Item 02 Future Land UseMonroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
FUTURE LAND USE
Table of Contents
Item Pam_
2.0 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT.............................................................................................................1
2.1 Introduction..................................................................................................................................1
2.1.1 Existing Rules and Laws Governing Development.........................................1
2.1.2 Public Involvement..................................................................................................... 2
2.1.3 Intergovernmental Coordination.......................................................................... 2
2.1.4 Data Limitations........................................................................................................... 2
2.2 The Planning Framework........................................................................................................ 2
2.2.1 Geographic Location/ Planning Areas.................................................................. 3
2.2.2 Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)....................................................................... 3
2.2.3 Non -Residential Rate of Growth Ordinance (NROGO)................................. 4
2.2.4 The Tier System........................................................................................................... 8
2.2.5 Area of Critical State Concern................................................................................ 8
2.2.6 Principles of Guiding Development..................................................................... 9
2.2.7 Work Program............................................................................................................11
2.2.8 Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study..............................................................12
2.2.9 Hurricane Evacuation..............................................................................................13
2.2.10 Livable CommuniKeys Plans ....................................... ......20
...................................
2.2.11 Federal Coastal Barrier Resource System..........................................................22
2.2.12 Federal Consistency and Coastal Zone Management ............................... 22
2.2.13 Habitat Conservation Plan.....................................................................................23
2.3 Existing Land Use...............................................................24
.......................................................
2.3.1 Existing Land Use Patterns and Trends.............................................................24
2.3.2 Existing Density and Intensity...............................................................................32
2.3.3 Platted Lots...................................................................................................................35
2.3.4 Offshore Islands..........................................................................................................36
2.3.5 Adjacent Jurisdiction Land Use................................................................. ....42
2.
3.6 Areas of Critical County Concern........................................................................46
2.3.7 Historic Resources .........................
2.3.8 Availability of Facilities and Services to Serve Existing Land Uses ........ 92
2.4 Existing Population .................................................................98
.................................................
2.4.1 Historic Population...................................................................................................98
2.4.2 Household Size............................................................................................................99
2.4.3 Demographic Profile...............................................................................................100
2.5 Environmental Characteristics........................................................ .....103
.............................
2.5.1 Soils........................................................................................103
......................................
2.5.2 Topography..............................................................................................................103
2.5.3 Vegetation ...................................................................................104
...........................
2.5.4 Units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System...........................................104
2.5.5 Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species.....................................105
2.5.6 Natural Ground Water Aquifer Recharge.....................................................106
Future Land Use i Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.5.7
Military Installation Compatibility...................................................................106
2.6 Population
Projections.........................................................................................................110
2.6.1
Background - Forecast Approach.....................................................................110
2.6.2
Analysis of Permanent Population Data.......................................................110
2.6.3
Analysis of Seasonal Population Data............................................................111
2.6.4
Seasonality................................................................................................................111
2.6.5
Unincorporated Population Upper/Middle/Lower Keys........................116
2.7 Future Land Use Needs and Opportunities................................................................122
2.7.1
Future Land Use Discrepancies.........................................................................122
2.7.2
Variables Densities and Intensities..................................................................124
2.7.3
Future Land Use Needs Analysis.......................................................................124
2.7.4
Vacant Land Analysis.............................................................................................135
2.7.5
Future Land Use Opportunities.........................................................................154
2.7.6
Military Installation Compatibility...................................................................122
2.7.7
Military Installation Compatibility...................................................................122
2.7.8
Military Installation Compatibility...................................................................122
Bibliography........................................................................................................................................191
List of Figures
Fi ure Page
Figure 1: Preliminary Functional Population Projection............................................................111
Figure 2: Monroe -County - Foreclosures and the Percent of Non -Homestead
ResidentialUnits.....................................................................................................................116
List of Tables
Table Page
Table 2.1:
Non -Residential Rate of Growth Allocations Lower/Upper Keys, 2002-2010 .... 6
Table 2.2:
Non -Residential Rate of Growth Allocations for Big Pine/No Name Key 2005-
Table 2.3:
2010.................................................................................................................................................. 6
The Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model (The Miller Model),
SummaryResults.......................................................................................................................18
Table 2.4:
The South Florida Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study, Summary Results ....19
Table 2.5:
Existing Land Use by Planning Area (Acres)...................................................................25
Table 2.6:
Existing Land Use - Lower Keys Planning Area (LKPA)...............................................29
Table 2.7:
Existing Land Use - Middle Keys Planning Area(MKPA).............................................30
Table 2.8:
Existing Land Use - Upper Keys Planning Area (UKPA)...............................................31
Table 2.9:
Average Floor Area Ratio (FAR)...........................................................................................33
Table 2.10:
Acreage by Property Appraiser Code.................................................................................34
Table 2.11:
Vacant Land by Property Appraiser Code........................................................................34
Future Land Use ii Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.12: Inventory of IS, URM and CFV Zoned Lots........................................................................35
Table 2.13: Publicly -Owned Offshore Islands..........................................................................................37
Table 2.14: Privately Owned Offshore Island.........................................................................................39
Table 2.15: Other Offshore Islands.............................................................................................................41
Table 2.16: National Register of Historic Places, Unincorporated Keys......................................54
Table 2.17: Florida Master Site File, Historic Structures Potentially Eligible for
Listing on the National Register of Historic Places.......................................................55
Table 2.18: Florida Master Site File Structures.......................................................................................56
Table 2.19: Tavernier Historic Structures Potentially Eligible for Listing on the National
Registerof Historic Places......................................................................................................68
Table 2.20: Tavernier Historic Structures...............................................................................................69
Table2.21: Archeological Sites................................................:.................................................7.................71
Table2.22: Ship Wrecks..................................................................................................................................86
Table2.23: Education Facilities...................................................................................................................96
Table 2.24: Public School Capacity.............................................................................................................97
Table2.25: Historic Population....................................................................................................................98
Table 2.26: Distribution of Population by Sex [Monroe County Unincorporated and
Incorporated Areas (2009)]........................................
Table 2.27: Distribution of Population by Race [Monroe County Unincorporated and
IncorporatedAreas (2010)]...............................................................................................100
Table 2.28: Age Distribution by Monroe County Unincorporated and Incorporated Areas
(1990, 2000)..............................................................................................................................102
Table 2.29: Vacant and Occupied Unit Counts, 2000 - 2008..........................................................113
Table 2.30: Vacant Units by Vacancy Status, 2000 - 2008..............................................................114
Table 2.31: Unincorporated Monroe County -Distribution of Permanent Population ......... 117
Table 2.32: Unincorporated Permanent Population Distribution by Planning Area ........... 118
Table 2.33: Unincorporated Seasonal Population Distribution by Planning Area................119
Table 2.34: Unincorporated Functional Population..........................................................................120
Table 2.35: Unincorporated Functional Population Distribution by Planning Area ...........121
Table 2.36: Future Land Use Acreage Distribution.............................................................................123
Table 2.37: Theoretical Maximum Density and Growth Span.......................................................125
Table 2.38: Functional Population Housing Need(2015-2030)....................................................126
Table 2.39: Total Theoretical Maximum Density and Growth Span...........................................127
Table 2.40: Total Theoretical Intensity and Growth Span...............................................................127
Table 2.41: Theoretical Maximum Density (dwelling units).........................................................129
Table 2.42: Theoretical Maximum Intensity (square feet floor area)........................................130
Table 2.43: Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity - Lower Keys Planning Area ..... 132
Table 2.44: Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity -Middle Keys Planning Area ..... 133
Table 2.45: Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity - Upper Keys Planning Area .....134
Table 2.46: Vacant Land Theoretical Density and Growth Span..................................................136
Table 2.47: Vacant Land Theoretical Intensity and Growth Span...............................................136
Table 2.48: Vacant Land Density and Intensity Unincorporated County....................................137
Table 2.49: Vacant Land Density and Intensity - Lower Keys Planning Area ...........................139
Table 2.50: Vacant Land Density and Intensity - Middle Keys Planning Area ..........................140
Table 2.51: Vacant Land Density and Intensity - Upper Keys Planning Area ...........................141
Table 2.52: Vacant Land by Tier and Planning Area..........................................................................142
Future Land Use iii Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.53: Vacant Land Theoretical Density and Intensity by Land Use Category and
Tier......................................................................................................................................
Table 2.54: Vacant Land within a Tier, Density and Intensity - Lower Keys Planning 44
Area...................................................................................................................................
Table 2.55: Vacant Land within a Tier, Densityand intensity 45
ry -Middle Keys Planning
Area................................................................
Table 2.56: Vacant Land within a Tier, Density and Intensity - Upper Keys Planning
Area......................................................
Table 2.57: Total Vacant Lots with Density of One Dwelling Unit per Lot................................148
Table 2.58: Vacant Lots with Density of One Dwelling Unit per Lot in Tier I, II, I1I, IIIA,
Undesignated Tier and Tier 0..................
Table 2.59: Vacant Lots with Density of One Dwelling Unit per Lot in Tier I, II, III,
andIIIA..................................................
Table 2.60: Vacant Lots with Density of One Dwelling Unit per Lot in Tier I1, III,
andIIIA............................................... Y -
Table 2.61: Vacant Lots with a Densityof 1 DU per lot b Tier and Future Land Use
Lower Keys Planning Area ........................
Table 2.62: Vacant Lots with a Density of 1 DU per lot by Tier and Future Land Use -
Middle Keys Planning Area .......................
Table 2.63: Vacant Lots with a Density of 1 DU per lot by Tier and Future Land Use -
Upper Keys Planning Area ..........................
Table 2.64: U.S. 1 Reserve Volume and Residential Unit Capacity (2010-2030) ..................... 157
List of Appendixes
Appendix
Page
Appendix 2-1: Existing Land Use Designations with Corresponding Property Code (PC)..158
Appendix 2-2: Existing Density and Intensity by Property Code(PC)........................................160
Appendix 2-3: Existing Land Use Designations with Corresponding Property Code (PC)..167
Future Land Use iv Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.0 FUTURE LAND USE ELEMENT
[Rule 9J-5.006 F.A.C.]
The Future Land Use Element of the Monroe County (County) Comprehensive Plan
addresses the data inventory requirements of 9J-5.005(2) of the Florida Administrative
Code (F.A.C.). The data inventory requirement will support the development of goals,
objectives, policies, and implementation programs for the Future Land Use Element.
The Future Land Use Element is a required comprehensive plan element under Florida's
Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act
(Chapter 163, Florida Statutes). The purpose of the element is the designation of future
land use patterns as reflected in the goals, objectives and policies of the local government
comprehensive plan elements.' Future land use patterns are depicted on the future land use
map or map series. The purpose is also to evaluate existing development patterns;
designate the proposed future general distribution, location, and extent of the uses of land
for residential uses, commercial uses, industry, recreation, conservation, education, public
buildings and ground, other public facilities and other categories of public and private uses
of land.
2.1 Introduction
The Future Land Use Element serves as a guide for the development and use of land within
the County. There are several regulatory requirements that exist in State laws and rules
that guide the development approval process in the County, which includes related
intergovernmental coordination requirements. Additionally, the County has a rich history
of public interest and involvement in growth management issues that has shaped the
approach to development and use of land within the County.
2.1.1 Existing Rules and Laws Governing Development
The Florida Keys ("the Keys") were designated as an Area of Critical State Concern by the
State in 1974 pursuant to Section 380.05(2), F.S. Therefore, any local comprehensive plan
enacted, amended or rescinded by the County which impacts the Keys is effective only after
review of the proposed plan, amendment or recession by the State land planning agency,
the Department of Community Affairs (DCA), to determine whether the proposed plan,
amendment or recession is in compliance with the "Principles for Guiding Development"
(see Section 2.2.6 of this element for a detailed discussion).
In 1985, the legislature enacted a State Comprehensive Plan, effective July 1, 1985. In
1986, the County adopted the State Comprehensive Plan as an interim land use control.
The County then adopted the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan (the "Plan")
pursuant to Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., on April 15, 1993. However, subsequent legal
proceedings prompted a Final Order and Recommendations by the Administration
Commission. The effect of the Final Order was that 90 percent of the Plan became effective
but the disputed provisions required further action. Because of this Final Order, it was
Future Land Use 1 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
necessary to amend the Plan in order to bring it into compliance and to make it consistent
with the "Principles for Guiding Development" as required by Chapter 380, F.S. The Plan
was amended pursuant to Rule 9J-14.022, F.A.C. January 4, 1996; and adopted by Rule 28-
20.100, Part I, January 2, 1996 and Part II, July 14, 1997, resulting in the "Work Program";
Rule 28.20.100 F.A.C, outlines actions and strategies to be accomplished by the County (See
Section 2.2.7 for a detailed discussion of the "Work Program").
Because of these actions, development and growth in the Keys are governed by a unique set
of rules, laws and principles for planning.
2.1.2 Public Involvement
Largely drawing from Chapter 163, F.S., the public participation process in developing the
Comprehensive Plan is designed to actively engage and maximize participation by the
County residents, business owners, interest groups, and community groups in shaping the
comprehensive plan.
2.1.3 Intergovernmental Coordination
Effective intergovernmental coordination seeks to identify and respond to the need for
enhancing existing coordination mechanisms or processes for such subjects as: land use
planning; hurricane evacuation; voluntary dispute resolution; coordination with the
Monroe County School Board; and coordination with special districts.
This topic is discussed in detail within the Intergovernmental Coordination Element.
2.1.4 Data Limitations
There are limitations to the data and these limitations have been noted where relevant
throughout this document. The 2010 U.S. Census full data set is not scheduled to be
released until May 2011; therefore, unless otherwise noted, the local population and
housing data is based on the 2000 U.S. Census, the 2009 American Community Survey and
the County's building permit construction data. This chapter will be further refined, as may
be required, subsequent to the release of the remaining 2010 U.S. Census data sets.
2.2 The Planning Framework
In addition to the planning direction established in Section 2.1, the Plan is framed by
several important components including, its geographic location; the County's designation
as an Area of Critical State Concern; the guidelines for future development; the Florida Keys
Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS); efficient hurricane evacuation; federal laws relating to
the Coastal Barrier Resource System (CBRS) and the Endangered Species Act; and the goals
established within the Livable CommuniKeys Plans. In addition, Big Pine Key and No Name
Key are guided by the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP).
Future Land Use 2 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.2.1 Geographic Location/Planning Areas
[Rule 9J-5.006.1(a) F.A.C]
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 Planning Area (PA) encompasses two
national landmarks: The Everglades National Park and The Big Cypress National Preserve
and accounts for approximately 85 percent or 562,149 acres of the overall County land mass.
Since 99.8 percent of the Mainland PA consists of federal lands designated as Conservation
use; the existing conditions of this element will focus primarily on lands within the
unincorporated Lower, Middle, and Upper PAs. The four PAs geographic locations are
identified below, and illustrated on the Existing Land Use Map (Map Series 2-1).
• Lower Keys Planning Area (LKPA): West boundary of Stock Island to the eastern limit of
the Seven Mile Bridge. The Marquesas Keys, located 30 miles west of Key West and the
Dry Tortuga Keys, located 70 miles west of Key West are also included within this PA;
• Middle Keys Planning Area (MKPA): Eastern limit of the City of Marathon to the western
limit of the Village of Islamorada, including Lignumvitae Key and Shell Key. It excludes
the incorporated City of Layton, the City of Marathon, the City of Key Colony Beach and
the Village of Islamorada;
• Upper Keys Planning Area (UKPA): Western limit of the Village of Islamorada to the
northern County line; and
• Mainland Planning Area (MPA): Bounded to the north by Collier County, to the east by
Miami -Dade County, to the west by the Gulf of Mexico and to the south by Florida Bay,
This PA also includes the offshore islands within the Everglades National Park,
2.2.2 Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO)
In the years after adoption of the County's first Plan in 1986, the growth rate was
significant. Due to the State of Florida limitations on the amount of growth the County
could absorb, based upon the carrying capacity and hurricane evacuation standards, in
1992, Monroe County adopted the Rate of Growth Ordinance (ROGO), which limits the
amount of residential development based upon the ability to safely evacuate the Keys
within 24 hours; it has been utilized in the County with only minor modifications since its
adoption.
The ROGO system is a method of prioritizing where growth should be directed based on the
fact that the State only allocates 197 housing units annually to the County for building
permit issuance; it is part of the development process for all new residential units.
Receiving a ROGO allocation is only one of three steps toward receiving a building permit in
Monroe County. In addition, an applicant must receive an approved building permit
Future Land Use 3 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
application. Through the years, ROGO has been amended based on changing conditions
related to infrastructure.
The process of receiving a building permit in the County is competitive. Development
approval is a point based system that allows applications for a new residential or
commercial building permit to compete for the limited number of allocations issued each
year. Points are based upon the parcel(s) Tier designation, density reduction, affordable
housing, wastewater, land dedication and fund donation processes. A penalty is assigned if
the project is within a V flood zone.
The number of allocations available is determined through the adoption of an
administrative rule under the Florida Administrative Code at the State level. The number
of allocations is based on the progress the County has made toward achieving State set
goals such as a centralized wastewater system and hurricane evacuation clearance times.
The total number of available allocations is split among the three allocation subareas of the
County including the Upper Keys, Lower Keys and the Big Pine/No Name Key subareas,
which varies slightly from the Planning Areas identified in Section 2.2.1 above. Each
applicant competes against the other applicants located within the same subarea. There is
one exception to this process, applicants for affordable housing. These applicants compete
against all applicants for affordable housing permits keys -wide. Allocations are awarded
each quarter in each subarea.
ROGO allocations and awards by year and subarea are provided in Section 7.1.1 of Chapter
7.0 Housing Element
2.2.3 Non -Residential Rate of Growth (NROGO)
2.2.3.1 Background
Monroe County adopted the Non -Residential Rate of Growth (NROGO) in 2001 in order to,
"...ensure a reasonable balance between the amount of future non-residential (primarily
commercial) development and the needs of a slower growing residential population..."2
The purposes and intent of NROGO are:3
• To facilitate implementation of goals, objectives and policies set forth in the
comprehensive plan relating to maintaining a balance between residential and
nonresidential growth;
• To maintain a ratio of approximately 239 square feet of nonresidential floor area for
each new residential permit issued through the residential rate of growth ordinance
(ROGO);
z "Permit Allocation System for Non -Residential Development", Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan.
a Section 138-47, MC LDC.
ruture Lana use 4 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• To promote the upgrading and expansion of existing small -size businesses and to retain
the predominately small scale character of nonresidential development in the Florida
Keys;
• To regulate the rate and location of nonresidential development in order to eliminate
potential land use conflicts; and
• To allocate the nonresidential floor area annually hereunder, based on the goals,
objectives and policies of the comprehensive plan and the Livable CommuniKeys
master plans.
The County utilized the following methodology to create an initial baseline square footage
allocation to develop the system:
To calculate this ratio, total permit activity for non-residential development
was compared to total permit activity for all residential development
(including hotel and motel units) in unincorporated Monroe County during
the five year period from 1986 to 1990.
During this period 1,296,116 square feet of non-residential development was
permitted, compared to 4,856 residential permits (including single-family,
multi family and mobile homes) and 573 hotel/motel units, for a total of 5,429
permits (Monroe County Planning Department, March 1991). Dividing the
total square footage of non-residential development permitted by the total
number of residential units permitted results in a ratio of 239 square feet of
non-residential development per residential permit.¢
The "maximum annual allocations" and the distribution between the first and second
allocation dates are determined by the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) and as
recommended by Growth Management and the Planning Commission. This provides
flexibility and assures that goals are being met. The floor area that is not made available, or
that remains unused in the current year, is carried forward to the next year. The
Lower/Upper Keys subarea and the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea have a separate
banking system, as illustrated in Table 2.2.
A summary of square footage of non-residential floor area previously made available and
allocated in the unincorporated Keys from 2002 to 2010 is depicted in Table 2.1 and Table
2.2 below:
4 Ibid.
Future Land Use 5 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.1- Non -Residential Rate of Growth Allocations Lower/Upper Keys, 2002-
2010
Year
Year 10
2002
Available
22,150 s
ft
TotalAmount
Awarded
18,222 s
ft
Year 11
2003)
16,000 s
/ft
5,300 s
/ft
Year 12
2004
16,000 s
ft
15,689 s
ft
Year 13
2005
16,000 s
ft
10,925 s
ft
Year 14
2006
16,000 s
/ftE1�2,500
,594 s
/ft
Year 15
2007
18,000 s
ft
s
ft
Year 16
2008
35,000 s
/ft
17,938 s
ft
Year 17
2009
30,000 sqlft
13,056 s
ft
Year 18
2010
22,500 s
/ft
6,355 s
/ft
Source: Growth Management Memorandum
to
BnCC nrYnhar ? 1
.010
NROGO for the Big Pine/No Name Key subarea is treated differently given the Habitat
Conservation Plan (HCP) for the Key Deer and other protected species. The maximum
amount of nonresidential floor area to be allocated is limited to a maximum of 2,500 square
feet for any one site. A summary of allocations in these environmentally sensitive keys is
shown in Table 2.2.
Table 2.2 - Non -Residential Rate of Growth Allocations for Big Pine/No Name Key
2005-2010
her of
Total
Year
Applicants
Allocations
AwardedNum
Year 13
2005
1
2,181 s
ft
Year 15
2007
2
5,000 s
ft
Year 16
2008
2
3,809 s
ft
Year 17
2009
0
0 sqlft
Year 18
2010)
0
0 s
ft
Source: Growth Management Memorandum
to Rocc nrt-nhar ? i
2.2.3.2 Trends
010
In the past nine years there has been minimal competition for the available non-residential
floor area. The average square footage made available in the nine year period was 21,294
square feet and the average square footage allocated each NROGO year was 12,294 square
feet. In year 12, the demand for square footage exceeded the amount of available square
footage.
rucure Lana use 6 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.2.3.3 Availabilitv of Non -Residential Floor Area for YR 19 C2011)
On October 19, 2010 the Monroe County Planning Commission recommended that 22,500
square feet be made available in NROGO year 19 and to be distributed as noted below. On
November 17, 2010, the BOCC adopted, via Resolution, the Planning Commission
recommendation.
2.2.4 The Tier System
As a companion to ROGO, and a method to direct growth to the least sensitive
environmentally sensitive areas, in 2006 a Tier System was adopted. A Tier Overlay
District was created as a land use district map amendment to designate geographical areas
outside of the mainland of the County, excluding the Ocean Reef planned development, into
Tiers:
Tier
Description
Tier I boundaries were delineated to include one or more of the following criteria:
• Vacant lands which can be restored to connect upland native habitat patches and reduce
further fragmentation of upland native habitat
• Lands required to provide an undeveloped buffer, up to 500 feet in depth, if indicated as
appropriate by special species studies, between natural areas and development to
reduce secondary impacts. Canals or roadways, depending on width, may form a
I
boundary that removes the need for the buffer or reduces its depth.
• Lands designated for acquisition by public agencies for conservation and natural
resource protection.
• Known locations of threatened and endangered species, as defined in LDR Section 101-1,
identified on the threatened and endangered plant and animal maps or the Florida Keys
Carrying Capacity Study maps, or identified in on -site surveys.
• Conservation, Native Area, Sparsely Settled, and Offshore Island land use districts.
Areas with minimal existing development and infrastructure.
Pertains only to Big Pine Key / No Name Key. Scattered lots and fragments of
II
environmentally sensitive lands that may be found in platted subdivisions. A large number
of these lots are located on canals and are of minimal value to the key deer and other
protected s ecies because the canal presents a barrier to dispersal.
III
Tier III are lands located outside of Big Pine Key and No Name Key that are not designated
Tier I or Tier III -A. Tier III represents the majority of developable acreage in the County.
III -A
Tier III -A is designated as a Special Protection Area. It is defined as lands that have one acre
or more of native upland habitat.
Some properties do not have a tier designation. These undesignated properties are found
throughout the Keys but most occur in Ocean Reef, which is exempt from the Tier Overlay
Undesignated
Ordinance. Others are rights -of -way, military installations, or properties that were not
designated due to mapping discrepancies and, at the time of the preparation of this
document, are being evaluated for tier designation.
The tier designations are used as criteria in ROGO for awarding points and to determine the
amount of clearing of upland native vegetation that may be permitted, and prioritize lands
for public acquisition. The tier boundaries are depicted on the Tier Overlay District Map.
r uture Lana use 7 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
More specific information on the ROGO point system can be found in Chapter 3.0
Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
2.2.5 Area of Critical State Concern
Pursuant to Section 380.0552(2), F.S., the intent of the Florida Keys Area of Critical State
Concern designation is to:
• Establish a land use management system that protects the natural environment of the
Keys;
• Establish a land use management system that conserves and promotes the community
character of the Keys;
• Establish a land use management system that promotes orderly and balanced growth in
accordance with the capacity of available and planned public facilities and services;
• Provide affordable housing in close proximity to places of employment in the Keys;
• Establish a land use management system that promotes and supports a diverse and
sound economic base;
• Protect the constitutional rights of property owners to own, use, and dispose of their
real property;
• Promote coordination and efficiency among governmental agencies that have
permitting jurisdiction over land use activities in the Keys;
• Promote an appropriate land acquisition and protection strategy for environmentally
sensitive lands within the Keys;
• Protect and improve the nearshore water quality of the Keys through the construction
and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of
Section 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), F.S., as applicable; and
• Ensure that the population of the Keys can be safely evacuated.
Because of this designation, the State Land Planning Agency, the Department of Community
Affairs (DCA), oversees all final development review and approval rights. Pursuant to
Section 380.0552(4), F.S., the designation may be recommended for removal upon fulfilling
the aforementioned legislative intent and completion of all work program tasks. Annually,
DCA must submit a written report to the Administration Commission to describe the
progress toward achieving the tasks in the work program. DCA shall recommend removal
of the designation if it determines that:
Future Land Use 8 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• All of the work program tasks have been completed, including construction of,
operation of, and connection to central wastewater management facilities pursuant to
Section 403.086(10), F.S. and upgrade of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems
pursuant to Section 381.0065(4)(1), F.S.;
• All local comprehensive plans and land development regulations and the
administration of such plans and regulations are adequate to protect the Keys Area,
fulfill the legislative intent specified in subsection (2), and are consistent with and
further the principles guiding development; and
• A local government has adopted a resolution at a public hearing recommending the
removal of the designation.
The Areas of Critical State Concern are depicted in the Areas of Critical Concern (Map
Series 2-2) of the Map Atlas.
2.2.6 Principles for Guiding Development
Originally, state, regional and local agencies and units of government in the Keys Area of
Critical State Concern had to coordinate all plans and conduct all regulatory activities
consistent with "Principles for Guiding Development" as amended in 1984. Now, pursuant
to Section 380.0552(7), F.S., DCA shall approve any land development regulation or
element of a local comprehensive plan and it becomes effective after DCA determines it is
in compliance with the "Principles for Guiding Development" specified and as set forth in
Chapter 2717-8, F.A.C., as amended effective August 23, 1984. Those principles are:
• Strengthening local government capabilities for managing land use and development so
that local government is able to achieve these objectives without continuing the
continuation of the area of critical state concern designation;
• Protecting shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef formations,
seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat;
• Protecting upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater wetlands,
native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands), dune
ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat;
• Ensuring the maximum well-being of the Keys and its citizens through sound economic
development;
• Limiting the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water throughout the
Keys;
• Enhancing natural scenic resources, promoting the aesthetic benefits of the natural
environment, and ensuring ensure that development is compatible with the unique
historic character of the Keys;
Future Land Use 9 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Protecting the historical heritage of the Keys; and
• Protecting the value, efficiency, cost effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and
proposed major public investments, including:
- The Florida Keys Aqueduct and water supply facilities;
- Sewage collection, treatment, and disposal facilities;
- Solid waste treatment, collection, and disposal facilities;
- Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities;
- Transportation facilities;
- Federal parks, wildlife refuges, and marine sanctuaries;
- State parks, recreation facilities, aquatic preserves, and other publicly owned
properties;
- City Electric Service and the Florida Keys Electric Co; and
- Other utilities, as appropriate.
• Protecting and improving water quality by providing for the construction, operation,
maintenance, and replacement of stormwater management facilities; central sewage
collection; treatment and disposal facilities; and the installation and proper operation
and maintenance of onsite sewage treatment and disposal systems.
• Ensuring the improvement of nearshore water quality by requiring the construction
and operation of wastewater management facilities that meet the requirements of
Sections 381.0065(4)(1) and 403.086(10), F.S., as applicable, and by directing growth to
areas served by central wastewater treatment facilities through permit allocation
systems.
• Limiting the adverse impacts of public investments on the environmental resources of
the Keys.
• Making available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the population of the
Keys.
- Providing adequate alternatives for the protection of public safety and welfare in
the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a post disaster reconstruction
plan.
- Protecting the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the Keys and
maintain the Keys as a unique Florida resource.
Amendments to local comprehensive plans in the Florida Keys Area of Critical State
Concern must also be reviewed for compliance with the following:
Future Land Use 10 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Construction schedules and detailed capital financing plans for wastewater
management improvements in the annually adopted capital improvements element,
and standards for the construction of wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or
collection systems that meet or exceed the criteria in Section 403.086(10), F.S. for
wastewater treatment and disposal facilities or Section 381.0065(4)(1), F.S. for onsite
sewage treatment and disposal systems.
• Goals, objectives, and policies to protect public safety and welfare in the event of a
natural disaster by maintaining a hurricane evacuation clearance time for permanent
residents of no more than 24 hours. The hurricane evacuation clearance time shall be
determined by a hurricane evacuation study conducted in accordance with a
professionally accepted methodology and approved by the State land planning agency.
2.2.7 Work Program
In December 12, 1995 when the Administration Commission found the Plan not in
compliance, it noticed a proposed rule (Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C.) and ordered facilitated
rulemaking/mediation to address outstanding issues. The disputed provisions of the Rule
required further action. Mediation was conducted resulting in subsequent rule changes.
This amended rule introduced the concept of the Five Year Work Program ("Work
Program"). The Work Program required, among other things, the implementation of the
Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study.
Rule changes were again challenged. An administrative hearing was held in August of 1996
to December 1996 and the proposed rule was upheld by Final Order with the
Administration Commission adopting Rule 28-20.100, F.A.C. in July, 1997. Annual reports
related to the implementation of the Work Program are required to be submitted to the
Governor and Cabinet. Lack of substantial progress would result in a 20 percent loss of
annual allocation of permits for ROGO in a given year. In November 1997, this Final Order
was appealed, oral arguments were heard, and the First District Court of Appeal affirmed
the Final Order in December, 1997.
In March 1998, the first report to the Governor and Cabinet was issued. In January 1999,
the second report to the Governor and Cabinet was issued stating a lack of substantial
compliance. It also identified lack of progress in cesspit identification and removal and
recommended that the Work Program be revised to incorporate changes.
Subsequent rule amendments extended the program's deadline to accommodate the tasks
that had not been completed and today tasks remain incomplete (although the tasks have
been substantially retired) beyond the extended horizon of the Work Program. There is no
Work Program task that has been ignored or not acted upon, and all tasks may be
considered either complete or in progress. While the number of remaining tasks is limited,
these tasks are costly and time consuming to complete. Many of the remaining tasks
consist of costly capital improvement projects, several of which have yet to go beyond
planning/preliminary design.
Future Land Use 11 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Because the tasks have been refined, the DCA, Governor and Cabinet (acting as the
Administration Commission) have proposed a new Rule 28-20.130 and Rule 28-20.140.
This Rule is expected to be finalized during 2011 and the task would necessitate FLUE and
CIE amendments.
2.2.8 Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study
The Final Order in 1995 also initiated the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS). In
1996 the Work Program required the development of a carrying capacity analysis study
completed by July 2002. The US Army Corps of Engineers and DCA formed a partnership to
jointly fund and complete the study and work began on the Carrying Capacity Impact
Analysis Model (CCIAM) and the study. The goal of the FKCCS, excerpted from Rule 28-
20.100, F.A.C. was as follows:
"The carrying capacity analysis shall be designed to determine
the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem and the various
segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land
development activities. "
The draft final report was issued in 2001 and it was peer reviewed by the National
Research Council determining that the CCIAM was not ready to determine the ability of the
Keys ecosystem to withstand all impacts of additional development activities as required
by Rule 28-20.100 F.A.C. The Carrying Capacity Study and model were revised and it was
determined that the CCIAM may be a useful tool in some circumstances but it had
limitations. In particular, the CCIAM is unable to determine the impact on nearshore water
quality. This peer review committee agreed on the following four recommendations of the
study:
• Prevent encroachment into native habitat because of severe depletion by historic
development activities;
• Continue restoration and land acquisition programs, implement the wastewater and
storm water master plans, and continue ongoing research and management activities in
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS);
• Concentrate on redevelopment and infill for future development; and
• Increase efforts to manage remaining habitats and resources.
In November 2002, DCA initiated a Florida Keys Carrying Capacity/Rule 28.20, F.A.C. Work
Group to assist in the implementation of these recommendations. Year Six of the Work
Program (July 13, 2002 - July 12, 2003), enacted in Rule 28-20,100, F.A.C., directed the
County to implement the FKCCS by adopting amendments to ROGO, the Monroe County
Land Development Code (MCLDC), the Future Land Use Map (FLUM) series and the
maximum permitted densities.
Future Land Use 12 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.2.9 Hurricane Evacuation
One of the most hurricane vulnerable areas of the United States is the lower southeast
coast of Florida.s This area is comprised of the County and the mainland counties of Miami -
Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach (the other three counties). U.S. 1 and Card Sound
Road/CR-905 are designated as the evacuation routes for the Keys. Historically, there has
been a high frequency of hurricanes which have affected the region. Some of the recent
hurricanes are Andrew (1992; Upper Keys); Georges (1998); Irene (1999; Middle and
Lower Keys); and Rita and Wilma (2005; throughout the keys including the Sand Keys),
which are further detailed in Chapter 3.0 Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
The DCA and the County are currently undertaking the process of updating the evacuation
model for the County Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Study (Miller 2001, commonly
known as "The Miller Model". Additionally, in response to the impacts noted during the
2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, State legislation was passed (HB 1359 amending
portions of Chapter 163, F.S.) that identified new hurricane evacuation planning
requirements and a new definition of the Coastal High Hazard Area (CHHA). The new
definition of the CHHA is "the area below the elevation of the Category 1 storm surge line as
established by a Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized
storm surge model" (Section 163.3178(2)(h), F.S.). The State of Florida Division of
Emergency Management (DEM) obtained grant money through the Federal Emergency
Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program and charged the Regional
Planning Councils to conduct, regional evacuation modeling and studies across the State,
including modeling and boundary mapping for the CHHA.
Hurricane evacuation clearance time in the County, as determined by modeling efforts, is
one of the key factors used to control growth within the County, as required by Chapter 28-
20.140 F.A.C. Clearance time is defined as, "...the time required to clear the roadways of all
vehicles evacuating in response to a hurricane situation. Clearance time begins when the
first evacuating vehicle enters the road network and ends when the last evacuating vehicle
reaches its destination."6 The ability to safely evacuate residents and visitors in advance of
an approaching hurricane is paramount. Thus, growth as managed through the Rate of
Growth Ordinance allocations of housing units, should not exceed the point where the
ability to safely evacuate the Keys is compromised. This would mean that once a certain
population/housing unit count is reached, it would not be safe to allow additional
population/housing units.
Based upon the current policies established in the 2010 Comprehensive Plan (listed below),
the County must achieve evacuation clearance within 24 hours. Since development of the
initial Miller Model in 2000 (further explained in Section 2.2.9.1), the County amended the
comprehensive plan, adding Policy 216.1.8 (see below), which requires phased evacuation
with visitors leaving 48 hours, mobile home residents leaving 36 hours, and permanent
residents leaving 30 hours in advance of tropical storm winds in a Category 3-5 storm.
5 Lower SE Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study, Corps of Engineers, June 1991.
6 Ewing, R. Monroe County Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time - Final Report, September 17, 2010.
Future Land Use 13 Technical Document: May 0011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Current 2010 Comprehensive Plan policies:
• Future Land Use Element
Objective 101.2
Monroe County shall reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times to 24 hours by the year
2010.
• Conservation and Coastal Management Element
Objective 216.1
Monroe County shall reduce hurricane evacuation clearance time to 24 hours by the year
2010.
Policy 216.1.1
Within one year of the effective date of this plan, Monroe County shall adopt Land
Development Regulations which establish a Permit Allocation System for new residential
development. The Permit Allocation System shall limit the number of permits issued for new
residential development to be consistent with the Future Land Use Element in order to
maintain hurricane evacuation clearance times at a maximum of24 hours.
Policy 216.1.8
In the event of a pending major hurricane (category 3-5) Monroe County shall implement the
following staged/phased evacuation procedures to achieve and maintain an overall 24-hour
hurricane evacuation clearance time for the resident population.
1. Approximately 48 hours in advance of tropical storm winds, a mandatory evacuation of
non-residents, visitors, recreational vehicles (RV's), travel trailers, live-aboards (transient and
non -transient), and military personnel from the Keys shall be initiated. State parks and
campgrounds should be closed at this time or sooner and entry into the Florida Keys by non-
residents should be strictly limited.
2. Approximately 36 hours in advance of tropical storm winds, a mandatory evacuation of
mobile home residents, special needs residents, and hospital and nursing home patients from
the Keys shall be initiated.
3. Approximately 30 hours in advance of tropical storm winds, a mandatory phased
evacuation of permanent residents by evacuation zone (described below) shall be initiated.
Existing evacuation zones are as follows:
Future Land Use 14 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
a) Zone 1 - Key West, Stock Island and Key Haven to Boca Chica Bridge (MM 1-6)
b) Zone 2 - Boca Chica Bridge to West end of 7-mile Bridge (MM 6-40)
c) Zone 3 - West end of 7-Mile Bridge to West end of Long Boat Key Bridge (MM 40-63)
d) Zone 4 - West end of Long Boat Key Bridge to CR 905 and CR 905A intersection
e) (MM 63-106.5)
f) Zone 5 - 905A to, and including Ocean Reef (MM 106.5-126.5)
The actual sequence of the evacuation by zones will vary depending on the individual storm..
The concepts embodied in this staged evacuation procedures should be embodied in the
appropriate County operational Emergency Management Plans.
The evacuation plan shall be monitored and updated on an annual basis to reflect increases,
decreases and or shifts in population; particularly the resident and non-resident populations
For the purpose of implementing Policy 216.1.8, this Policy shall not increase the number of
allocations to more than 197 residential units a year, except for workforce housing. Any
increase in the number of allocations shall be for workforce housing only.
Policy 216.1.16
Monroe County shall coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to
ensure that U.S. 1 roadway capacity improvements necessary to maintain hurricane
evacuation clearance time at 24 hours, including but not limited to improvements to U.S. 1
between MM 80 and MM 90, are completed.
Policy 216.1.18
Reduced evacuation clearance times which may result from adjustments to evacuation model
variables, programs to reduce the number of evacuating vehicles or increased roadway
facility capacity, shall not be used to increase development expectations beyond the growth
allocations provided herein, except to the extent that a hurricane evacuation clearance time
of 24 hours can be maintained. Any necessary reduction in hurricane clearance times shall be
accomplished by a plan amendment within 180 days of the re -assessment.
• Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Policy 1301.4.9
Monroe County shall coordinate with the Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT) to
ensure that U.S. 1 roadway capacity improvements are placed on FDOT's five year plan to
reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times to 24 hours by the year 2010
Future Land Use 15 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• Transportation Element
Objective 101.2
Monroe County shall reduce hurricane evacuation clearance times to 24 hours by the year
2010.
2.2.9.1 Hurricane Modeling
Clearance time modeling, through various iterations of the Lower Southeast Florida
Hurricane Evacuation Study, prepared by Post, Buckley, Schuh & Jernigan, Inc. (PBS&J), has
been conducted for the County since the early 1990's. In 2000, pursuant to the
requirements of the County's Work Program (see Section 2.2.7 above), Miller Consulting
developed The Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model (the "Miller Model") to, "...measure
and analyze the unique characteristics of the Florida Keys and to determine the clearance
time required to evacuate the Florida Keys up to Florida City, based upon existing US1
conditions." 7 This model is based on the number of dwelling units and capacity of roadway
links.
In November of 2009, County staff, municipal representatives, DCA and other State of
Florida agencies attended a Hurricane Modeling Work Group meeting to develop various
assumptions to be used in the hurricane evacuation modeling. Two assumptions used
previously in the modeling effort have been substantially changed since the initial model
was developed, including the original participation rates and flow rates, which are: 1) 70
percent participation (meaning 70 percent of the people would evacuate) and 2) maximum
FDOT capacity of roadways.
During 2010, two substantial modeling efforts were completed:
• The Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model
The County, with the DCA participation, commissioned an update to the original Florida
Keys Hurricane Evacuation Study commonly known as "The Miller Model". In 2008, the DCA
retained Professor Earl Baker at Florida State University to conduct a survey of residents in
unincorporated Monroe County regarding whether or not they would evacuate their homes
if mandatory evacuation notices were issued for Category 3-5 hurricanes. The results
indicate that close to 90 percent of those surveyed would evacuate. In June 2010, Dr. Brian
Wolshon, P.E. of Louisiana State University and Joaquin Vargas, P.E., of Traf Tech
Engineering, Inc, (for FDOT) provided revised traffic flow rates. Dr. Reid Ewing, Ph.D.,
Professor of City and Metropolitan Planning at the University of Utah, conducted a
modeling effort, using the Miller Model, to accommodate phased evacuation, the FDOT 5-
Year Work Program roadway projects, as well as updated participation rate and traffic flow
rate assumptions to determine projected clearance time results.
Ibid. pg. 4
Future Land Use 16 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Pursuant to Rule 28-20.140 F.A.C. (see below), this model will serve as the tool DCA uses to
evaluate comprehensive plan amendments that propose increases in density and intensity;
the County's annual ROGO allocations that affect build -out; and the mandatory 24-hour
evacuation requirement under Chapter 380.0552(9)(a)(2), F.S.
• The South Florida Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study
In response to the impacts noted during the 2004 and 2005 hurricane seasons, State
legislation was passed (HB 1359 amending portions of Chapter 163, F.S.) that identified
new hurricane evacuation planning requirements and anew definition of the Coastal High
Hazard Area (CHHA). The new definition of the CHHA is "the area below the elevation of
the Category 1 storm surge line as established by a Sea, Lake and Overland Surges from
Hurricanes (SLOSH) computerized storm surge model" (Section 163.3178(2)(h), F.S.). The
State of Florida Division of Emergency Management (DEM) obtained grant money through
the Federal Emergency Management Agency's (FEMA) Hazard Mitigation Grant Program
and charged the Regional Planning Councils to conduct regional evacuation modeling and
studies across the State, including modeling and boundary mapping for the CHHA.
The South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC), with the assistance of the FDOT,
PBS&J and Miller Consulting, Inc., finalized a regional evacuation study that includes
Miami -Dade, Broward, and Monroe Counties to model hurricane evacuation from a regional
perspective, assuming multi -county evacuation at the same time. Although hurricanes are
a prominent concern in the study, the study includes an "all hazards" analysis to prepare
for other types of evacuations as well, such as inland flooding or wildfires.
As it pertains to Monroe County, according to the SFRPC, The South Florida Regional
Hurricane Evacuation Study is to be considered an operational tool that highlights
weaknesses which need to be addressed in the regional evacuation system. Over 13,000
scenarios were run, identifying needs, such as traffic bottle necks, that could be
incorporated into the FDOT District Long Range Transportation Plan. It is also an
emergency management tool as it relates to planning for the placement and distribution of
equipment and personnel to address an evacuation event. In addition, there is associated
software available that would enable emergency managers to run their own scenarios for
emergency management planning purposes.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
suture Land Use 17 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan U
The summary results of these two models are provided in Table 2.3 and 2.4, below:
Table 2.3 - The Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model (The Miller Model),
Summary Results
Participation
Approx.90-
Participation
Approx.70%
Participation
Approx.90-
95%
95%
E
18 hours 50
18 hours 32
22 hours 6
minutes
minutes
minutes
18 hours 58
22 hours 28
22 hours 8
27 hours 2
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
16 hours 16
16 hours 16
16 hours 16
T18 hours 40
minutes
minutes
minutes
inutes
16 hours 16
17 hours 16
17 hours 4
20 hours 16
minutes
minutes
minutes
minutes
Source: Ewing, R. Monroe county Hurricane evacuation Clearance Time -Final Report, September 17, 2010.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Puture Lana use 18 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.4 - The South Florida Regional Hurricane Evacuation Study, Summary Results
2005 Baseline
• Simultaneous
evacuation of tourist,
mobile home residents
and permanent
37.5 hours
residents
• 100% evacuation
participation rate for
all units types
2005 Baseline
• Only the effect of
incorporating Phased
permanent resident
Evacuation of Tourists
evacuation on
and Mobile Home
clearance time is
Residents
measured. Tourists
(Test Scenario 1)
and mobile home
residents are taken out
23.6 hours
of the evacuation in
accordance with
Monroe County's
adopted phased
evacuation plan.
• 100% evacuation
participation rate for
Permanent residents
Monroe County Phase
. Only permanent
Evacuation with miller
resident evacuation is
Model Participation Rates
measured
18.2 hours
(Test Scenario 8)
. 7S% evacuation
participation rate for
Permanent residents
.wu, U.I. LV VU JUULll rIUIIUd At:g Ulial 11Urricane evacuation Trattic Study
As illustrated in Table 2.3, the evacuation clearance times in the updated Miller Model
range from 16 hours, 16 minutes to 27 hours, two minutes. Evacuation clearance times in
the Regional Study (Table 2.4) ranges from 18 hours, two minutes to 37 hours, five
minutes. The distinctions between the models are explained in the Monroe County 30-Day
Report 2010, (Page 3) and the draft Rule 28-20.140 F.A.C. (explained below). The DCA notes
that for regulatory purposes, Monroe County, as an Area of Critical State Concern, is to
follow the requirements specified within the proposed (November, 2010) Rule 28-20.140
F.A.C., which is expected to be adopted in May, 2011 and be effective July 1, 2011.
The Rule outlines various tasks to be achieved relative to hurricane evacuation. They are:
Future Land Use 19 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• By July 1, 201Z Monroe County shall enter into a memorandum of understanding
with the Department of Community Affairs, Division of Emergency Management,
Marathon, Islamorada, Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Layton after a notice
and comment period of at least 30 days for interested parties. The memorandum
of understanding shall stipulate, based on professionally acceptable data and
analysis, the input variables and assumptions, including regional considerations,
for utilizing the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model or other models
acceptable to the Department to accurately depict evacuation clearance times
for the population of the Florida Keys.
• By July 1, 2012, the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model shall be run with
the agreed upon variables from the memorandum of understanding to complete
an analysis of maximum build -out capacity for the Florida Keys Area of Critical
State Concern, consistent with the requirement to maintain a 24-hour evacuation
clearance time and the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study constraints. This
analysis shall be prepared in coordination with the Department of Community
Affairs and each municipality in the Keys.
• By July 1, 2012, the County and the Department of Community Affairs shall
update the data for the Florida Keys Hurricane Evacuation Model as
professionally acceptable sources of information are released (such as the Census,
American Communities Survey, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, and
other studies). The County shall also evaluate and address appropriate
adjustments to the hurricane evacuation model within each Evaluation and
Appraisal Report.
• By July 1, 2012, the Department of Community Affairs shall apply the derived
clearance time to assess and determine the remaining allocations for the Florida
Keys Areas of Critical State Concern. The Department will recommend
appropriate revisions to the Administration Commission regarding the allocation
rates and distribution of allocations to Monroe County, Marathon, Islamorada,
Key West, Layton and Key Colony Beach or identify alternative evacuation
strategies that support the 24-hour evacuation clearance time. If necessary, the
Department of Community Affairs shall work with each local government to
amend the Comprehensive Plans to reflect revised allocation rates and
distributions or propose rule making to the Administration Commission.
Additional discussion of this topic is located in Chapter 3.0 Conservation and Coastal
Management Element, and Chapter 4.0 Traffic Circulation Element.
2.2.10 . Livable CommuniKeys Plans
In the late 1990s, the County Planning Department began to develop a comprehensive
planning approach to address the individual needs of Keys communities while increasing
Future Land Use 20 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
community participation in the local planning process. The Livable CommuniKeys Program
(LCP) was developed and, shortly thereafter, endorsed by the Board of County
Commissioners. The LCP recognizes the distinctive nature of each island's resources and
community needs and desires; addresses quality of life issues; and provides a future vision
for the community. The LCPs are implemented through the Plan. They include:
• Big Pine Key and No Name Key. (Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners, on
December 27, 2004);
• Tavernier Master Plan. (Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on February
16, 2005);
• The Key Largo Master Plan. (Adopted by the Board of County Commissioners on May
21, 2007); and
• Stock Island/Key Haven Livable CommuniKeys Master Plan. (Volume I was
incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive Plan and Volume Two (2)
titled Harbor Preservation/Redevelopment and Corridor Enhancement Plan, dated
November 2005, and was also incorporated by reference into the 2010 Comprehensive
Plan.)
• The Lower Keys Master Plan is underway and expected to be adopted in 2011.
The LCPs are further complemented by the Corridor Enhancement Plans. Their designs
and themes are based on the distinctive flavors of each LCP; thus improving the community
character along the U.S. 1 corridor. They include:
• Big Pine Key / U.S. 1 Corridor Area Enhancement Plan from MM 33 to MM 29.5;
• Tavernier Commercial Corridor Enhancement Master Plan, which extends from MM 91
to Tavernier Creek Bridge about 2.5 miles in length; and
• Key Largo US1 Corridor Enhancement Plan, which extends from MM 97 to MM 107.
This topic is discussed in more detail in Section 2.7 "Future Land Use Needs and
Opportunities" of this element.
2.2.11 Federal Coastal Barrier Resource System
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 established the Coastal Barrier
Resources System (CBRS). The CBRA legislation is specifically designed to restrict Federal
expenditures and financial assistance which have the effect of encouraging development of
coastal barriers to minimize the loss of human life, reduce the wasteful expenditure of
Federal revenue, and reduce damage to habitat and other valuable natural resources of
coastal barriers. Today, the CBRS is comprised of undeveloped coastal barriers along the
Future Land Use 21 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Atlantic and Gulf of Mexico coasts, including the coasts of the Keys, Puerto Rico and the
Virgin Islands. The CBRS includes 25 units listed in the County. The Federal policy against
subsidizing development of designated coastal barriers has impacted the amount and rate
of development of those units.
Since the intent and effect of the CBRS has been to discourage development (prohibiting
flood insurance and other federal program funds) in the County's designated coastal
barriers, the County should consider whether to maintain the existing comprehensive plan
policies related to the CBRS, or to focus on the development impacts on endangered species
and habitat should unsubsidized development still occur.
This.topic and a list of coastal barriers in ,Monroe County are discussed in more detail in
Chapter3.0, Conservation and Coastal Management Element.
2.2.12 Federal Consistency and Coastal Zone Management
The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) seeks preserve, protect, develop and, where
possible, to restore and enhance the resources of the nation's coastal zone. It encouraged
coastal states to develop and implement comprehensive management programs that would
balance the need for coastal resource protection with the need for economic growth and
development in the coastal zone. If a management program developed by a coastal state is
approved by the U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric
Administration (NOAA), the state is authorized to review certain federal activities affecting
the land or water uses or natural resources of its coastal zone for consistency with its
program. This authority is referred to as ` federal consistency" and allows states to review:
• Activities conducted by or on behalf of a federal government agency;
• Activities requiring federal licenses or permits;
• Permits issued under the Outer Continental Shelf Lands Act for offshore minerals
exploration or development; and
• Federally funded activities (Federal assistance to state and local governments).
The Florida Coastal Management Program (FCMP) is a series of state regulations designed
to preserve, protect, develop and, where possible, to restore and enhance the resources of
the coastal zone and was approved by NOAA in 1981 and is codified in Chapter 380, Part I1,
F.S. The FCMP consists of a network of 24 Florida Statutes (i.e. enforceable policies)
administered by nine state agencies and five water management districts. In order to
accomplish these tasks, the FCMP regulations authorize the Florida DCA to review permits
issued by state licensing agencies for federal actions. DCA permit review consists of
ensuring that permits for federal activities are consistent with state statutes and rules.
During the DCA review, it coordinates with the state licensing agencies by providing its
comments and a determination regarding its findings.
Federal consistency reviews are integrated into other review processes (for example:
I,uture Land Use 22 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Florida State Clearinghouse, environmental resource permits and joint coastal permits)
conducted by the state depending on the type of federal action being proposed. Regardless
of the process used, the review of federal activities is coordinated with the applicable FCMP
member agencies, which includes the Department of Community Affairs. Agencies
authorized to review and comment on the consistency of federal activities subject to state
review under the FCMP are those agencies charged with the implementation of the statutes
and rules included in the federally approved program.
Each agency is given an opportunity to provide comments on the merits of the proposed
action, address concerns, make recommendations, and state whether the project is
consistent with its statutory authorities in the FCMP. The Department of Environmental
Protection, as the designated lead coastal agency for the state, communicates the agencies'
comments and the State's final consistency decision to federal agencies and applicants
through the approval or denial of a permit.
This framework allows the State to make integrated, balanced decisions that ensure the
wise use and protection of the State's water, property, cultural, historic, and biological
resources; protect public health; minimize the State's vulnerability to coastal hazards;
ensure orderly, managed growth; protect the State's transportation system; and sustain a
vital economy.
2.2.13 Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP)
To address habitat loss and indirect effects associated with development on Big Pine and
No Name Keys, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) issued an Incidental Take Permit
to the County, FDOT, and DCA. The take of these species is incidental to land clearing for
development and recreational improvements. The HCP for Big Pine Key and No Name Key
was implemented to protect the Florida Key deer as well as other protected species under
the plan, including the Lower Keys marsh rabbit. The HCP outlines the planned growth
patterns and rate as well as the anticipated impact that growth will have on the species.
This topic is discussed in more detail in Chapter 3.0 Conservation and Coastal Management
Element.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
rurure Lana use 23 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3 Existing Land Use
[Rule 9J-5.006.1(a), (c) & (2)(b) F.A. CJ
2.3.1 Existing Patterns and Trends
The pattern and mix of existing land uses is indicative of the market forces and natural
resource constraints which have shaped existing development and are likely to influence
future growth.
Since 99.8 percent of the Mainland PA primary land use is designated Conservation, this
section will focus upon the unincorporated Lower, Middle and Upper PAs existing land use
conditions. For the purpose of this Element, these areas are collectively referred to as the
unincorporated Keys.
The Existing Land Use Maps (Map Series 2-1) have been developed by the County Growth
Management Division as representative of the existing pattern of development in the
unincorporated Keys. Map Series 2-1 and the supporting GIS data were created in May
2010. For the creation of the Existing Land Use Map series, the County Growth Management
Division utilized the Property Appraisers Geographic Information System (GIS) data, in
particular the Property Classification (PC) codes, to assign a generalized land use
designation. The existing land use data for the unincorporated Keys is summarized in Table
2.5. Appendix 2-1 illustrates how the Property Appraiser's PC codes were converted into a
generalized existing land use.
As seen in Appendix 2-1, a few of the PC codes that were grouped into the Commercial land
use are PC 11- stores, PC 17 and 18 - office buildings, PC 36 - camps, PC 38 - golf courses, and
hotel/motel (PC 39). The Conservation designation includes PC 82 - US Mainland forest,
parks, PC 88 - Federal, PC 99 owned by the Nature Conservancy and the Florida Keys Land
Trust. The Education land use category constitutes PC codes 72: private school or college,
and PC 83 - Public Schools. Included in the Institutional land uses were churches (PC 41),
public college (PC 84) and public hospitals (PC 85). Residential land uses include PC codes
01-single family, PC 02 - Mobile Home and other residential uses detailed in Appendix 2-1.
SPECIAL NOTES:
• PC code 87 - State was assigned to a Conservation land use if aerial photography revealed
mangrove and assigned to Utilities and Right -of -Way if aerial photography revealed a
developed parcel. Likewise, PC code 86 - County was assigned to a Conservation land use
if aerial photography revealed mangrove and assigned to the Public Buildings and
Ground land use, if aerial photography revealed a developed parcel. For more detail on
PC code classification into a generalized land use, see Appendix 2-1.
• The existing land use inventory excludes water bodies and submerged lands and includes
offshore islands, which are discussed in detail in Section 2.3.5 "Offshore Islands" of this
element.
suture Land Use 24 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• The measurement of land areas in the County is not exact. The unique environmental
character of the area, especially the large areas of mangrove -fringed shoreline and
numerous small islands, many of which are below the mean high water line, makes an
exact land area with acreages inventory difficult, simply because defining "land" in the
County is difficult. The calculation of acreages of land use types provides an
approximation of the land area of each of the land use categories, and is useful in
determining the conditions as they presently exist.
Table 2.5 - Existing Land Use by Planning Area (Acres)
Land Use
Commercial
-Lower Middle 'Upper
Keys Keys Keys
337.0 67.7 495.3
Total
900.0
-PercentExisting
of Total
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-Way(ROW)
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
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 1
64.9%
2.9%
32.2%
100.0%
--
................... ........... ..y .,.......,., ....,�.6.,a.� V.LV, lvtl._GLU_JlU
Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2010, "Public Parcel'
NOTE: Slight difference in totals due to rounding.
As indicated in Table 2.5, 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,
three percent in the Middle Keys PA, and 32 percent in the Upper Keys PA. Since the Lower
Keys PA is the largest in land mass, it is not surprising that it has the highest ratio of existing
land use designations, when compared to the other PAs. The exception applies to
Commercial and Public Buildings and Grounds where percent ratios are larger in the Upper
Keys PA.
More than 75 percent of land in the unincorporated Keys is set aside for conservation
purposes. Of the developed land uses, Residential is the largest land use category,
representing approximately 6.8 percent of the land uses in the County, followed by Military
at 5.5 percent, Utilities and Rights -of -Way at 4.4 percent, Vacant at 3.2 percent, Recreation at
1.8 percent, and Commercial at 1.2 percent.
Future Land Use 25 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The following sections provide a detailed discussion of the existing development patterns in
the unincorporated Keys:
2.3.1.1 Commercial Lands
Commercial land uses can broadly be defined as those uses associated with the buying and
selling of goods and/or services. Commercial uses account for 900 acres, or 1.2 percent of
the total area of the unincorporated Keys. Commercial land uses include general commercial,
commercial fishing, and tourist commercial land uses. General commercial uses include
retail and office uses, which are oriented toward the resident population and represent the
majority of commercial uses. General commercial uses are generally concentrated in a strip
along U.S. 1. This is primarily evident in the more heavily developed keys, including Key
Largo, Tavernier, and Sugarloaf, and consists of retail, service, and auto -related uses as well
as office buildings, which are generally small, single story structures. The UKPA contains the
highest ratio (55%) of commercial land use.
2.3.1.2 Conservation Lands
Conservation land includes land acquired by public agencies and private organizations for
conservation purposes. This is the single largest land use category and accounts for
55,519.5 acres, or 75.9 percent of the total land area of the unincorporated Keys. These
conservation lands are primarily located in the Upper and Lower Keys. Federal, State and
County governments have been actively acquiring environmentally sensitive lands and
habitats of rare, threatened and endangered species. This land use category includes such
conservation lands as Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge, the National Key Deer
Refuge, and the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park.
It should be noted that the vast amount of conservation land in the County, and the
continued preservation and management of it, is a strategy to reduce greenhouse gas
emissions because these areas, including both vegetation and soils, are widely recognized
as carbon storage sinks according to the Department of Energy (DOE). DOE defines
terrestrial carbon sequestration as either the net removal of CO2 from the atmosphere or
the prevention of CO2 net emissions from the terrestrial ecosystems into the atmosphere.
2.3.1.3 Educational Lands
Educational land uses account for approximately 80 acres in the County; sixty-two percent of
the acreage is located in the LKPA. There are a total of 13 public schools including three high
schools, one middle school, two middle/elementary schools, six elementary schools, and one
school for exceptional students in Monroe County as a whole. Four schools are located in the
unincorporated Keys.
suture Lana Use 26 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.1.4 Industrial Lands
Industrial land uses account for approximately 455.6 acres or less than one percent in the
unincorporated Keys. Industrial uses include cement, rock and gravel operations, light
manufacturing and storage areas, and heavy industrial uses. Industrial uses are heavily
concentrated in the Lower Keys, with 91 percent distribution.
2.3.1.5 Institutional Lands
Institutional uses, including hospitals, churches, cemeteries, and service clubs account for
160.8 acres in the unincorporated Keys, representing less than one percent of the total land
area. About 62 percent of institutional lands are located in the Lower Keys.
2.3.1.6 Military Lands
The Keys have long been recognized as strategically significant by the U.S. military forces,
and military operations still play an important role in the economy of the Keys. As shown in
Table 2.5, military lands account for 4,025.7 acres, or approximately 5.5 percent of the
unincorporated Keys. Military lands in the unincorporated areas of the County are entirely
located in the Lower Keys, including the Boca Chica Naval Air Station on Boca Chica,
Rockland and Geiger Keys; and additional facilities on Saddlebunch Key and Cudjoe Key.
Fleming Key and Dredgers Keys in the City of Key West make up an additional 536.4 acres of
military land and are not part of this analysis given their location within a municipality.
2.3.1.7 Other Public - Utilities and ROW
This land use category includes land owned by public utilities, including existing electric
power generation and transmission systems; service providers; and right-of-way and
accounts for 4.4 percent of the land use. A majority (51%) of this land use is located in the
LKPA.
2.3.1.8 Public Buildings/Grounds
Public buildings/grounds account for approximately 111.3 acres or 0.2 percent of the land
uses in the unincorporated Keys. This land use category includes all government offices,
such as County, State and federal offices, post offices, sheriff and jail facilities, Coast Guard
stations, fire stations, cemeteries/crematories and community clubs and lodges. This land
use category does not include publicly -owned lands held for conservation purposes (see
2.3.1.2 Conservation Lands, above). Most of this land use (55 percent) is located in the Upper
Keys.
suture Lana Use 27 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.1.9 Recreation Lands
Recreation lands include public recreation lands and facilities as well as some private
recreation lands, such as golf courses. These uses account for approximately 1,321 acres, or
less than two percent of the total land area. Three of the larger recreation areas in this
category are Bahia Honda and Long Key State Recreation Areas and Ocean Reef golf course.
Forty-nine percent of this land use type is located in the Lower Keys.
2.3.1.10 Residential Land
Residential land uses; including single-family detached homes, mobile homes, multi -family
apartments, and mixed -use residential areas are found on almost every one of the 38 Keys
along U.S. 1. As indicated in Table 2.5, residential uses account for 4,988 acres, or 6.8
percent of the unincorporated Keys; approximately 52 percent is located in the LKPA.
2.3.1.11 Vacant or Undeveloped Lands
The vacant land area is 2,339 acres or 3.2 percent of the unincorporated portion of the Keys
and is contained within roughly 6,750 parcels. Approximately 58.8 percent of vacant land in
the unincorporated Keys is heavily concentrated in the LKPA; 35.5 percent in the UKPA; and
5.7 percent in the MKPA. Vacant land analysis is further explained based on its relationship
to the Tier System and underlying future land uses in Section 2.7.4 "Vacant Land Analysis"
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
suture Land Use 28 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2._3.1.12 Existing Patterns and Trends by Planning Area (Al
Lower Kevs
As seen in Table 2.6, Conservation land use (76.3%) in this PA is consistent with that
observed in the unincorporated Keys as a whole. Military constitutes 8.5 percent of land use;
5.5 percent Residential, 3.5 percent, Other Public - Utilities and ROW; 2.9 percent Vacant or
Undeveloped; and 1.4 percent Recreational. Less than one percent of land is distributed in
the Commercial, Education, Industrial, and Public Buildings and Grounds land uses.
Table 2.6 - Existing Land Use - Lower Keys Planning Area (LKPA)
Use
Commercial
AcresExistingLand
337.0
Total
0.7%
Conservation
36,201.6
76.3%
Educational
49.2
0.1%
Industrial
414.8
0.9%
Institutional
99.6
0.2%
Military
4,025.7
8.5%
Other Public - Utilities and ROW
1,665.6
3.5%
Public Buildings and Grounds
17.1
0.0%
Recreational
640.8
1.4%
Residential
2,599.9
5.5%
Vacant or Undeveloped
1,376.2
2.9%
Total
47,427.6
100.0%
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"
Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2010, "Public Parcel"
NOTE: Slight difference in totals due to rounding.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 29 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Middle Kev-
As seen in Table 2.7 below, Conservation constitutes 68.0 percent of land use in this PA. In
descending order Residential land use comprises 9.4 percent, Other Public 6.6 percent,
Recreational 6.2 percent, Vacant or Undeveloped 5.1 percent, Commercial 3.2 percent, and
1.5 percent for Public Buildings and Grounds. The remaining land uses (Military and
Educational) are non-existent.
Table 2.7 - Existing Land Use - Middle Keys Planning Area (MKPA)
Commercial
67.7
3.2%
Conservation
1,458.7
68.0%
Educational
0.0
0.0%
Industrial
0.2
0.0%
Institutional
0.4
0.0%
Military
0.0
0.0%
Other Public - Utilities and ROW
141.8
6.6%
Public Buildings and Grounds
33.0
1.5%
132.1
6.2%
[Recreational
Residential
201.9
9.,
Vacant or Undevelo ed
108.3
5.1%
Total
2,144.1
100.0%
—•..-....--"'y . v uI is aua5UHLUILL, GUlU, ML, hLU 51U
Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2010, "Public Parcel"
NOTE: Slight difference in totals due to rounding.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ruLure Lana use 30 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Upper fts
As seen in Table 2.8 below, Conservation constitutes 75.8 percent of land use in this PA.
Other land uses, in descending order, include: Residential (9.3%), Other Public (6.1%),
Vacant or Undeveloped (3.6%), Recreational (2.3%), and Commercial (2.1%). All other land
uses are less than one percent.
Table 2.8 - Existing Land Use - Upper Keys Planning Area (UKPA)
]Existing -Land
Commercial
495.3 2.1%
Conservation
17,859.2
75.8%
Educational
30.8
0.1%
Industrial
40.6
0.2%
Institutional
60.8
0.3%
Military
0.0
0.0%
Other Public - Utilities and ROW
1,429.3
6.1%
Public Buildings and Grounds
61.2
0.3%
Recreational
548.3
2.3%
Residential
2,186.4
9.3%
Vacant or Undeveloped
854.4
3.6%
Total
23,566.2
100.0%
u+- "I 111 v 1. -LILY U1 UVVL111V1[l11CtgV111CI1L, LUJV, MU LLU 51U
Monroe County Property Appraiser, 2010, "Public Parcel'
NOTE: Slight difference in totals due to rounding.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
rurure Lana use 31 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.2 Existing Density and Intensity
GIS data to analyze the range of density or intensity of land use for the County was
obtained from the Monroe County Property Appraisers Office in January 2010 and is
provided on Appendix 2-2, in detailed form. This data provides parcel and floor area for
land uses which are grouped into PC Codes. The Property Appraiser's PC land use acreage
does not necessarily match the newly created Existing Land Use Map or the existing land
use analysis in Section 2.3.1 "Existing Patterns and Trends". This is due to the method in
which the existing land use data was created. As seen in Appendix 2-1, PC codes were
converted into a generalized existing land use category, and form the basis for the existing
land use analysis. Property appraiser data is used to determine existing density and
intensity as of January 2010.
The PC code and existing land use discrepancies are due to:
• The Property Appraiser's Office only maps platted land whereas existing and future
land use maps comprise offshore islands, which may not be platted in their entirety;
• The Property Appraiser's data includes submerged lands whereas the existing and
future land use maps do not; and
• The method for creating the existing land use map was a two part exercise 1) to convert
the Property Appraiser's PC code into a generalized land use category and map
(Appendix 2-1), and 2) match the land mass depicted in the future land use map series.
Property Appraiser data should only be used for assessing density and intensity and not for
acreage calculations. The density and intensity calculation provides an approximation of
each PC land use category and is useful in determining the conditions as they presently exist
(January 2010).
Some of the densities and intensities are worth highlighting. According to the Property
Appraiser's data, the average single family density is at 2.2 units per acre. Multi -family of
less than 10 units averages 5.2 units per acre. Multi -family "Compounds" use have the
highest density at 18.2 units per acre. The average density for all multi -family units is 6.7
units per acre. (Appendix 2-2)
The residential portion of mixed uses has a density of 1.65 dwelling units per acre.
Likewise the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for the commercial portion of mixed -uses averages
0.10. (Appendix 2-2)
At the time of data collection there were 5,667,248 square feet of non residential space
with an average FAR of 0.0055as seen in Table 2.9. Of the general commercial PC codes,
the highest FAR is in the "Drive-in Theatre or Open Stadium" (PC 31) category at 0.26098.
The average FAR in the general commercial category is .013. In the tourist commercial
category, the average FAR is 0.08535. Commercial fishing has the lowest average FAR at
.05826. (Appendix 2-2)
Future Land Use 32 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
For the Industrial uses, "Lumberyard" (PC 43) has the highest FAR at .12854; however, the
average of all industrial uses is .04492. Overall, no PC code category exceeds a 0.3 FAR
(Appendix 2-2).
Table 2.9 below depicts the floor area ratio calculations by summarized PC code and
derive from Appendix 2-2. It is not intended to summarize floor area ratios by the existing
land use category classifications as seen in Appendix 2-1, but rather by PC code.
Table 2.9 - Average Floor Area Ratio (FAR)
PC Code Summary
Mixed Use
Area (SF)
5,177,622
ExistingAverage
Building
Square Feet
518,972
1R
0.1002
General Commercial
192,259,737
2,535,865
0.0132
Tourist Commercial
1,245,364
106,288
0.0853
Commercial Fishing
1,032,510
60,152
0.0583
Industrial
18,474,226
829,812
0.0449
Education
4,110,004
371,068
0.0903
Institutional
21,851,714
671,600
0.0307
Public Buildings Grounds
698,418,605
313,691
0.0004
Public Facilities
6,891,176
188,552
0.0274
Military
66,245,929
2,674
0.0000
Recreation
18,082,089
68,574
0.0038
TOTAL
1,033,788,976
5,667,248
0.0055
Source: Monroe county Property Appraiser's Office, January 2010, "Parcel Public"
NOTE: Slight difference in totals due to rounding.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
rurure Lana use 33 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.10 illustrates the acreage of generalized PC codes and are explained in more detail
on Appendix 2-2. These acreage calculations are not to be confused by those in Section
2.3.1 "Existing Patterns and Trends"
Table 2.10: Acreage by Property Appraiser Code (PC)
PEEodeSummary
Single Family
6,176
Mobile Homes
6,981
Multi -Family
955
Mixed Use
119
General Commercial
4,414
Tourist Commercial
29
Commercial Fishing
24
Industrial
424
Education
94
Institutional
502
Public Buildings Grounds
16,033
Public Facilities
158
Military
1,521
Recreation
415
TOTAL
37,845
Source: Monroe county Property Appraiser's Office, January 2010, "Parcel Public"
NOTE: Slight difference in totals due to rounding.
Table 2.11 illustrates the acreage of generalized PC codes and are explained in more detail
on Appendix 2-2. These acreage calculations are not to be confused by those in Section
2.3.1 "Existing Patterns and Trends" in which vacant land is approximately 2,339 acres.
Table 2.11: Vacant Land by Property Appraiser Code
PC Eode
00
PC Code Description
Vacant Residential
Area (Acreage)
19,152.6
10
Vacant Commercial
675.9
40
Vacant Industrial
0.0
70
Vacant Institutional
1,505.6
Total
21,334.2
Source: Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office, January 2010, "Parcel Public"
NOTE: Slight difference in totals due to rounding.
Future Land Use 34 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.3 Platted Lots
2.3.3.1 Platted Lots Existing Conditions
An important component of the land use analysis for the County is the number of platted lots
and platted subdivisions. For this analysis, GIS data was utilized to determine lots that are
currently zoned in one of three categories that assign development potential per parcel,
rather than acreage basis. For these three zoning categories, density is presently assigned at
one unit per lot, regardless of the lot size.
The three zoning categories that provide for one unit per lot include Improved Subdivision
(IS), Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM), and Commercial Fishing Village (CFV). It should
also be noted that parcels with one of these zoning designations do not always fall within a
platted subdivision. However, the inventory does list all IS, URM and CFV lots, including
those outside platted subdivisions.
While not all development occurs on platted lots in platted subdivisions, the majority of
single-family home development does occur in areas zoned for one of the three one
unit/parcel zoning districts. It can be expected that this trend will continue, as by definition,
these IS, URM, and CFV parcels occur in areas of existing infrastructure (potable water and
roads), and are generally located in environmentally disturbed areas.
Table 2.12 - Inventory of IS, URM and CFV Zoned Lots
bource: Monroe county Urowtn management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"; Monroe County
Growth Management, 2010, "Zoning"
NOTE: Slight difference in totals due to rounding.
As seen in Table 2.12, there are 23,815 lots zoned for one dwelling unit per lot regardless
of lot size. Of these lots, 69.6 percent are developed; 13.3 percent are currently under the
Conservation existing land use category; and 17.1 percent are vacant. Of the 23,815 lots
that allow one dwelling unit, 55.0 percent are located in the LKPA, 43.3 percent are located
in the UKPA and less than 2.0 percent are located in the MKPA. Further evaluation of the
individual characteristics of the vacant lots is warranted to understand their true
development potential. An analysis of vacant lots that allow one dwelling unit comparing
its relationship to the Tier System is provided in Section 2.7.4 "Vacant Land Analysis':
Future Land Use 35 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.4 Offshore Islands
Monroe County offshore islands are characterized by environmentally sensitive lands
containing pristine mangrove forests, salt marsh, buttonwood wetlands, salt ponds, and
freshwater wetlands. They are also known for their endangered or threatened species
habitat. Many of the islands in the Keys are zoned for protection of the nesting birds by
both the National Park Service and the National Wildlife Refuges. Data was obtained from
the 2010 Monroe County Comprehensive as adopted in 1995. A detailed discussion of their
environmental significance is provided in Chapter 3.0, Conservation and Coastal
Management Element.
2.3.4.1 Inventory of Offshore Islands
Publicly -Owned Offshore Islands
Most of the offshore islands in the County are in public ownership for conservation
purposes (Table 2.13). In the Upper and Middle Keys, all of the offshore islands in Florida
Bay to the north of the Intracoastal Waterway between Cross Key on the east and
approximately Long Key on the west are within Everglades National Park (these are shown
with dashed coastlines on the Map Series 2-1). In addition to those islands within the
Everglades National Park, several offshore islands in the Upper and Middle Keys are part of
publicly -owned conservation lands, including the Crocodile Lake National Wildlife Refuge,
the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park, the Dagney Johnson Key Largo Hammock State
Park, Lignumvitae Key State Botanical Site, the Indian Key State Historic Site, and Long Key
State Recreation Area.
In the Lower Keys, the majority of offshore islands in Florida Bay are in public ownership
as part of the Great White Heron National Wildlife Refuge and the National Key Deer
Refuge. To the west of Key West, the Key West National Wildlife Refuge includes a series of
approximately 17 offshore islands, including the grouping of islands known as the
Marquesas (the only offshore island in this grouping not in public ownership is Ballast
Key). Further to the west of the Marquesas, the Dry Tortugas National Park includes
approximately 62,000 acres of submerged lands and 40 acres of uplands, including those
islands commonly known as the Dry Tortugas.
All of these publicly -owned offshore islands are managed for conservation purposes by the
USFWS, the National Park Service, and the Florida Department of Environmental Protection
(FDEP). These offshore islands serve as habitat for a variety of wildlife, including many
threatened and endangered species.
Future Land Use 36 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.13 - Publicly -Owned Offshore Islands
Annette Key
382.3
Antonio Key
NA
Barracuda Key
NA
Bay Key
NA
Portion in Public Ownership
Big Harper Ke
NA
BigSpanish Key
57.0
Budd Ke s
42.3
Buttonwood Keys
73.8
C�avo A ua Ke
51.0
ChannelKey
25.3
Cocoanut Ke
NA
Content Ke
339.8
Portion in Public Ownership
Coon Ke
NA
Crane Key
NA
Crane Keys
NA
Crawl Key
19.8
Cutoe Key
NA
Duck Key
NA
East Bahia Honda Key
NA
Fish Hawk Ke
16.8
Also known as Eagle Nest Ke
Friend Key
NA
Galdin Key
NA
Grassy Key
NA
Happy Jack Ke
NA
Hardup Ke
NA
Har er ke
NA
Horseshoe key
NA
Howe Key Mangrove
NA
Howe Key
721.7
Hurricane Key
NA
Johnson Ke s
256.9
Johnstons Keys
485.0
Johnstons Ke s Man roves
NA
Knockemdown Keys
1134.1 1 Portion not in public ownership
Little Pine Ke
564.5
Little Pine Ke Man roves
NA
Little Spanish Key
52.0
Little Spanish Key Mangrove
NA
Little Swash Keys
NA
Lower Harbor Keys
NA
-.Mayo Keys
58.3
Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.13 - Publicly -Owned Offshore Islands (continued)
Key Name
Old Dan Mangrove
Acres
NA
Comment
Pidgeon Key
NA
Porpoise Key
NA
Pumpkin Key
NA
P e Key
NA
Rattlesnake Lumps
NA
Refuge Key
NA
Round Key
NA
Sandfly Key
NA
Sawyer Key
90.8
Snipe Key
720.3
Squirrel Key
NA
Teakettle Key
NA
To tree Hammock Key
NA
Torch Key Mangroves
NA
Unnamed
NA
West of Rattlesnake Lumps
Unnamed
NA
East of Knockemdown Key
Unnamed
NA
East of big Pine Key (near Doctors Point)
Source: Monroe County Growth Management 1992
Privately -Owned Offshore Islands
There are approximately 60 offshore islands in private ownership and subject to regulation
by the County (Table 2.14). These include islands ranging in size from one acre to over
several hundred acres (although there are some offshore islands of less than one acre, these
are largely unnamed sovereignty lands owned by the State of Florida and are not listed on
Tables 2.13 or 2.15).
Many privately -owned offshore islands are "mangrove islands" which are periodically
inundated and characterized by mangroves with very little upland vegetation.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 38 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.14 - Privately Owned Offshore Islands
Key Name
An elfish Ke s
Acres
60.0
Comment
Anne Key
28.8
Ballast Key
24.0
Bamboo Key*
9.0
Bay Keys
35.0
Big Raccoons
202.3
Bird Key
14.5
Black Swan*
4.5
Broad Key
63.0
Budd Keys
25.0
Burnt Keys
134.3
ChannelKey
11.5
Content Key
50.0
Cook's Island
40.6
Developed
Cotton Key
36.4
Crab Key
12.5
Don Quixote Key
20.4
Dove Key*
4.5
East Sister Rock*
1.0
Developed
Fanny Keys*
2.2
Developed
Gopher Key*
2.3
Half Moon Key
81.2
Howell Key*
8.5
Also known as Drummond Key
Key Who
10.0
West of northern tip of Summerland Key
Knockemdown Keys
Little Card Point
500.0
122.1
Portion located in nijklic ownership
Little Duck Key
25.5
Little Grassy Key
73.8
Near Big Pine Key
Little Raccoon Key
64.1
Linderman Key*
10.0
Loggerhead Key
87.0
Also known as Key Lois
Main Key
145.6
Mallory Keys
20.0
Molasses Keys
40.5
Money Key*
4.6
Developed
Mud Keys
10.0
Newfound Harbor Keys
118.6
Developed
O'Hara Key
38.0
Palo Alto Key
373.9
Developed
Pelican Key
20.0
Future Land Use 39 Technical Document: May 2 0011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.14 Privately Owned Offshore Islands (continued)
PumpKey Name
kin Ke
Acres
10.0
Comment
Russell Key
12.8
Developed
Saddlehill Key
107.3
Seven Mangroves Islands
17.3
Tarpon Belly Keys
13.0
Developed
Tavernier Key
20.8
Toms Harbor Keys
41.5
Unnamed*
1.0
Unnamed*
8.8
Unnamed*
27.3
Unnamed*
1.4
Wells Key
39.0
West Harbor Key
69.3
West Sister Rock*
1.0
Wilson Key
15.4
Wisteria Island
21.5
')ource: ivionroe Lounq urowtn ivianagemeni iyyz
* Offshore islands with less than 10 acres.
A number of privately -owned offshore islands are included in the Federal Coastal Barrier
Resources System (CBRS) as established by the Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of
1982. This legislation prohibits federally subsidized development of undeveloped coastal
barrier islands in order to minimize the loss of human life, reduce expenditures of federal
revenue, and reduce damage to fish and wildlife habitat and other valuable natural resources
of coastal barriers (United State Department of Interior, 1988).
Several of these islands contain hardwood hammock vegetation, which supports numerous
plant and animal species that have very limited distributions and are considered rare and
endangered.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 40 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Other Offshore Islands
In addition to those islands included on Tables 2.13 and 2.14, there are a number of
offshore islands for which ownership is unclear (Table 2.15). These islands are not listed
by the Monroe County Tax Appraiser's Office as being in private ownership, and they have
not been explicitly identified by any State or federal agencies as being in public ownership.
Table 2.15 - Other Offshore lslanrlc
Key Name
Big Mangrove Key
Acres
25.0
jCommeint
Bill Finds Key*
2.0
Cormorant Rookeries
20.0
Little Crane Key*
2.0
Marjoe Key*
1.0
Pelican Key*
2.0
Porpoise Key
15.0
Refuge Key*
8.0
Riding Key
15.0
Rodriguez Key
120.0
_� ............ .... .... ... .� ... .. .. ............b.....�..i� i j 71-
* Offshore islands with less than 10 acres.
Included in this category are a number of unnamed islands throughout the Keys, which are
not listed on Tables 2.13 and 2.15. Most of these islands are likely to be sovereignty
lands, which lie below the mean high water line and are owned by the State of Florida. The
County is currently further exploring the ownership issues related to these islands. Monroe
County Growth Management Department and the Property Appraisers Office should
coordinate in this effort.
For the most part, in the Existing Land Use Map offshore islands have a Conservation land
use designation and for the Future Land Use Map they have an undesignated land use
designation since many of them have yet to receive a designation approved by the County
Commission. The County should explore placing offshore island names on the future and
existing land use GIS data, in order to better quantify the acreage for each island.
2.3.4.2 Current Monroe County Regulations
The Offshore Islands (OS) zoning designation (Section 130-157 of the MCLDC) allows 0.1
dwelling unit per acre or 1 dwelling unit per ten acres. The parcel size used to calculate
potential density is exclusive of mangroves. Therefore, all offshore islands that contain less
than ten acres are shown on the previous set tables with an asterisk.
Future Land Use 41 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.4.3 Public Facilities
Development on offshore islands is unique with regard to the provision of public facilities.
The County does not encourage the development of these islands and does not spend any
public funds to extend public services or facilities (i.e., water, electricity, etc.) to offshore
islands or to construct any infrastructure (i.e., roads and bridges) to offshore islands. The
following are a few of the County's existing Comprehensive Plan policies relating to offshore
island development:
Policy 102.7.3
Monroe County shall discourage developments proposed on offshore islands by
methods including, but not limited to, designated offshore islands as Tier 1 Lands.
GOAL 209
Monroe County shall discourage private land uses on its mainland, offshore islands and
undeveloped coastal barriers, and shall protect existing conservation lands from
adverse impacts associated with private land uses on adjoining lands.
Policy 215.2.3
No public expenditures shall be made for new or expanded facilities in areas
designated as units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System, saltmarsh and
buttonwood wetlands, or offshore islands not currently accessible by road, with the
exception of expenditures for conservation and parklands consistent with natural
resource protection, and expenditures necessary for public health and safety.
The County currently permits these activities for applicants who pay for these improvements
and who receive the approvals and permits required by the appropriate federal, State, and
local agencies. Most of the existing residential development on offshore islands is self-
contained in terms of sewerage, water, electricity, and communications. However, this
development requires onshore services; therefore, it is treated as equivalent to development
on one of the 38 main Keys in terms of demand for public facilities and services and
hurricane evacuation planning.
2.3.5 Adjacent jurisdiction Land Use
[Rule 9J-5.006(1)(f)1., F.A.0
The generalized land uses of counties and municipalities adjacent to the County are indicated
on the Map Series 2-1. Miami -Dade County and Collier County border the Mainland portion
of the County to the north and east. There are no adjacent municipalities located in either of
these two counties. The County includes five incorporated cities: Layton, Key Colony Beach
and Marathon located in the Middle Keys; and Islamorada located in the Middle and Upper
Keys. Key West, the County seat, is located at the southwestern end of the Keys, and
comprises the entire island of Key West, the north half of Stock Island; Sunset Key, a small
island across from the Mallory Docks; and Key West Harbor (south of Wisteria Island). The
Future Land Use 42 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Village of Islamorada is located in the Upper Keys and comprises Lower Matecumbe Key,
Upper Matecumbe Key, Windley Key and Plantation Key.
2.3.5.1 Miami -Dade County
Miami -Dade County lies to the east of the mainland portion of the County and includes the
southern mainland coast to the north of the Keys. To the west of U.S. 1, the portions of
Miami -Dade County adjacent to the County are located within the Everglades National Park.
This park is managed by the National Park Service and ranges from vast sawgrass prairies to
tropical hammocks and mangrove swamps. Development is limited to park -related facilities
including visitor centers; hiking trails, and overlooks along Route 27; and tourist -oriented
facilities at Flamingo.
The portion of Miami -Dade County to the east of U.S. 1 along the southern mainland coast is
designated as Environmental Protection Subarea F (Coastal Wetlands and Hammocks), by
the Miami -Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan, October 2006 Edition As Amended
through May 6, 2009. These areas, which are not within the authorized boundaries of
Biscayne or Everglades National Parks, are low-lying, flood prone, and characterized
predominantly by coastal wetland communities. Accordingly, all land use or site alteration
proposals are evaluated on a case -by -case basis by federal, State, regional, and County
agencies.
Land uses that could be considered for approval by Miami -Dade County include low -
coverage residential use at a density not to exceed 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres, water -
dependent uses or necessary public, water related facilities. These land uses are generally
consistent with the adjacent County areas on North Key Largo, which are indicated as
Conservation areas on the Map Series 2-1. Conservation areas indicate lands that have been
acquired by federal, State, or local agencies or private entities for conservation purposes.
In addition, necessary electrical generation and transmission facilities are also permitted in
this area. The approval of any new use, and the replacement or expansion of any existing
use will be conditioned upon its demonstrated consistency with the adopted goals,
objectives and policies of this plan, conformity with all prevailing environmental
regulations and compatibility with objectives of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration
Plan.
2.3.5.2 Collier County
Collier County lies to the northwest of the mainland portion of the County. The portions of
Collier County adjacent to the County are designated as Conservation Lands by the Collier
County Growth Management Plan and are located within either the Everglades National Park
or Big Cypress National Preserve. Big Cypress National Preserve occupies much of the
eastern half of Collier County, and is primarily cypress swamp, with pine woodlands, prairies,
and marshes. This is consistent with the Conservation designation given to the County
portion of the mainland immediately adjacent to Collier County.
rurure Lana use 43 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.5.3 City of Key Colony Beach
The City of Key Colony Beach encompasses 219 acres and is located within the Middle Keys,
according to the Existing Land Use data provided by Monroe County Growth Management.
Sixty-six percent of the land falls under the residential land use category. Fifteen percent of
land is categorized as public buildings and grounds; 10 percent of the land is vacant; 4
percent is conservation; and 3 percent is commercial. The remaining land is categorized
institutional and recreational.
2.3.5.4 City of Lae on
The City of Layton is the smallest municipality in land mass in the County. Based on the
Existing Land Use data from Monroe County Growth Management, the City of Layton is an
approximately 25 acre municipality located in Long Key within the Middle Keys PA. Seventy
percent of the land is designated residential. Sixteen percent of land is designated
commercial and eight percent is vacant. Approximately six acres are for institutional and
public building and grounds.
2.3.5.5 Citv of Key West
The City of Key West is a municipality located at the southwestern end of the Keys chain
connected by U.S. 1. With an estimated population of 23,291, according to American
Community Survey (2006-2008), the City has the greatest concentration of residents and
tourists in the County, and accounts for over 32 percent of the County's 73,0788 residents.
According to the City of Key West Comprehensive Plan, the City includes 4,437.7 acres.
Approximately 652.8 acres, or 17.5 percent, of the City land uses consists of residential
development; 301 acres, or eight percent of commercial development; 1,622.7 acres, or 44
percent of Institutional (largely military) development; 431 acres, or 12 percent are Rights -
of -Way; and 548 acres, or 15 percent of undeveloped lands. The acreage noted above
includes approximately 225 acres of open water and Fleming and Dredgers Keys, which are
both military lands owned by the U.S. Navy.
The southern half of Stock Island, which is located in the unincorporated Keys, is intensively
developed with general commercial uses along U.S. 1, with a mix of residential, tourist -
oriented commercial and commercial fishing uses south of the highway. Commercial fishing
areas, Keys Electric and Florida Key Aqueduct Authority installations, and Cow Key, which is
vacant, are located along the southern coastline. The north half of the island, which lies in the
City of Key West, is less intensively developed than the southern half, and includes the Key
West Golf and Country Club, and such institutional and public uses as the Florida Keys
Memorial Hospital, the Florida Keys Community College and the County Government
buildings.
n US Census, American Community Survey, 2006-2008
Future Land Use 44 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The land use of the City of Key West to the west of Stock Island includes residential and
tourist -oriented uses as well as the Key West International Airport. Along the northern
coast, land uses consist of general commercial, residential, and military uses.
2.3.5.6 City of Marathon
The City of Marathon is a 4,912 acre municipality in the County. According to the City of
Marathon Comprehensive Plan, residential land use accounts for 51.91 percent of all land in
the City. Single-family detached homes are the predominant residential type within the
City, accounting for 72 percent of the residential land use category, followed by multi-
family with 15.6 percent, and mobile homes with six percent. Commercial uses utilize 14.4
percent of land in the City and are found primarily along U.S. 1. The Public/Semi-Public
classification accounts for 27.3 percent. Industrial lands uses account for 1.3 percent of
land uses in the City. Other land use designations include the airstrip, off shore islands,
submerged lands and private park/conservancy subcategories, which account for five
percent of all land. Vacant parcels are scattered throughout the City and comprise 37.8
percent of the total land area within the City. Vacant residential lands account for the
largest portion at 33.9 percent.
2.3.5.7 Village is Islamorada
The Village of Islamorada is a municipality of 3,796 acres located within the County.
According to The Village of Islamorada Future Land Use Data and Analysis Report, residential
land use accounts for 31.3 percent of all land in the Village. Single family detached homes
are the predominant residential type within the Village, and account for 26.5 percent of the
residential land use category followed by multi -family with 3.7 percent, and mobile homes
with 1.1 percent. Commercial uses utilize 9.7 percent of land in the Village and are found
primarily along U.S. 1 on Plantation Key and Upper Matecumbe Key, with concentrated
Village Activity Centers on both keys. The Public/Semi-Public classification accounts for
9.5 percent. Other lands that entail industrial, airstrip and roads consist of 3.5 percent of
land. Conservation lands are the second largest land use category in the Village, comprising
almost 30 percent of all lands. Vacant parcels of land are scattered throughout the Village,
and comprise approximately 14 percent of total land area within the Village.
2.3.5.8 Airport Land Use Regulatory Authority
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. Land use activities adjacent to these airports
must be coordinated with the runway objection free zone.
There are also four private airports or airstrips, and one seaplane facility. For a detailed
discussion regarding aviation facilities see Chapter 6.0 Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities.
Future Land Use 45 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
KWIA includes approximately 258 acres of land and is located within the limits of the City
of Key West, in the southeast quadrant of the city. KWIA is owned by the County. FKMA is
located at MM 51.5 on Vaca Key within the City of Marathon and is owned by the County.
Section 332.02 F.S. vests the County with the authority to operate and regulate an airport
which it owns, regardless of whether the facility is located within or outside of its
jurisdictional limits. Furthermore, under F.S. 332.02(1), a municipality "may not acquire or
take over any airport ... owned or controlled by another municipality of the State without
the consent of such municipality" so any transfer of the airport property or control over the
property would require Commission approval.
Additionally, F.S. 332.08(2) authorizes the County "to adopt and amend all needful rules,
regulations, and ordinances for the management, government, and use of any property
under its control, whether within or without the territorial limits of the" County.
2.3.6 Areas of Critical County Concern
The Areas of Critical County Concern (ACCC) are not to be confused with the Area of Critical
State Concern (previous Section 2.2.5 'Area of Critical State Concern'). Pursuant to Chapter
106 of the MCLDC, the BOCC designated areas within the County as Areas of Critical County
Concern if it is determined that the area is one of special environmental sensitivity, contains
important historical or archaeological resources, is characterized by substantial capital
improvement deficiencies, or provides significant redevelopment opportunities. The ACCCs
are illustrated in Map Series 2-2. The BOCC has identified three ACCCs within
unincorporated Monroe County:
• Big Pine Key ACCC;
• North Key Largo ACCC; and
• Ohio Key ACCC.
Big Pine Key, North Key Largo, and Ohio Key have been designated as ACCCs due to
environmental sensitivity. Big Pine Key is the subject of an environmentally -based
community master plan and development is governed by a habitat conservation plan. The
reasons for the establishment of each of the ACCCs and their associated planning issues are
described below:
2.3.6.1 Big Pine Key ACCC
The Big Pine Key ACCC includes the central and northern portions of Big Pine Key. The ACCC
was established to initiate a focal point planning effort directed at reconciling the conflict
between reasonable investment -backed expectations of landowners and the habitat needs of
the endangered Key deer (Odocoileus virginianus clavium). The focal point plan was to
consider:
Future Land Use 46 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• The reasonable investment backed expectations of the owners of land within the Big
Pine Key ACCC;
• The habitat needs of the Key deer;
• The role and importance of freshwater wetlands to the survival of the Key deer;
• The conflicts between human habitation and the survival of the Key deer;
• Management approaches to reconciling the conflict between development and the
survival of the Key deer; and
• Specific implementation programs for the Big Pine Key ACCC.
2.3.6.1.1 Development Potential and Capacity Constraints
Big Pine Key and No Name Key contain particularly sensitive habitat for threatened and
endangered species. Since the mid-1990s, the County, the Florida DCA, the FDOT, and the
USFWS have recognized that continued growth and development on Big Pine and No Name
Keys without proper protective measures would be harmful to Key deer (Odocoileus
virginianus clavium), Lower Keys Marsh Rabbit (Sylvilagus palustris hefneri), and eastern
indigo snake (Drymarchon corals couperi). Big Pine Key and No Name Key were under a
development moratorium for over 10 years due to the level of service of U.S. 1 through the
Big Pine -area. The moratorium placed an undue burden on the community, so the County
met with various stakeholders to seek a solution to the problem. A solution to the level of
service was realized through the additional lane on the north bound side of U.S. 1 and
through the deer crossing tunnels on Big Pine Key. However, additional constraints on
growth in Big Pine remained due to the many endangered species located on Big Pine Key
and No Name Key.
The County, along with its partners, began a process to continue the growth on Big Pine in
an environmentally compatible nature through a permitting process with USFWS. This
process included the development of the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) in 2006 which
outlined the planned growth patterns and rate as well as the anticipated impact that
growth will have on the species. In conjunction with this process, the County prepared a
Livable CommuniKeys Plan for Big Pine and No Name Key to serve as a master plan for the
area.
Covering an area of approximately 7,000 acres, the Big Pine Key/No Name Key HCP is a
conservation strategy that protects the habitat of the Key deer, Lower Keys marsh rabbit,
and eastern indigo snake while allowing limited residential, commercial, recreational, and
municipal development on Big Pine Key and No Name Key. In addition to protecting high
quality habitat for these species, the HCP directs development toward areas that have
already been already impacted and away from endangered species habitat.
Future Land Use 47 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The goal of the HCP is to hold impact on the species to a minimum based on Key Deer
"quasi -extinction", which was defined as the probability that the number of female deer
would fall below 50 at least once over 50 years. The drafters used an assignment of "H" for
each parcel as a tool to regulate development. "H" represents impact, both primary and
secondary. Factors such as distance from U.S. 1, existing housing density, existing habitat
quality, proximity to deer movement corridors, existing deer density, and water barriers
were considered in the "H" model for each parcel. The assigned "H" values range from 0
(no impact), to 2. A Population Viability Analysis was conducted for the Key Deer in
association with the HCP and details the likelihood of persistence of a species.
The Population Viability Analysis study indicated that, under current conditions, the Key
Deer have a 2.2 percent chance of reaching quasi -extinction. Based on this Population
Viability Analysis, the drafters decided to strive for increasing this likelihood to no more
than 4.2 percent. This equates to the loss of 4.2 deer a year to human -related mortality.
With the above goal, an acceptable "H" limit or impact limit for development in Big Pine
Key and No Name key is "H" = 1.1 over 20 years. The drafters then agreed to mitigate all
"H" (impact) at a ratio of 3:1. This means that each parcel developed under this plan will
add to the total "H" allowed over the next 20 years and the County must mitigate that "H"
by three times this amount. If this ratio is not maintained, development activity will be
stopped until the ratio is achieved or exceeded.
In an effort to not exceed this "H" = 1.1 limit, basic development limitations were set. These
limitations are outlined in general in the HCP and more defined in the Livable
CommuniKeys Plan (LCP) for Big Pine and No Name Keys. These limitations cover
everything from residential to light industrial to road widening. The following 20-year
limitations are defined in the LCP:
• Residential units limited to 200;
• Commercial limited to 47,800 square feet;
• One major recreation and community center at the county -owned "Mariner's Resort";
• Non-public institutional limited to 2,500 square feet per year, with restrictions;
• Seven new pocket parks within certain subdivisions; and
• Three new public parks, with restrictions.
• Allow expansion of existing religious institutions, civic clubs and community
organizations on scarified land, with certain conditions;
• Projects identified in the County's Sanitary Sewer and Stormwater Master Plans,
restricted to disturbed or scarified lands;
• Public office space located in the US1 Corridor Area;
• Expansion of county emergency response facilities at the current location;
• Three-laning of U.S. 1 only.
ROGO/NROGO applications for Big Pine and No Name Key compete against each other
based on the overall score and date the applicant applied. Applicants are competing for
eight market rate and two affordable allocations annually. Prior to allocation issuance, the
applicant must mitigate the "H" value associated with the development of the parcel. This
ruture Land Use 48 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
is accomplished through land donation or fund donation to allow the County to purchase
property to maintain a 3:1 ratio for impact. If at any time during the 20 year period "H" _
1.1 is met or exceeded, development activity will halt.
While these restrictions on new development help meet the goal, additional restrictions
were also required. Most of these restrictions were based on tier, which reflects the
increased impact based on location and development pattern for the area. These 20-year
restrictions are:
• 10 new residential permits in Tier 1 areas;
• No new fences in Tier 1 areas; and
• Only residential development is allowed in -Tier 1.
A complete listing of restrictions is available in the HCP and the Master Plan. All
applications for new residential and commercial development will be required to apply for
a ROGO/NROGO allocation.
Based on the HCP finalized in 2006, USFWS issued an Incidental Take Permit (No.
TE083411-0, issued June 9, 2006 and expires June 30, 2023) that allows the County to
continue to adversely impact endangered species on Big Pine and No Name Key through
the issuance of building permits. The development of 200 homes or no more than 168
acres of development over a 20-year period is anticipated on Big Pine Key and No Name
Key. The HCP does not specify which properties will be permitted or when. Because the
County now has the approved HCP and Incidental Take Permit necessary to protect listed
species and their habitats, landowners obtaining a building permit generally do not need
any other permits or reviews from the USFWS. Improvements to properties are generally
allowed as long as they are consistent with County regulations. However, projects that
remove native vegetation or reduce Key deer access to habitat such as fences may undergo
additional review by the County and the USFWS.
The HCP aides in the recovery of listed species on Big Pine and No Name Keys because it
directs development toward areas that have already been impacted and away from listed
species habitat. Development is limited to 168 acres (with no more than 7 acres being
native habitat) of impact over a 20-year period and mitigation is conducted at a 3:1 ratio.
In total, 504 acres will be acquired, restored, and managed for Key deer, Lower Keys marsh
rabbit, and eastern indigo snake conservation. In addition, no development will occur in
Lower Keys marsh rabbit habitat and a 1,640-foot buffer from future development will be
implemented to reduce the indirect effects of development (except for about 40 acres that
have already been fragmented). All unprotected suitable marsh rabbit habitat on Big Pine
and No Name Key will be targeted for acquisition and conservation. The County also
implements a free -roaming pet education program to reduce mortality (predation) on
marsh rabbits.
Under the MCLDC [Section 118-7 (General Environmental Design Criteria)], clustering of
development is required to reduce habitat fragmentation and to preserve the largest
Future Land Use 49 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
possible area of contiguous undisturbed habitat (for all natural habitat types). The MCLDC
also contains restrictions on the amount of land clearing, depending on the tier designation.
The County currently requires a coordination letter from the USFWS when development is
proposed in known or potential habitat for endangered and threatened species. Under the
Tier Overlay Ordinance, lands that serve as habitat for protected species have top priority
for land acquisition. Under the current ROGO/NROGO system, development within known
habitat of threatened or endangered species receive minus 10 points.
2.3.6.2 North Kev Largo ACCC
The North Key Largo ACCC includes the portion of Key Largo which lies between the junction
of U.S. 1/State Road 905 and the Monroe/Miami-Dade County boundary at Angelfish Creek.
The North Key Largo area of critical county concern was established for the purpose of
reconciling the reasonable investment -backed development expectations of North Key
Largo landowners with the need to preserve the habitat of four species of animals that are
listed as endangered under the Endangered Species Act, 16 USC 1531-1543; the American
Crocodile (Crododylus acutus), the Key Largo Woodrat (Neotoma floridana smalli), the Key
Largo Cotton Mouse (Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola), and the Schaus Swallowtail
Butterfly (Heraclides aristidemus ponceanus).
The North Key Largo ACCC was established in part because it was recognized that the
potential impacts of several large proposed developments, in addition to already existing
developments, would threaten the survival of the four endangered species. These proposed
developments were largely to be located on land which had been subdivided prior to the
designation of the four species as endangered. As these developments began to move
forward, Monroe County recognized the need to evaluate the potential impacts of these
developments, which included:
• Reduction and fragmentation of critical habitat;
• Increased mosquito spraying, to which the Schaus' swallowtail butterfly is highly
susceptible;
• Degradation of nearshore water quality associated with increased runoff, septic
leachate, and boat operations and maintenance; and
• Increased mortalities of crocodiles due to road kills as well as the potential for
increased harassment or killing of crocodiles due to the incompatibility between
humans and crocodiles.
2.3.6.3 Ohio Key ACCC
Piping plovers in the Florida Keys congregate on wintering grounds on Ohio Key. The
County has designated this wintering ground as an Area of Critical County Concern (ACCC)
for purposes of protecting the piping plover habitat. The MCLDC (Section 106-9) states that,
rucure Lana use 50 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
"The Ohio Key ACCC was established for the purpose of reconciling the reasonable
investment -backed expectations of the owners of Ohio Key with the habitat value and
environmental sensitivity of the wetlands system on the Key that serves as a habitat for a
variety of wading birds, including the piping plover, a species listed as threatened under the
Federal Endangered Species Act."
The ACCC includes the southern half of Ohio Key, which encompasses approximately 22
acres, while the northern half of Ohio Key, also known as Sunshine Key, after a recreational
vehicle campground located there. The MCLDC explicitly limits future uses on Ohio Key to
20 recreational vehicle parking spaces or campsites. While the land within the ACCC is
now under public ownership, the County should retain the existing MCLDC restrictions,
which limit land uses and establish wildlife habitat protection measures for the piping
plover on the Atlantic -side portion of Ohio Key.
Section 106-9 of the MCLDC describes the conditions under which the 20 recreational
vehicle spaces or campsites could be developed while also protecting the piping plover
habitat. These conditions include:
• All development other than picnic tables, boardwalks and bird -watching blinds is
restricted to the lands identified on the existing conditions map as 740.3;
• The recreational vehicle parking spaces or campsites are set back at least 100 feet from
the dwarf mangrove area shown on the existing conditions map;
• The area that is developed for recreational vehicle parking spaces or campsites and a
bathhouse is fenced so as to control access to the dwarf mangrove, disturbed beach and
berm water areas within the Ohio Key area of critical county concern;
• No motorized vehicles of any kind or any bicycle, except for maintenance vehicles, shall
have access to or shall be used in the Ohio Key area of critical county concern except for
that portion of the area designated as 740.3 on the existing conditions map;
• Picnic tables are restricted to the areas designated as 740.3 or 740.4 on the existing
conditions map;
• No pets shall be allowed in the Ohio Key area of critical county concern;
• The concrete refuse previously dumped on the land designated as 740.3 on the existing
conditions map shall be removed or buried;
• No dumping or filling shall be allowed in the Ohio Key area of critical county concern
except for filling necessary to carry out the development of the campsites and
bathhouse permitted by this subsection and to bury the concrete refuse previously
dumped on the land designated as 740.3 on the existing conditions map;
Future Land Use 51 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
• All exotic invasive species of plant are removed from the land designated as 740.3 on
the existing conditions map in the Ohio Key area of critical county concern;
• No insecticide is sprayed or fogged in the Ohio Key area of critical county concern;
• All boardwalks or bird -watching blinds to be constructed in the land area designated as
620, 500 or 740.4 on the existing conditions map shall be reviewed and approved as a
minor conditional use subject to the following standards:
- The boardwalk or bird -watching blind shall be located so that the flow of water
within the Ohio Key area of critical county concern is not altered; and
- The boardwalk or bird -watching blind shall be located so as to not interrupt wading
bird use of the lands designated as 612 and 500 on the existing conditions map.
• Except as expressly provided for and modified by the Ohio Key area of critical county
concern, all development in the area shall be subject to each and every provision of the
MCLDC; and
• In addition to the Monroe County criteria, any proposed development will be required to
meet all federal, state and local regulations.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
ruture Land Use 52 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.7 Historic Resources
(Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b), EA Q
2.3.7.1 National Register of Historic Places
This Historic Preservation Act of 1966 created the National Register of Historic Places (the
"Register") and the corresponding State Historic Preservation Offices (SHPO).9 The passage
of the act, which was amended in 1980 and 1992, established a broad -based historic
preservation policy. The Register is administered by the National Park Service (NPS), an
agency within the United States Department of the Interior. Its mission is, "... to coordinate
and support public and private efforts to identify, evaluate, and protect America's historic
and archeological resources."10
The Register reviews nominations submitted by states, tribes, and other federal agencies
and lists eligible properties; offers guidance on evaluating, documenting, and listing
different types of historic places; assists qualified historic properties to obtain preservation
benefits and incentives; manages the National Historic Lighthouse Preservation; and
sponsors the Cultural Resources Diversity Program to diversify historic preservation and
cultural resource management.
Within the County as a whole, there are currently 59 sites and structures listed on the
Register. The sites and structures, located within the unincorporated areas of the County,
are inventoried on Table 2.16, below.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
q National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, Public Law 102-575.
10 "About Us" (n.d., para.1). National Register of Historic Places. Retrieved from
http://www.nps.gov/nr/about htm.
Future Land Use 53 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.16 - National Register of Historic Places, Unincorporated Keys
Ref Num
Resource Name Address
Mud Lake Canal Cape Sable,
Flamingo
20060920
io]6000979
Everglades
National Park
02000494
USCG Cutter DUANE
1 mi. S of Molasses
Key Largo
20020516
Reef
01000228
Dry Tortugas National
70 mi. West of Key
Key West
19921026
Park
West
04000788
Overseas Highway and
Parallel to U.S. 1
Key Largo
20040803
Railway Bridges
(Approx. MM 9.8-
(Boundar Increase)
72.8)
84000199
Carysfort Lighthouse
Key Largo National
Key Largo
19841031
Marine Sanctuar
91001771
African Queen
99701 Overseas
Key Largo
91001771
H
79000684
Overseas Highway and
Bridges on U.S. 1
Florida Keys
79000684
Railway Bridges
between Long and
Conch Key, Knight
and Little Duck Key,
and Bahia Honda
and Spanish Key
96001183
Rookery Mound
Address Restricted
Everglades City
96001183
96001182
Bear Lake Mounds
Address Restricted
Flamingo
96001182
Archeological District
70000069
Fort Jefferson National
68 mi. W oT Key
Dry Tortugas
19701110
Monument
West, in Gulf of
Islands
Mexico
96001180
Ten Thousand Islands
Address Restricted
Everglades City
19961105
Archeological District
96001179
Cane Patch
Address Restricted
Everglades City
19961105
82002377
Bat Tower -Sugarloaf Key
1 mi. NW of U.S. 1
Sugarloaf Key
19820513
on Perky Key
75000562
Rock Mound
Address Restricted
Key Largo
197SO701
172000340
Archeological Site
John Pennekamp Coral
U.S. 1
Key Largo
19720414
Reef State Park and
Reserve
Source: National Register of Historic Places, September 2010
2.3.7.2 Florida Master Site File of Historic Resources in Monroe County
The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) is the entity that maintains the Florida Master
Site File (FMSF) inventory for the County, and for coordinating the review of historic
resource nominations to the National Register of Historic Places. The FMSF includes
suture Land Use 54 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
structures and archeological sites. In total, the FMSF currently contains 391 listings of
historic structures in the unincorporated Keys, 222 of which are housing.
Sites are added to the FMSF when completed site file forms describing the characteristics and
history of the site are submitted to the Florida Department of State, Division of Historic
Resources. Although the FMSF provides an extensive inventory of historic resources, the
process does not evaluate the significance of listed sites. However, any sites which are listed
or have been determined to be eligible for listing on the National Register are noted as such
in their FMSF record.
Some structures and sites listed in the FMSF have undergone further evaluation to determine
the degree of their significance as part of the nomination process for the National Register of
Historic Places; these are inventoried on Table 2.17 and Table 2.19 (Tavernier). Other
structures and sites (excluding those eligible or listed on the Register, and those in the
Tavernier Historic District) listed on the FMSF, are shown on Table 2.18. Structures on the
FMSF which are located in the Tavernier Historic District are shown separately on Table
2.2 0.
Historic Structures and the Tavernier Historic District are illustrated on the Map Series 2.1
and Map Series 2-3.
Table 2.17- Florida Master Site File, Historic Structures Potentially Eligible for
Listing on the National Register of Historic Places
,Site ID
Name
Address
use
M001485
I Water Metering Station
Overseas HVY
Other
15410-15470 Old South
M001896
Sugarloaf Fishing Cabin CD
4a Rd
Other
15410-15470 Old South
M001897
Sugarloaf Cabin 2
4a Rd
Other
15410-15470 Old South
M001898
Sugarloaf Fishing Cabin 3
4a Rd
Other
M001947
Squires Homestead
No File
M003732
Spanish Harbor Rest Area
Overseas Hwy
Restaurant
Museum/art
M003447
Matheson, William John House
gallery/ lanetarium
81 South Conch Avenue, Conch
M003711
Key
81 S Conch Ave
Private residence
M001934
Key Largo Limestone Seawall
98650 Overseas Hwy
Boat ram
Lodge
e (club)
M003682
Key Largo Anglers Club
50 Clubhouse Rd
building
MO03692 j
Key Largo Lode
55 Oceana Dr
Private residence
C-1- ri -irll
T4-,1r.... C;f,. C:1,. t.. _........_. -nn
rurure Lana use 55 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan U
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures
Site 11) Name
Iower Keys Plan ning Area
M001265 Big Pine Key #12
Address
Oleander St
Use
Other
M001295
American Shoals Lighthouse
Lighthouse
M001487
Nut House Gift Shop
717 Overseas Hwy
M001488
Purple Porpoise Pub
301 Overseas Hwy
M001871
Key West Boca Chica Bldg 132
Unsp Sarato a Ave
Hangar
M001872
Key West Geiger Key Hawk Missile
Site
Highway 941 Boca Chica
Rd.
Other
M001899
Sugarloaf Fishing Cabin (4)
15410-15470 Old South 4a
Rd
Other
M001960
Dynamite Bunkers
U.S. 1
Military
M002708
Veteran's Memorial Park
Mm40 Overseas Hwy
Park
M003500
Key West Boca Chica Building 102
Yorktown Ave
Other
M003501
Key West Boca Chica Building 108
Midway Ave
Warehouse
M003502
Key West Boca Chica Building 109
Midway Ave
Warehouse
M003503
Key West Boca Chica Buildin 126
Yorktown Ave
Other
M003504
Key West Boca Chica Building 127
Yorktown Ave
Office building
M003505
KeyWest Boca Chica Building129
Yorktown Ave
RetailEestablisqM003506
Ke West Boca Chica Buildin 131
Saratoga Ave
Han
M003507
Key West Boca Chica Building 133
Yorktown Ave
Warehouse
M003508
Key West Boca Chica Building 134
Military Ave
Warehouse
M003509
Key West Boca Chica Building 143
Yorktown Ave
Warehouse
M003510
Key West Boca Chica Building 149
Saratoga Ave
Warehouse
M003511
Key West Boca Chica Building 153
Saratoga Ave
Warehouse
M003512
Key West Boca Chica Building 156
Yorktown Ave
Warehouse
M003513
Key West Boca Chica Building 222
Midway Ave
Warehouse
M003514
Key West Boca Chica Building 225
Midway Ave
Other
Source: riuriva iviaster Site rue, January /-uiu
Future Land Use 56 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
--Site ID
M003515
Nanie
Key West Boca Chica Building 227
Address
Midway Ave
Fitness center or spa
M003516
Key West Boca Chica Building 229
Midway Ave
Other
M003517
Key West Boca Chica Building 230
Saratoga Ave
Transmission
structure (electrical)
M003518
Key West Boca Chica Building 314
Saratoga Ave
Office building
M003519
Key West Boca Chica Building 405
Midway Ave
Bank
M003520
Key West Boca Chica Building 409
Langley Ave
Milita
M003521
Key West Boca Chica Building 414
Midway Ave
Warehouse
Mo03522
Key West Boca Chica Building 418
Saratoga Ave
Office building
Mo03523
Key West Boca Chica Building 419
Midway Ave
Warehouse
Mo03524
Key West Boca Chica Building 423
Saratoga Ave
Office building
Mo03525
Key West Boca Chica Building 508
Langley Ave
Library
Mo03526
Key West Boca Chica Building 514
Military
Mo03527
Key West Boca Chica Building 515
Langley Ave
Migrant housing
Mo03528
Key West Boca Chica Building 516
Hornet Ave
Warehouse
Mo03529
Key West Boca Chica Tennis Court
#524
Dekalb Ave
Other
Mo03530
Key West Boca Chica Building 618
Hornet Ave
Dining hall
Mo03531
Key West Boca Chica Building 624
Saratoga Ave
Other
Mo03532
Key West Boca Chica Building 625
Randolph Ave
Other
Mo03533
Key West Boca Chica Building 626
Randolph Ave
Office building
Mo03534
Key West Boca Chica Building 627
Randolph Ave
Office building
Mo03535
Key West Boca Chica Building 628
Lexington Ave
Office building
Mo03536
Key West Boca Chica Building 629
Lexington Ave
Office building
Mo03537
Key West Boca Chica Building 630
Langley Ave
Office building
Future Land Use 57 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
M003540
Key West Boca Chica Building 634
Ticonderoga Ave
Lodge (club) building
M003541
Key West Boca Chica Building 635
Langley Ave
Office building
M003542
Key West Boca Chica Baseball
Field #652
Forrestal Ave
Other
M003543
Key West Boca Chica Basketball
Court 655
Randolph Ave
Other
M003544
Key West Boca Chica Building 711
Essex Circ
Office building
M003545
Key West Boca Chica Building 718
Essex Circ
Education related
M003546
Key West Boca Chica Building 803
Warehouse
M003547
Key West Boca Chica Buildings
805-807
Warehouse
M003548
Key West Boca Chica Buildings
808
Warehouse
M003549
Key West Boca Chica Buildings
902
Shan ri La Ave
Office building
M003550
Key West Boca Chica Field
Building 1004
Communications-
related
M003606
Key West Truman Annex Building
A-146
Yorktown Ave
Warehouse
M003610
Key West Boca Chica Hawk Missile
Site
Boca Chica Key
Milita
M003622
Arenson
50 Palmetto Dr
Private residence
M003623
No Name Pub
Restaurant
M003726
Honeymoon Cottage
Museum/art
gallery/planetarium
M003733
31131 Avenue D, Big Pine Key
31131 Avenue D
Private residence
M003734
31336 Avenue E, Big Pine Key
31336 Avenue E
Private residence
M003735
Tackle And Bait Shop
1791 Bo ie Dr
Private residence
M003736
30371 Poinciana Road, Big Pine
Key
30371 Poinciana Dr
Private residence
M003737
30457 Palm Drive, Big Pine Key
30457 Palm Dr
Private residence
M003738
30423 Oleander Boulevard, Big
Pine Key
30423 Oleander Blvd
Private residence
M003739
30434 Oleander Boulevard, Big
Pine Key
30434 Oleander Blvd
Private residence
Future Land Use 58 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
7003740
30458 Oleander Boulevard, Big
Pine Ke
30458 Oleander Blvd
Private residence
MO03741
423 Barry Avenue, Little Torch
Key
423 Barry Ave
Private residence
MO03742
433 Barry Avenue, Little Torch
Key
433 Barry Ave
Private residence
MO03743
580 Barry Avenue, Little Torch
Key
580 Barry Avenue
Private residence
MO03744
1257 Warner Road, Little Torch
Key
1257 Warner Rd
Private residence
MO03745
1269 Mills Road, Little Torch Key
1269 Mills Rd
Private residence
MO03746
1263 Mills Road, Little Torch Key
1263 Mills Rd
Private residence
MO03747
26936 Shanahan Road, Ramrod
Key
26936 Shanahan Rd
Private residence
MO03748
24915 Horace Street,
Summerland Key
24915 Horace St
Private residence
MO03749
24945 Center Street, Summerland
Key
24945 Center St
Private residence
MO03750
25063 Center Street, Summerland
Key
25063 Center St
Private residence
MO03751
13 Center Street, Summerland
Key
13 Center St
Private residence
MO03752
Horace And Center Streets,
Summmerland
Horace And Center St
Private residence
MO03753
Restaurant And Fish Market
Mm25 Overseas Hwy
Restaurant
MO03754
637 2nd Street, Summerland Key
637 2nd St
Private residence
MO03755
25044 45th Street, Summerland
Key
25044 45th St
Private residence
MO03756
Galley Grill Restaurant
Mm25 Overseas Hwy
Restaurant
MO03757
60 Dobie Street, Summerland Key
60 Dobie St
Private residence
MO03758
21074 Overseas Highway, Cudjoe
Key
21074 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
MO03759
Mangrove Mamas
Mm20 Overseas Hwy
Restaurant
MO03760
81 Johnson Road, Sugarloaf Ke
81 Johnson Rd
Private residence
MO03761
71 Johnson Road, Sugarloaf Key
71 Johnson Rd
Private residence
Future Land Use 59 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
19556 Navajo Street, Sugarloaf
rehensive Plan Update
M003762 Key 19556 Navajo St Private residence
19580 Mayan Street, Sugarlaof
M003763 Kev ic)gRn 10-- ct
M003764
19674 Indian Mound Drive,
Sugarloaf Key
- ...y ...,, „�
19674 Indian Mound Dr
. i ivaLc Ica1UC11LC
Private residence
M003765
19591 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key
19591 Aztec Dr
Private residence
M003766
19616 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key
19616 Aztec Dr
Private residence
M003767
19582 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key
19582 Aztec Dr
Private residence
M003768
19572 Aztec Drive, Sugarloaf Key
19572 Aztec Dr
Private residence
M003769
19583 Seminole Street, Sugarloaf
Key
19583 Seminole St
Private residence
M003770
19658 Seminole Street, Sugarloaf
Key
19658 Seminole St
Private residence
M003771
19520 Tequesta Street, Sugarloaf
Key
19520 Te uesta St
Private residence
M003772
19525 Date Palm Drive, Sugarloaf
Key
19525 Date Palm Dr
Private residence
M003773
19545 Date Palm Drive, Sugarloaf
Key
19545 Date Palm Dr
Private residence
M003774
Chase House
Airport Rd
Private residence
M003775
Sugarloaf Lodge
17001 Overseas Hwy
Hotel, Motel, Inn
M003776
Babys Coffee
3784 Overseas Hwy
Shop
M003777
31 Bay Drive, Saddlebunch Keys
31 Bay Dr
Private residence
M003778
30 Bay Drive, Saddlebunch Keys
30 Bay Dr
Private residence
M003779
6 West Circle Drive, Saddlebunch
Keys
6 W Circle Dr
Apartment
M003780
5570 Laurel Avenue, Stock Island
5570 Laurel Ave
Commercial
M003781
5675 5th Avenue, Stock Island
5675 5th Ave
Commercial
M003782
Daewoo Dealership
5200 Overseas Hwy
Automobile
dealership
M003783
5158 Overseas Highway, Stock
Island
5158 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
M003784
5135 Suncrest Avenue, Stock
Island
5135 Suncrest Ave
Private residence
M003785 1
La Jen Hair Fashions
5635 Macdonald Ave
Commercial and
residence
Future Land Use 60 Technical Document: May 0011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
MO03786
Name
40 Palmetto Drive, Big Coppitt
Key
AddressSitelD
40 Palmetto Dr
Private residence
MO03787
41 Palmetto Drive, Big Coppitt
Key
41 Palmetto Dr
Private residence
MO03788
48 Palmetto Drive, Big Coppitt
Key
48 Palmetto Dr
Private residence
MO03789
47 Palmetto Drive, Big Coppitt
Key
47 Palmetto Dr
Private residence
MO03790
13 Cactus Drive, Big Co2pitt Key
13 Cactus Dr
Private residence
MO03791
15 Cactus Drive, Big Coppitt Key
15 Cactus Dr
Private residence
MO03792
25 Cactus Drive, Big Coppitt Key
25 Cactus Dr
Private residence
MO03793
24 Cactus Drive, Big Coppitt Key
24 Cactus Dr
Private residence
MO03794
Prado Circle, Big Coppitt
Prado Circ
Meetinghouse
(religious)
MO03795
381 Avenue F, Big Coppitt Key
381 Avenue F
Private residence
MO03796
Corner Of 2nd St & Ave F, Big
Coppitt
Private residence
MO03797
401 Avenue E, Big Coppitt Key
401 Avenue E
Private residence
MO03798
521 Avenue D, Big Coppitt Key
521 Avenue D
Private residence
MO03799
540 Avenue D, Big Coppitt Key
540 Avenue D
Private residence
MO03800
531 Avenue D, Big Coppitt Key
531 Avenue D
Apartment
MO03801
530 Avenue C, Big Coppitt Key
530 Avenue C
Apartment
MO03802
310 Avenue B, Big Coppitt Key
310 Avenue B
Private residence
MO03803
21 1st Street, Big Coppitt Key
21 1st St
Private residence
MO03804
46 1st Street, Big Coppitt Key
46 1st St
Private residence
MO03805
44 1st Street, Big Coppitt Key
441st St
Private residence
MO03806
45 1st Street, Big Coppitt Key
45 1st St
Private residence
ruture Lana use 61 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
Site ID
MO03807
Name
47 1st Street, Big Coppitt Key
Address
47 1st St
Private residence
MO03808
410 Avenue A, Big Coppitt Key
410 Avenue A
Private residence
MO03809
Southern Keys Cemetery Office
258 4th St
Office
MO03810
Big Coppitt First Baptist Church
200 Avenue F
Meetinghouse
(religious)
MO03811
Avenue F, Beside Big Coppitt Park
Avenue F
Garage
MO03812
20 4th Street, Big Coppitt Key
20 4th St
Private residence
MO03813
217 Avenue G, Big Coppitt Key
217 Avenue G
Private residence
MO03814
200 Avenue G, Big Coppitt Key
200 Avenue G
Private residence
MO03815
101 Avenue G, Big Coppitt Key
101 Avenue G
Private residence
MO03816
718 4th Avenue, Big Coppitt Key
718 4th Ave
Duplex
MO03817
716 4th Avenue, Big Coppitt Key
716 4th Ave
Duplex
MO03818
218 Shore Avenue, Big Coppitt
Key
218 Shore Ave
Private residence
MO03819
204 Shore Avenue, Big Coppitt
Key
204 Shore Ave
Private residence
MO03820
Bobalus Southern Cafe
Mm 10 Overseas Hwy
Restaurant
MO03821
231 Coppitt Road, Big Coppitt Key
231 Coppitt Rd
Private reEand
Pur le Por oise
Mm 9.7 Overseas Hwy
CommerciMO03822
apartment
MO03823
519 Palm Drive, East Rockland
Key
519 Palm Dr
Private residence
MO03824
557 Park Drive, East Rockland
Key
557 Park Dr
Private residence
MO03825
578 Hammock Drive, East
Rockland Key
578 Hammock Dr
Private residence
MO03826
Raybro Electrical Supplies
5648 Maloney St
Shop
MO03827
Burrin Animal Hospital
2nd St
Office
MO03828
Boyds Campground
Maloney St
Office
MO03829
6400 2nd Street, Stock Island
6400 2nd St
Private residence
MO03830
6408 2nd Street, Stock Island
6408 2nd St
Apartment
MO03831
Mckillup Rentals
5530 3rd Ave
Apartment
Future Land Use 62 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
SiteID
M003832
Name
Lo ez A artments
AddrAeSS
5691 3rd Ave
use
Apartment
M003833
Key West Kennel Club Race Track
5th Ave
Raceway
M003834
5339 5th Avenue, Stock Island
5339 5th Ave
Apartment
M003835
53315th Avenue, Stock Island
5331 5th Ave
Private residence
M003836
5 6th Avenue, Stock Island
5 6th Ave
Private residence
M003837
19 6th Avenue, Stock Island
19 6th Ave
Private residence
M003838
315 Cross Street, Stock Island
315 Cross St
Private residence
M003839
311 Cross Street, Stock Island
311 Cross St
Private residence
M003840
309 Cross Street, Stock Island
309 Cross St
Private residence
M003841
303 Cross Street, Stock Island
303 Cross St
Private residence
M003842
408 Balido Street, Stock Island
408 Balido St
Private residence
M003843
1 404 Balido Street, Stock Island
404 Balido St
Private residence
M003844
400 Balido Street, Stock Island
400 Balido St
Private residence
M003845
397 Balido Street, Stock Island
397 Balido St
Private residence
M003846
399 Balido Street, Stock Island
399 Balido St
Private residence
M003847
403 Balido Street, Stock Island
403 Balido St
Private residence
M003848
405 Balido Street, Stock Island
405 Balido St
Private residence
M003849
407 Balido Street, Stock Island
407 Balido St
Private residence
M003850
409 Balido Street, Stock Island
409 Balido St
Private residence
M003851
411 Balido Street, Stock Island
411 Balido St
Private residence
M003852
410 Balido Terrace, Stock Island
410 Balido Terr
Private residence
M003853
404 Balido Street, Stock Island
404 Balido St
Private residence
M003854
402 Balido Terrace, Stock Island
402 Balido Terr
Private residence
M003855
400 Balido Terrace, Stock Island
400 Balido Terr
Private residence
Future Land Use 63 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
Site ID Narne
M003856 424 County Road, Stock Island
Address
424 County Rd
Use
Private residence
M003857 420 County Road, Stock Island
420 County Rd
Private residence
M003858 410 County Road, Stock Island
410 County Rd
Private residence
M003859 400 County Road, Stock Island
400 County Rd
Private residence
M003856 424 County Road, Stock Island
'Middle
M003701 35 Seaview Avenue, Conch Key
424 County Rd
35 Seaview Ave
Private residence
Private residence
M003702
44 Seaview Avenue, Conch Key
44 Seaview Ave
Private residence
M003703
'55 Seaview Avenue, Conch Key
55 Seaview Ave
Private residence
M003704
85 Seaview Avenue, Conch Key
85 Seaview Ave
Private residence
M003705
42 North Conch Avenue, Conch Key
42 N Conch Ave
Private residence
M003706
52 North Conch Avenue, Conch Key
52 N Conch Ave
Private residence
M003707
63 North Conch Avenue, Conch Key
63 N Conch Ave
Private residence
M003708
73 North Conch Avenue, Conch Key
73 N Conch Ave
Private residence
M003709
97 North Conch Avenue, Conch Key
97 N Conch Ave
Private residence
M003710
120 West Conch Avenue, Conch
Key
120 W Conch Ave
Private residence
M003712
61 South Conch Avenue, Conch Key
61 S Conch Ave
Private residence
M003713
30 South Conch Avenue, Conch Key
30 S Conch Ave
Private residence
M003714
Upper
M001302
20 South Conch Avenue, Conch Key
African Queen
20 S Conch Ave
99701 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
Vessel -water going
M001932
Reefcomber Motel
98650 Overseas Hwy
Hotel, Motel, Inn
M001982
Parsonage
148 Atlantic Circle Dr
Private residence
M002076
Rock Garden Lodge -Chinese
Restaurant
U.S. 1, Mile Marker 98
Restaurant
M002077 I
Tracy, Francis Garden Center
U.S. 1, Mile Marker 94
Commercial
Future Land Use 64 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
Site ID
M002078
Name
U.S. Hwy 1, Mile Marker 97.6 (A)
Address
U.S. 1, Mile Marker 97.6
Commercial and
residence
M002079
U.S. Hwy 1, Mile Marker 97.6 (B)
U.S. 1, Mile Marker 97.6
Private residence
M002083
U.S. Hwy 1, Mile Marker 98.3
Mm 98.3 Overseas Hwy
Commercial
M002084
Old Post Office
Mm 99 Overseas H
Meetinghouse
(religious)
M002085
Allen Chapel, A M E Church
Mm101 Burlington St
House of worshi
M002086
NW Turn Of Loquat Drive
Lo uat Drive
Abandoned or
vacant
M002087
Se Turn Of Lo uat Drive
Lo uat Drive
Private residence
M003649
162 Jo Jean Drive, Tavernier
162 Jo Jean Dr
Private residence
M003650
192 Harborview Drive, Tavernier
192 Harbor View Dr
Private residence
M003651
140 Sterling Street, Tavernier
140 Sterling St
Private residence
M003653
130 Sterling Street, Tavernier
130 Sterling St
Private residence
M003654
149 Sterling Street, Tavernier
149 Sterling St
Private residence
M003657
94400 Overseas Highway,
Tavernier
94400 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
M003658
97260 Overseas Highway, Key
Largo
97260 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
M003659
Mm97.8 Overseas Highway, Key
Largo
Mm97.8 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
M003660
Sea Trail Motel
98620 Overseas Hwy
Hotel, Motel, Inn
M003661
Key Largo Ranger Station
Mm 98.9 Overseas Hwy
Governmental
Offices
M003662
99330 Overseas Highway, Key
Largo
99330 Overseas Hwy
Commercial
M003663
99314 Overseas Highway, Key
Largo
99314 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
M003665
104 Palmetto Street, Tavernier
104 Palmetto St
Private residence
M003666
15 Seaside Avenue, Tavernier
15 Seaside Ave
Private residence
M003667
113 North Bay Harbor Road, Key
Largo
113 N Bay Harbor Rd
Private residence
M003668
150 South Bayview Drive, Key
Largo
150 S Bayview Rd
Private residence
M003669
239 South Bay Harbor Drive, Key
Largo
239 S Bay Harbor Rd
Private residence
M003670
116 South Coco Plum Drive, Key
Largo
116 S Coco Plum Dr
Private residence
V ULUI U Ld1lU USC 65 Technical Document: May 0011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan U
Table 2.18 - Florida Master Site File Structures (continued)
Site 11)
M003671
Name
126 Harbor Drive, Key Largo
Address
126 Harbor Dr
Use
Private residence
M003672
145 Harbor Drive, Key Largo
145 Harbor Dr
Private residence
M003673
16 Seagate Road, Key Largo
16 Seagate Rd
Private residence
M003674
4 Coral Drive, Key Largo
4 Coral Dr
Private residence
M003675
139 Bayview Drive, Key Largo
139 Bayview Dr
Private residence
M003676
Dorothy Lester House
138 Bavview Dr
Private residence
M003678
462 Sunset Drive, Key Largo
462 Sunset Dr
Private residence
M003679
99550 Overseas Highway, Key
Largo
99550 Overseas Hwy
Commercial
M003680
107 Jasmine Drive, Key Lar o
107 Jasmine Dr
Private residence
M003681
88 Coconut Drive, KeyLargo
88 Coconut Dr
Private residence
M003683
6 Coral Way, Key Largo
6 Coral Way
Private residence
M003684
2 Paradise Drive, Key Largo
2 Paradise Dr
Private residence
M003685
19 Coral Way, Key Largo
19 Coral Way
Private residence
M003686
17 Tarpon Avenue, Key Largo
17 Tarpon Ave
Private residence
M003687
28 Tarpon Avenue, Key Largo
28 Tarpon Dr
Private residence
M003688
40 Marlin Avenue, Key Largo
40 Marlin Ave
Private residence
M003689
16 Marlin Avenue, Key Largo
16 Marlin Ave
Private residence
M003690
12 Marlin Avenue, Key Largo
12 Marlin Ave
Private residence
M003691
Caribbean Club
104504 Overseas Hwy
Commercial
M003693
815 Oceana Road, Key Largo
815 Oceana Rd
Private residence
M003694
811 Oceana Road, Key Largo
811 Oceana Rd
Private residence
M003695
808 Oceana Road, Key Largo
808 Oceana Rd
Private residence
M003696
804 Oceana Road, Key Largo
804 Oceana Rd
Private residence
M003697
24 Oceana Road, Key Largo
24 Oceana Rd
Private residence
M003698
17 Transylvania Avenue, Key Largo
17 Transylvania Ave
Private residence
M003699
35 Transylvania Avenue, Key Largo
35 Transylvania Ave
Private residence
M003700
39 Transylvania Avenue, Key Largo
39 Transylvania Ave
Private residence
Source: Florida Master Site File, January 2010
Future Land Use 66 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.7.3 Historic Landmark Area District Studies
Monroe County Code of Ordinance Article III (Sections 134-55 and 134-56) contains a
procedure for designating local historic landmarks. To date, only the three longest Overseas
Railroad Bridges: Long Key, Bahia Honda and Seven Mile railroad bridges, have been
designated as local historical landmarks.
The Tavernier Historic District, as recommended by Tavernier Livable CommuniKeys Plan
(LCP), is bounded on the north by the U.S. 1, on the west by the Tavernier Creek, on the
south by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the east by Mile Marker (MM) 92. The general location
of Tavernier's local historic district is shown on Map Series 2-1 and Map Series 2-3 of the
Map Atlas. Of the 344 listings of historic structures in the unincorporated Keys, 62 are
located in Tavernier Historic District as shown in Table 2.24 and Table 2.25. Of the 62
structures in Tavernier, 53 are residences.
On February 5, 2010, the Florida Department of State Division of Historic Resources
determined that the Tavernier Historic District is potentially eligible for listing on the
National Register of Historic Places.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 67 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.19 - Tavernier Historic Structures Potentially Eligible for Listing on the
National Register of Historic Places
SITUD
M001889
NAME
200 Beach Road
AIDDRESS
200 Beach Rd
USE
Private residence
M001984
Woods, 0 M House
189 Beach Rd
Private residence
M001985
Station Masters House
198 Beach Rd.
Private residence
M001990
180 Lowe St
180 Lowe St
Private residence
M001992
Red Cross House
184 Lowe St
Private residence
M001993
Lowe, Alice House
224 Ocean Tral
Private residence
M001994
131 Ocean View Drive
131 Ocean View Dr
Private residence
M001995
Tavernier Methodist Church
91701 Overseas Hwy
Community center
(e.g., recreation
hall
M001996
Tavernier Hotel
91865 Overseas Hwy
Hotel, Motel, Inn
M001997
Albury, Merlin House
91731 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
M001998
Old Tavernier Post Office
91951 Overseas Hwy
Commercial
M001999
Albury, Willard House
91991 Overseas Hwy
Private residence
M002000
Albury, J V House
92001 Overseas Hwy
Medical
M002004
Carpenter, Cliff House
114 Sunrise Dr
Private residence
M002009
Albury, Charles House
132 Tavern Dr
Private residence
M002010
Wilkinson House
159 Tavernier Trail
Private residence
M002013
Albury, Rodney House
200 Albury Ln
Private residence
M003625
Copper Kettle Restaurant
91875 Overseas Hwy
Pharmacy
M003626
Old Tavern Tea Room
91861 Overseas Hwy
Restaurant
M003630
190 Atlantic Circle Drive,
Tavernier
190 Atlantic Circle Dr
Private residence
M003633
Roberts House
140 S Sunrise Dr
Private residence
M003715
165 Tavernier Trail, Tavernier
165 Tavernier Trail
Private residence
Source: Florida Master Site File, January 2010
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 68 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.20 - Tavernier Historic Structures
Siteid Name
M001891 163 Coconut Row
Address
163 Coconut Row Na
Use
Private residence
M001892 240 Lincoln Ave
240 Lincoln Avenue Ave
Private residence
M001893 204 Ocean Blvd.
204 Ocean Blvd
Private residence
M001894 137 Sunrise Dr.
137 Sunrise Dr
Private residence
M001983
166 Atlantic Circle
166 Atlantic Circle Dr
Private residence
M001986
Geiger Packing House
91495 Overseas Hwy
Commercial and
residence
M001987
129 Coconut Row
129 Coconut Row
Private residence
M001988
110 Lowe St
110 Lowe St
Private residence
M001989
114 Lowe St
114 Lowe St
Private residence
M001991
181 Lowe St
181 Lowe St
Private residence
M002001
118 Sunrise Drive
118 Sunrise Dr
Private residence
M002002
120 Sunrise Drive
120 Sunrise Dr
Private residence
M002003
Allen, Robert Porter House
133 Sunrise Dr
Private residence
M002005
Carpenter, Cliff Shed
114 Sunrise Dr
Outbuilding
M002006
256 Tarpon Drive
256 Tarpon St
Private residence
M002007
114 Tavernier Drive
114 Tavernier Drive
Private residence
M002008
120 Tavernier Drive
120 Tavernier Dr
Private residence
M002011
136 Tavernier Dr
136 Tavernier Dr
Private residence
M002012
140 Tavernier Dr
140 Tavernier Dr
Private residence
M003627
Old Standard Oil Gas Station
19871 Overseas Hwy
Service station
M003628
143 Atlantic Circle Drive,
Tavernier
143 Atlantic Circle Dr
Private residence
M003629
186 Atlantic Circle Drive,
Tavernier
186 Atlantic Circle Dr
Private residence
M003631
128 Tavernier Drive, Tavernier
128 Tavernier Dr
Private residence
M003632
126 Tavernier Drive, Tavernier
126 Tavernier Dr
Private residence
M003634
162 South Sunrise Drive,
Tavernier
162 S Sunrise Dr
Private residence
M003635
149 South Sunrise Drive,
Tavernier
149 S Sunrise Dr
Private residence
M003636
114 Tavernier Drive, Tavernier
114 Tavernier Dr
Private residence
rurure Lana use 69 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.20 - Tavernier Historic Structures (continued)
MO03637
122 Lowe Street, Tavernier
Address
122 Lowe St
Private residence
MO03638
124 Lowe Street, Tavernier
124 Lowe St
Private residence
MO03639
130 Lowe Street, Tavernier
130 Lowe St
Private residence
MO03640
157 Lowe Street, Tavernier
157 Lowe St
Private residence
MO03641
185 Lowe Street, Tavernier
185 Lowe St
Private residence
MO03642
195 Lowe Street, Tavernier
195 Lowe St
Private residence
MO03643
178 Beach Road, Tavernier
178 Beach Rd
Private residence
MO03644
181 Coconut Row, Tavernier
181 Coconut Row
Private residence
MO03645
115 Coconut Row, Tavernier
115 Coconut Row
Private residence
MO03716
153 Tavernier Trail, Tavernier
153 Tavernier Tral
Private residence
MO03717
137-141 South Sunrise Drive,
Tavernier
137-141 S Sunrise Dr
Apartment
MO03718 1
139 Coconut Row, Tavernier
139 Coconut Row
Private residence
Source: Florida Master Site File, January 2010
Diane E. Silvia, Ph.D. Email to Mitch Harvey. June 29,2010.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 70 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.7.4 Archaeological Sites
Archeological files are also a curate by the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO). In the
County as a whole there are 649 archeological sites. Due to the sensitive nature of
archeological sites and their vulnerability to vandalism, the locations are not illustrated on
the Existing Land Use Map series and are only listed by general location as shown on Table
2.21, below.
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites
M000001
194904
1 Ke West Beach
M000001
197606 1
Ke West Beach
M000001
MELD
Key West Beach
M000002
195110
Stock Island Midden Stock Island 1
M000002
1 ggnl n
Stnrk Telanrl AAiAA /c.-,.,.T_ T_T__ I ,
M000002
MELD
" ••/ ... iaU 1
Stock Island Midden Stock Island 1
COUN
M000003
194306
Boca Chica Key #1
M000003
199006
Boca Chica Key #1
M000003
199605
Boca Chica Key #1
FEDE
M000003
MELD
Boca Chica Key #1
FEDE
M000004
194709
Sugarloaf Key 1
M000004
195110
Sugarloaf Key 1
M000004
199006
Sugarloaf Key 1
M000004
MELD
Sugarloaf Key 1
PRIV
M000005
194904
Cudjoe Key 1
M000005
198712
Cudjoe Key 1
M000005
MELD
Cudjoe Key 1
PRIV
M000006
195110
Ramrod Key 6
M000006
888801
Ramrod Key 6
M000006
MELD
Ramrod Key 6
PRIV
M000007
194406
Watson's Hammock (Big Pine Key)
M000007
194906
Watson's Hammock(Big Pine Ke yl
M000007
197904
Watson's Hammock (Big Pine Key)
M000007
999999
Watson's Hammock f Big Pine Key)
M000007
MELD
Watson's Hammock (Big Pine Key)
M000008
MELD
Big Pine Key 2
UNSP
M000009
194912
Key Vaca 1
M000010
194606 Key Vaca 2
M000011
195110 Coon Key
M000012
194606 Lower Matecumbe Key 1
M000012
200810 Lower Matecumbe Key 1 CORP
M000012
999999 Lower Matecumbe Key 1
M000012
MELD Lower Matecumbe Key 1
M000013
195110 Li numvitae Key Mound
M000014
195110 Li numvitae Key Stone Structure
M000015
195110 Indian Key
Future Land Use 71 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
M000015 1 197204 11ndian Key
M000015 197207 IndianKey
M000015 200510 Indian Kev CTAT
M000015
MELD
Indian Key
M000016
195110
Tea Table Key
M000016
200810
Tea Table Key
CORP
M000017
195110
Upper Matecumbe Key
M000017
200504
Upper Matecumbe Key
STAT
M000017
200810
Upper Matecumbe Key
PRIV
M000017
999999
Upper Matecumbe Key
M000017
MELD
Upper Matecumbe Key
STAT
M000018
200810
Whale Harbor
UNKN
M000018
MELD
Whale Harbor
STAT
M000019
200810
Windley Key
UNKN
M000019
MELD
Windley Key
STAT
M000020
195110
Plantation Ke 1
STAT
M000020
200810
Plantation Key 1
UNKN
M000021
195110
Plantation Key 2
M000021
200810
Plantation Key 2
UNKN
M000022
195110
Plantation Key 3
M000022
199609
Plantation Key 3
PRIV
M000022
200810
Plantation Key 3
PRIV
M000023
195106
Plantation Key 4
M000023
195110
Plantation Key 4
M000023
200810
Plantation Key 4
UNKN
M000023
999999
Plantation Key 4
M000023
MELD
Plantation Key 4
M000024
195110
Plantation Key 5
STAT
M000024
200810 1
Plantation Key 5
UNKN
M000025
MELD
Key Largo 1
M000026
195110
Rock Mound 1 (Midden) Key Largo
M000026
197408
Rock Mound 1 Midden Key Largo
M000026
198500
Rock Mound 1 (Midden) Key Largo
M000027
195110
Rock Mound 2 Rock Mound)(Key Largo 3
M000027
197407
Rock Mound 2 (Rock Mound) (Key Largo 3)
M000027
198500
Rock Mound 2 Rock Mound (Key Largo 3)
M000027
MELD
Rock Mound 2 (Rock Mound) (Key Largo 3)
M000028
195110
Key Largo 4
M000029
195003
Snake Bight Canal
M000029
999999
Snake Bight Canal
M000029
MELD
Snake Bight Canal
M000030
MELD
Bear Lake 4
M000031
MELD
Bear Lake 5
M000033
193806 1
Bear Lake Mounds
FEDE
Future Land Use 72 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
Site ID
M000034
Torm No
MELD
Site 'Name
Bear Lake 2
Dwn p,
M000035
MELD
Bear Lake 3
M000036
195102
East Cape Sable
M000037
195202
Cape Sable Beach
M000038
195202
Cape Sable 2
M000039
194406
Cape Sable 1
M000040
194905
Little Ingraham West
M000041
194905
Big Sable Creek
M000042
194901
Cane Patch
FEDE
M000043
194901
Banana Patch
M000044
195204
Indian Camp Creek Mound
FEDE
M000045
195102
Harney River
M000046
195104
Camp Lonesome
FEDE
M000047
195110
Rodgers River 1
M000048
195110
Rodgers River 2
M000049
195110-1
Onion Key
FEDE
M000050
195102
Willie Willie Mound
M000050
196401
Willie Willie Mound
M000050
MELD
Willie Willie Mound
FEDE
M000051
195110
Highland Point
M000052
195110
Site Back Of Highland Point
FEDE
M000053
195110
Johnson Hammock
FEDE
M000054
195001
Lostmans Key
FEDE
M000055
195102
First Bay
M000055
196401 First Bay
M000055
MELD First Bay
FEDE
M000056 195102 Hamilton Garden Patch
M000056 196401 Hamilton Garden Patch
M000056 MELD Hamilton Garden Patch
FEDE
M000057 195110 Walter Hamilton Place
M000057 196701 Walter Hamilton Place
M000057 MELD Walter Hamilton Place
M000058 195110 NN
M000058 196602 NN
M000058 MELD NN
M000059 195110 Hamilton Mound
M000059 196401 Hamilton Mound
M000059 MELD Hamilton Mound
FEDE
M000060 195110 Gopher Key 1
M000060 196401 Gopher Kev 1
M000060 MELD Gopher Key 1
FEDE
M000061 194906 Gopher Key Z
M000061 196401 Gopher Key 2
M000061 MELD Gopher Key 2
FEDE
Future Land Use 73 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
MO00062
194906
Chevalier Place
MO00062
196406
Chevalier Place
MO00062
999999
Chevalier Place
MO00062
MELD
Chevalier Place
FEDE
MO00063
190006
Watsons Place
MO00063
194906
Watsons Place
MO00063
196401
Watsons Place
MO00063
MELD
Watsons Place
FEDE
MO00064
194906
Miller Point
MO00064
196506
Miller Point
MO00064
888801
Miller Point
MO00064
MELD
Miller Point
FEDE
MO00065
195110
Howard Wood Creek
MO00065
999999
Howard Wood Creek
MO00065
MELD
Howard Wood Creek
MO00066
196007
Huston River
MO00066
196406
Huston River
MO00066
MELD
Huston River
FEDE
MO00067
196401
Tiger -tail Mound
MO00067
888801
Ti ertail Mound
MO00067
MELD
Ti ertail Mound
MO00068
195111
Barne s Mound
MO00068
196401
Barneys Mound
MO00068
MELD
Barne s Mound
MO00069
MELD
Roberts Creek
MO00070
194811
Coconut Cam
MO00070
197704
Coconut Camp
MO00070
MELD
Coconut Camp
FEDE
MO00071
195111
Houses Hammock
FEDE
MO00072
195111
Lopez Place
MO00072
196401
Lopez Place
MO00072
MELD
Lopez Place
FEDE
MO00073
195110
Pinecrest Hammock 1
MO00074
195110
Pinecrest Hammock 3
MO00075
195201
Lundsford
MO00076
195110
Lower Matecumbe 2
MO00076
200810
Lower Matecumbe 2
PRIV
MO00077
195301
Knights Key
MO00078
194906
Doctor Tiger's Hammock
MO00078
197704
Doctor Tiger's Hammock
MO00078
MELD
Doctor Tiger's Hammock
FEDE
MO00079
195110
Ground Rattler Hammock
MO00080
195110
Near Ground Rattler Hammock
MO00081
198508 1
Charley Jumper
FEDE
Future Land Use 74 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
M000090
1 199109
---
j Herrera Wreck
U1VJY
STAT
M000090
200408
Herrera Wreck
UNSP
M000090
MELD
Herrera Wreck
M000091
196509
San Francisco Wreck
M000091
196511
San Francisco Wreck
M000091
200408
San Francisco Wreck
UNKN
M000092
199109
El Infante Wreck
FEDE
M000092
200410
El Infante Wreck
UNSP
M000092
200709
El Infante Wreck
STAT
M000093
196008
NN
M000093
999999
NN
M000093
MELD
NN
FEDE
M000095
196008
New TurkeyKeyFEDE
M000096
196008
Old Turkey Key
M000096
196401
Old Turkey Key
M000096
MELD
Old Turkey KeyFEDE
M000097
196406
Plover Key
FEDE
M000099
196008
Mormon Ke
M000099
196401 tMormon
Key
M000099
MELD
Mormon Kev
FEDE
M000100
196008 NN
M000100
196506 NN
M000100
MELD NN FEDE
M000101
199109 San Jose Wreck UNSP
M000101
200410 San Jose Wreck UNSP
M000102
199109 Chavez Wreck STAT
M000102
200408 Chavez Wreck UNSP
M000102
200509 Chavez Wreck
M000104
200103 San Pedro STAT
M000104
200410 San Pedro
M000104
MELD San Pedro
M000105
196401 Buzzard Key FEDE
M000106
196401 Wood Key
Future Land Use 75 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
Site ID
M000106
form No
197703
Site Name
Wood Key
Own Type
FEDE
M000107
196401
Pavilion Key
FEDE
M000108
196401
Lopez Key
FEDE
M000109
196505
Little House Hammock
FEDE
M000110
196505
Huston River 2
FEDE
M000111
196401
Comer Key
FEDE
M000112
196401
Stokes Mound
FEDE
M000113
196508
Clam Point
FEDE
M000114
196508
Sig Walker Camp
FEDE
M000117
196603
Little Fat Deer Key
M000118
194706
Rookery Mound
M000118
194901
Rookery Mound
M000118
196504
Rookery Mound
M000118
MELD
Rookery Mound
FEDE
M000120
MELD
Duck Rock Cove
FEDE
M000121
196010
Rough Lemon Hammock
FEDE
M000122
MELD
Bradley Key
M000123
MELD
Curry Key
M000124
197502
West Summerland Key
M000124
199010
West Summerland Key
M000124
MELD
West Summerland Key
CONP
M000125
194811
Gas Can Midden
FEDE
M000127
197505
Dynamite Rock
M000127
198212
Dynamite Rock
M000127
198501
Dynamite Rock
M000127
199301
Dynamite Rock
M000127
MELD
Dynamite Rock
M000128
197504
Atlantic
M000129
MELD
Niles Channel
M000130
199706
Henrietta Marie Wreck
UNSP
M000130
MELD
Henrietta Marie Wreck
M000131
197210
San Rafael Wreck
M000131
200408
San Rafael Wreck
UNSP
M000132
196509
Walker Key Wreck Or El Sueco De Arizon
M000132
200409
Walker Key Wreck Or El Sueco De Arizon
M000133
196507
San Felipe Shipwreck
M000133
197709
San Felipe Shi wreck
STAT
M000133
199205
San Felipe Shipwreck
M000133
200409
San Felipe Shipwreck
M000134
MELD
Wreck 12
M000135
196506
Shot Wreck
M000136
196506
Ivory Wreck
MO00137
196506
San Fernando Wreck
M000138
196506
Nn Wreck
Future Land Use 76 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
MO00139 196509
Bronze Wreck
MO00140 MELD
Knight Key Pier Fla ler Railroad Pier
MO00141
197108
Quicksand Wreck
MO00142
197108
West Turtle Shoal Wreck
MO00143
197202
Shipwreck
MO00143
200410
Shipwreck
MO00144
196805
NN Wreck
MO00145
196810
1 NN Wreck
MO00146
197106
Ca itana Wreck
MO00146
Mnnn146
199109
?nn40A
Ca itana Wreck
ra„ ita„n W-1,
FEDE
MO00148
197008
Granite Wreck
MO00149
197010
NN Wreck
MO00150
197010
NN Wreck
MO00151
199109
Iron Ballast Wreck 1
FEDE
MO00152
197105
Swivel Gun Wreck
MO00153
197105
Steel Wreck
MO00154
197105
Schooner Wreck
MO00155
197105
Iron Ballast Wreck 2
MO00156
197106
Brick Wreck
MO00157
197008
Ships Mast Wreck
M000158
197105
Sounding Lead Wreck
MO00159
197106
Ship Wreckage
M000160
197106
NN Wreck
M000161
197106
Nine Cannon Wreck
M000162
197106
NN Wreck
M000163
197106
NN Wreck
M000164
197106
Construction Wreck
M000165
197106
Shipwreck Debris
M000166
197106
Sack Wreck
M000167
197106
NN Wreck
M000168
197106
NN Wreck
M000169
197105 Fischer -Robinson -Clausen Wreck
M000170
197106 Dead Eye Wreck
M000171
197106 NN Wreck
M000172
197106 Shrimp Boat Wreck
M000173
199109 USS Alligator
FEDE
M000174
197205 NN Wreck
M000177
199109 Los Tres Puentes Wreck
STAT
M000177
200408 Los Tres Puentes Wreck
UNSP
M000178
197106 Gallo Indiana Wreck?
M000178
200408 Gallo Indiana Wreck?
M000181
197106 NN Wreck
M000182
197106 NN Wreck
Future Land Use 77 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
Site r
M000183
Form No
197206
Site Name
NN Wreck
Own Type
M000199
195106
H M S Loo Wreck
M000200
195106
Tallman
M000232B
MELD
Marine Hospital
CORP
M000246
197308
Water Key
M000248
197405
Shipwreck 1
FEDE
M000249
197405
Shipwreck 3
FEDE
M000250
197405
Shipwreck 4
FEDE
M000251
197405
Shipwreck 2
FEDE
M000252
197405
Shipwreck 5
FEDE
M000253
197311
Coin Wreck
M000253
200810
Coin Wreck
PRIV
M000256
197411
NN Wreck
M001104
198302
Sig Walker Mound
FEDE
M001105
198302
Castaway Mound
FEDE
M001106
198303
Alligator Bay 7
FEDE
M001107
198303
Alligator Bay 8
FEDE
M001108
198401
Alligator Bay 9
FEDE
M001109
198303
Big Boy Lake 2
FEDE
M001110
198303
Big Lostmans Bay
FEDE
M001111
198403
Oyster Key
FEDE
M001112
198403
Clive Key
FEDE
M001113
198403
MurrayKey
FEDE
M001114
198302
Gator Hook Swamp 1
FEDE
M001115
198302
Gator Hook 2
FEDE
M001116
198206
Mosquito Island Boat Lamp Cam
FEDE
M001117
198301
Indian Camp Creek 4
FEDE
M001118
198301
Indian Camp Creek 5
FEDE
M001119
198302
Indian Camp Creek 6
FEDE
M001120
MELD
Indian Camp Creek 7
FEDE
M001121
198303
Indian Camp Creek 8
FEDE
M001122
198303
Indian Camp Creek 9
FEDE
M001123
198302
Lostmans River 6
FEDE
M001124
198302
Lostmans River 7
FEDE
M001125
198401
Hamilton, Leon Place
FEDE
M001126
198404
Hamilton, Eugene Place
FEDE
M001127
198404
Lostman's River Ranger Station 13
FEDE
M001128
198302
Panther Mound 23
FEDE
M001129
MELD
Pavilion Key 4
FEDE
M001130
198403
Pavilion Key 12
FEDE
M001132
198901
American Shoal Schooner Wreck
FEDE
M001132
200807
American Shoal Schooner Wreck
UNKN
M001133
198403
Pavilion Key 13
FEDE
M001136
198402
Pavilion Key 14
FEDE
Future Land Use 78 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
M001142
198404
Pavilion Key 15
FEDE
M001143
198403
Fort Poinsett
FEDE
M001144
198402
Shark Point 1
FEDE
M001145
198205
Tarpon Bay 1
FEDE
M001150
198206
Tarpon Bay 3
FEDE
M001159
198303
Tarpon Bay 4
FEDE
M001194
MELD
Spanish Harbor Bridge
M001195
MELD
Pigeon Key Railroad Wreck
M001196
200605
Bahia Honda Wreck
STAT
Muni i w,
MR1.1)
Rahin unnrin IA7,-o-1,
M001197
197703
Loop Hammock Island 13
FEDE
M001198
197703
Rock Mound(Loop Hammock Island 121
FEDE
M001199
197703
Taylor Hammock 1
FEDE
M001200
197704
NN
FEDE
M001201
197704
NN
FEDE
M001202
197704
Taylor Hammock 2
FEDE
M001203
197704
Taylor Hammock 3
FEDE
M001204
197704
NN
FEDE
M001205
197703
NN
FEDE
M001206
197704 1
Gator Hook Lake
FEDE
M001207
197704
36th Street
FEDE
M001208
197704
Lime Tree Hammock
FEDE
M001209
197704
Lime Cam
FEDE
M001210
197704
NN
FEDE
M001211
197704
Sandy Mound
FEDE
M001212
197704
Brittlecane Hammock
FEDE
M001213
197705
Tiger Burial
FEDE
M001214
197705
Citrus
FEDE
M001215
197705
Hess
FEDE
M001216
197705
Slough
FEDE
M001217
197705
Dietz
FEDE
M001253
MELD Bow
M001254
MELD Railroad Section Camp 1
M001255
MELD Railroad Section Ca np 2
M001256A
199005 Adderley Town
CONP
M001258
195110 Rock Mound Archaeolo ical Site
M001258
197407 Rock Mound Archaeologic 11 Site
M001258
199509 Rock Mound Archaeolo ical Site
CORP
M001258
MELD Rock Mound Archaeological Site
PRIV
M001261
199009 BigCo itt 1
PREH
M001262
199009 BigPine Key 9
PUUN
M001263
199006 BigPine Key10
PRUN
M001264
199009 Big Pine Key 11
COUN
M001266
199009 Big Pine 13
FEDE
Future Land Use 79 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
Site ID
M001267
Form No
190108
Site Name
Boca Chica #2
Own Type
FEDE
M001267
199605
Boca Chica #2
FEDE
M001268
199009
Boca Chica #3
FEDE
M001268
199605
Boca Chica #3
FEDE
M001269
199008
Cudjoe Key 4
PRIV
M001271
199008
Holiday Key
UNKN
M001272
199006
Little Pine 1
FEDE
M001273
199109
Little Pine Key 2
FEDE
M001274
199009
Little Pine 3
FEDE
M001275
199009
Little Pine 4
FEDE
M001277
199008
Middle Torch Key 1
UNKN
M001278
199008
No Name Key 1
FEDE
M001279
199008
No Name Key 2
FEDE
M001280
199008
No Name Key 3
FEDE
M001281
199008
No Name Key 4
FEDE
M001282
199008
No Name Key 5
FEDE
M001284
199008
No Name 7
FEDE
M001285
199006
No Name Key 8
FEDE
M001286
199006
Ramrod Key 4
PRIV
M001287
199008
Ramrod Key 5
FEDE
M001288
198804
Sawyer Key Homestead
UNKN
M001288
198899
Sawyer Key Homestead
M001289
199006
Stock Island 2
CITY
M001290
199006
Stock Island 3
CITY
M001291
199006
Sugarloaf Key 3
STAT
M001292
199006
Sugarloaf Key 4
PRUN
M001293
199006
Sugarloaf Key 5
STAT
M001294
199006
West Summerland Key 2
CONP
M001296
199008
Cudjoe Key 3
PRIV
M001297
199004
Grass Key Rock Pit
CORP
M001298
198912
Pent
CORP
M001299
199004
Rachel Carson Key
CORP
M001300
199005
Crane Hammock 3
PRIV
M001301
196807
Angela Street 600 Block
PRIV
M001303
199109
Cannabis Trawler
FEDE
M001304
199109
Eagle
FEDE
M001305
199109
Alexander Bare
FEDE
M001306
199109
D & B Barge Wreck
FEDE
M001307
199109
S iney Oyster Barge
FEDE
M001308
199109
Brick Bare
STAT
M001309
199109
Fishing Camp Foundation
STAT
M001310
199109 1
Duane
FEDE
M001310
2002091
Duane
FEDE
M001311
199109
Bibb
FEDE
Future Land Use 80 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan U
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
Site u
M001312
Torm No
199109
Site -Name
Rosalee
Own =Ype
STAT
M001313
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck A
FEDE
M001314
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck B
FEDE
M001315
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck C
FEDE
M001316
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck D
FEDE
M001316
199110
Unidentified Shipwreck D
FEDE
M001316
200802
Unidentified Shipwreck D
UNSP
M001317
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck E
FEDE
M001318
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck F
STAT
M001319
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck G
STAT
M001320
199109
Hawk Channel Schooner Wreck
STAT
M001321
199109
Disgusting Wreck
STAT
M001322
199109
Rum Runner Wreck
STAT
M001323
199109
Brick Wreck
STAT
M001324
199109
Iron Masted Schooner
FEDE
M001325
199109
Welberry Wreck
STAT
M001326
199109
Hms Fly
FEDE
M001327
199109
Indian Key Wreck
STAT
M001328
199109
Bronze Pin Wreck
FEDE
M001329
199109
Schooner Wreck
FEDE
M001330
199109
Windlass Wreck
FEDE
M001331
199109
Brass Wreck
FEDE
M001332
199109
Ore Ballast Schooner Wreck
FEDE
M001334
199109
Kearns Wreck
FEDE
M001335
199109
Indian Key Anchorage
STAT
M001336
199109
Tea Table Anchorage
STAT
M001337
199109
Tavernier Key/Planter Anchorage
STAT
M001338
199109
Rodrigues Key/Roc , Harbor Anchorage
STAT
M001339
199109
Alligator Lighthouse
UNSP
M001340
199109
Bridge Rubble
FEDE
M001341
199206
Round Container
STAT
M001342
199206
Stacked Rock
STAT
M001446
MELD
Stone Wall - Lignum Vitae Key
UNSP
M001448
199201
Muir Wreck
STAT
M001467A
200004
Thompson Turtle Kraals
CITY
M001472
199502
Long Key Dock Piers
UNKN
M001473
199502
Long Key Side Track
STAT
M001474
199502
Long Key Railroad Residence
STAT
M001475
199502
Islamorada Railroad Residence
STAT
M001475
200810
Islamorada Railroad Residence
STAT
M001477
199605
Nn
FEDE
M001478
199605
Nn
FEDE
M001480
199611
Crane Road Cisterns
UNSP
M001491
200308
Vestige Of Fla ler Railroad
CORP
Future Land Use 81 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
,Site ID
M001866
form Ni)
200401
Site Name
Naval Branch Medical Clinic
Own Type
FEDE
M001867
200401
Peary Court
FEDE
M001868
200401
Truman Annex
FEDE
M001869
200401
Trumbo Point
FEDE
M001870
200401
Trumbo Point 2
FEDE
M001879
200410
Bronze Pin Wreck Off Grassy Key
UNSP
M001879
200807
Bronze Pin Wreck Off Grassy Key
UNKN
M001880
200410
Rib Wreck
UNSP
M001880
200706
Rib Wreck
UNSP
M001881
200410
Brick Wreck Off Key Colony Beach
UNSP
M001881
200605
Brick Wreck Off Key Colony Beach
STAT
M001882
200401
Trumbo Point 3
FEDE
M001883
200510
Lower Matecumbe Wells
CORP
M001883
200810
Lower Matecumbe Wells
CORP
M001885
200504
Choate Construction Basin
STAT
M001885
200810
Choate Construction Basin
STAT
M001886
200504
Hurricane Debris
STAT
M001886
200810
Hurricane Debris
STAT
M001887
200605
Bahia Honda Ballast Stone Pile
STAT
MO01901
200803
Upper Matecumbe Key
PR1V
M001901
200810
Upper Matecumbe Key
PRIV
M001902
200710
Snake Creek Anchor
STAT
M001902
200810
Snake Creek Anchor
STAT
MO01904
200803
Jewell Key
FEDE
M001923
200807
Sister Creek Channel Site
UNKN
M001924
200811
Key West WWI Naval Air Station
FEDE
MO01959
MELD
Duck Pond Dump
MO01961
199502
Windley Key Quarry
STAT
MO01961
200810
Windley Key Quarry
STAT
M001961
MELD
Windley Key Quarry
MO01962
198204
Village Of Planter
MO01965
198209
Port Bougainville i
MO01965
198212
Port Bougainville 1
MO01966
198209
Port Bougainville 2
MO01966
198212
Port Bougainville 2
MO01967
198212
Heart Hammock
MO01968
198212
Sherd
MO01969
198212
Adze
UNKN
MO01970
198212
Garden Cove
CORP
MO01971
198212
Celt
CORP
MO01972
198212
Laura
CORP
MO01973
198212
Frag
CORP
MO01974
198212
Bus con Adze
CORP
M001975 1
198212
Columella
CORP
Future Land Use 82 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
M001978
I MELD
Pumpkin Key
M001981
199006
Big Munson Ke
CONP
M002014
198006
Mcgee
FEDE
M002015
198006
Nn Bic 206
FEDE
M002016
198006
Nn Bicy 211)
FEDE
M002017
198006
Nn (Bicy 212
FEDE
M002018
198006
Nn Bic 237)
FEDE
M002019
198006
Nn Bic 238
FEDE
M002020
198006
Nn Bicy 239)
FEDE
M002021
198006
Nn Bic 240
FEDE
Mmmn??
1oanoA
noel T,-oo
M002023
198006
Nn Bic 241
FEDE
M002024
198006
Nn Bic 242
FEDE
M002025
198006
Nn(Bicy 244
FEDE
M002026
198006
Nn Bicy 245
FEDE
M002027
198006
Dixon's Slough
FEDE
M002028
198006
Gum Slough
FEDE
M002029
198006
Slough Interchange
FEDE
M002030
198006
Gator Croak
FEDE
M002031
198006
Gimp
FEDE
M002032
198006
Biy 261
FEDE
M002033
198006
Bicy 279
FEDE
M002034
198006
Biy 280
FEDE
M002035
198006
BicV 281
FEDE
M002036
198006
Fred Da hoff
FEDE
M002037
198006
Bic 283
FEDE
M002038
198306
Bicy 288
FEDE
M002039
198306
Sweetwater Island
FEDE
M002040
198306
Alligator Camp
FEDE
M002041
198306
Bicy 313
FEDE
M002042
198306
Bicy 314
FEDE
M002043
198306
Bicy 325
FEDE
M002044
198306 Bicy 326
FEDE
M002045
198306 Bicy 338
FEDE
M002046
198812 Bicy 339
FEDE
M002047
198306 Bicy 340
FEDE
M002048
198306 Bicy 385
FEDE
M002049
198006 Bicy 194
FEDE
M002050
MELD Barbara
M002051
198507 Card Sound Road
M002051
199301 Card Sound Road
M002051
MELD Card Sound Road
M002052
MELD Litman
M002053
MELD Carys Fort
Future Land Use 83 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
-Site'11D
M002054
Form No
198507
Site Name
Jeffreys
Own Type
M002054
199301
Jeffreys
M002054
MELD
Jeffreys
M002055
198507
Goodie
M002055
199301
Goodie
M002055
MELD
Goodie
M002056
198507
Norman
M002056
199301
Norman
M002056
MELD
Norman
M002057
MELD
Rose Marie
M002058
MELD
Gun Range Cistern
M002060
MELD
Newport Plantation
M002061
MELD
Thorn
M002062
MELD
Ocean Reef
M002063
MELD
Harry Harris
M002064
200601
North Largo
STAT
M002064
MELD
North Largo
M002065
MELD
Ocean Side
M002066
MELD
Newport
M002067
MELD
Swine
M002068
MELD
Black Lowe
M002069
198507
Camp Key Largo
M002069
200904
Camp Key Largo
STAT
M002070
MELD
North Tavernier
M002071
MELD
Mcclellan
M002072
MELD
Sunland South
M002073
MELD
Gulfstream
M002074
MELD
Tavernier
M002075
MELD
Lake Sur rise
M002088
198711
Long Key 1
M002089
198711
Old Rachel Key
M002089
199106
Old Rachel Key
M002089
MELD
Old Rachel Key
CONP
M002090
198711
Key Vaca 4
M002091
198711
Crawl Key 1
M002092
198711
Boot Key
M002093
198711
Fat Deer 1
M002094
198711
Twin Cisterns Homestead
M002094
200810
Twin Cisterns Homestead
PRIV
M002095
198711
Tower
M002095
200810
Tower
PRIV
M002096
198711
East Matecumbe
M002096
200810
East Matecumbe
UNKN
M002098
198711
Windley Key Shell Scatter
Future Land Use 84 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.21- Archeological Sites (continued)
M002098
200810
Windley Key Shell Scatter
PRIV
M002099
MELD
La Africana
UNKN
M002100
198408
Singleton Homestead
UNKN
M002101
198712
Bi Pine Ke 3
UNKN
M002101
198799
Big Pine Key 3
mcmi m
?nn?l o
R;R p;-. w.- �?
M002102
198712
Big Pine Key 4
J1H1
UNKN
M002103
198712
Big Pine Key 5
UNKN
M002104
198712
Big Pine Key 6
UNKN
M002105
198712
Big Pine 7
UNKN
M002106
198712
Big Pine Key 8
UNKN
M002107
1987121
Big Torch Key 1
UNKN
M002108
198712
Big Torch Key 2
UNKN
M002109
MELD
Little Torch Key 1
M002110
198712
Little Torch Key 2
M002110
199006
Little Torch Key 2
CORP
M002111
198712
Ramrod Key 1
PRIV
M002111
198799
Ramrod Key 1
M002112
198712
Ramrod Key 2
M002112
199006
Ramrod Key 2
PRIV
M002113
198712
Ramrod Key 3
M002113
199006
Ramrod Key 3
CORP
M002114
198806
Cudioe Key 2
PRUN
M002115
198712
Sugarloaf Key 2
M002115
199006
Sugarloaf Key 2
FEDE
M002117
198712
Bahia Honda 1
UNKN
M003226
199509
8mo3226
FEDE
M003431
199605
Fort Zachary Taylor Coverface
FEDE
M003431
200312
Fort Zachary Taylor Coverface
FEDE
M003431
200512 Fort Zachary Taylor Coverface
STAT
M003446
200004 Key West Bight Dump
CITY
M003448
196009 Grassy Key Canoe
UNKN
M003449
197804 Key West Canoe
UNKN
M003450
196907 Big Pine Key Canoe
UNKN
M003497
200108 Drainage Ditch
UNKN
M003615
200203 Faec Railroad amp, Crescent, Fl
COUN
M003615
200211 Faec Railroad Camp, Crescent, Fl
COUN
003616
200204 Weather Station
FEDE
620
200504
L200810
200203 Islamorada Shipwreck
UNSP
Islamorada Post Office
C....... Crnto ncc.__
COD
uLu, V La,iu Vae 85 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.7.5 Ship Wrecks
The Florida Master Site Files also include recorded shipwrecks. In the County as a whole
there are 369 ship wreck sites; these are listed on Table 2.22. Due to the sensitive nature of
archeological sites and their vulnerability to vandalism, the locations are not illustrated on
the Existing Land Use Map series and are only listed by general location.
Table 2.22 - Ship Wrecks
Site ID
M000090
Form No
MELD
Site Name
HERRERA WRECK
Own Type
M000091
196509
San Francisco Wreck
M000091
196511
San Francisco Wreck
M000091
200408
San Francisco Wreck
UNKN
M000092
199109
1 El Infante Wreck
FEDE
M000101
200410
San Jose Wreck
UNSP
M000102
200509
Chavez Wreck
M000104
MELD
San Pedro
M000130
MELD
Henrietta Marie Wreck
M000131
197210
San Rafael Wreck
M000132
200409
Walker Key Wreck Or El Sueco De Arizon
M000133
197709
San Felipe Shipwreck
STAT
M000134
MELD
Wreck 12
M000135
196506
Shot Wreck
M000136
196506
Ivory Wreck
M000137
196506
San Fernando Wreck
M000138
196506
NN Wreck
M000139
196509
Bronze Wreck
M000141
197108
Quicksand Wreck
M000142
197108
West Turtle Shoal Wreck
M000143
200410
Shipwreck
M000144
196805
NN Wreck
M000145
196810
NN Wreck
M000146
200408
Ca itana Wreck
M000148
197008
Granite Wreck
M000149
197010
NN Wreck
M000150
197010
NN Wreck
M000151
199109
Iron Ballast Wreck 1
FEDE
M000152
197105
Swivel Gun Wreck
M000153
197105
Steel Wreck
M000154
197105
Schooner Wreck
M000155
197105
Iron Ballast Wreck 2
M000156
197106
Brick Wreck
M000157
197008
Ships Mast Wreck
M000158 1
197105
Sounding Lead Wreck
Future Land Use 86 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.22 - Ship Wrecks (continued)
M000159 197106 Ship Wrecka e
M000160 197106 NN Wreck
M000161 197106 Nine Cannon WrarL-
M000162
197106
NN Wreck
M000163
197106
NN Wreck
M000164
197106
Construction Wreck
M000165
197106
Shipwreck Debris
M000166
197106
Sack Wreck
M000167
197106
NN Wreck
M000168
197106
NN Wreck
M000169
197105
Fischer -Robinson -Clausen Wreck
M000170
197106
Dead Eye Wreck
M000171
197106
NN Wreck
M000172
197106
Shrimp Boat Wreck
M000173
199109
USS Alligator
FEDE
M000174
197205
NN Wreck
M000177
199109
Los Tres Puentes Wreck
STAT
M000178
200408
Gallo Indiana Wreck?
M000181
197106
NN Wreck
M000182
197106
NN Wreck
M000183
197206
NN Wreck
M000199
195106
H M S Loo Wreck
M000248
197405
Shipwreck 1
FEDE
M000249
197405
Shipwreck 3
FEDE
M000250
197405
Shipwreck 4
FEDE
M000251 197405
Shipwreck 2
FEDE
M000252 197405
Shipwreck 5
FEDE
M000253 200810
Coin Wreck
PRIV
M000256 197411
NN Wreck
M001132 198901
American Shoal Schooner Wreck
FEDE
M001196 MELD
Bahia Honda Wreck
M001303 199109
Cannabis Trawler
FEDE
M001304 199109
Eagle
FEDE
M001305 199109
Alexander Bare
FEDE
M001306 199109
D & B Barge Wreck
FEDE
M001307 199109
Spiney Oyster Bar e
FEDE
M001308 199109
Brick Bare
STAT
M001310 199109
Duane
FEDE
M001311 199109
Bibb
FEDE
M001312 199109
Rosalee
STAT
M001313 199109
Unidentified Shipwreck A
FEDE
M001314 199109
Unidentified Shipwreck B
FEDE
M001315 199109
Unidentified Shipwreck C
FEDE
M001316 199109
Unidentified Shipwreck D
FEDE
Future Land Use 87 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.22 - Ship Wrecks (continued)
.Site ID
M001316
Form No
199110
Site Name
Unidentified Shipwreck D
Own Type
FEDE
M001316
200802
Unidentified Shipwreck D
UNSP
M001317
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck E
FEDE
M001318
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck F
STAT
M001319
199109
Unidentified Shipwreck G
STAT
M001320
199109
Hawk Channel Schooner Wreck
STAT
M001321
199109
Disgusting Wreck
STAT
M001322
199109
Rum Runner Wreck
STAT
M001323
199109
Brick Wreck
STAT
M001324
199109
Iron Masted Schooner
FEDE
M001325
199109
Welberry Wreck
STAT
MD01326
199109
Hms Fly
FEDE
M001327
199109
1 Indian Key Wreck
STAT
M001328
199109
Bronze Pin Wreck
FEDE
M001329
199109
Schooner Wreck
FEDE
M001330
199109
Windlass Wreck
FEDE
M001331
199109
Brass Wreck
FEDE
M001332
199109
Ore Ballast Schooner Wreck
FEDE
M001334
199109
Kearns Wreck
FEDE
M001448
199201
Muir Wreck
STAT
M001879
200410
Bronze Pin Wreck Off Grassy Key
UNSP
M001880
200706
Rib Wreck
UNSP
M001881
200410
Brick Wreck Off Key Colony Beach
UNSP
M001887
200605
Bahia Honda Ballast Stone Pile
STAT
M003620
200203
Islamorada Shipwreck
UNSP
Source: State Historic Preservation Office
2.3.7.6 Pigeon Key
Pigeon Key, once a work camp for the Overseas Railroad, is now used primarily as an
educational retreat and is managed and maintained under the auspices of the Pigeon Key
Foundation.
The Pigeon Key Foundation is a non-profit organization dedicated to preserving the history
and environment of the Keys through education and research. Pigeon Key Marine Science
Camp is a 501(c)(3) not -for -profit organization whose mission is to provide educational
experiences in a history rich environment located on a five acre island.
Future Land Use 88 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.7.7 Historic Preservation Groups
The following groups are increasingly important resources for the preservation of historic
resources in the County. The organizations include professionally staffed non -profits,
citizen membership groups, scholarly and professional associations, government agencies,
and grass -roots advocates. These groups can contribute a variety of services and skills to
the historic preservation effort including financial support, technical assistance, increasing
public awareness, and scholarly research.
Because the County does not have staff or budget to support a full historic preservation
program, the County must rely on the resources of these groups for funding and initiating
and performing much of the actual historic preservation work.
2.3.7.8 National Organizations
2.3.7.8.1 National Trust for Historic Preservation
The National Trust for Historic Preservation is a private, non-profit national organization
established by U.S. Congress in 1949. The mission of this organization is to encourage
public participation in preservation activities, own and maintain historically significant
properties, and provide technical assistance and funding for preservation projects. The
Trust publishes a Preservation News, Historic Preservation Magazine, and Preservation Law
Reporter. The County is under the jurisdiction of the Southern Regional Office located in
Charleston, South Carolina.
2.3.7.8.2 U.S Department of the Interior
The U.S. Department of the Interior is the primary federal agency with responsibility for
historic preservation. This department expands and maintains the National Register of
Historic Places and oversees the development of State Historic Preservation Programs.
2.3.7.8.3 Society of Professional Archaeolo ists
The Society of Professional Archaeologists is a national organization that establishes
standards used by State and federal governments to determine qualifications and experience
necessary for professional archaeologists. The Society also publishes a monthly newsletter
providing the latest development in the field of archaeology.
2.3.7.9 State and Regional Groups
2.3.7.9.1 The Archaeoloaical and Historical Conservancy Inc
The Archaeological and Historical Conservancy (AHC) is a private non-profit organization
dedicated to the preservation of archaeological and historic sites. The AHC conducts
archaeological and historic surveys on properties for private landowners, developers, and
rULUI-e Lana use 89 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
government agencies. The AHC has been involved in the previously discussed, on -going
survey of historic and archaeological sites in the Keys since 1985. This primary emphasis of
this survey has been archaeological sites. It is a source of information on the location, degree
of disturbance, and potential significance of archaeological sites in the County. The Florida
Anthropological Society, founded in 1948, is a private, not -for -profit membership
organization. The organization publishes a quarterly scholarly journal, The Florida
Anthropologist, which contains articles written by professional and amateur members on
Florida archaeology.
2.3,7.9.2 The Florida Archaeological Council
The Council is a professional organization for practicing archaeologists in Florida.
Membership is limited to qualified archaeologists. The Council can provide lists of
professional archaeologists as well as suggest archaeologists for particular areas and
expertise.
2.3.7.9.3 The Florida Department of the State. Division of Historic Resources
The Division of Historic Resources has statewide responsibility for the National Register
program in Florida, as well as awarding and administering grants for historic preservation
purposes. The State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO), the Bureau of Archaeological
Research, and the Bureau of Survey and Registration are contained within the division. This
office maintains the Florida Master Site File (FMSF) inventory and serves as a clearinghouse
for information on archaeological sites and historic structures. The FMSF is a repository for
information submitted to the Division of Historic Resources on sites considered to be
historically or archaeologically significant. The FMSF collects, organizes, and disseminates
information. However, the FMSF does not determine the significance of a site or its eligibility
for local, state or federal designations.
2.3.7.9.4 The Florida Folklore Society
The Florida Folklore Society is a private, non-profit organization dedicated to the study and
appreciation of folklore and folklife of the State of Florida. The Society collects and
distributes information on Florida folklore and folklife to members and the public.
2.3.7.9.5 The Florida Trust for Historic Preservation
The Florida Trust for Historic Preservation is a statewide, non-profit preservation
organization which began in 1978. The mission of this organization is to educate the public
about the State's historic resources, promote, advocate, to provide information regarding the
preservation of historic resources, and to support local preservation activities. The Trust
administers a revolving fund for the purchase of options on endangered historic properties
until a buyer sensitive to preservation issues can be found. The Trust also administers a
facade easement program which enables the Trust to protect the facades of historic
buildings.
Future Land Use 90 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The Trust actively educates the Florida legislature about historic preservation issues and
encourages all levels of government to support preservation of historic resources. Other
activities of the Trust include an annual meeting, an annual awards program to recognize
significant contributions to historic preservation, and the restoration and management of
several historic properties in Florida.
2.3.7.9.6 Florida Historical Society
The Florida Historical Society is a statewide organization that focuses on the promotion of
and publications about the history of Florida. In addition to publishing the Florida
Historical Quarterly, a professional level journal, the Society holds annual meeting and
workshops.
2.3.7.9.7 Historical Association of Southern Florida
The Historical Association of Southern Florida (HASF) was founded in 1940 by a group of
citizens interested in preserving the history of Southern Florida and the Caribbean. The
HASF's Historical Museum of Southern Florida represents the full range of history from
prehistoric to contemporary societies. The museum library is the largest repository of
materials devoted to the history of the region. Many publications are produced by the HASF:
a scholarly journal (Tequesta)., a popular history quarterly (South Florida History Magazine,
a quarterly membership newsletter (Currents), and a series of guidebooks on the
neighborhoods and waterways of the region.
2.3.7.9.8 South Florida Regional Planning Council
The SFRPC, in conjunction with the County, commissioned the Archaeological and Historical
Conservancy's cultural resource survey of the Keys.
2.3.7.10 Local Groups
2.3.7.10.1 Friends of Islamorada State Parks
The Friends of Islamorada State Parks is a citizens' group interested in the protection of
archaeological resources in nearby state parks (Robert Carr, AHC, personal communication).
2.3. _7.10.2 Historic Florida Keys Preservation Board
The Historic Florida Keys Preservation Board (HFKPB) was created by state law in
November 1972. It was formed to research, acquire, preserve, restore, maintain, reconstruct
and operate historic sites, buildings and property throughout the County. The seven member
Board is appointed by the Governor, and directs the small, professional staff. Past projects
have included the restorations of the Bat Tower on Sugarloaf Key, Old City Hall, the Oldest
House, the Armory and the San Carlos Institute, a historic survey of Tavernier, the
Future Land Use 91 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Signalization Technical Advisory Panel, the Cemetery Restoration Project, and a Historic
Architectural Review Commission Guidelines Grant.
2.3.7.10.3 Historical Preservation Society of the Upper Keys
The Historic Preservation Society of the Upper Keys (HPSUK) is a non-profit citizens'
organization dedicated to the identification and preservation of historic resources in the
Upper Keys.
2.3.7.10.4 Historic Preservation Advisory Council
The HPSUK Council was established through the Florida Historical Resources Act to be
responsible for enhancing public participation in the preservation and protection of the
state's archaeological and historic resources. The members are appointed by the Secretary of
State and are provided with staff assistance from the Division of Historic Resources. The
Council's main objective is to establish priorities for identifying, acquiring and protecting
historic resources; evaluating applications for state historic markers; evaluating applications
for historic preservation grants-in-aid; formulating public goals for preservation and
promoting public awareness and participation; and preparing historic preservation rules at
the State level.
2.3.7.10.5 The Key West Maritime Heritage Society, Inc
The Key West Maritime Heritage Society was founded in 1982 as a non-profit educational
institution to accumulate and disseminate information on Spanish Maritime and Colonial
activity in the New World. The Society is particularly interested in the preservation and
conservation of maritime archaeological sites. The Society's activities involve conservation
and exhibition of artifacts raised from two Spanish Galleons and an English slave ship.
2.3.7.10.6 Monroe County Tourist Development Council
The Tourist Development Council can be a funding source for historic preservation projects
which aid or enhance tourism opportunities.
2.3.8 Availability of Facilities and Services to Serve Existing Land Uses
2.3.8.1 Roads
For County roadways, the maximum service volume threshold standard is established as
LOS D. According to the 2008 Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report,
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.
Future Land Use 92 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
As reported in the DRAFT 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study by the County,
four segments of U.S. 1 currently fail to operate at an acceptable LOS (i.e. below LOS C).
They are:
• U.S.1 on Big Coppitt Key from MM 9.0 to MM 10.5 (Segment 3);
• U.S.1 on Grassy Key from MM 54.0 to 60.5 (Segment 14);
• U.S. 1 on Lower Matecumbe Key from MM 73.0 to 77.5 (Segment 17); and
• U.S. 1 on Tea Table Key from MM 77.5 to MM 79.5 (Segment 18).
Segments 3 and 18 may need capacity improvements to maintain the adopted LOS C
standard. Segment 3 is at LOS D for the two most recent consecutive years, 2009 and 2010.
Segment 18 is at LOS D for four consecutive years, 2007 through 2010.
A more detailed discussion of the County's road system is contained in Chapter 4.0 Traffic
Circulation Element. The County's transportation facilities are illustrated in Map Series 4-1,
4-3, 4-4, 4-5, 4-6 and 4-7 of the Map Atlas.
2.3.8.2 Potable Water
The Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is the sole supplier of potable water to the
County. The FKAA's source of water for withdrawal is the Biscayne and Floridan Aquifers,
The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) regulates water withdrawal from
the aquifers through the issuance of Consumptive Use Permits. The Consumptive Use Permit
currently in effect (SFWMD Water Use Permit No. 13-00005-W) was issued on March 13,
2008, and is valid for a twenty year period ending March 13, 2028. This permit is actually a
re -issuance of a permit granted by SFWMD on November 14, 2002. The current permit
contains an annual withdrawal of 8.751 billion gallons per year, an average monthly
allocation of 809 million gallons, or 17.79 MGD and an average dry season (December 1 -
April 30) of 17 MGD.
A more detailed discussion of potable water facilities and service in the County is contained
in Chapter 8.0 Potable Water Element. Potable water facilities and service areas are
illustrated in Map Series 8-1 of the Map Atlas.
2.3.8.3 Solid Waste
As of 2010, the County provides solid waste service to accommodate 70,808 residents. The
current facilities and operations are sufficient to meet the projected LOS for through the
2010-2030 planning horizon.
A more detailed discussion of solid waste facilities and service in the County is contained in
Chapter 9.0 Solid Waste Element. Solid Waste facilities and service areas are illustrated in
Map Series 9-1 of the Map Atlas.
" "" 93 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.3.8.4 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.
A more detailed discussion of existing wastewater disposal facilities is contained in Chapter
10.0 Sanitary Sewer Element. Sanitary Sewer facilities and service areas are illustrated in Map
Series 10-1 of the Map Atlas.
2.3.8.5 Drainage
At the present time, only project specific surface water management systems exist in the
County that are capable of servicing existing land use or mitigating associated impacts.
In the past, the only controls on stormwater imposed by the County were those involving
flood protection and floodplain encroachment in Section 122 of the MCLDC. Subsequently,
the MCLDC has been revised, based on recommendations provided in the County's
Stormwater Management Master Plan (SMMP), to not only provide stormwater controls for
flood protection and floodplain encroachment, but also to include water quality controls in
Section 114-3 of the MCLDC. This new MCLDC also includes water quality controls for
existing and proposed residential development and addresses retrofitting of existing
facilities and redevelopment activities. This meets the intent of Section 114-3(a) of the
MCLDC, to protect the vital water resources of the County.
In conjunction with Section 114-3 of the MCLDC, the County has prepared a Manual of
Stormwater Management Practices which provides information on acceptable forms of
BMPs. 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.
A more detailed discussion of existing stormwater management facilities is contained in
Chapter 11.0 Drainage Element. Natural drainage features are illustrated in Map Series 11-1
of the Map Atlas.
2.3.8.6 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,
groundwater resource protection and management takes place in the context of the
Future Land Use 94 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
regulation of public and private interests in relation to wetlands, wildlife, aquifer discharges
to surface waters, and other components of the natural system.
A more detailed discussion of natural aquifer groundwater recharge is contained in Chapter
12.0 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge Element.
2.3.8.7 Parks and Recreation
The County boasts of over 4.17 million acres of Conservation lands and waters under the
ownership and maintenance of the Federal Government, the State of Florida, private
Conservation organizations and the Monroe County Land Authority. Arguably, the
Conservation lands in and around the County serve a population more regional and
statewide than the County itself, however, for comparison, the Level of Service (LOS) based
on the County's 2010 functional population equates to over 26,434 acres per 1,000
population. The distribution of these lands, due to the unique linear geography of the Keys
allows for the population to be within a short drive or walk of numerous and varied
conservation lands.
A more complete discussion of recreational facilities in the County is contained in Chapter
13.0 Recreation and Open Space Element.
2.3.8.8 Educational Facilities
[Rule 91-5.006(1l(c) & (Z)(a)F A C
This section describes existing education facilities in the County, the service areas of these
facilities, and plans for future expansion.
The Monroe County District School Board oversees the operation of 13 public schools
including three high schools, one middle school, two middle/elementary schools, six
elementary schools, and one school for exceptional students. The names, locations, and
service areas of these schools are presented in Table 2.23.
The Rest of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 95 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.23 — Educational Facilities
'Facility Narne/Type
Location
Service Area
Subdistrict I (Upper Keys)
Key Largo (Elementary/Middle)
Key Largo
Dade County Line to MM 93
Plantation Key (Elementary/Middle)
Plantation Key
MM 93 to Long Key
Treasure Village Montessori*
Islamorada
Dade County Line to Marathon
(Elementary/Middle)
Coral Shores (High)
Plantation Key
Dade County Line to Long Key
SubdistricL2 (Middle Keys)
Switlick (Elementary)
Marathon Key
Conch Key to 7 Mile Bridge
Marathon (Middle/High)
Marathon Key
Conch Key to Big Pine Key
Subdistrict 3 (Lower Keys)
Sands (Exceptional)
Key West
Sugarloaf Key to Key West
Adams (Elementary)
Stock Island
Rockland Key to Stock Island
Archer/Reynolds (Elementary)
Key West
Key West
Big Pine Academy* (Elementary)
Big Pine
Grassy Key to Big Coppitt Key
Poinciana (Elementary)
Key West
Key West
Sigsbee (Elementary)
Key West
Key West
Sugarloaf (Elementary/Middle)
Sugarloaf Key
Ohio Key to Boca Chica
O'Bryant (Middle)
Key West
Key Haven to Key West
Key West (High)
Key West
Lower Torch Key to Key West
Monroe County
Montessori Charter (Elementary) *
Key West
Entire County
Keys Center ( Middle/High)
Key West, Marathon,
Entire County
Islamorada
Monroe County DJJ
Key West
Entire County
Post -Secondary Facilities
FKCC (main campus)
Stock Island
Primarily Lower Keys
FKCC (branch campus)
Marathon
Primarily Middle Keys
FKCC (branch campus)
Plantation Key
Primarily Upper Keys
I Charter Schools
Source: Monroe County School District
Future Land Use 96 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The schools are distributed among three subdistricts. Subdistrict 1 serves the Upper Keys
from Key Largo to Matecumbe Key. Subdistrict 2 serves the Middle Keys from Long Key to
the Seven Mile Bridge and Subdistrict 3 serves the Lower Keys from Bahia Honda to Key
West. There is one charter school that does not provide bussing and serves the entire
county. The Keys Center is an alternative program provided within the high schools in the
county and the juvenile detention facility provides education to the detained youth. There
are no public schools located in mainland Monroe County.
The School Board plans to renovate the Plantation Key and Horace Bryant Schools by 2011.
A new gym is planned for the Plantation Key School and the Trumbo Administrative Complex
is planned to be relocated or renovated by 2011. Table 2.24 illustrates that the Florida
Inventory of School Houses (FISH) Capacity for the County is 11,208 and utilization averaged
to 69 percent for 2008-2009 according to the Monroe County 2008 Facilities Plan. No new
schools are planned for the County.
Table 2.24 - Public School Capacity
School
Coral Shore Senior High
Capacity
961
81%
Key West Senior High
1,433
93%
Horace O'Bryant Middle
1,091
74%
Marathon Senior High
1,371
41%
May Sands School
30
70%
Glynn Archer Elementary
580
42%
Poinciana Elementary
641
92%
Sigbee Elementary
522
43%
Sugarloaf School
1,199
64%
Sanley Switik Elementary
907
62%
Key Largo School
1,245
71%
Gerald Adams Elementary
649
70%
Plantation Key School
651
84%
Total
11,208
68.9%
�Uu, LC: wvo ,VIU«rOc UuuuLy ruriic raciimes rapacity Assessment Report
ruture Lana use 97 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.4 Existing Population
[Rule 9J-5.006(1)(g) & (2)(c), F.A.C.]
2.4.1 Historic Population
The analyses presented in this section distinguish the unincorporated Keys from the
incorporated areas within the County where possible, based on available source data. In
accordance with the statutory guidelines for local comprehensive planning in Florida, the
best available data has been identified and used in all analyses.
The County's uneven historic growth rate is reflective of the national and State trends and
the effect of the local military installation activity in the County. Resident population trends
over the last 40 years are presented in Table 2.25.
Table 2.25 - Historic Population
Average
Year Population Change Annual
Unincorporated l(eys Change
1970 24,552
1980
37,741
13,189
1,319
1990
52,032
14,291
1,429
2000
36,036
15,996
1,599
201011
Municipalities
1970*
36,268
28,034
232
23
1980*
25,447
2,587
259
1990*
25,992
545
(55)
2000^
43,553
17,561
1,756
201012A
Monroe County
1970
40,043
52,586
(3,51O
(351)
1980
63,188
10,602
1,060
1990
78,024
14,836
1,484
2000
79,589
1,565
156
201013
76,311
(3,278)
(328)
11 Unincorporated County population number derives from Unincorporated Monroe County Population
Projections report published May 15, 2011.
12 Municipalities' population number derives from US Census 2010.
13 Monroe County population number derives from a sum of US Census 2010 municipality number and
unincorporated county numbers from the Unincorporated Monroe County Population Projections report
published May 15, 2011.
*Key Colony Beach, Key West, Layton
Future Land Use 98 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Islamorada, Key Colony Beach, Key West, Layton, Marathon
Source: U.S. Census 2010. Fishkind & Associates, Inc., (2011), Unincorporated Monroe County Population
Projections.
Table 2.25 illustrates the historic resident population trends in the incorporated and
unincorporated areas of the County. Since 1970, the County added 27,003 residents to the
population. The resident population for 1970 was 52,586. For the 10 year period between
1970 and 1980, the County's population experienced a rapid period of growth, adding
approximately 1,060 residents per year and boosting the County population to 63,188 by
1980. From 1980 to 1990 the County population grew at approximately 1,484 residents per
year to a total of 78,024 residents as of the 1990 Census. From 1990 to 2000, the countywide
population grew by 1,565 to 79,589, with 36,036 located in the unincorporated area. In
1997, the Village of Islamorada was incorporated and in 1999 .the City of Marathon was
incorporated; this resulted in a decline in the population with the unincorporated areas of
the County as shown in Table 2.25. In 2010, 36,268 residents lived in the unincorporated
County.
2.4.2 Household Size
The estimated average household size for 2010 is a combination of seasonal and permanent
household size calculations as described in the Unincorporated Monroe County Population
Projections. For 2009, the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research
(BEBR) estimated that there are 2.2 persons per household in Monroe County. This estimate
is used to project the number of permanent households for 2010 and the planning horizon.
Generally, seasonal households have a higher person per household due to the increasing
size of newly built units. Therefore, the figure of 2.7 persons per household is used to
calculate the number of households for seasonal population and is supported by the Florida
Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) methodology, as approved by DCA. Household size
methodologies are different given the nature of seasonal and permanent populations. For a
more detailed explanation of household size and numbers see Section 7.3.1 "Projected
Number of Households"
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 99 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.4.3 Demographic Profile
2.4.3.1 Sex
As illustrated in Table 2.26, the male population outnumbers the female population in the
County. The 2009 Census estimates are the best available data for these estimates. Totals
are based on Table 2.2 5.
Table 2.26 - Distribution of Population by Sex [Monroe County Unincorporated and
Incorporated Areas (2009)]
Unincorporated Area Incorporated Area Total
Number Percent Number Percent Number Percent
u.�). Census tutu. risnxina & Associates, Inc., (2U11), Unincorporated Monroe County Population
Projections.
2.4.3.2 Race and Ethnicity
The composition of the County's population by race is shown in Table 2,27. For this data,
Census 2010 apportionments of race are used in conjunction with population 2010 from
Table 2.25. Over 70 percent of the population is white. Hispanic, regardless of race, account
for 20.5 percent.
Table 2.27 - Distribution of Population by Race [Monroe County Unincorporated and
Incorporated Areas (2010)]
Area
IncorporatedUnincorporated Area
Total
Number Percent
Number Pei -cent
Number
Percent
White (non -
Hispanic)
50,486 71.3%
28,551 71.3%
79,037
71.3%
Black (non -
Hispanic)
3,753
5.3%
2,122
5.3%
5,875
5.3%
Hispanic
14,516
20.5%
8,209
20.5%
22,724
20.5%
Other
2,053
2.9%
1,161
2.9%
3,215
2.9%
Total
70,808
100.0%
40,043
100.0%
110,851
100.0%
Source: u.5. Census zu1u. risnxina & Associates, Inc., [2011), Unincorporated Monroe County Population
Projections.
Future Land Use 100 Technical Document: May 2 011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.4.3.3 Age
<Census 2010 age cohorts are yet to be released. This Section will be updated upon release of
Census 2010 data>
The working age population (25 to 64 years of age) accounts for approximately 59 percent of
total population in the County as illustrated in Table 2.28. Statewide, this age group
represents about 50 percent of the total. The percentages of younger and older persons in
the County are below statewide averages.
The unincorporated Keys have a significantly higher percentage of retirement aged
population (17.6 percent age 65 and over) than that indicated for the incorporated areas.' It
is noted that the incorporated area statistics are dominated by Key West and that Key Colony
Beach and Layton both contain substantially higher percentages of retirement age
population than the County as a whole.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 101 Technical Document: May 2011
w
cm
t\
Ln
-�
o
Ln
Ln
rn
N
o
N
Co-
,-i
O
t-�
Ln
Co
d
C
N
M
M
to
M
t-
to
-
CT
M
"D
QN
C�
Ln
It
d,
t-
co
d"
O
C
[�
1.1
Ln
M
[�
O
Ln
O
M
O
N
N
d"
It,
Ln
d"
I'D
M
F
r
N
,--(
d
t\
Ln
rn
-
Cn
a
M
O
c}'
r-
ei
O
O
Ln --1
O
tl-
O
d
CO
N
Ln
r-1
(Yj
NO
o
0
o d^
M
o
t\
-f
Ln
Cn
r\
to
Ln
�O
.-1
Ln ,4
rl
M
O
M O,
Z
O
Z
'J,
N
O
c 1
Q
C7,
m-
p
ei
N
O
N z
z
t�
N
M
t-
CO
Ln
�p
�D
M
N M
d'
N
N
N
0
O
M
Ln
O
CO
O
M
CO
t�
�
,-1
Ln
e-1
O
\D
N
N
M
c-1
t\
ID
C
, 0�
c-+
r1
Ln
M
Ln
Ln
o,
o
o
Ln
-q
N d
M
N
Ln
"o
O
d
O
p
O
d"
O
d
t"
O
M
M
z
O
t-
O-
d"
Cn
N
y
d"
O
N
CO
M
d"
N
ON
N
M
Z
p
M
N
L\
L�
N
M
M
O
M
d
r-
d
-4
O
O
�
�DMo�m�Lno�oNt�N
-1r
�coor
ZLnI'DQ,
i
O
N
OC
z
Ln
Ln
O
c-+
cl
CM
,--1
N
,--1
M
r"
,--1
d"
M
M
N
O
OC
OC
O
o
Ln
-1
N
4
N
M
,o
t-,
N
d
O
p
rl
O
N
C7l�
d
t- t-
O
p
N t-
N
�D
Ln
t\
,--1
a^
Ln
lD
to
Ln
.M
N
t17
M
F
LO
ON
LnLnZ
t-
O
nnLn
IL-V
LN
d Ln
z
z
t- CO
H
O
N
N
O
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.5 Environmental Characteristics
[Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b), F.A.C.]
2.5.1 Soils
Soils in the Keys are "very limited" for developed uses, including shallow excavations,
dwellings without basements, local roads and streets, and septic tank absorption
fields. They are sparsely distributed and are generally confined to hammocks at the
higher elevations and mangrove stands in the lower lying areas of the islands. Soil
thickness is generally less than 10 inches. The Natural Resource Conservation Service
(NRCS) of the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) has mapped 16 soil units in the
Florida Keys (exclusive of the mainland) (USDA 2010). The USDA defines very limited
as follows:
"the soil has one or more features that are unfavorable for the specified use. The
limitations generally cannot be overcome without major soil reclamation, special
design, or expensive installation procedures. Poor performance and high
maintenance can be expected" (USDA, 2010).
In the Keys, the soils are most commonly limited due to shallow depth to bedrock,
flooding, and wetness. Localized limiting characteristics include flood potential,
inadequate depth to bedrock or saturated zone, tendency to cave, low strength, poor
filtration capability, subsidence potential, and presence of large stones. Soils
characterized as "urban land" are potentially better development sites when
compared to natural soils in the Keys. These soils have "variable" limitations for
developed uses, reflecting their history of disturbance. Most of these areas are
already fully developed.
Soils are depicted per the NRCS on Map Series 3-1 of the Map Atlas.
2.5.2 Topography
The Florida Keys belong to the Southern Zone of the Coastal Lowlands physiographic
province. This area lies south and southeast of Lake Okeechobee, is primarily
underlain by Pleistocene limestone, and is characterized by low relief, poor drainage,
and extensive areas of coastal mangrove swamps. Elevations on the Keys are low,
generally less than 5 feet above sea level. Most of the land area is only 2 to 3 feet
above high tide. The highest point lies on Windley Key, where the maximum elevation
is 18 feet above sea level.
The islands generally slope gradually up from the sea to flattened, gently rounded
tops (Lane, 1986). Irregularities of the rock surfaces are a result of the heterogeneous
topography of the coral reefs that created the islands, and also as a result of erosion
and solution of the limestone rocks (Lane, 1986). Solution features, such as pitted and
pinnacled surfaces, occur throughout the Keys. There are also many sinkholes, filled
Future Land Use 103 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
with peat or carbonate sediments, up to several feet in diameter and several feet deep
(Lane,1986).
2.5.3 Vegetation
There are two native upland biological communities in the Florida Keys. These are:
• tropical hardwood hammocks, the climax terrestrial community, and
• pinelands, a fire -climax system.
Tropical hardwood hammock communities occur as isolated stands of hardwoods or
"tree islands". These distinct tree islands consist of broadleaved evergreen hardwood
species mainly of a West Indian distribution and are typically surrounded by pineland
or wetland vegetative communities which occur in wetter soils (Tomlinson, 1980;
Snyder et al., 1990; Taylor, 1998; USFWS, 1999). They are closely associated with
tropical pinelands on the larger keys, most notably on Big Pine Key. The island -like
character is most evident on mainland Monroe County, where raised areas among the
pinelands and freshwater wetlands harbor hammock forests. In the Keys, the natural
topographic configuration of the islands, especially in the Upper Keys, has favored
development of large stands of hardwoods.
Pinelands are fire -climax systems dominated by pine trees. Although pinelands
formerly existed in the Upper Keys (Alexander, 1953), their occurrence in the County
is presently limited to the Lower Keys, primarily on Little Pine Key, Big Pine Key, No
Name Key, Cudjoe Key, Sugarloaf Key and on neighboring keys. Because slash pines
(Pinus elliottii var. densa) do not tolerate high salinities, Ross et al. (1994) found that
sea level rise over the last 70 years has caused a reduction in the areal extent of
pinelands. More than 50 percent of the ground surface in pinelands is exposed rock.
All pinelands are found in the Lower Keys and comprise an area of 1,668.1 acres.
Most of the pine lands (72.2 percent) are owned by the federal government in the
National Key Deer Refuge. Of the total pinelands, 9.2 percent are privately owned.
Upland vegetation such as tropical hardwood and pinelands are depicted in Map
Series 3-3.
2.5.4 Units of the Coastal Barrier Resources System
The Coastal Barrier Resources Act (CBRA) of 1982 established the Coastal Barrier
Resources System (CBRS). The CBRA legislation is specifically designed to restrict
federally subsidized Federal expenditures and financial assistance which have the
effect of encouraging development of undeveloped coastal barriers to minimize the
loss of human life, reduce the wasteful expenditure of Federal revenue, and reduce
damage to habitat and other valuable natural resources of coastal barriers. Today,
the CBRS is comprised of undeveloped coastal barriers along the Atlantic and Gulf of
Mexico coasts, including the coasts of the Keys, Puerto Rico and the Virgin Islands.
Future Land Use 104 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The CBRS includes 25 units listed in the County. The Federal policy against
subsidizing development of designated coastal barriers has impacted the amount and
rate of development of those units.
Since the intent and effect of the CBRS has been to discourage development
(prohibiting flood insurance and other federal program funds) in the County's
designated coastal barriers, the County should consider whether to maintain the
existing comprehensive plan policies related to the CBRS, or to focus on the
development impacts on endangered species and habitat should unsubsidized
development still occur.
2.5.5 Habitats of Threatened and Endangered Species
The Florida Keys encompass a variety of ecologically unique biological communities
providing habitat to diverse wildlife populations, including many species endemic to
the Keys; several are globally rare and endangered. For an illustration of species see
Map Series 3-5. The biological communities of the Keys include:
Living Marine Resources
• Mangrove forests along the shorelines of the Keys;
• Scrub Mangrove;
• Seagrass beds on both sides of the Keys and extending offshore to the Florida
Reef Tract; and
• Coral and hard bottom communities of nearshore and offshore waters, including
the Florida Reef Tract
Wetlands
• Transitional wetlands landward of the mangrove fringe and seaward of upland
communities;
• Beaches (as part of the Beach/Berm Community);
• Salt ponds occupying shallow enclosed basins having restricted tidal influence;
• Small freshwater wetlands in freshwater lenses in the Lower Keys
Uplands
• Tropical hardwood hammocks, the climax terrestrial community; and
• Pinelands, a fire -climax system
"'C 105 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.5.6 Natural Groundwater Aquifer Recharge
In Miami -Dade County, the Biscayne Aquifer (the upper part of the Surficial Aquifer
System) is a major source of potable water and essentially all potable water in the
Keys is piped via aqueduct to the Florida Keys from wellfields in the Biscayne Aquifer
in Miami -Dade County.
In the County, the surficial aquifer is brackish to saline and contains an inadequate
quantity of water for use as a potable water supply. Some County residents provide
their own water supply using home reverse osmosis plants to desalinate Biscayne
Aquifer water, or by collecting rain water in cisterns. On some of the larger islands of
the Lower Keys, small lenses of freshwater to slightly brackish water float on the top
of the Biscayne Aquifer near the ground surface. Chloride levels in these lenses are
generally too high for human consumption, but the lens water is suitable for some
irrigation purposes and provides an important source of freshwater for wildlife and
vegetation.
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.
2.5.7 Military Installation Compatibility
Background
Naval Air Station Key West (NAS Key West) consists of approximately 5,800 acres
with facilities located in 13 different areas of the Lower Keys. Boca Chica Field, NAS
Key West's primary site and airfield, is located on Boca Chica Key. Boca Chica Field
is approximately three miles east of the City of Key West and consists of
approximately 4,700 acres encompassing nearly the entire key.
In the 1970s and 1980s, the Navy implemented an Air Installations Compatible Use
Zones (AICUZ) program at NAS Key West (Boca Chica Field) to encourage, through
local cooperation, compatible development in and around the Navy airfield in the
County. The purpose of the AICUZ program is to:
• Protect public health, safety, and welfare;
• Ensure the continued viability of the Air Station; and
• Promote development of compatible land use in high noise and accident
potential zones.
The AICUZ program's objective is to balance the requirement for adequate aircraft
training capabilities at airfields with community concerns over aircraft noise and
accident potential generated by training. The Navy's AICUZ program is focused on
Future Land Use 106 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
promoting land use compatibility between air installations and surrounding
communities. The program recognizes the local government's responsibility to
protect the public health, safety, and welfare through land use control tools like
zoning ordinances, building codes, subdivision regulations, building permits, and
fair disclosure statements.
The AICUZ footprint is the area where land use controls are needed to protect the
health, safety, and welfare of those living near a military airfield. Through the
AICUZ, the Navy has sought easements restricting use in critical areas and has
purchased hundreds of individual lots located within the AICUZ.
In 1986 the County codified in their Land Development Code (LDC) the 1977 NAS
Key West 1977 AICUZ Map, taken from the 1977 AICUZ study (see Figure 6-5(A) in
Chapter 6.0 Ports, Aviation and Related Facilities Element), and is currently utilizing
this data when considering development applications.
In 2004, the Florida Legislature enacted SB 1604 that amended Florida's Growth
Management Act to require more active communication between local governments
and military bases to avoid potential conflicts between future developments and
military base installations. The act requires that each county in which a military
base is located and each affected municipality notify a military base's commanding
officer of a proposed change to the government's comprehensive plan and land
development regulations that would affect the land use adjacent to the military
base. Additionally, the amendment requires that the County add a representative of
the military installation as an ex officio, nonvoting member of the County's Planning
Commission.
In 2010, HB 7129 was enacted by the Florida Legislature, which further amended
Section 163.3175 F. S., to add the following provisions:
1. A requirement that the County transmit to the Commanding Officer of NAS Key
West any: a) change to its Comprehensive Plan (Plan); b) proposed Plan
amendments; or c) change to the MCLDC which would affect intensity, density or
use of land adjacent to or in close proximity to NAS Key West.
2. Upon request of the Commanding Officer of NAS Key West, require. the County to
transmit and allow comments on any Development Order requesting a variance
or waiver from height or lighting restrictions or noise attenuation reduction
requirements within a zone of influence.
3. Any comments received from the Commanding officer of NAS Key West shall be
transmitted to the State Land Planning Agency (DCA).
4. The County shall include a representative of NAS Key West acting on behalf of
the installation as an ex officio nonvoting member of the County's land planning
agency (Planning Commission).
Future Land Use 107 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
5. By June 30, 2012 the County shall adopt criteria and address compatibility of
lands adjacent to or closely proximate to NAS Key West within the Future Land
Use Element of its Plan or go to mediation with County, NAS, DCA, RPC, private
land owner reps.
County Position
In April of 2003 the Navy published the Environmental Assessment for Fleet Support
and Infrastructure Improvements - Naval Air Station Key West (EA). In 2004, the
Navy prepared an updated CY 2007 AICUZ map for NAS Key West. The 2007 AICUZ
map encompassed a substantially larger area compared to the 1977 AICUZ map.
The environmental impacts of all of the planned and current aircraft were not
evaluated by the Navy's EA in accordance with the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). For example, the EA purported to evaluate the impacts of the Super
Hornet aircraft, however, evidence of this is not found in the report. Specifically, the
Super Hornet aircraft was mentioned in only three pages of the 232-page EA and
those three pages did not discuss the noise or other environmental impacts.
Further, the Draft EA was distributed to the public and reporting agencies for input
and this input was the basis for the final comments published in the April 2003 EA.
None of the public or agency comments mention the Super Hornet aircraft, thereby
creating the assumption neither the public nor the 11 reporting agencies have
evaluated the impacts of the Super Hornet aircraft at NAS Key West.
The impacts of introducing this type of aircraft at NAS Key West are clearly
significant. It is important to point out that the Navy also published in 2003 the
Final Environmental Impact Statement for the Introduction of the F/A-18EIF Super
Hornet Airport to the East Coast of the United States. The impacts of the Super
Hornet aircraft on the east coast of the United States are recognized in this
publication. However, the environmental impacts resulting from F/A-18E/F Super
Hornet operations at NAS Key West were not discussed.
Because of the deficiencies and discrepancies noted above, the 2007 AICUZ map has
not been codified into the MCLDC and is not utilized by the County when
considering development applications.
The Navy is currently undertaking an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to
evaluate alternatives for future airfield operations at NAS Key West. The Draft EIS is
scheduled to be released by the Navy during the summer of 2011. If properly
undertaken, the EIS will consider current airfield operations and changes in the type
and number of aircraft operations at NAS Key West. In addition, to evaluate
impacts fully the Navy must ensure that all analysis is undertaken utilizing the most
currently accepted peer reviewed methods. This includes, but is not limited to the
evaluation of military aircraft noise.
Future Land Use 108 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
In their May 12, 2010 Notice of Intent to Prepare an EIS (Federal Register Vol. 75, No
91) the Navy listed, among others, "consistency with existing land use control plans,
polices and actions" as factors to be evaluated in the EIS. In this regard, the Final EIS
will potentially inform and lead to the creation of a revised AICUZ map. The Final
EIS and Record of Decision are scheduled for spring and fall 2012 respectively.
Therefore, it is the position of the County that adoption of an AICUZ map in the
Comprehensive Plan should be deferred until a full evaluation of the environmental
impacts is completed in the EIS, including an evaluation of the impacts from NAS
Key West Super Hornet operations. Adoption of the 2007 AICUZ map without the
benefit of a full evaluation of impacts through the Navy's EIS process would be
premature.
The County will continue to work closely with the Navy throughout the process.
This includes the establishment by the Board of County Commission of a NAS Key
West EIS Oversight Committee. Upon completion of the EIS, the County will review
any updated AICUZ map and adopt appropriate changes to its Comprehensive Plan.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 109 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.6 Population Projections
[Rule 9J-5.005(2)(e), F.A.C.]
2.6.1 Background - Forecast Approach
The population forecast was prepared13 for unincorporated Monroe County through year
2030 for the update of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Population is identified according
to upper/middle/lower (UML) keys. It is based on the countywide functional population
control total forecast through 2030; functional population is the sum of permanent plus
seasonal population.
The Keith and Schnars team (K&S) begins with a permanent population forecast and a
seasonal population forecast at the county level. The seasonal population series is based
on the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) data series. This series includes estimates
of seasonal residences, RV's, hotel/motel, camps, boat liveaboards, mobile home, and other.
The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has recommended using the FKAA series for
the purposes of estimating the seasonal population component, with appropriate updates
to the methodology.
The permanent population series is the latest published by the University of Florida,
Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). In as much as ROGO has been in place
since 1993, BEBR population projections reflect a ROGO constrained growth trend. This
means permanent population growth projections implicitly assume the continuation of the
ROGO constraint and the effects of the ROGO constraint are implicitly embedded in the
history.
2.6.2 Analysis of Permanent Population Data
University of Florida annual population estimates for municipalities and unincorporated
areas indicates permanent population fell in the Keys from 2006-2008, with some a 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 BEBR
suggest a downward trend in permanent population. This is reflected in the resulting
Functional Population series shown in Figure 1. This series represents the sum of the
most recent BEBR permanent projection and the FKAA seasonal projection.
13 The population forecast was prepared by Fishkind and Associates with support from Keith and Schnars,
P.A.
Future Land Use 110 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Figure 1 - Preliminary Functional Population Projection
2.6.3 Analysis of Seasonal Population Data
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. It is our view 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 in our view 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,
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 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.
2.6.4 Seasonality
Seasonal population is one component of Functional population. K&S has researched three
functional population series. The three functional series in this analysis include permanent
populations based on Census, BEBR and FKAA. In each of these scenarios the same
Seasonal Series, from FKAA, is used. The FKAA seasonal series is the Seasonal Series
r inure Lana use 111 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
developed by Monroe County Planning Department (MCPD). The detailed methodology for
the Seasonal Series is found in the MCPD report included as Appendix 2-3. The FKAA
Seasonal Series methodology generated from the MCPD is also found in Appendix 2-3. As
permanent population has fallen we must examine whether or not, and the degree to
which, it is replaced by seasonal population. The American Communities Survey from
2005, 2008 and the Census 2000 data indicate a substantial increase in housing units held
for seasonal use. These data indicate the number of seasonal units has risen from 12,628 in
2000 to 15,738 in 2005 to 19,195 in 2008 (Table 2.30). This is an increase of 6,567
seasonal units. This would represent a shift into seasonal population by as much as 16,418
persons. During the same period permanently occupied units have fallen from 35,086 to
29,084, some 6,002 units or a decline of 15,005 persons (Table 2.29). Based on the ACS
and Census data, the loss in permanent population is approximately equivalent to the gain
in seasonal population since year 2000.
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Future Land Use 112 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.29 - Vacant and Occupied Unit Counts,
2000 - 2008
Table Hi. Housing Units by Vacancy Status and Tenure by Units in
Structure. 2000
_ Monroe County
Monroe County
Occupied
Units
Vacant
Total
Vacant
Units in Structure
Units
Units
Owner Renter Total
detached
•U,
3,496
17,3G2
6,850
24.212
28.29%
:. attached
1,045
1,533
2.548
1.655
4203
39.38%
2
480
1,598
2,078
'53
2.531
17.90%
3 o. 4
306
1,875
- 8;
589
2,770
I.26 o
5 to 9
2'45
1,042
.257
897
2.15
° 1
l0 to 19
403
425
828
899
1,727
"r.1%
E 2 0L'--°6
20 to 49
375
180
55,5.
1,039
1 594
65.'12%
50 or more
346
1,043
:.329
444
1.833•
24.220
Nlobile horse
4,458
1,945
ra,413
3,'ol
9,8'1�
e�_ 5q o
BoatRV. van, etc.
v96
79
475
304
779
29_132.0
Total
I 21.90DI
131861
35,0861
16,531
51.617
32.03",a
Table H1. Housing Units by Vacancy
Status and Tenure I?Y Units in
Structure. 2005 - Monroe Count
Monroe County
Occupied
Units
Vacant
Fotal
Vacant
Units in Structure
Units
Units
'A
Owner RenterTotal
1. detached
16,612+
2,024
15,642
7,448
26.090
1. attached
1,427
2,106
3,533
2.978
6,511
4 74%
2
62.1
973
,594
636
2.23E
28.52%
3o`4
52
1,521
1',573
636
2,211
28.86%
5 to 9
458
452
940
1,440
2,380
60.50%
io to 19
597
46
643
505
1,148
43.99%
20 to 49
132
1,125
.257
1.19E
".455,
48:80%
50 or more
435
532
967
203
1,170
17.35%
l4obiie home
2;8i6
1,485
4.361
3,904
8.265
47.24%
Boat. RV. 'van. etc.
405
46
451
0
451
0.09%
Total
23,6211
I 34(i
33,961
18,950
52,911
35.81%
Table H1. Housing Units by Vacancy Status and Tenure by Units in Structure. 2008 . Monroe County
Monroe County
Occupied Units
Vacant
Tcatal
Vacant
Units in Structure
Owner Renter I
Total
Units
Units
%
detached15,019 3,344
18.363
10,351
28.714
16.05-5.
attached 490 1,233
I.T23
3.209
4,922
65.06%
2 371 803
3o=4
1,174
7C4
1,938
2-9.42%
2i3a 699
982
1,681
1563
G'1.69%
5to4 272 845
:,117
2."158
3,27n
5_,.891,0 ��;
Mo to 19 170 202
20 to 49
372
1,011
1,383
73,10%
1 i1:11 56
50 or mcm
217
628
`1,045
79.23%
463 504
467
816
1,783
45.77%
tti,cbile home 2.739 1,121.
1.560
4,011
7,871
50.96o.
Boat. RV. van etc. 164 '145
3091
0
309
0.03%
Total 201321 8.952
25,0:841
24.729
53.813
45.95%
Source: US Census and American Communities Survey;
Prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning Council
ruuure Lana use 113 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.30 - Vacant Units by Vacancy Status, 2000 - 2008
aide hJ. Number of Vacant Units by Vacancy Status. 2NO _ Monroe County
Monroe County Vacant
Vacancy Status units %
n
Fo- s.a e on€y
759
F,ented Or Kild, 110t uCCLip ed
_3(D4
r`e
Fo' seasonal, recreational, 0- occasional Use2,622
.8
E
Fa- migrant v ork rs
Vic;
J.3
Other vacant
1 1219'
6_8? r�
Total
1 6.,5 1
100.0.0%
TM)le H3. Number of Vacant Units by Vacancy Status 2005 - Monroe punt%
Monroe County Vacant
Vacancy Status Units
Fu t�l,i
E43
4_S�8
Vented, not occupied
r �_ � e,
2 '..1
Far sale on Y
448
2 36�f
Said, not occupied
123
3 I _ v
For seasonal, recreational, o,- occasional use
.T_'+
_,v Gnv
Fo- migrant workers
3
tit 00
Other -vacant
l ,'
6.�
Total
18,95[I
100.00s,
I aide H-5. Number of Vacant Units by Vacancy Status. 2008 -Monroe Count
Monroe County Vacant
Vacancy Status Units I 91a
Vented, not occupied
-^,
`I 2
_ ,u
Fo-saie on
545
66
Bald, not owcuped
2:1.1
k ,_ail
Fo;- seasonal; recreational; o- occas:ona Lase
:_, ]9;:
_C: J
Fo7 migrant workers
3
100`D
ether vacant
1 9114
, _ n,
Total
1 24,7291
10 0.5.3 /
Source: US Census and American Communities Survey;
Prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning Council
Contributing to the support of the seasonal increase phenomenon is the rate of
foreclosures and the Monroe County Property Appraiser data regarding homestead
exemptions. It is generally believed non -homesteaded properties represent seasonal
vacant, second homes, or for -rent units. Population in these should be distinguished from
short-term tourist visitors. However, in times of high foreclosure rates, a shift to non -
homestead may represent a temporary loss in permanent population.
Future Land Use 114 Technical Document: May 0011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
In fact, during the housing bubble from 2003-2008, non -homesteaded units did rise. This
coincided with a rise in foreclosures, as well as speculative investing and reported
permanent population losses. There were 3,431 foreclosures in the County from 2005-
2009.
During the 2000-2009 period, total homesteaded units increased from 16,005 to 16,698
units, a net increase of 693 units. Non -homesteaded units moved from 20,784 to 22,197, a
net increase of 1,413 units. This compares with the 3,431 foreclosures from 2005-2009,
recognizing it is likely as much as half of the foreclosed units may have been resold since
the initial foreclosures which began in 2005, and some tendency to for those units to return
to a homesteaded status. By 2009, after speculative investing ceased, the share of non -
homesteaded properties went back down, falling to 2003 levels. This is consistent with the
expectation of resold foreclosures regaining homesteads (Figure 2). Also, as noted,
permanent population increased during 2009 according to BEBR, supporting an increase in
permanent population.
The non -homestead rate for all units is now 57.1 percent. This is essentially the same rate
both pre and post bubble. Single family non -homestead rates began to move up more
closely in concert with rising foreclosures (Figure 2). This supports our belief that a
considerable portion of permanent population losses may be attributable to foreclosures
arising from the speculative housing bubble, and thus temporary. The expectation is some
permanent population may return to these units over the course of the planning horizon -
thus permanent population may increase over this period in substantially greater numbers
than the growth in new housing units. To the degree this condition occurs, the BEBR
medium series permanent population projection will be in error and will under -project
permanent population growth. Planning for this contingency in the face of an unknown
resolution to thousands of foreclosures is necessary. Thus, reflecting the population
associated with portions of these foreclosed units as non -homestead and seasonal
population will also correct and compensate for this potential longer term problem with
the BEBR projection.
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Blank
Future Land Use 115 Technical Document: May 2011
60.0/1
58.04
56.0`%6
54.054,
52.0`5
50.0°'S
48.0"hb
46.0,'Iu
44.M,u
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
%'0" -,"Po 2ooti y061 10,31, 2Oa1
- Non41omzstead z, SF Non41oniestead' o Foitedosures
Figure 2- Monroe County - Foreclosures and
The Percent of Non -Homestead Residential Units
1600
1400
1200
1000
300
600
400
z00
a
There has been an increase in vacant units from 2005-2009. During this period both the
Census and BEBR indicated permanent population loss. From 2005 to 2008 the ACS
indicated an increase in seasonal vacancy of 3,457 units. During the 2005-2009 period,
foreclosure data indicated there were 3,431 foreclosures, as noted earlier. Thus, the ACS
data indicates, on net, the permanent population losses and associated housing vacancy is
being shifted into seasonal units. Further, it is believed there is associated seasonal (non-
permanent population) associated with these vacant units. With a reported permanent
population growth in 2009 and increasing homestead exemptions in 2009 on one hand and
coinciding numbers of foreclosures and seasonal increase through ACS, it is equally
possible in our view, the permanent population loss is temporary and due as much to the
end of the housing bubble, foreclosures and rising unemployment as it is due to a shift from
permanent to seasonal residency. It is likely both conditions exist and are occurring.
2.6.5 Unincorporated Population Upper/Middle/Lower Keys
2.6.5.1 Permanent Population
Permanent population is based on the on-line service I -Site which provides updated block
group information based on US Census data (Table 2.31). The distribution of permanent
population based on these data is shown in Table 2.32.
Future Land Use 116 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.31 - Unincorporated Monroe County -Distribution of Permanent Population
source: msnxina & Associates, Inc.; ]-Site online demographic database.
NOTE: Slight difference in totals based on rounding.
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Left Blank
ruLure Lana use 117 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.32 - Unincorporated Permanent Population Distribution by Planning Area
Year
Upper Middle Lower
Keys Key Keys
111 C IS • ; 1
2001
15,185
1,087
19,978
2002
15,229
1,094
20,130
2003
15,226
1,096
20,221
2004
15,212
1,098
20,296
2005
15,402
1,115
20,647
2006
15,073
1,094
20,299
2007
14,737
1,072
19,940
2008
14,263
1,044
19,481
2009
14,797
1,088
20,383
2010
14,430
1,061
19,877
2011
14,654
1,078
20,185
2012
14,632
1,076
20,154
2013
14,609
1,074
20,123
2014
14,586
1,073
20,092
2015
14,564
1,071
20,061
2016
14,538
1,069
20,025
2017
14,511
1,067
19,989
2018
14,485
1,065
19,953
2019
14,459
1,063
19,916
2020
14,433
1,061
19,880
2021
14,406
1,059
19,844
2022
14,380
1,057
19,808
2023
14,354
1,055
19,772
2024
14,327
1,053
19,735
2025
14,301
1,052
19,699
2026
14,275
1,050
19,663
2027
14,249
1,048
19,627
2028
14,222
1,046
19,591
2029
14,196
1,044
19,554
2030
14,170
1,042
19,518
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
2.6.5.2 Seasonal Population
Seasonal population within the upper/middle/lower unincorporated areas is estimated
based on the ratio of unincorporated seasonal population to unincorporated permanent
Future Land Use 118 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
population, multiplied by the permanent population distributions by planning area (Table
2.33).
Table 2.33- Unincorporated Seasonal Population Distribution by Planning Area
2000
14,048
1,056
18,137
2001
14,020
1,057
18,185
2002
13,993
1,058
18,234
2.003
13,966
1,.058
18,283
2004
13,938
1;059
18,332
2005
13,910
1,060
18,381
2006
14.15n
1 nAr)
10 70n
2007
14,339
1,096
19,133
2008
14,665
1,126
19,759
2009
14,388
1,111
19,545
2010
14,550
1,122
19,768
2011
14,472
1,117
19,660
2012
14,555
1,123
19,775
2013
14,639
1,129
19,890
2014
14,722
1,135
20,005
2015 14,806
1,141
20,120
2016 14,891
1,148
20,238
2017 14,977
1,154
20,357
2018 15,063
1,160
20,475
2019 15,149
1,167
20,593
2020 15,235
1,173
20,712
2021 15,321
1,179
20,830
2022 15,407
1,185
20,948
2023 15,493
1,192
21,067
2024 15,579
1,198
21,185
25 15,665
1,204
21,304
26 15,751
1,211
21,422
27 15,837
V2030�
1,217
21,540
28 15,923
1, 223
21,659
29 16,009
1,230
21,777
16,095
1,236
21,896
JUUI-le: r1srimrlu & Associates, Inc.
ube 119 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.6.5.3 Functional Population
Table 2.34 presents the functional (permanent and seasonal) population for the
unincorporated County.
Table 2.34 - Unincorporated Functional Population
Year
2000
Permanent
36,036
Sea-sonal
33,241
Functional
69,277
2001
36,250
33,263
69,513
2002
36,452
33,285
69,737
2003
36,543
33,307
69,850
2004
36,606
33,329
69,935
2005
37,164
33,351
70,515
2006
36,466
34,019
70,485
2007
35,749
34,568
70,317
2008
34,788
35,550
70,338
2009
36,268
35,043
71,311
2010
35,368
35,440
70,808
2011
35,917
35,249
71,166
2012
35,862
35,453
71,315
2013
35,806
35,658
71,464
2014
35,751
35,862
71,613
2015
35,696
36,067
71,763
2016
35,632
36,277
71,909
2017
35,567
36,488
72,055
2018
35,503
36,698
72,201
2019
35,438
36,909
72,347
2020
35,374
37,120
72,494
2021
35,310
37,330
72,640
2022
35,245
37,541
72,786
2023
35,181
37,752
72,933
2024
35,116
37,962
73,078
2025
35,052
38,173
73,225
2026
34,988
38,384
73,372
2027
34,923
38,594
73,517
2028
34,859
38,805
73,664
2029
34,794
39,016
73,810
2030
34,730
39,226
73,956
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
Future Land Use 120 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Based on these data we are able to determine the functional population for unincorporated
Keys according to the upper/middle/lower planning area of the unincorporated portion of
the County. Table 2.35 assigns the functional population to the planning area.
Table 2.35 - Unincorporated Functional Population Distribution by Planning Area
i Year Upper
Keys Key Keys
2000 29,183 2,138 37,957 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 1
2,278 1
41,414 1
73,956
Source: Fishkind
& Associates. Inc. NnTR-
Slioht diffPran - ;- ,- + ia,,
lhuture Land Use 121 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.7 Future Land Use Needs and Opportunities
[Rule 9J-5.006(2), F.A.C.]
This section highlights some of the discrepancies that exist between the Existing and Future
Land Use Maps, by providing insight on where discrepancies may exist. This section also
provides an analysis of the theoretical maximum density and intensity based on future land
use element Policy 101.4.21, vacant land, zoning that allows one dwelling unit per lot, and
the Tier System. Last, this section summarizes the County's growth span based on the 197
ROGO allocations per year and the 293 square feet of commercial space per ROGO awarded.
2.7.1 Future and Existing Land Use Discrepancies
It is important to note that future land GIS data layer dates of May 2010, were created by the
County Growth Management Division. Since the existing land use data was created using the
Property Appraisers files, some of the existing land use and future land use category
distributions will not coincide (see Section 2.3 "Existing Land Use" for further explanation on
the creation of the Existing Land Use data). For instance, as seen in Table 2.5 of the existing
land use data, the Conservation land use category comprises 75.9 percent of the land versus
only 43.2 percent of the future land use (Table 2.36).
Upon receipt of the existing land use GIS layer, the future land use layer needed to be fine-
tuned, since acreage calculations did not match. With spatial analysis, it was determined
that the future land use layer was missing some offshore islands. The offshore islands
missing were primarily located in the Everglades National Park and the Lower Keys PA
including but not limited to the Marquesas and the Dry Tortugas Keys. These new areas of
the Future Land Use Map (Map Series 2-3) are shown as "Undesignated", given that they
have not been assigned a land use.
In conducting comparative spatial analysis to understand the Conservation land use
discrepancies between the future and existing land use maps, it appears that the following
contribute to the dissimilarities:
• The future land use designation "Recreational Conservation" was classified as
"Conservation" in the existing land use map.
• The "Undesignated" land in the future land use is "Conservation" in the existing land
use.
Therefore, it appears that in addition to the Property Appraiser's PC code conversions into
generalized land use codes to create the Existing Land Use Map, as explained in Section
2.3.1 "Existing Patterns and Trends'; the "Residential Conservation" (in the future land use)
was classified as "Conservation" (in the existing land use).
Future Land Use 122 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
What may account for the disparity of Conservation lands between both future (43.2
percent of land) and existing (75.9 percent of land) maps is that "Residential Conservation"
and "Undesignated" lands in the future are assigned "Conservation" in the existing.
However, further analyses to identify discrepancies in land use should be conducted.
As seen in Table 2.36, Conservation (43.2 percent) and Residential Conservation (25.4
percent) account for the highest future land use percentages. Military accounts for 6 percent.
Less than one percent is noted for Agriculture, Airport District, Education, Industrial,
Institutional, Mixed Use Commercial Fishing, Public Buildings/Grounds and Public Facilities.
Although minimal, there is a slight difference of 11.7 acres between the future and exiting
land use GIS layers, primarily located in the LKPA (see
Table 2.36: Future Land Use Acreage Distribution
Future Land Use
Agriculture A
Lower
Keys
18.8
Middle
Keys
0.0
Upper
Keys
1.9
20.7
PercentTotal
of Total
0.0%
Airport District AD
22.6
0.0
19.7
42.2
0.1%
Conservation C
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 CPB)
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
25.4%
Residential Low RL
2,846.5
23.9
941.0
3,811.4
5.2%
Residential Medium CRM)
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%
Undesignated (UNDS) 15
2,966.7
52.4
0.1
3,019.2
4.1%
Total
47,438.7
2,144.1
23,566.8
73,149.6
100.0%
Percentage of Total
64.9%
2.9%
32.2%
100.0%
--
aUui t-c. Yluui uc i.UuuLy Ul uwui ividtidgemeni, GUIU, MC:_NLUM_510,
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
15 "Undesignated" was added to the Future Land Use Map in order to denote land that has been newly added
in the GIS file and has not been designated.
Future Land Use 123 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.7.2 Variable Densities and Intensities
The County's current LDC includes both allocated and maximum net densities for residential
as well as hotel -motel, recreational vehicle and institutional residential uses. 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 MCLDC. The maximum floor area ratio is the amount of commercial floor
area to be developed per unit of land on the net buildable area of the site. This system allows
for a site -by site determination of the appropriate density and intensity for each site
proposed for development.
2.7.3 Future Land Use Needs Analysis
Rule 9J- 5,0 0 6 (2) Cc), F.A.C.]
This section provides an analysis of the future land use theoretical maximum density and
intensity. For the purposes of this element, theoretical development potential is defined as
the maximum allocated density and intensity based on Policy 101.4.21 and the land use
designation in the absence of other controlling factors, such as tier designation. The
following analyses are conducted for the purpose of identifying theoretical development
potential and serve as the basis, along with population projections, for the needs analysis
through the planning period. Spatial analysis is conducted through GIS.
Table 2.37 summarizes Tables 2.41, 2.48, 2.57, 2.58, 2.59 and 2.60. It provides a
snapshot of the County's maximum theoretical density based on data analysis. Based on the
current ROGO allocation of 197 and theoretical maximum density, growth span would take
565 years. On the conservative spectrum, vacant lots in which one dwelling unit per lot is
allowed, it would take at least 12 years to accommodate 2,286 dwelling units. All of the
development scenarios, as illustrated on Table 2.37, fulfill the Functional Housing Need
(1,680 dwelling units) for 2015 through 2030, as shown on Table 2.38.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses are for illustrative purposes
only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental
sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and
NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 124 Technical Document: May 2011
n
CIS
Clo
O
i.r
C�
y
cu
0
H
cC
c�
U
;i
cu
%y
^O
W
F
t-
M
N
_cu
.Q
css
E-�
u
O
cti N
U
U
O O
i
u au
cn
CA m
y GJ
N
t u E.
s.
0) -0 M Ili
r-I
(Q �..+ 'r Q)
cu O
.o s y
L
Gar O
� O
4-r
O
• �
n
Ln
6Ui N
O O '-
O
L L
a
U
cu
W
N
L p cOcui],
U
cz L r� ..•ni
aj
cn
O O S i
bf1 Ln
Qr
L S.. U L
O UO
O
L .O
J ^d -I U
y
y y" vU
6 cd O W N
� I
x
r^. •^ u U
C
p,q U t•.
6)
c4
by
Glr N �
L•"
O � � � i 'O
I w �
�
O .
•�, L. U i L1 ^
�
. O
p x w C.) N CT.
bA U
E
v O O
U C •a
v a x
L w�
a
cc
° •B o
O O ai f4
Q a! c6 L 'CS
s ^
u u 0
u
O
cn i •� O CO Ln
to U
Ti O O
N
.�
C6 O.. "C3 CO y .0
O Q -O O
c4 ^7 Oz..
T
O
cti
s0. 6�
R. bLp t.. m cu
p C7 W
i-
N
O' O _u C a;
O " > E•-r .0 "r GJ
csY U =
c u O> U
Z3 O W a O U
CC
00
d O O U CO
cv
CL w^
i O O C 4w
a�
'- OO
_r
Gt ifl t
cu o
� �r
J i o 0 3
a cn
Ln_ o U .� o
W w L
II II
II II E-.
W II
O
Ln
N
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The Functional Housing Need for 2015 through 2030 is shown on Table 2.38. This table is
based upon the projected functional population. For an illustration of how functional
households and functional dwelling units see Section 7.3.1 'Projected Number of Households"
and Section 7.3.2 "Projected Housing Need".
Table 2.38 - Functional Population Housing Need (2015-2030)
Year
Lower
Keys
Middle
Kevs
Upper
Kevs
Total
Pop
Functional Functional
Households
Dwelling
tiH "/„
Change
Housing
?Need
1 1
S
1®
1
t
11'�
•.
Source: risnKind Yoputation Projections
Based upon the housing need shown on Table 2.38 above, assuming future residential
development occurs in the pattern and intensities called for under the Comprehensive Plan
and at the rate anticipated under the residential and non-residential permit allocation
systems, there appears to be a sufficient amount of land designated to support both
residential and non-residential development throughout the 2030 planning horizon.
The following sections focus on detailing the maximum theoretical density and intensity
based on, future land use designation, vacant land, Tier designation, lots that allow one
dwelling unit, by Planning Area and for the County as a whole.
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 126 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.7.3.1 Theoretical Maximum Density
The theoretical maximum density in the unincorporated County is approximately 111,365
dwelling units as seen in Table 2.39. Numbers are obtained by calculating acreage of each
of the future land use designations times the allowable density. The current future land use
map theoretically allows 111,365 dwelling units; at the current annual ROGO allocation
rate of 197 dwelling units per year, thus providing 565 years of growth.
Table 2.39 - Total Theoretical Maximum Density and Growth Span
47,438.7 67,642.7
2,144.1 3,843.4
• 23,566.8 39,878.8 197 565.3 yrs
73,149.6 111,364.9
Source: Source: Policy 101.4.21 and Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510 (future land
use GIS file)
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
The theoretical maximum intensity in the unincorporated County is approximately
363,634,872.5 square feet as seen in Table 2.40. Numbers are obtained by calculating
acreage for each of the future land use designations times the maximum allowable square
foot. There are 239 square feet of NROGO currently allowed for each ROGO allocation. At
363,634,872.5 square feet of commercial space and 47,083 NROGO maximum allocation
per year, there would be 7,723 years of growth.
Table 2.40 - Total Theoretical Intensity and Growth Span
47,438.7 259,924,306.0
2,144.1 13,388,362.0
23,566.7 90,322,204.5 47,08316 7,723.3 yrs
73,149.6 363,634,872.5
Source: Policy 101.4.21 and Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510 (future land use GIS
file)
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
16 There are 239 square feet per each of the ROGO (197) allocations currently allowed. Therefore, a
maximum total of 47,083 square feet.
ruture Land Use 127 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Based on spatial analysis and Policy 101.4.21, the total theoretical density by PA is
presented on Table 2.41. An approximate of 67,643 theoretical dwelling units are allowed
in the LKPA, approximately 3,843 in the MKPA, and approximately 39,879 in UKPA. Again,
there appears to be a sufficient amount of land designated to support both residential
development throughout the 2030 planning horizon for the 1,680 dwelling units needed
(Table 2.38).
As seen in Table 2.42, the maximum theoretical intensity by future land use and planning
area is calculated. It appears that there is ample amount of square foot area for the 1,680
dwelling units needed in the planning horizon, 2030. At 1,680 dwelling units needed by
2030, only 401,520 square feet would be needed.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses are for illustrative purposes
only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental
sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and
NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 128 Technical Document: May 2011
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
o
0
01.0
Ln
Ln
M
ry
o
CO
Ln
o
Ln
o
r
Ln
Ln
C)"
C"
rl
M
Ln
N
M
O M
d'
O O
O
r-I
N
N
z Ll
m
co
M
C',
m
rl
d'
t\
M
M
O
O
\C
Ln
r-I
N
O
p
C�
ID
M
O
ej+
O
OJ
p
M
co
N
N
z
r
Ln
O
z
O
N
M
M
C)"
M O cr ri
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
O
I�
C6
,6
M
-4 4
M
N
N
d'
co
z
N
N
M d' Ln
N
�
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
Ln
Ln
O
O
Ll
Ln
M
O
Cp Ln p M
O
O
O
O
Ln
O
!\
N
Ln
O
O
.--1
M
M
e-I
d
co
N
`..'r
O
M
M
N
t\ Ln
N
Ln
N �
O
Ln Ln
O
z
[l
O
O:
tt7
N C>, N
�--1
co
CO
m �.,1
CO
O
N
Un
Ln
ID
fV
M
M
�D
N
N
N
�D
M
'--I
Ln
-1
M
O O O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
Ln
Ln
Ln
O
O
O
N
O
co
ID
O
O
¢
Q
zz
O
CO
\D
O
C3
Ln
'71
O
O
O
T!
O
- O O O
O
O
M
p
O
0
'O
OIR-
O
bD
�
fy
to
a
o
L.
U
y
U
UU
O
RS
>
q
i
C
S„'
6J
O
V1
z
o
Ln
V3
3
0
v
p
Rf
O
Ln
ti
O
O
y,
cu
U C)Ln
cz
i;
;:+
i:+
O
'L. >~
U
O
O
i;,
d
U U
'L7
^O
"O
'L3
6�
C4
O
t•.
.�
O Ln Ln N O O O N
e-I N O J CP O 4
�D Ln
N OJ N Ln O�
N
r-I Ln M d" O
Ln O
ri rj
O O O O O O O M
O O Cn O O O O to
Ln N
N �
Ln
licill�lllff*7
CO d: ll� d^ N O CO
Cn N M r-1 O d Ln CO
d CO O N I- Ln N Ln
I\ z N N m
N �D M O Ln d" M
d Lr �
O 110 Ln Ln OO I�D N d'
CO N -4 O Ln I\ 4 Lo
e-1 N � N .--I O O m
Ln d M co
Q� d•
Ln Ln
O
O O
r--q O
OJ
Ln
I-
M
O
O
O
Ln
Ln
O d'
CO
N
O O
C>,
N
N Ln
dt
to
�p
�}•
N
N M
I,
Ln
C>
N
M
"D O d' Ln Cn O M O .•-I O�
N -D I-- Oc C� r�
^� N Ln M O d" m O �p
�D .•1 Cn r-1 O Ln
N
N O
lD
N
Ln
It,
O
O
O
O
O O
Cr
06
C
Ln
O
O
O
nj
CO
M
O
Lr7
O
O
LO
d
M
M
N
M
M
rl
m O
N
m
M
C7?
M
Ca
d',
rl
Ln
Ln o
r,
m
z
M
.�
,-i
N
d+
N
N
N
d'
z
N
m
d'
Ln
co
N
N
QO
N
.d,
M
I-
O
O
O
O
M
N ID
z
L�
r--i
.--I
O
O
O
�p
M
N C'\
Ln
O
OO
N
I� rq
N
O
Ln
Ci
N
C>, N
L.n
Cn
to
N
N N I� OO Cn Ln e-1 M I- L-
M O Ln lD M �Ci Nco 1� N 10
�--1 N Ln N M d' N N 10 M
r N N N
O O O O O N O O I Z O
N
�D
d:
d•
d'
o-
o
M
o
0
0
0
0
O O
O
O
Ln
Ln
O
O
Ln
rq
O
O
O
O
O
O
O O Lf)
M M p N
O O
O O O p Z Z
O O O O
U
O
O
V
nvl
i
o
C]
a
w
?
a
x
Q
V)
N
L
L
L
L
C
_
o
w
o
a
cC
u o
v
n
is
a
u
c
�
v
5
a„
p
O
U
CS
W
--,
2
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.7.3.2 Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity by Planning Area
Lower Keys
Table 2.43 provides the theoretical maximum density and intensity for the Lower Keys. The
following summarizes some of the highlights of the table:
Residential:
The primary land uses that allow the most dwelling units given the acreage and intensity
potential are Military (26,287 dwelling units) and Residential Medium (23,376 dwelling
units). The maximum theoretical density for the LKPA is 67,643 dwelling units.
Non Residential:
The land uses that allow the most square footage commercial area, given the combination
of acreage and intensity potential is Military with over 95 million commercial square feet of
floor area. Overall, 259,924,306 square feet of commercial floor area is the maximum
theoretical intensity in the LKPA.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses are for illustrative purposes
only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental
sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and
NROGO.are the final determinant of development potential.
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Left Blank
rULUI-e Lams use 131 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.43 -Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity - Lower Keys Planning Area
(LKPA)
Agriculture A
18.8
0.0
204,949.8
Airport District AD
22.6
0.0
98,271.4
Conservation C
19,591.5
0.0
42,670,330.6
Education E
28.5
0.0
372,176.6
Industrial I
415.8
415.8
10,867,087.4
Institutional INS
87.6
0.0
1,525,471.2
Military M
4,381.2
26,287.2
95,422,536.0
Mixed Use Commercial MC
885.4
5,312.5
17,355,806.8
Mixed Use Commercial Fishing MCF
113.2
905.5
1,972,222.6
Public Buildings/Grounds (PB)
20.2
0.0
264,496.3
Public Facilities PF
55.7
0.0
727,756.9
Recreation CR
526.8
131.7
4,589,307.4
Residential Conservation RC
12,133.9
3,033.5
52,855,181.3
Residential Low RL
2,846.5
1,423.3
30,998,711.7
Residential Medium RM
2,922.1
23,376.8
0.0
Residential High (RH)
422.3
6,756.5
0.0
Undesi nated UNDS
2,966.7
0.0
0.0
Total
47,438.7
67,642.7
259,924,306.0
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"; Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
Future Land Use 132 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Middle Kevs
Table 2.44, below, provides the Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity for the Middle
Keys.
Table 2.44 - Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity - Middle Keys Planning Area
(MKPA)
Airport District (AD)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Conservation (C)
489.1
0.0
1,065,259.8
Education (E)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Industrial (I)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Institutional (INS)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Military (M)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mixed Use / Commercial (MC)
138.6
831.8
2,717,425.3
Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF)
25.3
202.1
440,130.2
Public Buildings/Grounds (PB)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Public Facilities (PF)
27.2
0.0
355,449.6
Recreation (R)
848.3
212.1
7,390,128.2
Residential Conservation (RC)
266.3
66.6
1,160,133.5
Residential Low (RL)
23.9
11.9
259,835.4
Residential Medium (RM)
231.3
1,850.6
0.0
Residential High (RH)
41.8
668.3
0.0
Undesignated (UNDS)
52.4
0.0
0.0
Total
2,144.1
3,843.4
13,388,362.0
Source: Monroe county Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"; Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
The following summarizes some of the highlights of the table:
Residential:
The primary land uses that allow the most dwelling units given the acreage and intensity
potential are Residential Medium (1,850.6 dwelling units) and Mixed Use/Commercial
(831.8 dwelling units). The maximum theoretical density for the MKPA is 3,843 dwelling
units.
Non Residential:
rumre ►.ana use 133 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The land uses that allow the most square feet of commercial, given the combination of
acreage and intensity potential are Recreation with 7 390,128.2 square feet and Mixed
Use/Commercial with 2,717,425.3 square feet. Overall, 13,388,362.0 square feet of
commercial floor area is the maximum theoretical intensity in the MKPA.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses are for illustrative purposes
only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental
sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and
NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
Upper Keys
Table 2.45 (provided below) provides the Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity for the
Upper Keys.
Table 2.45 - Theoretical Maximum Density and Intensity - Upper Keys Planning Area
(UKPA)
Agriculture (A) 1.9 0.0
20,691.0
Airport District (AD)
19.7
0.0
85,982.5
Conservation (C)
11,553.9
0.0
25,164,459.5
Education (E)
32.2
0.0
420,136.2
Industrial (I)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Institutional (INS)
43.5
0.0
757,769.8
Military (M)
0.0
0.0
0.0
Mixed Use / Commercial (MC)
1,009.1
6,054.7
19,780,574.2
Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF)
12.6
101.0
220,065.1
Public Buildings/Grounds (PB)
26.8
0.0
350,483.8
Public Facilities (PF)
4]6,189.9
57.4
0.0
749,841.8
Recreation (R)
638.5
159.6
5,562,263.5
Residential Conservation (RC)
1,547.5
26,963,073.7
Residential Low (RL)
941.0
470.5
10,247,163.3
Residential Medium (RM)
2,137.3
17,098.3
0.0
Residential High (RH)
903.0
14,447.2
0.0
Undesignated (UNDS)
0.1
0.0
0.0
Total
23,566.8
39,878.8 1
90,322,204.5
Source: Monroe county urowtn Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"; Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
Future Land Use 134 Technical Document: May 0011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The following summarizes some of the highlights of the table:
Residential:
The primary land uses that allow the most dwelling units given the acreage and intensity
potential are Residential Medium (17,098.3 dwelling units) and Residential High (14,447.2
dwelling units). The maximum theoretical density for the UKPA is 39,878.8 dwelling units.)
Non Residential:
The land uses that allow the most square foot of commercial given the combination of
acreage and intensity potential are Conservation with 25,164,459.5 square feet; Mixed
Use/Commercial with 19,780,574.2 square feet; and Residential Conservation with
26,963,073.7 square feet. Overall, 90,322,204.5 square feet of commercial floor area is the
maximum theoretical intensity in the UKPA.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses are for illustrative purposes
only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental
sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and
NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
2.7.4 Vacant Land Analysis
[Rule 9J-5.006(2)(b), F.A.C.]
Vacant land analysis was performed through GIS. The vacant land (2,339 acres), on the
Existing Land Use Map, was evaluated against the underlying future land use designations.
Then density and intensity per Policy 101.4.21 were calculated.
2.7.4.1 Vacant Land Analysis Density and Intensity for Unincorporated County
Table 2.46 and 2.47, below, summarizes the allocated density and intensity per acre of
vacant land. Table 2.48 evaluates density and intensity in more detail by looking at the
underlying future land uses of vacant land for the unincorporated County as a whole.
As seen on Table 2.46, there are 2,339 acres of vacant land. Vacant land allows a total
theoretical density of 10,258 dwelling units. At the current allowed ROGO, it would take
the County 52 years of growth, to develop vacant land.
Future Land Use 135 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.46 - Vacant Land Theoretical Density and Growth Span
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510";
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510;
Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
As previously mentioned, there are 2,339 acres of vacant land. Vacant land allows a total
theoretical intensity of 17,420,733 square feet. At the current allowed NROGO, it would
take the County 370 years of growth, to develop vacant land, as seen in Table 2.47.
Table 2.47 - Vacant Land Theoretical Intensity and Growth Span
1,376.6
12,083,413.3
108.3
444,007.1
23,566.8
4,893,312.6
197
2,339.2
17,420,733.0
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510";
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510;
Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
370.0 yrs
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 136 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 7.48 denotes maximum theoretical density and intensity allowable in vacant land.
The following summarizes some of the highlights of the table:
Residential:
About 73 percent of vacant land has a residential future land use designation. The primary
land uses that allow the most dwelling units given the acreage and intensity potential are
Residential Medium (6,208.8 dwelling units) and Mixed Use/Commercial (1,347.1 dwelling
units). Again, the maximum theoretical density allowed unincorporated vacant land is
10,258 dwelling units.
Non Residential:
The land uses that allow the most square foot of commercial given the combination of
acreage and intensity potential are Recreational Low with 4,778,640.9 square feet; Mixed
Use/Commercial with 4,401,041.04 square feet; and Industrial with 2,828,699.3 square
feet. Overall, 17,278,945.2 square feet of commercial floor area is the maximum theoretical
intensity in the unincorporated County.
Table 2.48 - Vacant Land Density and Intensity Unincorporated County
Vacant
%
Vacant
Max. Allowed
Max.
Acres
Density (du)
Allowed
Intensity s
0.4%
0
Airport District 9.2
40,031.6
Conservation 81.0
3.5%
0
34,521.3
Industrial 108.21
4.6%
108.2
2,828,699.3
Institutional 3.51
0.1%
0
60,112.8
Military 97.0
4.1%
582.1
2,112,877.8
Mixed
9.6%
4,401,041.0
Use Commercial 224.4
1,347.1
Mixed
10
875,381.8
Use/Commercial
:2.
Fishing 50.2
401.9
Recreation 21.8
0.9%
5.5
190,183.0
Residential
19.2%
1,957,455.7
Conservation 449.3
112.3
Residential Low 438.8
18.8%
219.4
4,778,640.9
Residential Medium 776.1
33.2%
6,208.8
0.0
Residential High 79.5
3.4%
1,272.6
0.0
Total 2,339.2
100.0
10,258.0
17,278,945.2
Source: iviunroe Uuunty urowtn Management, 2010, "MC_ELU 510"
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"
Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
Future Land Use 137 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.7.4.2 Vacant Land Analysis Density and Intensity by Planning Area
As previously noted in Section 2.3.1, there are approximately 2,339 acres of vacant land in
the unincorporated Keys. The largest amount of vacant land in the unincorporated areas of
the County (1,376.6 acres) is located within the LKPA.
This section provides further analysis of the vacant land vis-a-vis the future land use
designation to determine theoretical maximum development potential. 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 this element for a detailed discussion related to the
limitations of these data structures.)
The future land use category distribution of density and intensity of the vacant land in the
unincorporated area is illustrated in the tables included in this section. The general trend
for all planning areas signal that vacant land is primarily located under the residential
future land use designations: Residential Conservation, Residential Low and Residential
Medium.
NOTE: The following theoretical development potential analyses are for illustrative
purposes only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size,
environmental sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints,
such as ROGO and NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
Lower Keys
Residential:
As illustrated in Table 2.49, below, the largest concentration of vacant land (1,376.6 acres)
is located within the LKPA. Approximately 73 percent of the vacant lands are designated
for residential land use. Without considering Tier System designation and lot
specifications, the majority (3,080) of the theoretical development potential for dwelling
units is concentrated in the Residential Medium land use category.
Non Residential:
Mixed Use designations comprise 10.3 percent of vacant land, with a theoretical
development potential of 2.7 million square feet of non-residential floor area; 1.9 million
square feet (7.1%) Mixed Use/Commercial (MU-C); and 778,852 square feet (3.2%) Mixed
Use/Commercial Fishing (MU-CF). Theoretically, 12 million square feet of commercial area
are allowed in the LKPA.
Future Land Use 138 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.49 - Vacant Land Density and Intensity - Lower Keys Planning Area (LKPA)
r Vacant
Acres
Airport District 9.2
%
Vacant
Max.
Allowed
Density
du
Max. Allowed
Intensity (so
0.7%
0.0
40,031.6
Conservation
15.9
1.2%
0.0
34,521.3
Industrial
108.2
7.9%
108.2
2,828,699.3
Institutional
1.9
0.1%
0.0
32,234.4
Military
97.0
7.0%
582.1
2,112,877.8
Mixed Use Commercial
97.7
7.1%
586.2
1,915,115.4
Mixed Use Commercial Fishing
44.7
3.2%
357.6
778,852.8
Recreation
3.8
0.3%
1.0
33,367.0
Residential Conservation
325.1
23.6%
81.3
1,416,309.8
Residential Low
265.5
19.3%
132.8
2,891,403.9
Residential Medium
385.0
28.0%
3,080.0
0.0
Residential High
22.5
1.6%
360.6
0.0
Total
1,376.6
100.0%
5,289.7
12,083,413.3
Source: Monroe county Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"
Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
Middle Keys
Residential:
The geographical boundary of the MKPA changed with the incorporation of the Village of
Islamorada (1997) and the City of Marathon (1999), and now contains the smallest vacant
land area. As indicated in Table 2.50, below, the majority (94 %) of the vacant land in this
PA is designated as residential land use. Theoretically 511 dwelling units could be
developed in the MKPA without considering the vacant land location in the Tier System.
Non Residential:
The Mixed Use designation makes -up the remaining use within this PA with 4.6 percent as
Mixed Use/ Commercial and 1.4 percent as Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing, resulting in a
maximum theoretical development potential of 125,235.0 square feet of commercial floor
area in these two land use designations. Additionally, in the residential land uses
approximately 310,000 square feet of commercial floor area are allowed in theory.
ruLure Lanu use 139 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.50- Vacant Land Density and Intensity - Middle Keys Planning Area (MKPA)
')ource: monroe county t;rowtn Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"
Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
Upper Kevs
Residential:
Currently, as shown on Table 2.51 below, there are 854.4 acres of vacant land within the
UKPA; 75.4 percent is designated as residential. Most of the allowable density is
concentrated in the Residential Medium land use designation, resulting in a theoretical
maximum of 2,676 dwelling units. The maximum theoretical density in the UKPA is 4,457
dwelling units, without considering the Tier System
Non Residential:
The majority of the allowed intensity is under the Mixed Use/Commercial designation,
resulting in a maximum theoretical development potential of 2,387,523.6 square feet of
commercial floor area. An overall theoretical density of 4,893,312 square feet of
commercial floor area are allowed in the UKPA.
The remaining vacant land is distributed in the following future land use designations: 7.6
percent Conservation; 2.1 percent Recreation; and 0.2 percent Institutional.
Future Land Use 140 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.51- Vacant Land Density and Intensity - Upper Keys Planning Area (UKPA)
Vacant
Acres
Conservation 65.1
%
Vacant
Max.
Allowed
Density
Max.
Allowed
Intensity (so(du
7.6%
0.0
1 11,787.8
Institutional
1.6
0.2%
0.0
27,878.4
Mixed Use Commercial
121.8
14.2%
730.8
2,387,523.6
Mixed Use Commercial Fishing_4.0
0.5%
32.0
69,696.0
Recreation
18.0
2.1%
4.5
156,816.0
Residential Conservation
97.8
11.4%
24.5
426,016.8
Residential Low
154.E
18.1%
77.3
1,683,594.0
Residential Medium
334.5
39.2%
2,676.0
0.0
Residential High
57
6.7%
912.0
0.0
Total
C„ art,. _....., ., r_..�� n___.si_
854.4
100.0%
4,457.1
4,893,312.6
ouumc. ivio tue Wunty viuwui IvIdtidgemenr, zulu, "MC_ELU_510"; Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "MC_FLUM_510" Policy 101.4.21
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
2.7.4.3 Vacant Land Analysis Density and Intensity by Tier
To further analyze vacant land, it is important to understand its relationship within the
Tier System. The Tier System currently in place in the County designates geographical
areas outside of the Mainland PA, excluding Ocean Reef, into "tiers" to rate the
environmental sensitivity of a piece of lands and its potential for development. It is used to
assign ROGO and NROGO points; determine the amount of clearing of upland native
vegetation that may be permitted; and prioritize lands for public acquisition. The
boundaries are depicted in the Tier Overlay District Map, adopted as part of the land use
district map.
Parcels classified as either Undesignated (UNDES), Tier III -A (Special Protection Area) and
Tier II, have an undetermined development probability at this time, while Tier III
represents the majority of high quality, developable acreage in the County. Tier II only
applies to Big Pine Key and No Name Key. Parcels under Tier I, have very low development
potential given natural lands and environmental resource protection areas. UNDIES
parcels were previously designated, however, given a court ruling, they are currently being
re -designated. Tier 0 land is assigned to right-of-ways, some submerged lands and
mapping errors. Therefore, Tier 0 is not included as part of this analysis and is presented
for illustrative purposes only. In addition, a Military Tier was identified in GIS data.
However, it is not part of this analysis because no vacant land is located within this tier.
For these analyses, GIS data was utilized to overlay the Tier System layers with the vacant
land layer. Given the method in which the vacant land data and the Tier System data were
developed, the acres of vacant land within the Tier System will not match the 2,338.9 acres
of vacant land depicted in Table 2.48. Vacant land in Ocean Reef is not designated under
Future Land Use 141 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
the Tier System and therefore, is not included in the analyses. That is to say, that although
there are 2,339 acres of vacant land, only 2,224 acres are located within a tier as seen in
Table 2.52.
As illustrated in Table 2.52, below, the majority of vacant land is located within Tier I (51
%) with little development potential given the point system. Tier II, II, and IIIA make 33.4
percent of vacant land and this is where development is most likely to concentrate.
Table 2.52 - Vacant Land by Tier and Planning Area
1,301
' 753.5
56.6%
3
28.2
26.6%
608
352.5
45.7%
1,912
418
1,360 27
NA
218
NA
3,324
75.3
289.8
9.4
15.7
202.4
1,346.0
1,330.3
5.7%
0
21.8%
414
0.70/o
0
NA
NA
15.20/,
0
NA
NA
NA
417
0.0
77.5
0.0
0.1
0.0
105.8
105.7
0.0%
0
73.4%
1,333
0.00/b
227
NA
NA
0.00/,
774
NA
NA
NA
2,942
0.0
227.9
63.9
2.2
126.2
772.7
770.5
0.0%
29.6%
8.3%
NA
16.4%
NA
NA
418
3,107
254
NA
992
NA
6,683
1,134.2
75.3
595.2
73.2
18.1
328.6
2,224.5
2,206.4
' 51.00%
3.4%
26.8%
3.3%
0.8%
14.8%
100.0%
NA
Source: Monroe county urowtn management, 2U10, "MC_ELU_510"; 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. Therefore, 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 in totals due to rounding.
17 Tier 0 is used for illustration purposes only and is not part of the analysis.
IS Vacant acres in all tiers after subtracting Tier 0.
Future Land Use 142 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Lower Kevs
As seen in Table 2.52, 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
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 allows development on parcels designated
Tier I, II, III and III -A. These tiers constitute 84.7 percent of vacant land in the LKPA. Of the
84.7 percent, 56.6 is located in Tier I, where the County encourages conservation. 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.
Middle Kevs
The MKPA has 105.7 vacant acres or 417 vacant parcels, which are located in one of the tiers,
as seen in Table 2.52. Most of the vacant land, 73.3 percent or 414 parcels, are located
within Tier III-Infill Area. The remaining three parcels or 26.7 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.
Upper KeXs
As seen in Table 2.52, 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 III, 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 III -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.
2.7.4.4 Vacant Land Analysis within a Tier Density and Intensity
The following analysis studies the relationship between vacant land and its relationship the
Future Land Use Map and the Tier System, to further understand development potential.
The tables below report the vacant land that is located within a Tier and its corresponding
future land use designation. The following analysis focuses on the maximum allowed
density and maximum allowed intensity given the underlying future land uses.
NOTE: The following theoretical density and intensity analyses are for illustrative purposes
only; conditions specific to the individual parcel, including physical size, environmental
Future Land Use 143 Technical Document: May 0011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
sensitivity, zoning and tier designation and other regulatory constraints, such as ROGO and
NROGO are the final determinant of development potential.
As shown on Table 2.53, most of the vacant land is located in Tier I (1,135 acres). A
maximum allowed density is 9,199 dwelling units are allowed on vacant land that has a tier
designation including those that have been Undesignated. A total of 16,736,710 square feet
are also allowed. However, this analysis is meant for illustrative purposes only and is not a
true representation of development potential since a closer review of the individual parcel
characteristics is required in order to capture the Tier System applicability.
Table 2.53 - Vacant Land Theoretical Density and Intensity by Land Use Category and Tier
Airport District i 0
0
0
0
0.0
39,988.1
Conservation 80.1
0.4
0
0
0.0
175,198.3
Industrial
0.2
0
10.7
0
87.9
103.4
2,701,678.3
Institutional
1.2
0
0
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
1,313.1
4,289,897.7
Mixed
Use/Commercial
Fishing
10.5
9.7
7
0
14.2
332.0
723,096.0
Recreation
18.2
0
3.1
0
0.1
5.4
186,523.9
Residential
Conservation
360.6
0
2.1
0.5
57.4
105.1
1,832,046.5
Residential Low
373.9
0.9
33.7
13.1
10
215.8
4,700,015.1
Residential
Medium
131.7
59.1
341.8
22.9
111.1
5,331.9
0.0
Residential High
13.7
1.2
39.8
2
19.9
1,225.9
0.0
Total
1,135.7
75.41
553.21
73.4
328.7
91199.0
16,736,710.3
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC
FLU 51
n"- Mnnrna Cniint 7 C.rninrth Arlo. -)ni n
6� 11 "MC_FLUM_510"; Policy 101.4.21; 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.
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
Future Land Use 144 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Lower Kevs
As illustrated in Table 2.54, the majority of vacant land in this PA is located within Tier I.
Although development would concentrate in the 374.5 acres within Tier II, III, and III -A, the
maximum allowed density within all tiers are 5,085 dwelling units and intensity of
11,580,382 square feet. However, this analysis is meant for illustrative purposes only and is
not a true representation of development potential since a closer review of the individual
parcel characteristics is required in order to capture the Tier System applicability.
Table 2.54 - Vacant Land within a Tier, Density and Intensity - Lower Keys Planning
Area (LKPA)
Airport District
0.0
0.0
9.2
0.0
0.0 0.0 39,988.1
Conservation
15.2
0.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
33,955.0
Industrial
0.2
0.0
15.2
0.0
86.3
101.7
2,658,815.3
Institutional
1.2
0.0
0.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
32,234.4
Military
94.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
566.4
2,056,032.0
Mixed Use/Commercial
35.1
4.1
45.8
4.3
6.7
576.2
1,882,576.1
Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing
9.6
9.7
2.5
0.0
14.2
288.6
628,483.7
Recreation
3.7
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.9
32,495.8
Residential Conservation
257.9
0.0
0.4
0.5
56.2
78.7
1,372,096.4
Residential Low
229.7
0.9
25.9
0.0
4.6
130.6
2,843,705.7
Residential Medium
100.8 1
59.1
176.9
4.6
33.9
3,002.2
0.0
Residential High
6.5
1.2
13.2
0.0
0.4
340.5
0.0
Total
Source: Monroe Countv Growth
754.4
Management-
75.3
9ni
289. 8
o °nnr
9.4
M r, r-,1)"
202.4
51085.9
.-- - �___._�,-
11,580,382.4
.,
- ---- a+L -I_ v , ivionme County vrowui Management,
2010, "MC _FLUM_510"; Policy 101.4.2; 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. Therefore, 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 in totals due to rounding.
rumue Lanu use 145 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Middle Keys
As observed in Table 2.55, vacant land is located in Tier I (28.2 acres) and Tier I11 (63.8)
only. Although development would be encouraged under Tier III given that Tier I encourages
conservation, the maximum allowed density within all tiers is 498 dwelling units and the
maximum allowed floor area is 347,412 square feet. This analysis is meant for illustrative
purposes only and is not a true picture of development potential since a review of the
individual parcel characteristics is needed in order to capture the Tier System true
applicability.
Table 2.55 - Vacant Land within a Tier, Density and Intensity - Middle Keys Planning
Area (MKPA)
Mixed Use Commercial
0.0
0.0
4.1
0.0
0.0
24.5
79,976.2
Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing
0.0
0.0
1.4
0.0
0.0
11.4
24,916.3
Residential Conservation
12.6
0.0
0.4
0.0
0.0
3.3
56,628.0
Residential Low
15.6
0.0
1.5
0.0
0.0
8.5
185,892.3
Residential Medium
0.0
0.0
56.4
0.0
0.0
451.0
0.0
Total
28.2
0.0
63.8
0.0
0.0
498.7
347,412.8
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, LU10, "MC-ELU-510"; Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "MC-FLUM-510"; Future Policy 101.4.2; Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "Tier-0110"
Tiers are:
I = Tier I - Natural Areas
II = Tier I1 (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. Therefore, 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 in totals due to rounding.
Upper Kew
As observed in Table 2.56, close to half of the land is located within Tier I. Even though
development would most likely be concentrated on the 263.6 acres within Tier III and III -A,
the maximum allowed density within all tiers is 3,614 dwelling units and maximum intensity
of 4,808,915 square feet. This analysis is meant for illustration purposes only and is not a
true representation of development potential. A closer review of the individual parcel
characteristics is required in order to capture the Tier System applicability.
Future Land Use 146 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.56 - Vacant Land within a Tier, Density and Intensity - Upper Keys Planning
Area (UKPA)
Future Land Use
Conservation
1 11 111
64.9 0.0 0.0
111-A
0.0
U Allowed
Density
0.0 0.0
Allowed
Intensity
141,243.3
Industrial
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
1.6
1.6
42,863.0
Mixed Use Commercial
16.1
0.0
50.7
30.6
21.4
712.4
2,327,345.5
Mixed Use Commercial Fishing
0.9
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.0
32.0
69,696.0
Recreation
14.5
0.0
3.1
0.0
0.1
4.4
154,028.2
Residential Conservation
90.1
0.0
1.3
0.0
1.2
23.1
403,322.0
Residential Low
128.6
0.0
6.3
13.1
5.4
76.7
1,670,417.1
Residential Medium
30.9
0.0
108.5
18.3
77.2
1,878.6
0.0
Residential High
7.2
0.0
26.6
2.0
19.5
885.4
0.0
Total
353.1
0.0
199.6
64.0
126.4
3,614.4
4,808,915.1
Source: Monroe County Growth
Management. 2010 "Mc FT.TT
S1(T"• Mnnrno Cnnn"Y (rn-rt-h T%A Te..
- - --- - - -- , �..u6 .....�,
2010, "MC-FLUM-510"; Policy 101.4.2; 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. Therefore, 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 in totals due to rounding.
2.7.4.5 Vacant Platted Lots Which Allow One Dwelling Unit by Tier and Land
Use
The following evaluation of vacant platted lots allowing one dwelling unit is conducted to
determine the development potential based upon the County's Tier System and future land
use designations. As seen in Table 2.57, of the 4,075 vacant parcels located in a zoning
district that allows one dwelling unit per lot, 54.3 percent or 2,212 lots are located within
the LKPA; 45.6 percent or 1,859 lots are located in the UKPA; and four parcels are located
within in the MKPA. This analysis includes lots in Tier I, I1, I1I, II1A, Undesignated Tier, Tier
0 and 148 lots located in Ocean Reef. This is a growth span around 20 years.
Future Land Use 147 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
The analyses below are for illustrative purposes only and is not a true representation of
development potential since a closer review of individual parcel characteristics is needed
in order to capture the true Tier System applicability. In addition, conditions specific to the
individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning designation and
other regulatory constraints are the final determinant of development potential.
Table 2.57 - Total Vacant Lots with Density of One Dwelling Unit per Lot
,3ource: monroe county urowtn management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"; Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "Zoning"; Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"; Policy 101.4.2;
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "Tier 0110"
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
As seen in Table 2.58 below, there is a total of 3,927 vacant parcels located in a zoning
district that allows one dwelling unit per lot that are located on Tier I, II, III, IIIA,
Undesignated Tier, Tier 0 and excludes 148 lots located in Ocean Reef (with no tier). This is
a growth span of approximately 20 years.
The analyses below are for illustrative purposes only and is not a true representation of
development potential since a closer review of individual parcel characteristics is needed
in order to capture the true Tier System applicability. In addition, conditions specific to the
individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning designation and
other regulatory constraints are the final determinant of development potential.
Table 2.58 - Vacant Lots with Density of One Dwelling Unit per Lot in Tier I, II, III,
IIIA, Undesignated Tier and Tier 0
Future Land Use 148 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"; Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "Zoning'; Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"; Monroe County Growth
Management, 2010, "Tier 0110"; Policy 101.4.2
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
As seen in Table 2.59 below, there is a total of 3,121 vacant parcels located in a zoning
district that allows one dwelling unit per lot that are located on Tier I, II, III, and IIIA. This
analysis excludes Undesignated Tier, Tier 0 and 148 vacant parcels located in Ocean Reef.
This is a growth span of approximately 16 years.
The analyses below are for illustrative purposes only and is not a true representation of
development potential since a closer review of individual parcel characteristics is needed
in order to capture the true Tier System applicability. In addition, conditions specific to the
individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning designation and
other regulatory constraints are the final determinant of development potential.
Table 2.59 - Vacant Lots with Density of One Dwelling Unit per Lot in Tier I, II, III, and
IIIA
bource: monroe county Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"; Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "Zoning"; Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"; Monroe County Growth
Management, 2010, "Tier 0110"; Policy 101.4.2
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
As seen in Table 2.60 below, there is a total of 2,286 vacant parcels located in a zoning
district that allows one dwelling unit per lot that are located on Tier II, I1I, and IIIA. This
analysis excludes Undesignated Tier, Tier 0 and 148 vacant parcels located in Ocean Reef.
It also excludes Tier I, which although developable, are primarily natural areas. This is a
growth span of approximately 12 years. There appears to be a sufficient amount of vacant
parcels located in a zoning district that allows one dwelling unit per lot to support
residential development throughout the 2030 planning horizon.
The analyses below are for illustrative purposes only and is not a true representation of
development potential since a closer review of individual parcel characteristics is needed
in order to capture the true Tier System applicability. In addition, conditions specific to the
individual parcel, including physical size, environmental sensitivity, zoning designation and
other regulatory constraints are the final determinant of development potential.
Future Land Use 149 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.60 - Vacant Lots with Density of One Dwelling Unit per Lot in Tier Il, III, and
IIIA
Lower Keys
313
1,107
17
1,437
197 11.6 yrs
i
Middle Keys
0 4 0
4
Upper Keys
0 720 125
845
TOTAL
313 1,831 142
2,286
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC-ELU_510"; Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "Zoning"; Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC-FLUM-510"; Monroe County Growth
Management, 2010, "Tier 0110"; Policy 101.4.2
Tiers are:
I = Tier I - Natural Areas
II = Tier II (Big Pine Key and No Name Keys in the Lower Keys PA only)
III = Tier III - Infill Areas
III -A = Special Protection Area (SPA)
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. Therefore, it was determined that a number of parcels should be re -designated. The Tier
Designation Review Committee is currently addressing the issues.
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.
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
Lower Kevs
As seen in the Table 2.61, the LKPA has 2,212 vacant lots which allow one dwelling unit to
be developed; these are, for the most part, under a Residential Medium or Residential High
future land use designation. Of the 2,212 lots, 196 are located under UNDES Tier or Tier 0;
their development potential cannot be determined until they are assigned a tier. The
majority (1,004) of the lots allowing one dwelling unit in this PA is designated Tier III.
Future Land Use 150 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.61- Vacant Lots with a Density of 1 DU per lot by Tier and Future Land Use -
Lower Keys Planning Area (LKPA)
Residential Medium
omm51
310
1,004
17
190
3
2,088
Residential High
15
1
99
0
1
2
118
Institutional
0
0
4
0
0
0
4
Conservation
0
2
0
0
0
0
2
Total
579
313
1,107
17
191
5
2,212
-- -- ---• -_----.Y lIVVVLLI I•ICLLICtSCllICIIL, LUIU, --MC-ELU-510"; Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "Zoning"; Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC-FLUM-510"; Monroe County Growth
Management, 2010, "Tier 0110"; Policy 101.4.2
Tiers are:
I = Tier I - Natural Areas
II = Tier II (Big Pine Key and No Name Keys in the Lower Keys PA only)
III = Tier III - Infill Areas
III -A = Special Protection Area (SPA)
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. Therefore, it was determined that a number of parcels should be re -designated. The Tier
Designation Review Committee is currently addressing the issues.
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.
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 151 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Middle Kevs
The Middle Keys, as illustrated in the Table 2.62, has four lots that allow one dwelling unit
each; these lots are in the Residential Medium land use category and are designated Tier III.
Table 2.62 - Vacant Lots allowing 1 DU per lot by Tier and Future Land Use -
Middle Keys Planning Area (MKPA)
Residential Medium 0 0 1 4 1 0 1 0 1 0 1 4
Total 0 0 I --4T ol ol ol 4
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_ELU_510"; Monroe County Growth Management,
2010, "Zoning"; Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC_FLUM_510"; Monroe County Growth
Management, 2010, "Tier 0110"; Policy 101.4.2
Tiers are:
I = Tier I - Natural Areas
II = Tier 11 (Big Pine Key and No Name Keys in the Lower Keys PA only)
III = Tier III - Infill Areas
III -A = Special Protection Area (SPA)
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. Therefore, it was determined that a number of parcels should be re -designated. The Tier
Designation Review Committee is currently addressing the issues.
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.
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
Upper Keys
As seen in the Table 2.63, the UKPA has 1,859 vacant lots, which allow a dwelling unit to
be developed and are, for the most part, under a Residential Medium and Residential High
future land use designation. Of the 1,859 lots, 610 are located under UNDES Tier or Tier 0;
their development potential cannot be determined until they are assigned a tier. In the
UPKA, 845 of the lots or 45.5 percent allow one dwelling unit to be developed, and are
located under Tiers III and III -A, which encourage development. Further, 148 lots or 8.0
percent are located in the Ocean Reef area, where the Tier System does not apply; all are
located within the Residential Medium future land use designation.
Future Land Use 152 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.63 - Vacant Lots allowing 1 DU per lot by Tier and Future Land Use - Upper
Keys (UPKA)
Future land -Use
Residential Medium
232
124
575
0
Tier
148
1,629
Residential Low
1
7--
0
0
0
0
1
Residential High
8
1
33
1
0
209
Recreation
1
0
1
0
1
0
0
3
Mixed Use Commercial Fishing
14
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
Mixed Use Commercial
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
3
Total
256
0
720
125
609
1
148
1,859
Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010 "MC
ELU 510"•
M C Growth Monroe County
rowt Management,
2010, "Zoning"; Source: Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, "MC-FLUM-510"; Monroe County Growth
Management, 2010, "Tier 0110"; Policy 101.4.2
Tiers are:
I = Tier I - Natural Areas
II = Tier II (Big Pine Key and No Name Keys in the Lower Keys PA only)
III = Tier III - Infill Areas
III -A = Special Protection Area (SPA)
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. Therefore, it was determined that a number of parcels should be re -designated. The Tier
Designation Review Committee is currently addressing the issues.
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.
NOTE: Slight differences in totals due to rounding.
2.7.4.6 Analysis of Proposed Development of Floodplains
[Rule 9J-5.006(2)(e),F.A.C.J
Floodplain areas within the County, as defined by the Federal Emergency Management, include
the 100-year floodplain (Zone AE) and the velocity zone (Zone VE) (see Chapter 3.0 Coastal and
Conservation Management Element for additional details). Most of the Keys lie within the 100-
year floodplain. Exceptions include strips of along US1 on Key Largo, Plantation Key, Windley
Key, and Plantation Key as well as other small areas (see Map Series 3-2).
Because most of the County lies within the 100-year floodplain, the effects of the Future Land
Use Plan on floodplain areas will be similar to the effects on the County as a whole. The
residential and non-residential rate of growth allocation point system directs growth away
from areas particularly susceptible to damage from flooding, within the 100-year floodplain by
assigning negative points for developments proposed within the VE zone.
Future Land Use 153 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.7.5 Future Land Use Opportunities
2.7.5.1 Need for Redevelopment
[Rule 9J-5.006(2)(d), F.A.C.]
As noted in Section 2.2.10, of this Element, in the late 1990s, the County Planning
Department developed the Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP), which recognizes the
distinctive nature of each island's resources and community needs and desires; addresses
quality of life issues; and provides a future vision for the community. The general policy
direction.for the enhancement of existing areas is that the LCPs "will be used in conjunction
with the Point System to discourage urban sprawl," protect natural resources, and enhance
the character of the community "by encouraging infill development in established
residential and commercial areas."
The concept of Community Centers is an important part of the LCPs. The County recognizes
the special nature of Community Centers identified in the LCPs and supports the creation of
area specific regulatory strategies and design standards to achieve local objectives. Over the
past few years, the County has worked with local stakeholders to create policies and
standards to ensure individual projects meet local needs, contribute to the creation of
compact, walkable destinations, protect existing small businesses, and enhance the unique
character of individual communities.
While the LCPs identify appropriate areas for redevelopment, the issue of how best to
address non -conforming sites is challenging. While sites with non -conformities may
continue in their current state and use, the nonconforming status may be a barrier to
reinvestment and improvement. Non -conformities may limit changes in use, investment in
modest improvements and additions, rebuilding after damage by fire or storm, and affect
the owners and tenant's ability to procure insurance and financing. Additionally, the
County should consider conducting an analysis to determine the redevelopment potential
of obsolete residential and non-residential structures with U.S. 1 frontage in areas
designated on the FLUM as Mixed Use Commercial development.
2.7.5.2 Nonconformities
[Rule 9J-5.006(2)(d)(2), F.A.C.]
Throughout the Keys there are an extensive number of parcels that should be evaluated for
non -conformity with the Future Land Use and/or Land Use districts. An analysis of these
parcels should be made to determine their specific issues since their non -conforming status
may result from a variety of conditions (e.g. parking may be inadequate, setbacks and
landscaping may not meet current standards, existing uses may not be permitted, or the
intensity of development may be higher than is currently allowed). Upon completion of this
analysis, the County should evaluate the land use designation of lawfully -established non-
conforming non-residential land uses and structures and determine if changes in planning
Future Land Use 154 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
policy or land development regulations are appropriate assure community services may be
maintained and to encourage rehabilitation, improvement, and modest additions.
2.7.5.3 Need for Additional Dredge Spoil Sites
There are no designated dredge spoil sites in the County. Furthermore, due to the
environmental impacts associated with the placement and storage of these materials, there is
no identified need for new dredge spoil disposal sites.
2.7.5.4 Mixed Use Commercial Land in Tier I
As noted in Tables 2.54 and 2.56, a substantial amount of vacant land in Tier 1, within the
UKPA and the LKPA, have a Mixed Use land use designation. The County should consider
examining these lands for future land use map amendments and/or rezoning.
2.7.5.5 Need for Conservation Land Protection
Every three years Monroe County should evaluate land acquired through ROGO dedication
and/or grant funding for inclusion into a future land use conservation district and/or a
conservation land use district (CLUD)/Zoning district.
2.7.5.6 Geographic Information System (GIST
The Monroe County Growth Management Division should coordinate with the Property
Appraiser's Office to continually update the existing Geographic Information System (GIS)
database regarding land uses and densities and intensities of use in the County. The
database should be updated to reflect the amount of development within the County as
well as land use categories that are mapped on the Existing Land Use Map.
The Monroe County Growth Management Division should consider including in the LDR's a
geographic description of the four PAs, as defined in Section 2.2.1 "Geographic Location" In
particular the Mainland PA which has been newly added to GIS data for this Comprehensive
Plan Update.
The Monroe County Growth Management Division should consider further analysis of
density and intensity once the Tier 0 and Undesignated Tier issues have been resolved.
The Monroe County Growth Management Division should consider designating the offshore
islands that have an "Undesignated" classification on the Future Land Use Map (Map Series
2-3) These are the offshore islands that are primarily located in the Everglades National
Park and the Lower Keys PA including but not limited to the Marquesas and the Dry
Tortugas Keys. More accurate acreage may be provided on Section 2.3.5 "Offshore Islands
if the existing land use layer had offshore island names.
Future Land Use 155 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
2.7.5.7 Consideration of Trends and Recommendations for Alternative Method
Since the implementation of NROGO, applications for square footage have not exceeded the
amount available. The process is cumbersome; awards are made every six months. The
County should consider as an alternative method that maintains the NROGO but allows
existing business to expand outside the NROGO process, utilizing building permits as the
method by which track the square footage issued.
2.7.5.8 US-1 Residential Capacity
As noted in Section 2.6.9.1 of this Element, and discussed in detail in Chapter 4.0 Traffic
Circulation, the US-1 level of service methodology identifies the reserve traffic capacity of the
various roadway segments. This reserve capacity has been translated to residential dwelling
unit capacity and projected out to 2030 as seen in Table 2.64, below. It is important to note
that these capacity projections are based upon the reserve speeds for 2010 as established in
the 2010 U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study (the "Study"); and as such are valid until
the next update of the Study or until mitigation actions are implemented. The County should
continue to monitor the US-1 annual studies and update this analysis accordingly to assure
that development within these segments do not negatively impact the level of service nor
exceed the residential capacity.
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Future Land Use 156 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Table 2.64 - U.S.1 Reserve Volume and Residential Unit Capacity (2010-2030)
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 Cop itt
549(2)
86 3
3 3
3
3
3
3
3
4
Saddlebunch
2,593
405 1,419
222
584
91
3
3
3
3
5
Sugarloaf
265
41
3
3
3
3
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
1 142
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
3
3'
3
3
11 Bahia Honda
7-Mile
12 Bridge
7,187
3,716
1,123
581
5,806
2,366
907
370
4,836
1,299
756
203
3,851
248
602
39
2,845
3
445
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
0(2)
8
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
3
15 Duck
1,565
245
1,023
160
542
85
77
12
3
3
16 Long
6,722
1,050
4,784
748
3,018
472
1,315
206
3
3
Lower
17 Matecumbe
940
2
147"
3
3
3
3
3
3
a
3
18 Tea Table
727 2
114
3
3
3'
3
3
3
a
3
Upper
19 Matecumbe
611
95
3
3
3
3
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
3
3
3
3
3
3_
22 Tavernier
9,539
1,490
7,778
1,215
5,991
936
4,178
653
2,337
365
23 Key Largo
9,121
11425
7,897
1,234
6,065
948
4,501
703
2,915
455
24 Cross
Source 2010 US-1 Arterial
7,187
Travel
1,123
Time
5,906
and
923
Dela Stud
4,605
M
719
3,285
513
1,945
304
Y y ( onroe County)
Notes:
I. Notes: These individual reserve volumes may be unobtainable, due to the constraint imposed by the
overall reserve volume.
2. Value shown is 5% Allocation for 2010. County regulations and FDOT policy allow segments that fail to
meet LOS C standards to receive an allocation not to exceed five percent below the LOS C standard. The
resulting flexibility allows a limited amount of additional land development (number of residential
units as shown) to continue until traffic speeds are measured the following year or until remedial
actions are implemented.
3. Residential capacity not determined for future years where forecast reserve capacity is negative.
Future Land Use 157 Technical Document: May 2011
Appendix 2-1:
Commercial
Conservation
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Existing Land Use Designation with Corresponding Property Code (PC)
11 1 STORES, ONE STORY
12 I MIXED USE - RESIDENTIAL COMMERCIAL
13 DEPARTMENT STORE
1 14 SUPERMARKET
15 REGIONAL SHOPPING CENTER
16 COMMUNITY SHOPPING CENTER
17 OFFICE BUILDING, ONE STORY
18 OFFICE BUILDING, MULTI STORY
19 PROFESSIONAL SERVICES BUILDING
20 AIRPORT, MARINA, BUS TERM
21 RESTAURANT OR CAFETERIA
22 FAST FOOD DRIVE THRU RESTAURANT
23 FINANCIAL INSTITUTION
24 INSURANCE COMPANY OFFICE
25 REPAIR SHOP (NOT AUTOMOTIVE
26 SERVICE STATION
27 AUTO SALES/REPAIR, MARINE EQUIP
28 PARKING LOTS, MOBILE HOME PARKS
29 WHOLESALE OUTLET
30 FLORIST OR GREENHOUSE
31 DRIVE-IN THEATER OR OPEN STADIUM
32 ENCLOSED THEATER OR AUDITORIUM
33 NIGHTCLUB OR LOUNGE OR BAR
34 BOWLING ALLEY, POOL HALL, MIN GOLF
35 TOURIST ATTRACTION
36 CAMPS
37 RACE TRACKS, AUTO, DOG, HORSE
38 GOLF COURSE
39 HOTEL OR MOTEL
82 U S MAINLAND FOREST, PARKS, REC AREA
88 FEDERAL
89 MUNICIPAL
96 WASTE LAND, MARSH, SAND DUNES
96 NON GOV. OWNED LAND -EVERGLADES
99 NON AG ACREAGE SAC OR MORE
99 NATURE CONSERVANCY, FL KEYS LAND
TRUST
Conservation or Other Public - Utilities and j 8718
Rights of Ways STATE
1° To arrive at the existing land use category aerials were considered and if the area was mainly mangrove is
was classified as conservation. If it contained development, it was classified as Other Public - Utilities and
Rights -of -Ways.
suture Land Use 158 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-1: Existing Land Use Designation with Corresponding Property Code (PC)
(continued)
Conservation or Public Buildings and
8619
Grounds
COUNTY
Educational
72
PRIVATE SCHOOL OR COLLEGE,
83
PUBLIC SCHOOL
41
LIGHT MANUFACTURING
42
HEAVY INDUSTRIAL
43
LUMBERYARD
44
PACKING PLANT, SEAFOOD ETC.
Industrial
45
CANNERIES OR DISTILLERIES
46
OTHER FOOD PROCESSING
47
GRAVEL PIT
48
WAREHOUSING
49
OPENSTORAGE
71
CHURCH
72
RESEARCH CENTER
73
PRIVATE HOSPITAL
74
NURSING HOME
Institutional
75
ORPHANAGE
76
MORTUARIES OR CEMETERY
77
CLUB OR LODGE
78
REST HOMES, HOMELESS SHELTER
84
PUBLIC COLLEGE
85
PUBLIC HOSPITAL
Militar
81
MILITARY
Other Public -Utilities and Right -of -Ways
91
UTILITIES
94
RIGHT OF WAY
Recreational
80
FL. PARKS OR MEMORIALS
92
PRIVATE PARK
01
SINGLE FAMILY
02
MOBILE HOME
03
MULTI FAMILY 110 UNITS OR MORE
04
CONDOMINIUM
Residential
05
TIMESHARE
06
RETIREMENT HOME
07
COMPOUNDS
08
MULTI FAMILY r, ESS THAN 10 UNIT
09
RESERVED BY DOR fDO NOT USE
00
VACANT RESIDENTIAL
Vacant or Undeveloped
10
VACANT COMMERCIAL
40
VACANT INDUSTRIAL
Source: Monroe County Growth Management CGIS)
70
Division
VACANT INSTITUTIONAL
19 To arrive at the existing land use category aerials were considered and if the area was mainly mangrove is
was classified as conservation. If it contained development, it was classified as Public Buildings and Ground.
Future Land Use 159 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-2: Existing Density and Intensity by Property Code (PC)
..
PC
Descripbon
Area
Area (St.-) (Acres)
Units
Building
SF
�SJNGLF
016SINGL01
FAMILY
SINGLE FAMILY
269,036,094
6,176.2
13,596
NA
2.20
NA
02
MOBILE HOME
304,084,770
6,9830.8
4,987
NA
0.71
NA
MULTI FAMILY (10
03
UNITS OR MORE)
1,108,698
25.5
261
NA
10.25
NA
04
CONDOMINIUM
19,997,628
459.1
2,393
NA
5.21
NA
05
TIMESHARE
372,267
8.5
70
NA
8.19
NA
07
COMPOUNDS20
19,124
0.4
8
NA
18.22
NA
MULTI FAMILY (LESS
08
THAN 10 UNITS)
12,488,031
286.7
1,493
NA
5.21
NA
LICENSED PUBLIC
NA
LODGING FACILITIES
7,624,630Z1
175.0
2,19922
NA
12.56
NA
SUBTOTAL
41,610,378
955.2
6,424
j
6.72
NA
12
MIXED-USE(Residential)
5,177,622.40
118.9
196
NA
1.65
NA
MIXED -USE
0.1002
12
Commercial
5,177,622.40
118.9
NA
518,972
NA
3
2° According to the Monroe County Property Appraiser, these are single family homes that have a shared interest in a
common area. (email communication from Robbie Shaw dated August 26, 2010) New Lodging Establishments - Current
21 Square foot area from Property Appraiser's Office dataset "Public -Parcel" PC code 39, dating January 2010
22 Number of rooms from licensed hotel/motel acquired from Economic Trends and Opportunities in Unincorporated
Monroe County by Fishkind and Associates, Inc. February 23, 2011 report.
Future Land Use 160 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-2: Existing Density and Intensity by Property Code (continued)
11
STORES, ONE STORY
2,560,859
58.8
NA
386,764
NA
0.15103
13
DEPARTMENT STORE
20,627
0.5
NA
•1,600
NA
0.07757
14
SUPERMARKET
237,189
5.4
NA
51,415
NA
0.21677
REGIONAL SHOPPING
15
ICENTER
0
0.0
NA
0
NA
0.00000
COMMUNITY SHOPPING
16
CENTER
3,129,330
71.8
NA
629,659
NA
0.20121
OFFICE BUILDING, ONE
17
STORY
1,838,872
42.2
NA
233,770
0.12713
OFFICE BUILDING,
18
MULTI STORY
1,045,452
24.0
NA
111,862
:::NA
NA
0.10700
PROFESSIONAL
19
SERVICES BUILDING
1,677,210
38.5
NA
110,303
NA
0.06577
AIRPORT, MARINA, BUS
20
TERM
165,922,094
3,809.0
NA
269,381
NA
0.00162
RESTAURANT OR
21
CAFETERIA
1,486,046
34.1
NA
128,242
NA
0.08630
FAST FOOD DRIVE THRU
22
RESTAURANT
276,325
6.3
NA
25,598
NA
0.09264
FINANCIAL
23
INSTITUTION
676,353
15.5
NA
67,139
NA
0.09927
INSURANCE COMPANY
24
OFFICE
0
0.0
NA
0
NA
0.00000
REPAIR SHOP (NOT
25
AUTOMOTIVE)
2,016,526
46.3
NA
162,679
NA
0.08067
26
SERVICE STATION
741,167
17.0
NA
62,575
NA
0.08443
AUTO SALES/REPAIR,
27
MARINE EQUIP
611,711
14.0
NA
31,457
NA
0.05142
PARKING LOTS, MOBILE
28
HOME PARKS
9,372,308
215.2
NA
231,780
NA
0.02473
1U1 1"echnical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-2: Existing Density and Intensity by Property Code (continued)
PC Description Area (SF) Area Units Building Densjt�
A
WHOLESALE
29 OUTLET 193,653 4.4 NA 9,224 NA
0.04763
FLORIST OR
30
GREENHOUSE
218,456
5.0
NA
1,742
NA
0.00797
DRIVE-IN THEATER
31
OR OPEN STADIUM
20,071
0.5
NA
5,238
NA
0.26098
ENCLOSED
THEATER OR
32
AUDITORIUM
11,940
0.3
NA
2,378
NA
0.19916
NIGHTCLUB OR
33
LOUNGE OR BAR
174,782
4.0
NA
13,059
NA
0.07472
BOWLING ALLEY,
POOL HALL, MIN
34
GOLF
28,768
.71
NA
0
NA
0.00000
SUBTOTAL
192,259,737 4,413.7 NA
2,535,865
NA
0.01319
TOURIST
35
ATTRACTION
440,844 10.1 NA
30,172
NA
0.06844
36
CAMPS
40,001
0.9
NA
2,594
NA
0.06485
RACE TRACKS,
37
AUTO, DOG, HORSE
764,519
17.6
NA
73,522
NA
0.09617
1,245,364
28.6
NA
106,288
NA
0.08535
SUBTOTAL
COMMERCIAL
FISHINC
PACKING PLANT,
44 SEAFOOD
ETC.
1,032,510
23.7
NAJ
60,152
NA
0.05826
Future Land Use 162 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-2: Existing Density and Intensity by Property Code (continued)
!PC
Description
Area (SF)
Area
(Acres)
Units
-Building Density
SF (DU/Acres)
FAR (SF/SF)
INDUSTRIAL
LIGHT
41
MANUFACTURING
874,279
20.1 NA 56,326
NA
0.06443
HEAVY
42
INDUSTRIAL
449,499
10.3
NA
14,721
NA
0.03275
43
LUMBERYARD
150,723
3.5
NA
19,374
NA
0.12854
OTHER FOOD
46
PROCESSING
38,477
0.9
NA
3,009
NA
0.07820
47
GRAVEL PIT
7,853,609
180.3
NA
31,642
NA
0.00403
48
WAREHOUSING
6,016,921
138.1
NA
700,219
NA
0.11637
49
OPEN STORAGE
3,090,718
71.0
NA
4,521
NA
0.00146
SUBTOTAL
18,474,226
424.1
NA
829,8121
NAI
0.04492
PRIVATE SCHOOL
OR COLLEGE,
1
RESEARCH
72 CENTER
521,485
12.0
NA
90,885
NA
0.17428
C SCHOOL
+84PUBLIC
3,588,519
82.4
NA
280,183
NA
0.07808
COLLEGE
0
0.0
NA
0
NA
0.00000
SUBTOTAL 1
4,110,0041
94.4
NA
371,068
NA
0.09028
Future Land Use 163 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-2: Existing Density and Intensity by Property Code (continued)
P, C Description Area (SF) Are Units, Buil(filig DellsitN.
FAR
(SF/SF)
71 CHURCH 3,358,403 77.1 NA 190,612 NA
0.05676
PRIVATE
73-
HOSPITAL
93,436
NA
27,705
NA
0.29651
74
NURSING HOME
7,667
rO..
NA
1,485
NA
0.19370
75
ORPHANAGE
0
0.0
NA
0
NA
0.00000
MORTUARIE OR
76
CEMETERY
1,181,899
27.1
NA
8,611
NA
0.00729
77
CLUB OR LODGE
16,848,964
386.8
NA
352,887
NA
0.02094
85
PUBLIC HOSPITAL
361,346
8.3
NA
90,300
NA
0.24990
1HUHN"
SUBTOTAL
WHIM
21,851,714
501.6
NA
671,600
NA
0.03073
COUNTY (OTHER
86
THAN PC LIST)
66,517,589
1,527.0
NA
233,680
NA
0.00351
STATE (OTHER
87
THAN PC LIST)
602,792,054
13,838.2
NA
79,915
NA
0.00013
MUNICIPAL
(OTHER THAN PC
89
LIST)
524,181
12.0
NA
0
NA
0.00000
94
RIGHT OF WAY
28,584,780
656.2
NA
96
NA
0.00000
SUBTOTAL
698,418,605
16,033.5
j
313,691
j
0.00045
91
UTILITIES 1
6,891,176
158.2
NJ
188,552
NA
0.02736
Future Land Use 164 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-2: Existing Density and Intensity by Property Code (continued)
181
RECREATION
1 MILITARY
66,245,929
1
1,520.8 NA
2,674 NA
0.00004
38
GOLF COURSE
11,360,085
260.8
NA
51,499
NA
70.00453
92
PRIVATE PARK
6,722,004
154.3
NA
17,075
NA
0.00254
SUBTOTAL
18,082,089
415.1
NA
68,574
NA
0.00379
CONSERVATION
M��7��7
NA
VALANT
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
VACANT
00
RESIDENTIAL
834,287,416
19,152.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
VACANT
10
COMMERCIAL
29,443,348
675.9
NA
NA
NA
NA
VACANT
40
INDUSTRIAL
0
0.0
NA
NA
NA
NA
VACANT
70
INSTITUTIONAL
65,585,215
1,505.6
NA
NA
NA
NA
SUBTOTAL
929,315,979
21,334.2
NA
NA
NA
NA
Future Land Use 165 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-2: Existing Density and Intensity by Property Code (continued)
Area
PC Description Areii (SF) (Acres) Units Building SF
Dclisity ,R
(D'U/Acres) (SF/SF)
WASTE LAND,
MARSH, SAND
DUNES, NON GOV
OWNED LAND-
96 EVERGLADES 5,235,306.82 120.2 NA 0
NA 0.00000
NATURE
CONSERVANCY,
FL KEYS LAND
99
TRUST
214,813,929.24
4,931.4
NA
0
NA
0.00000
SUBTOTAL
220,049,236.06
5,051.E
NA
0
NA
0.00000
TOTAL
UNINCORPORATED
KEYS
2,797,885,433.70
64,230.61
26,274
5,667,248
NA
NA
U S MAINLAND
FOREST, PARKS,
82 REC AREA
21,147,221,210.09
269,007
NA
119,577
NA
0.000'
FEDERAL
(OTHER THAN PC
88
LIST)
8,190,914,532.32
122,909
NA
73,725
NA
0.00001
SUBMERGED
95
LAND
41,234,132.12
944
NA
820
NA
0.00002
NO PC CODE
879,651.12
20
NA
0
NA
0.00000
SUBTOTAL
29,380,249,525.65
392,880
NA
194,122
NA
NA
GRAND TOTAL MONROE
COUNTY
32,178,134,959.35
457,110.61
26,274
5,861,370
NA
NA
Source: Monroe Countv Pronertv
Annraiser'.e nffirP ian„ m ?nl n ,Parrot Pnhlir"
Future Land Use 166 Technical Document: May 2011
9-1.I &I"MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSWE PLAN UPDATE
W W W.KEYscomppLAN.COM
{S00i) 488-1255
1
Monroe County 2010-2030
Population Projections
March 15, 2 011
Monroe County 2010-2030 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11 Fishkind and Associates
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WWW IaYSCOMPPLAN.COM.
(800) 488-1255
1.0 Background -Forecast Approach
The population forecast was prepared' for unincorporated Monroe County through year
2030 for the update of the County's Comprehensive Plan. Population is identified according
to upper/middle/lower (UML) keys. It is based on the countywide functional population
control total forecast through 2030; functional population is the sum of permanent plus
seasonal population.
The Keith and Schnars (K&S) team begins with a permanent population forecast and a
seasonal population forecast at the county level. The seasonal population series is based
on the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) data series. This series includes estimates
of seasonal residences, RV's, hotel/motel, camps, boat liveaboards, mobile home, and other.
The Department of Community Affairs (DCA) has recommended using the FKAA series for
the purposes of estimating the seasonal population component, with appropriate updates
to the methodology.
The permanent population series is the latest published by the University of Florida,
Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR). In as much as ROGO has been in place
since 1993, BEBR population projections reflect a ROGO constrained growth trend. This
means permanent population growth projections implicitly assume the continuation of the
ROGO constraint and the effects of the ROGO constraint are implicitly embedded in the
history.
2.0 ROGO Based Permanent Population Series
The ROGO based permanent population series will be used in the Comp Plan update as one
component of the functional population. At the county level, for control totals, DCA has
recommended using the latest BEBR annual estimates and the BEBR Medium series
population projections from PS 156, published March 2010 for permanent population
estimates.
3.0 Analysis of Permanent Population Data
University of Florida annual population estimates for municipalities and unincorporated
areas indicates permanent population fell in the Keys from 2006-2008, with some a 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 BEBR
suggest a downward trend in permanent population. This is reflected in the resulting
Functional Population series shown in Figure 1. This series represents the sum of the
most recent BEBR permanent projection and the FKAA seasonal projection.
1 The population forecast was prepared by Fishkind and Associates with support from Keith and Schnars P.A.
Monroe County 2010-2030 2 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
.MONROE COUNTY" COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
160,000
155,000
150,000
145,000
W W W-laySCOMPPLAN.COM
(800) 488-1255
LOy1'�py�'��yb�.Z,lb
Figure 1- Preliminary Functional Population Projection
4.0 Analysis of Seasonal Population Data
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. It is our view 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 in our view 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,
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 Monroe County since
1999, nearly 70% has been in non -homesteaded units. It is likely this is a function of 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.
5.0 Seasonality
Monroe County 2010-2030 3 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSWE PLAN UPDATE
W W W.KEYSCOMPPLAN.COM
(800) 488-1255
Seasonal population is one component of Functional population. K&S has researched three
functional population series. The three functional series in this analysis include permanent
populations based on Census, BEBR and FKAA. In each of these scenarios the same
Seasonal series, from FKAA, is used. The FKAA seasonal series is the seasonal series
developed by Monroe County Planning Department (MCPD). The detailed methodology for
the Seasonal series is found in the MCPD report included as Appendix 1. The FKAA
seasonal series methodology generated from the MCPD report is found in Appendix 2.
As permanent population has fallen we must examine whether and the degree to which it is
replaced by seasonal population. The American Communities Survey from 2005, 2008 and
the Census 2000 data indicate a substantial increase in housing units held for seasonal use.
These data indicate the number of seasonal units has risen from 12,628 in 2000 to 15,262
in 2005 to 19,195 in 2008 (Table 2). This is an increase of 6,567 seasonal units. This
would represent a shift into seasonal population by as much as 16,418 persons. During the
same period permanently occupied units have fallen from 35,086 to 29,084, some 6,002
units or a decline of 15,005 persons (Table 1). Based on the ACS and Census data, the loss
in permanent population is approximately equivalent to the gain in seasonal population
since year 2000.
Monroe County 2010-2030 4 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WWW.KEYS COMPPLAN. COM
(800)488-1255
Table 1- HI - Vacant and Occupied Unit Counts
Table HI. Housing Units by Vacancy Status and Tenure by Units in Structure. 2000 - Monroe County
Monroe County
Occupied Units
Vacant l
Total
Vacant
Units in Structure
Owner Renter
Total
Units
units
%
detached
attached
3,866 3,496
17.362
t. bbu
24.212
26.29%
2
1,046 1503
2,1648
1.655
4.2D 3
39.38%
30-4
480 1,598
2,078
453
2,531
17.90%
5 to 9
306 1,876
2, i8l
58=.
2.770
212C%
215 1,042
2_7
897
2E
6to19 .4%
20 t-, 49
403 425
828
899
1,727
E10E%
50 or more
375 180
S55
1,039
1.594
65. 18%
hlobde home
346 1.043
1389
444
1,833
24.22%
Boat. RV, van- etc-
4,468 1,945
6.413
3,401
9.814
I
34.65%
Total
396 79
475
304
779
39.02%
12
21.19001 131861
35,0861
16.5311
51-6171
32.03%1
Table H1. Housing Units by Vacancy
Status and Tenure by Units in Structure, 2005 - Monroecounty
Monroe County
Occupied Units
--
Vacant
Total-F
—Vacant
Units in Structure
Owner 1 Renter I
Total
Units
units
%
I. detached
1, attached
jt'blB 2,1
1,44tl
26,J90
28.55%
2
1,427 2.136
3,533
2,97B
6,511
45.74%
3o' r4
621 973
1,594
636
2.230
28_52%
5 to 9
52 1,521
1,573
F538
2,211
28.86%
iO to 19
4E8 482
910
1,44C
2,380
60.50%
20 to 49
597 46
643
505
1,148
4199%
50 or more
132 1.126
1257
1,198
2,455
48.80%
hlobile home
435 532
967
203
1,170
17.35%
Boat, Rd. van. et.-.
2,876 1,485
4.361
23,904
8,26-F,
47 24%
Total
405 46
461
ri
451
23.6211 10,3401
33,961
Table HI. Housing Units by Vacancy
Status and Tenure by Units in Structure. 2008 - Monroe Coun
Monroe County
Occupied Units
Vacant
Total
Vacant
—Units in Structure
Owner Renter
Total L
Units
Units
%
1, detached
attached
3,344
18,363
1C.351
28,714
36.05%
2 ,
490 1,233
1,723
4,932
65.06%
1 or4
371 803
174
764
1,938
39,42%
5 to 9
283 699
982
1,581
2,563
61.69%
10 to 19
272 845
1,117
2,158
3,276
55.89%
20 to 49
170 202
372
1,011
1,383
73.10%
50 or more
16 1 56
217
628
1,045
79.23%
Mobile home
463 504,
967
816
1,783
4 5. T7 %
Boat. RV_ van. etc.
2,739 1,121
31860
4,011
7,871
50.96%
Total
164 145
7n 11,1011 a 04�1
309
1. —
0
— ---
309
0.03%
Monroe County 2010-2030 5 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WWW.IaYSCOMP PLAN. COM
Table 2-H3
Table H3. Number of Vacant Units by Vacanev Stntw; ;JfiA() - Mnnrnia (-minty
Monroe County
Vacant
Vacancy Status
Units
For spie only
7 __5 9
4 E
Rented or sold, not accup.ed
- 304
For seasonal, recreational, 07,occas,onal use
2, t3, 2 8
7 6 2-9 %'
Fo- migrantworkers;
8
129: '
Other'vacant
1,129
6.83%
Total
1 16,531[
1 00.00n.
Tablp H1. Nurnlapr c)f Var-ant [Initc by Var-nns-v etnt— Inrir, U--.--
Munroe County
Vacant
Vacancy Status
Units
%
ror 7-am
943
4-98%
Rented, not occupied
458
242%
For sake only
448
2 3 6
Sold, not occupied
123
D E ___, %
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use
'5738
83 CIS %
FDir migrant NOTkers
0
f 00%
Other .,acant
1,240
6 51 'X__
Total
1 18,9501
100.00%1
Table 1-l3. Number of Vacant Uni'm by Varnno-v vzt;ttvic 2nnR U^nrf%v 1-niontt,
Monroe County
Vacant
Vacancy Status
Unity
rol, rent
1,581
6_4301,
Rented, not occupied
E, 21
�D 212 o
For save on'y
1,545
6 - 2 85
Sold, not occupied
44'
79 jy
For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use
9'1H
78-133%,
For migrant workers
J
1,C0
Other vacant
I , 914
7,
1 17 8
Total
1 24,7291
100.53' .J
Source: US Census and American Communities Survey;
Prepared by the South Florida Regional Planning Council
Contributing to the support of the seasonal increase phenomenon is the rate of
foreclosures and the Monroe County Property Appraiser data regarding homestead
exemptions. It is generally believed non -homesteaded properties represent seasonal
vacant, second homes, or for -rent units. Population in these should be distinguished from
Monroe County 2010-2030 6 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MON1E OE COFUNTYCOMPREHENSWE PLAN UPDATE
WWW.KEYSCOMPPPLAN COM
(800) 488-12SS
short-term tourist visitors. However, in times of high foreclosure rates, a shift to non -
homestead may represent a temporary loss in permanent population.
During the housing bubble from 2003-2008 in fact non -homesteaded units did rise. This
coincided with a rise in foreclosures, as well as speculative investing and reported
permanent population losses. There were 3,431 foreclosures in Monroe County from
2005-2009.
During the 2000-2009 period, total homesteaded units increased from 16,005 to 16,698
units, a net increase of 693 units. Non -homesteaded units moved from 20,784 to 22,197, a
net increase of 1,413 units. This compares with the 3,431 foreclosures from 2005-2009,
recognizing it is likely as much as half of the foreclosed units may have been resold since
the initial foreclosures which began in 2005, and some tendency to for those units to return
to a homesteaded status. By 2009, after speculative investing ceased, the share of non -
homesteaded properties went back down, falling to 2003 levels. This is consistent with the
expectation of resold foreclosures regaining homesteads (Figure 2). Also, as noted,
permanent population increased during 2009 according to BEBR, supporting an increase in
permanent population.
The non -homestead rate for all units is now 57.1%. This is essentially the same rate both
pre and post bubble. Single family non -homestead rates began to move up more closely in
concert with rising foreclosures (Figure 2). This supports our belief a considerable portion
of permanent population losses may be attributable to foreclosures arising from the
speculative housing bubble, and thus temporary. The expectation is some permanent
population may return to these units over the course of the planning horizon - thus
permanent population may increase over this period in substantially greater numbers than
the growth in new housing units. To the degree this condition occurs, the BEBR medium
series permanent population projection will be in error and will under -project permanent
population growth. Planning for this contingency in the face of an unknown resolution to
thousands of foreclosures is necessary. Thus, reflecting the population associated with
portions of these foreclosed units as non -homestead and seasonal population will also
correct and compensate for this potential longer term problem with the BEBR projection.
Monroe County 2010-2030 7 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
W W W.KEYSCOMPPL kN.COM
(800) 488-1255
k � Y
Figure 2- Monroe County - Foreclosures and
The Percent of Non -Homestead Residential Units
There has been an increase in vacant units from 2005-2009. During this period both the
Census and BEBR indicated permanent population loss. From 2005 to 2008 the ACS
indicated an increase in seasonal vacancy of 3,457 units. During the 2005-2009 period,
foreclosure data indicated there were 3,431 foreclosures, as noted earlier. Thus, the ACS
data indicates, on net, the permanent population losses and associated housing vacancy is
being shifted into seasonal units. Further, it is believed there is associated seasonal (non-
permanent population) associated with these vacant units. With a reported permanent
population growth in 2009 and increasing homestead exemptions in 2009 on one hand and
coinciding numbers of foreclosures and seasonal increase through ACS, it is equally
possible in our view, the permanent population loss is temporary and due as much to the
end of the housing bubble, foreclosures and rising unemployment as it is due to a shift from
permanent to seasonal residency. It is likely both conditions exist and are occurring.
6.0 Methodological Flaw in MCPD and FKAA Regarding Seasonal Shift
The MCPD seasonal population methodology and the FKAA seasonal population
methodology did not contemplate or recognize the shift of the existing population base
from permanent to seasonal. The MCPD methodology considered residential unit growth
only and the depletion of available buildable lots, when contemplating the future level of
either permanent or seasonal populations. This is partly due to the MCPD methodology not
having the benefit of the data beyond year 2000 which shows a more pronounced shift
among existing units from permanent/homesteaded units to non -homesteaded units, and
the American Communities Survey data, which supports the seasonal shift.
Monroe County 2010-2030 8 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
W W W.laySCOMPPLA N.COM
�(800) 488-1255
The failure to consider or incorporate the shift in the existing population base is the reason
for the change that has been made to the previously approved FKAA population
methodology in this update. The methodological change employed here is to both shift
some of the projected dwelling unit growth into seasonal residences and account for the
loss of existing permanent residents through an offsetting shift to seasonal residents.
Further, in the MCPD analysis, rather than showing seasonal population increasing as it has
been, on pages 32 and 33 of the MCPD report it states an assumption was employed
causing the seasonal population to decline in a similar fashion to anticipated permanent
population decline.
The MCPD methodology employed an assumption called the "drag factor" of .1% per year to
reduce the growth of seasonal populations over time. The "drag factor" is used to illustrate
the assumption of seasonal population declines from the historic actual. However there is
no analysis or data which is presented to support the use of the "drag factor", nor the .1%
level of the "drag factor" with respect to seasonal populations. Further there is no mention
or discussion in the MCPD analysis which recognizes that the loss in the existing permanent
population base may be offset by an increase in the seasonal population. The current
population projections in this report correct this methodological flaw.
The discussion of the "drag factor" assumption is found in the MCPD permanent population
methodology on page 30 and is excerpted below:
A "drag" factor was applied to each year's percent increase figures by PAPD. This drag factor increases by . I"gin each year over
the tea year period, so that by 2015, the rate of increase in perrnuncrtt resident population by PAED will have declined by t _ I %.
This drag factor was employed as an assumption that the availability of building penuits will decline as lire carrying, capacity of
111e Keys is reached.. It is also likely that the availability of Wilding sites will also decline in the early years of the la;enly-first
century. Analysis has shown that a 1.1% decline ill mean perctsntage increases in population over a ten year period would not
significantly affect the validity of the population forecasts. It is important to note this methodology reveals the hiTinnings of a
decline in the total number ofpermatient residents in unincorporated Monroe County by 2014>
Source: Appendix 1; MCPD, Pg 30 re: discussion of permanent population
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Blank
Monroe County 2010-2030 9 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
.MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WWW KEYSCOMPPLAN.COM
(800) 488-1255
The use of the "drag factor" assumption as applied to growth in seasonal population is
found in the methodology on page 33 is excerpted below:
A similar methodology was employed to detern►itre the seasonal resident and vacation retrial visitor, population by ►'ABD from
2005 to 2015. Ezentially, the average percent increase figure was applied to tl►e previous year's population figures. Tire product
of this equation was then added to the previous year's population to estimate the fallowing year's total seasonal resident and
vacation rental visitor popuW'ion. A "drag" factor was applied to cacti year's percent increase figures by i'AFD (similar to the
one applied to the permanent resident population figures). `Mis drag factor increases by ,I% cacti year over lire ten year period,
so that by 2015, lire percent increase in seasonal resident and vacation mutai visitor population by PAED wwbll have declined by
1.1%, It is important to note this methodology reveals the beginnings of a decline in dre total number of seasonal residents and
visitors in vacation rentals in unincorporated Monroe County by 2013, one year prior to similar declines expected for the
penranent resident population forecasts.
Source: Appendix 1, MCl'u; rg 33 re: discussion of seasonal population
In this analysis the attempt has been made to analyze and determine whether and to what
degree the existing permanent base has shifted to seasonal population, and to correct the
population projections to reflect this phenomenon.
7.0 Seasonality in Retail Sales
In a further test of seasonal conditions K&S examined historic monthly retail sales from
1998-2009 to determine if seasonal trends were becoming more pronounced. In this
investigation we conducted a regression analysis using inflation adjusted monthly gross
retail sales for Monroe County as the dependent variable. The econometric model
developed tests both the effects of cyclical economic conditions and seasonal variations as
predictors of retail sales. We further tested this model to determine if, over time, the
seasonal pattern became more pronounced.
The model's initial results indicate seasonal patterns are the strongest and most significant
predictor of monthly retail sales. Cyclical factors including Gross Domestic Product,
gasoline prices, unemployment and housing starts are also all significant predictors of
retail sales. It is these cyclical factors which led to the 2006-2009 overall decline in sales.
Thus these declines are not permanent as would be the case with a loss in permanent and
seasonal population. Despite population losses in Monroe County estimated by BEBR for
year 2010, retail sales did not decline, further validating the cyclical nature of sales.
The second part of the test indicates that the seasonal pattern did not increase over time
compared with the average seasonality. The econometric model results are shown below in
Table 3. These results indicate the overall predictive ability of the model is very high
(R2=.963). Further, the seasonal dummy variable (SeasDuml), which tests seasonality
over the historic test period, is highly significant (t=11.2) and finally, a second set of
seasonal dummy variables to test for additional seasonality after 2005 and also for
Monroe County 2010-2030 10 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11 Fishkind and Associates
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
W W W.KEYSCOMPPI A:N.COM
#800) 488-1255
additional peak season seasonality after 2005 (SeasDum2 and SeasDum3) both resulted in
a lack of significance (t=.27 and t=.16 respectively). Thus, we conclude seasonal sales
patterns are not changing nor were they becoming more pronounced from 2005-2009
compared with the 1998-2004 period. We believe this supports the theory that permanent
population losses has been offset and replaced by a new type of seasonal population which
spends, travels and behaves similarly to permanent population. This could be the case if
a) homeowners lose a home to foreclosure and are forced to rent causing a shift to non -
homesteaded (seasonal) units but still remain present in the market or b) newly built
seasonal units are rented out for increasing periods and durations throughout the year,
mimicking a "permanent" household. Anecdotal evidence supports both these conditions
are presently occurring.
Other significant variables in the model include Gross Domestic Product, national gasoline
prices, national housing starts and national unemployment rates. Interestingly, the change
in Monroe County permanent population growth was not a significant predictor of retails
sales, despite permanent population losses and a decline in of sales in 2007, 2008 and
2009. In such a case one would expect negative population growth would cause retail sales
declines. Because this was not evident in the statistical analysis, our belief that the decline
in retail sales was cyclical garners greater support. Thus we conclude economic recession
and seasonal activity determine sales volumes but declining permanent population, which
is not statistically significant, does not.
Again, the retail model analysis supports the view as permanent population is lost; it has
been replaced by longer duration seasonal population or renters with no change in retail
spending patterns. This would explain that while permanent population falls, there may be
limited change in functional population due to seasonal replacement, as evidenced by retail
sales.
Table 3 - Econometric Test Results for Increasing Seasonality
SUMMARY OUTPUT
Regression Statistics
M ultiple R 0.981 816
R Square 0.9639626
Adjusted R S 0.9447427
Standard Err 9209659
Observations _ 24ANOVA
dt SS en c
Regression 83.40318E+164.25E+15
Residual 15 1.27227E+15 8.48E+13
Total 23 3.53041 E+16
coerticients
Standard Error
t Stat
Intercept
14947330
70400081.75
0.21232
GDP00
X Variable 1
28577.724
8869.439916
3.222044
W GAS
X Variable 2
-136177.6'
110696.9446
-1.23018
HUSTC
X Variable 3
27846.359
6935.672302
4,014947
RUQ
X Variable 4"
-8224690
2684043.539.
-3.06429
SeasDum1
X Variable 5
60680019.
5395979.787
11.24541
SeasDum2
X Variable 6
2884055.9
10598795.93
0.272112
SeasDum3
X Variable 7
1368525.4'
8297684.899
0,164929
Pop Ch
X Variable 8
: 1473.2782
2520.714671
0.584468
Monroe County 2 010-2 030 11 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
.7 s
m
:## •::
i
Table 4 - Florida Keys Visitors
Florida Keys Visitor Person -Trip Estimates
2003
2004
200E
2006
2007
2008
2009
Key West O emiaht`lisitors
1.309,559
14303,633
1.046.111
1063.752
1.094.647
1.112.978
1.165327
Key West Day Trippers
242.268
241,172
237,460
196,794
202.510
205.901
206,263
Cruise Ship Passengers
1.067,222
934.070
925,795
888.183
816.919
739 218
859,409
Total Key''VJest Visftors
2,619.049
2.47M75
2.209.366
2.148.729
2,114,076
1058.097
24230.999
All Keys OvemightVisitors
2,425.110
2.414,135
1,937.244
2030.062
2.089.021
2,169.565
2.092,732
All Keys Day Trippers
448.645
446.615
439.742
375.561
386,459
401.369
37GA 14
Cruise Ship Passengers (Kay iVes. en,ri
1.067.222
934.070
925,795
888.183
816.919
739.218
859.409
Total Ali Keys Visitors
3.940.977
3.794,820
3.302,781
3,293.806
3.292.409
3,310.152
3.322,55E
Monroe County Lodging Occupancy72,21b 71,2°m, 70.0°, 66.5"� 68.11.1 6-1 5% 70.3�%0
-< 'cs. lf'.I o> Craml 1�1 >:D' :=k.,.r .C�!nro ri! Fr t:.-cox,ri;
Further, the seasonal stability and long term growth trend in retail sales is not attributed to
additional retail spending by tourists or cruise ship passengers. Cruise ship and other
tourists have declined over the past six years (Table 4) indicating the underlying retail
sales growth pattern does not appear to be tourist related.
8.0 Long term Trends in Retail Sales and Traffic
Retail sales have been trending up on an inflation adjusted basis over time (Figure 3).
Total trend based growth is about 4% from 1998-2009. The declines in sales in 2007, 2008
and 2009 are as a result of rising gasoline prices in 2008 which reduced trips and travel
and the cyclical effects of recession. As the recession ended retail sales stabilized and sales
through November 2010 indicated no further loss in year over year retail sales countywide,
despite a decline in permanent population in 2010 as reported by BEBR annual population
estimates.
Figure 3 - Monroe County Annual Retail Sales (inflation adjusted)
Monroe County 2010-2030 12 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
W W W.KEYSCOMPPLAN.COM
(800)488-1255
l �
Similarly, in average daily traffic flows, the long term trend has been gradually increasing.
Total trend based growth is about 6% (see Figure 4). This is generally consistent with and
of similar magnitude to the trend in retail sales data. Based on sales and traffic it appears
that the permanent population losses are being replaced by seasonal residents and there is
no permanent net decline in economic activity (sales and traffic), as would be suggested by
sustained permanent population losses without replacement.
27.000
26,000
25.000
24,000
3.000
22,000
21,000
1999 2000 2001 20C2 2003 2C04 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009
Figure 4 - Annual Average Daily Traffic Counts
(Average of Selected Count Stations)
The trend analysis of traffic data was examined in a variety of ways. These included
selection of data stations to reflect only single locations per Key and data for which the
entire history was available in a consistent fashion. This prevented overweighting by
location or the effects of changing data collection methodologies. The trend analysis was
conducted looking at 1999-2009, as well as 1999-2007 (eliminating the most recent highly
volatile recession years and the period of highly volatile gasoline prices). A third approach
was taken comparing the average of traffic counts from 1999-2002 with 2006-2009. The
average of these three methods results in a 6% growth rate over time.
The overall statistical significance of the trend line from 1999-2007 improved substantially
over the 1999-2009 trend line through removal of the volatile outlying data points,
however the magnitude of the trend line increase did not substantially change. After
careful review of the traffic data we conclude the increasing trend in traffic counts is both
valid and significant. This means traffic activity is not declining despite a decline in
permanent population. We conclude then the growth in traffic is supported by a shift from
permanent to seasonal population.
9.0 Countywide Functional Population
Monroe County 2010-2030 13 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY CC1A+'LPREH'ENSWE PLAIN UPDATE
W W W.KEYSCOMPPLAN.COM
(800) 488-1255
The best available data in our view indicates a loss in permanent population with likely
replacement through an increase in seasonal residents. Further, both sales and traffic are
trending up by similar magnitude suggesting there is limited growth, and no sustained
decline in economic activity. This volume of limited growth is consistent with growth
which occurs under the ROGO cap.
American Communities Survey data and homestead exemption data support the growth of
seasonal population. Total non -homesteaded units are 57% today compared with 55% in
1998. Among single family units only, the non -homestead share has risen from 45% in
1998 to 49% in
2009. For single family units, 70% of the growth since 1998 has been in non -homestead
units, and the American Communities Survey indicates a substantial rise in seasonal
households during the 2000-2008 time period. This supports an increase in non-
permanent/seasonal occupancy, which offsets the permanent population losses.
As a decline in permanent population has occurred, there is a real increase in non-
permanent/seasonal replacement as evidenced by an increase in the trend in auto -traffic
volume, an increase in the trend in inflation adjusted retail sales, an increase in non -
homesteaded residential properties, and an increase in seasonal population shown in the
American Communities Survey.
A complicating aspect is the 2008 permanent population figures from both the annual
Census population and American Communities Survey population data which indicate
permanent population in the Keys is now between 70,000 and 72,000; this is well below
the BEBR 2009 estimate of 78,000. There is some probability the April 2010 Census count
may indicate a sharply reduced permanent population level. With the understanding that
permanent losses do appear to be replaced by seasonal population, and some losses in
permanent population may be temporary and cyclical due to recession and foreclosures, if
all of the recent Census or ACS based permanent losses were shifted into the seasonal
population, the resulting 2030 functional population would still likely demonstrate small
levels of growth consistent with the ROGO allocations.
Based on this analysis, K&S prepared a county level functional population series to reflect
these conditions. This series begins with the medium series population projection from the
BEBR medium series projection, PS156, published in 2010. Next, the FKAA seasonal series
through 2025 was used and to this was applied the 2000-2025 CAGR growth rate of the
FKAA seasonal series to extend the series from 2025 to 2030. In addition, from 2006-2030
K&S has added 70% of the permanent population loss as forecast by BEBR to the seasonal
population. Further, we have added the equivalent of 70% of the ROGO growth to seasonal
population to the FKAA seasonal series, reflecting the seasonal shift component not
evidenced in FKAA's original data. The resulting functional population is seen in Figure 5
and Table 7.
K&S believes this data series is the most reflective of actual economic and market
conditions and is most representative of the long term functional population outlook. Our
Monroe County 2010-2030 14 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSWE PLAN UPDATE
W W W.IaYSCOMPPLAN.COM
(800)488-1255
findings are based on extensive analysis of multiple data series. K&S recommends the use
of this functional population data series for use in the 2010 EAR comp plan update.
It is also noted, for units shifting to seasonal status and for seasonal population associated
with ROGO growth, a persons -per -household figure of 2.7 was used. On pages 34 and 36 of
the MCPD population report in Appendix 1, it is noted the measures of seasonal persons
per household were greater than 2.7.
Further supporting the use of 2.7 persons per household for seasonal population, Property
Appraiser data (Table 5) suggests a steady increase in persons per household through year
2008, as described by an increase in the number of bedrooms per unit. This increase in
bedrooms also suggests an increase in overall unit size; however, the Monroe County
Property Appraiser data for unit size is unavailable. K&S believes seasonally occupied
homes and rentals have a greater number of bedrooms and higher person per household
occupancy due to the increasing size of newly built units. Newly built units today are
primarily non -homesteaded and likely to have a higher proportion of seasonal residents.
For these reasons, as well as the data analysis presented in the original MCPD population
study, 2.7 persons per household was used for seasonal household size.
Table 5 - Average Number of Bedrooms per Single Family Unit by Year Built
2.1 Pre-1970
2.4 1970-1989
2.5 1994-1999
2.8 2000-2008
Source: Monr
& Associates, Inc.
The preliminary population series shown in Figure 5 represents the BEBR medium series
projection plus the FKAA seasonal series. The Final Revised series is recommended for use.
This series represents this same data as the preliminary with the addition of the seasonal
replacement population, which offsets the permanent population loss. The Final series is
the recommended series and corrects the FKAA methodological flaw. This flaw finds the
original MCPD study looked only at growth and did not contemplate the shift of the existing
population from permanent to seasonal.
Monroe County 2010-2030 15 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
155 000
t 60 OPO
155 000
1 =,n n00
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
www K]EYSCOMP:PLAN.coen
s (800) 488-I255
Comparative Population Series
Monroe County
CyQ, ,' i ilk O� SJ' , til yl YD yCt7 ^Y�' �L� 'L1• �tk Rio 1 ' y�C)
--0Pr-elitllialaryr—FinaIRev ised
Figure 5 - Recommended Functional Population
The Remainder of This Page Intentionally Left Blank
Monroe County 2010-2030 16 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
Tab
So F; hki d
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
www KEYSCOMPPLAN.COM
tso0) 488-1255
ie �- necommenaed Functional Pouulation'
Monroe County Population Projection
Seasonal
Replacement
Series
YEAR
Permanent
Seasonal
Functional
2000
79,589
73,491
153,080
2001
80,011
73,540
153,551
2002
80,434
73,589
154,023
2003
80,856
73,639
154,495
2004
81,236
73,688
154,924
2005
82,413
73,737
156,150
2006
80,510
75,228
155,738
2007
78,987
76,453
155,440
2008
76,081
78,647
154,728
2009
77,925
77,516
155,441
2010
76,887
78,401
155,289
2011
78,080
77,974
156,054
2012
77,960
78,431
156,391
2013
77,840
78,887
156,727
2014
77,720
79,343
157,063
2015
77,600
79,800
157,400
2016
77,460
80,270
157,730
2017
77,320
80,740
158,060
2018
77,180
81,211
158,391
2019
77,040
81,681
158,721
2020
76,900
82,151
159,051
2021
76,760
82,622
159,382
2022
76,620
83,092
159,712
2023
76,480
83,562
160,042
2024
76,340
84,033
160,373
2025
76,200
84,503
160,703
2026
76,060
84,973
161,033
2027
75,920
85,444
161,364
2028
75,780
85,914
161,694
2029
75,640
86,384
162,024
2030
75,500
86,855
162,355
;eries
urce. is n & ASSOuaLes, inc.; ri Keys Aqueduct Authority; Univ. FL BEBR, PS 156 and annual estimates
Monroe County 2010-2030 17 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WWW.ICMCOMPPLAN.COM
(800) 488-1255
10.0 Determination of Unincorporated Area Functional Population
Permanent Population
The unincorporated population as a share of countywide population has increased from
45.3 percent in 2002 to 46.5 percent in 2009. Figure 6 shows the 10 year trend in the
unincorporated share, based on the University of Florida annual population estimates.
46.8�K'�
4 6. 6
Source: University of Florida, Annual Population Estimates
Figure 6 - Unincorporated Population Share of Countywide Population
The unincorporated permanent share has increased in the past three years likely due to
foreclosures and conversions from permanent to seasonal in incorporated areas. As
foreclosures abate, the change in unincorporated permanent population as a share of
countywide totals will stabilize. Further, the permanent population share in the
unincorporated area is likely to fall as unoccupied homes in municipal areas once again
become occupied and come under ownership. Based on this discussion, for the future
estimates of permanent population as a share of countywide totals we have used 46
percent as the stabilized figure representing the unincorporated share of permanent
population over time.
Seasonal Population
The unincorporated areas contain 46 percent of all non -homesteaded residential units in
Monroe County, based on 2009 Monroe County Property Appraiser Tax Roll data. This
represents some 11,664 units. Using seasonal persons per household size of 2.7 the
seasonal population in residential housing units is 29,160.
Monroe County 2010-2030 18 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
W W W ICEYSCOMPPL,kN.COM
{800)488-1255
In addition, the unincorporated areas contain 27 percent of all hotel motel space in Monroe
County. This converts to an estimated 2,197 hotel/motel rooms within the unincorporated
area. With average annual hotel occupancy of 69.8% (based on Smith Travel Hotel Trends
Reports 2003-2010) and average persons per room of 2.73, the hotel based seasonal
population in the unincorporated areas is 5,558.
Further, the original MCPD/FKAA population methodology did not include the functional
population associated with Keys Tourist Day Trips. This is a daily number which increases
the functional population. Based on the average share of annual unincorporated day trips
divided by 365, the number of unincorporated day trippers represents an addition of 325
persons to the functional population, as described in Table 8.
Table 8 - Day Trippers As A Component of Unincorporated Seasonal
Population
2003 2004 2005
2006
2007
2008
200!
All Keys Day Trippers 448,645 446,615 439,742
375,561
386,469
401,369
370,414
Key West Day Trippers 242,268 241,172 237,460
196,794
202510
205,901
206,263
All Else Keys Day Trippers 206,377 205,443 202,282
178,767
183,959
195,468
164,151
Other Municipal Day Trip 69,659 69,344 68,277
60,340
62,093
65,977
55,407
Uninc Keys Day Tripers 136,718 136,099 134,005
118,427
121,866
129,491
108,744
Functional Day Trippers 375 373 367
324
334
355
298
Source: Monroe County Tourist Development Council, Fishkind & Associates,
Inc.
Combining the household based seasonal populations, hotel based seasonal population, day
trippers, and adjusting for non-standard dwelling units populations including those in
camps, liveaboards and other, it is estimated there are 35,053 seasonal residents
throughout unincorporated Monroe County, in 2009. This represents 45 percent of the
2009 countywide seasonal population as shown in Table 4. Applying this percentage to the
countywide seasonal population projection yields a seasonal population in the
unincorporated areas of 39,226 by year 2030. Table 9 provides the permanent, seasonal
and functional population for unincorporated Monroe County, through year 2030.
Total unincorporated functional population is expected to increase from 71,311 in year
2009 to 73,956 by year 2030. This represents an increase of 2,645 persons over the entire
planning horizon. Table 9 provides the determination of unincorporated permanent and
seasonal population.
Monroe County 2010-2030 19 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
T�
W W W. KMCOMPPLAN.COM
x {800) 488-1255
Ible 9- Unincorporated Functional Pooulatio
Unincorporated
Population
Projection
Seasonal Replacement
Series
Permanent
Seasonal
Functional
2000
36,036
33,241
69,277
2001
36,250
33,263
69,512
2002
36,452
33,285
69,737
2003
36,543
33,307
69,850
2004
36,606
33,329
69,935
2005
37,164
33,351
70,515
2006
36,466
34,019
70,485
2007
35,749
34,568
70,317
2008
34,788
35,550
70,338
2009
36,268
35,043
71,311
2010
35,368
35,440
70,808
2011
35,917
35,249
71,166
2012
35,862
35,453
71,315
2013
35,806
35,658
71,464
2014
35,751
35,862
71,613
2015
35,696
36,067
71,763
2016
35,632
36,277
71,909
2017
35,567
36,488
72,055
2018
35,503
36,698
72,201
2019
35,438
36,909
72,348
2020
35,374
37,120
72,494
2021
35,310
37,330
72,640
2022
35,245
37,541
72,786
2023
35,181
37,752
72,933
2024
35,116
37,962
73,079
2025
35,052
38,173
73,225
2026
34,988
38,384
73,371
2027
34,923
38,594
73,518
2028
34,859
38,805
73,664
2029
34,794
39,016
73,810
2030
34,730
39,226
73,956
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
a Series
11.0 Unincorporated Population in Upper/Middle/Lower Keys
Permanent Population - Upper/Middle/Lower
With the functional unincorporated population determined, the distribution between
upper, middle and lower regions is based on the permanent population, ratio of seasonal to
permanent population plus the distribution of hotel/motels by sub -area.
Monroe County 2010-2030 20 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WWW-KEYSCOMP'PLAtV.COM
X 0) 488-1255
Permanent population is based on the on-line service I -Site which provides updated block
group information based on US Census data (Table 10). The distribution of permanent
population based on these data is shown in Table 11.
44%
3%
52%
100%
42%
3%
55%
100%
41%
3%
56%
100%
40%
3%
57%
100%
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc.; I -Site online demographic database
The Remainder of This Page Left Intentionally Left Blank
Monroe County 2010-2030 21 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
W W W.ICMCOMPPLAN.COM
(800) 488-1255
Table 11- Permanent Population Distribution by Sub -Area
Unincorporated Permanent Population Projection
Seasonal Replacement
Series
Upper
Middle
Lower
2000
15,135
1,081
19,820
2001
15,185
1,087
19,978
2002
15,229
1,094
20,130
2003
15,226
1,096
20,221
2004
15,212
1,098
20,296
2005
15,402
1,115
20,647
2006
15,073
1,094
20,299
2007
14,737
1,072
19,940
2008
14,263
1,044
19,481
2009
14,797
1,088
20,383
2010
14,430
1,061
19,877
2011
14,654
1,078
20,185
2012
14,632
1,076
20,154
2013
14,609
1,074
20,123
2014
14,586
1,073
20,092
2015
14,564
1,071
20,061
2016
14,538
1,069
20,025
2017
14,511
1,067
19,989
2018
14,485
1,065
19,953
2019
14,459
1,063
19,916
2020
14,433
1,061
19,880
2021
14,406
1,059
19,844
2022
14,380
1,057
19,808
2023
14,354
1,055
19,772
2024
14,327
1,053
19,735
2025
14,301
1,052
19,699
2026
14,275
1,050
19,663
2027
14,249
1,048
19,627
2028
14,222
1,046
19,591
2029
14,196
1,044
19,554
2030
14,170
1,042
19,518
Source: Fishkind & Associates, Inc.
Monroe County 2010-2030 22 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11 Fishldnd and Associates
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
www.KYYsCOMPPLAN.COM
(800) 488.-1255
Seasonal Population - Upper/Middle/Lower
Seasonal population within the upper/middle/lower unincorporated areas is estimated
based on the ratio of unincorporated seasonal population to unincorporated permanent
population, multiplied by the permanent population distributions by sub -area (Table 12).
Table 12- Seasonal Population Distribution by Sub -Area
Unincorporated Seasonal Population Projection
Seasonal Replacement
Series
Upper
Middle
Lower
2000
14,048
1,056
18,137
2001
14,020
1,057
18,185
2002
13,993
1,058
18,234
2003
13,966
1,058
18,283
2004
13,938
1,059
18,332
2005
13,910
1,060
18,381
2006
14,150
1,080
18,789
2007
14,339
1,096
19,13 3
2008
14,665
1,126
191759
2009
14,388
1,111
19,545
2010
14,550
1,122
19,768
2011
14,472
1,117
19,660
2012
14,555
1,123
19,775
2013
14,639
1,129
19,890
2014
14,722
1,135
20,005
2015
14,806
1,141
20,120
2016
14,891
1,148
20,238
2017
14,977
1,154
20,357
2018
15,063
1,160
20,475
2019
15,149
1,167
20,593
2020
15,235
1,173
20,712
2021
15,321
1,179
20,830
2022
15,407
1,185
20,948
2023
15,493
1,192
21,067
2024
15,579
1,198
21,185
2025
15,665
1,204
21,304
2026
15,751
1,211
21,422
2027
15,837
1,217
21,540
2028
15,923
11223
21,659
2029
16,009
1,230
21,777
2030
16,095
1,236
21,896
aource: risn►ana &Associates, Inc.
Monroe County 2010-2030 23 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11 Fishldnd and Associates
MONROE COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN UPDATE
WWW.la"COMPPLAN.COM
I
4�0
Based on these data we are able to determine the functional population for unincorporated
Keys according to the upper/middle/lower sub -areas of the unincorporated portion of
Monroe County. Table 13 presents the functional population for unincorporated Monroe
and the sub -areas.
Table 13 - Unincorporated Functional Population
Distribution by Sub -Area
Unincorporated Functional Population Projection
Seasonal Replacement Series
Upper
Middle
Lower
TOTAL
2000
29,183
2,138
37,957
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: risnKina & associates, inc.
Monroe County 2010-2030 24 Keith and Schnars, P.A.
Population Projections 3-15-11 Fishkind and Associates
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Appendix 2-3: Population Projection Methodology Report
Future Land Use 167 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
Bibliography
American Community Survey, 2006-2008
Air Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study, 1977
Big Pine Key / U.S. 1 Corridor Area Enhancement Plan
Ewing, R, September 2010. Monroe County Hurricane Evacuation Clearance Time
Key Largo US1 Corridor Enhancement Plan
Miami -Dade Comprehensive Development Master Plan
Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report, 2008
Monroe County Public Facilities Capacity Assessment Report, 2009
Monroe County, 2010, Draft U.S. 1 Arterial Travel Time and Delay Study
Tavernier Commercial Corridor Enhancement Master Plan,
Livable CommunyKeys Plan, Big Pine and No Name Key
Livable CommunyKeys, Key Largo
Livable CommunyKeys, Tavernier Master Plan
Livable CommunyKeys, Stock Island/Key Haven
Livable CommunyKeys, Lower Keys Master Plan
Collier County Growth Management Plan
City of Key West Comprehensive Plan Data and Analysis, 1993
City of Key Colony Beach Comprehensive Plan, Amended 2010
City of Layton Comprehensive Plan, Revised 2009
City of Marathon Comprehensive Plan, 2005 www.ci.marathon.fl.us/index.asj2x?N.ID=29
Village of Islamorada Future Land Use Data and Analysis, January 2001
U.S. Census 2000 and 2010
Future Land Use 191 Technical Document: May 2011
Monroe County Comprehensive Plan Update
US Corps of Engineers, 1991, Lower SE Florida Hurricane Evacuation Study
Geographic Information System
Florida State Historic Preservation Office, 2000, Historic Structures
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, MC ELU 510 (Existing Land Use GIS layer
received May 2010)
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, MC FLUM 510 (Future Land Use GIS layer
received May 201-0)
Monroe County Growth Management, 2010, Tier 0110 (Tier Overlay)
Monroe County Property Appraiser's Office, 2010, Public Parcel
Future Land Use 192 Technical Document: May 2011
0
� v
bD
N
O
N C5
co
s N
O
o
°
O
.x o
O b =
¢ o
U
O .0
O u
r] O
k
.0 m
O L
O a)
O m
'O
Q
N
fC
O U to
cu
0.
.-
u
CO
C
L cu p.
a) ¢
p
U
++
G
E
L a'
y° ¢�
j
vi
E ,' O v
N v
z
V U
U
'L
k
M
U
O O v,
L Q O
fN.'
O
U
O s
cu R O
L
ma)
u
C �' •N
O ca C7
E
�..+
O O p
O
'� y
tC
i+
U U
CU .O
O C
U N
O
y O
U M O
x C
O O O O vi
L
a) y
E-• +�
i y v
p
pOp L
a)N r-1
p
V O y
O O
O
v
C �'
-'
Cam+
°
O >
tom, 00 };
M G)
N
9
a) O vOi t0
aNi .N
L
y O OL
F x'm w
Ca
O
R: 6)
O a)
°
0.
a0i O s
m
v
aa))
a0i °) '
ai
ai °cu �) o o
V
L O U
CD O O O Q
L
to
L
bD
L V a ,1
bD M w
"C L
C b0
L i C. V O.
bD O
E•"
Q' G:'
N fn in
a'i
Q'i
a) a)
a'i N L Ix
Qi Q'i
p .� O
Q Q» fC 'C C
y
L
y
c6
cz
F+M
c4
•N h
7 �
O
L
L'].
C
� N
_F;
w
>, O
O
c., CU
O
L
u
a) O
�
0
°
OCU
7
a)
o
y
cz
Z
Y=
O
'�
Z
O
E- p U
a,
a
'� o
O v
V
m
°
° a
aL
m ��, a
o
o a)
bD
M
Z
ma)
=
O
O CO a
A )
N
'� L
C�
a'
y E
a) a,
C
C
°
c°a
o
o
>
v o
u -'
ca p-
ao
o
aL) o
x
O
ni
sm.
x
a�i a
Z
c (3))
-0
c
m
aLi
c=n o �
m`�
>
m
z3 o
O
Lzr
ca
two
° s°'. a)
aU
x
ai o 0
n
°' o
0a a
E- Ca
M
U
CY. cn
cn
Z O N
UO
C
O
d'
ca m m cn(33
M e--i > Q) M M
-
N
M
ti
N
N
N Cvj
M
•i.d
d Q)
N
N
N 6�)
N
N� N N
N N
O p
O
O.O
G y
C O Lam,
N C
u
u
u
U
O O
U C O �
O O t
O
V
V A
cn
`D
sue,
sue. .t�
CC CO
cn
cn 1
cn
cn
EC- -a a cn
cn
cn cn
ECG cn
E
O N
w
a� Ln
N
O �
O.p
N
d
Lei
O
O
y
O
N
.Q
:r
td
rl
i.i
O
O
w
O
N
rl
c
o L °
OA N
O
y cu
U �
'��' W N
is .�. Cam. .�
CD
z)p CA Qi
O00
CA
C O =
U y y
z y O
O
tca)
y s
z
y aJ
S.
C� y
•-• ,� M i
tin y
Ln ,o
w
to
t' o o a
z m u= u y° o of
°
`- 3
L cn
m p y ca
a �
° o� y
0 o
u O y M
3 a `°'
"'. u
W
0
a) L
v y
o
y y
> O
s .0 S
a� O N
a ca
�
O ca y v
�s u t~
v o n=
Q
.Q cc
O o O
y 08 '�
c a o ro
w c +� ro�
a .a cm v) E
a� x.o
�'
a a�o�e
L
Mn°
y E y
Ll
Ll aN °+'
y
N s.,
a o 4 y"
i d '� i+ O G1
cr- o o° 0
^ .O �
M c0 O
c0
o y
bz
^o
O _y ycr,
n�"'
o
y in
i0.+�'
Cxi
tz y
O O
C CL °
o y CL d
i= y° y
G)
co ,a
C C
00 O
> O
C) O tz �
y
'L5 r y '�
O p
En ay, O •--+
tC
a
y ..O y >, ^
ro '3
° '
m G.
o cb°i u
y o°
cn •� M
"'
O L. N
y>
M
3 ti o
> C) O O bOD y
y u w=• �-
> y C `n N C3 O C
o L QV)) y> o
to'Mvy
a>i o
Ln m o w w co
v= o >' c
C O O y
o
O
v) s. > " y
O p "O -Z -° E" )
O
cC '�
, y
>•tn
ice, O rz O +•+ >•,
cu
ai A
y d^ O
s
LSD '= cu ,> Z > Vn n�i
bD
^' U O
v� O O O. CA
<C N O O Q u
L O
Q M H U
F-� a h
fl
C.7 .� O. = O U
N
'� N L O N N Cn N W
y
o
v
n•
N
Ln
°
C3c
L L
o
o
O
°cLn
V
a�
CU
+,
cu
°
^O co
°
m
O
bD
y
I.n
Q.n
y
° L
—
O
ii
L
..
O
Ocq
O
O
O
u
O n.
''' y
y C
O y
L
ro 0
cn
O
7
y., n.
N
v
'O "L3
".'
y
aj
W
�+
..r.. n, tx
.'C
Iaj
O
COi O
L
O
a)O
,O
co O
X
��+ tc
O
a
Li "a y
C.)
s-
In
M.
GL [CC
y am"
O Z
O O
O
y
O
i
,O.
.�
...�
a) �,
bD C4 O
w
y
�-+ G7
O
U y
L
O
i.i �
L.
CO
O
y �C c4
O L�
s, L.
L
�,
y _
'O �
O
O
Ou
y
O
N
tn u
Cti
>' =
M O
�-. ,�
aj
O
O
> O
0 Lfy
6i �,.,
CC
O�
O
�,
y
y
O
>
cn
yF.
y
`""� ^
GL ��.,
W a0.+
fE
^O
O e•-�'�., C
ate+ O,
h N
iL vi R,
O '
'� Q..
f1. M L y
cOC
y z..
!xC =
>~ y
C N.
N
y O O
3
R
O\
U O y rL
y
..7 ytn
cd
h LH.
u N
c�C
O ° y
y �"'
i y
'Ln
—
Ln '� �+ °
'�..'
a
u N
p N
> y
a
E
o GO >
fE G
<
M
C. O
u
^O
Gncu
TJ
i.
Qj
4l
Ca
�+a
0
A
ul
t.7 G
a.
a.
a.°n
N
2 O
v
'B v O u Q M O
v o
sue- E! .� o
N o C a�
Q) cu
a
U c0 c. O =O
L
cu O a) O bn Ste'
O
L" to O
O O O
u
LLcu cr,
C
L.y
m o o E .. y L" _O
tD•M LO t i a L
y U
O m cu-p LO E x
9 cu N L1.
O U
L M u GJ c4 a -cu
U U � •z;,
•
O `+ �n c0 •�
,C 0. LZ. N � y � j
cu
N
F
)
E a o v
b�D
u
d
w
ai
ai
9 r- M C "B -0
O
b0
O
bD
O
"
O
O
bD a, O y O
In
In
cC
In
C
v O u
cu
fC
O .O LC W w
C L ^U r p' O
a)
Wcu
V)
W
U cu N cC R m -Lz GQJ
cu
M
L
L
cuL
U u C
U
cuU
L
U
U
U
�'"' L cu "a 'C ,'' b�D a)
a)
cu
cu
cu
CL
r- ct
c
U
bn
o iU
u" O `6 y
N
C '^�
mcu
v
Ct
-O cu
Ln
u�
m
wc0,
V
O p
E-
O
cx
cu is o C
a
E"
O —+
C
sU. y
o
cu
bn v
w O O .m o wU U
O
tC
,�
cn
bD y OCU
G O N cu
U
u
L i w M
M O. U M L U
'O
W
\D
O L 'O
�O c0
y
N C
��.+
LO
O�
co
O
bn `� cC
N cn
(v -O O"
cUn GJ U [s. O � '-' rn
L.
!3, .�
�"'
M
vi
O G\i c4 O cC 7 M
O
L1
cz
(uy C
LC 61 i O u a, LC
O y y 'X Lfj
.c;
y
O 4
a C5
C
C cC O DUC O O Iy4 (D E L."
O u c..., .-::.0 C R. i.f�
c4
j, L.
rn O
O M
O �^,
(C f0
i, O
74
F..
•-.• � ,�
V) h L t4
d"
cC i c G Li, rn i -%.' Q,
UO "C7
O
-C3
O
L" rn
..0
'C yU, NS".
U .�--I
c��
O U
r,
O
S a o
.CC'a
0
o
n
cti
>1.—
°'
cu
°u
C
o
Ln
tC4
M)°'
Ca
api
Ln E lu'u
O r•1 O U by
41la-fli
c0 M C
U
O y.., N UO f4
U TS
-CGL
N r-O
cu
'C3 ,
.�
= - u
O0
to
�i
cC
UO'
LO
"N
MMdbA
bna. a
aab
M
ra
co
•�
Y
00
N
>
cu
M
O
o
a)
O
U
c/]
C5
M
O
W
O
Z
V) p
N
a)
O
�
o
a
F-
�
.a
..
a
u
y y
E
3
CL)
cuv
c
� o
m Z
bA
vV
a)
O >
Z O
pip
.o
x F
o
h
V)
V)
0.
�0.+
O
O
�
cz
J.
M
V)
_�
O
L
O
0.
�
a)
r.
C4cn
tz
a)
a?
> E
N
cn
Cn
cnx
c.y°
c
o
M
ru
a)
O
O N O
+fir'
CL
O
w^
Lim
N cam.) rz. cu U
'emu i
v
O
+'
O
— cn O
.^. cz
O O
U
>,
-0
a�i
i:,
O
O
c4 .�
CU a s- cu o "a o
^
o
3 u❑
�-
E)
c
UO O a)
a)a)
C
RS
a) �,' N O
1J
cu
O
O,
a)
O
u
^ as R
o
G�
a a
o
L
au
�
V3
a
+�
°)
a u ao O u
a O o
c
c
E
c
r- cugo
a, m o �'
a
o>
v
a L w ^O ~
°
o �
U
a)
O
L a) _ y
OU °U
C) v
a) Cn
i+ m p0
CU4
N
'CS y
C4
�c
C
Z 4)
3tr
Sr
x �' E .M U a)
to t—
, E O
O L L.
O
0
U
a)
cu
L .E U c4 ..G �..�
c0 O y E- ,-..:
"�
L
L w U Vl
O a)
O
N
L
Ci3
V7 N
O
Q.
cc
Cc
LL. EO b.0 �.:. O
.O
O p
'C U O
a u
W
c0
C
c4 y
Q
d'
pvpcu
j tM
v
L
N-a
�.
X O o
'a
cn
U A.,
Cj
�
ca
L C
O
L O
N,
o c a ¢
cL '�
"-
t0 ...]
E V)
L 0 �
m S o Ln
"a M
cs
U fx
co
,•_�^„
O
3 a,
� Lam.
a F
cv
V) tea. .
O
mdO.
m u 0.A
=Nz
a)u
c cars.
a
O�
N
O
Lr)
O�
N
try
N
M
C�
�z
N
Ln
Lntb
`--�
•; -I
.--�
.--�
rl
ri
a
In..
0.
abA
Ce.
a
a
CLI
-11,
a°°.
It
uU
'LS
F� � O V)
c�..
tx o
a
L
L O
O
I V,
V)
.`�
_-
�
�I
CU
y
^o
o c
o
ca .Ln
om
.cu
O
CU
y
U
to
i
-p C.
N
V)
ice,
U
�C
GJ 7
3a
ru
C N 3 je CU U
Ln
a
a\ v
;g bD
° N Cn (=
O
C cyL..� '-[ m ..>
°
`) O
O i
�C3
L �j
Cl
En
V) O�
W
°
O�
UO
O Z
y
,L.+ > O
O V)w .� Q, L
O
O.
y
� bp�A
.
O=
ro
O O
GJ
E
U C
U ti
m
GJ
�•-� t"i
O
CC
L M
c4Gi O
y y..+ L.
L 7 O
'C abD •�
O L"
o ° 3
cC
tC
o
co
cud vUi
O
to y
I
U U 0�
L
O' O a 6� CO
•V1 O Ntx
.0
y0
L
a; ro
Ste.
o Ln Z
a.
L
o°
h
N �,
U�Q
ca w cc��Ca
rn.�
aca a aU
a
cG °x
ai
� o
� O
a
L
m
�
�
�-.+
Yam..
L
G!
cct
Lc
O
OCU
L
u
a�
Gam.
O U
cC O
y v
ice.
y
C y
C '•C3
bOA u �A
O •L u.
V)U
c4
>r CU
Cl� L M
O 6J O O
° '
3
Z
vi Eo >
.� � °
C o
•�
v
o o y
L
o
o .c
a 3cz
°3°
cn
U
y
�
`°
.0 cz
O
-o5
c
E °
o
c M. �
M..a
cu
c
o
v)
� o
u to
o a, -a
v M L" •L
M.
s'''.. ,C ...7
y L. O
(n ^
�..{ c4
O C a.
cu
O
0) E •C bA vOi
C 7
O 6i
L O
6 y
Q) [�
U N
�"
c4
N •,^U,,
L
.0
v) °
ct O O
RS .0 Z Z -O
¢' 'Cs a
+-' a� O
u G.>
N co
S1
^C7 � aLi
cli
ry 6J 9 CA
C9 O C
U O
RS O
N
L O
a..
R3
Q p C
U
O Z
cC 4. v
i4
CL
a .,
L 2
O U L.
O
u
i
U �.r
Lam.
i],
„�
a
,�
(V
L
CU
CL N
O i y
GJ CS
i En �' L1
O o
a! l!� N
d
�_
"t3 bL,O
Z
c i Cq
`� . 7 W LO
G.
• C6
,� .--�
� N N
CV
N �
N �
CD
r••1 bD
7—;5�
czN
L—
O" U
�+ N
��vc��rw=
U
�vmiLf)
ap.+
p.; a
to
tD
Z.
LF)
a,
.n
o
Lri
a,
O
a) Ca
O y
0
�Lz
�.
C).a�
0
ca
O vi
> cif., .�
U V) U ui
a)
U°
tz
-
(4 °
V, (Q y 'y;,
O
C O
3 o (a
o x ¢ 00
E
U
> Q) O
U
a=
vi M U M
y EL
�L
O -M O y
O
._^.. U y i
U
0. p
Ln
a]
ILI
Ln
O
iV) V),
° x
a)too
M. � C
Q '� � a
U+
a)
bo O
U
O
y
p 3 'L n
.N O
a)
U Rf
y
7 CU
b�A
� - •�
b�D
C
.(n L
— "p -C p
° (a
TS
L3
v O=
bW �bA aa))
(4
L
O
Co
— — — (E
m U>
to
Q
U
U
O .S. (G
Z H a
O
Z:t v
N
U
U
3
E
CZ
V)
O a) 1+
Ln
ca O y
Nh
°
y f
a)
O CL)y
y
M
O uw
L
yO
°
Co
U U U"^
L L a)
U
U
y
"� U
O
,�., ct O
(a
(c
-�
o �°
o
f4
C^ U U (C co
E—i
O
m
U
y O
en
p _cu
V) i' a)
S.U.
.- c4
O
C
U L
U C SU G V)
(C 'i vi 'C m
>
(a
'�
y
> 0
a) W
O
4
C co
U L
U
U C >
j+N)
> a)
C U
O
L7 'y:, U
'E U
U U
B O O
U
C a]
U U
OILI
y
p s> V)
(t1 U a) 'C O p
cam. �,
p
.a +�
Q)
GD
y
U ,.V)
O
O
CL L_ W Z h O
Ln
O a) M
O a)
�
O y L
O
.-
1+
Q -ay 2 L. a)..
C
°
N .0
C ri>
V O
y0
N
`-i sU. UQV)
S.U.
U
U
U
c--�
N
y a) t'" i-�-.
U
4r O
vi
r-
O y ,� Ln"C7
y J- y
M C
N 2
N a1. m M U
"CS U
-C
E•-
.fl U
C6
w°
N
V)
N
co
Ln
O
(�'6
of
1.4
N
Vy
1-4
E-.
0.
t.b
ai.
Uo
M .
bD
a
bD
c.
m
v E �
O O
v v ,� L r. L O TS
V) m
M 2 O v
M 'U O
°A 'O v = O O CD -= coa
0
p v
� O
M.
y L fOE
ram.+ > p
i
cu
c w
0 o N
M
aLi > ,v, tv� W v
p C7 M•`=
V) O "C N t.7 •� t6 O O O 'C cam, O
v z" .0
M
O O cy U h .> O
-0�
O
cuU Q cuL� t4 U CW O
p C]
O A v
O O
C vO
C O
a)° ti >> w •�
v
Hcu v
u g 0-°cCU
> L
a
LO F L. C] ° u
TS O 0 C
vU h
r °
v is - o o o E
a
c x>
w'
o
`"
Ln a c N 3"cs O-0 O
U C'cu
O o ;_ ❑
t.) 0. M
C
i p M LI a) 0 p s� M
p t4 tL v
O O y
v
O w OO G1 t°. O C u
.O
u v� v
+�
y C sU
u II O L
0
L y ice, .N `u
>, 3 y ° ^O >, ^o
cts ra p
LL0 C wl
v
i
N-0 Gh
M cu
L M °
Q)
c1 to w
cu
��
0cu
i1 L p O ctf
U
L
v
p�
O � U
U O O c0 o a
= 0 C_
O
W ro� ^'' M� b� w� �'mF �
y
a �. 0
t0 y "CS i .a al [a E
.0 LN�w
p U O �+ p
L O
^
v i cc °- c :~ w, c°
b O
a O W
My� Eca== o. o�°
m c 0o
a
W
"c v v
.a - Z
-0 -tea
�° v C
-0 o
�
ai
ai ai ai a;
4.L c w.�� $wwNU 3 o E
wa.�tnz
o
¢
Q < <<
c
v� o v v
o
a O
v
W
w M. to
x, E
cu
v L.
cy.. v v ^.'
0 L. CZ
R
L
L
M ice.
a, y
E h
V) L
C O G. v to
h
oM.
y
O
vc°m��y3
�
a
=�,
>
L.
Y v o4 O
v ^[ G
M
N
U
v
C]
O
v
Cn
t�
M E I
N
cu
C_
CD
w
O 0. n
_ E t o L. O y >' '_
•M O �..
N
0
cu
'� "=
CD
++
U
Cq
CJ
v u R x
02j d ci O
t7A
N
L
r4
M
wcz
O V M E
w
w m
N-
O,
M .0 '
c
GL L
to
M
V) y
. on -o
T-4
_v
O E cu
U
v
t0 F O 0
ca cu
N
C
U
v
cz
"Cu
v L" r, v v _^ to S.L.
tom° C°
r�.i
Y
4
"�
N
>, v U p
+�
E
E
to o
Gl
L
'C
<
w=
CS
O
La O LS °n S1 v O O
_
v
Q U
w vO
Q
Z
Q
<
v r�
N
fV
v v
�r �
ice.
S•.' (C
N
N
L
U ~
O
U
Ucov
U
cucn
'CS
tri
N
aJ
�
CO
CU
�
.�
U
U
v
vi
�••,
.r.
a,
'�
Ln
CG
vi
w
r
Q
O
O
O
M
O
cVii
`�
•=
tz
•
O
vi
cn
•O
O
to
O
O
^�
N
n
ti
rn
O
cn
v
t3
s.
•7i
a
O
tDt
O
'C
C3
L
O
O
V
ll
41
V
>
V
to
O
V
LT.
to
to
to
V
to
(�
¢'
¢
¢
x
�••'
E....
¢
¢
to
"'O
S.
w
cu
(�
t,
L
i.
w
V,
au
au
w
w
bD
b0
bD
bA
bD
qA
p-0
L
v
N
L.
Ek
t.
Ex
t
tcm
o
O an
c4 Vi
totz
bn "�
E
V .3
'C ro �
.�
w
'C
O
O
a)
U
tz
O
N
ca O
'p
C p
p
U
U
O fl.
CC
CU
N
a) G
C7
a)
�.:� �
y
C w m V
V VVi .�
O. 'CS
O
O
^tr
'O
a O
V
CCS
>
V
Q) L .� .r.
L
N
y O
N
O
+-�
C
U
N
N
O
� p
i+
p �
'Lf • C
y
M cC L 6�
? pp �
d
� t>'C
'C
t9
p
.N
Ch
�
,..+
U
:l1
iJ
CU
N
++
CO
U
• t�C
CTS to
p cn
L" s..
O (1)
,�..+
T1
,� L" CU
i R V
r0 O
O ij
N CD
i'
p
p
_O
O
m
R
41
u
'�.
>�
cc
3>
N
f4
r o
o
o
'+='
t°
L
CJ
C
•
CC
,
r
OJ
s:
o
�.
�
4-
0
-O
U
ci.
u y
fV r
p
M.
M.
" 'C3 ^`1.
>
p V a,
J..+ _
U t4
Ln
O
U
N
p
L.
i
O
p
+'
O
's:. CC
.^.
p O
y
O
N .�
m O ar O
M ?.
O
.:
O
i..+
s 3
¢ —
to-
o
_
"
-
s.
o
yp
CC
O O
O
CS rr
V S;
y
Q'
V V
m
N
c
N
O
O
V) O
o to N
LT.
N d ,�
z..
r=+ -
U
>
cz
.�
CC
tt
C4
Cll f..
i to
N
+'�-',�
CO
y
cv
V7 U
vl
O
L
"'O '�VO
i C6
CO
L. N
CCf �•' e--1
_
U
C
U
,..+
•'O
-0 N
'C
'C
G) w
ar-a¢¢_
u
O
¢o;..,¢•c¢.�',�
N
pa
X
warms_
¢) Q1 �
ri¢v.�¢
O ,..
O
C]
O
x¢war.�
.Ni
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
M
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
C
C
O
O
O
O
O
0
0
O
0
0
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
U
cn
z
cn
cn
Vn
Vn
n
n
cn
a•.
cn
a.
c
v
o
o
u
u
u ��
o
y0Ln
0
-0
Lni
O
0)
o
�
y
v]
L
y
cz
O Q
U
U
L
y
s,
cn
cn
_y
cur
CJ
�
'C5
to
cz
LL
to
h
a
CL
CS
O
u
'�
' O Crj
L' �L
p
-Oca
c4
�'
cu 0)
L
to N aO+
iu
N
co
W
c a
a
a
cu °
u
C
t�D
tDz
O
'C7
NbD
aui
O
w
O
Ln
7
v)
-0
Ccu y0
V)
V)
cC
v%
y0 "
U C
u
O CU
u
u
O
u m
w
C O
Q
cn
h
M
•�
C
'in
j
°
'C1
p 6)
CU
N
y
mcu
.) Ln v
cu
Q)) O
t0,
O U
p V
Q N
TJ N t0
bA
bLA C0
CL)
a)
U 'ZYLn
L L
cu
v
r.7 y U tp L •C y S1,
o
�^ tC
a)
aA
cn
C
L
bOA O
M
0 a),,,
Ou to = °J o
Q O
'CS V—)O
C cu ❑
C�.> O i� O C cC p 3 y
.O
C3'
cn
c4 E—
o
O — M
C)
LT- �
O m
V) •o
to y 0 O C m
V)
p a) `''
C
.o
C
i
0
fn In C x 0 -p y
M
cucu
L
❑ u �' C S�
U
O u h u u L G y
cC
to y w a) cc
u ^o u
M=-
Z
o
=
P?
L cLf i]. y y u
C o C O a) o CU -, ca .0
L O
,(] y
i° o
o
Z c�
`�
v)
R
L'
�+ V
w V) to
>
w
W
bz L C to i- 3 o
i
°3) sp. aLi
M°
G
Ln °
o
O � L" .� o .'"
3 >' 00
4^ L
N
L+
U y
Ln Rf En
N �
C O
C1 c9
0]
x L
N
w
y
Li.
,, 6)
y L
cC c0
x
O y 0 C O v E
.0 O Lf
6)
o C
p u
w C ° aU y
Z
R o rn Ll
o
--
tz u
o 3
-C u
ao
s> ."
cu >c�
•cu � oz — O u O O
�+
� ^ram,
d ri +-' p
toy
h
.a
•L O
�" 6) 7 O .O.i y O O u ',t, U �"
41
O� u u U
W cz 'C3
y
•O
Er.
rn
N
O
O
c4
Lf > Q• U O ++ 'O
-
++ N f1
fzI N m 6 .42
� 'r� GXi � 'C ate.+ � �i.
� � fU '�C ^�O
� .0
OL.)
9
�--I �-- U Q
Ln
0. o
m
U. C
y .
+ + a)
D
u
y
r'
C
M m m
m
d
d
d
ado. a
a
a
a
ob
ath
Q1
L
U
C6 U
_
U
Q
Lf)
p,
U
i,
Q
O
i
V)
�w
11 V)
r)
V)
� )
a
o
C >
u
cu
O
°
o
c
o v
m
cC
k
•O
V)i
L
O
o
Q
m
F C
S].
'rz
QJ
y
O
C
aJ
O a) p
a) a)
C
U
C—
a)
+�
^C
a)
-:S
U
of
u
N
O
U
n
L�
L
JJ
L
L
U M
L
�..�
L
Ja+
cu
aNJ
ai > y
a�
a�i
aNJ
v
v
ts1
CJJ
> N
a
a)
W
aJ
is
btr tD ,>r L
y
tDD
�'
to
b�D
'r
L
cU0 Q
""
O
O
W y CU
M
'•'
1p
=
,O
_
�''
U
VO)
C4
Ln
V)i
vn
crj
Ln
VV))
VV))
VO)
O
V)i
.O
C U
L
C
m
N
U
pcu
aJ
U
V)
N
Cl)
V)
'�
•Z
C4 .p
V)
�n
Ln
Ln
V)
U
a)
O
"cu
U
U
L
L O
L
S.
U
Lf
LI
L
v)
U
U
Vn
.'-_ CC
y
cu
Y.
cu
O
bD O'
b0
U
OD
tx
>
ytc
= U
bt
bt
bt
"O
p
<<
RSCL
<
Q>-
<
<
c)
V)
ca
a)
O
>
a
L
v
3
y
�s
CD
CU 0
x
U
aJ
Q C
in O cv
^" O
ca
ca
°�
O
O
C
L
Li
U
Ul
u U U
c L
3
>
o o°
F
V)
O
O
_C
-x
O O
U
`C
U
L" iL
O
"C
C
O>
L U
U S--' L
U
U
•O
^p
.L",
L, U
O
00
V O
O O
ti
M U
.0
O U
y
bbn
O
�'
tDxU
= O
O
Q
cU LC ^C:
O
V)
x
U
O
L ca
�n
+�
pD O U
p
M
O
U
.x,
cu >,
>
CC >
N
cu
O cuu
U
s" U
f4
bD �+
�+
-O
U,,
Ln
>>
U
O
Gy•o
O
Ut:Lc
U
.Ucvu, y '"
>C
R. cu
aj
4`.
p O O
.�
cn
L
O
x
L O
O
O
Q
p
y
O
O Q
p V)
ca
>=
,>.. N
•� cn
a' O P
V)
,0 "" L
p. U
i u .^.
�`'�
U
"C
U
y
O U
O
GL 4
rL
f1
ca
u O
U -O
>, U
^= >,
U
O y � -0
�_
O -=
O
ca
U
O
L',
v)
U O U-
U
m
L.
L. O
V) O
'� i.
L) M
G O _O
'C
—
.0
CL^^'
_
.a
0.. V7 Ln
`�
c0
i
t4
.fl cC
O bQ-0 ..�
CD 7 O O
dD O U
O
'C
�-'
U
U
-^
bD N -^
O
L U
ca p
L�
.O
�' y
U
,U.,
•N
ca
'V'
0..
Q
¢ o cC
O
fV
f.L
O
m
M
vOi
y
^ U
c4 CG V)
�,
U
Lx3
"O
W
�_
C3
RS
Vim) O
'O
y
�'
.�
� G
.O
O
mu y
ca U Z-
�+
p O
O i
>
�--+
>
m U U
L%.
>�
E^
C6
'S'•' O
U. v)
sy, X
U U
[C �] O
> Gx.
U c9 LO 0
p'
U O
d: U
m
>
a) U
L]' F-
"O
Q
-
0.
TS
Q'
p
�
U p
Z"'
,�
>
-.]
"C w u
cT3
U U
O
O
O
O
O
d•
a
tO
Ln
�c
1.0
1.0
co
co
cn
Q
Q
1-1
-�
1�
0.0
th
th
GD
bD
th
mo
h
bD
tD
Cl.M.
Cl.
(MI
a
a
a
a
a
s
O
N
O
ti
a,
+U
L
M
O s
o
y�
raj
L
O
°o
O
°
O
a
'ts
O
a
a V a u
aa),
ca O U ..O
, iL.
J-•
L
U
'
i
O
_Q
cu
Q)
Qu
h
CC
C1
_Q
r1
" E-
p s
fQ
O
O U
w
N
'tC
O
un
N
p cG CL •U
C
cC
U
C
s. m
c
o
Z..3 ° �
CX)
^c o '
s:
o
cov
avi
avi
C °' o
ai
w
�
.
U
U
v]
�,
O
O s,
CL
cz
L
v
�.'
C
•f0 "'�
N
.4
C
U
O
iV)
a)
U
�O
V,
U
O
O
U U ,�
3
c4
x
C]
o
CT
Q)
O
a0i
w
w
Ts C o a)
C
Ln
M
O a)
a O
s.
u
i
O
E
U
O
C
'C tS3
-6
-
U O
i0
y
CL)¢�
N
rn
p
aU.+
i
'
)
Lx. a) �,
y
O
"M Cl,
cn
r
wJ
a)
G
avi
aNi
ct
a) '� CE O
N
-
�
}cu =
C
OEn
u
b.D
'y
4°
y
.�
b0
bD
U
to
bA
i O O
�-
tj U
Co
.y
N
w
-
a)
.A
h
h
w
L
V)
U
i7
V)
> ^C7
Ln
U
i w
-
v
O
ccz
b�A i,"
O
c�E
r�0
"O O O
ti
O
3
to O
U
v
V, o a,tj
V)3
°�'
a.)°�'
°��'
w`
�°'
>
nz
cc
o
c
o
'Ci
L
°
.
h
23
cu
"M
LUr
n
a)
a)
�
Q)
i. fQ
v7
U
Q)
a)
N
a)
U a) RS fC h
o
p C ,�+
o
Q)
'� •aj
U
a)
4]
bA
f",
U
O
C
bA
titL
Q
OD
a)
,^_ OU
n•
•�
CG
�O���O�
dE�CQro�
tr
Ln
a)
wC7r
L
o
.�
N
by
O
O
O
V)
cu
G•. �
"�
i
�
'o
.o
'�
U
cC
(n
U
U
It
O
U
U
i
O
O
O
O
h
O
O
C
V)
a
)
o
O
w
ro
cn
c4
Ln
x v
cn
m
U
i
O
u
O
3
_UCA
3
a
L
L.
r.
a,
Q)
o
,
L
V7
y p
^y
ice+
'"
U
0
X
O
i
p
�"'
c4
�.
c6
a)
cn
p
U
n•
'C
In
L
o
-
b0
a)
>
a
a)
Ln _
�
-Ln
bOD
CC
i
LO
,
o
r-
—
i
O=
w
p
U
'O
U
3 6Ui C
O>
n.
O
L
w u
Ln
cu
3
'U
o
U
oVI
O
u
GA CU p
p
G.
O
sue.
t0
O
U
O U
c...
C
v o
C
'y
p
O
s..
M O
Q,
M
�
V) p
u
O
�
cC
�
� F
w
y y
m
� 'O
p
c,..,
p
�+
_
U
s..
a)
a)
n•
•^
U
s U
U
cC
s.
cC
s.
a) U
O s.
O
cn
N
o
n:
a
v
a
°"
v
`�
a.
a`ni
C
a
o woo
sa'
.=
a)
�
w U wJ
n
s
sU o
O
m 'O
^O
Q,>
0
�' _�
C
o
Q
o
c4
U n•
C
m
O
9
h .o C ca
•�„
v
o
a)
o
o L.
a) >
cu
p
s.
v
cu
C
u
Z
O
y i
O
O
T3
��
C
�,
4"
U
c6
O L"
^•'
U
clY
G O °
cn
LIn
�'>
� a °�
>
¢
coy
oc°
� 7�
w°O?:
M d^
d"
d"
d"
d"'
Ln
Ln
e-1
N
N
N
N
M
bA b0
bD
N
N
N
N
N
N
N
In. a, Q.
a
a.a
a.
o°D
a
s aw0
n�
obA
a
a
a
ob1D
rl
ri
^
�C�>
L
C
� .O U
"O
�'
M
V)
O
=
i
= O
n
U
tr
m
.a
O
O
U
cu
E"
O M
cC 6
�
n
cC
u.
a)
'O O In
O.
m
�
U
II.
O C
L
N
X
O
>p U
0
0
'O lu
O
0
N
Z
L o
CL
N
Z
U
+� ns
'C
O
UN
=_
C,4
O
sue.
p
N
bx
❑
O L
�:O
a)
L
a)
.�
'0
L a)
CL
lu -p
LZ vJi
•_'
w
O
bA G.
a)
ai
a)
IRO
v O
s:
O
m
aCZ
o
O
'O
s"
^C3
cn
C
O
O
'L
O
tC
..�
C.)U
G
bD
aU a)
F
x
a,
o a)
.�
a)
F
V)
w a)
°'
m
O
% r
.�
o
cu
c
i.+
cc
-0cz
.O
V, O a)
.�
h cn
W O
V
^y
^O ..O O
a)
>
f4 ^O
p u
a)
'cn
cU ct
S.
VI
(Q
m a)
W
M 7
Q, �'
>
L
V) V)
-� '>
1= Cn E
L
m
O G 3
CLS
V)
cC
4] a
a)
U cr
LO
W
"" O O
py
V y
L
N
w
N
a)
v
V)
O
Q)
O V
L
O
u
O
y
Ena)
x
cu
i W
C
'
O
2a)
✓
a)�
Vtc
V)
,C.
a)
x
CL)
x
✓
>
cn
o
U
a,)
aJ
1
Ln x
L
C
3
V)
v
V)
O
I-
^�
V cu
a
O
-0
O
C
..
L
v
O
p
6) L
o
a)V
a)
ma,
O
O
,�
O
O
E
to
O
a)
O
L '+—
O
N
O
mO
ca
0.
a)
U
L a)
a)
O
O
to
L
V)
o
N
mU
U
-M
V)cU
CL,
sU.
GL.
cC
.^,
'L
O
R7
Cn
.,�
Cn
y
'O
p
p
n
V
•�
_O
LL O
O
U
p
O
C)
'C7
a)
p
cu
a)
O
v)
U
O
a)
Q
+-+
V)x
Cn
O
S
V)
U
,��
UM
M
N
mot
N
to
�.O
N
N
N
N
N
M
L A
Lf
u i
'D
'O
z
a
a
tr
a
a
a°0,
ad°.
a°D.
a°A,
a°D.