Item O1
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
STATE OF FLORIDA
CHARLIE CRIST
Governor
"Dedicated to making Florida a better place to call home"
THOMAS G. PElHAM
Secretary
February 19, 2007
The Honorable Mario DiGennaro
Mayor, Monroe County
9400 Overseas Highway, Suite 210
Airport Terminal
Marathon, Florida 33050
Dear Mayor DiGennaro:
The Department has completed its review of the Monroe County proposed
Comprehensive Plan Amendment (DCA Nwnber 07-IER), which was received on October 30,
2006. Copies of the proposed amendment have been distributed to appropriate state, regional,
and local agencies for their review and their comments are enclosed.
The Department has reviewed the comprehensive plan amendment for consistency with
Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (FAC.), Chapter 163, Part II, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and
Chapter 380.0552(7) F.S., and has prepared the attached Objections, Recommendations, and
Comments (ORC) Report which outlines our findings concerning the comprehensive plan
amendment. The Department objects to the following proposed amendments to the
Comprehensive Plan:
. Six of the 24 EAR-based amendments due to a lack of sufficient data and analysis.
· All 147 tier map changes, due to the lack of sufficient data and analysis.
· All thirteen Future Land Use Map amendments due to a lack of data and analysis to evaluate the
net change in maximum potential development, net potential change of density and intensity, the
potential impact of traffic circulation/generation, the potential impacts to hurricane evacuation,
potential impact on potable water and wastewater treatment, as well as impacts to habitat
protection and a potential archaeological site.
. The Livable CommuniKeys Master Plans (LCPs) for Key Largo and Stock Island/Key Haven
because the terms "Strategies and Action Items" as used in the LCPs do not meet the
requirements for "Objectives and Policies" in a comprehensive plan.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
Phone: 850.4BB.8466/Suncom 278.8466 FAX: B50.921.078l/Suncom 291.0781
Internet address: h.JlP._~/WW~ct...cL.~a-.Lf:!~L.IJ.li.
CRITICAL STATE CONCERN FIELD OFFICE
2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212
Marathon, FL 33050-2227
(305) 289-2402
COMMUNITY PLANNING
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
TaIJahassee,FL32399_2100
(850)488-2356
HOUSING & COMMUNITY DEVElOPMENT
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Fl32399-2100
(850)488_7956
<<'/~I/o7
o. d.
Honorable Mario DiGennaro
February 19, 2007
Page 2
We wish to emphasize that the Department's objections are largely technical in nature.
The objections may be resolved - in part - through the provision of additional data and analysis.
Department staff will be available to assist the County on this task.
We appreciate, and will continue to support, our partnership with Monroe County as it
manages its growth and development. If you have any questions, please contact Clark Turner,
AICP, ACSC Administrator, at (850) 922-1766.
Sincerely,
Mike McDaniel, Chief
Office of Comprehensive Planning
MM/cts
Enclosures: Objections, Recommendations and Comments Report
Review Agency Comments
cc: Mr. Tom Willi, County Administrator
Ms. Carolyn A. Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional Planning Council
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS REPORT
FOR
MONROE COUNTY
AMENDMENT 07-IER
February 19,2007
Division of Community Planning
This report is prepared pursuant to Rule 9J-11.01O, F.A.C.
Introduction
The following objections, recommendations and comments are based upon the
Department's review of the Monroe County 07-1 ER proposed Comprehensive Plan Amendment
pursuant to Section 163.3184, F.S.
Objections relate to specific requirements of relevant portions of Chapter 9J-5, F.A.e.,
and Chapter 163, Part II, F.S., and Chapter 380.0552(7) F.S. Each objection includes a
recommendation of one approach that might be taken to address the cited objection. Other
approaches may be more suitable in specific situations. Some ofthese objections may have been
raised initially by one of the other external review agencies. If there is a difference between the
Department's objection and the external agency advisory objection or comment, the
Department's objection would take precedence.
The County should address each of these objections when the amendment is resubmitted
for our compliance review. Objections which are not addressed may result in a determination
that the amendment is not in compliance. The Department may have raised an objection
regarding missing data and analysis, items which the County considers not to be applicable to its
amendment. Ifthat is the case, a statement justifying its non-applicability pursuant to Rule
9J-5.002(2), F.A.C., must be submitted. The Department will make a determination as to the
non-applicability of the requirement, and if the justification is sufficient, the objection will be
considered addressed.
The comments which follow the objections and recommendations are advisory in nature.
Comments will not form a basis for determination of non-compliance. They are included to call
attention to items raised by our reviewers. The comments can be substantive, concerning
planning principles, methodology or logic, as well as editorial in nature dealing with grammar,
organization, mapping, and reader comprehension.
Appended to the back of the Department's report are the comment letters from the other
state review agencies, other agencies, organizations and individuals. These comments are
advisory to the Department and may not form a basis for Departmental objections unless they
appear under the "Objections" heading in this report.
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS, AND COMMENTS
PROPOSED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN AMENDMENT 07-1ER
MONROE COUNTY
CONSISTENCY WITH Ch. 9J-5. F.A.C.. Ch. 380.0552 (7). F.S.. and Ch. 163. F.S.
The Department identifies the following objections, recommendations and comments to the
proposed mnendment.
EAR-Based Amendments
Obiection: Policy 207.9.3, in the Conservation and Coastal Management Element, is proposed
to be deleted. This policy requires the preparation of management guidelines for private
landowners to address the special sensitivity during the nesting period of federally designated
bird species. The County has not provided any data and analysis to demonstrate that the County
or another agency has implemented this Policy. The County has not provided sufficient data and
analysis to ensure that guidelines have been prepared and included in the comprehensive plan to
protect federally designated bird species.
[Rules 9J-5.003(90); 9J-5.005(2) and (6); 9J-5.006(3)(b)4'and (6); 9J-5.012(2)(b), (3)(b)I, and
(c)l; and 9J-5.013(1), (2)(b)3, 4, (c)3, 5, 6, and (3), F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3 I 77(6)(a), (d), and
163.3 178, F.S.]
Recommendation: Include additional data and analysis to demonstrate that the comprehensive
plan includes policies that ensure the protection of federally designated bird species by
landowners even in the absence of Policy 207.9.3. If the comprehensive plan does not include
sufficient policies to protect nesting federally listed birds, then include additional policies that
include meaningful and predictable standards that will be used by the County to guide
development in areas where these species are located as well as provide guidance in the
development of implementing land development regulations.
In writing policies, the County should avoid the use of vague words and phrases such as
"consider", "encourage", "should", "minimize", "maxilIlize", "to the maximum extent possible",
and "where appropriate". Use of these words and phrases lack specificity, make the policies
discretionary, and can result in their inconsistent application.
Obiection: The County proposes to mnend Policy 1001.1.1 in the Drainage Element. The
proposed mnendment will replace the water quality level of service standard established in the
policy and, instead, reference the Stormwater Master Plan as a "guide" for stormwater
management.
[Rule 9J-5.005(2), (3), and (6); 9J-5.0055; 9J-5.006(3)(b)l, 4, (3)(c)l, 3, and 4; 9J-5.01 1(1),
(2)(c)2, 4, and 5; 9J-5.012(2)(d), (h), (3)(b)l, 2, I I, and (3)(c)l; 9J-5.013(2)(b)4, (c)6, and (3);
and 9J-5.0l6(3)(c)1 and 4, F.A.C.; and Sections 163.3 I 77(3)(a), (6)(a), (c), (d), and 163.3178,
F.S.]
Recommendation: Level of service standards for stormwater water quantity and quality are
required to be established in a comprehensive plan policy. If the Stormwater Master Plan
includes relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support new stormwater level of service
standards, then these new standards should be incorporated as a policy in the County
comprehensive plan. At a minimum, the data and analysis should demonstrate that the new
standards meet the requirements of Rule 9J-5.011(2)(c)5, F.A.C.
Obiection: Monroe County proposes to delete Policy 202.6.3 in the Conservation and Coastal
Management Element. This policy requires the County to revise its land development regulations
to address the disposal of fish and shellfish by-products from seafood processing facilities. It is
presumed that this policy was included in the County comprehensive plan because guidelines
were needed to address this potential point source of pollution. The County did not include data
and analysis to support the deletion of this policy.
[Rule 9J-5.005(2); 9J-5.006(3)(b)4; 9J-5.012(2)(d), (3)(b)l, 2, and (3)(c)l; 9J-5.013(2)(b)4, (c)6
and (3), F.A.C; and Sections 163.3 I 77(6)(a), (c), (d), and 163.3178, F.S.]
Recommendation: Include data and analysis to demonstrate that Policy 202.6.3 is not needed to
address the disposal of fish and shellfish by-products orthat other policies in the comprehensive
plan adequately address this issue. Alternatively, revise Policy 202.6.3 or include additional
policies that include meaningful and predictable standards that will be used by the County to
address the potential adverse impacts of fish and shellfish be-product disposal and which will
also provide guidance in the development of implementing land development regulations
regarding this issue
In writing policies, the City should avoid the use of vague words and phrases such as "consider",
"encourage~', "should", "minimize", "maximize", "to the maximum extent possible", and "where
appropriate". Use of these words and phrases lack specificity, make the policies discretionary,
and can result in their inconsistent application.
Obiection: Policy 901.1.6, in the Sanitary Sewer Element, will be deleted. The policy requires
the adoption of level of service standards for package plants for the treatment of wastewater and
for onsite disposal systems based upon the findings of the Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan and
to include these standards in the County's land development regulations. Level of service
standards for public facilities, including wastewater generation, are to be included as policies in
the comprehensive plan.
[Rule 9-5.003(62); 9J-5.005(2), (3), and (6); 9J-5.0055; 9J-5.006(3)(b)1 and (3)(c)3; 9J-5.oJ 1(1),
(2)(c)2; 9J-5.012(3)(b)ll; and 9J-5.016(3)(c)1 and 4, FAC.; and Sections 163.3177(3)(a),
(6)(a), (c), (d), F.S.]
Recommendation: Revise Policy 901.1.6 to include wastewater level of service standards for
wastewater treatment facilities for residential and nonresidential uses. If the Sanitary Wastewater
Master Plan includes relevant and appropriate data and analysis to support new wastewater level
of service standards, then these new standards should be incorporated as a policy in the County
2
comprehensive plan. The data and analysis need to demonstrate that the standards are appropriate
for Monroe County. The level of service standards will be useful in determining the capacity of
any new wastewater facilities planned by the County and for the expansion of any existing
facilities.
Obiection: Policies 1001.3.2 and 1001.3.3, in the Drainage Element, are proposed to be deleted.
These policies are intended to provide the data and analysis to determine the type of studies that
will be needed to assess pollutant loads in stormwater runoff and to evaluate the performance of
stormwater management systems. Data and analysis has not been provided to indicate that the
County's stormwater management requirements are adequate to ensure the water quality of
receiving water bodies.
[Rule 9J-5.005(2), (3), and (6); 9J-5.0055; 9J-5.006(3)(b)l, 4, (3)(c) I , 3, and 4; 9J-5.01I(l),
(2)(c)2, 4, and 5; 9J-5.012(2)(d), (h), (3)(b)l, 2, II, and (3)(c)l; 9J-5.013(2)(b)4, (c)6, and (3);
and 9J-5.016(3)(c)1 and 4, FAC.; and Sections 163.3 I 77(3)(a), (6)(a), (c), (d), and 163.3178,
F.S.]
Recommendation: Although a local government is not required to collect original data, the
comprehensive plan (including goals, objectives, and policies, and plan amendments) must be
based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis. Storm water management level of service
standards D)r water quality and quantity are required to be adopted as policies in the local
comprehensive plan. If the current Monroe County comprehensive plan does not include
stormwater level of service standards for water quality and quantity, then the County will need to
establish these standards in a policy in the Drainage and Capital Improvements Elements. If the
purpose of Policies 1001.3.2 and 1001.3.3 are to evaluate the adequacy of the County's existing
stormwater level of service standards, then it may be appropriate for the County to review
available sources of information to determine if its stormwater management program requires
improvement, including the establishment of new level of service standards for stormwater
quality and quantity.
Commentinl!: Al!:encies:
The South Florida Regional Planning Council (SFRPC) objects to the EAR-based amendments
because the relationship between the EAR and the EAR based amendments is not clear. SFRPC
states that Monroe County has adopted amendments to the Comprehensive Plan to implement a
Permit Allocation and Tier Overlay System to protect natural resources and allocate building
permits since the EAR was adopted. Because of this, a number of EAR recommendations and
suggested changes to objectives and policies are no longer relevant. However, an explanation has
not been included. As a result it is not clear if some amendments are still needed. For example,
the EAR, on page II-22, states that amendments to Objective 205.2 (concerning the protection
and restoration of upland habitats) will be proposed and Policy 205.2.1 (concerning the
protection of upland vegetation) will be deleted. However, the proposed amendment does not
include any changes to the objective and the policy is nQt proposed to be deleted.
3
Tier Designation Maps
Objection: Monroe County has identified 147 errors on the Tier Maps, but has not provided any
data and analysis to support the reclassification of parcels from one tier level to another. Without
supporting data and analysis, the County has not demonstrated that the new tier designations are
fully consistent with the sensitive environmental resources on these sites. In addition, there are
upland parcels of land shown on the tier maps that have not been assigned a tier designation.
Further, there are islands that were omitted from the tier maps.
[Rule 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (6); 9J-5.006(1), (2), (3)(b)4, (c)6, and (4); 9J-5.012(2), (3)(b)1 and
(c)l; 9J-5.013(1), (2)(b)3, 4, (c)3, 5, 6, and 9, FAC.; Sections 163.3 I 77(6)(a), (d), 163.3178,
F.S.]
Recommendation: Include data and analysis to support the proposed changes in tier
designation. In addition, the County should submit maps that identify all upland parcels with
errors, including islands that were omitted from the tier maps, by Property Appraiser Real Estate
(RE) number on each map sheet, the proposed designation revision, and data and analysis to
support and explain the proposed tier change.
In its response to this Objection, the County should provide the following information:
· Specific map errors identified by RE numbers on the map sheets.
· The Special Master recommendation, Monroe County staff recommendation or other
recommendation for each parcel.
· Reference( s) to the criteria utilized to recommend a tier revision.
· The acreage of each parcel as well as the percent (%) of development on each parcel and
the percent (%) of development within a platted subdivision.
· The KEYWEP (wetlands) score for each parcel.
· Parcels that are identified as "known" locations on the Protected Species Map.
· An explanation for each proposed tier revision, explaining what criteria were used to
support changing a parcel to a less restrictive tier designation, and the reason(s) for any
breaks of contiguity of environmentally sensitive habitat.
The County may find it convenient to show this information in tabular format.
Objection: The Tier Maps designate military land as Tier 4; however, the County has provided
no data and analysis in the comprehensive plan that describes the characteristics or the criteria
for these military designations. The comprehensive plan, including goals, objectives, policies,
and maps, must be based upon relevant and appropriate data and analysis.
[Rule 9J-5.005(2), (5), and (6); 9J-5.006(1), (2), (3)(b)3, (c)2, and (4); 9J-5.019(2)(a), (3)(d),
(4)(b)8, (c)8, 17, 18, 19,20,21, and (5), FAC; and Sections 63.3175(2), 163.3 I 77(6)(a), (6)0)7,
and (10)(1), F.S.]
Recommendation: Include data and analysis in the comprehensive plan to support the
designation of the Tier 4 designation for military lands.
4
Future Land Use Map Amendments
The County has proposed thirteen amendments to the Future Land Use Map (FLUM). The
proposed amendments are to revise the FLUM to eliminate inconsistent land uses designations,
eliminate inconsistencies between the FLUM and the Land Development Regulations, and assign
land uses to areas with no land use designations. The table below summarizes the FLUM
changes.
Amendment #, Size Current Proposed
Name & RE# & FLUM FLUM
Tier
Resolution 174-2006 1.02 acres (a) Residential Conservation (RC) (a) Conservation (C)
Earth and Sea
(a) 00117510.000100 Tier 1 (b) Conservation (C) (b) Mixed Use /Commercial
(b) 00117510.000200 (MC)
Resolution 108-2006 2.08 Mixed Use/Commercial (MC) Residential High (RH)
Zacharias Frederick J.
Trustee Tier III
00468473.019200 (hammock)
Resolution 390-2005 0.716 acres Residential Conservation (RC) Residential Medium (RM)
Buckholz, Andrus and combined
Zydeck
00200790.000000 Tier III
00200800.000000
00200810.000000 (low quality
00200820.000000 wetland)
Resolution 175-2006 0.46 acres Residential Medium (RM) Mixed Use/Commercial (MC)
Ruben Investment combined
Properties (developed: light industrial)
00153240.000000 Tier III
00121660.000000
Resolution 321-2006 (a) 2.36 (a) Residential High (RH) (a) Mixed Use/Commercial
Ocean Reef Club No. I (b) 28.38 2.36 acres to be changed (MC)
(a) 00081740.0005000 (c) 10.91 acres
(b) 00081760.000000 (b) RH, MC, R, RC (b) MC, R, RC
(c) 00081710.000000 No Tier 6.05 acres to be changed
(c) Mixed Use/Commercial
(c) Residential High (RH) (MC)
3.84 acres to be changed
Resolution 322-2006 4.67 acres Recreation (R) ) Mixed Use/Commercial (MC)
Ocean Reef Club No.2
00081720.000301 No Tier
00081720.000303 .
Resolution 323-2006 25.86 acres (a) Recreation (R) (a) Public Facilities (PF)
Ocean Reef Club No.3 combined
(a) 00081720.000200 (b) Recreation (R) & (b) Public Facilities (PF)
(b) 00081720.000000 No Tier Airport District (AD)
6.72 acres to be changed
Resolution 324-2006 6.97 acres (a) Recreation (R) (a) Mixed Use /Commercial
Ocean Reef Club No.4 combined (MC)
5
(a) 00081720.000302 & (b) Recreation (R) &
00081740.000300 No Tier Residential High (RH) & (b)Mixed Use ICommercial
(b) 00081720.000300 Airport District (AD) (Me)
Resolution 325-2006 (a) 50.6 acres (a) Residential Low (RL) (a) Residential Conservation
Ocean Reef Club No.5 combined 5.46 acres to be changed (Re)
(a) 00080190.000000
00573690.003900 (b) 7.42 acres (b) Residential Low (RL) (b) Mixed Use ICommercia]
00080120.000]00 combined (Me)
(b) 00573630.002600
00573630.00260] No Tier
Resolution 326-2006 (a) ] 1.5 acres (a) Residential Low (RL) (a) Mixed Use ICommercial
Ocean Red Club No.6 1.05 acres to be changed (Me)
(a) 00080040.000000 (b) 10.398 acres
00080040.000 I 00 (b) Recreation (R) (b) Mixed Use ICommercial
(b) 00573650.002800 (c) 1.05 acres ] .] 98 acres to be changed (Me)
00572797.003603
00572797.003600 (c) Residential Low (RL), (c) Mixed Use ICommercial
(c) 00572797.003700 No Tier Recreation (R) and (MC)
Residential Conservation (Re)
0.72 acres to be changed
Resolution 327-2006 (a) 2.23 acres (a) Residential Medium (RM) (a) Recreation (R)
Ocean Reef Club No.7
(a) 00569443.005201 (b) 10.84 acres (b) Recreation (R) (b) Residentia] Medium (RM)
2.662 acres to be changed
(b) 00569443.005200
00569446.000 I 00 No Tier
00569446.000300
00569446.000400
00569446.001800
00569446.001900
Resolution 328-2006 0.68 acres N/A Conservation (c)
Ocean Reef Club No.8
0008] 696.000000 No Tier
Resolution 326-2006 1.55 acres N/A Conservation (c)
Ocean Reef Club No.9
0009] 510.000000 No Tier
Obiection: The Department objects to the thirteen FLUM amendments due to lack of data and
analysis to evaluate the net change in maximum potential development, net potential change of
density and intensity, the potential impact of traffic circulation/generation, the potential impacts
to hurricane evacuation as well as impacts to habitat protection, potential impacts on potable
water supply, and wastewater treatment. The Department's Objection includes the objections
raised by the Commenting Agencies Department of Environmental Protection, South Florida
Regional Planning Council, and the Departmenbt of State, described below. Additionally, the
County should provide data and analysis indicating that the Recreation lands at Ocean Reef are
not part of the required open space for the DR! development order.
[Rules 9J-5.005(2) through (6); 9J-5.0055; 9J-5.006(2), (3)(b)l, 4, 5, (c)3, 6, 7, and 8; 9J-
5.01 I (1)(f), (2)(b)l, 2, (2)(c)1 and 2; 9J-5.012(2), (3)(b)l, 7, 10, II, (c)l, 4, II, and 13; 9J-
5.013(1), (2)(b)3, 4, (c)3, 5, 6, 9, and (3); 9J-5.015(3)(b)2 and 3; 9J-5.016(1), (2), (3)(b)l, 3, 4, 5,
(c)l, 6, 8 and (4); 9J-5.019(3)(f), (g), (h), and (i); 9J-5.019(4)(b)2, and 3; 9J-5.019(4)(c)l; 9J-
6
5.019(5)(a) and (b), FAC., and Sections 163.3167(13), 163.3 1 77(3)(a), (6)(a), (c), (d), (h), 0),
and (8), F.S.]
Recommendation: The County should submit data and analysis on the net change in maximum
potential development, net potential change of density and intensity, the potential impact of
traffic circulation! generation, potential impacts on hurricane evacuation, impacts to habitat
protection as well as the potential maximum floor area increase. Additionally, the County should
submit an analysis of any impacts of the FLUM amendments on US lor Card Sound Road;
provide information and assurances of adequate water supply, potable water treatment capacity
and necessary infrastructure for the FLUM amendments; provide information of the proposed
wastewater system's capacity and the associated infrastructure; and provide information on the
archaeological resources that may be present. Finally, the County should provide data and
analysis demonstrating that the Recreation lands at Ocean Reef are not part of the open space
required in compliance with the DR! development order.
Include additional data and analysis to explain how the County will meet the projected water and
wastewater needs to serve the potential development of the sites described in the proposed Future
Land Use Map amendments. The County might consider including growth rate projections
demonstrating that the current water and wastewater facilities are adequate to meet the needs of
the County over the next five years or that any improvements needed in the next five years are
included in a financially feasible Five-Schedule of Capital Improvements that includes a
guaranteed or committed source of funding for the first three years.
In determining existing and future water and sewer needs, the County should include information
about any water and sewer service committed to approved development that is not yet built. For
water projections, the County must demonstrate that it has a reliable source and supply of potable
water to meet projected needs.
Monroe County should include data and analysis on the impact these land use changes will have
on U.S. I and Card Sound Road over the next five years. The quantitative traffic impact analysis
should address: (1) the number of vehicle trips (peak hour) generated by the maximum
development potential allowed by the Future Land Use Map amendments; (2) the impact ofthe
vehicle trips (peak hour) on the projected operating level of service on U.S. 1 and Card Sound
Road, (3) the need for road improvements (type, timing and cost of improvements) or other
planning alternatives to maintain the adopted level of service standards for these roadways, (4)
coordination of the road improvements with the Transportation and Capital Improvements
Elements, including the Future Transportation Map and implementation through the Five-Year
Schedule of Capital Improvements; (5) coordination of the road improvements with the plans of
the Florida Department of Transportation.
In addition to evaluating the potential impacts on hurricane evacuation times, the County should
address mitigation for any increases in evacuation times.
Data and analysis should be included to demonstrate that the proposed land uses and the
densities and intensities proposed for development of the sites are compatible with the County's
habitat protection policies.
7
Data and analysis should be included to demonstrate that the proposed land uses and the
densities and intensities proposed for development of the sites are compatible with the County's
historic and archaeological site protection policies.
Obiection: Section 163.3177(6) (a), F.S., states that the Future Land Use Element is now
required to be based on, among other things, "the availability of public facilities and services".
Section 163.3164(24), F.S. defines "public facilities" to include educational facilities. The
proposed map amendments could result in an increase of dwelling units within the Monroe
County School District and subsequent increases in the student population attending the schools
serving these sites. The County has not included any data and analysis to evaluate the potential
number of students that developing these sites will generate, nor has the County demonstrated
that there is or will be sufficient capacity in the public schools to accommodate these students.
[Rules 9J-5.005(2); 9J-5.0055(3)(d); 9J-5.006(3)(b)1 and (3)(c)l; 9J-5.015(3)(b)l, 9J-
5.015(3)(c)l, and 12, F.A.C., and Sections 163.3177(3)(a); 163.3177(6)(a); 163.3177(6)(h)1 and
2; and 163.31777(2), F.S.]
Recommendation: Provide an assessment of how the elementary, middle, and high schools
serving the sites of the proposed land use changes will be impacted by these amendments,
addressing the five year and long term student impacts to school facilities and the capital
improvements plan or other measures needed to provide school capacity to serve the anticipated
student population. Include an analysis, through coordination with the Monroe County School
Board, to show any deficiencies based on existing capacity and identify any school facility
improvements that may be needed. The County should consider the Monroe County School
Board's planned capacity expansion for the next five years. Alternatively, the County should
coordinate with the School Board to address the school impacts created by the amendments and
develop a mitigation strategy to address the impacts. If it cannot be demonstrated that the County
School District can accommodate the potential student demand generated by the proposed
amendments through its 5- Year Work Plan or through other mitigation strategies, then the
County should not adopt the amendments as proposed. The amendments may need to be revised
in a way that will limit or reduce impacts to over crowded schools to acceptable limits.
Commentine Aeencies:
The Department of Environmental Protection states that no analysis was included in the
amendment package to indicate that the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA) is capable of
providing the increased potable water needed to supply the proposed land use changes. Nine of
the proposed amendments submitted by the County (Nos. 108-2006,390-2005, 175-2006,321-
2006, 322-2006, 324-2006, 325-2006, 326-2006 and 327-2006) failed to provide the required
information and assurances of adequate water supply, potable water treatment capacity and
necessary inlrastructure.
The Department of Environmental Protection states the County's submitted information for nine
amendments (108-2006, 390-2005, 175-2006,321-2006,322-2006,324-2006,325_2006,326_
2006 and 327-2006) does not contain sufficient supporting data on the applicants' plans to
8
handle m~eded wastewater facilities. The nine amendments should have reflected whether the
applicants plan to use septic tanks, package plants or connect to a centralized sewer system. If
any plan caIIs for the use of a system other than residential septic tanks, the application should
contain an analysis of the proposed wastewater system's capacity and the associated
infrastructure.
The Florida Department of Transportation states the Ocean Reef Club FLUM Amendments
numbers J -9 propose several land use changes within the Ocean Reef Club from residential or
recreational to mixed-use commercial that affect more than 35 acres in total. If the general
assumption is made that the area could be developed at a FAR of 0.25, the proposed changes
could result in a net increase of almost 16,000 trips per day. There is no analysis of the impacts
of the amendments on US I or Card Sound Road.
The Department of State has concerns about Ocean Reef Club FLUM Amendment number 6.
The proposed amendment area is the same location as archaeological site 8M028, Key Largo #4,
which is recorded as a mound site.
Livable CommuniKeys Program (LCP) - Key Largo, Stock Island/Key Haven
Obiection:. The Department objects to references in the LCPs and the proposed adopting
ordinances and resolutions stating or suggesting that "Strategies and Action Items" in the LCP
are equivalent to the terms "Objectives and Policy" in the Comprehensive Plan. As used in the
LCPs, "Strategies" and "Action Items" do not meet the standards for "Objective" and "Policy" as
required by the F.A.C. and are advisory in nature.
[Rule 9J-5.003(82), (90), and 9J-5.005(6), FAC]
Recommendation: The County should clarify that the proposed LCPs are advisory in nature
(e.g. guidelines) and of value to assist in developing the community's vision, and that the
"strategies and action items" are not intended to meet the stand31"ds for objectives and policies of
the Comprehensive Plan.
CONSISTENCY WITH THE PRINCIPLES FOR GUIDING DEVELOPMENT
The proposed amendments are not consistent with the foIIowing Principles for Guiding
Development, Section 380.0552(7), Florida Statute:
Principle (b) To protect shoreline and marine resources, including mangroves, coral reef
formations, seagrass beds, wetlands, fish and wildlife, and their habitat.
Principle (c) To protect upland resources, tropical biological communities, freshwater
wetIarlds, native tropical vegetation (for example, hardwood hammocks and pinelands),
dune ridges and beaches, wildlife, and their habitat.
Principle (e) To limit the adverse impacts of development on the quality of water
throughout the Florida Keys.
9
These Principles for Guiding Development inconsistencies can be resolved by addressing the
objections stated above.
The proposed amendments are not consistent with the State Comprehensive Plan including
the following goals and policies:
CONSISTENCY WITH THE STATE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
Goal (6) Public Safety, Policies (b) 22 and 23: Prepare plans for the safe evacuation of
coastal residents and adopt plans to protect public and private property and human lives
from natural disasters;
Goal (7) Water Resources, Policies (b) 8, 10, 12, and 13: Preserve hydrologically
significant wetlands, protect surface and groundwater, and eliminate the discharge of
inadequately treated wastewater and stormwater;
Goa;! (8) Coastal and Marine Resources, Policies (b) 4,6, and 7: Protect coastal and
marine resources for the adverse impacts of development;
Goal (9) Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Policies (b) I, 3,4,7, and 10:
Regarding the protection of natural resources;
Goal (12) Hazardous and Nonhazardous Materials and Wastes, Policy (b) II:
Identify, develop, and encourage environmentally sound wastewater treatment
and disposal methods;
Goal (15) Land Use, Policies (b) 1,2,3,5 and 6: Promote development in areas
with the capacity to serve new population and commerce; encourage a separation
of urban and rural areas while protecting fish and wildlife habitat; encourage an
attractive and functional mix of living, working, shopping and recreational
activities; establish impact review procedures to evaluate the effects of significant
development; and consider the impacts of land use on water quantity and quality,
the availability of land, water and other natural resources, and the potential for
flooding;
Goal (17) Public Facilities, Policies (b) I, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 and 9: Maximize the use of
existing public facilities, allocate the costs of new public facilities based on the
benefits received by existing and future residents, and develop fiscally sound and
cost effi:ctive techniques for financing public facilities;
Goal (18) Cultural and Historical Resources, Policies (b) 3,5, and 6: Concerning
the identification, evaluation, and protection of cultural and historic resources;
Goal (19) Transportation, Policies (b) 2,3,9,1 land 13: Ensure an efficient and
coordinated transportation system; and
10
Goal (25) Plan Implementation, Policies (b) 2,3, and 7: Ensure the
implementation of plan policy directives, establish effective monitoring
capabilities for meeting the requirements of regulatory programs, and ensure that
strategic regional policy plans and local plans implement and accurately reflect
state goals and policies that address problems, issues, and conditions of concern in
a region.
These State Comprehensive Plan issues can be resolved by addressing the objections stated
above.
11