Item 01 Intro & Executive SummaryMonroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Table of Contents
Item
Pale
1.0. INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY..............................................................................1
1.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
1.1.1
Purpose.......................................................................................................................1
1.1.2
Federal and State Influence Upon Land Use Planning in
MonroeCounty........................................................................................................1
1.1.3
Government Structure..........................................................................................1
1.1.4
Format of the Comprehensive Plan..................................................................
2
1.1.5
Planning Time Frame............................................................................................
3
1.1.6
Data Sources and Limitations............................................................................
3
1.2 Executive
Summary...................................................................................................................
3
1.2.1
Geographic Setting.................................................................................................
3
1.2.2
Socio-Economic Characteristics........................................................................
3
1.2.3
Land Use.....................................................................................................................
8
1.2.4
Traffic Circulation.................................................................................................15
1.2.5
Mass Transit...........................................................................................................18
1.2.6
Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities...........................................................19
1.2.7
Housing.....................................................................................................................19
1.2.8
Potable Water........................................................................................................21
1.2.9
Sanitary Sewer............................................................................
22
1.2.10
Solid Waste..............................................................................................................23
1.2.11
Drainage...................................................................................................................24
1.2.12
Coastal Management and Conservation......................................................25
1.2.13
Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge.....................................................25
1.2.14
Recreation and Open Space..............................................................................26
1.2.15
Intergovernmental Coordination...................................................................27
1.2.16
Energy Conservation and Climate..................................................................27
1.2.17
Capital Improvements........................................................................................27
List of Tables
Table Pale
Table 1.1: Unincorporated Functional Population Distribution by Sub -Area ....................... 7
Table 1.2: Existing Land Use Acreages, Unincorporated, By Planning Area .......................... 8
Table 1.3: Vacant land by Tier and Planning Area............................................................................ 9
Table 1.4: Future Land Use Acreages Distribution, Unincorporated,
ByPlanning Area....................................................................................................................11
Table 1.5: Allocated Density and Maximum Floor Area Ratio...................................................12
Table 1.6: Vacant Land Theoretical Density and Intensity by Land Use Category and
Tier...............................................................................................................................................13
Table 1.7: Maximum Theoretical Density and Intensity by Land Use....................................14
Introduction and Executive Summary i Technical Document: May 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.8: 2010-2030 Reserve Volume and Residential Unit Capacity Forecasts per
Segmentof U.S. 1.....................................................................................................................16
Table 1.9: 1990-2000 Housing Types..................................................................................................20
Table 1.10: Housing Inventory by Occupancy Status and Tenure, 2000..................................20
Table 1.11: Projected Housing Need by Type, 2010-2030............................................................21
Table 1.12: Existing Potable Water Level of Service Standards..................................................21
Table 1.13: Goal Potable Water Consumption....................................................................................22
Table 1.14: Solid Waste Generation Trends........................................................................................23
Table 1.15: Solid Waste Projected Demands.......................................................................................24
Introduction and Executive Summary ii Technical Document: May 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
1.0 INTRODUCTION AND EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
1.1 Introduction
1.1.1 Purpose
The purpose of the Monroe County 2030 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document (the
"Technical Document") is intended to address the data, inventory, and analyses
requirements of Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Rule Chapter 9J-5 of the Florida
Administrative Code (F.A.C.). The data, inventory and analyses contained within this
document supports the development of goals, objectives, policies, and implementation
programs established in the Policy Document component of the Monroe County 2030
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan").
1.1.2 Federal and State Influence Upon Land Use Planning in Monroe County
Federal and State government involvement in Monroe County (the "County") land use
planning and decision -making is extensive due to the presence of aquatic and terrestrial
resources that are of regional and national significance. This involvement has heavily
influenced the County's comprehensive planning process. Many of the County's goals,
objectives, and policies have been mandated by the State pursuant to the Area of Critical
State Concern designation or by the Federal government as conditions for the County's
continued participation in the National Flood Insurance Program. As part of the Plan, the
County is compelled to include an Intergovernmental Coordination Element that seeks in
part to increase the effectiveness, efficiency, and responsiveness of government, and
provide for consistency in decisions and actions between various agencies, including the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, Army Corps of Engineers, and the United
States Fish & Wildlife Service. By incorporating the Intergovernmental Coordination
Element, however, the County does not assume liability for takings of private property
attributed to the adoption or application of regulations by Federal and State agencies, or to
the County's goals, objectives, and policies imposed by the Federal and State government to
implement their statutes, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act.
1.1.3 Government Structure
The County, created in 1824, is a political subdivision of the State of Florida. The powers
and authority of the County government emanate from the Florida State Legislature. The
County is a non -chartered county and the government functions in accordance with the
Florida Constitution.
The Board of County Commissioners (BOCC), which performs the legislative and executive
functions of the county government, consists of five members elected at large by the
citizens. Each commissioner represents one of the five county districts and is elected for a
term of four years.
Introduction and Executive Summary 1 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
1.1.4 Format of the Comprehensive Plan
The Plan is divided into three volumes: a Technical Document, Policy Document, and Map
Atlas. The Technical Document contains background information including the technical
support data analyses for the various elements of the Plan. The Policy Document contains
the goals, objectives and policies for each element, the capital improvements
implementation program, and the Comprehensive Plan monitoring and evaluation
procedures. The Map Atlas contains maps depicting background information for the
various elements (Existing Land Use, Habitat, Existing Transportation, etc.) as well as the
Future Land Use and Future Transportation Map series.
Pursuant to Chapters 163 and 380, Florida Statutes, the Technical Document does not
require adoption by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC). The unadopted status of
the Technical Document allows for continual updating and refinement of the data
contained herein without requiring amendments to the Plan.
The following sections of the Plan require adoption by the BOCC:
• The Goals, Objectives and Policies contained in the Policy Document;
• The requirements for capital improvements implementation including the Five -Year
Schedule of Capital Improvements, contained in the Policy Document;
• The procedures for monitoring and evaluation of the Plan, contained in the Policy
Document;
• The Future Land Use and Transportation Map series, contained in the Map Atlas; and
• The Plan Adoption Ordinance, included as an appendix to the Policy Document.
This Technical Document contains chapters for each element of the Plan. Each chapter
addresses a topic or group of topics involved with the physical development of land within
the County and its adjacent planning areas. The elements address the appropriateness of
various kinds of land use, the impacts of those land uses on natural resources, the services
needed for existing and future development, the fiscal capability of the County to provide
those services, and a capital improvement service delivery schedule.
The format of each chapter of this Technical Document provides a purpose for the Plan
elements; the level -of -service standards (where applicable); an inventory and analysis of
existing conditions and deficiencies; a description of future needs and a listing of planned
improvements for inclusion in the Capital Improvements Element.
Introduction and Executive Summary 2 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
1.1.5 Planning Time Frame
The Plan was prepared to cover a twenty-year planning horizon (2010-2030) and includes
population projections for this twenty-year period.
1.1.6 Data Sources and Limitations
Available data, as provided by various local, regional, and state agencies, has been utilized
and sources have been identified throughout this Technical Document.
There are limitations to the data and these limitations have been noted where relevant
throughout this document. The 2010 U.S. Census is not scheduled to be released until early
2011; therefore, unless otherwise noted, the local population and housing data is based on
the 2000 U.S. Census. This chapter will be further refined, as may be required, subsequent
to the release of the 2010 U.S. Census data sets.
1.2 Executive Summary
1.2.1 Geographic Setting
The County includes the Mainland area and over 1,700 islands which lie along the Florida
Straits, dividing the Atlantic Ocean to the east from the Gulf of Mexico to the west, and
defining one edge of the Florida Bay. The mainland part of the County is made up of the
Everglades National Park and the southern portion of Big Cypress National Preserve. The
Florida Keys extend 233 miles southwestward in a gradual arc from Biscayne Bay to the
Dry Tortugas in the Gulf of Mexico.
1.2.2 Socio-Economic Characteristics
To effectively create a comprehensive plan that reflects the needs of the County, the social
characteristics that define the community must be considered. Using information obtained
from the 2009 American Community Survey, 1-Year Estimate, the following items list several
Socio-economic facts regarding the County as a whole:
• HOUSEHOLDS AND FAMILIES: In 2009 there were 28,335 households in the County.
The average household size was 2.52 people. Households include all the persons who
occupy a housing unit.
Families made up 57.5 percent of the households in the County. This figure includes
married -couple families (46.3%). Non -family households. made up 42.5 percent of all
households in the County. Most of the non -family households were people living alone,
but some were composed of people living in households in which no one was related to
the householder.
Introduction and Executive Summary 3 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• GEOGRAPHIC MOBILITY: In 2009, 89 percent of the people at least one year old living
in the County were living in the same residence one year earlier; 5 percent had moved
during the past year from another residence in the same county, 2 percent from another
county in the same state, 3.5 percent from another state, and 0.6 percent from abroad.
• EDUCATION: In 2009, 31.5 percent of people 25 years and over had at least graduated
from high school and 24.4 percent had a bachelor's degree or higher. Eleven percent
were dropouts; they were not enrolled in school and had not graduated from high
school.
The total school enrollment in the County was 13,201 in 2009. Nursery school and
kindergarten enrollment was 1,500 and elementary or high school enrollment was
8,027 children. College or graduate school enrollment was 3,670.
• DISABILITY: In the County, among people at least five years old and older in 2009, 13
percent reported a disability. The likelihood of having a disability varied by age - from 3
percent of people under 18 years old, to 12 percent of people 18 to 64 years old, and to
30.5 percent of those 65 and older.
• INDUSTRIES: In 2009, for the employed population 16 years and older, the leading
industries in the County were Arts, entertainment, and recreation, and accommodation
and food services, 20 percent, and Educational services, and health care, and social
assistance, 14.7 percent.
• OCCUPATIONS AND TYPE OF EMPLOYER: Among the most common occupations were:
Service occupations, 28.8 percent; Management, professional and related occupations,
28.4 percent; Sales and office occupations, 27 percent; Construction, extraction,
maintenance, and repair occupations, 9 percent; and Production, transportation, and
material moving occupations, 4 percent. Seventy percent of the people employed were
Private wage and salary workers; 20 percent were Federal, State, or local government
workers; and 10 percent were Self-employed in own not incorporated business
workers.
• TRAVEL TO WORK: Sixty-one percent of the County workers drove to work alone in
2009, 11 percent carpooled, 1 percent took public transportation, and 20.7 percent
used other means. The remaining 6 percent worked at home. Among those who
commuted to work, it took them on average 16.9 minutes to get to work.
• INCOME: The median income of households in the County was $49,721. Seventy-six
percent of the households received earnings and 21 percent received retirement
income other than Social Security. Thirty-one percent of the households received Social
Security. The average income from Social Security was $15,589. These income sources
are not mutually exclusive; that is, some households received income from more than
one source.
Introduction and Executive Summary 4 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• POVERTY AND PARTICIPATION IN GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS: In 2009, 12 percent of
people were in poverty. 14.3 percent of related children under 18 were below the
poverty level, compared with 10.7 percent of people 65 years old and over. Seven
percent of all families and 28 percent of families with a female householder and no
husband present had incomes below the poverty level.
• HOUSING CHARACTERISTICS: In 2009, the County had a total of 54,243 housing units,
48 percent of which were vacant. Of the total housing units, 61 percent was in single -
unit structures, 24 percent was in multi -unit structures, and 15 percent was mobile
homes. Twenty-six percent of the housing units were built since 1990.
• OCCUPIED HOUSING UNIT CHARACTERISTICS: In 2009, the County had . 28,335
occupied housing units - 17,901 (63%) owner occupied and 10,434 (37%) renter
occupied. Four percent (1.193 units) of the households did not have telephone service
and six percent (1.696 units) of the households did not have access to a car, truck, or
van for private use. Thirty-nine percent had two vehicles and another 9 percent had
three or more vehicles.
• HOUSING COSTS: The median monthly housing costs for mortgaged owners was $2,323,
non -mortgaged (housing units without a mortgage), owners $592, and renters $1,206.
62.2 percent of owners with mortgages, 22.1 percent of owners without mortgages, and
65.8 percent of renters in the County spent 30 percent or more of household income on
housing.
• POPULATION: Annual population estimates for municipalities and unincorporated
areas indicate permanent population fell in the Keys from 2006-2008, with some return
to growth evidenced in 2009. The effect of the short term decline is to drive the long
term population projections down. Thus, both recent history and future projections
from the Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) suggest a downward trend
in permanent population.
There is ongoing ROGO based residential growth and there is a substantial inventory of
non -conforming, substandard, live -aboard and RV camp housing. Substandard, non-
conforming units are being gradually removed from inventory, however, not at a rate
fast enough to net out all residential growth. A portion of the permanent population
losses have occurred as a result of the recession, a rise in foreclosures, depletion of
affordable housing and increased unemployment; nearly 3,500 units have been
foreclosed throughout the Keys since 2005. The rise in home prices and threat of
hurricanes has also contributed to some permanent population loss. Losses associated
with some of these conditions may be temporary, resulting in renewed growth after the
recession. The BEBR annual permanent population estimate for 2009 indicated a net
positive permanent population growth in 2009 and small losses in 2010.
On the other hand, of all the new single family housing growth in the County since 1999,
nearly 70 percent has been in non -homesteaded units. It is likely this is a function of
Introduction and Executive Summary 5 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
both growth in seasonal population as well as permanent population loss, which may
cause once permanently occupied existing units to become non -homesteaded. This
latter aspect represents a shift from existing permanent population to seasonal
population and is why the non -homesteaded mix is so high.
Table 1.1 shows the permanent and seasonal population projections for
unincorporated Monroe County through the year 2030.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Introduction and Executive Summary 6 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.1- Unincorporated Functional Population Distribution by Sub -Area
Year
2000
Upper
29,183
Middle
2,138
37,957
Total
69,277
2001
29,205
2,145
38,163
69,512
2002
29,222
2,151
38,364
69,737
2003
29,192
2,155
38,504
69,850
2004
29,150
2,157
38,628
69,935
2005
29,313
2,175
39,027
70,515
2006
29,222
2,174
39,089
70,485
2007
29,075
2,169.
39,073
70,317
2008
28,928
2,169
39,240
70,338
2009
29,185
2,199
39,927
71,311
2010
28,980
2,183
39,645
70,808
2011
29,126
2,194
39,846
71,166
2012
29,187
2,199
39,929
71,315
2013
29,248
2,203
40,013
71,464
2014
29,309
2,208
40,097
71,613
2015
29,370
2,212
40,181
71,763
2016
29,429
2,217
40,263
71,909
2017
29,489
2,221
40,345
72,055
2018
29,549
2,225
40,427
72,201
2019
29,608
2,230
40,510
72,348
2020
29,668
2,234
40,592
72,494
2021
29,728
2,238
40,674
72,640
2022
29,787
2,243
40,756
72,786
2023
29,847
2,247
40,838
72,933
2024
29,907
2,252
40,921
73,079
2025
29,966
2,256
41,003
73,225
2026
30,026
2,260
41,085
73,371
2027
30,086
2,265
41,167
73,518
2028
30,145
2,269
41,249
73,664
2029
30,205
2,274
41,332
73,810
2030
30,265
2,278
41,414
73,956
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding
Introduction and Executive Summary 7 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
1.2.3 Land Use
Due to the differences in how the Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping data
structures for the existing, future and tier maps were developed, there will be slight
variations in the acreages reported. (See Section 2.3.1 of Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use for a
detailed discussion related to the limitations of these data structures.)
Table 1.2 shows the existing acreage and Table 1.3 shows the amount of vacant land
available by Land Use and Tier categories within the unincorporated areas of the County.
Table 1.4 shows the amount of land in each land use category and Table 1.6 provides and
estimate of the theoretical density and intensity based upon the corresponding density or
intensity allowances for the various land uses identified in Table 1.5.
Table 1.2 - Existing Land Use Acreages, Unincorporated, By Planning Area
Existing Land Use
Commercial
Lower
Keys
337.0
Middle
Kevs
67.7
Upper
Keys
495.3
Total
900.0
Percent
ofTotal
1.2%
Conservation
36,201.6
1,458.7
17,859.2
55,519.5
75.9%
Educational
49.2
0.0
30.8
80.0
0.1%
Industrial
414.8
0.2
40.6
455.6
0.6%
Institutional
99.6
0.4
60.8
160.8
0.2%
Military
4,025.7
0.0
0.0
4,025.7
5.5%
Other Public Utilities and Right- of-WaROW)
1,665.6
141.8
1,429.3
3,236.6
4.4%
Public Buildings and Grounds
17.1
33.0
61.2
111.3
0.2%
Recreational
640.8
132.1
548.3
1,321.2
1.8%
Residential
2,599.9
201.9
2,186.4
4,988.2
6.8%
Vacant or Undeveloped
1,376.2 1
108.3
854.4
2,338.9
3.2%
Total
47,427.6
2,144.1
23,566.2
73,137.9
100.0%
Percent Total by Planning Area
64.8%
2.9% 1
32.2%
100.0%
-
wurce: rviUnrue k-UunLy Uruvvui rvianagemenL, 6uiu, JV1U_hLU_S1U'
Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2010, "Public_Parcel"
Note: Slight differences due to rounding.
As seen in Table 1.2, the land mass of the unincorporated Keys portion of the County is
approximately 73,138 acres. Sixty-five percent of land area is found in the Lower Keys PA, 3
percent in the Middle Keys Planning Area (MKPA), and 32 percent in the Upper Keys
Planning Area (UKPA). Since the Lower Keys Planning Area (LKPA) is the largest in land
mass, it is not surprising that it has a number of existing land use designations, when
compared to the other Planning Areas (PA). The exception applies to Commercial and Public
Buildings and Grounds where percent ratios are larger in the UKPA.
More than 75 percent of land in the unincorporated Keys is used for conservation purposes.
Other land uses, in descending order, include: Residential (6.8%), Military (5.5%), Other
Introduction and Executive Summary 8 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Public (4.4%), Vacant or Undeveloped (3.2%), Recreational (1.8%), and Commercial (1.2%).
All other land uses are less than 1 percent.
Table 1.3 - Vacant Land by Tier and Planning Area
i�
1,301
418 1,360
27
NA
218
NA
3,324
9.4
15.7
202.4
1,346.0
1,330.3
753.5
75.3 289.8
5.7%
21.8%
0.7%
NA
15.2%
NA
NA
56.6%
3
0
414
0
NA
0
NA
417
0.0
77.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
105.8
105.7
28.2
' 26.6%
0.0%
73.4%
0.0%
NA
0.0%
NA
NA
608
0
1,333
227
NA
774
NA
2,942
0.0
227.9
63.9
2.2
126.2
772.7
770.5
352.5
0.0%
29.6%
8.3%
NA
16.4%
NA
NA
45.7%
418
3,107
254
NA
992
NA
6,683
1,912
75.3
595.2
73.2
18.1 1
328.6 J
2,224.5
2,206.4
1,134.2
2010,
"MC
ELU 510":
Monroe County
Grnwth
Minnm-mPnt
Source: Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "MC-FLUM-510"; Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "Tier-0110"
Tiers are:
I = Tier I - Natural Areas
II = Tier II (Big Pine Key and No Name Keys in the Lower Keys Planning Area only)
III = Tier III - Infill Areas
III -A = Special Protection Area (SPA)
0 = Property does not have a Tier designation. Most of these occur in the Upper Keys and some are right-
of-way parcels. Some lots were not originally designated because of mapping errors; the majority of
which are currently being reviewed by the Tier Designation Review Committee and will be designated
at a later date.
U = Undesignated Tier - Properties that originally had a Tier designation but became undesignated by a
court order. This court order was in response to the Everglades Law Center's analysis of the Tier
System. As a result of the court order, it was determined that a number of parcels should be re-
designated. The Tier Designation Review Committee is currently addressing the issues
Note: Slight differences due to rounding.
Tier 0 is used for illustration purposes only and is not part of the analysis.
Vacant acres in all tiers after subtracting Tier 0.
As seen in Table 1.3, the LKPA contains 1,330.3 acres (3,324 parcels), which are vacant and
are located within a tier designation. Most of the vacant land, (56.6%) is located in Tier I,
comprising 1,301 parcels; and 21.8 percent (1,360 parcels) are designated Tier III. The
UNDES Tier accounts for 15.2 percent or 218 parcels of vacant land. This PA is the only
Introduction and Executive Summary 9 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
planning area with 418 vacant parcels (5.7%) designated Tier II, which only applies to Big
Pine Key and No Name Key. Less than one percent of vacant land (27 parcels) is located in
Tier III -A. Until the UNDES land is designated under the Tier System, development potential
will remain unclear. The County's ROGO system supports development on parcels
designated Tier II, I1I and III -A. These tiers constitute 28.1 percent of vacant land in the
LKPA.
The MKPA has 105.7 vacant acres or 417 vacant parcels, which are located in one of the tiers.
Most of the vacant land, 73.4 percent or 414 parcels, are located within Tier III-Infill Area.
The remaining three parcels or 26.6 percent is located within Tier I. This analysis is meant
for illustrative purposes only and is not a true picture of development potential since a closer
review of the individual parcel characteristics is needed in order to capture the Tier System
true applicability.
The UKPA includes 770.5 acres or 2,942 parcels of vacant land within the Tier System. Most
vacant acres (45.7%) are located in Tier I and constitute 608 parcels. Another 1,333 parcels
(29.6%) are located in Tier II1, these parcels constitute 227.9 acres. Vacant land located in
the UNDES Tier constitutes 774 vacant parcels, 126.2 acres or 16.4 percent of vacant acres.
Lastly, 8.3 percent of vacant acres or 227 parcels are located in Tier III -A. Tiers III and 11I-A
include 37.9 percent of the vacant acres. This analysis is meant for illustrative purposes only
and is not a true picture of development potential since a closer review of the individual
parcel characteristics is needed in order to capture the Tier System true applicability.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Introduction and Executive Summary 10 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.4 - Future Land Use Acreages Distribution, Unincorporated, By Planning Area
Land Use
Agriculture A
Lower
Keys
18.8
Middle
Keys
0.0
Upper
Keys
1.9
Total
20.7
of
'TotalFuture
0.0%
Airport District AD
22.6
0.0
19.7
42.2
0.1%
Conservation CC
19,591.5
489.1
11,553.9
31,634.6
43.2%
Education E)
28.5
0.0
32.2
60.6
0.1%
Industrial I
415.8
0.0
0.0
415.8
0.6%
Institutional INS
87.6
0.0
43.5
131.0
0.2%
Military M
4,381.2
0.0
0.0
4,381.2
6.0%
Mixed Use Commercial MC
885.4
138.6
1,009.1
2,033.2
2.8%
Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing
MCF
113.2
25.3
12.6
151.1
0.2%
Public Buildings/Grounds PB
20.2
0.0
26.8
47.1
0.1%
Public Facilities PF
55.7
27.2
57.4
140.3
0.2%
Recreation R
526.8
848.3
638.5
2,013.5
2.8%
Residential Conservation RC
12,133.9
266.3
6,189.9
18,590.1
25.40%
Residential Low RL
2,846.5
23.9
941.0
3,811.4
5.2%
Residential Medium RM
2,922.1
231.3
2,137.3
5,290.7
7.2%
Residential High RH
422.3
41.8
903.0
1,367.0
1.9%
Undesi nated UNDS
2,966.7
52.4
0.1
3,019.2
4.1%
Total
47,438.7
2,144.1 123,566.8
73,149.6
100.0%
Percentage of Total
64.9%
2.9% 1
32.2%
100.0%
--
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC
FLUM 510":
Future Land Use
DPnsitiPc and
Intensities Table in Goals Objectives and Policies, Pg 3.1-21
Note: Slight differences due to rounding.
As seen in Table 1.4, approximately 43 percent of land in the unincorporated Keys has a
Conservation Land Use Designation. Other land uses, in descending order, include:
Residential Conservation (25.4%), Residential Medium (7.2%), Military (6.0%), Residential
Low (5.2%), Undesignated (4.1%), Mixed Use Commercial (2.8%), Recreational (2.8%), and
Residential High (1.9%). All other land uses are less than 1 percent.
Introduction and Executive Summary 11 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Allocated density is calculated in dwelling units per gross acre, while maximum net density is
calculated in dwelling units per net buildable acre. The net buildable area is that area which is
developable and not in open space or required as a minimum buffer yard or setback as
provided for in the Land Development Code (LDC). The maximum floor area ratio is the
maximum total floor area of the building on a lot divided by the gross area of the lot or site.
(MCLDC Sec. 101-1). This system allows for a site -by site determination of the appropriate
density and intensity each site proposed for development.
Table 1.5 -Allocated Density and Maximum Floor Area Ratio
Future Land Use
Agriculture (A)
Allocated
Density (per
acre)
0 du
Maximum
Allowed Floor
Area
.020-0.25
Airport District AD
0 du
0.10
Conservation CC
0 du
0.05
Education E
0 du
0.30
Industrial I
1 du
0.25-0.60
Institutional INS
0 du
0.25-0.40
Mainland Native MN
0.01 du
0.10
Military M
6 du
0.30-0.50
Mixed Use Commercial MC
1-6 du
0.10-0.45
Mixed Use Commercial Fishing MCF
3-8 du
0.25-0.40
Public Buildings/Grounds (PB)
0 du
0.10-0.30
Public Facilities PF
0 du
0.10-0.30
Recreation (R)
0.25 du
0.20
Residential Conservation RC
0-0.25 du
0-0.10
Residential Low RL
0.25-0.50 du
0.20-0.25
Residential Medium RM
0.5-8 du
0.00
Residential High RH
3-16 du
0.00
Undesi nated (UNDS
NA
NA
Source: Policy Document of the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive Plan, Policy 101.4.21.
Policy 101.4.21: Maximum net density is the maximum density allowed with the use of TDRs
Table 1.5 illustrates the density and density allowances for the various land uses within the
County. The County's current policy determines both allocated and maximum net densities for
residential as well as hotel -motel, recreational vehicle and institutional residential uses. For
the purposes of the analyses of residential density below, and those within Chapter2.0 Future
Land Use and Chapter 7.0 Housing, allocated density was used.
Introduction and Executive Summary 12 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.6 - Vacant Land Theoretical Density and Intensity by Land Use Category and Tier
Future Land Use
Air ort District
1
0
11
0
111
9.2
III-
A
0
U
0
Allowed
Density
0
Max. Allowed
Intensity
39,988.1
Conservation
80.1
0.4
0
0
0
0
175,198.3
Industrial
0.2
0
15.2
0
88
103.4
2,701,678.3
Institutional
1.2
0
0.7
0
0
0
32,234.4
Military
94.4
0
0
0
0
566.4
2,056,032.0
Mixed Use Commercial
51.2
4.1
100.6
34.9
28.1
1,313.10
4,289,897.7
Mixed Use Commercial Fishing
10.5
9.7
7.1
0
14.2
332.0
723,096.0
Recreation
18.3
0
3.1
0
0.1
5.4
186,523.9
Residential Conservation
360.7
0
2.1
0.5
57.4
105.1
1,832,046.5
Residential Low
373.9
0.9
33.8
13.1
10
215.8
4,700,015.1
Residential Medium
131.8
59.1
341.8
22.9
111.0
5,331.9
0
Residential High
13.7
1.2
39.8
2.0
19.9
1,225.9
0
Total
_ , _,_ .
1135.7
75.3
553.2
73.3
328.7
9,199.0 1
16,769,710.3
INOLe: ,ngnL unierences due to rounding.
As illustrated in Table 1.6, the majority of vacant land is located within Tier I; although
development would concentrate in the 702 acres within Tier II, III, and III -A. The maximum
allowed density within all tiers are 10,258 dwelling units and intensity of 17,420,733 square
feet.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
introaucnon and Executive Summary 13 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.7 provides an analysis of the all the land within the unincorporated areas of the
County based upon future land use designation. The theoretical maximum density is based
upon the County's projected population. For unincorporated Monroe County, most of the land
is designated as Conservation (43.2%) and Residential Conservation (25.4%). Less than one
percent is noted for Agriculture, Airport District, Education, Industrial, Institutional, Mixed Use
Commercial Fishing, Public Buildings/Grounds and Public Facilities.
Table 1.7 - Maximum Theoretical Density and Intensity by Land Use
Future Land Use
A riculture A
Acres
20.7
Max. Allowed
Dwelling Units
0,
Max. Allowed
Floor Area
(sq/ft)
225,648.08
Airport District AD
42.2
0
183,953.9
Conservation C
31634.6
0
68,900,049.9
Education E
60.6
0
792,312.8
Industrial I
415.8
415.8
10,867,087.4
Institutional INS
131.0
0
2,283241
Military (M)
4381.2
26287.2
95,422,536.00
Mixed Use/
Commercial MC
2033.2
12198.9
39,853,806.3
Mixed Use/
Commercial Fishing
MCF
151.1
1208.7
2,632,417.9
Public Buildings/
Grounds PB
47.1
0
614,980.1
Public Facilities PF
140.3
0
1,833,048.3
Recreation R
2013.5
503.4
17,541,699.1
Residential
Conservation RC
18590.1
4647.6
80,978,388.5
Residential Low RL
3811.4
1905.7
41,505,710.4
Residential Medium
RM
5290.7
42325.7
0.00
Residential High RH
1367.0
21872.3
0.00
Undesi noted UNDS
3019.2
0
0.00
Total
73,149.6
67,643.00
363,634,872.5
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010 "MC_FLUM_510"; Future Land Use Densities and
Intensities Table in Goals Objectives and Policies, pg 3.1-21.
Note: Slight difference due to rounding.
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
1.2.4 Traffic Circulation
The roadway network in the County, particularly the Florida Keys, is unique. The Harry S.
Truman Blue Star Memorial Overseas Highway (U.S. 1 and S.R. 5), functions as an arterial,
collector, and "Main Street" all rolled into one. Nowhere else is there a 112 miles -plus long
archipelago connected by over 40 bridges along a single roadway.
Roadway access to and from the County is provided by only two roads: U.S. 1 and Card
Sound Road (CR 905A). These two facilities serve the Florida Keys as economic and public
safety lifelines. It cannot be overstated the need to assess the operation of U.S. 1 within a
regional context to ensure the Florida Keys' only continuous roadway link will continue to
function properly.
While U.S. 1 is the principal highway in the County, it is by no means the only road.
Branching off from U.S. 1 are numerous local and collector roads serving the many
subdivisions and the five incorporated cities throughout the Keys. As of the end of 2009,
the county has a total of 801.445 centerline miles of roadways. Of this total, 583.453 miles
are in designated small urban areas and 217.992 miles are in designated rural areas. The
daily vehicle miles traveled averaged 3,193,243 DVMT.
A key traffic capacity limitation in the County is the ability of various segments of U.S. 1 to
accommodate traffic volume increases at LOS C. The ability of the County to accommodate
traffic volume growth varies by segment of U.S. 1 and by collector roadway. Thus, the
distribution of potential residential growth by segment of U.S. 1 (and by Planning Area) is a
critical factor in determining the future roadway segments which are over capacity. Table
1.8 presents the estimated 2015-2030 forecasts of reserve volumes and residential
capacities for each of the U.S. 1 segments.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Introduction and Executive Summary 15 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.8 - 2010-2030 Reserve Volume and Residential Unit Capacity Forecasts per
Segment of U.S. 1
1 Stock Island 2,186 342 1,991 311 1,864 291 1,737 271
1,609 251
2
Boca Chica
4,973
777
4,156
649
3,566
557
2,968
464
2,358
368
3
Big Coppitt
5492
86
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
Note 3
4
Saddlebunch
2,593
405
1,419
222
584
91
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
5
Sugarloaf
265
41
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
3
3
3
3
6
Cudjoe
2,525
395
2,024
316
1,670
261
1,310
205
942
147
7
Summerland
1,967
307
1,531
239
1,223
191
911
142
593
93
8
Ramrod
1,866
292
1,409
220
1,086
170
758
119
424
66
9
Torch
2,087
326
1,668
261
1,372
214
1,072
167
765
120
10
Big Pine
1,520
238
846
132
371
58
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
11
Bahia Honda
7,187
1,123
5,806
907
4,836
756
3,851
602
2,845
445
12
7-Mile
Bride
3,716
581
2,366
370
1,299
203
248
39
Note 3
Note
3
13
Marathon
17,771
2,777
16,094
2,515
14,792
2,311
13,537
2,115
12,269
1,917
14
Grassy
OZ
0
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
3
3
3
3
15
Duck
1,565
245
1,023
160
542
85
77
12
Note 3
Note
3
16
Long
6,722
1,050
4,784
748
3,018
472
1,315
206
Note 3
Note
3
17
Lower
Matecumbe
9402
147
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
3
3
3
3
18
Tea Table
7272
114
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
3
3
3
3
19
Upper
Matecumbe
611
95
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
3
3
3
3
20
Windley
4,468
698
4,086
638
3,699
578
3,306
517
2,907
454
21
Plantation
2,881
450
952
149
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
Note 3
Note
22
Tavernier
9,539
1,490
7,778
1,215
5,991
936
4,178
653
2,337
365
23
Key Largo
9,121
1,425
7,897
1,234
6,065
948
4,501
703
2,915
455
24
Cross
7,187
1,123
5,906
923
4,605
719
3,285
513
1,945
304
Introduction and Executive Summary 16 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Based upon the measured and forecasted speeds, reserve volumes and residential
capacities for all of the U.S. 1 segments, the following segments are projected to operate
below the acceptable LOS C:
Year 2010 (Current):
• U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS D;
• U.S.1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS D; and
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS D.
Year 2015:
• U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Sugarloaf Key from MM 16.5 to 20.5 (segment 5), LOS D;
• U.S.1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS D;
• U.S.1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS D; and
• U.S. 1 on Upper Matecumbe Key from MM 79.5 to 84.0 (Segment 19), LOS D.
Year 2020:
• U.S.1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS D;
• U.S.1 on Sugarloaf Key from MM 16.5 to 20.5 (segment 5), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from JAM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Upper Matecumbe Key from MM 79.5 to 84.0 (Segment 19), LOS D; and
• U.S.1 on Plantation Key from MM 86.0 to 91.5 (Segment 21), LOS D.
Year 2025:
• U.S.1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MIA 10.5 (segment 3), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Saddlebunch Key from MM 10.5 to 16.5 (segment 4), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Sugarloaf Key from MM 16.5 to 20.5 (segment 5), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key from MM 29.5 to 33.0 (segment 10), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS E;
• U.S.1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Upper Matecumbe Key from MM 79.5 to 84.0 (Segment 19), LOS D; and
• U.S. 1 on Plantation Key from MM 86.0 to 91.5 (Segment 21), LOS D.
Year 2030:
• U.S. 1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (segment 3), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Saddlebunch Key from MM 10.5 to 16.5 (segment 4), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Sugarloaf Key from MM 16.5 to 20.5 (segment 5), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Big Pine Key from MM 29.5 to 33.0 (segment 10), LOSE;
Introduction and Executive Summary 17 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• U.S. 1 on 7-Mile Bridge from MM 40.0 to 47.0 (segment 11), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Duck Key from MM 60.5 to 63.0 (segment 15), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Long Key from MM 63.0 to 73.0 (segment 16), LOS D;
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (segment 18), LOS E;
• U.S. 1 on Upper Matecumbe Key from MM 79.5 to 84.0 (Segment 19), LOS E; and
• U.S. 1 on Plantation Key from MM 86.0 to 91.5 (Segment 21), LOS E.
The County maintains over 600 miles of secondary roads, in addition to 25 bridges totaling
less than one mile in length. The County is therefore responsible for a roadway system
roughly five times the length of U.S. 1. Approximately 85 percent of the County's roadways
are paved.
For County roadways, the maximum service volume threshold standard is established as
LOS D.
Almost all county roadways currently operate at or better than LOS D. The one exception is
Palm Avenue between White Street and U.S. 1 (N. Roosevelt Boulevard) which has a peak
hour LOS of F based on 2009 traffic data.
1.2.5 Mass Transit
The County is currently served by two main public transit systems:
• Miami -Dade Transit in the northern region of the County with two routes (Dade -
Monroe Express and Card Sound Express) serving the County from Key Largo to the
City of Marathon; and
• The City of Key West Department of Transportation which operates:
- Key West Transit with four fixed -route bus routes serving the City of Key West and
Stock Island;
- The Lower Keys Shuttle providing service in the southern portion of the County
from the City of Marathon to the City of Key West; and
- The Key West Park-N-Ride at The Old Town Garage.
Other transit related services providing limited service in the County include:
• Monroe County Transit's Paratransit Service;
• Guidance Clinic of the Middle Keys; and
• Greyhound Bus Line.
Introduction and Executive Summary 18 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
1.2.6 Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities
Within the County, there are eight airport facilities. One of these, Key West International
Airport (KWIA) is the only commercial airport currently serving the community. The
Florida Keys Marathon Airport (FKMA) provides only general aviation services, although
non-scheduled air taxi service is provided. There are also four private airports or airstrips,
one seaplane facility, and one military aviation facility: the U.S. Naval Air Station Key West.
The KWIA and the Naval Air Station are situated in the Lower Keys. The FKMA is located in
the Middle Keys. The seaplane facility is located on Stock Island. The four private airstrips
are located throughout the Florida Keys.
While there is an abundance of coastline in the County, only two areas are considered port
facilities. The Port of Key West, which is owned by the City of Key West and consists of
cruise berths and passenger ferries, is located within the northwest quadrant of the city;
while the privately -owned Stock Island port is considered to be the only truly industrial,
deep water port in the County.
1.2.7 Housing
While the bulk of the land uses in the County are for conservation purposes, residential
uses comprise the next highest land use activity. The County is predominantly a residential
area, with a great deal of focus on a single-family home environment. Its location has
attracted residential development not only for permanent, but also for seasonal residents.
The amount of vacant land available is more than sufficient to accommodate the low level
of projected population growth. However, due to the limited population growth (1S7
persons a year), the increasing vacancy rate, and the high price of land in a coastal
community, there is no significant demand for new residential development from
developers.
The responsibility lies with the private sector to provide for both owner -occupied and
rental housing; although, the County does provide incentives for the development of
affordable housing, including land acquisition and permit fee waivers. By ordinance, the
County has adopted the Florida Building Code, 2007 along with a fire safety code and
administers and oversees contractor licensing. Table 1.9 is an inventory of the housing
types based on the 1990 and 2000 Census.
Introduction and Executive Summary 19 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.9-1990-2000 Housing Types
•f
2000
Change
"1 1!1
Unit Type
Number %
Number
%
Number %
of Units Dist.
of Units
Dist.
of Units Dist.
Single -Family (Detached)
14,711
45.00/6
12,847
52.2%
-1,864
-12.7%
Single -Family (Attached)
992
3.0%
920
3.7%
-72
-7.3%
Duplex (2-units)
1,749
5.3%
669
2.7%
-1,080
-61.8%
Multi -Family 3+ units
4,398
13.5%
2,561
10.4%
-1,837
-41.8%
Mobile
Home Trailer Other
10,847
33.2%
7,598
30.9%
-3,249
-30.0%
Total Year -Round Units
32,697
100.0%
24,595*
100.0%
-8,102
-14.6%
.1VU1 �C— 1'1 V 11Ud I1VUJlllg lid Ld "Audl 111g'11V use, 1API11 LULU
*41 units located in the Mainland PA
Note: To be updated on upon 2010 U.S. Census release May, 2011.
Table 1.10 -- Housing Inventory by Occupancy Status and Tenure, 2000
Lower
Number
Units
Keys
Percent
Middle Keys
Number
Percent
Units
Upper
Number
Units
Keys
Percent
Total
Number
Units
Percent
oVUl L,C. i'lul lud nuu5lllg 1JdLd L,1Cdl111giluuse, Hpru zuiu
*41 dwelling units located in the Mainland according to Census Block GIS analysis.
Note: To be updated on upon 2010 U.S. Census release May 2011.
Based upon the incorporated County population projections shown previously in Table 1.1,
Table 1.11 below illustrates the total housing need through the year 2030. For additional
details related to the population projections, see Chapter 2.0 Future Land Use Section 2.6
Population Projections.
Introduction and Executive Summary 20 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.11- Projected Housing Need by Type, 2010-2030
Seasonal
Permanent
Functional
Housing Need
M#
of
househo
IdsOEM
Dwelling
knits,
# of
households
Dwelling
Units'
# of
houdss hol
Dwelling
Units,
(functional
only)
1
:
1 •
�
1 1
•.1
•.lip
Fishkind & Associates, Inc., 2010, Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections, Smith Travel
Research; American Community Survey 2008
*Seasonal Dwelling units are # of households multiplied the occupancy rate of 70 percent
**Permanent dwelling units are # of households multiplied by the occupancy rate of 89.7 percent.
+ Functional dwelling units are the sum of seasonal and permanent dwelling units.
1.2.8 Potable Water
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) provides potable water to County residents
and maintains the water distribution system up to individual property lines. Thereafter,
property owners are responsible for those lines located on their land.
The residential Level of Service (LOS) is based on the permanent population plus the portion
of the seasonal population living in residences. The seasonal number is defined as the
average daily seasonal population living in residences on an annual basis. The existing LOS is
57.0 gallons/capita/day.
The nonresidential LOS is based upon building square footages of commercial space in the
unincorporated County including hotels and motels. This existing LOS is 0.29 gallons/square
foot/day.
The overall consumption goal for the system is 86.00 gallons/capita/day. Based upon the
projected population illustrated previously in Table 1.1, potable water will adequately
meet the projected needs of the service area through 2030.
Table 1.12 - Existing Potable Water Level of Service Standards
Residential LOS 66.5 gallons ca ita da
Non -Residential LOS 0.35 gallons/square foot/day
Source: FKAA
Note: Equivalent Residential Unit: 149 gallons per day (2.24 average persons per household X 66.5
gal/capita/day
Introduction and Executive Summary 21 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.13 - Goal Potable Water Consumption
Residential
57
gallons
capita da
Non-residential
.29
gallons/square
foot/day
Overall
86
gallons/capita
day
1.2.9 Sanitary Sewer
Treatment of sewage and the disposal of wastewater within the County historically have
been accomplished through septic tanks, on -site treatment and disposal systems (OSTDS),
and small to intermediate sized privately -owned wastewater treatment package plants. With
expansion and growth, regional systems consisting of treatment plants and centralized sewer
have been built providing a greater level of collection and treatment. Several sewer districts,
both private and municipal, have been formed to service more densely populated areas.
Over the last 20 years, aerobic treatment units (ATU) for more advanced onsite treatment
and secondary treatment plants have been introduced. Although they provide better
treatment than septic tanks, including effluent disinfection, ATUs are not an efficient means
of removal of phosphorus and nitrogen.
With the adoption of the Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (the "Master Plan")
in June of 2000, the County has implemented a program to address these issues. The Master
Plan identified 23,000 private onsite systems within unincorporated Monroe County, made
up of septic tanks, ATUs, and unknown connections servicing a total of 4.88 million gallons
per day (MGD). In addition, 246 small wastewater treatment plants (WWTP) were
identified servicing another 2.40 MGD. The Master Plan focuses on utilizing regional
systems for treatment in hot spots (areas of high density) and alternative Best Available
Technology (BAT) in cold spots (areas of low density), and calls for several measures
including the following:
• Replacement or upgrade of onsite systems to Onsite Wastewater Nutrient Reduction
Systems (OWNRS);
• Creation of 12 community collection systems, five of which are to be phased into
regional systems;
• Address hot spots with community systems by 2010; and
• Upgrade 17 facilities to BAT/Advanced Wastewater Treatment (AWT) by 2010.
In April 2010, the Florida Senate and House approved SB 2018 extending the deadline for
compliance to the end of 2015, and postponing fines and potential liens against property
owners. In addition, the bill authorized $200 million of State funding for improvements;
however, the source of funding remains unresolved. Meeting the 2015 extension requires a
detailed financial plan to implement necessary plant and infrastructure improvements.
The funding gap of $330 million, which has already stretched the County's capacity for debt
service, continues to broaden due to a delayed revenue stream resulting from delays in
design and construction of new systems.
Introduction and Executive Summary 22 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
1.2.10 Solid Waste
The collection of solid waste is undertaken by private contractors under franchise
agreements with the County. Although the original solid waste disposal site stipulated in the
haul out contract was the WMI owned and operated Central Disposal Sanitary Landfill
(CDSL) located at 3000 Northwest 48th Street, Pompano Beach (Unincorporated Broward
County), Florida, all trash, unseparated recyclables and hazardous waste is currently hauled
to the Wheelabrator facility in Broward County, Florida, for incineration and disposal.
As illustrated in Table 1.13, the historical solid waste generation (excluding Islamorada)
shows a steady growth between the years 1998-2001. During the period 2002-2006, the
County's solid waste generation was significantly higher. These higher values do not
correspond to normal solid waste generation trends within the County and in actuality result
from a cluster of outliers. The outliers are functions of favorable economic conditions
(greater consumption of goods and services) and storm events that cause a significant
amount of over generation due to debris. Furthermore, during the period of 2007-2008, an
economic recession affected solid waste generation, significantly reducing standard trends
for generation growth.
Table 1.14 - Solid Waste Generation Trends
sona naste
PopulationGeneration ,
Year (Tons/Yr) Permanent Seasonal Functional (LBS/CAP/DAY)
2000
161,903
72,756
73,491
146,247
6.22
2001
198,314
73,218
73,540
146,758
7.59
2002
254,464
73,651
73,589
147,240
9.71
2003
213,186
74,051
73,639
147,690
8.11
2004
246,890
74,514
73,688
148,202
9.36
2005
285,553
75,857
73,737
149,594
10.72
2006
295,132
74,114
74,828
148,942
11.13
2007
187,177
72,632
75,734
148,366
7.09
2008
143,988
69,758
77,318
147,076
5.50
-- .,... vuiiLy ncwuuiiunucu runl:nunal ropulation Jeries, hishkind &Associates 2010
The LOS Standard utilized in Table 1.15 for projecting solid waste demands during the
planning periods will be 6.97 pounds/capita/day (lbs/cap/day).
inrroaucnon ana Executive summary 23 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 1.15 - Solid Waste Projected Demands
Projected
Population
LOS
Solid Waste
Generation
Year
Permanent
Seasonal
Functional
(LBS/CAP/DAY)
(Tons/Year)
2010
78,200
79,437
157,637
6.97
190,737
2015
77,600
81,580
159,180
6.97
192,604
2020
76,900
83,794
160,694
6.97
194,436
2025
76,200
86,008
162,208
6.97
196,268
2030
75,500
88,222
163,722
6.63
198,100
Jvui Le: rviuurue k-uunLy rupuiauuu rruiecuons, risnxina & Associates 2010
Notes: FEDP data uses only permanent population for their evaluations.
Notes: Islamorada population is excluded from the County's population.
1.2.11 Drainage
Objective 101.9 directs Monroe County to provide for drainage and stormwater management
so as to protect real and personal property and to protect and improve water quality. In
2001, Monroe County adopted a Stormwater Management Plan.
Section 114-3 of the Monroe County Land Development Code (MCLDC) requires stormwater
controls for flood protection and floodplain encroachment, but also includes water quality
controls for existing and proposed residential development and addresses retrofitting of
existing facilities and redevelopment activities.
Additionally, the County has prepared a Manual of Stormwater Management Practices which
provides information on acceptable forms of Best Management Practices. This document
was prepared with the assistance of the South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC)
and the SFWMD and includes BMPs consisting of rate control structures, catch basins with
skimmers and baffles, and wet and dry detention/retention facilities.
Furthermore, all new development and select redevelopment must adhere to the following
level of service standards:
• Residential and commercial building floors - 100 year, 3 day;
• Emergency shelters/service building floors - 100 year, 3 day;
• Evacuation routes and emergency service road- 100 year, 3 day;
• Arterial roads - 100 year, 3 day;
• Collector roads - 25 year, 3 day;
• Neighborhood roads - 5 year, 1 day;
Introduction and Executive Summary 24 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Urban sites - 5 year, 1 day;
• Rural sites - 3 year, 1 day; and
• Off -site discharge rates are limited to historic, predevelopment conditions or as
previously determined by the SFWMD or the County.
1.2.12 Coastal Management and Conservation
The southern tip of Florida and the Florida Keys contains one of the Country's most diverse
assemblages of terrestrial, estuarine, and marine flora and fauna. The region includes the
vast freshwater wetlands of the Florida Everglades and Big Cypress, the transitional areas
where the waters of the Everglades discharge into the estuarine environment of Florida
Bay, one of the world's largest coral reef tracts (the only one in the continental United
States), the largest contiguous seagrass community in the world, and the subtropical
habitats of the island chain. The environmental setting of the Keys is exceptional and
unique, making the region a major travel destination. The County supports local, State, and
federal programs aimed at preserving these vital resources and consistently apply
regulations that protect them from further destruction.
Portions of the County are located within the Coastal Resource Barriers Resources System
(CBRS). Today, the CBRS is comprised of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic
and Gulf of Mexico coasts, including the coasts of the Florida Keys. The CBRS includes a
number of units located in the Florida Keys and as such, is most susceptible to the threat of
strong storms and hurricanes.
Within the Conservation and Coastal Management element, the County addresses natural
disaster planning and hazard mitigation. The County's specific emergency response
procedures are detailed in the Monroe County Comprehensive Emergency Management
Plan (CEMP) (November 2007). As a low-lying chain of islands with a single main roadway,
hurricane evacuation is a major concern.
In 2006, the Florida Department of Community Affairs (DCA) funded the South Florida
Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) to carry out an update of the regional hurricane
evacuation traffic study component of the South Florida Regional Hurricane Evacuation
Study (HES) (includes Miami -Dade, Broward, and Monroe Counties). Additionally, the DCA
funded the University of Utah to update its evacuation model for the County (the "Miller
Model"). The 2010 update to the Miller Model (Ewing, 2010) also provided a summary of
results from previous hurricane evacuation models. Depending on the assumptions used in
the models (e.g., participation rates of evacuees, and traffic flow rates), the clearance times
ranged from 16 hours 16 minutes to 23 hours 20 minutes.
1.2.13 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
The potable water supply resources used by the County, including both the aquifer system
and treatment facilities, are geographically located in Miami -Dade County - entirely outside
of the County's jurisdiction (see Chapter 8.0, Potable Water Element). In the County, the
inrroaucuon ana t:xecutive Summary 25 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
surficial aquifer is brackish to saline and contains an inadequate quantity of water for use as
a potable water supply. The FKAA is the agency that obtains and distributes potable water in
the Keys.
As a result of the potable water source for the County being located entirely within Miami -
Dade County, aquifer protection related to the FKAA's Florida City Wellfield is accomplished
through the provisions of the Miami -Dade County Wellfield Ordinance. In the County,
groundwater resource protection and management takes place in the context of the
regulation of public and private interests in relation to wetlands, wildlife, aquifer discharges
to surface waters, and other components of the natural system.
1.2.14 Recreation and Open Space
The County is well -served by its recreational opportunities, many of which are focused on
the waters surrounding the Florida Keys. There are over 4.07 million acres of publicly -
owned (Federal) conservation and recreation lands and waters provided in the County. The
mainland portion of the County accounts for 1.62 million acres of this total. The vast
majority of these areas are conservation lands which provide, activity -based, water -
dependent and water -related recreation opportunities. In addition to these publicly
provided lands and waters, many County businesses provide recreational activity -based
facilities which are available to the functional population (which includes both the
permanent and seasonal populations) of the County.
Using the 2010 functional population of 157,637, this translates into approximately 25,824
acres of conservation and recreation lands and waters/1,000 functional population. Based
upon this simple calculation of the demand for recreational land, there seems to be more
than enough for the permanent residents and visitors to the County. Adequate access to
these facilities is provided for residents, tourists, and visitors of varying ages and physical
ability levels.
The majority of the 4.07 million acres are conservation lands and a calculation for recreation
lands and facilities is extremely important to the recreation/tourism industry of the County.
Equally as important is the provision for a variety of recreational opportunities to the County
functional population. In general, residents have indicated that there is a shortage of activity -
based recreation areas in the County. Recreational facilities frequently citied as being in
short supply included baseball/softball fields, football/soccer fields, equipped play areas,
boat ramps, and physical exercise courses.
The LOS for the new planning period (2010-2030) is as follows:
• 1.5 acres of resource -based recreation areas/1,000 functional population; and
• 1.5 acres of activity -based recreation areas/1,000 functional population.
Introduction and Executive Summary 26 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
1.2.15 Intergovernmental Coordination
The County maintains intergovernmental relations with a variety of local, regional, and
state entities. With the exception of the relatively new agreements with FKAA relating to
the development of wastewater treatment systems, and the agreements with the newly
incorporated cities of Marathon and Islamorada, those relationships are essentially the
same as they were when the original comprehensive plan was adopted in 1995.
1.2.16 Energy Conservation and Climate
The County has adopted a greenhouse gas (GHG) target for county operations (Resolution
067-2010), including a reduction of countywide GHGs of 20 percent by 2020 as measured
from a 2005 baseline inventory. The County has also adopted green building standards for
County Facilities with Resolution 147-2010; building upon the energy requirements in the
Florida Building Code by incorporating the Florida Green Building Coalition's green
commercial building standard for county buildings, as the standard to be used for
construction of all public buildings.
For a detailed discussion on this topic, see Chapter 16.0 Energy Conservation and Climate.
1.2.17 Capital Improvements
The County complies with all budget preparation and financial reporting requirements.
The capital improvements program, together with the operating budget, provides the
citizenry with a wealth of information about the community. Needed capital improvements
have been identified and incorporated into the adopted Schedule of Capital Improvements
and made part of the comprehensive plan goals, objectives, and policies. The County's
financial position is good and with the exception of the planned wastewater treatment
facilities, all projected needs can be financed from current or anticipated revenue sources.
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Introduction and Executive Summary 27 Technical Document: May 2011
0
ri
1-4