Subarea
Pigeon Key Historic structures, researctv'educational facilities, and a railroad museum. 5.00
Marathon High Monroe County School District; Baseball and football field, softball field, 3 tennis courts, 3 7.80
School basketbaD courts, indoor gym.
SwiUik Elementary Monroe County School District; Playground, 2 baseball fields, shared soccerlfotlball field. 2.50
SUBAREA TOTAL:"""" .. .:. ....... . <..:,.. ....;;;.,. .:.i 5.00 ...... 10.30
'. .' .. . . ':_ . - . -,:, ,:"",1'''':''''_:'''~''''''~,o,.L .,',. C,' :-,. ,_ .. .. "_. .'
e..::.~:t'-::":i;;~:'< >, :~: ~__",' " - ;, ~' , ,
-69-
MoNROECOi.JNTY DEPAmMENrOF PlANNING AND EIMRoNMENTAL RE9:JuRCES
Figure 46-Parks and Recreational Facilities
Serving Unincorporated Monroe County (continued)
Classification
and Size (acres)
Name Facilities Resource Activity
Lower Keys Subarea
UtIle Duck Key Pialic shelters, restrooms, boat ramp, and beach area. 25.50
Missouri Key Undeveloped 3.50
West SuI'TVTlel1and Boat Ramp. .- 31,80
Heron Avenue Undeveloped 0.69
Palm Villa Playground and benches. 0.44
Big Pine Leisure Club Undeveloped 1.75
Blue Heron Pari< Playground, basketbaD court, youth center, and picnic shelters. 5.50
Watson Field Tv.u (2) tennis courts, ball field, playground, and volleyball. 2.40
Ramrod Key SWim SWimming area with no facilities. 0,50
Hole
Summer1and Estates Undeveloped 0.13
UtIle Torch Boat Boat ramp. 0.10
Ramp
Baypoint Part< P1ayglOU'1d, voIIeybaIl,bocchi baD, tv.u (2) tennis courts, and picnic area. 1.58
Palm Villa Pari< Undeveloped 0.13
Rockland Hammock Undeveloped 2.50
Boca Chica Beach Beach area 6.00
Delmar Avenue Boat Boat ramp 0.20
Ramp
Big Coppitt Fire Playground and benches. 0.75
Deparbnent
Playground
Wilhelmina Harvey Passive green space with no facilities. 0,65
Children's Park
Bernstein Pari< Ball field, soccer, basketball court, track, tennis courts, playground, restrooms and volleyball. 11.00
East Martello Historic sIruclures, teen center, and pialic area. 14.58
west Martello Historic sIruclure 0.80
Higgs Beach Five (5) tennis courts, playground, volleyball, picnic shelters, beach area, pier, and public 5.06
restrooms.
Lighthouse Museum Historic sIruclure and museum. 0.77
Sugartoaf Elementary Monroe County School Disbict;1 baseball field, playground. 3.10
SUBAREATOTAL~~1'~"'1.n',,",;.,:. . '. <:'. '.'d.:';.' .. ;::;, f~ " ..r;,,, '.1:~; 87.85 .; ..... 31.58~1
,"<-,',
-70-
MoNROE COlmr /JEPAIV"MENT OF PlANNING AND ENvIRONMENTAL REsouRCES
There are currently 89.81 acres of resource-based recreation areas either owned or
leased by Monroe County. The resource-based acreage figures subtracts 9,13 acres of
undeveloped lands from the 98.94 total shown in Figure 47. Using the functional
population projection for 2000 of 74,388 persons in unincorporated Monroe County, and
the LOS standard of 0.82 acres per 1,000 functional population, the demand for
resource-based .recreation areas is approximately 60.99 acres. The county currently
has a resource-based recreation land to meet the level of service with an extra 32.18
acres of reserve capacity.
Level of Service Analysis for Activity-Based Recreation Areas
The Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan allows activity-based recreational land found at
educational facilities to be counted towards the park and recreational concurrency.
There is currently a total of 89.40 acres of developed activity-based recreation areas
either owned or leased by Monroe County and the Monroe County School Board. This
total represents 47.52 acres in the Upper Keys (including Plantation Key in Islamorada),
10.3 acres in the Middle Keys (including Marathon), and 31.58 acres in the Lower Keys.
Based on a LOS standard of 0.82 acres of activity-based recreation areas per 1,000
functional population in unincorporated Monroe County, the demand for these
recreation areas are 30.13, 3.30 and 27.57 acres for the Upper, Middle, and Lower
Keys, respectively.
There is currently a reserve of 28.86 acres of activity-based recreation areas for all
of unincorporated Monroe County. The following table shows the level of service
analysis for activity-based recreation areas in each subarea.
Figure 47-Level of Service Analysis for Activity-Based Recreation
Areas Serving Unincorporated Monroe County
Subarea 2000 Total Active-based Demand Reserve
'. Functional Acreage Available (.82 AC/1 ,000 Capacity
Population people) (in
acres)
Upper Keys Total 36,744 47.98 30.13 17.85
Middle Keys 4,026 10.3 3.30 7.00
Total
Lower Keys Total 33,618 31.58 27.57 4.01
Overall Total 74,388 89.86 61.00 28.86
-71-
MoI'IRoECOi.JNTYfJBWnMENTOfPIANN/NG#lDENvlRoNMENrAL REsouRCES
Acquisition of Additi~a,1 Recreation Areas . 0
.[ 0
1'he Monroe:County Yearo'i010 Comprehenstve Plan states in Objective 1201.2 that
"Monroe 'County shall secure additional acreage for use and/or development of
resource-based and activity-based neighborhood and community parks consistent with
the adopted level of service standards." 0 The - elimination of deficiencies in LOS
standards for recreation areas can be accomplished in a number of ways. Policy
1201.2.1 of the Comprehensive Plan proVides six (6) mechanisms that are acceptable
for solving deficits in park level of service standards, as well as for providing adequate
land to satisfy the demand for parks and recreation facilities that results from additional
residential development. The six (6) mechanisms are:
1. Development of park and recreational facilities on land that is already owned by
the county but that is not being used for park and recreation purposes;
2. Acquisition of new park sites;
3. Interlocal agreements with the Monroe County School Board that would allow for
the use of existing school-park facilities by county residents;
4. Interlocal agreements with incorporated cities within Monroe County that would
allow for the use of existing city-owned park facilities by county residents;
5. Intergovernmental agreements with agencies of state and federal governments
that would allow for the use of existing publicly-owned lands or facilities by county
residents; and
6. Long-term lease arrangements or joint use agreements with private entities that
would allow for the use of private park facilities by county residents.
To date, the county has employed two of these six mechanisms - acquisition of new park sites
(number 2 above) and.ointerlocal agreements with the School Board (number 3 above).
However, these agreements need to be examined more closely to determine the amount of
available acreage for calculating concurrency. Furthermore, Monroe County cannot rely upon
joint use fadlities to eliminate existing defidendes or meet future LOS requirements until
interlocal, intergovernmental, or private use joint agreements are executed. For instance, the
County is currently reviewing and revising the Interlocal Agreements with the Monroe County
School Board to provide greater day time accessibility for students to public recreational fadlities.
Once executecl, these agreements will ensure that the fadlities will be available for general use to
Monroe County residents to meet peak season, weekend, or time of day recreation demands.
-72-