Resolution 693-1988
RESOLUTION NO. 693-1988
Planning Department
A RESOLUTION AMENDING THE RESOLUTION NO.
584-1988 WHICH CONFIRMED THE ADMINISTRATIVE
BOUNDARY INTERPRETATION OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR IN LAND USE DISTRICT MAP BOUNDARY
INTERPRETATION NUMBER 14,CRAINS SUBDIVISION
LOTS 3-8, BLOCK 55,IN ORDER TO CORRECT A
CLERICAL ERROR
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA THAT:
The administrative decision of the Planning Director in
Land Use District Map Boundary Interpretation Number 14
dated
October 31, 1988, attached and incorporated by reference, is
hereby aCknowledged, found to be in
conformance with the
standards set forth in Sec. 9.5-3(m),
Monroe County Code, and
approved.
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held
on the 20 day of December, A.D., 1988
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA
By
//I~~4~y
Mayor/Chairman
(SEAL)
Attest:DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
4~~~~~
"f U ),lNnOJ 30~NOW
J )-11~! )'il~)
, 0'.1, '.~~VO
APPR(')\I~!1 AS TO FORM
(z: 6tt 8l 3lJ ..
OtiOJ3d dO.:1 031/.:1
,I-!./;.'t'., 'r -to" r
B&~t7q;"'C~
FROM:
M E M 0 RAN DUM
Randy Ludacer, County Attorney
\ J
Donald L. cr~i~'...AsSiSy.nt ..~o.~nty
Management D1v1s1on
November 18, 1988~' ,1/'
Administrator, Growth
TO:
DATE:
SUBJECT: Schwicker Boundary Determination
The intent of the boundary determination, as was discussed with
Mr. Schwicker just a few days before the BOCC meeting, when the
action was taken was: to include Lot 5, Block 55 in the IS dis-
trict conditioned with Unity of Title reflecting that lot 5 in
and of itself is not buildable. The Memorandum as you pointed
out that included lot 5 in the NA district also, was due to cleri-
cal error. The Memorandum was revised just prior to the BOCC
hearing and lot 5 was inadvertantly left in. I have enclosed a
new corrected Memorandum. Please advise if we need to put this
back before the Board for a simple clerical error or if the cor-
rection can stand with the resolution.
/
(
r-~\ tv
i )'v
\\ i'V'
V F'~
(i ~-
/' I~J
{I (t~
~, 1.;
i I ( , \
'f\ ,.."'. .. ~"-.. )
/ ',' I-l l. j!-'j,/ 'y/
A Ii ) ;,\.' r. II} C/}"
( I' v
~J,
(2,
\j /
I~"~j
~ jf: 1P
~da~~
COR R E C TED
M E M 0 RAN DUM
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Donald L. Craig, AICP, Assoc. AlA Assistant County
Administrator for Growth Management Division
Department: Planning
by:Jeanne DuBois
SUBJECT: Boundary Determination for Grassy Key, Crain's Subdivi-
sion, Block 55, Lots 3-8
MEETING DATE: October 18, 1988
Previous Relevant Board Action: / / ( ) Referral: Yes____No X
Commissioners District
Recommended Action:lt is recommended that the NA/IS line be drawn
along the south boundary of Lot 5 thereby including Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8
in the Improved Subdivision district, and Lots 3, 4, in the Native Ar-
ea. This would include a condition to be placed on lot 5 that it be
unified to reflect that it is not buildable by itself.
Summary of Request/Report The property owner requested that Lots 3
through 8 be inspected in order to determine the placement of the bounda-
ry line between the IS and NA land use districts. The biologist made a
site inspection and determined that Lot 6 could be included in the IS
land use district and approximately 24 feet of Lot 5. An additional
condition has been proposed that would allow lot 5 to be included as
well.
Action by:
Ordinance X Resolution
Citizens Committee Statement
Yes X No
Attached
Agreement/Contract - No.
Approved by County Attorney as to Legality___Yes
N.A.
Standard Form
Approved by Risk Management___Yes___Not Applicable
Approved by Office Fiscal Management
Funding Source N/A
Current Year Cost
Annual Cost
N/A
Budgeted___Yes___No
Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel?
X No
If Yes State Number____
Permanent___ Temporary___ Other
Board Policy(ies) Applicable
Planning Commission Action Taken____Yes
Date X N.A.
Alternatives:The NAilS line could be drawn along the northern boundary
of the pure, undisturbed wetland area. This would place the line approx-
imately twenty-four feet south of the south boundary of Lot 6. This
would result in a lot being included in the IS land use district which
did not have sufficient uplands for development, and would be inconsis-
tent with the Purpose of the Improved Subdivision landuse district.
Attached Documentation X Yes No
Donald Craig
ACA/Growth Management
Randy Ludacer
County Attorney
William Schwicker - Lots 3 through 8, Block 55, Crain's
Subdivision re: ResR/tLio~ No. 584-1988 and supporting
Memorandum ' )
/, -
November 15, 1988 ~ ,\,~-----
OHv~!: ~"~~3~~E
13051 294.4641
REPLY TO :
310 Fleming Street, Room 29
Key West, Florida 33040
MEMORANDUM
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
DATE:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Jerry Hernandez, District 1
MAYOR Gene Lytton, District 2
Wm. Billy Freeman, District 3
Mayor Pro tem Mike Puto, District 4
John Stormont, District 5
At the request of Mr. Schwicker, I have reviewed the
supporting Memorandum attached to the above-referenced Resolution
and find that Lot 5 of Block 55 has been zoned both Improved
Subdivision and Native Area. I would appreciate your rectifying
this situation and advising me as to what disposition you have
made. Thank you for your cooperation.
RL/pr
--"-/-
( ,/
.. ,
M E MORA N 0 U M
DATE:
October 31, 1988
TO:
Monroe County Board of County Commissioners
RE:
Donald Craig
Boundary Determination for Lots 3 through 8, Block
55, Crain's Subdivision, Grassy Key
FROM:
-----------------------------------------------------------------
Background:
The applicant
referenced lots.
use districts:
The NAIIS line
district maps.
April 28, 1988.
has requested a boundary determination on the
This property presently lies within two land
Native Area (NA) and Improved Subdivision (IS).
presently runs through lot 6 on the land use
A site inspection of the property was made on
Recommendation:
It is recommended that the NA/IS line be drawn along the
south boundary of Lot 5 thereby including Lots 5, 6, 7, and 8 in
the IS district, and Lots 3 and 4 in the NA. To insure that lot
5 is buildable, which it doesn't appear to be by itself, we
would condition this recommendation on unifying lots 5 and 6.
Alternatives:
'.
.I
The NAIIS line could be drawn along the northern boundary of
the pure, undisturbed wetland area. This would place the line
approximately twenty-four feet south of the south boundary of Lot
6. This would result in a lot being included in the IS land use
district which did not have sufficient uplands for development,
and would be inconsistent with the Purpose of the Improved
Subdivision land use district. After meeting with Mr.
Schwicker, owner of the lots in question, we have decided a
second possibility exists. We have told Mr. Schwicker that we
would be willing to redraw the NA/IS boundary at the south side
of lot 5, if, he unified lots 5 and 6. Thus designating lot,S as
IS" as well as, lot 6 would not create an unbuildable lot.
Findings of Fact:
1. The designation of the above property as Improved
Subdivision (IS) rather than Native Area (NA) will be consistent
with the purpose of the Improved Subdivision District, Section
9.5r205, and the uses allowed within that district, Section
9.~-234.
2. The determination was based on the following:
.1
. , .'-: -t4
~";.\o_~, ___."~~4J
,-
(
Lot 7 and 8 are vegetated with low hardwood hammock and
are in the IS district on the current land use district
map signed by Donald Craig.
The IS/NA boundary cuts across Lot 6.
The approximate northern forty feet of Lot 6 is
vegetated with the same type of hammock vegetation found
on Lots 7 and 8. '
The approximate southern twenty
approximate northern 24 feet
vegetation of a more wetland
buttonwoods being the dominant
south side of this area.
feet of Lot 6 and
of ToOt 5 contains
character with large
woody species at the
South of this is an abrupt change to pure buttonwood
association and south of this an abrupt change to
mangroves changing to open water.
Although the buttonwood/upland mix area could be
included in the IS designation, it would still be
subject to environmental design criteria for permitting
purposes.
3. Analysis of the existing uses of the property and surrounding
properties indicate that the essential neighborhood
characterisitics support the determination to designate Lots 6, 7
and 8 as Improved Subdivision (IS) and Lots 3, 4 and 5 as Native
Area (NA).
'.
J Attachments:
1. Application
2. Current Land Use District Map
3. Aerial Photo
4. Land Use District Map effective Sept. 15, 1986 (Pattison)
5. Staff Report from Environmental Resources Division
.
, ,
. ,
~
.!
"!tIt'
'.
-
-.
Planning Director
RESOLUTION NO. 584 -1988
A RESOLUTION CONFIRMING THE ADMINISTRATIVE
BOUNDARY INTERPRETATION OF THE PLANNING
DIRECTOR IN LAND USE DISTRICT MAP BOUNDARY
INTERPRETATION NUMBER 14, Crains Subdivision, Lot 3-8, Bl 55
BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF COtmTY COMMISSIONERS OF
MONROE COUNTY, FLORIDA that:
The administrative decision of the Planning Director in Land
Use District Map Boundary Interpretation Number
14
dated
9ctober 17, 1988
attached and incorporated by reference, is
hereby acknowledged, found to be in conformance with the
standards set forth in Sec. 9.5-3 em). Monroe County Code, and
. . approved.
.1
PASSED AND ADOPTED by the Board of County Commissioners of
Monroe County, Florida, at a regular meeting of said Board held
on the
1st
day of
November
, A.D., 1988.
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
OF MONROE COtmTY, FLORIDA
By
gr~~~
Mayor n
(SEAL)
-
Attest:DANNY L. KOLHAGE, Clerk
-.,O~-~~~.~
CLer
,I
"';1 J) ~Jn(L })HHOW
1 j l",
" 1 :..'
,~/, ; ,...;'\,WO
EO: 17 d L - hON SR.
APPROVED AS TO fOro.(/.
om~:~
Attomey-. Offic.
GbJ~~':l WV.:.l JJ11.=f
RW/jh
~J
,.,:,~-itr~;_~: -.
"jr:fj '-.--"".--- -
..
.1
'~7
sf
)/
; .
.1
....
./
N
~
1--100' J
/'
<.
/
1]77 -
""
./
/'
/'
/'
/"
...
Land Use District Maps
Monroe County, Florida
Approved by B.O.C.C., February 28,1986
Panel or Sh..tift I;) ~f ,</ FU.# ~Arlfll.; P,I.KS5" .L.Tj'-g
Applicant: <'If:fwICi:~~
K.y: (-,/"1 ~s y
@
.
t.
. ,
...,. Mark.r: ~f ____
,I
.-,;;;-,'--.
'.
N
, 1-.800' i
Aerial Maps, Monroe County, Florida
Real Estate Data, Inc. :.~IZJ) Edition, 19 ~'1
! ;
Panel or Sheet# 0S'
Applicant: ~C~U.JI c,.-:C;-,{
Key: li-1.P-Hf
File # -5;f,~"'J'> ~tK~~ tT3-L
Mile Marker: sc--
:l
,..~:...,..,
; .-~""''''''~"' ," ~-,
~'.~c." .>>,'~~ . _,
'<
r
(
"
,
\
"""....... \
,./~ ....... ,
...... ~ ......
.,....... ~,......, ......
v.............~~...... ......
~ ,<............. ......"""
,." v"'''''''
,., ~ ......
'X<' .,., ......
,., ~ """,......'> ,.,"""
'/. 4 ...... ......
...... $V' ......
,<.......,., ......"""
,., ,.,
V ......
· ~> ~tA/.:
, ,.nI, LMCI' DM
/'
/'
/'
N Land Use District Maps @ .
I'
, ,
~ Monroe County, Florida
Jaooary 19,1988
Panel or Sheet # o?/~ FUe# ~~ 131Kss-t..r3-!i' _
,;~ I
ApplJc ant: ~(~wlt;~.e1l..
J 1".200' ~
Key:h~P~t;r Mile Marker: rK
,\
,,~
,..,..
'"
.,
F
(
. '.
FROM:
M E M 0 R h N DUM
~ard of County Commissioners
onald L. Craig, AICP, Assoc. AIA Assistant County
A ministrator for Growth Management Division
\
Department: Planning by:Jeanne DuBois
TO:
SUBJECT: Boundary Determination for Grassy Key, Crain's Subdivi-
sion, Block 55, Lots 3-8
'\
MEETING DATE: October t8, 1988
Previous Relevant Board Action: / / ( ) Referral: Yes No X
Commissioners Distric~
..
.I
Recommended Action:It is re~mmended that the NA/IS line be drawn
along the south boundary of Lo~ 5 thereby including Lots 5, 6, 7 and 8
in the Improved Subdivision district, and Lots 3, 4, and_in the Native
Area. This would include a condition to be placed on lot 5 that it be
unified to reflect that it is not buildable by itself.
Summary of Request/Report The prop~ty owner requested that Lots 3
through 8 be inspected in order to determine the placement of the bounda-'
ry line between the IS and NA land use districts. The biologist made a-
site inspection and determined that Lot 6 could be included in the IS
land use district and approximately 24 feet of Lot 5. An additional
condition has been proposed that would allGw lot 5 to be included as
well.
Action bY:___Ordinance ~Resolution
Citizens Committee Statement Yes X No
- -
Attached
Agreement/Contract - No.
Approved by County Attorney as to LegalitY___Yes_N.A.
Standard Form
\
Approved by Risk Management_Yes_Not Applicable
Approved by Office Fiscal Management
.
t .
. ,
Funding Source N/A
An~ual Cost
\.
Current Year Cost
N/A
Budgeted Yes No
--- ---
Will Proposal Require Additional Personnel?
'!
'IF
,,;
"J
.;ij
.
,
. ..
X No
If Yes State Number____
Permanent___ Temporary___ Other___
Board Policy(ies) Applicable
Planning Commission Ac~ion Taken____Yes
(;:
Date X N.A.
-
Alternatives:The NAIIS line could be drawn along the northern boundary
of the pure, undisturbed wetland area. This would place the line approx-
imately twenty-four feet south of ~he sou~h boundary of Lot 6. This
would result in a lot being included in ~he IS land use district which
did not have sufficient uplands for development, and would be inconsis-
tent with the Purpose of the Improved Subdivision landuse district.
Attached Documen~a~ion X Yes No
----
'.
J
~
,I
~
.
i .
I
, ,~,:~:tf
,,;,s..~,Z'~