Item Q09BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: October 15, 2008 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes_ No X Department: Planning & Environmental Resource
Staff Contact Person: Andrew O. Trivette, Director
Growth Management
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
A public hearing to consider an ordinance by the Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
amending the text of the Educational FLUM category; amending Policies 101.4.11 and 101.4.21 of the
Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; encouraging affordable, employee, and workforce
housing at existing and future school sites; allocating residential density to the Education (E) Future Land
Use category.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
There is an unmet need for housing for teachers and other workforce personnel in Monroe County.
Florida Statute Sec. 1001.43(12) provides for housing on school properties for teachers and other district
personnel. The Monroe County Comprehensive Plan needs to be amended to implement the statute and
provide density for residential use on school properties.
The Department of Community Affairs has objections, recommendations and comments on the proposed
ordinance concerning excluding properties in the AICUZ and maintaining a level of service for public
school capacity. The AICUZ concerns are addressed on a project by project basis. Staff has addressed
this as well as concerns about level of service in the staff report.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT COMMISSION ACTION:
On May 23, 2008, the BOCC approved a transmittal of a resolution to the DCA proposing an amendment
to the 2010 Comprehensive Plan amending the text of the Education FLUM category; amending policies
101.4.11 and 101.4.21 and allocating residential density to the Education Future Land Use Category.
The BOCC passed this resolution at its meeting of February 20, 2008, however, DCA requested that all
comprehensive plan amendments be heard and transmitted for the 02-2008 submission at one meeting.
Therefore, this item is being heard again with other Plan transmittal resolutions.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Approval
TOTAL COST: N/A BUDGETED: Yes No N/A
COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH: N/A Year
APPROVED BY: County Attorney OMB / Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
May 23, 2008
ORDINANCE NO. -2008
AN ORDINANCE BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS AMENDING THE TEXT
OF THE EDUCATIONAL FLUM CATEGORY;
AMENDING POLICIES 101.4.11 AND 101.4.21 OF THE
MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010 COMPREHENSIVE
PLAN; ENCOURAGING AFFORDABLE, EMPLOYEE,
AND WORKFORCE HOUSING AT EXISTING AND
FUTURE SCHOOL SITES; ALLOCATING RESIDENTIAL
DENSITY TO THE EDUCATION (E) FUTURE LAND USE
CATEGORY; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY AND
REPEAL OF INCONSISTENT PROVISIONS; PROVIDING
FOR TRANSMITTAL TO THE DEPARTMENT OF
COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AND THE SECRETARY OF
STATE; PROVIDING AN EFFECTIVE DATE
WHEREAS, § 1001.43(12), FS provides for a district school board to use portions of
school sites for affordable housing for teachers and other district personnel independently or
in conjunction with other agencies; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical
Document Housing Element 7.0 projected the number of housing units needed for resident
households to be 7,093 dwelling units for "Very Low" income households, 5,320 dwelling
units for "Low" income households, and an additional 5,528 dwelling units needed for
"Moderate" income households (p. 7-24); and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical
Document Housing Element 7.0 states that the public sector can provide for a variety of
densities which can increase the flexibility of the private sector to provide affordable housing
in more situations" (p. 7-33); and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical
Document Housing Element 7.0 states that "current conditions and projected demands in
Monroe County make it appropriate to explore innovative means such as planned unit
developments and cluster construction configuration to maximize utilization of scarce land
resources in Monroe County" (p. 7-32); and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical
Document Housing Element 7.0 confirms that "land prices in Monroe County represent a
higher proportion of total development costs than in any other part of Florida" (p. 7-33); and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical
Document Housing Element 7.0 directs consideration of housing strategy guidelines,
including providing "[a] variety of residential densities" in order "to encourage the private
sector to construct a variety of housing unit types" (p. 7-36); and
May 23, 2008
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Goal 101 directs
the County to "manage future growth to enhance the quality of life, ensure the safety of
County residents and visitors, and protect valuable natural resources ' ; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Objective 10 1. 12
directs the County to "ensure that sufficient acreage is available for utilities and public
facilities, including education and public health facilities, required to support proposed
development and redevelopment"; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Goal 601 directs
the County to "adopt programs and policies to facilitate access by all current and future
residents to adequate and affordable housing that is safe, decent, and structurally sound, and
that meets the needs of the population based on type, tenure characteristics, unit size and
individual preferences"; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Objective 601.2
directs the County to "adopt programs and policies to encourage housing of various types,
sizes and price ranges to meet the demands of current and future residents"; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Goal 1301 directs
that Monroe County shall "promote and encourage intergovernmental coordination between
the County; the municipalities of Key West, Key Colony Beach, and Layton; the Counties
of Dade and Collier; regional, state, and federal governments and private entities in order to
anticipate and resolve present and future concerns and conflicts"; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Objective 1301.5
directs that Monroe County shall "ensure that implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of
the Monroe County Comprehensive Plan is coordinated with the plans and programs of the
Monroe County School District and other providers of health, safety, and educational
services not having regulatory authority over the use of land"; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan Objective 1301.5
directs that Monroe County shall "coordinate with the District School Board of Monroe
County on the siting and expansion of required facilities"; and
WHEREAS, the Monroe County School District has decided to construct affordable
housing on one or more of its properties located in unincorporated Monroe County; and
WHEREAS, Monroe County has not set any residential density for "Educational"
use categories in its adopted comprehensive plan, and now needs to do so to facilitate the
School District's efforts to provide Workforce Housing; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings of
fact:
A lack of sufficient affordable housing opportunities for
May 23, 2008
the local workforce creates serious risks to the local economy. Moreover,
increasingly burdensome housing costs and short supply places undue
pressure on elderly, working poor and disabled persons.
2. There is limited land area suitable for residential
development remaining in the County.
3. There is an ongoing dramatic exodus of teachers and
school district personnel and other Essential Services Personnel from our
County because of a lack of affordable housing.
4. This proposed amendment to Policies 101.4.11 and
101.4.21 will complement the 2010 Comprehensive Plan's existing
housing provisions by encouraging public sector (specifically the Monroe
County School District) housing creation at appropriate sites.
5. The Monroe County, Florida, Affordable Housing Needs
Assessment, authored by The Metropolitan Center at Florida
International University (2007), and additional data and analysis and
information regarding the District's housing plans and programs which
the School District independently generated and supplied to the County
as well as specific statutory authorization for construction of affordable
housing on School District property adequately support the proposed
comprehensive plan amendment.
6. In accordance with existing Policy 101.4.11, the County
has closely coordinated with the School Board to achieve a balance of
educational facility land requirements with other land use objectives.
Keys regional workforce and affordable housing needs will be to some
degree addressed by facilitating the School District's efforts to provide
affordable housing on existing sites owned by the District.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA, THAT:
[Amendments are presented in s«i eth f, ugh to indicate deletions and underline to indicate
additions to text. All other words, characters, and language of the comprehensive plan remain un-
amended.]
Section 1. Policy 101.4.11 is hereby amended as follows:
The principal purpose of the Educational land use category is to provide for public
educational facilities and sites for affordable housing. The County shall
coordinate with the School Board to balance educational facility land
requirements with other land use objectives, including affordable housing of
various types, sizes and price ranges. In recognition of Monroe County's
environment, lack of available land for affordable housing, and the linear
distribution of its population, the County shall encourage schools to collocate
employee and workforce housing at existing and future school sites and
properties, and accommodate a*dbuilding and facility requirements on existing
May 23, 2008
sites. When new school sites are required, schools shall be encouraged to locate
proximate to urban residential areas and other public facilities.
Section 2. Policy 101.4.21 of the Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan is
amended as follows:
Monroe County hereby adopts the following density and intensity standards for
the future land use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and
described in Policies 101.4.1 - 101.4.17: [W-5.006(3)(c)7].
SEE TABLE OF DENSITY AND INTENSITY LIMITS FOR AMENDMENTS TO POLICY 101 4 21
(ATTACHED AS EXHIBIT A)
(The remainder of this page left intentionally blank.)
May 23, 2008
EXHIBIT "A"
Future Land Use Densities and Intensities
Future Land Use Category
Allocated Density
Maximum Net Density
Maximum Intensity
And Corresponding Zoning
(per acre)
(per buildable acre)
(floor area ratio)
Agriculture (A)
0 du
N/A
0.20-0.25
(no directly corresponding zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Airport (AD)
0 du
N/A
0.10
AD zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Conservation (C)
0 du
N/A
0.05
(CD zoning)
0-rooms/spaces
N/A
Education (E)
0 1 — 25 du
36 du
0.30
(Re diFeGtly GOFFeSPORding zeRing
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Educational Use Overla E
Industrial (1)
1 du
2 du
0.25-0.60
(I and MI zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Institutional (INS)
0 du
N/A
0.25-0.40
no directly corresponding zoning)
3-15 rooms/spaces
6-24 rooms/spaces
Mainland Native (MN)
0.01 du
N/A
0.10
(MN zoninal
0 rnnmc/cnaroc
nI/A
Military (M)
6 du
12 du
0.30-0.50
(MF zoning)
10 rooms/spaces
20 rooms/spaces
Mixed Use/Commercial (MC)!91
1-6 du
6-18 du
0.10-0.45
(SC UC, DR, RV, and MU zoning)
5-15 rooms/spaces
10-25 rooms/spaces
Mixed Use/Commercial Fishing (MCF)l91
Approx. 3-8 du
12 du
0.25-0.40
CFA, CFVIOI, CFSD zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
0 rooms/spaces
Public Facilities (PF)
0 du
NIA
0.10-0.30
no directly corresponding zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Public Buildings/Grounds (PB)
0 du
N/A
0.10-0.30
(no directly corresponding zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Recreation (R)
0.25 du
N/A
0.20
(PR zoning)
2 rooms/spaces
N/A
Residential Conservation (RC)
0-0.25 du
N/A
0-0.10
OS and NA zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Residential Low (RL)
0.25-0.50 du
5 du
0.20-0.25
SS(d), SR, and SR-L zoning)
0 rooms/spaces
N/A
Residential Medium (RM)
approx. 0.5-8 du
N/A
0
(IS zoning)
(1 du/lot),
N/A
0 rooms/spaces
Residential High (RH)
approx. 3-16 du
12 du
0
(IS-DhI, URMIeI, and UR(O zoning)
(1-2 du/lot)
20 rooms/spaces
10 rooms/spaces
Notes:
(a) "N/A." means that maximum net density bonuses shall not be available.
(b) The allocated densities for submerged lands, salt ponds, freshwater ponds, and mangroves shall be 0 and the maximum net density
bonuses shall not be available.
(c) The allocated density for CFV zoning shall be I dwelling unit per lot and the maximum net density bonuses shall not be available.
(d) Maximum net density bonuses shall not be available to the SS district.
(e) The allocated density for IS-D and URM zoning shall he 2 and 1 dwelling units per lot, respectively and the maximum net density
bonuses shall not be available.
(f) The maximum net densities for the UR district shall be 25 for units where all units are designated as affordable housing.
(g) For properties consisting of hammocks, pinelands or disturbed wetlands within the Mixed Use/ Commercial and Mixed Use/
Commercial Fishing land use categories, the floor area ratio shall be 0.10 and the maximum net residential density bonuses not apply.
(h) Uses under the categories of Agriculture,; Institutional, Public facilities, and Public Buildings/Grounds, which have no
directly corresponding zoning, may be incorporated into new or existing zoning districts as appropriate.
(i) The maximum net density is the maximum density allowable with the use of TDRs.
May 23, 2008
Section 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, item, change, or provision
of this ordinance is held invalid, the remainder of this ordinance shall not affected by such
validity.
Section 4. All ordinances or parts of ordinances in conflict with this ordinance
are hereby repealed to the extent of said conflict.
Section 5. This ordinance shall be transmitted to the Secretary of State and by
the Planning Department to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Chapter 163,
Florida Statutes.
Section 6. This ordinance shall become effective as provided by law.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the of A.D., 2008.
Mayor Charles "Sonny" McCoy
Mayor Pro Tern Mario Di Gennaro
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy
Commissioner George Neugent
Commissioner Dixie Spehar
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
M.
CHARLES "SONNY" McCOY, MAYOR
(SEAL)
ATTEST: DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK
MONROE COUNTY ATTORNEY
J APPR VED WTO DORM
DEPUTY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Attorney
STAFF MEMO
TO: Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lisa Tennyson, Affordable Housing Coor
THROUGH: Reggie Paros, Division Director of Ho g and Community Development
DATE: May 9, 2008
SUBJECT: Comprehensive Plan Amendment Transmittal Meeting: Proposed Educational
FLUM Text Amendment
MEETING DATE: May 23, 2008
1. Summary
The purpose of this amendment is to allocate residential density to land within areas
categorized for educational purposes on the Future Land Use Map, in order to allow the Monroe
County School District to use portions of school sites for affordable housing for teachers and
school district personnel.
Florida Statute 1001.43(12) permits school boards to use portions of school sites for
affordable housing and other district personnel. In order to address its high rate of teacher
turnover rate and the concerns of its personnel with regard to housing and living costs, the
School Board has decided to construct housing for its staff. The County had not previously set
any residential density for the "Educational" land use category that overlays the school
district's sites, and now needs to do so in order to coordinate with the School Board's teacher
housing plans and programs.
2. Background
The text amendment has been requested by the Monroe County School District. At the
district's public pre -application conference, the School Board voted 5-0 to move forward with
building affordable housing on land adjacent to the Sugarloaf School. In March 2007, it held
two public community meetings to present their plans to the public and to solicit input and
address concerns. In May 2007, the School Board again voted 5-0 to approve the development
of 28 homes for teachers and school board personnel. In November 2007, DRC convened to
review this proposed ordinance and recommended approval. In January 2008, the Planning
Commission reviewed this proposed ordinance and unanimously recommended approval.
On February 20, 2008, the BOCC heard this proposed ordinance. The Growth Management
Division proposed a slightly modified version of the ordinance (presented as "Option Two")
deleting language that referred to any specific occupancy requirements for housing on school
district sites, as these are addressed by statute. The ordinance with this modification (Option
Two) was approved unanimously, and is the version presented for the May 23, 2008 transmittal
meeting.
3. Staff Recommendation
Approval.
2
RESOLUTION NO. 15*7 -2008
A RESOLUTION BY THE MONROE COUNTY BOARD
OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS TRANSMITTING TO
THE DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS AN
ORDINANCE AMENDING POLICIES APPLICABLE TO
THE EDUCATIONAL FUTURE LAND USE CATEGORY
OF THE MONROE COUNTY YEAR 2010
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners held a public hearing on May 23,
2008, for the purposes of considering the transmittal to the Florida Department of
Community Affairs, for review and comment, a proposed amendment to the Monroe County
Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan; and
WHEREAS, the Board of County Commissioners makes the following findings of
fact:
I. The Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 8,
2008, and made recommendations to the Monroe County Board of County
Commissioners regarding the ordinance that is the subject of this
transmittal to the Florida Department of Community Affairs.
2. The proposed ordinance adopting changes to the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan will further and facilitate the
programs and plans of the Monroe County School District and also further
and complement the County's efforts to provide affordable and workforce
housing for all residents of the Florida Keys.
NOW BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA:
Section 1. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby adopt the
recommendation of the Planning Commission to amend the Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan.
Section 2. The Board of County Commissioners does hereby transmit the
proposed amendment to the Florida Department of Community Affairs for review and
comment in accordance with the provisions of Sections 163.3184 and 380.0552, Florida
Statutes.
Section 3. The Monroe County staff is given the authority to prepare and
submit the required transmittal letter and supporting documents for the proposed
amendment in accordance with the requirement of 9J-11.0006 of the Florida Administrative
Code.
Section 4. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to forward a copy of this
resolution to the Director of Planning and Environmental Resources.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of Monroe
County, Florida, at a regular meeting held on the 23rd day of May, A.D., 2008.
Mayor Mario DiGennaro Yes
Mayor Pro Tem Charles "Sonny" McCoy Yes
Commissioner Sylvia Murphy No
Commissioner George Neugent Yes
Commissioner Dixie Spehar Yes
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
MARIO DIGENNARO, MAYOR
(SP-AL)
i�o�Roe cou-� r,ry atTaRN�,
ATT�Sf,! �''DANNY L. KOLHAGE, CLERK nap eo a or�oR�t
DEPUTY CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
County Attorney
2
zr
1--a
Cm
0 �
C)
Go
Naval Air Station Key West
Comments
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
October 15, 2008 Meeting
Agenda Item Q-8
Presented by
NAS Key West
on]
Item Q-8 is an amendment to Policy 101.42.1 of Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive
Plan.
Policy 101.4.21
Monroe County hereby adopts the following density and intensity standards for the future
land use categories, which are shown on the Future Land Use Map and described in
Policies 101.41.1 — 101.4.7. However. the Maximum Net Density for development or
redevelopment parcels where the residential component constitutes affordable workforce
or employee housing, as such housing may be defined by any localstate or federal law or
regulations, shall be calculated based upon the gross acreage or total square footage
parcel(s) developed as or redeveloped into such housins uses
AEenda Item 0-8 Comments
Naval Air Station Key West (NAS Key West) appreciates the County's desire to provide
incentives to increase the development of affordable housing. In providing these
incentives, the County should be aware of unintended consequences which may
negatively impact existing uses which contribute significantly to Monroe County's
economy. The Navy has had a presence in Monroe County for 185 years. Based on the
January 2008, Florida Defense Industry — Economic Impact Analysis prepared by the
University of West Florida Hass Center, the US Navy and other military organization,
located in Monroe County, contribute $500 - $600 million per year to the County's
economy. The study further states that in 2005, Department of Defense spending in
Monroe County directly and indirectly accounted for 8,319 jobs. These employees earned
gross wages of $297.7 million.
NAS Key West presented written and oral objections to this amendment at the
Transmittal hearing on May 23, 2008. Our objections remain the same. The Florida
Department of Community Affairs (DCA) noted in their Objections, Recommendations
and Comments (ORC) report that the properties located in the 65 DNL and higher noise
contours of the 2007 Air Installation Compatible Use Zones (AICUZ) Study be excluded
from the proposed amendment. Additionally, DCA found in the ORC report that the
proposed amendment does not comply with Florida Statute (FS) sections 163.3175,
163.3177 (6)(a) and (h), (8), (9)(b) and (h), (10(a) and (1); and Florida Administration
Code (FAC) Rules 9J-5.003(90), 9J-5.006(3)(c)2, and 9J-5.015. Additionally the ORC
report found that the proposed amendment was not consistent with Chapter 380.0552(7)
FS, the Principles for Guiding Development (a), (c), (h), and (i) as well as Chapter 187
FS, State Comprehensive Plan Goals (9) and (15). In spite of the findings by DCA, there
have been no changes to the proposed amendment to correct the deficiencies found by the
State.
As written, the proposed amendment will adversely affect the operations and mission
capability of NAS Key West's Boca Chica Air Field due to the increased residential
densities within the 1977 and 2007 AICUZ Study footprints. NAS Key West is
specifically concerned with the properties located in the 1977 and 2007 AICUZ Study
footprint --but especially concerned with the 2007 footprint as it reflects the most current
data which should be used for planning purposes. If this comprehensive plan amendment
200810.1s
2
were to be modified to exclude properties located in noise contours CNR 2 and CNR 3 of
the 1977 AICUZ Study, and more appropriately the 65 DNL and higher noise contours of
the 2007 AICUZ Study Update, as well as the Accident Potential Zones, NAS Key West
would not object to the amendment. The properties could be excluded from the
amendment by creating an overlay district. Such a district could permit residential uses
(which would be otherwise considered an incompatible use), even possibly in increased
densities, if the studies performed by the County showed that there were no viable
alternative options than to increase residential use in these high noise, or accident
potential, zones.. If no viable alternative option was available, criteria would need to be
developed to require, at a minimum, sound attenuation and a disclosure statement to all
potential owners and/or residents. It should also be noted that these sound attenuation
measures do not mitigate outdoor noise. Outdoor living is a part of the Florida Keys
lifestyle and will be greatly affected by noise. Increases in densities would therefore
expose more people to the hazards of exposure to noise. We are currently working with
County Planning Staff to develop comprehensive plan and land development regulations
pertaining to military installations and protecting them from the impacts of encroachment.
The issue is one of compatible uses adjacent or proximate to military installations and the
future of the installations. If the encroachment creates a severe enough impact on the
operations of the military installation, it may be required to change or significantly limit
its operations and mission capability.
The Principles for Guiding Development, Chapter 380.0552 (7), Florida Statutes (FS)
outline the objectives to be met by local government. Two of these principles require
local government "to ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens
through sound economic development" and to protect "the value, efficiency, cost-
effectiveness, and amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments
including: ... Key West Naval Air Station and other military facilities." The impacts of
encroachment onto to NAS Key West which would reduce the mission capability could
have significant negative economic impacts on Monroe County. Principle (1) requires
local government "to protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the
Florida Keys..." It could be argued that the County would be remiss, in terms of public
health, safety and welfare, if they knowingly permitted housing, specifically, affordable
housing within the higher noise level areas, contrary to their adopted regulations. It could
also be argued that it is discriminatory to relegate affordable housing to those areas which
have public health, safety and welfare concerns, such as areas with high noise levels, high
volumes of vehicular traffic, etc. The term the Navy (U. S. Government) uses regarding
this type of development is contrary to the principles of 'Environmental Justice" (as
defined by U.S. EPA). Concerning the protection of the public investment at NAS Key
West, it should be noted that the current Plant Replacement Value (excluding property
value) is over $712 million and that each year the operating budget of the air station is
over $31 million.
The Data and Analysis (DA) for the proposed amendment is inadequate and in our
opinion does not meet the minimum statutory requirement of Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) FS.
The DA does not address the number or location of the parcels that will benefit, the
200&10.15 3
potential number of additional units that might be provided, how additional ROGO
allocations will be provided to accommodate increased densities, impacts on
infrastructure such as potable water and wastewater, the anticipated population growth,
hurricane evacuation, and most importantly the compatibility of uses in close proximity
to NAS Key West or other military installations. The DA lacks analysis of potential
economic impacts to the community (loss of jobs, revenue, etc.) as a result of the County
continuing to permit the encroachment of incompatible development and uses that
negatively impact the ability of NAS Key West to continue its current operations. Much
of the data referred to in the proposed ordinance is found in the Monroe County 2010
Comprehensive Plan Technical Document and is 15 to 20 years old and out of date.
We believe that the County's obligation to provide affordable housing is not outweighed
by the obligation to protect the County's economic well being, protect public investments
or the obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare; hence the properties within
the AICUZ Study footprint should be excluded. As an alternative, we would suggest that
any areas which pose encroachment challenges to an adjacent or nearby military
installation be regulated by an overlay district. An overlay district could provide
regulations that would permit compatible development and ensure the military
installation's operations sustainability would not be negatively impacted.
Approval of this amendment would make a bad situation worse.
This concludes my presentation. As stated previously, we are providing the Commission
with our detailed comments in the form of a handout. If you have any questions, I would
be happy to answer them.
Thank you for the opportunity to comment on behalf of Naval Air Station Key West.
2008.10.15 4
Detailed Navy Comments — October 15, 2008
We question why this proposed amendment is required recognizing that Monroe County
has already adopted a number of Comprehensive Plan Goals, Objectives, and Policies as
well as Land Development Regulations (LDRs) that provide significant incentives for the
preservation and development of affordable housing. These provisions include, but are
not limited to, density bonuses, the use of Transfer of Development Rights (TDRs), and
the transfer of ROGO allocations from one parcel to another. The Monroe County 2010
Comprehensive Plan Technical Document, which is heavily referenced in the proposed
ordinance, provides an abundance of strategies which may be more effective than density
increases in the AICUZ Study footprint. These strategies were developed over 15 years
ago and have not been implemented. Additionally, much of the data cited in the
ordinance is outdated and not longer accurate.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment proposes an increase in the overall
density county -wide. The consequences of this increase have not been addressed. It is
our contention that the staff did not provide DCA with the required Data and Analysis
(DA) of the impact of the increase in the overall density potential with the amendment,
including the estimated increase in numbers of dwellings and population. This
analysis/backup information is required to be part of the DA for every Comprehensive
Plan and Land Development Regulation (LDR) amendment. Such an analysis should
include an inventory of vacant parcels that would be large enough to benefit from an
increase in density and in locations where affordable housing would be logical (i.e. dry
parcels near employment centers) outside of the AICUZ Study footprint.
We believe the proposed amendment is generally inconsistent with various sections of
Chapter 163 FS, Chapter 380.0552 FS, Chapter 187, 9J-5 FAC, and the Monroe County
2010 Comprehensive Plan.
Chapter 163.3175(1) FS - The proposed comprehensive plan amendment is inconsistent
with chapter 163.3175(1) F.S. which states that the Florida Legislature finds that
incompatible development of land close to a military installation can adversely affect the
ability of the installation to carry out its mission and can threaten public health, safety
and welfare. Approval of this ordinance would not be consistent with this statute. There
are properties affected by this amendment that are within Noise Zone 2 (CNR 2) and
Noise Zone 3 (CNR 3) of the 1977 AICUZ Study and Noise Zones 2 and 3 (65 — 79 DNL)
of the 2007 AICUZ Study Update, and as such pose a risk to the public health, safety, and
welfare of the residents in addition to an adverse impact on NAS Key West's ability to
carry out its mission. The County is currently operating under the ordinance they
adopted to address the 1977 AICUZ Study. The County has not yet adopted the
recommendations of the 2007 AICUZ Study Update that was forwarded to the County in
May 2007. This statute also recognizes the positive economic impact military
installations have on a local economy and further "finds it desirable for the local
governments in the state to cooperate with military installations to encourage compatible
land use, help prevent incompatible encroachment, and facilitate the continued presence
of major military installations in this state." The ordinance could adversely affect the
2M.l0.ts
5
operations of Naval Air Station (NAS) Key West's Boca Chica Air Field due to the
increased residential (transient, non -transient, and live-aboardl densities that will be
permitted to locate within the 1977 AICUZ Study noise contours and 2007 AICUZ Study
footprint. In addition to AICUZ Study -related incompatibility issues, urban development
creates other encroachment issues that may, for example, interfere with radio frequencies
or impact non -aviation training missions.
Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) F.S. states in part; "...The future land use plan shall be based
upon surveys, studies, and data regarding the area, including the amount of land required
to accommodate anticipated growth; the projected population of the area; the character of
undeveloped land; the availability of water supplies, public facilities, and services; the
need for redevelopment, including the renewal of blighted areas and the elimination of
nonconforming uses which are inconsistent with the character of the community; the
compatibility of uses on lands adjacent to or closely proximate to military
installations; ..." The Data and Analysis (DA) for the proposed amendment does not
adequately address or support an increase in population growth (US Census Bureau data
indicates a six percent decline in population for Monroe County between 2000 and 2006),
hurricane evacuation, concurrency issues (potable water, highway capacity, etc.), the
housing needs associated with the such growth, the need for redevelopment, the
elimination of non -conforming uses which are inconsistent with community character,
and most importantly the compatibility of uses in close proximity to NAS Key West.
The DA does not address the potentially negative economic impacts to the community
(loss of jobs, revenue, etc.) should the Navy or other military organization be required to
reduce their mission capability because of the continued encroachment of incompatible
uses granted permits by Monroe County. Much of the data referred to in the proposed
ordinance is found in the Monroe County 2010 Comprehensive Plan Technical Document
and is 15 to 20 years old and out of date and no longer accurate.
Chapter 163.3177(6)(a) F.S. further states: "The future land use plan element shall
include criteria to he used to achieve the compatibility of adjacent or closely proximate
lands with military installations." The ordinance does not propose any criteria to achieve
compatibility for those properties located in the Noise Zones 2 and 3 in the 2007 AICUZ
Study Update. Residential uses are discouraged in the 65 DNL (day night average sound
level) to 69 DNL and strongly discouraged in the 70 — 74 DNL noise contours.
Additionally, it is recommended that all properties (residential and commercial) in the 60
DNL to 64 DNL noise contours have a Real Estate Fair Disclosure Statement recorded in
the Monroe County Public Records, similar to those required by the Escambia County
Land Development Code. The Disclosure should notify property owners and occupants:
1) which noise level contour the property is located; and 2) require appropriate site design
and the use of sound attenuation construction methods to reduce the noise impact on uses
within 60 DNL and higher noise contours for both Key West International Airport and
NAS Key West Boca Chica Air Field. The disclosure should also note that these sound
attenuation measures do not mitigate outdoor noise. Outdoor living is a part of the
Florida Keys lifestyle and will be greatly affected by noise. In addition to, or in lieu of,
the Disclosure Statement the following options could be used to provide notice to
property owners: 1) include AICUZ Study information (similar to affordable housing
2008.10.15
6
deed restrictions) on the Monroe County Property Appraiser's Record Card for affected
parcels; 2) include AICUZ Study noise contours on the GIS maps on the Monroe County
Property Appraiser's website (Virginia Beach, Virginia provides this type of service at
htti)://www.vbgoy.com/e-goy/emappinst/access/getMap.asp); or the Monroe County BOCC
could adopt a resolution similar to BOCC Resolution 67-1979 identifying subdivisions
within the AICUZ Study noise contours and record the resolution in the Monroe County
Public Records.
Chapter 187, State of Florida Comprehensive Plan Goal 15, Policies (b) 4 and 6 requires,
in part, the County to develop a system of intergovernmental negotiation for siting locally
unpopular public and private land uses and to consider the availability of land for
development.
Upon reviewing 380.0552 Florida Statutes, the Monroe County Area of Critical State
Concern (ACSC) Principles for Guiding Development, we understand the county's
obligations under the principles are: "To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida
Keys and its citizens through sound economic development"; "To protect the historical
heritage of the Florida Keys;" "To protect the value, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and
amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments, including: Naval Air
Station Key West;" "To make available adequate affordable housing for all sectors of the
population of the Florida Keys;" "To provide 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;" and "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the
citizens of the Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource."
We believe that the County's obligation to provide affordable housing is not outweighed
by its obligation to protect public health, safety and welfare; to enhance the quality of life
of its citizens; to protect the County's economic well being; or protect pubic investments_
Hence, the properties within the AICUZ Study footprint should be excluded. We
understand, based on Mr. Coleman's comments to the Board of County Commissioners
in his January 23, 2008 staff report, that the proposed amendment must be reviewed
against the Principles for Guiding Development "as a whole and no specific provision
shall he construed or applied in isolation from the other provisions." We maintain that the
proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment when reviewed for consistency with the
Principles for Guiding Development as a whole is not consistent with the intent of the
principles as a whole, and more specifically those provisions identified above.
The proposed amendment does not appear to be consistent with Section 380.0552,
Florida Statutes, Principles for Guiding Development, specifically Principle (d) which
states "To ensure the maximum well-being of the Florida Keys and its citizens through
sound economic development."
. The Florida Defense Industry Economic Impact Analysis, prepared by the Haas Center
for Business research and Economic Development at the University of West Florida
dated January 2008, describes the positive economic benefits the Navy and other military
organizations have on Monroe County. This positive economic impact to Monroe
County exceeds $635 million in today's dollars. Briefly the data states:
2008.10.15 7
Defense Spending ($ Millions)
Procurement $ 35.1
Salaries 78.3
Pensions & Transfers 34.9
Total Defense Spending $148.3
Average Earning Per Military Job $73,400
County Economic Impact[ (2005)
$592.3 Million
Employment
8,319 Jobs
Sales Activity
$311.9 Million
Consumption
$33.9 Million
Capital Investments
$48.5 Million
County Economic Impact 1(2007 Projected) $635.1 Million
County Economic Impact[ (2010 Projected) $645.9 Million
1. For the purposes of this information, County Economic Impact refers to the
Gross Product which is the sum of money values of all final goods and services
produced in the economy and sold on organized markets during a specified
period of time.
Source: Florida Defense Factbook, January 2008, page 44, prepared by Haas Center
for Business Research and Economic Development.
Florida Defense Industry Economic Impact Analysis, Volume 2, January
2008, Table 30, page 104, prepared by Haas Center for Business Research
and Economic Development.
Principle (g) states "To protect the historical heritage of the Florida Keys." There are
numerous military installations and sites throughout the Florida Keys. The US military
has had a presence in the Key West and the Florida Keys dating back to 1823 when a
Naval Base was first established to counteract piracy. The US military and the Navy,
specifically, are an intrinsic part of Monroe County's history. It is not uncommon for
military personnel to retire and become a permanent part of the Florida Keys after being
stationed in the Florida Keys.
Principle (h)(4) states: "To protect the values, efficiency, cost-effectiveness, and
amortized life of existing and proposed major public investments including:... Naval Air
Station Key West and other military installations." The proposed significant increase in
residential densities within the Noise Zones 2 and 3 as depicted in the 1977 AICUZ
Study footprint and the 2007 AICUZ Study footprint is an encroachment into military
operations, and as such may increase the cost of operation or may negatively impact the
mission capability of NAS Key West. There are other encroachment challenges created
by increased residential densities adjacent military installations in Monroe County that
may pose additional public health, safety and welfare concerns. (See attached
Encroachment Challenges Synopsis, page 12)
Principle (k) states the county is: "To provide adequate alternatives for the protection of
public safety and welfare in the event of a natural or manmade disaster and for a
2008.10.15 8
postdisaster reconstruction plan." The impact of the potential increase in densities,
population and vehicles has on hurricane evacuation was not considered in the DA.
Development in the county has an effect on hurricane evacuation which impacts all of the
jurisdictions in Monroe County and could affect the development potential of the other
jurisdictions. This hurricane evacuation issue warrants being addressed as part of the
required DA.
Principle (1) states: "To protect the public health, safety, and welfare of the citizens of the
Florida Keys and maintain the Florida Keys as a unique Florida resource." If the
proposed amendment becomes effective, the local government will be permitting
increased residential densities in a high noise area and will be creating public health,
safety, and welfare concerns. Measures to achieve an outdoor -to -indoor noise level
reduction through sound attenuating construction methods may be an effective method to
reduce noise levels in the 64 DNL and lower. It will not, however, eliminate outdoor
noise problems. Outdoor living is a part of the Florida Keys lifestyle and will be greatly
affected by noise. This is further supported by Chapter 163.3175(1) F.S. as cited above.
Chapter 9J5-006(3)(c)2 FAC requires amendments to the future land use element to
provide for compatibility of adjacent uses. Chapter 9J-5.003(23) defines "compatibility"
as "a condition in which land uses or conditions can coexist in relative proximity to each
other in a stable fashion over time such that no use or condition is unduly negatively
impacted directly or indirectly by another use or condition." The proposed amendment
creates a compatibility issue for both the residential uses and military installation. These
uses negatively impact each other. The proposed amendment does not enhance the
quality of life or ensure the safety of residents and visitors due to compatibility issues.
The ordinance has been revised, referencing several comprehensive plan objectives and
policies. Comprehensive Plan Policy 601.1.12 which states `By January 4, 1997, Monroe
County shall adopt Land Development Regulations which may include density bonuses,
impact fee waiver programs, and other possible regulations to encourage affordable
housing." Monroe County does have existing LDRs which create density bonuses for
affordable housing.
Objective 601.2 states "Monroe County shall adopt programs and policies to encourage housing
of various types, sizes and price ranges to meet the demands of current and future
residents." Monroe County has several LDRs which already implement this objective.
Objective 601.6 states `By January 4, 1998, Monroe County shall formulate housing
implementation programs corresponding to each of the specific objectives defined within
this element, including: 1. the expansion of public information assistance; 2. incentive
programs, to be implemented in conjunction with the Permit Allocation System, to
promote the development of affordable and elderly housing; and 3. the elimination of
substandard housing." It is unclear how the proposed comprehensive plan amendment
implements the above objective given the programs and regulations already in place.
The proposed Comprehensive Plan amendment would promote an increase in population
living in the high noise areas or accident potential areas, as well as creating other types of
2W.t0.t5 9
encroachment concern. It could be argued that the County would be remiss, in terms of
public health, safety and welfare, if they knowingly permitted housing, specifically,
affordable housing within the higher noise level areas, contrary to their adopted
regulations. It could also be argued that it is discriminatory to relegate affordable
housing to those areas which have public health, safety and welfare concerns, such as
areas with high noise levels, high volumes of vehicular traffic, etc. The term the Navy (U.
S. Government) uses regarding this type of development is contrary to the principles of
"Environmental Justice" (as defined by U.S. EPA). We believe that the County's
obligation to provide affordable housing is not outweighed by the obligation to protect
the County's economic well being, protect public investments or the obligation to protect
public health, safety and welfare; hence the properties within the AICUZ Study footprint
should be excluded. As an alternative, we would suggest that any areas which pose
encroachment challenges to an adjacent or nearby military installation be regulated by an
overlay district. An overlay district could provide regulations that would permit
compatible development and ensure the military installation's operations sustainability
would not be negatively impacted.
Approval of this amendment would make a bad situation worse with incompatible
development within the latest AICUZ Study footprint.
2M.10.1e 10
ENCROACHMENT CHALLENGES SYNOPSIS
The types of encroachment sources, described and defined below are drawn from various
studies and reports of Navy and non -Navy actions that have occurred which have had an
impact on training and test activities. Although not all encompassing, these potential
sources of encroachment need to be examined to determine if they exist at an installation,
range, military training routes (MTR), special use airspace (SUA)_or operation areas
(OPAREA). Once a potential challenge is identified, it should be analyzed to determine
the potential impacts and constraints imposed.
Urban Development (population growth) — As communities grow toward the
boundaries of installations, ranges, OPAREAs, and beneath MTRs and SUAs, land use
development could become incompatible with the Navy's mission. Incompatible
development can seriously compromise the quality of the Navy's training and test mission
requirements. Urban development may not surmount to an immediate threat, but
continued incompatible development could present a long-range threat to the mission.
Urban development may also damage habitat needed for wildlife to survive, making the
installation or range the only available habitat in the area.
Airborne noise - The central issue of airborne noise is the impact, or perceived impact,
on people, animals (both wild and domestic), structures, and land use.
Competition for air space, land, and sea space - The Navy owns, controls, or uses
resources, that need to be available to accomplish testing and training missions. These
resources must be of sufficient size and quality to provide effective training and testing.
Public pressure to share or relinquish some of these resources may inhibit the Navy from
accomplishing its training and test objectives, or inhibit anti-terrorism/force protection
programs.
Competition for scarce resources (oil, gas, minerals, potable and irrigated water, and
ocean access) - Community pressure to gain access to valuable resources located on land
or sea that Navy owns or controls may affect Navy's ability to use this land or water for
training or test objectives.
Threatened and Endangered Species — Restrictions for the purpose of protecting
threatened or endangered species can reduce the value of an installation, range, or
OPAREA for testing and training by limiting the types of permissible activities in terms
of composition, magnitude, or timing.
Maritime issues (Marine Mammals, Endangered Species, Fish Habitats, Coral Reefs,
Coastal Zones, Sanctuaries, and other marine protected areas) -- Regulatory or permit
requirements protecting ocean resources cumulatively affects the Navy's ability to
conduct training exercises or testing in the marine environment.
2008.10.15 11
Ordnance - Unexploded Ordnance (UXO)/Munitions -- Application of various
environmental laws to munitions training, demolition, disposal, or testing activities could
have severe and adverse impacts on readiness.
Safety Arcs and footprints (Explosive Safety Quantity Distance (ESQD) Arcs,
Surface Danger Zones, Weapons Safety Footprint Areas) - Land adjacent to
installations and range safety zones, including land within the installation or range, may
not be suitable for certain types of land use or economic development purposes.
Frequency Spectrum - The competition for available frequency spectrum may lead to a
reduction in available spectrum for training and developmental/operational testing
activities. The lack of spectrum may decrease the effectiveness of exercises by restricting
the number of war -fighting systems that can participate. As the potential for residential
and commercial encroachment increases, so does the risk of increased RF emitters and
receivers, which could result in Electromagnetic Interference (EMI) problems between
Navy systems and public or commercial systems.
Air Quality - Impacts to training and test missions in non -attainment areas, and
conformance with individual State Implementation Plans (SIPS), may restrict existing
mission requirements or preclude execution of new missions, as well as deployment and
use of new weapon platforms.
Water Quality - Discharge permit requirements and timelines and/or prohibited or
restricted access to wetlands and/or their buffer zones can restrict existing mission
training, preclude or restrict integration of new technology/weapons systems into existing
missions and training or preclude future growth and execution of new missions in
amphibious, riverine, estuarine and other salt and fresh water related missions.
Interpretation of Historical/Environmental regulations - Regulatory or permit
requirements may affect training and testing activities. Other non -Navy actions may
affect Navy's current regulatory or permit requirements under these regulations.
Interagency Coordination (e.g., Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management (BLM),
Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), National Park Service (NPS), U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service (FWS), and State equivalents) - Navy often uses land controlled by another
Federal or State agency. The types of allowable uses and restrictions are often the result
of negotiations between the parties or subject to the other Federal agency's policies and
regulations. These restrictive uses can limit training and testing activities.
Legislative initiatives that restrict training or testing activities - Congress may enact
legislation that directly or indirectly limits the Navy's flexibility to conduct training or
testing activities.
2M.10.15 12