Item B2 i I
BOARD:OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: April 18,2013 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes_ No X Department: Planning&Environmental Resources.
Staff Contact Person: Christine Hurley,289-2517
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: A public hearing to adopt a resolution to transmit to the Florida State
Land Planning Agency a proposed ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
amending the future land use map of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive. Plan from
Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) for property located at 98175 Overseas
Highway, Key Largo, Lots 1 & 2, Block 4, Rock Harbor Estates, PB3/P187 of the Public Records of
Monroe County, Florida,having real estate.,number 00519750=0,000A0 . .
ITEM BACKGOUND: The applicant!presently owns a veterinary clinic/animal hospital business in an
existing two story masonry 3,695 square foot building located at 98175 Overseas Highway, Key Largo.
The subject property currently has a Future Land Use Map (PLUM)designation of Residential Medium
(RM) and a Land Use District designation of Improved Subdivision (IS). The current regulations
pertaining to permitted uses do not allow a commercial retail,use. The applicant is requesting to amend
the FLUM designation for the existing commercial use from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed
Use/Commercial (MC). The proposed FLUM amendment, together with the associated LUD
amendment(IS to SC)will eliminate the nonconformity to the,'use.
If the BOCC votes to transmit the proposed comprehensive plan amendment to the State Land Planning
Agency. The State Land Planning Agency will then review the proposed amendment and issue an
Objections, Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report, addressing any issues with internal
consistency, data and analysis, or consistency with the i statutes or the Principles for Guiding
Development. Upon receipt of the ORC report,the BOCC will have 180 days to adopt the amendments,
adopt the amendments with changes or,not adopt the amendments.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT COMMISSION ACTION: Monroe County Resolution No. 127-2012,
approved on April 18, 2012, allows an applicant to apply for a LUD and/or FLUM designations that
would eliminate the nonconforming use created with the adoption of the existing designations and not
create an adverse effect on the community,provided the existing use existed lawfully in 1992 and 1997.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
TOTAL COST: N/A INDIRECT COST:N/A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A
COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH: N/A Year
APPROVED BY: County Attorney_x _ OMB/Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM#
e(-.)1..4::-'''',.6.‘641;;`-`-s\`'..;,‘,N . ,
2 - 1., .1 Tom/ r
4
v
5 MEMORANDUM'
6 MONROE COUNTY PLANNING&ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES DEPARTMENT
7 We strive to be caring,professional and fair
8
9 To: Monroe County Planning Commission
10
11 Through: Christine Hurley,Director,Monroe County Growth Management
12 Mayte Santamaria,Assistant Director,Planning and Environmental Resources
13
14 From: Mitchell N. Harvey,AICP, Comprehensive Planning Manager
15
16 Date: March 21, 2013
17
18 Subject: A REQUEST BY RENAISSANCE FARMS OF THE FLORIDA KEYS LLC TO
19 AMEND THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE MONROE COUNTY
20 YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM
21 (RM) TO MIXED USE/ COMMERCIAL (MC) FOR PROPERTY LOCATED
22 AT 98175 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO
23
24 Meeting: April 18, 2013
25
26 I. REQUEST
27 ,
28 The applicant,Renaissance Farms of Florida Keys LLC, is requesting to amend the Future Land Use
29 Map (FLUM) of the. Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan from Residential Medium
30 (RM)to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) for property located at 98175 Overseas Highway,Key Largo,
31 having real estate number 00519750-000000.
32 i
' ' r
,art. 14 a r ,r r. rF "i ` S7° ", - i" s
i
..ram,c.., i...p tl,Lw `6 11 1 r, '+ P"' �' f ,A4 7' o I
Z' r d w; _ r f� ,i� tit<," �" 4,. k Mi
is q e'^` i.��j.., uk � M J' / '*�� `, , 1;X.,.^.+lr 1,,,
", '�' .,4 ., �,i'Fg , �. ,,,,, I". :' 1 e Its. +`perny '''.thy.
'13
Yla' F«* `r y�`t.u:..., �'�- '1 6�w 3 ,t:: J ,/ a''' - A.' c- n+*A,^
,,,t's 1/PN ::,.''''•it r. '' ' ''''' ,* '''.0,, „9.,:',., ' '.A.Nikkv-'ff&',1 c,-----5
' ' '''.;.':' ,46--,iftt,,r,,,,N110PA, yi.ifik) ,A,0\ ric? ' to -- v-Av. , Am.-w / -,..6 ,%,.:
'.', '. :„.'eve,<7\4.,...*..s.-F,. ,...v-Y' , %
, t i'. ,N,,. .4riit,. 'i..4:7 Ile(1"..% # • .,
7:r V..— ''W '
' joy,,„ 4,4 .., #
.„,-. , . , * .,,.. . , ,
. , fn, ' , 40): , illfr
i , Y.:01,'''''Sie.' lit):.".-A. '''4: .eig,t).' liTt#* ' '''': s p
.
£ } `id$/ � s _a xF ', ,33
ti
File #2012-111 Pagel of 12
,
I
34 II BACKGRO s INFORMATION`35
36 The property was within a RU-1 district (Single-Family Residential) and BU-2 district (Medium
37 Business) prior to 1986, when the property was re-designated IS (Improved Subdivision). It is
38 unknown as to precisely when the designation was amended from RU-1 to BU-2; however,
39 according to information within the building permit application, the property was BU-2 when the
40 building was converted to a dance studio in 1977. After 1986, all subsequent permits indicate that
41 the building was being utilized for, commercial retail use. Since the zoning district changed from
42 BU-2 to IS,the existing commercial use became a nonconforming use within an IS district.
43
44 The applicant presently owns a veterinary clinic/animal hospital business in an existing two story
45 masonry 3,695 square foot building located at 98175 Overseas Highway, Key Largo. The subject
46 property currently has a Future Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of'Residential Medium (RM)
47 and a Land_ Use District designation of Improved Subdivision (IS). The current regulations
48 pertaining to permitted uses do not allow a commercial'retail use. The applicant is requesting to
49 amend the FLUM designation for the existing commercial use from Residential Medium (RM) to
50 Mixed Use/Commercial (MC). The:proposed FLUM amendment, together with the associated LUD
51 amendment(IS to SC)will eliminate the nonconformity toithe use.
52
53 Monroe County Resolution No. 127-2012, approved on April 18,2012, allows an applicant to apply
54 for a LUD and/or FLUM designations that would eliminate the nonconforming use created with the
55 adoption of the existing designations and not create an adverse effect on the community. The
56 property owner must provide satisfactory evidence that the existing use on the site also existed
57 lawfully in 1992 and was deemed nonconforming by final adoption of the LUD map and/or the
58 existing use on the site existing lawfully in 1997 and was deemed nonconforming by final adoption
59 of the FLUM to be exempt from the,FLUM amendment application fee.
60
61 On June 1,2012, Monroe County Planning staff prepared an addendum to a Letter of Understanding,
62 issued on April 27, 2010, which determined that the existing use existed lawfully in 1992 and was
63 deemed nonconforming by the final adoption of the LUD map. Staff has also determined that the
64 existing use existed lawfully in 1997 and was deemed nonconforming by the fmal adoption of the
65 FLUM. Staff concluded that he proposed FLUM category of MC and proposed LUD designations of
66 MU or SC would eliminate the nonconformity of use.
67
68 Comprehensive Plan Policy 101.201 states: Monroe County shall develop a series of Community
69 Master Plans. These "CommuniKeys Plans" implement a vision that was developed by the local
70 community. In 2006, the Monroe County Board of 'County Commissioners adopted Policy
71 101.20.2(5) which incorporated the Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Plan into the Monroe County
72 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Action Item 1.3.2 states: Revise the FLUM and Land Use District Maps
73 to resolve non-conformities in the;planning area where) appropriate. The proposed FLUM and
74 associated LUD amendment implements this Action Item of the adopted Key Largo CommuniKeys
75 Plan. i
76
77 On October 30, 2012, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed
78 amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting.
79
80 On November 28, 2012,the Monroe'County Planning Commission voted 5-0 to recommend approval
81 of the proposed amendment to the Board of County Commissioners.
File #2012-111 Page 2 of 12
i
1
82
83 III.AMENDMENT REVIEW {
84 I
85 DENSITY AND INTENSITY ANALYSIS (COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.4.21)
86 I
Existing FLUMr Type Adopted Standards
"Development potential
_ , based upandensrty,
Residential ' 1 du/lot 2 units
Allocated Density/Acre
-
Residential
FLU Max Net/Buildable Acre i N/A N/A
Transient 0 rooms/spaces 0 rooms/spaces
Total site: 0.31 acres Allocated Density/Acre
0.24 net acres
Transient
2 lots Max Net/Buildable Acre N/A N/A
Nonresidential
Maximum Intensity I 0 FAR 0 sf
r
` '1' r� � , � ! Develo went; otentiai
Proposed FLUMr ,; Type t� 'f Adopited Standards p p,
ase b d upondensity
Residential
Allocated Density/Acre 1-6 du/ac 1 unit
Mixed Use/ Residential I
du/ac 0-4 units
Commercial Max Net/Buildable Acre
FLUM Transient
Allocated Dens ty/Acre 5-151rooms/spaces 1-4 rooms/spaces
Total site:0.31 acres I
Transient 2-6
0.24 net acres 10-25 rooms/spaces
2 lots Max Net/Buildable Acre room/spaces
Non Residential 0.10-0.45 FAR 1,350—6,076 sf
Maximum Intensity
I
87
88 Net Change: Residential (Allocated): -1 unit
89 Residential(Max•Net): +4 units 1
90 Transient(Allocated): +4 rooms/spaces*
91 Transient(Max Net): +6 rooms/spaces*
92 Non Residential: +6,076 square feet
93
94 ;
95 The above table provides an approximation of the development potential for residential,transient
96 and commercial development. Section 130-156 of the Land Development Code states: "The
97 density and intensity provisions set out in this section are intended to be applied cumulatively so
98 that no development shall exceed the total density limits of this article. For example, if a
Page 3 of 12
File #2012-111
1
i
99 development includes both residential and commercial development, the total gross amount of
100 development shall not exceed'the cumulative permitted intensity of the parcel proposed for
101 development."
102
103 There are no existing residential uses within the subject property. Any new residential use must
104 follow the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)permit process. An existing affordable residential
105 use may also be transferred to the subject property from a sender site that is located within the
106 Upper Keys subarea. ;
107
108 *Monroe County does not award ROGO allocations for the development of NEW transient
109 residential units (e.g.,hotel&motel rooms),pursuant to Policy 101.2.6. For the development of
110 transient units in unincorporated Monroe County, existing transient units must be transferred
111 from the same ROGO subarea to a parcel designated as Tier III or Tier III-A which does not
112 propose the clearing of any portion of an upland native habitat patch of one acre or greater in
113 area.
114
115 COMPATIBILITY WITH THE SURROUNDING AREA
116
117 A. Existing Vegetation/Habitat: Developed land j
118 B. Existing Tier Designation: III I
119 C. Number of Listed Endangered or Threatened Species:None
120 D. Existing Use: Commercial
121 E. Community Character of Immediate Vicinity: Adjacent land uses consist of vacant land
122 to the north,residential uses to the south and east,with commercial uses and U.S. 1 right-
123 of-way to the west. 1
124
125 The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the community character of the
126 surrounding area.
127
128 1
129 CONCURRENCY,ANALYSIS i(COMPREHENSIVE PLAN POLICY 101.1.1)
130
131 Traffic Circulation(Comprehensive Plan Policy 301.1.1)
132
133 The subject property is located ;on the northbound side of U.S. 1 at MM 98 in Key Largo. The
134 2012 URS Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study for Monroe County indicated a Level of
135 Service (LOS) of A within the road segment of MM 91.5 to MM 99.5. U.S 1 is required to
136 maintain an LOS of"C" in order to support development.
137
138 The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely'impact Traffic LOS.
139
140 Potable Water(Comprehensive Plan Policy 701.1.1)
141
142 In March 2008, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) approved the FKAA's
143 modification of WUP 13-00005 5-W for a 20-year allocation from the Biscayne and Floridian
144 Aquifers. The WUP provides an annual allocation of 8,751 Million Gallons (MG) or 23.98
145 MGD and a maximum monthly allocation of 809 MG with a limited annual withdrawal from the
File #2012-111 Page 4 of 12
1
1
146 Biscayne Aquifer of 6,492 MG or 17.79 MGD and an average dry season (December 1st-April
147 30 )of 17.0 MGD.
148
149 The Residential LOS is 66.5 gallons/capita/day. The Non-Residential LOS is 0.35 gallons
150 /sq.ft./day. The overall level of service for potable water is 132 gallons per capita/per/day.
151
152 Maximum Residential: 4 DU X 2.24 (people per household) = 8; 8 X 66.5 gallons per capita per
153 day=532 gallons per day
154
155 Maximum Non-Residential: 0.35 X 6,076 sq.ft.=2,126.6 gallons per day
156
157 TOTAL: 532+2,126.6 =2,658.6 gallons/day
158
159 The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely',impact the potable water LOS.
160
161 Solid Waste(Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1)
162
163 Comprehensive Plan Policy 801.1.1 establishes the level of service for solid waste as 5.44 pounds
164 per capita per day or 12.2 pounds per day per equivalent residential unit (ERU) and establishes a
165 haul out capacity of 95,000 tons per year or 42,668 RUs. The Comprehensive plan requires
166 sufficient capacity be available at a solid waste disposal site to accommodate all existing and
167 approved development for a period of three years from the projected date of completion of the
168 proposed development of use. Monroe County has a solid waste haul out contract with Waste
169 Management LLC, which authorizes the use of in-state facilities through September 20, 2016,
170 thereby providing the County with approximately three years of guaranteed capacity.
171
172 Maximum Residential = 4 DUs.X 2.24 (people per household) = 8; 8 X 5.44 pounds per capita
173 per day=43 pounds per day
174
175 The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the solid waste LOS.
176
177 Sanitary Sewer(Comprehensive Plan Policy 901.1.1
178
179 The subject property is presently connected to the Key Largo Wastewater Treatment District
180 central sewer system. The level of service (LOS) for residential and nonresidential flow is 145
181 gallons per day per equivalent dwelling units (Exhibit 3-8 Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
182 2000).
183
184 Maximum Residential=4 X 145=580 gallons per day!
185
186 The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely;impact the wastewater LOS.
187
188 Drainage (Comprehensive Plan Policy 1001.1.1)
189
190 All projects shall be designed so that the discharges will meet Florida State Water Quality Standards as set
191 forth in Chapters 17-25 and 17-302,F.A.C,incorporated herein by reference. In addition,all projects shall
192 include an additional 50% of the water quality treatment specified below, which shall be calculated by
File 112012-111
Page 5 of 12
•
ZI;0 9 a2Bd III-trot# ai!d
OiZ
6£Z
8£Z
L£Z
9£Z
S£Z
t£Z
EEZ
Z£Z
'SO'I aai dS I£Z
uadO/uopuaaaag pug sxaed ;audun Apsaanpi o; pa;gdiapui ;ou si king pasodoad aqj OE
• • 6ZZ
uoi;gaioaljo sale £00'0 alnbal pinoM 8ZZ
asgalout sttp uo pa;gooi aidoad 8 iguot;ippu tie.aq pinoM mom. ' do Iad tZ'Z LZZ
pug SWIn 8utiiaAp igt;uaptsa1 i,;g sm000;uauidoianap ji •(uoptindod iguopounj) suosiad 000`I 9ZZ
sad jo sozog Z8.0 jo ands uado pug uoi;uaioal pasuq-,f;inpog pug pasuq-paamosai Ioj `I'I'IOZi SZZ
Aoiiod mid anisuauaiduroD o; ;ugnsmd `aotnUas jo lanai piano ug pa;dope sett Atunop atii, t7ZZ
£ZZ
(I'I'I OZI di tiod held anIsuagaidu;oD)ands uadO pug uot;gaioa'i ZZZ
IZZ
'SO'I 02EuiIUQ aq;pi dwilAIasaanpu o;pa;udiapuI Iou si BUM pasodoad aqi OZZ
61Z
'ova`Ot-HOt Pile jr()t Io;dggj Jo s;uauralnbal 8 I Z
alp paw osie Begs ssaoozd Surantuad la4su ;mama eueyq 1a;gm wpm L I Z
linos NI wag ldwaxa ale goniA spa fold;uautdoianapoZl puu tuautdopnaQ MNN (o 9I Z
SIZ
•°nogg pops se iiienb aa;gM stacp Pug satpoq t I Z
IOWA 8uiniaoaz apra2ap o; uotsinipgns Io Mlle panozdun atpua alp luau jjount El Z
ag;asne f iiIM tionFin s;ueanUod anquluoo;ou litM jjo-utu Iatunntwoas;uaurdojanap Z I Z
-Isod sit;gip atnsua ueid anisuagatduroo sap Jo uopdope alp o;.loud Sups-pm II Z
suotsrntpgns Io ware iepuapisai panoldtut wpm ;ttaurdolanap inRuaptsat it9ul (q O I
60Z
•uopuayap JOM Ioj paondtuoo s;unotue 80Z
°Hoge alp jo ;uaarad pS o; pmba paranoid aq 'Rs amnion uotua;a)i (E) LOZ .
90Z
•uopualap]aM IOJ pautduioo;unotue SOZ
°nogg alp 30;ua0Iad SL o;ignba paranoid 0I 1N amnion uopua;ap/IQ (Z) t0Z
EOZ
zanaa sTIanagoigM`ssausnotnladtui ZOZ
jo aentaatad alp satup sagout S•Z jo jjoutu alp Io`;oafard padoianap I0Z
alp uwolj1Jouni JO gout Isrg ag;Ioj papuAold aq ELT amnion uopua;ap tam (I) 00Z
661
:panto suopeurgtuoo;uaienmba 86I
zo guatuo 8upnolioJ aanp ago jo auo Io,I paranoid aq 'legs `•o;a `SArtnuaadi L61
`sieug° `s° T `saieMs SuYpnput tua4s's 1I 10Ao ago ut uopuaaap Io/pue`uofua;a21 (e 961
S6I
£elle40 It IeleA\. 176I
QY1iAAIS)guag.°uotua;acuuopuapax` S'I pi Io4ogi g (e)uor;oas ui pautuiqo saunlon alp 2uufldgintu £61
241 IV CONSISTENCY WITH THETMONROE'COUNTY YEAiR 2010 CO MPREHENEAN,
THE'KEYARGO'CO I.
SIV PL
dr
242 V � YSP j S
t ` E LAN,PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING�DEVELOPMENT,243 AND;CHAPTERµ163 FLORIDA`S 7 TUTES , a L-v;
244
245 A. The proposed amendment is generally consistent With the following Goals, Objectives and
246 Policies of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan. Specifically,it furthers:
247
248 Goal 101: Monroe County shall manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the
249 safety of County residents and visitors,and protect valuable natural resources.
250
251 Policy 101.112: Monroe County shall adopt level of service (LOS) standards for the following public
252 facility types required by Chapter 9J-5,F.A.C: roads, sanitary sewer, solid waste, drainage,potable water,
253 parks and recreation, and paratransit The LOS standards are established in the following sections of the
254 Comprehensive Plan:
255
256 1. The LOS for roads is established in Traffic and Circulation Policy 301.1.1;
257
258 2. The LOS for potable water is established in Potable Water Policy 701.1.1;
259
260 3. The LOS for solid waste is established in Solid Waste Policy 801.1.1;
261
262 4. The LOS for sanitary sewer is established inSanitary Sewer Policy 901.1.1;
263 1
264 5. The LOS for drainage is established in Drainage Policy 1001.1.1;and
265 I
266 6. The LOS for parks and recreation is established in Recreation and Open Space Policy
267 1201.1.1
268
269 Objective 101.4: Monroe County shall regulate future development and redevelopment to
270 maintain the character of the community and protect the natural resources by providing for the
271 compatible distribution of land uses consistent with thle designations shown on the Future Land
272 Use Map.
273 1
274 Policy 101.4.5:The principal purpose of the Mixed Use/Commercial land use category is to provide for the
275 establishment of commercial zoning districts where variousitypes of commercial retail and office may be
276 permitted at intensities which are consistent with the community character and the natural environment.
277
278 Objective 101.8: Monroe County shall eliminate or reduce!the frequency of uses which are inconsistent
279 with the applicable provisions of the land development regulations and the Future Land Use Map, and
280 structures which are inconsistent with applicable codes and land development regulations.
281
282 Objective 101.11: Monroe County shall implement measures to direct future growth away from
283 environmentally sensitive land and towards established development areas served by existing public
284 facilities.
285 :
286 Objective 101.20: Monroe County;shall address local community needs while balancing the needs of all
287 Monroe County communities. These efforts shall focus on the human crafted environment and shall be
288 undertaken through the Livable CommuniKeys Planning Program.
File #2012-111 Page 7 of 12
I I
289
290 Policy 101/0.2:The Community Master Plans shall be incorporated into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan as
291 a part of the plan and be implemented as part of the Comprehensive Plan. The following Community
292 Master Plans have been completed in accordance with the principles outlined in this section and adopted by
293 the Board of County Commissioners:
294
295 5. The Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan is incorporated by reference into the 2010
296 Comprehensive Plan. The term Strategies in the Master Plan is equivalent to the term Objectives in the
297 Comprehensive Plan and the term Action Item is equivalent to the term Policy; the meanings and
298 requirements for implementation are synonymous.
299
300 B. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Key Largo Livable
301 CommuniKeys Plan Action Item:
302
303 Action Item 1.3.2: Revise the FLUM and Land Use District Maps to resolve nonconformities in
304 the planning area where appropriate.
305
306 C. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida
307 Keys Area,Section 380.0552(7),Florida Statutes. 1
308
309 For the purposes of reviewing consistency of the adopted plan or any amendments to that plan
310 with the principles for guiding development and any amendments to the principles,the principles
311 shall be construed as a whole and no specific provision shall be construed or applied in isolation
312 from the other provisions.
313
314 (a) Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so that
315 local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the area of critical
316 state concern designation. 1
317 (b) Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
318 seagrass beds,wetlands, fishiand wildlife, and their habitat.
319 (c) Protecting upland resources; tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands, native
320 tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune ridges and
321 beaches, wildlife,and their habitat.
322 (d) Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through sound
323 economic development.
324 (e) Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the Florida
325 Keys.
326 (f) Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural
327 environment, and ensuring that development is compatible with the unique historic character
328 of the Florida Keys.
329 (g) Protecting the historical heritage of the Florida Keys.
330 (h) Protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
331 proposed major public investments, including: I
332
333 1. The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
334 2. Sewage collection,treatment,and disposal facilities;
335 3. Solid waste treatment; collection,and disposal facilities;
336 4. Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
File #2012-111 Page 8 of 12
' I
337 5. Transportation facilities;
338 6. Federal parks,wildlife refuges, and marine!sanctuaries;
339 7. State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
340 properties;
341 8. City electric service and the Florida Keys Electric Co-op; and
342 9. Other utilities, as appropriate.
343
344 (i) Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation,
345 maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage
346 collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation and
347 maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems.
348 (j) Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction and
349 operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of ss.
350 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), as applicable, and by directing growth to areas served by
351 central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation systems.
352 (k) Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of the
353 Florida Keys.
354 (1) Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the Florida
355 Keys.
356 (m)Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in the event of
357 a natural or manmade disaster and for a postdisastei reconstruction plan.
358 (n) Protecting the.public health, safety, and welfare I of the citizens of the Florida Keys and
359 maintaining the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource.
360
361 Pursuant to Section 380.0552(7) Florida Statutes, the proposed amendment is consistent with the
362 Principles for Guiding Development as a whole and is not inconsistent with any Principle.
363
364 D. The proposed amendment is generally consistent with Part II of Chapter 163, Florida
365 Statutes (F.S.). Specifically,the amendment furthers:
366
367 163.3161(4), F.S. —It is the intent of this act that local governments have the ability to preserve
368 and enhance present advantages; encourage the most appropriate use of land, water, and
369 resources, consistent with the public interest; ',overcome present handicaps; and deal
370 effectively with future problems that may result from the use and development of land within
371 their jurisdictions. Through the process of comprehensive planning, it is intended that units
372 of local government can preserve, promote, protect, and improve the public health, safety,
373 comfort, good order, appearance, convenience, law enforcement and fire prevention, and
374 general welfare; facilitate the adequate and efficient provision of transportation, water,
375 sewerage, schools, parks, recreational facilities, housing, and other requirements and
376 services; and conserve, develop, utilize, and !protect natural resources within their
377 jurisdictions
378
379 163.3161(6), F.S. - It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans shall have the
380 legal status set out in this act and that no public or private development shall be permitted
381 except in conformity with comprehensive plans, or elements or portions thereof, prepared
382 and adopted in conformity with this act.
383
File #2012-11] Page 9 of 12
I ,
1
384 163.3177(1), F.S. - The comprehensive plan shall provide the principles, guidelines, standards,
385 and strategies for the orderly and balanced future economic, social, physical, environmental,
386 and fiscal development of the area that reflects community commitments to implement the
387 plan and its elements. These principles and strategies shall guide future decisions in a
388 consistent manner and shall contain programs and activities to ensure comprehensive plans
389 are implemented. The sections of the comprehensive plan containing the principles and
390 strategies, generally provided as goals, objectives, and policies, shall describe how the local
391 government's programs, activities, and land development regulations will be initiated,
392 modified, or continued to implement the comprehensive plan in a consistent manner. It is not
393 the intent of this part to require the inclusion of implementing regulations in the
394 comprehensive plan but rattier to require identification of those programs, activities, and land
395 development regulations that will be part of the strategy for implementing the comprehensive
396 plan and the principles that describe how the programs, activities, and land development
397 regulations will be carried out. The plan shall establish meaningful and predictable standards
398 for the use and development of land and provide meaningful guidelines for the content of
399 more detailed land development and use regulations.
400 ,
401 163.3177(6)(a)2., F.S. - The future land use plan and plan amendments shall be based upon
402 surveys, studies,and data regarding the area, as applicable, including:
403 a.The amount of land required to accommodate anticipated growth.
404 b. The projected permanent and seasonal population of the area.
405 c. The character of undeveloped land.
406 d. The availability of water supplies,public facilities,and services.
407 e. The need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of
408 nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community.
409 f. The compatibility of uses an lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations.
410 g. The compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to an airport as defined in s. 330.35 and
411 consistent with s. 333.02.
412 h. The discouragement of urban sprawl.
413 i. The need for job creation, capital investment, and economic development that will
414 strengthen and diversify the community's economy.
415 j.The need to modify land uses and development patterns within antiquated subdivisions.
416 1
417 163.3177(6)(a)8., F.S. - Future land use map amendments shall be based upon the following
418 analyses:
419 a. An analysis of the availability of facilities and services.
420 b. An analysis of the suitability of the plan amendment for its proposed use considering the
421 character of the undeveloped land, soils, topography, natural resources, and historic
422 resources on site.
423 c. An analysis of the minimum amount of land needed to achieve the goals and requirements
424 of this section.
425
426 163.3194(1)(b), F.S. — All land development regulations enacted or amended shall be
427 consistent with the adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, and any land
428 development regulations existing at the time of adoption which are not consistent with the
429 adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall be amended so as to be
430 consistent. If a local government allows an existing land development regulation which is
43 I inconsistent with the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion
File #2012-111 Page 10 of 12
. I
i
i
432 thereof, to remain in effect,'the local government shall adopt a schedule for bringing the land
433 development regulation into conformity with the provisions of the most recently adopted
434 comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof. During the interim period when the
435 provisions of the most recently adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof,
436 and the land development egulations are inconsistent, the provisions of the most recently
437 adopted comprehensive plan, or element or portion thereof, shall govern any action taken in
438 regard to an application for a development order.
439 1
440 163.3194(3)(a), F.S. —A development order or land development regulation shall be consistent
441 with the comprehensive plan if the land uses, densities or intensities, and other aspects of
442 development permitted by such order or regulation are compatible with and,further the
443 objectives,policies, land uses, and densities or intensities in the comprehensive plan and if it
444 meets all other criteria enumerated by the local government.
445
446 163.3201, F.S. — It is the intent of this act that adopted comprehensive plans or elements
447 thereof shall be implemented, in part, by the adoption and enforcement of appropriate local
448 regulations on the development of lands and waters within an area. It is the intent of this act
449 that the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of regulations for the development of
450 land or the adoption and enforcement by a governing body of a land development code for an
451 area shall be based on, be:related to, and be a means of implementation for an adopted
452 comprehensive plan as required by this act
453
r, ,,
454 -VIPROCE«SS z f r a
455
456 Comprehensive Plan Amendments'may be proposed by the Board of County Commissioners, the
457 Planning Commission, the Director, of Planning, or the owner or other person having a contractual
458 interest in property to be affected by a proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review
459 and process applications as they;are received and pass them onto the Development Review
460 Committee and the Planning Commission.
461 1
462 The Planning Commission shall hold at least one public hearing. The Planning Commission shall
463 review the application, the reports and recommendations of the Department of Planning &
464 Environmental Resources and the Development Review Committee and the testimony given at the
465 public hearing. The Planning Commission shall submit its recommendations and fmdings to the
466 Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The BOCC holds a public hearing to consider the
467 transmittal of the proposed comprehensive plan amendment, and considers the staff report, staff
468 recommendation, and the testimony given at the public hearing. The BOCC may or may not
469 recommend transmittal to the State.Land Planning Agency. The amendment is transmitted to the
470 State Land Planning Agency, which then reviews the proposal and issues an Objections,
471 Recommendations and Comments (ORC) Report. Upon receipt of the ORC report, the County has
472 180 days to adopt the amendments,adopt the amendments with changes or not adopt the amendment
473
474 V« STAFF RECOMMENDATION :,
U - Y
475 -
476 Staff recommends approval.
477
478 .
479
File #2012-111 Page 11 of 12
480 rVIL E• a el IFS • r ' I
481
482 1. June 1, 2012 Addendum to a Letter of Understanding Issued on April 27, 2010 concerning a
483 proposed veterinary clinic/animal hospital, to be located within an existing building at 1300 Almay
484 Street, Key Largo
485 2. Monroe County Resolution 127-2012
486 3. Proposed FLUM Map
487
File #2012-111 Page 12 of 12
•
Exhibit 1
i
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
Plunder/&Envlroa mental Resources i Board of County Commissioners
Department ! Mayor David Rice,Dist.4
2798 Overseas Highway,Suite 410 - Mayor Pro rem Kim Wigington,Dist.1
Marathon,FL 33050 Heather Carruthers,Dist 3
Voice: (305)289-2500 — _ j George Neugent,Dist.2
FAX: (305)289-2536 *. =_ Sylvia J.Murphy,Dist.5
y i
u i
We strive to be caring,professional and fair
June 1,2012
John Kocol
PO Box 491
Islamorada,FL 33036
SUBJECT: ADDENDUM TO LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING ISSUED ON APRIL
27,2010 CONCERNING A PROPOSED VETERINARY CLINIC/ANIMAL
HOSPITAL, TO BE LOCATED WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING AT
1300 ALMAY STREET, KEY LARGO, MILE MARKER 98.1, HAVING
REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00519750.000000
Mr. Kocol,
Pursuant to §110-3 of the Monroe County Code (MCC), this document shall constitute a Letter
of Understanding (LOU). On February 1,•2010, a Pre-Application Conference regarding the
above-referenced property was held at the office of the Monroe County Planning &
Environmental Resources Department on Key Largo. Attendees of the meeting included John
Kocol (hereafter referred to as"the Applicant")and Joseph Haberman,Principal Planner, Steven
Biel,Senior Planner&Barbara Bauman,Planner(hereafter referred to as"Staff').
The Board of County Commissioners passed and adopted Resolution #127-2012 on April 18,
2012. This resolution, adopted after the issuance of the letter of understanding on April 27,
2010, amended the Planning & Environmental Resources Department's fee schedule. Of
relevance to your property and the development thereon,the amended fee schedule included the
following new provision:
There shall be no application or other fees, except advertising and noticing fees, for
property owners who apply for a map amendment to the official [Land Use District
(LUD)] map and/or the official [Future Land Use Map (FLUM)], if the property owner
can provide satisfactory evidence that a currently existing use on the site that also existed
lawfully in 1992 was deemed nonconforming by final adoption of the LUD map and/or a
currently existing use on the site that also existed lawfully on the site in 1997 was
deemed nonconforming byl final adoption of the I FLUM. To qualify for the fee
exemption, the applicant must apply for a LUD and/or FLUM designation(s)that would
Addendum to April 27,20]0 Letter of Understanding(File#2010-008) Page 1 of 4
•
eliminate the non-conforming use created with adoption of the existing designation(s)
and not create an adverse impact to the community. Prior to submittal of a map
amendment application, the applicant must provide the evidence supporting the change
and application for a fee exemption with the proposed LUD map/FLUM designations to
the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department as part of an •
application for a Letter of Understanding. Following a review,the Director of Planning
&Environmental Resources shall determine if the information and evidence is sufficient,
and whether the proposed LUD map and/or FLUM designations are acceptable for the fee
waiver, and approve or deny the fee exemption I request. This fee waiver Letter of
Understanding shall not obligate the staff to recommend approval or denial of the
proposed LUD or FLUM Category.
You have requested that the Senior Director of Planning&Environmental Resources render such
a decision in relation to the subject property and allow you to submit PLUM and LUD
amendment applications without the required application fees.
The property has a FLUM designation of Residential Medium (RM), a LUD designation of
Improved Subdivision(IS),and a tier designation of Tier 3.
You have requested a FLUM designation of Mixed Use / Commercial (MC) and a LUD
designation of either Suburban Commercial(SC)or Mixed Use(MU).
The property was within a RU-1 district(Single-Family Residential)and BU-2 district(Medium
Business) prior to 1986 when the property was re-designated IS. It is unknown as to precisely
when the designation was amended from RU-1 to BU-2;1 however according to information
within a building permit application,the property was BU-2;when the building was converted to
a"dance studio"in 1977.
Regarding the development and use!of the existing building on the property:
In 1972, Building Permit#27471 was issued for the',construction of a 774 SF one-story,
single-family residence(18'f 43')on Lot 1. Although for a smaller residential structure,
this was the original building permit for the building.
In 1977, Building Permit#C2714 was issued fora building addition. Although a change
of use was not expressly noted, the proposed construction stated the building would be
used as a"dance studio". A continued residential use was not indicated. The building
plans are somewhat unclear, but it appears the building addition was a 976 SF second
story addition(46'6"x 21')located over the existing 774 SF ground level building(18' x
43'). In 1980, Building Permit #C7436 was issued to enclose stairs and overhang
resulting in an unspecified amount of new floor area.
In 1985, Building Permit#C16923 was issued for a 1,000 SF elevated building addition
(40'x 25')that extended the building onto Lot 12.
Addendum to April 27,2010 Letter of Understanding(File:t20I0-008) Page 2 of 4
•
� I
In 1986, Building Permit#C19066 was issued to enclose the lower level of the addition
approved under Building Permit#C16923,thus resulting in 1,000 SF of additional square
footage.
All subsequent permits indicate that the building was being utilized for commercial retail
use.
The current regulations pertaining to permitted uses in the IS district do not allow a 3,695 SF
commercial retail building. Furthermore, Policy 101.4.3 of the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan,which describes permitted uses in the RM FLUM category, does not state
that commercial retail uses are allowed. Therefore, the existing commercial retail use is
nonconforming to the current provisions of the Monroe County,Code.and.Comprehensive:Plan.
However, as the 3,695 SF building and its commercial retail use were approved and permitted
prior to 1986,the existing use is considered a lawful nonconforming use.
Resolution #127-2012 requires the property owner to provide satisfactory evidence that the
existing use on the site also existed lawfully in 1992 and was deemed nonconforming by final
adoption of the LUD map and/or the existing use on the site existed lawfully in 1997 and was
deemed nonconforming by final ;adoption of the FLUM. Following a review, Staff has
determined that the existing use existed lawfully in 1992 and was deemed nonconforming by the
final adoption of the LUD map. Staff has also determined that the existing use existed lawfully
in 1997 and was deemed nonconforming by the final adoption of the PLUM.
Resolution #127-2012 requires the applicant to apply fora LUD and/or FLUM designation(s)
that would eliminate the non-conforming use created with adoption of the existing designation(s)
and not create an adverse impact to the community. Following a review, Staff has determined
that the proposed FLUM category of MC and proposed LUD designations of SC or MU would
eliminate the nonconformity to use. Therefore, the proposed designations are acceptable;
however prior to application submittal, you must decide on'whether to pursue an amendment to
SC or MU. Staff cannot make this decision. In addition, please be aware that Staff is not
obligated to recommend approval of the proposed LUD or FLUM designations. Staff is required
to review the application on its merit and determine upon a full review that there shall not be an
adverse impact to the community and is consistent with the provisions of the Comprehensive
Plan and Monroe County Code.
In conclusion, Staff has determined that your proposal qualifies for fee exemptions to the
"Comprehensive Plan,Future Land'Use Map(FLUM)Amendment"of$5,531.00 and the"Land
Use District Map, Amendment—Nonresidential" fee of$4,929.00. You may submit a FLUM
amendment and/or LUD amendment application without the submittal of the aforementioned •
application fees. However, you are responsible for all other,requirements, including the fees for
advertising ($245.00 per application) and noticing ($3.00 1 per each surrounding property per
application).
In addition, please note that you are eligible for these fee waivers so long as such waivers are
permitted by the fee schedule. If the fee schedule is amended to remove such a provision in the
•
Addendum to April 27,2010 Letter of Understanding(File#2010-008) Page 3 of 4
I '
future, you may not be eligible to submit the application without such required application fees
afterwards. 1
1
* * * * * * *
Pursuant to MCC §110-3, you are entitled to rely upon the representations set forth in this letter
as accurate under the regulations currently in effect. This letter does not provide any vesting to
the existing regulations. If the Monroe County Code or,Comprehensive Plan is amended, the
project will be required to be consistent with all regulations and policies at the time of
development approval. The Department acknowledges that all items required as a part of the
application for development approval may not have been addressed at the meeting, and
consequently reserves the right for additional comment. 4
You may appeal decisions made in this letter. The appeal must be filed with the County
Administrator, 1100 Simonton Street, Gato Building, Key West, FL 33040, within thirty (30)
calendar days fruui the date of this letter. In addition,please submit a copy of your application to
PIanning Commission Coordinator, Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources
Department,2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410,Marathon, FL 33050.
1
We trust that this information is of assistance. If you have' any questions regarding the contents
of this letter, or if we may further assist you with your project, please feel free to contact our
Marathon office at(305)289Aul-2500.
Sincerely yo j •
(61,-,..-m
Mayte San aria,
Assistant Director of Planning
for
Townsley Schwab,
Senior Director of Planning&Environmental Resources
CC: Joseph Haberman,Planning&Development Review Manager
Michael Roberts, Senior Administrator of Environmental Resources
1
1
Addendum to April 27,2010 Letter of Understanding(File#20I0-008) Page 4 of 4
' I
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
Plannint&Sovlronmentsl Resources —L Surd of_County Commissioners
Deosrtmeat , s Mayor Sylvia J.Murphy,Dist 5
2798 Oversew Highway.Suite 410 }? Mayor Pro Tern Heather Carruthers,Dist 3
Marathon,FL 33050 ��4` r - Maio Di Gennaro,Dist 4
Voice: (305)289-2500 E' ; George tdeu8ett,Dist 2
FAX (305)289-2536 Kim Wigington,Dist 1
We strive to be caring,professional and fair
April27,2010
John Kocol
PO Box 491
Islamorada,FL 33036
SUBJECT: LETTER OF UNDERSTANDING CONCERNING A PROPOSED
VETERINARY CLINIC/ANIMAL HOSPITAL,TO BE LOCATED
WITHIN AN EXISTING BUILDING AT 1300 ALMAY STREET,KEY
LARGO,MILE MARKER 98.1,HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER
00519750.000000
Mr.Kocol,
Pursuant to §110-3 of the Monroe County Code(MCC), this document shall constitute a Letter
of Understanding (LOU). On February I, 2010, a Pre-Application Conference regarding the
above-referenced property was held at the office of the Monroe County Planning &
Environmental Resources Department on Key Largo. Attendees of the meeting included John
Kocol(hereafter referred to as"the Applicant")and Joseph Haberman,Principal Planner,Steven
Biel,Senior Planner&Barbara Bauman,Planner(hereafter referred to as"Staff').
In addition,to further discuss the proposal,on March I5,2010,a second meeting was held at the
office of the Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Department in Marathon.
Attendees of the meeting included John Kocol and Joseph Haberman.
Materials presented for review included:
(a) Pre-Application Conference Request Form;
(b)Existing Site Plan by Keys Engineering Inc.,dated March'10,2010;
(c) Proposed Site Plan by Keys Engineering Inc.,dated March 10,2010;
(d)Site Plan by the Applicant;
(e) Monroe County Property Record Cards;and
(f) Monroe County Land Use District Map and Future Land Use Map
Proposed Veterinary Clinie/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter of Under landing Page 1 of 13
I I
•
r
� I
I I
I. APPLICANT PROPOSAL
The Applicant is proposing to convert the first floor of an existing two-story commercial retail
building into a veterinary clinic/animal hospital. The veterinary clinic/animal hospital would be
located entirely within the first story of the building,which currently provides space for a dance
school/martial arts center. The second story would not be modified and would continue to
provide space for the dance school/martial arts center or a similar business in the future. In
addition, the Applicant is proposing to establish a fenced area for convalescing and otherwise
temporarily boarded animals at the animal hospital, to establish a new off-street parking area
and to improve the site as determined necessary by the - -
As stated in the application, the veterinary clinic/animal hospital would be open normal
business hours: 8:00am to 5:00pm, Monday through Saturday. However, it would open
intermittently at other times to provide emergency services to patients.
qq r5 • rviq' r °r't r
1 .•tr p. Y".fir/•
' `+.,
:.bt n b tar s .!
•
rti q lr ,LZi w�,, •
•� lGjti ji ! '
r r r • / •.
•
VV
Subject Property(outlined In blue)(2009)
II. SUBJECT PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
I. The property's address is 1300 Almay Street on Key Largo. However,most of its frontage
is located along US 1,between Almay Street and Grand Street.
2. The property consists of one.parcel of land. Real Estate number(RE)00519750.000000 is
legally described as Block 4; Lots 1 and 12, Rock Harbor Estates subdivision (PB3-187),
Key Largo.
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 2 of 13
•
I I
I �
3. According to Monroe County's GIS database, in total, the property consists of
approximately 13,217 ft2(0.30 acres)of land area. Therefore, all calculations included in
this letter are based on theserecords. A sealed boundary survey indicating total land area
may be required at the time of application submittal for any development approval of any
additional floor area. If the amount of upland area provided on the sealed boundary survey
differs,then calculations provided in this letter are subject to change.
4. According to the Monroe County Property Appraiser's records, RE 00519750.000000 is
currently being assessed under the property classification(PC)code of 17(office buildings).
IIL RELEVANT PRIOR COUNTY ACTIONS
1. According to the Monroe County Property Appraiser's records, the existing two-story
building was built in I972 and consists of 3,695 ft2 of floor area.
I
In 1972,Permit 27471 was issued for the construction of a 774 ft2 one-story,single-family
residence (18' x 43') on Lot 1. Although for a smaller residential structure, this was the
original building permit for the building. In 1977,Permit C2714 was issued for a building
addition. Although a change of use was not expressly noted, the proposed construction
stated the building would be used as a"dance studio". A continued residential use was not
indicated. The building plans are somewhat unclear, but it appears the building addition
was a 976 f12 second story addition(46'6"x 21') located over the existing 774 ft2 ground
level building(18' x 43'). In 1980,Permit C7436 was issued to enclose stairs and overhang
resulting in an unspecified amount of new floor area.
In 1985, Permit C16923 was'issued for a 1,000 ft2 elevated building addition (40' x 25')
that extended the building onto Lot 12. In 1986,Permit CI9066 was issued to enclose the
lower level of the addition approved under C16923,thus resulting in I,000 ft2 of additional
square footage. I
2. Staff located building permits for the subject property dating back to 1972. Permit 27471,
issued in 1977, states that the building was to be utilized by a residential use at that time.
However, the next building permit on file, Permit C2714, issued in 1977, states that the
building was to be utilized by a commercial retail use (dance studio) at that time. All
subsequent permits indicate that the building was being utilized for commercial retail,many
specifically referring to a dance studio.
3. On March 7, 1986,the Board of County Commissionerslapproved a flood variance to allow
the construction of an enclosure below the 100-year flood elevation under the existing
building(resulting in the issuance of Permit C19066).
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital'
.Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 3 of 13
IV.REVIEW OF PROPOSAL
The following land development regulations directly affect the proposal; however, there are
other land development regulations not referred to nor described in this letter which may
govern future development as well:
1. The property has a Land Use;District designation of Improved Subdivision (IS), a Future
Land Use Map(PLUM)designation of Residential Medium(RM)and a tier.designation of
Tier 3.
2.;References.within.the_building.permits,files on file,indicate that the property was within a
RU-1 district (Single-Family;Residential) and BU-2 district (Medium Business) prior to
1986 when the property was:,re-designated IS. It is unknown as to precisely when the
designation was amended from RU4 to BU-2; however according to the building permit
application,the property was BU-2 when the building was converted to a"dance studio"in
1977.
3. The veterinary clinic/animal hospital would be located within the first story of the building.
The second story would continue to provide space for the dance school/martial arts center.
Regarding use, Staff has determined that the existing dance school/martial arts center and
the proposed animal hospitals would be classified as commercial retail uses. Although
neither are traditional commercial retail businesses, the Land Development Code defines
commercial retail as a use thatlsells goods or services at retail.
Depending on trip generation,;e.ommercial retail uses are classified as low,medium or high-
intensity. A•traffic impact analysis has not been submitted which would indicate whether or
not the proposed change in business to an animal hospital would affect the site's currently
approved intensity. Based on traffic impact analyses for similar developments, Staff
anticipates that both the existing and proposed commercial retail uses generate less than 100
average daily trips per 1,000i ft2 of floor area and thereby would be classified as low or
medium-intensity. However to ensure that there is not a prohibited increase in intensity,a
comparative level 1 traffic impact analysis will be required prior to Staff conclusively
stating such.
4. The commercial retail use of the existing dance school//martial arts center was rendered a
nonconforming use following the re-zoning of the property from BU-2 to IS in 1986 and the
assignment of the PLUM future land use category of RM in 1997.
In the Monroe County Land Development Code, the current regulations pertaining to
permitted uses in the IS district do not allow a 3,695 ft2 commercial retail building.
Furthermore,Policy 101.4.2 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive PIan,which
pertains to permitted uses in the RM future land rise category, does not state that
commercial retail uses are permitted. Therefore, the existing commercial retail use is
nonconforming to the current Land Development Code and Comprehensive Plan.
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 4 of 13
I r
However, as the 3,695 ft building and its commercial retail use were approved and
permitted prior to 1986, the!existing use is considered a lawful nonconforming use and
Policy 101.4.3 provides some protection to such lawful uses. Specifically, Policy 101.4.3
states a nonresidential use that was listed as a permitted use in the land development
regulations that were in effect immediately prior to the institution of the Comprehensive
Plan, and that lawfully existed on such lands on January 4, 1996 may develop,redevelop,
reestablish and/or substantially improve provided that the use is limited in intensity, floor
area, density and to the type of use that existed on January 4, 1996 or limited to what the
pre-2010 land development regulations allowed. In addition to being lawfully established
prior to 1986, the existing type of use(commercial retail) and the existing amount of non-
residential floor area(3,695 ft')were in existencein 1996.
The existing intensity of the site could not be determined in the absence of a traffic impact
report. Furthermore, without knowing the intensity, Staff could not determine the existing
density(the floor area ratios are 0.35 for low-intensity,;0.25 for medium-intensity and 0.15
for high-intensity commercial retail uses).
5. In accordance with Policy 101.4.3,a commercial retail use(with businesses associated with
this type of use) and the building's floor area may be redeveloped, reestablished and/or
substantially improved with a major conditional use permit, subject to the standards and
procedures set forth in the Land Development Code. Tn the event that reestablishment or
substantial improvement is carried out, although the building is over 2,500 ft' in area and
could be classified as high intensity following the submittal of a traffic impact report stating
such, the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan currently provided for in Policy 101.4.3,
shall take precedent over the requirements for an existing nonconforming commercial retail
use in the IS District, currently provided for in MCC §130-94(c)(l), which restricts
buildings to 2,500 ft'and low/medium intensity.
Conditional uses are those uses which are generally compatible with the other land uses
permitted,but require individual review of their location,design and configuration and the
imposition of conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a particular
location. Minor conditional use permit applications are granted or denied by the Planning
Director in accordance with MCC §110-69 and major;conditional use permit applications
are granted or denied by the Planning Commission at a public hearing in accordance with
MCC§110-70.
Concerning the Applicant's proposal, a major conditional use permit shall not be required
for the change in business and moderate building/site ix rprovements as these improvements
would not meet the intent of terms redevelopment, reestablishment or substantial
improvement as used in Policy 101.4.3.
6. Policy 101.4.3 allows redevelopment limited to intensity, floor area,density and to the type
of use as that existed prior to its redevelopment. The policy does not protect the existing
configuration of development on a particular site and does not protect existing
nonconformities other than intensity,density and type of use. Furthermore,it does not state
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 5 of 13
i I
or otherwise provide that a development may be reestablished or substantially improved
without coming into compliance'with the current comprehensive plan policies, land
development regulations and/or building codes.
As the site was lawfully developed prior to adoption of the current regulations,it would be
difficult to bring the site into full compliance the land development regulations, especially
those relating to bulk regulations and off-street parking,in the event of reestablishment or
substantially improvement. Staff requests that the site come into compliance to the greatest
extent practical with all applicable comprehensive plan policies, Key. Largo. Livable
CommuniKeys policies and land development regulations as improvements are carried out.
7. Building permits are required for interior renovations to,the commercial building,site work
and new signage. As both the proposed veterinary clinic/animal hospital and existing dance
school/martial arts center are commercial retail uses, Staff shall consider the occupation of
the first floor by the veterinary clinic/animal hospital a change in business,not a change in
use. Changes in businesses do not require a building;permit or other approval from the
Growth Management Division. However, as stated a previously, a traffic impact report
must be submitted to provided the existing and proposed intensity to determine if the
change in business would result in a higher intensity. Increasing changes in intensity do
require building permit approval (however, in this case a building permit to increase
intensity would be denied per Policy 101.4.3).
8. It has been determined that the commercial retail use and the existing building's floor area
were lawfully-established and therefore the use and l existing floor area are lawfully
nonconforming. However, expansion of the existing commercial retail use is prohibited
unless the subject property's land use district designation and FLUM category are amended
to designations that allow commercial retail uses of this size and intensity or the text
relating to the permitted uses in the IS district and RM FLUM category amended.
9. According to the proposed site plan,the proposed fenced area would be an unenclosed area
located behind the existing building in the northeastern corner of the subject property. This
secured space would serve as a supervised area for exercising animals. This type of
structure is considered an accessory structure and not a component of the principal
structure. As defined in MCC §101-1, accessory means a use or structure that is
subordinate to and serves a principal use or structure;1 is subordinate in area, extent and
purpose to the principal use or structure served;contributes to the comfort,convenience or
necessity of occupants of the principal use or structure served;and is located on the same lot
or on contiguous lots under the same ownership and in the same land use district as the
principal use or structure. Accessory structures are permitted as-of-right in the IS district.
Therefore, a fence may be constructed and would not constitute an expansion of the
nonconforming use.
10. The Non-Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO) shall not apply to the
redevelopment, rehabilitation j or replacement of any lawfully-established, nonresidential
floor area which does not increase the amount of non-residential floor area greater than that
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter of Understlanding Page 6 of 13
I !
which existed on the site ',prior to the redevelopment, rehabilitation or replacement.
Therefore, owners of land containing non-residential'floor area shall be entitled to one
square foot for each such square foot lawfully-established. Administrative Interpretation
03-108 provides the criteria to be used by Staff to determine whether or not non-residential
floor area was lawfully-established.
Non-residential floor area is the sum of the gross floor area for a non-residential building or
structure as defined in MCC'§101-1,any areas used for the provision of food and beverage
services and seating whether covered or uncovered,and;all covered,unenclosed areas.
,Following a review of the building permits on file, as well as,the documentation within the.
applications, Staff has determined that all of the non-residential floor area within the
existing 3,695 ft'building was lawfully-established. The accumulation of all the floor area
approved in Permits 27471(774 ft2),C2714(976 ft2),C7436(unknown),CI6923(1,000 ft2)
and C19066(1,000 ft2)is 3,750 ft'. However,as the plans for new floor area did not show
existing portions of the building in some of the pe mit applications, Staff could not
determine if there was some,overlap. Therefore, unless scaled floor plans are submitted,
drawn by a licensed architect,or engineer, showing 3 j750 ft2 or a higher figure, Staff is
utilizing the lesser figure of 3,695 ft2 provided by the Monroe County Property Appraiser.
If the Applicant submits floor plans, Staff will have to(compare such plans to the plans in
the building permit files to ensure their accuracy.
11. In the IS district,there is a required open space ratio of 0.20. Therefore,at least 20 percent
of the site must remain open space.
12. In the IS District, the required non-shoreline setbacks for commercial uses are as follows:
Front yard—25'; Rear yard—20'; and Side yard— 10'/15' (where 10' is required for one
side and 15'is the minimum combined total ofboth side's).
The property is a triple frontage, corner lot. The site has front yard requirements of 25'
along the right-of-way of US 1 to the northwest,Almay Street to the northeast and Grand
Street to the southwest. In addition, there is a side yard setback of 10' along the property
line to the southeast.
I �
According to the existing site plan, the existing building is partially located 2' into the
required 25' setback along Almay Street. As the building was legally established, it is
considered a lawfully nonconforming structure. In addition, a concrete walkway and off-
street parking is located within the required 25' setbacks along US 1, Almay Street and
Grand Street As these structures were legally established, they are considered lawfully
nonconforming structures.
The change in business would not affect the building's existing footprint. However, the
modified off-street parking area and new loading zone would be located in the front yard
setbacks along all three rights-of-way. The new dumpster would be located in the front yard
setback along Grand Street and side yard setback.
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hos p'ital,Key
Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 7 of 13
r _ I
I I
At the pre-application conference, Staff informed the Applicant that the proposed
modifications to the parking area may require a variance to the setbacks requirements as
aerial photography suggested that parking had never existed in the front yard setback along
US 1. However, following the conference,Staff reviewed the approved site plans on file.
The most recent approved site plan, filed with Permit C16923, shows the parking area 6'
from the property line adjacent to US 1, 6' from the property line adjacent to Grand Street
and 3' from the property line adjacent to Almay Street. The revised, proposed site plan.
shows a reconfigured parking area that is 5'from the property line adjacent to US 1,8' from
the property line adjacent to Grand Street and 5' from the property line adjacent to Almay
Street.
•
Staff supports the new reconfigured parking area as it would bring the nonconforming
parking area into compliance with several parking lot requirements such as clear site
triangles, proper aisle widths, correct parking space dimensions and better access and
handicap accessibility, as well as provide a compliant loading zone. If a 6' setback can be
provided along US 1, Staff shall not require a setback variance for the_parking area
improvements. If only 5' can be provided, a setback variance would be required as the
nonconformity would be expanded; however in our recommendation on such a variance
application to the planning commission, Staff shall strongly consider the fact that the site
will be brought into compliance with several access and parking related regulations by
approving the setback variance.
The C16923 site plan does not show the location of a dumpster. Therefore, the proposed
dumpster must be relocated to an area outside of the required setbacks, unless a setback
variance is granted.
13. A stormwater management plan shall be required as a part of any application for the
proposed off-street parking areas. This plan shall detail pre and post development water
flow and storage on site with supporting calculations.
14. The development is subject to'the following off-street parking requirements:
(��:+4 F- 'F3: •�� �'.�� '. .j'o�"-'(�� . f •r ;. ..h,Y„' r J�.r.'��*�' , ' • �lyn:!;=t•�
4 °.75 uc• �,c r;t+2W-y,.;�y "•�_�J<t{:r, t-=`�• vFSj�^.;�
Il i rt- f :.or a::•�c&V '`a:i"g.•.;'L•."r:;;.:.��r _—Gbr ,..:�:,r,}^'.n')
�•���•"�Nr.. •�� ; f.Y'77' �.Yi• .. f�sl'•i. ; .. r•. �... R'•`�: :a r�`;1��::J�..
t Commercial Retail I 3 spaces/1,000 fta I 3,695 ft' l l spaces
1
The redevelopment requires i'1 off-street parking spaces. The proposed site plan shows 12
spaces. As only 11 spaces are required,Staff requests that the Applicant remove the"end"
parallel space adjacent to the US I property line near Almay Street as this unnecessary
space may interfere with access to and from the site. Further,the removal of this space and
its replacement with landscaping would bring the site further into compliance with the
setback requirements (as outlined previously) and bufferyard requirements (to be outlined
later).
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 8 of 13
All regular parking spaces, with the exception of parallel,must be at least 8.5 feet in width
by 18 feet in length and all handicap-accessible parking spaces must be at least 12 feet in
width with an access aisle of 5 feet in width. Parallel spaces must be 8.5 feet in width by 25
feet in length.
If there are 1 to 25 total parking spaces in a lot,one(1)accessible parking space, 12 feet in
width,is required. Such a space shall be designed and marked for the exclusive use of those
individuals•who have been,issued either a disabled parking permit or license plate. In
addition, a 5-foot parking access aisle must be part df an accessible route to the building
entrance. The access aisle shall be striped diagonallito designate it as a no-parking zone.
Curb ramps must be located outside of the disabled-parking spaces and access aisles.
15. All nonresidential uses with 2,500 ft2 to 49,999 ft2 of floor area are required to have one(1)
loading and unloading space,measuring 11 feet by 55'feet. Loading/unloading spaces shall
be located entirely on the same lot as the principal use they serve.These spaces shall not be
located on any public right-of-way,parking spaces or parking aisle and shall be as close to
the building served as possible,
The Applicant inquired about whether or not the required loading/unloading space length
requirement could be reduced from 55' to 45' as the veterinary clinic/animal hospital and
dance school/marital arts center do not require any deliveries to be made by a semi-tractor
trailer or other large vehicle) There is currently no approved loading/unloading space on the
site at all. Further, the existing vehicle maneuverability guidelines could only allow a 55'
loading/unloading space, with proper room to rverse, at the expense of further
encroachment into the required setback(s) and/or reduced of parking. Therefore, Staff shall
allow the reduction as the introduction of an 11'by 4'5' loading/unloading space would be
bring the site into compliance to the greatest extent practical.
16. Since the parking area shall be required to contain six!or more parking spaces and is within
a IS District,a class"A"landscaping standard will be'required. This standard is explained,
with accompanying graphics, in MCC §114-100. Although there is vegetation on the site,
there appears to not be any parking lot landscaping. Further,the modification of the parking
area will result in the removal of existing vegetation. Staff requests that the Applicant bring
the site into compliance with this regulation to the greatest extent practical.
17. No structure or land which abuts US 1 shall be developed,used or occupied unless a scenic
corridor or bufferyard is provided. In the IS District, the required major street bufferyard is
a class"D"bufferyard. Thei minimum class"D"bufferyard is 20' in width. Widths of 25',
30'and 35'are also optional with reduced planting requirements.
The site is nonconforming to both the minimum width and planting requirements. As
previously stated,if a 6' setback can be provided along US 1,a setback variance shall not
be required and if only 5' can be provided,a setback variance would be required. In either
event,Staff requests that the Applicant bring the site into compliance with this regulation to
the greatest extent practical. However, if a setback!variance is requested, the Applicant
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 9 of 13
•
shall also have to request a variance to the bufferyard requirements (as the nonconformity
relating to biifferyard minimum width would be expanded). As a note, the two types of
variance requests may be filed on the same application'as they are related.
18. Mitigation will be required for qualifying native vegetation removed for development. The
number, species and sizes of plants to be mitigated shall be identified in an existing
conditions report prepared and submitted by the applicant and approved by the county
biologist.
19. There are existing access drives into the site from Al nay and Grand Street. The existing
drives may be nonconforming,to clear site triangles,:for lvehiolesentering the,side roads from
US 1 and distance requirements for access drives from US 1. However, Staff supports the
modification to the access points as shown on the proposed site plan as the one-way traffic
pattern through the site would result in safer vehicI1e maneuverability. However, Staff
requests that upon implementation of the proposed site plan, signage be installed that
clearly directs motorists entering and exiting site.
V. OTHER ISSUES CONCERNING THE PROPOSAL
1. The Applicant inquired about the possibility of amending the land use district and PLUM
designations of the subject property from IS and RM, respectively, to designations that
would permit the existing use and thereby render it conforming.
As set forth in the Land Development Code, the purpose of an amendment is not intended
to relieve particular hardships,nor to confer special privileges or rights on any person,nor
to permit a change in community character, as analyzed in the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan, but 'only to make necessary! adjustments in light of changed
conditions. Amendments may be proposed by a person having a contractual interest in
property to be affected by al,proposed amendment. The Director of Planning shall review
and process amendment applications as they are received and pass them, on to the
Development Review Conunittee and the Planning Commission for recommendation and
final approval by the BOCC.
The BOCC may consider the adoption of an ordinance enacting the proposed change based
on one(1) or more of the following factors:(i)Changed projections(e.g.,regarding public
service needs) from those on which the text or boundary was based; (ii) Changed
assumptions (e.g., regarding demographic trends); (iii) Data errors, including errors in
mapping, vegetative types and natural features described in the comprehensive plan; (iv)
New issues; (v) Recognition of a need for additional detail or comprehensiveness; or(vi)
Data updates. However, in no event shall an amendment be approved which will result in
an adverse community change of the planning area in which the proposed development is
located.
In an analysis of community needs, the Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Plan states:
"existing uses.on parcels that were previously down-zoned are generally non-conforming.
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal RaspIital,Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 10 of 13
It is appropriate to re-evaluate these parcels and uses en a case-by-case basis and restore the
commercial status where appropriate". This analysis is substantiated by Action Item 1.3.2
which directs Staff to `revise the FLUM and Land Use District maps to resolve conflicts
and inconsistencies the planning area where appropriate."
However, it should be noted that this language! does not guarantee that any map
amendments shall be granted as each application must be reviewed on a case-by-case basis
and the BOCC makes the final decision on the matter. Further, although Staff discussed
the amendment process with the Applicant at the conference,the Department of Planning&
Environmental Resources Will not provide any recommendation of approval or denial until
an application for an amendment is submitted and reviewed.by Staff.
2. The Applicant inquired about whether or not the site plan would be in compliance with
regulations relating to the Suburban Commercial(SC)district. As the site is designated IS
at this time,it would inappropriate for Staff to comment on whether or not the site would be
in compliance with the regulations pertaining to other land use districts. Such comments
could be deemed to be an endorsement of a map amendment.
•
3. The Applicant inquired about ground-mounted and wall-mounted signage. Specifically,the
Applicant inquired whether or not a variance would be required to advertise the veterinary
clinic/animal hospital.
In the IS district, a nonresidential developed parcel of land shall be allowed one gnound-
mounted sign, but limited to 32 ft2 in area per face and eight feet in height. In addition,
ground-mounted signage is 'required to be located at least 5' from any property line. Wall-
mounted signage is also permitted, but shall be limited to a total of 32 if. Staff has
determined that a variance to the sign regulations shall only be required if the Applicant
requests signage of greater square footage than that allowed or a deviation from the height,
setback or other construction requirements. 1
The Applicant inquired whether or not variances could be granted administratively. There
are no administrative varianiCs to the sign regulations. All applications are decided upon
by the Planning Commission at a public hearing. 1The Applicant also inquired about
whether or not Staff would 1 recommend approval of;such,an application. Although Staff
discussed the variance process with the Applicant at the conference, the Department of
Planning&Environmental Resources will not provide any recommendation of approval or
denial until an application for a variance is submitted and reviewed by Staff
I
The Applicant inquired about whether or not his facility would qualify for the additional
signage permitted for"Hospitals or other emergency facilities" in MCC §142-4(1)(c). In
addition to any other signage allowed under the Land Development Code,hospitals or other
emergency medical facilities, excluding individual medical offices, shall be allowed one
additional illuminated ground-or wall-mounted sign not to exceed 32 ft2 per face to identify
each emergency entrance. Although considered a commercial retail use, the veterinary
clinic./animal hospital would qualify and serve as emergency facility. As there is one-way
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 11 of 13
' I
.
traffic through the site,Staff shall allow one additional illuminated ground or wall-mounted
sign not to exceed 32 ft2 per face to identify the emergency entrance. Although there are
two drives,it is only necessary to designate one drive as an emergency entrance.
The Applicant also inquired about whether or not his facility would qualify for the
additional signage permitted in MCC §142-4(3)(a)(5) which states that a school, church,
day-care center or other similar use shall be allowed to add an additional 64 ft2 or 32 ft2 per
face of signage to the ground-mounted or wall-mounted sign for the exclusive use of a
changeable copy sign. Although named a dance school,the dance school is a commercial
retail use and not a school use as defined in the Monroe County Code. Therefore, this
additional signage is not permitted.
The Applicant inquired as to which of the building's frontages is considered the front. The
US 1 frontage would be considered the front.
4. The proposed veterinary clinic/animal animal hospital would introduce animals to the site
which could result in more noise than the existing businesses. Although increase noise is
not prohibited, in respect to the residential neighboring properties, noise should be
mitigated and the noise ordinance must be observed. The Applicant submitted a noise
abatement strategy that should mitigate noise acceptably. Further, although not required,
Staff suggests that the Applicant install buffering vegetation in the setback between the
existing building and the neighboring residential properties.
5. Prior to the issuance of any building permit, proposed development shall be found in
compliance by the Monroe County Building Department,the Monroe County Public Works
Division and the Monroe County Office of the Fire Marshal. Staff recommends that the
Applicant coordinate with these offices prior to appli tion submittal.
6. AU development shall be required to meet all standards and construction requirements of
the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). The site must be brought into compliance with
ADA parking and building access requirements upon approval of a new site plan.
Pursuant to MCC §110-3,you are entitled to rely upon therepresentations set forth in this letter
as accurate under the regulations!currently in effect. This letter does not provide any vesting to
the existing regulations. If the Monroe County Code or Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan are
amended,the project will be required to be consistent with all regulations and policies at the time
of development approval. The Department acknowledges that all items required as a part of the
application for development approval may not have been addressed at the meeting, and
consequently reserves the right for additional comment.
You may appeal decisions made in this letter. The appeal must be filed with the County
Administrator, 1100 Simonton Street, Gato Building, Key!West, FL 33040, within thirty(30)
calendar days from the date of this letter. In addition,please submit a copy of your application to
Planning Commission Coordinator, Monroe County Planning & Environmental Resources
Department,2798 Overseas Highway,Suite 410,Marathon,FL 33050.
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,Key Largo,Letter ofUnderstanding Page 12 of 13
•
We trust tha
t this information is of assistance. If you have any questions regarding the contents
of this letter, or if we may further assist you with your project,please feel free to contact our
Marathon office at(305)289-2500.
Sincerely your
Townsley S
Senior Director Planning&Environmental Resources
' I
i I
Proposed Veterinary Clinic/Animal Hospital,1Key Largo,Letter of Understanding Page 13 of 13
g
r��
i
2 ,
Exhibit 2
1
¢o (I)(
I
MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO. 127 -2012
A RESOLUTION AMENDING RESOLUTION 169-2011, THE
PLANNING. & ENVIRONMENTAL. RESOURCES
DEPARTMENT FEE SCHEDULE;, TO i GENERALIZE THE
TITLE OF THE FEE FOR APPLICATIONS FOR EXTENSIONS
OF TIME AUTHORIZED BY STATE LEGISLATION; TO
EXEMPT MAP AMENDMENT FEES FOR PROPERTY
OWNERS WHO APPLY TO AMEND THEIR PROPERTIES'
LAND USE DISTRICT AND/OR FUTURE LAND USE MAP
DESIGNATIONS i TO DESIGNATIONS THAT WOULD
ELIMINATE NONCONFORMITIES TO USES THAT WERE
CREATED WHEN THE PROPERTIES WERE REZONED BY
THE COUNTY IN 1992 AND/OR PROVIDED A FUTURE
LAND USE MAP DESIGNATION IN 1997 UNDER CERTAIN
CONDITIONS; PROVIDING FOR A FEE FOR A LETTER OF
UNDERSTANDING FOR MAP AMENDMENT FEE
WAIVERS;AND TO REPEAL ANY OTHER FEE SCHEDULES
INCONSISTENT HEREWITH.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of'1 Commissioners wishes to
provide the citizens of the County with the best possible service in the most cost effective
and reasonable manner,and 1
1 I
WHEREAS, the Board finds that it would be in the best interests of the general
public to charge the true cost'for such services, thereby placing the burden of such costs
directly upon those parties deriving the benefit from such services;and
WHEREAS, the updated fee schedule prepared by the Growth Management
Director for providing these services includes the estimated direct costs and reasonable
indirect costs associated with the review and processing of planning and development
approval applications and site plans, on-site biological reviews, administrative appeals,
preparation of official documentation verifying existing development rights and other
processes and services;and
I �
Planning&Environmental Resources Department Fee Schedule
Page 1 of 7
WHEREAS, the Board has discussed the need to adjust the fee schedule to
compensate the county for resources needed in excess of the fee estimates included in the
base fees;and
WHEREAS, applicants for development review should pay the cost of the
review,rather than those funds coming from other sources;and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners wishes to amend fees to
compensate for resources expended in applications for private development approvals;
and
WHEREAS, The Florida State Legislature is considering legislation which
allows for,extensionsof time for some development orders for which the fee is currently
$250.00,based on previous Senate and-House'ABS;and
WHEREAS,in 1992, a revised series of zoning maps was approved(also known
as the Land Use District(LUD)maps) for all areas ofIthe unincorporated county. These
maps depicted boundary determinations carried out between 1986 and 1988, depicted
parcel lines and were drawn at,a more usable scale. Although signed in 1988,the LUD's
did not receive final approval until 1992. The Monroe County Land Development
Regulations, portions of which are adopted by Rule 28-20.021, F.A.C., and portions of
which are approved by the Department of Community Affairs in Chapter 9J-14,F.A.C.,
were amended effective August 12, 1992. The Land Use District Map was revised to
reflect the changes in this rule. The LUD maps remain the official zoning maps of
Monroe County, and
WHEREAS, in 1993,,Monroe County adopted a set of Future Land Use Maps
(FLUM) pursuant to a joint stipulated settlement agreement and Sec. 163.3184 Florida
Statutes. The Ordinance #016-1993 memorialized the approval. This map series was
dated 1997. The 1997 FLUM remains the official future land use maps of Monroe
County; and
WHEREAS, since the adoption of the LUD maps and FLUM, the County has
discovered that several parcels with existing, lawful uses were assigned land use district
and future land use categories;that deemed those uses nonconforming. In these instances,
the County created nonconformities to use without studying of the existing uses and the
impact of deeming those uses nonconforming. A remedy to existing property owners
would be to allow those property owners to apply for map amendments to designations
that would eliminate the nonconformities created by the County and not by the property
owner without the payment of a fee;and
WHEREAS, the County wishes to clarify that fees will be changed to private
applicants for traffic studies required or requested for not only map amendments,but for
text amendments submitted by private applicants;and
I
Planning&Environmental Resources Department Fee Schedule
Page 2 of 7
WHEREAS, the Board heard testimony and evidence presented as to the
appropriate fee schedule during a public hearing on April 18,2012;
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMNIISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY FLORIDA:
Section 1.
Pursuant to Section 102'19(9),the following schedule of fees to be charged by the
Growth Management Division for its services including but not limited to the
filing of land development permit applications,'land development approvals, land
development orders, and appeal applications, and requests for technical services
or official letters attesting to development rights recognized by the County shall
be implemented:
Administrative Appeals $1,500.00
Administrative Relief $1,011.00
Alcoholic Beverage Special Use Permit $1,264.00
Appeal ROGO or NROGO to BOCC $816.00
Beneficial Use i $4,490.00
Biological Site Visit(per visit) $280.00
Biologist Fee(Miscellaneous-per hour) I $60.00
Boundary,Determination . $1,201.00
Comprehensive Plan,Text Amendment $5,531.00
Comprehensive Plan,Future Land Use Map(FLUM)Amendment $5,531.00
Conditional Use,Major,New/Amendment I $10,014.00
Conditional Use,Minor,New/Amendment $8,484.00
Conditional Use,Minor,Transfer Development Rights(TDR) $1,239.00
Conditional Use,Minor,Transfer Nonresidential Floor Area(TRE)$1,944.00
Conditional Use,Minor,Transfer ROGO Exemption(TRE) $1,740.00
Conditional Use,Minor/Major,Minor Deviation $1,768.00
Conditional Use,Minor/Major,Major Deviation $3,500.00
Conditional Use,Minor/Major,Time Extension $986.00
Department of Administrative Hearings(DOAH)Appeals .$816.00
Development Agreement ' $12,900.00
Development of Regional Impact(DRI) $28,876.00
Dock Length Variance ..$1,026.00
Front Yard Setback Waiver,Administrative I $1,248.00
Front Yard Setback Waiver,Planning Commission ..$1,608.00
Grant of Conservation Easement i $269.00
Habitat Evaluation Index(per hour) $60.00
Home Occupation Special Use Permit $498.00
Inclusionary Housing Exemption $900.00
Land Development Code,Text Amendment. $5,041.00
Land Use District Map Amendment—Nonresidential $4,929.00
Land Use District Map;Amendment-Residential .$4,131.00
Planning&Environmental Resources Department Fee Schedule
Page 3 of 7
•
Letter of Current Site Conditions $936.00
Letter of Development Rights Determination I $2,209.00
Letter of ROGO Exemption I $215.00
Letter of UnderstandingIfor LUD Map/FLUM Fee waiver $250.00
NROGO Application ! I $774.00
Planning Fee(Miscellaneous-per hour) I $50.00
Parking Agreement 1 ...$1,013.00
Planning Site Visit ! I $129.00
Platting, 5 lots or less ! $4,017.00
Platting,6 lots or more i $4,613.00
Pre-application with Letter of Understanding I $689.00
Pre-application with No Letter of Understanding $296.00
Public Assembly Permit $14900
Dog in Restaurant Permit $150.00
Research,permits and records(per hour) .$50.00
Road Abandonment I .$1,533.00
ROGO Application 1 $748.00
ROGO Lot/Parcel Dedication Letter I $236.00
Legislative Time Extension for Development Orders/Permits $250.00
Special Certificate of Appropriateness I $200.00
Tier Map Amendment;Other than IS/URM Platted Lot $4,131.00
Tier Map Amendment-IS/URM Platted Lot Only $1,600.00
Vacation Rental Permit.(Initial) I ..$493.00
Vacation Rental(Renewal) I $100.00
Vacation Rental Manager License ' $106.00
Variance,Planning Commission,Signage $1,076.00
Variance,Planning Commission,Other than Signage .$1,608.00
Variance,Administrative $1,248.00
Vested Rights Determination i $2,248.00
Wetlands Delineation(per hour) 1 $60.00
Growth Management applications may be subject to the following additional fees,
requirements or applicability: 1
I. For any application that requires a public hearing(s) and/or surrounding
property owner notification, advertising and/or notice fees; $245 for
newspaper advertisement and$3 per property owner notice.
1
2. There shall be no application or other fees, except advertising and noticing
fees, for affordable housing projects, except that all applicable fees shall be
charged for applications for all development approvals required for any
development under Sec. 130-161.1 of the Monroe County Code and for
applications for variances to setback, landscaping and/or off-street parking
regulations associated with an affordable housing development.
PIAnning&Environmental Resources Department Fee Schedule
Page 4 of 7
3. There shall be no application fees, except advertising and noticing fees, for
property owners who apply for a map amendment to the official LUD map
and/or the official FLUM, if the property owner can provide satisfactory
evidence that a currently existing use on the site that also existed lawfully in
1992 was deemed nonconforming by final adoption of the LUD map and/or a
currently existing use on the site that also existed lawfully on the site in 1997
was deemed nonconforming by final adoption of the FLUM. To qualify for
the fee exemption, the applicant must apply for a LUD and/or FLUM
designation(s) that would eliminate the non-conforming use created with
adoption of the existing designation(s) and not create an adverse impact to the
community. Prior to submittal of a map amendment application,the applicant
must provide the evidence supporting the change and application for a fee
exemption.with the proposed LUD map/FL;UM designations to the Monroe
County Planning & Environmental Resources Department as part of an
application for a Letter of Understanding. Following a review,the Director of
Planning & Environmental Resources shall'determine if the information and
evidence is sufficient, and whether the proposed LUD map and/or FLUM
designations are acceptable for the fee waiver, and approve or deny the fee
exemption request. This fee waiver Letter of Understanding shall not obligate
the staff to recommend approval or denial of the proposed LUD or FLUM
Category.
4. Hearing fees: applicant shall pay half the cost of the hourly rate, travel and
expenses of any hearing officer. The County is currently charged$144.00 per
hour by Department of Administrative Hearings (DOAH). If the fee charged
to the County is increased, the charge will change proportionately. An
estimated amount of one-half of the hearing officer costs as determined by the
County Attorney shall be deposited by the applicant along with the application
fee,and shall be returned to the applicant if unused.
5. Base fees listed above include a minimum'of (when applicable)two internal
staff meetings with applicants;,one Development Review Committee meeting,
one Planning Commission public hearing; and one Board of County
Commission public hearing. If this minimum number of meetings/hearings is
exceeded, the following fees shall be charged and paid prior to the private
development application proceeding through public hearings:
a. Additional internal staff meeting with applicant $500.00
b. Additional Development Review Committee public hearing$600.00
c. Additional Planning Commission public hearing $700.00
d. Additional Board of County Commissioners public hearing$850.00
The Director of Growth Management or designee shall assure these additional
fees are paid prior;to hearing scheduling. 'These fees apply to all applications
filed after September 15,2010.
I
1
Planning&Environmental Resources Department Fee Schedule
Page 5 of 7
6. Applicants for Administrative Appeal, who prevail based on County error, as
found by the Planning Commission, shall) have the entire application fee
refunded.
7. Concerning the application fees to amend the tier maps,the lesser application
fee of $1,600.00 is only available for !applications to amend the tier
designation of a single URM or IS platted lot. It may not be used to amend
the designation of more than one parcel.
8. Applicants for any, processes listed above that are required to provide
transportation studies related to their development impacts shall be required to
deposit a fee of$5,000 into an escrow-account to cover the cost of experts
hired by the Growth_Management Division to_review the transportation and
other related studies submitted by the applicant as part of the development
review process or any text amendment submitted by a private applicant. Any
unused funds deposited by the applicant will be returned upon permit
approval. Monroe County shall obtain an estimate from the consultant they
intend to hire to review the transportation study for accuracy and methodology
and if the cost for the review on behalf of Monroe County is higher than the
$5000, applicant shall remit the estimated amount. Any unused funds
deposited by the applicant will be returned upon permit approval.
Section 2.
' I
Any other fees schedules or provisions of the Monroe County Code inconsistent herewith
are hereby repealed.
Section 3.
The.Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward one (1) certified copy of this
Resolution to the Division of Growth Management.
(REMAINDER OF PAGE LEFT INTENTIONALLY BLANK)
! I
Planning&Environmental Resources Department Fee Schedule
Page 6 of 7
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida at a regular meeting held on the 18thday of April ,2012.
Mayor David Rice Yes
Mayor Pro Tem Kim Wigington Yes
Commissioner Heather Carruthers Yes
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy Yes
Commissioner George Neugent Yes
.r' • OUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
.1;;, + L.KOLHAGE,CLERK
..
By 1
�' 1)25,3,...-----%
•o r.�. Clerk Mayor David Rice
es� .� � 3%y,. r
k0e
ee.Nly
cc o. :
M . .•L. 1 —•' "Q� r'EDASTOF MONR �UNTYATTO�RNEY'•
-- Date: -
<L v ._
1
Planning&Environmental Resources Department Fee Schedule
Page 7 of 7
Exhibit 3
':- ; '-.-:,--4,y,, ..%,..rir:
i
_ _:,.....,...
Zr1 t 3 L✓ F' \ - _
. '•--t 1 ** ' - 4 - .,0"- *0• - * ,Atk -,.,„ 4,,i;"1/4, ,. - " r, -:., _,L.,./•••,..,„ _,' :, -.,*,4 t-i,,,,,, ;01, 7-'4,t:'''d,,atp":„. - N- .
}3L 2 y„ • M W ,0"C t
"ft
r' -.-� i _.�,yr -H.: iw ' � r'q ' + 40' fey - �i* .
€ �£ � � -� �yg. .�-_„� _:-;� �lk; t �w�r' � _ \ _ ��',� aS tt�1 �'` �, f 1- ,� LLBIre -
` - s;=% ^5 e�{!t6' ti rr F r.r#w. t ..,s,�s� ;P`iy ,fti` .� k, Y.,,� °`0. _ 5=4' .- Y`
i •
•
.y �� p p
t ". -, ti•
-' - 4' h.� .> C.u.J �� 1 {A 7F ,!'�q ,� a %�V�.,4'
€ �(_ J. C"Yo -:� - ; 3�"" y ,�� , 'e t 0 14 f� y •� rG rl '. l
( •
' ,� `,,,.sue s" 1. �011 IV� .� r I .h +fit •,1 -.
Existing Conditions Proposed Cons ions
' \1. ��' �Ni. ,�". Growth Management Division - `^ /. �'
i I 4,,..r. ` � We strive to be caring.profes9orgl and fair ' t
r
f The Monroe County Future Land Use is proposed to , 44I;4tV\ <
..!..i.e, c. . a be aid as indicated above and briefly described as ,n ,t<e.T : �.
(N i, �; . - Key:Key Largo MIS Marker.as Map AmenrMenk 4: 0 �, `''
! ' ♦♦ - Acreage:021 Land Use District Map•:138 i% ♦ ♦ cue ♦k �f_I
> ,5 `' >.: `•♦ �lee ♦• I i Crdirence No.: ;
Dale or Adoption: ,•♦♦Ok4" 4 '411/4: ##'W4♦♦.
- ',♦♦♦♦♦ �� y L P•oyOsat 4 Le 4 Uee etwge M one Parcel tarn Revd.Mal MOGan(RM)to NP # ♦♦♦.♦ `' ♦♦♦.♦
♦ .♦�� ` MIRed Uee'C9mmmltal lMCl - -
q w'.�c.�n .wo..n.wro ke
♦ 41 _- ,, property Descr4tiorc �._____
S I. RE Number 006191v0-0OOOOD e•""' •� ��JJ N
.�' + G Y)9fDM1C°elt ♦ aSPecMe
, e.. M w.e. aawQ.we my ,.wu me.w....eerra,a
Lard Use District Tier Designation 'A " . „ ' "" * "' Habitat Type Number of Protected Species
,,,ii i-t-,, ,
k-----.„-,...-......L.-: -1.'
MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
RESOLUTION NO. -'2013
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE, COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO THE STATE LAND PLANNING
AGENCY AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF THE
MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM
RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM) TO MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL (MC) FOR
PROPERTY LOCATED AT 98175 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY LARGO,LOTS
1 & 2, BLOCK 4, ROCK HARBOR ESTATES, PB3/P187 OF THE PUBLIC
RECORDS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, HAVING REAL ESTATE
NUMBER 00519750-000000.
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners conducted a public
hearing for the purpose of considering the transmittal to the Florida Land Planning Agency and
Reviewing Agencies as defined in Section 163.3184(1)(c), Florida Statutes for review and
comment of a proposed amendment to the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan as
described above; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Planning Commission and the Monroe County Board
of County Commissioners support the requested text amendment;
NOW THERFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA:
Section 1: . The Board of County Commissioners does,hereby adopt the recommendation of
the Planning Commission to transmit the, draft ordinance for adoption of the
proposed future land use map amendment.
Section 2. The Monroe County staff is given authority to prepare and submit the required
transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed amendment in
accordance with the requirements of Section 163.3184(4),Florida Statutes.
1
Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to'forward a certified copy of this
resolution to the Director of Planning.
P. 1 of 2
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,
Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 18th day of April,2013.
Mayor George Neugent ,
Mayor Pro Tern Heather Carruthers
Commissioner David Rice
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner Danny Kolhage
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
BY
Mayor George Neugent
(SEAL)
ATTEST: Amy Heavilin, Clerk
Deputy Clerk
MONROE
APpq,, q rYATTOgNE
VE Y
'S 70•For
Date: —11147114
P.2 of 2
1 rvriC�'�fl+,
6
7 ORDINANCE - 2013
8
9
10
11 AN ORDINANCE BY THE 1VIONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY
12 COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP OF
13 THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FROM
14 RESIDENTIAL MEDIUM (RM) TO MIXED USE/COMMERCIAL (MC)
15 FOR PROPERTY LOCATED AT 98175 OVERSEAS HIGHWAY, KEY
16 LARGO, LOTS 1 & 2, BLOCK 4, ROCK HARBOR ESTATES, PB3/P187
17 OF THE PUBLIC RECORDS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA,
18 HAVING REAL ESTATE NUMBER 00519750=000000; PROVIDING FOR
19 SEVERABILITY; PROVIDING FOR THE REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT
20 PROVISIONS; PROVIDING FOR THE TRANSMITTAL TO THE
21 STATE LAND PLANNING AGENCY; PROVIDING FOR THE FILING
22 WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE AND FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
23
-
24
25 WHEREAS,an application was filed by Renaissance Farms of the Keys LLC on July 31,2012,
26 to amend the Future Land Use Map'(FLUM) designation from Residential Medium (RM)to Mixed
27 Use/Commercial (MC) for property legally described as Lots 1 &2, Block 4, Rock Harbor Estates,
28 PB3/P187 of the Public Records of Monroe County,Florida, having real estate number 00519750-
29 000000; and
30
31 WHEREAS, the Monroe County Development Review Committee considered the proposed
32 amendment at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 30th day of October,2012; and
33
34 WHEREAS, at a regularly scheduled meeting held on the 28th day of November, 2012, the
35 Monroe County Planning Commission held a public hearing for the purpose of considering the
36 transmittal to the State Land Planning Agency, for review and comment, a proposed amendment to
37 the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan;and
38
39 WHEREAS,the Monroe County Planning Commissionl made the following findings:
40
41 1. The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the community character of the
42 surrounding area;
43
44 2. The proposed FLUM is not anticipated to adversely impact the Comprehensive Plan
45 adopted Level of Service(LOS);
46
I
1
47 3. The proposed amendment is consistent with the following Goals, Objectives and Policies
48 of the Monroe County Year2010 Comprehensive Plan;
49
50 4. The proposed amendment is consistent with the Key Largo Livable CommuniKeys Plan;
51
52 5. The amendment is consistent with the Principles for Guiding Development for the Florida
53 Keys Area, Section 380.0552(7),Florida Statute(F.S.); and
54
55 6. The proposed amendment is consistent with Part IIlof Chapter 163,Florida Statutes(F.S.).
56
57 WHEREAS,at a special meeting held on 18 day of April, 2013,the Monroe County Board of
58 County Commissioners held a public hearing to consider the transmittal of the proposed
59 amendment; and
60
61 WHEREAS, the proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment to amend Future Land Use Map
62 was reviewed by the State Land Planning Agency which issued an Objections, Recommendations,
63 and Comments (ORC) Report on with not comments or issues relative to this
64 amendment;
65
66 NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
67 COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA:
68 1
69 Section 1. The Future Land Use Map of the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan is
70 amended as follows:
71
72 The property legally described as Lots 11 & 2, Block 4, Rock Harbor Estates,
73 PB3/P187 of the Public Records of Monroe County, Florida, having real estate
74 number 00519750-000000 is changed from Residential Medium (RM) to Mixed
75 Use/Commercial (MC) as shown on Exhibit 1, attached hereto and incorporated
76 herein.
77
78 Section 2. Severability. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or
79 provision of this'ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall
80 not be affected by such validity.
81
82 Section 3. Repeal of Inconsistent Provisions. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in
83 conflict with this ordinance are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
84
85 Section 4. Transmittal. This ordinance shall be transmitted by the Director of Planning to
86 the State Land Planning Agency pursuant to Chapter 163 and 380, Florida
87 Statutes.
88
89
90
2
91 Section 5. Filing and Effective Date. This ordinance shall be filed in the Office of the
92 secretary of the State of Florida but shall not become effective until a notice is
93 issued by the State Land Planning Agency or Administration Commission
94 finding the amendment in compliance with Chapter 163, Florida Statutes.
95
96 PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe County,Florida,
97 at a regular meeting held on the day of ,2013.
98
99 Mayor George Neugent
100 Mayor Pro Tern Heather Carruthers
101 Commissioner David Rice
102 Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
103 Commissioner Danny Kolhage
104
105 BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY,FLORIDA
106 BY
107 Mayor George Neugent
108
109 (SEAL)
110 ATTEST: Amy Heavilin, Clerk
111
112 Deputy Clerk
113 MONR• OUNTY
114 AP EO A5 TO FO RNEY
115 Oet�4 j . --
3.
Exhibit 1 to Ordinance# -2013
7
co co
co
yG i
m �y
O O
00519750-b '0000 •
ST
44:
`� FST PJ�
( O4QO
\
_>\
The Monroe County Future Land Use Map is amended
as indicated above.
is
Proposal: Future Land Use change of one parcel from
Residential Medium (RM)to MixedUse/Commercial (MC):
RE Number: 00519750-000000
Pam Hancock
From: Amy Heavilin <aheavilin@monroe-clerk.com>
Sent: Wednesday, April 17, 2013 5:29 PM
To: Pam Hancock
Subject: Fwd: NASKW Comments 4-18-13 BOCC Mtg. Agenda Item B-3
Attachments: NASKW Comments 4-18-13 Special BOCC Mtg.pdf
-----Original Message -----
From: Denies, Ron A CIV CNRSE, NO2 [mailto:ron.demesnnavy.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, April 16, 2013 09:45 AM
To: boccdislgmonroecounty-fl.gov, boccdis2gmonroecounty-fl.gov,
boccdis3gmonroecounty-fl.gov, boccdis4gmonroecounty-fl.gov,
boccdis5@monroecounty-fl.gov
Cc: aheavilin _,monroe-clerk.com, gastesi-romangmonroecounty-fl.gov,
Shillinger-Bobgmonroecounty-fl.gov, hurley-christine(a,monroecounty-fl.gov,
Santamari a-Mayte(a,MonroeCounty-FL. Gov,
'Monnier, Ashley CIV NAVFAC SE, PWD Key West'
Subject: NASKW Comments 4-18-13 BOCC Mtg. Agenda Item B-3
Commissioners: Naval Air Station Key West's comments on subject 18 April 2013 BOCC agenda item B-3 are
forwarded representing our concerns. Our Community Plans and Liaison Officer, Ms. Ashley Monnier
[(305)293.2633] or I are available to answer any questions you may have regarding this issue. Very
Respectfully, Ron Demes R. A. DEMES Executive Director/Business Manager Naval Air Station P. O. Box
9001 Key West, Florida 33040-9001 305.293.2866 Executive Suite 305.293.2488 XD/BM desk 305.293.2230
Fax 305.797.0158 XD/BM Cell mailto:ron.demes2navy.mil
Naval Air Station Key West Comments
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
Special Meeting April 18, 2013
Agenda Item B. 3.
A public hearing to consider a resolution to transmit to the State Land Planning
Agency a proposed ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
amending the Future Land Use Map from Industrial (I) to Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) for
18 parcels on Stock Island, having real estate numbers 00123660-000000, 00123720-
000400, 00123760-000200, 00123720-000100, 00123720-000200, 00123730-000100,
00123740-000000, 00123770-000000, 00127290-000000, 00127380-000000, 00127250-
000000, 00127280-000000, 00123600-000100, 00123600-000102, 00123600-000101,
00123590-000000, 00123570-000000, and 00123540-000000, located on South Stock
Island.
Naval Air Station Key West (NASKW) has reviewed the proposed Future Land Use Map
amendment modifying 18 parcels on Stock Island from Industrial to Mixed Use/Commercial.
Issues that have been discussed on record at Development Review Committee and Planning
Commission meetings are summarized as follows, and remain to be critical issues for your
consideration at this transmittal hearing:
(L)The Navy uses the 2007 Air Installations Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) noise contours
as the basis for this analysis. The proposed Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) noise
contours are draft; not yet accepted, and therefore should not be used as a basis for
analysis.
(2.) The Navy interprets residential and transient residential use proposals within high noise
zones to be incompatible development, based on the 2007 AICUZ, Table 6-2 Suggested
Land Compatibility in Noise Zones (Exhibit 6 of the BOCC transmittal package).
Specifically, Housing Units and Transient lodging within the 65 DNL are respectively
listed as not being compatible (N'= No with Exceptions). The superscript of 1 states:
a. Although local conditions regarding the need for housing may require residential use in
these Zones, residential use is discouraged in DNL 65-69 and strongly discouraged in
70-74. The absence of viable alternative development options should be determined and
an evaluation should be conducted locally prior to local approvals indicating that a
demonstrated community need for the residential use would not be met if development
were prohibited in these Zones.
b. Where the community determines that these uses must be allowed, measures to achieve
and outdoor to indoor Noise Level Reduction (NLR) of at least 25 dB in DNL 65-69 and
NLR of 30 dB in DNL 70-74 should be incorporated into building codes and be in
individual approvals; for transient housing a NLR of at least 35 dB should be
incorporated in DNL 75-79.
c. Normal permanent construction can be expected to provide a NLR of 20 dB, thus the
reduction requirements are often stated as 5, 10, or 15 dB over standard construction
and normally assume mechanical ventilation, upgraded Sound Transmission Class (STC)
ratings in windows and doors and closed windows year round. Additional consideration
should be given to modifying NLR levels based on peak noise levels or vibrations.
d. NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. However, building location and
site planning, design and use of berms and barriers can help mitigate outdoor noise
exposure NLR particularly from ground level sources. Measures that reduce noise at a
site should be used wherever practical in preference to measures that only protect
interior spaces.
(3.)Chapter 380.0552 (7) of the Florida Statutes requires any amendments to Florida Keys
area comprehensive plans to be consistent with the principles for guiding development,
inclusive of provisions for protecting the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and
amortized life of existing and proposed major investments, including Key West Naval
Air Station and other military facilities. It is the position of NASKW that the Future Land
Use Map amendment, as proposed, is not consistent with this provision.
(4.)Chapter 163.3177 (6) (a) 2. of the Florida Statutes provides that future land use plan
amendments shall be based upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, as
applicable, including the compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate
to military installations. It is the position of NASKW that the Future Land Use Map
amendment, as proposed, does not include adequate provisions regarding compatibility of
uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military installations.
NASKW requests that transient and residential use entitlements not be allowed within areas
located in 65 DNL or higher. It is also important to consider the noise impacts for exterior uses,
as well as the impracticality of noise attenuation for uses, such as vessels. NASKW looks
forward to continuing this dialogue to resolve this extremely important issue, critical to mission
sustainability.