HomeMy Public PortalAbout1998 Transmittal of proposed plan amendment the Future Land Use Element of the Master Comprehensive PlanVILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE
Office of the Village Clerk
Village Council
John F. Festa, Mayor
Mortimer Fried, Vice Mayor
Martha Fdez-Leon Broucek
Gregory C. Han
Hugh T. O'Reilly
Michele Padovan
Betty Sime
Village Clerk
Conchita H. Alvarez
February 17, 1998
Department of Community Affairs
State of Florida
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Re: Transmittal of proposed plan amendment
pursuant to Section 163.3184(3), Florida Statutes
Gentlemen:
Enclosed please fmd a certified copy of a proposed Ordinance from the Council of the Village of Key
Biscayne, Florida expressing its intent to amend the Future Land Use Element of the Master Comprehensive
Plan.
The Village Council of the Village Council of Key Biscayne , after public hearing of the transmittal stage,
found that the proposed amendment to the Comprehensive Plan is consistent with the State Plan, Regional
Plan and the Village's Master Comprehensive Plan; complies with the requirements of the Local Government
Comprehensive Planning and Land Development Regulation Act and is in the best interest of the health,
safety and welfare of the residents of the Village of Key Biscayne.
Please expeditiously process for required review and comments.
rely,
4d/iazidif,p
Conchita H. Alvarez
Village Clerk
Enclosure
cc South Florida Regional Planning Council
• South Florida Water Management District
State Department of Transportation
\cha325c.let
iS-1A
85 West McIntyre Street • Key Biscayne, Florida 33149 • (305) 365-5506 - Fax: (305) 365-8936 • Internet: http://vkb.keWscayne.tl.us
mission STATEMENT "TO PROVIDE A SAFE, QUALITY COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL ISLANDERS TROUGH RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT,"
VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE
Department of Building, Zoning and Planning
Village Council
John F. Fear, Mayor
Michele Padovan, Vice Mayor
Mortimer Fried
Gregory C. Han
Hu T. O'Reilly
Martha dez-Ledn Broucek
Betty Sime
D. Ray Eubanks
Planning Manager
Department of Community Affairs
2555 Shumard Oak Boulevard
Tallahassee, Florida 32399-2100
Dear Mr. Eubanks:
RE: Proposed Master Plan Amendment
June 24, 1998
J r
„tr
JUN201998
This package shall serve as the formal transmittal letter and required documentation for
the Village's request for DCA review of the proposed amendments to the Village of Key
Biscayne's Comprehensive Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Category Descriptions.
In accordance with 9J-11.006, F.A.C., please be advised that:
1. The Local Planning Agency (Village Council) held a public hearing on
February 10, 1998 and forwarded favorable recommendations to the Village
Council relative to the above mentioned amendments for its meeting on the
same day, February 10, 1998.
2. The Village of Key Biscayne's Village Council held its transmittal public
hearing on February 10, 1998 and approved on first reading the proposed
amendments.
3. The proposed amendments to the Future Land Use Map and Category
Descriptions have been scheduled for final adoption on August 25, 1998.
4. The proposed amendments are not in an area of critical state concern.
5. The proposed amendments do not apply to the Wekiva River Protection Area
pursuant to Chapter 88-393, Laws of Florida.
6. The proposed amendments are not one of the exemptions to the twice per
calendar year limit on the adoption of the comprehensive plan amendments.
ittA
85 West McIntyre Street • Key Biscayne, Florida 33149 • (305) 365-5511 • Fax (305) 365-5556
MISSION STATEMENT "TO PROVIDE A SAFE, QUALITY COMMUNITY ENVIRONMENT FOR ALL ISLANDERS THROUGH RESPONSIBLE GOVERNMENT"
7. The amendments are not proposed to be adopted under joint planning
agreement pursuant to Section 163.3171, Florida Statutes.
8. The Village is requesting that your department waive the ORC report.
9. The contact person for information related to the proposed plan amendments is
Mr. John P. Little, Jr., Director of Building, Zoning and Planning, Village of
Key Biscayne, 85 W. McIntyre Street, Key Biscayne, FL 33149; Telephone
(305) 365-5512.
Documents submitted herewith include the following:
1. Six (6) copies of the local government adoption package which includes:
a.) present and proposed Future Land Use Maps;
b.) notification requirements;
c.) petitions and backup submitted for the proposed amendments to the
Village's Future Land Use Map and Category Descriptions; and,
d.) the recommendations of staff, the local planning agency and the Village
Council concerning the proposed amendments.
Please note that by virtue of this submittal, additional copies of this entire package are
being sent today to the Department of Transportation, Department of Environmental
Protection, the South Florida Regional Planning Council, and the South Florida Water
Management District.
If you should have any questions regarding this transmittal, please do not hesitate to
contact Mr. Little. I appreciate your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
John P. Little, Jr.
Director Building, Zoning and Planning
Enclosure
cc: South Florida Regional Planning Council
South Florida Water Management District
State Department of Transportation
Department of Environmental Protection
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
LAWTON CHILES
Governor
The Honorable John Festa
Mayor, Village of Key Biscayne
Village Hall
85 West McIntyre Street
Key Biscayne, Florida 33149
Dear Mayor Festa:
July 24, 1998
JAMES F. MURLEY
Secretary
The Department has conducted a preliminary review of the Village's proposed comprehensive
plan amendment received on June 30, 1998, DCA Reference No. 98-1.
The Department has determined that the proposed plan amendments to revise Commercial,
Business, and Professional Office to allow residential uses and establish the Parkside Transitional
District category need to be formally reviewed for consistency with the minimum criteria contained in
Chapter 163, Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.). Therefore,
the proposed amendments will be reviewed and the Objections, Recommendations, and Comments
(ORC) Report will not be waived. In addition, the Department received a recommendation from the
South Florida Regional Planning Council to not waive the ORC Report.
These amendments will be recognized as DCA reference number 98-1A. Please refer to this
amendment number when addressing or forwarding correspondence regarding these amendments.
The Department has several issues that the Village should address prior to the Department
issuing the ORC Report. First, Rule 9J-5.012(3)(b)6.,F.A.C., states that local governments must
direct population concentrations away from the coastal high hazard area. The Village's analysis
indicates that the potential increases created by the proposed amendments would be offset by two
DRI's within the Village that are near buildout and have not built up to the number of residential units
that were approved in each development order. With that in mind, the Village must provide data and
analysis which clearly demonstrates that the Ocean Club at Key Biscayne DRI and Grand Bay DRI are
near buildout and could not increase residential units in the future. The Village should identify how
many units were approved in the development orders for both DRI's; how many units have been built
within both DRI's, and how many permitted units have been approved but not built for both DRI's. In
any event, the Village must show how the potential increase in residential units will be offset so that
there will be no net increase in residential units.
2555 SHUMARD OAK BOULEVARD • TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-2100
FLORIDA KEYS AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
FIELD OFFICE
2796 Overseas Highway, Suite 212
Marathon, Florida 33050-2227
SOUTH FLORIDA RECOVERY OFFICE
P.0 Box 4022
8600 N.W. 36th Street
Miami, Florida 33159-4022
GREEN SWAMP AREA OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
FIELD OFFICE
155 Easl Summedin
Bartow, Honda 33830-4641
Mayor John Festa
July 24, 1998
Page Two
Second, as the development orders for the Ocean Club DRI and Grand Bay approved 832 units
and 669 units, respectively, this amount of residential development is vested. The Village must
indicate how the DRI's will be limited from building the approved amount of development. Without
such assurance, the Department will review the changes as an increase in residential population.
Third, the Village should provide an analysis of the impacts to hurricane evacuation times.
The Village should show the present evacuation times and compare the projected evacuation times
under the proposed amendments.
However, the Department has determined that the plan amendment to revise the Two Family
Residential land use category does not need to be formally reviewed for consistency with the minimum
criteria contained in Chapter 163, Florida Statutes and Rule 9J-5, Florida Administrative Code.
Therefore, the proposed amendment will not be reviewed and the ORC Report will be waived for this
amendment. This amendment will be recognized as DCA reference number 98-1B. Please refer to
this amendment number when addressing or forwarding correspondence regarding this
amendment.
The Department's notice of intent to find a plan amendment in compliance shall be deemed to
be a final order if no timely petition challenging the amendment is filed. Any affected person may file
a petition with the agency within 21 days after the publication of the notice pursuant to Chapter
163.3184(9), F.S..
This letter should be made available for public inspection. If you have any questions, please
contact Ken Metcalf, the Community Program Administrator, or Paul Digiuseppe, Planning Manger at
(850) 487-4545.
Sincerely,
MDM/pd
Michael D. McDaniel
Growth Management Administrator
cc: John Little, Village of Key Biscayne
Claire Vickery, Claire Vickery and Associates
Robert Daniels, South Florida Regional Planning Council
OBJECTIONS, RECOMMENDATIONS AND COMMENTS
for
CITY OF KEY BISCAYNE
PROPOSED AMENDMENT 98-1A
Future Land Use Map Amendment
1. Objection: Without proper controls these amendments have the potential to allow an increase
in residential densities in the CHHA which is inconsistent with Rule 9J -5.012(3)(b)6, F.A.C.,
which requires that population concentrations be directed away from the CHHA. [Section
163.3177(6)(g)8 and Section 163.3178(1), Florida Statutes (F.S.) and Rule 9J -5.012(3)(b)6 and
(c)7, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.)]
Recommendation: The Village must demonstrate that they are not adding any additional
residential development. The Village has submitted a proposal dated September 16,1998 which
establishes a sending and receiving zone in which units can be transferred. The analysis
identifies the number of remaining units that could be built pursuant to the Master Plan.
According to the analysis, there are a total of 569 units that can be transferred. Of these, 421
units are associated with the Ocean Club Development of Regional Impact (DRI) and Grand Bay
DRI. The remaining 148 units is the difference between what the Master Plan would allow and
what has been built or approved for development. The Department supports this proposal but has
seven points that should be addressed prior to adoption. We believe these recommendations are
constructive and will lead to an effective system of transferring units.
The first point is that policies must be added to the Master Plan which defines the
purpose of the sending and receiving zones. The policies should also identify the allowable uses
and densities and intensities within these zones. In addition, the policies should include
definitions of terms such as sending zone, receiving zone, flexibility units, and committed units.
The map, which was included with the September 16, 1998 letter, identifying the sending and
receiving zones should be adopted as part of the future land use map series.
Second, policies must also be created which establish monitoring mechanisms which will
measure the number of units that are transferred from the sending to receiving zones. The
Village must keep an account of the activities to ensure that the number of units being transferred
do not exceed the supply of the sending zone or the capacity of the receiving zone.
Third, the Village also needs to establish the mechanism by which it will authorize the
transfer of units. For example, the Village may wish to transfer units through the rezoning
process. In any event; policies must be established which out1ine-the process for transferring the
units. The process should be subject to a public hearing process in order to reduce a potential
property rights issue.
1
Fourth, the analysis indicates that there are a total of 569 units that can be transferred. Of
these, 421 units are associated with the Ocean Club DRI and Grand Bay DRI. The Village's
analysis indicates that these units would not be used until the development orders expire. On this
point, the Department recommends a policy which requires that the units related to the DRI
cannot be utilized until after the dates established in the development orders which allow for
downzoning and unit density reduction. In addition, a policy should be added stating that the
Village will approve no more than the development of 148 units prior to the downzoning/_unit
density reduction dates established in the development orders.
Fifth, as the amendments relate to residential densities, it is important that the Miami -
Dade County School Board be involved with any transfer of units. The Department recommends
that the Village add a policy which requires coordination with the school board so that impacts to
schools can be assessed.
Sixth, any additional changes must require an amendment to the Master Plan. As such,
the Department recommends a policy which states that any additional changes affecting the
transfer of units will require an amendment to the Master Plan.
Finally, the Village must analyze potential impacts created by the change in units from
the sending zone to the receiving zone. For example, as the receiving zone is currently
designated as commercial but is proposed for residential, traffic distribution will be altered. The
Village should analyze impacts to the road network based on the new distribution. Impacts to
hurricane evacuation times, potable water, sanitary sewer, and parks and recreation should also
be analyzed.
2. Objection: As these amendments may result in an increased population and the City has
identified a level of service deficiency with parks, this amendment may place additional demands
on a facility that is operating below levels of service. Thus, this amendment would be internally
inconsistent with Capital Improvements Policy 1.2.1, Recreation and Open Space Policy1.3.1,
and Future Land Use Policy 2.2.3, which establish the level of service standard and concurrency
management system for parks. [Section 163.3178(2)(i) and 163.3180(2)(b), F.S., and Rule 9J -
5.005(5)(a), 9J -5.0055(1)(a) and 9J-5.012(3Xc)13, F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Utilize the capital improvements element to increase the amount of parks such
that the Village is able to maintain level of service. Alternatively, the Village must demonstrate
that the amendment will not impact the level of service for parks. If the Village completes the
additional plan amendment related to the sending and receiving zones identified under Item No.
1, the parks issue will be addressed - 3. Objection: A portion of the proposed amendments affect an area that is currently on septic
tanks. The amendment did not identify when sewers will be available to serve this area. The
Village has not provided an assessment of the amendment on the soil's ability to treat the septic
tank effluent, especially considering the high densities. In addition, the amendment did not
2
provide the impact to water quality. [Section 1633177(6)(d) and 1633180(2Xa), F.S. and Rule
9J-5.006(3Xb)1 and 9J -5.013(2)(b)2 and 3, F.A.C.]
Recommendation: Utilize the capital improvements element to expand sewers to this area. If
sewer expansion to this area are not identified in the capital improvements element, the Village
should revise the element to include sewers. If sewers are not planned, the Village must identify
the soil type and its ability to treat septic tank effluent In addition, the Village must provide data
and analysis on the amendments impacts to water quality.
4. Comment: As the Village may be increasing residential density, the South Florida Regional
Planning Council (SFRPC) is concerned that this amendment will adversely impact overcrowded
schools. The Village should coordinate with the SFRPC and the Miami -Dade County School
Board to address this issue.
Consistency with the State Comprehensive Plan
The above cited amendments do not further and are not consistent with the following
goals and policies of the State Comprehensive Plan (Rule 93-5.021 and 9J-11.006(3), F.A.C.):
a. Chapter 187.201(6)(b)2.c (Health)
b. Chapter 187.201(7)(b)25 (Public Safety)
b. Chapter 187.201(8)(b)10 and 12 (Water Resources)
c. Chapter 187.201(16Xb)1 and 6 (Land Use)
Recommendation
Revise the above cited amendments as recommended for the objections raised above.
ORDINANCE NO. 98 -
AN ORDINANCE OF THE VILLAGE OF KEY BISCAYNE,
FLORIDA (THE "VILLAGE"); AMENDING THE
COMPREHENSIVE MASTER PLAN OF TIIE VILLAGE (THE
"PLAN") BY AMENDING THE FUTURE LAND USE
ELEMENT OF THE PLAN BY AMENDING THE FUTURE
LAND USE CATEGORY DESCRIPTIONS (THE
"DESCRIPTION"); BY REVISING "TWO FAMILY
RESIDENTIAL" DESCRIPTION TO PROVIDE FOR
ATTACHED OR DETACHED DWELLING UNITS AND
CERTAIN MINIMUM LOT SIZE REQUIREMENTS;
AMENDING "COMMERCIAL" DESCRIPTION TO ENABLE
RESIDENTIAL USE TO BE PROVIDED WITH
COMMERCIAL USE, SUBJECT TO DENSITY
RESTRICTIONS; CREATING A DESCRIPTION FOR "PARK
SIDE TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL" TO FACILITATE
TRANSITION FROM CERTAIN COMMERCIAL, OFFICE
AND OTHER USES TO RESIDENTIAL USE; REVISING A
PORTION OF THE FUTURE LAND USE MAP PERTAINING
TO CERTAIN PROPERTIES ADJOINING CRANDON
BOULEVARD WHICH ARE ENVISIONED TO BE SUBJECT
TO THE PARK SIDE TRANSITIONAL RESIDENTIAL
DESCRIPTION; PROVIDING FOR SEVERABILITY;
PROVIDING FOR AN EFFECTIVE DATE.
WHEREAS, on September 12, 1995, pursuant to Ordinance No. 95-8, the Village of Key
Biscayne adopted its Comprehensive Master Plan (the "Plan"); and
WHEREAS, the Plan was revised pursuant to Ordinance No. 97-17 as adopted on August
26, 1997; and
WHEREAS, the Village desires to further amend the Plan as provided in this Ordinance; and
WHEREAS, the Village Council, sitting as the local planning agency, pursuant to Section
20-1 of the Village Code, has reviewed this Ordinance and recommended adoption of the Future
Land Use Element amendments provided herein; and
WHEREAS, the Village Council after public hearing, hereby finds that the following
amendments to the Plan are consistent with the State Plan, Regional Plan and the Village's Plan;
complies with the requirements of the Local Government Comprehensive Planning and Land
Development Regulation Act, and is in the best interest of the health, safety and welfare of the
Village of Key Biscayne.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE VILLAGE
OF KEY BISCAYNE, FLORIDA, AS FOLLOWS:
Section 1. That the Future Land Use Element of the Village of Key Biscayne Comprehensive
Master Plan is hereby amended by amending the "Future Land Use Category Descriptions" to amend
the description for "Two Family Residential" to read as follows:'
Two Family Residential
This category of land use is intended to allow for the use of one single
family detached home or two single family attached or detached
dwelling units on lots of at least 7,5007,000 square feet of net area.
Other uses allowed on land within this category include public parks,
primary and secondary schools, houses of worship and public utility
facilities necessary to serve the uses within this category. The
7,3087,000 square foot lot size limitation shall not preclude the
continued use, development or redevelopment of a single-family
detached home or two single family attached or detached dwelling
units on a smaller lot where such lot or parcel was platted or
otherwise of record prior to adoption of this Plan. If existing parcels
1/ Underline text has been added; struck through text has been deleted from existing
language.
2 of 6
are hereafter sub -divided the minimum net lot size shall be 3.500
square feet per IQt.
Section 2. The Future Land Use Element of the Village of Key Biscayne Comprehensive
Master Plan is hereby amended by amending the "Future Land Use Category Descriptions" by
amending the "Commercial" category description to read as follows:
Commercial
This category of land use is intended to allow for general commercial
and business uses and activities serving the daily retailing and service
needs of the community. Other uses permitted on land within this
category include business and professional office uses, public parks,
municipal buildings and facilities and public utilities necessary to
serve the uses within the category. Additionally, multi -family and
single-family attached or detached residential uses, and mixing of
residential use with commercial, business and professional office uses
are also permitted in the commercial category area provided that the
scale and intensity, including height and floor area ratio of the
residential or mixed use development, is not out of character with that
of the adjacent commercial development and zoning, and shall be
sensitive to any abutting residentially developed or designated areas.
Buildings within this category shall be limited to 35 feet in height and
3 of •
35% lot coverage.
The application of the height and lot coverage limitations contained
in this paragraph shall not preclude the repair or reconstruction of any
building or portion thereof which is damaged by any natural disaster
or other casualty. Such repair or reconstruction shall not exceed the
original intensity of the repaired or reconstructed building. This
paragraph applies to intensities, not uses.'
,Section 3. That the Future Land Use Element of the Village of Key Biscayne Comprehensive
Master Plan is hereby amended by amending the "Future Land Use Category Descriptions" to create
the category "Park Side Transitional Residential" and provide a description of such new category,
as follows:
Park Side Transitional Residential, This category of land use is
intended to allow for multi -family and single-family attached
residential development up to 12.5 dwelling units per acre. Other
uses allowed on land within this category include public parks and
public utility facilities necessary to serve the uses within this
category.
Section 4. The Future Land Use Element of the Village of Key Biscayne Comprehensive
Master Plan is hereby amended by amending the Future Land Use Map to revise the designation for
4 of 6
a strip of land of a width of 100 feet running southerly from to , as indicated on
Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated herein, from the following Future Land Use category
designations to the Park Side Transitional Residential category designation, so
as to facilitate a transition from commercial use and other use to residential.
Section 5. Severability. The provisions of this Ordinance are declared to be severable and
if any section, sentence, clause or phrase of this Ordinance shall for any reason be held to be invalid
or unconstitutional, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining sections, sentences,
clauses, and phrases of this Ordinance but they shall remain in effect, it being the legislative intent
that this Ordinance shall stand notwithstanding the invalidity of any part.
Section 6. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall be effective immediately upon passage by
the Village Council on second reading, except that the effective date of any plan amendment
approved by this ordinance shall be the date a final order is issued by the Department of Community
Affairs or Administration Commission finding the amendment in compliance in accordance with
Section 163.3184, Florida Statutes, whichever occurs earlier. No development orders, development
permits, or land uses dependent on such amendment may be issued or commence before it has
become effective. If a final order of noncompliance is issued by the Administration Commission,
this amendment may nevertheless be made effective by adoption of a resolution affirming its
effective status, a copy of which resolution shall be filed with the Village Clerk and sent to the
Department of Community Affairs, Bureau of Local Planning, 2740 Centerview Drive, Tallahassee,
5 of 6
Florida 32399-2100. The Department of Community Affairs' notice of intent to find a plan
amendment in compliance shall be deemed to be a final order if no timely petition challenging the
amendment is filed.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on first reading, this day of , 1997, for
transmittal to the Department of Community Affairs pursuant to Section 163.3184(3) Florida
Statutes.
PASSED AND ADOPTED on second reading this day of ,1997.
JOHN F. FESTA, MAYOR
ATTEST:
CONCHITA H. ALVAREZ, VILLAGE CLERK
APPROVED AS TO FORM AND LEGAL SUFFICIENCY:
RICHARD J. WEISS, VILLAGE ATTORNEY
103001\ordinamx\land.use
January 28.1998 9:30am
6of6
.
. ,
Exhibit "A"
Westerly 100 ft of each of the parcels as listed below:
MATHESON ESTATE, Plat Book 34, page 34. Beginning 269.45 feet east of southeast
corner of tract 9 of Plat Book 46, page 86 TH southerly 105 ft
MATHESON ESTATE, as recorded in Plat Book 34, Page 34 of the Public Records of
Dade County, Florida. Beginning X of S/L Tract 4 and E R/W/L Femwood Road NLY
ALG R/W/L, 203.55 feet TH by Curve to RT AD
TRACT A LESS East 179 ft, Lot Size 221.00 X 100.00
Plat Book 50, Page 61, Tract B less beginning Southwest corner of tract B, North 300
feet, east 120 feet, south 100 ft, east 80 feet, south 200 feet, west 200 ft.
Plat Book 50, Page 61, Portion of Tract B, description beginning 200 ft North of South
west corner of Tract B, continuous North 100 feet, East 120 Feet, South 100 ft, West 120
feet, to Point of Beginning
BISCAYNE KEY ESTATES, as recorded in Plat Book 58, Page 61 of the public records
of Dade County, Florida. Beginning Southwest comer of Tract B, North 200 feet, East
200 feet, South 200 feet, West to Point of Beginning less SSTs, Lot size 40,000 square
feet.
MAR FARLAND ESTATES, as recorded in Plat Book 91, Page 67 of the public record of
Dade County, Florida. Tract B, lot size irregular or 13750-1016 0788 5
MATHESON ESTATES, .94 AC M/L, as recorded in Plat Book 46, Page 86, South 100
feet, of North 200 feet, Tract 3, Lot Size 40,946 square feet
MATHESON ESTATE, 1.41 AC, as recorded in Plat Book 46, Page 86 of the public
record of Dade County, Florida. South 150 feet, of North 350 of Tract 3 as per DB 3601-
162, lot size 61,420 square feet.
South 200 feet of North 550 feet of Tract 3, lot size 80,600 square feet or 11035-388 0281
4
MATHESON ESTATE, of Plat Book 46, Page 86 of the public record of Dade County,
Florida. POR Tracts 3 & 5, described as beginning at North East Corner of Tract 5,
Northerly 25 ft, north 79 DEG West 400.59 feet, Southerly 25 feet, South 8 DEG, East
151.80 feet, North 88.
N.
This ordinance proposes the following:
.:1. To amend the Two Family Residential
category description to allow for two single
family detached units on lots of at least 7,000
square feet. Furthermore, if lots are hereafter
subdivided, the minimum net lot size shall be
3,500 square feet per lot; and
2. To amend the Commercial
category description to allow for the mixing of
residential uses with commercial uses; providing
development is not out of character and shall be
sensitive to any abutting residential area; and
10/06/1994 03:39
12708007 P. 02
STATE OF FLORIDA
DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY AFFAIRS
EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT • HOUSING AND COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT • RESOURCE PLANNING AND MANAGEMENT
LAWTON CHILES
Governor
October 6, 1994
The Honorable John F. Festa
Mayor of Key Biscayne
Village of Key Biscayne
85 West McIntyre Street
Key Biscayne, Florida 33149
Dear Mayor Festa:
LINDA LOOMIS SHELLEY
Seerettrr
The Department has completed its review of the adopted
Comprehensive Plan for the Village of Key Biscayne (Ordinance
No. 94-6), as adopted on August 16, 1994, and determined that it
does not meet the requirements of Chapter 163, Part II, Florida
Statutes, for compliance. The Department is issuing a Statement
of Intent and Notice of Intent to find the Comprehensive Plan Not
in Compliance. The Notice of Intent has been sent to the Miami,
Herald for publication on October 7, 1994.
Among the compliance issues raised by the Department are
the manner in which the village proposes to address stormwater
management and provision of central, sewer to those areas uti-
lizing onsite sewage disposal systems within the Village. The
Department also has concerns as to the proposed uses of public
land adjacent to the Village that are inconsistent with the
management objectives for these public lands.
Please note that a copy of the adopted Village of Key
Biscayne Comprehensive Plan, the Department's Objections,
Recommendations, and Comments Report dated April 7, 1994, the
Notice of Intent and the Department's statement of Intent to
find the Comprehensive Plan Not in Compliance must be available
for public inspection Monday through Friday, except for legal
holidays, during normal business hours, at the Village of Key
Biscayne Town Hall, Office of the Village Clerk, 85 West McIntyre
Street, Key Biscayne, Florida 33149.
2 7 4 0 CENTERVIEW !DRIVE • TALLAHASSEE, f L
O R 1 D A 32399•2100
ELoREOA KEYS AREA OF CpTICAL STATE CONCERN
FIELD Off Ia
2796 Gams H. Suss 211
Montan, Planck 330501227
SOUTH ILORIOA Rf C(WFRY OFfia
P.O. Box 4021
1600N WAS&
►+'aaM. ffon&t 331544022
GREEN SWAMP ARM OF CRITICAL STATE CONCERN
FELDofniCE
155 Fa1nSun ne+in
Raton. flarick 33130-4641
LUGUb'l77µ 0.);J7
12708007 P.03
The Honorable John F. Festa
October 6, 1994
Page Two
In addition, the Notice of Intent and the Statement of
Intent will be forwarded to the Division of Administrative
Hearings of the Department of Management Services for the
scheduling of an administrative hearing pursuant to Section
120.57, Florida Statutes.
1 am interested in meeting with you or your designee at your
convenience for the purpose of negotiating an agreement that will
bring your plan into compliance. My staff and I are available to
discuss your plan with you.
If you have any questions, or are interested in discussing
a compliance agreement, please contact me, Maria Abadal, Plan
Review Administrator, or Jeff Bielling, Planning Manager, at
(904) 487-4545.
sincerely,
Charles G. Pattisbli, Director
r1(
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
CGP/jbw
Enclosures: Notice of Intent
Statement of Intent
cc: C. Samuel Kissinger, Village Manager
Carolyn Dekle, Executive Director, South Florida Regional
Planning Council
YJ�YJO' 177ti C)J"4I
1 /btie40? -.e4
IN Ita :
STATE O7 YLORIDA
DEPARTMENT 07 COMMUNITY A77AIR8
VILLAGE 07 UT BISCAYNE)
COMPREHENSIVE 71»
ADOPTED BY
ORDINANCE NO. 94-6 )
0,1 AUGUST 16, 1994 )
$TATE]ENT OP INTENT TO FIND
MOT • . L MCI
The Florida Department of Community Affairs hereby issues
its Statement of Intent to find the Comprehensive Plan of the
Village of Key Biscayne, adopted by Ordinance No. 94-6 on August
16, 1994, Not In Compliance based upon the objections,
Recommendations and Comments Report (ORC Report) issued by the
Department on April 7, 1994, which is hereby incorporated by
reference, and changes made to the plan, as adopted, which were
not previously reviewed by the Department. The Department finds
that the plan is not "in compliance", as defined in Section
163.3184(1)(b), Florida Statutes (F.6.), because it is not
consistent with Sections 163.3177 and 163,3178, F.S., the State
Comprehensive Plan, the Regional Plan for South Florida, and
Chapter 9J--5, Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.), for the
following reasons:
Vittege of xey Biscayne 901 1
dV' VV' iJ 1' V1•'.V
1ZYddi5167 P.e5
1. FUTUflE. LAND US_F. E ! r
tnaonsistsnt Provisions. The inconsistent provisions of the
Plan are as follows;
1. The methodology for estimating a projected population in
the plan is straightforward; there is limited vacant land for
development in the village and the Future Land Use Map (FLUM)
densities for these areas are known. However, statements and
assumptions are made in the discussion of the population
projection that are not clear. It cannot be determined if the
population projection is based upon buildout at the FLUM
designations or some other assumptions. It appears that there
are inconsistencies in the seasonal population projections as
noted by Metro -Dade County. tRule 9J -5.005(2)(e), and 9J -
5.006(3)(b)9, F.A.C.)
2. Policies 1.1.3 and 1.2.1 defer to the land development
regulations (LDR's) and do not provide adequate guidance for the
LDR's. These policies also defer to the statutes and
administrative code, and to regulatory agencies for the governing
of signs, subdivisions, and floodplain protection. The language
also allows for a self -amending plan. [Rule 9J -5.006(3)(b)2 and
3, and 9J -5.006(3)(c)1, F.A.C., Section 163.3177 and 3178, F.S.]
3. Objective 2.1 and Policy 2.1.1 defer the extension of
central sewer to those areas currently served by septic tanks
until 10 years beyond the end of the planning horizon. Policy
2.1.3 defers to the land development code and does not provide
village of Key Biscayne 1101 2
10/06/1994 03:41 12708007 P.06
standards for drainage, erosion control, pervious surfaces, and
traffic flow and parking. Objective 2.2 is not specific as to
when stormwater outfalls into Biscayne Bay will be eliminated.
Policy 2.2.2 relating to stormwater management, dune protection,
and other environmentally sensitive land protection measures
defers to statute, administrative code, and other regulatory
agencies which does not provide guidance for the LDR's and also
creates a self -amending plan. Objective 2.3 no longer provides
for the elimination of direct stormwater outfalls to Biscayne
Bay, but rather the "mitigation to the maximum extent feasible"
of these outfalls by December 31, 1998. The proposed language
sets a date certain, but the action that is to be completed by
this date is now in question. Policy 2.3.1 has been modified to
remove the reference to eliminating stormwater outfalls and sets
that date for activation of a stormwater utility as no later than
December 31, 1998 which is inconsistent with Objective 2.2.
Policy 2.3.2 does not provide specific guidance to the LDR's.
[Rule 9J -5.006(3)(b)4 and (3)(c)4 and 6, F.A.C., Section 163.3177
and 3187, F.S.]
4. Objective 2.5 is not measurable or specific. Policy
2.5.1 defers requirements for the provision of "sewer and
stormwater lift stations, collection/infiltration mechanisms, and
other utility land requirements" to the LDR's. (Rule 9.1-
5.006(3)(b)9, F.A.C. j
V$tlose of Key itscsyne SOI 3
i J' VV, 1JJ•4 VJ•tiL
1G'? IJ? P. VP
5. Policy 1.1.1 makes the provision that reconstruction
after a natural disaster or other casualty cannot exceed the
original density or intensity of the pre -disaster use. However,
this provision is now inconsistent with Policy 1.2.1 that
requires redevelopment to be consistent with the provisions of
Policy 1.1.1 (which includes the land use category descriptions)
and the FLUM, and incon8istent with the provisions of
Conservation and Coastal Management Element Policy 3.3.1 that
requires structures that are damaged by more than 50% of their
value to rebuild according to current development regulations. It
is not clear from the policies as to whether a non -conforming use
in a given land use category would be allowed to rebuild to its
pre -casualty use, or whether it would be required to rebuild in a
manner consistent with the FLUM and Future Land Use Element
(FLUE). [Rule 9J -5.005(5)(a), and 9J -5.006.(3)(c)1 and 7,
F.A.C.j
$� ppcommended Remedial Rations. These inconsistencies may be
remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Clearly state the assumptions made in preparing the
permanent and seasonal population projections and the basis of
the projections.
2. Establish policies which provide clear guidance for the
regulation of the subdivision of land, floodplain protection, and
signage.
Vi iliac of Ksy Biscayne COI 4
10/06/1994 03:42 12708007 P.08
3. Stormwater outfalls to Biscayne Bay and their associated
drainage systems, and the complete provision of central sewer are
two of the Village's more pressing infrastructure concerns from
the standpoint of natural resource protection and public welfare.
The Village should design very clear policies and set the most
expedient timetable possible to address these issues.
4. Specify when and under what conditions utility
infrastructure will be required and how adequate land area for
this use will be provided.
5. Resolve the internal inconsistency concerning post -
disaster redevelopment by clearly stating what the rebuilding and
redevelopment policy of the Village will be. It is suggested
that the Future Land Use Map be the guiding document for
redevelopment and rebuilding.
II. TRAFFIC CIRCULATION ELEMENT
;loonsia ent Provisions, The inconsistent provisions of the
Plan are as follows:
1. The service volume standards used in the Village
support document are not consistent with the volumes given in
FDOT's 1992 Level of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual.
The Village Plan includes a disclaimer that the service volumes
used in the support document analysis are for design capacity
information and do not reflect FDOT or Dade County maximum
service volumes. The data and analysis is inconsistent as to the
Vittsoe of Key Biscayne Wi 5
iV VGA 422,4 Yj. -+
1 k( P.l09
build -out Level of Service (LOS) for Crandon Boulevard. The
statement is made that the roadway will operate at LOS E at
buildout while the data suggests that the roadway will be at LOS
F. The methodology and assumptions used to arrive at the
projected build -out levels of service are not clearly stated.
[Rule 9J -5.005(5)(a) and 9J'5.007(1) and (2), F.A.C.]
2. Policy 1.1.1 establishes LOS standards that the data
and analysis suggest cannot be met and accommodate the committed
development within the Village. Objective 1.4 and Policies
1.1.2, 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 defer to the LDR's. The policies do not
provide specific standards so as to guide the LDR's.
Policy 1.1.1 states that Crandon Boulevard, the only
arterial in the village, will operate at LOS E or better,
"although the LOS could potentially fall slightly below E near
the north Village limits." It would appear that the Village is
making the provision for LOS of F on an arterial roadway segment.
The Village is adopting a LOS for their collector roadways of B.
The data supplied with the adopted plan indicates that these
roadways are at LOS D now. Policy 1.1.3 was added to specify how
the Village will address meeting the adopted LOS in Policy 1.1.1.
It is not clear how these proposals will address meeting the
adopted LOS in view of the current operating conditions for these
roadways.
Policy 1.1.2 is not specific and states that State highway',
access management standards will be considered in developing
access controls, but provides no guidance to develop an access
Vfllege of Key Biscayne soI
10/05/1994 03:43 1270800? P.10
management program. Policy 1.4.2, concerning access management
on Crandon Boulevard, has been amended to reflect Objective 1.4
to reduce the lineal footage of curb cuts on Crandon Boulevard.
The Policy does not state how this objective will be achieved and
defers to the LDR's. (Rule 9J -5.005(5)(a) and 9J -5.007(3)(b) and
(c), F.A.C.)
L. Beaommended Rsme4jal 1otima. These inconsistencies may be
remedied by taking the following actions:
1. The Village could resolve the inconsistencies noted
concerning roadway service volumes by using the FDOT 1992 Level
of Service Standards and Guidelines Manual in the roadway
analysis. Determine the buildout LOS for Crandon Boulevard so
that there is no ambiguity as to what the projected LOS will be.
2. Revise the policies to provide clear guidance to the
LDR's to address methods of meeting LOS standards. Determine the
projected LOS for Crandon Boulevard at buildout and identify
mitigation efforts, if necessary, to be undertaken to address any
projected LOS deficiencies. Revise Policy 1.1.2 to provide
specific guidance to an access management program.
zzz. MOUSING ELEMENT
]iL ;naonsist•nt Provisions. None.
Village of Key IIiseams SCI 7
is.tJoul!t r.11
IV NFR . I ASTRUCTURE ELEMENT: SANITARY SEWER,,,,�SOLID WASTE
s.
REMEAQZ4_24.ThEaliATERA_AtirLIATURAL GROUNDWATER AOUI ER RECHAi
A, zzoonsistsnt provisions. The inconsistent provisions of the
Plan are as follows:
1. Objective 1.1 as adopted removes reference to the
elimination of direct stormwater outfalls to Biscayne Bay and
shifts the focus to "technically and economically feasible"
mitigation of these outfalls by December 31, 1998 and to require
onsite stormwater detention. While a date certain has now been
established for an action, that action is not specific. Policy
1.1.3 defers to the LDR's for stormwater management requirements.
Specific criteria for the extent of on -site detention required,
impervious surface area ratios, conveyance structure type and
maintenance, and drainage LOS have been deferred to the LDR's.
Objective 1.2 has been amended to provide for the extension
of central sewer by 2014, ten years beyond the end of the
planning period. Policy 1.2.1 has been amended to require
completion of a plan to provide sewer service to unsewered areas
of the Village by 2014 as opposed to 2004 and to begin
implementation no later than 2014. The support document indicates
that approximately 25% of the Village area is served by septic
tanks and that from time to time there is evidence of septic tank
effluent percolating to the ground surface. The support document
also indicates that drainage is an acute problem in the Village
and most if not all of the stormwater flows directly to Biscayne
Village of Key Biscayne soa 8
10/06/1994 03:44 12708007 P.12
Bay, or into drainage wells with little or no pre-treatment. It
can therefore be assumed that septic tank effluent is being
carried by stormwater to Biscayne Bay and into these drainage
wells. The Village has initiated, as indicated in the support
document to the Master Plan, a master drainage plan to address
drainage problems. The Village has not fully addressed the
resource concerns due to stormwater runoff raised by the
Department and made adequate provision for the removal of
existing septic tanks. [Rule 9J -5.011(2)(b)1 and (2)(c)1, F.A.C.]
2. Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.3 have been revised to set LOS
standards for sewer and potable water of 140 gallons per capita
per day (gpcpd) and 280 gpcpd respectively. These LOS standards
are inconsistent with Intergovernmental Coordination Element
Policy 1.3.1 which ties the Village LOS to Dade County's LOS for
these services. The Dade County LOS for sewer is 100 gpcpd and
water is 200 gpcpd. The plan is internally inconsistent.
Policy 1.4.4 states that development and redevelopment shall
adequately accommodate runoff to meet all federal, state and
local requirements. The policy does not set a specific LOS
standard for drainage.[Rule 9J-5.005((3) and 5)(a), 9J-5.003(65),
and 9J -5.011(2)(c)2 and 5, F.A.C]
3. Policy 1.5.1 requires the LDR's to provide for
irrigation requirements to conserve water, water conservation
plant species requirements for landscaping derived from SFWMD
lists, mandatory use of ultra -low volume water saving devices in
all new construction and rehabilitation, lawn watering
vttlrps of Key Sfseayne SO 9
+V' VV' 1JJ`, VJ•`.J
le rdtibb f N.
restrictions, and other water conservation measures as feasible.
However, the policy does not provide specific guidance to the
LDR's as to the standards and criteria that will be required.
Policy 1.5.2 was amended to provide for educational programs
to promote water conservation; Policy 1.7.13 provides for an
emergency water conservation plan. The policies do not address
the requirements of Policy 8.1.7 of the Regional Plan for South
Florida. [Rule 9J -5.011(2)(b)4 and 9J -5.011(2)(c)3, F.A.C.,
Regional Plan for South Florida Policy 8.1.7)
4. Policy 1.5.1 lacks specificity as to how the Village
will carry out the proposed water conservation measures, and the
adopted policy defers to statutes and administrative code to
address recycling efforts. [Rule 9J -5.011(2)(b)4, 9J-
5.013(2)(b)2, F.A.C; and Chapter 187.201(13)(a) and (b)1 and 9,
F.S., Regional Plan for South Florida Policy 18.1.2]
Recommended Remedial Aotion . These inconsistencies may be
remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise the policies under this objective to provide
sufficient detail to guide the LDR requirements for stormwater
management. A more definite target date and shorter time frame
for completion of the financial and engineering plan and
conversion of septic tanks to central sewer should be included in
the Village Plan. Also see recommendations for Future Land Use
Element Objective 2.1.
Yfilege of Key Iiscerne SOI 10
1U/06/1994 03:46 12'70800? P.14
2. Resolve the internal inconsistency within the Plan for
the LOS standards for central sewer and potable water. Establish
a specific drainage level of service for both water quality and
quantity. Clearly state the LOS for drainage will be in
accordance with the provisions of Chapter 17-25, F.A.C. in order
to meet receiving water body quality standards in Chapter 17-
302.500 F.A.C., and that post development runoff shall not exceed
pre -development runoff rates.
3. Revise the above policies to be specific. Include
policies to address other methods of water conservation. Develop
a method to monitor and measure water consumption within the
Village.
4. Establish policies which provide clear guidance for
conservation efforts such as resource recovery, recycling,
f-* cogeneration, water reuse systems, and other measures to lessen
the impact of development upon public facilities and resources.
The RPC suggests that at a minimum the Village use the
conservation standards required of the island while under the
jurisdiction of Dade County.
Y�
CQNSERy)TION an COASTAL MANAGEMENT ELEMENT
Inconsistent Provisions. The inconsistent provisions of the
Plan are as follows:
1. Policies 2.2.1 and 2.2.2 do not identify regulatory or
management techniques to limit the specific and cumulative
Vi t lase of Key Biscayne $01
11.
C1J LJJ`$ ,CJ J•tiV
impacts of development or redevelopment upon wetlands, water
quality, water quantity, wildlife habitat, living marine
resources, and beach and dune systems. These policies do not
identify the regulatory or management techniques for the
restoration or enhancement of disturbed or degraded natural
resources including beaches and dunes, estuaries, wetlands, and
drainage systems.
Objective 2.2 and Policies 2.2.1, 2.2.2, and 2.2.3 regulate
building seaward of the coastal construction control line and
require dune restoration for any new development. The Village
did not specifically address redevelopment. Conceivably,
redevelopment could occur in the Village and not met the
requirements for natural resource conservation or enhancement.
(Rule 9J -5.012(3)(c)1 and 2, F.A.C.)
2. A policy identifying regulatory or management
techniques for general hazard mitigation (including regulation of
building practices, floodplains, beach and dune alteration,
stormwater management, sanitary sewer and septic tanks, and land
use) to reduce the exposure of human life and property to natural
hazards is not included.
The Village modified Policy 1.5.1 to require the Village
manager to ensure enforcement of FEMA regulations, but no
specific policy to address the above listed requirements was
adopted. Policy 2.2.2 has been amended to require dune
restoration of new development to the extent "economically and
technically feasible." There is no requirement for redevelopment
v+tt.o.
of Key Biscayne WI 12
. 10/06/1994 03:47 12708007 P.16
to restore dune areas. The policy is not specific as to the level
of restoration that will be required.
Objective 3.1 has been amended to limit as opposed to
prohibit the expenditure of Village funds on infrastructure that
would subsidize development that is more intense than that
authorized by the Plan. Policy 3.1.1 and Policy 3.5.6 state that
the Village will not fund any public infrastructure that directly
subsidizes specific private development. The objective and
policies are internally inconsistent.
Policy 3.5.1 has been amended to require building setbacks
from the ocean that are "the maximum consistent with reasonable
use of private property." The policy does not set a specific
setback distance. Policy 3.5.1 appears to be inconsistent with
other policies requiring building landward of the coastal
construction control line. [Rule 9J -5.005(5)(a), and
9J -5.012(3)(c)2 and 3 F.A.C.]
3. Policy 3.3.1 sets a threshold of damage exceeding 50%
of a structure's value as the point at which redevelopment shall
be required to comply with all current regulations. As noted
previously, this provision renders the Plan internally
inconsistent.
Objective 3.3 sets a 1996 date for adoption of a post -
disaster redevelopment plan. Policy 3.3.1 sets the date at 1999.
The objective and policy are not consistent. New Policies 3.3.2
and 3.3.3 do not provide guidelines or standards for the post -
disaster redevelopment plan. [Rule 9J -5.005(5)(a), and 9J -
elites, of Key Biscayne 301 13
ttrtkititi( r. 1 (
5.012(3)(c)5, F.A.C.]
4. Policy 3.3.4 does not identify regulatory or management
techniques for identifying areas needing redevelopment and defers
to the as yet unadopted post -disaster redevelopment plan. [Rule
9J -5.012(3)(c)6, F.A.C.]
5. Policy 2.1.2 includes specific criteria and
requirements for new marina, marina expansion, or similar water -
dependent uses. The expanded policy makes reference to Metro -
Dade Shoreline Development Review Procedures, but does not adopt
these procedures or say what the procedures are. The policy
contains the provision to be self -amending as Dade County may
amend its Shoreline Development Review procedures. [Rule
9J -5.012(3)(c)9, F.A.C., Section 163.3184, F.S.]
6. Policy 2.5.1 provides for the protection of Biscayne
Bay by implementing a master drainage plan, replacing septic
tanks with central sewer, mandating onsite stormwater detention,
and marina siting standards. The policy do not specify when these
activities will occur. Policy 2.5.2 provides for Village
coordination in the review of bayfront projects by the Biscayne
Bay Shoreline Development Review Committee. It is not clear how
this action will contribute to the improvement and protection of
Biscayne Bay. As noted in the Infrastructure Element review,
the Village proposal for the management of stormwater and
provision of central sewer is inadequate. [Rule 9J -5.012(3)(c)14.
F.A.C.3
vftlose of Key Riscayne 901 14
.10/06/1994 03:48
12708007 P.18
7. Policy 2.5.2 concerns the coordination of a Village
representative with the Biscayne Bay Shoreline Development Review
Committee. The policy makes no mention of coordinating with
other agencies that have regulatory authority and management
responsibility for Biscayne Bay such as the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection (FDEP) and the National Park Service or
their management plans for Biscayne Bay. The membership of the
Review Committee is not specified in the Plan.
[Rule 9J -5.012(3)(c)15, F.A.C.)
8. Policy 1.2.2 does not provide adequate guidance to the
LOR's for the correction of drainage and stormwater management
problems in the Village.
Policy 1.4.2 was amended to provide for the location and
screening of beachfront lights "in a way that is practical to
water dependent and water related uses" to assist in protecting
sea turtles. The policy is not specific as to what the
locational and screening criteria are or what the desired result
may be.
Policy 2.2.2 was amended to provide for dune restoration of
the highest level that is "technically and economically feasible"
in conjunction with new development. The policy does not specify
what this restoration will entail or that redevelopment will also
be required to restore dunes.
Objective 2.5 is not measurable or specific. Objective 3.5 '.
does not provide measurability. The objective to "minimize
damage from any hurricane storm surge" is not measurable in
Village of Key Iieceyne $ol 15
10/06/1994 03:49 1270800'7 P.19
itself. Policy 3.5.1 and new Policy 3.5.3 do not provide
specific standards for setbacks and limiting fill so as to avoid
storm surge damage.
Policy 3.6.1 does not provide guidance to the LDR's to
achieve the objective of commercial redevelopment.
(Rule 9J -5.013(2)(c), F.A.C.}
9. Policy 3.5.3 concerns limiting the filling of areas,
but lacks specificity. Policy 1.7.1 concerns beach renourishment
and minimizing natural resource damage caused by the
renourish t ' The policy lacks specificity to adequately guide
the LDR's. Policy 1.7.2 concerns locating borrow areas for beach
renourishment. The policy contains a syntax error and cannot be
evaluated.
Policy 1.7.3 concerns discouraging the encroachment upon the
beach front and dunes by development. However, the policy does
not say how encroachment will be discouraged. As noted
previously, no specific setbacks have been set other than not
allowing buildings seaward of the coastal construction control
line. The issue of resource protection has not been fully
addressed.
Policy 1.7.4 contains a syntax error and cannot be
evaluated. The policy concerns the effects that dredge and fill
would have upon benthic communities.
Policy 1.7.6, intended to protect listed species and all
birds within the Village, lacks specificity.
(Rule 9J -5.013(2)(c), F.A.C.)
Village of Key Bluer* sot 16
"
i c r r . J o Y J Y . I ( t ' . c
1 0 . T h e V i l l a g e h a s n o t a d o p t e d a p o l i c y t o d e s i g n a t e
e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s e n s i t i v e l a n d s f o r p r o t e c t i o n ( b a s e d o n l o c a l l y
d e t e r m i n e d c r i t e r i a ) o r e x p l a i n e d w h y s u c h a p o l i c y w o u l d b e
u n n e c e s s a r y . [ R u l e 9 J - 5 . 0 1 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) 9 , F . A . C . )
1 1 . O b j e c t i v e 1 . 3 Y e n t a t i y _ e _ a n s L a g j a a g g s a r a l l a n d P o l i c y
1 . 3 . 1 , h a v e b e e n a m e n d e d t o r e m o v e r e f e r e n c e t o k e e p i n g n o n -
s e a w a l l e d w a t e r f r o n t a s n a t u r a l a s p o s s i b l e f o r h a b i t a t p u r p o s e s .
L a n g u a g e w a s a d d e d t o t h e p o l i c y t o r e q u i r e D a d e C o u n t y
D e p a r t m e n t o f E n v i r o n m e n t a l a n d R e s o u r c e M a n a g e m e n t p e r m i t s f o r
c o n s t r u c t i o n s e a w a r d o f m e a n h i g h w a t e r l i n e . T h e n e w l a n g u a g e
i s i n c o n s i s t e n t w i t h 9 J - 5 r e q u i r e m e n t s f o r t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f
n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s , p a r t i c u l a r l y h a b i t a t f o r l i s t e d s p e c i e s . I t
i s n o t c l e a r h o w t h i s l a n g u a g e i s c o n s i s t e n t w i t h o t h e r p o l i c i e s
i n t h e p l a n l i m i t i n g c o n s t r u c t i o n s e a w a r d o f t h e c o a s t a l
c o n s t r u c t i o n c o n t r o l l i n e . ( R u l e 9 J - 5 . 0 1 3 ( 2 ) ( c ) , F . A . C . j
L . R e o o m a e n d . d R e m e a i s l A c t i o n s . T h e s e i n c o n s i s t e n c i e s m a y b e
r e m e d i e d b y t a k i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g a c t i o n s :
1 . S p e c i f y t h a t t h e r e g u l a t o r y o r m a n a g e m e n t t e c h n i q u e s
f o r t h e r e s t o r a t i o n o f n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s a n d p r o g r a m s f o r t h e
m i t i g a t i o n o f f u t u r e d i s r u p t i o n s o r d e g r a d a t i o n s w i l l a p p l y t o
a l l d e v e l o p m e n t a n d r e d e v e l o p m e n t .
2 . R e v i s e P o l i c y 3 . 5 . 1 t o r e q u i r e s p e c i f i c b u i l d i n g
s e t b a c k s f r o m t h e o c e a n a n d B a y t o a d d r e s s h a z a r d m i t i g a t i o n a n d ' .
r e s o u r c e p r o t e c t i o n . R e s o l v e t h e i n c o n s i s t e n c y b e t w e e n O b j e c t i v e
3 . 1 a n d P o l i c i e s 3 . 1 . 3 a n d 3 . 5 . 6 .
V i l l a g e o f K e y ' i s e a y n e C O I 1 7
10/06/1994 03:50
12708007 P.21
3. Resolve the inconsistency between Objective 3.3 and
Policy 3.3.1. See recommendation for FLUE Policy 1.1.1.
4. Include a policy, based on relevant data and analysis,
that specifies regulatory or management techniques for
redevelopment.
5. Revise Policy 2.1.2 to incorporate by reference and
include as an attachment Policy 4D of the Metro -Dade
Comprehensive Development Master Plan (CDMP) Coastal Management
Element, and include guidelines to be utilized by the Village
upon future amendments to Dade County Policy 4D.
6. Revise Policies 2.5.1 and 2.5.2 to include specific
dates for the implementation of the master drainage plan,
replacing septic tanks with central sewer, and mandating of
onsite stormwater detention.
7. Revise Objective 2.5 and Policy 2.5.2 to include other
agencies that have regulatory authority and management
responsibility for Biscayne Bay such as the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection and the National -Park Service.
8. Revise the above objectives and policies to include
specific and measurable actions to be taken by the Village to
address stormwater management.
9. Revise the above objectives and policies to include
specific and measurable actions to be taken by the Village.
Correct the syntax errors in Policies 1.7.2 and 1.7.4.
V ttase 04 ray Biscayne t01
18
a.,. puaonsimt*gt Provisjons. The inconsistent provisions of
the Plan are as follows:
1. Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 are not specific as to how
much public open space is to be required. The Village amended
Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 to state that required open space "shall
be consistent with the high property values of the island and the
need to ensure reasonably satisfactory levels of access to light
and air." The policies do not set any specific standards for
open space requirements. (Rule 9J -5.014(3)(c)4]
B� Recommended Remedial Actions. These inconsistencies may be
remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise Policies 1.4.1 and 1.4.2 to establish specific
guidance for the provision of required open space.
VItLego of Key itsc.yne $Qt 19
.10/06/1994 03:51 12708007 P.22
solid waste is 7 pounds per person per day. Objective 1.3 and
Policy 1.3.1 are inconsistent with other policies in the adopted
Plan. (Rule 9J -5.015(3)(b)2 and 3 and 9J -5.005(5)(a), F.A.C.]
3. Policy 1.2.4 indicates that the Village will contribute
to the improvement of water quality in Biscayne Bay by
implementing a master drainage plan, replacing septic tanks with
central sewer, mandating on -site detention of stormwater, and
implementing marina siting standards. There are concerns as
previously noted with the implementation of the activities
associated with atormwater management and the provision of
central sewer facilities.
Policy 1.2.5 concerns the coordination of the review of
bayfront development projects with the Biscayne Bay Shoreline
Development Review Committee. The policy makes no mention of
coordinating with other agencies that have regulatory authority
and management responsibility for Biscayne Bay such as FDEP and
the National Park Service. The membership of the Review Committee
is not specified in the Plan. [Rule 9J -5.015(3)(c)6, F.A.C.)
Recgmmendeed. Remedial lotions. These inconsistencies may be
remedied by taking the following actions:
1.. Resolve the inconsistencies over the recreational use
of Bill Baggs Cape Florida State Park and Dade County Crandon
Park and the conflict between the management plans for these
areas and the potential uses suggested by the Village.
silt.pe of Key Biscayne 1101
21
10/06/1994 03:51 12708007 P.23
f
2. Resolve the inconsistencies in the adopted LAS
standards. If it is the Village's intention to adopt LOS
standards for solid waste, sewage, and potable water that differ
from those of Dade County, then the Village should amend the LOS
standards adopted in the Infrastructure Element in Policies 1.4.1
through 1.4.5.
3. Revise Policy 1.2.5 to include all agencies that have
regulatory authority and management responsibility for the
Biscayne Bay, such as FDEP and the National Park Service.
VIII. CAPITAL IMPRQVEMENT ELEMENT
As. Inconsistent Provisions. The inconsistent provisions of the
Plan are as follows:
1. Policy 1.5.3 requires development and redevelopment to
pay a proportional share of the cost of expanded public
facilities for which the development or redevelopment creates the
need. However, the policy does not say what that share may be or
how a share will be determined. [Rule 93-5.016(3)(b)4 and (c)8,
F.A.C.]
gdoommended Remedial Actions. These inconsistencies may be
remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise Policy 1.5.3 to include the specific
proportionate share of facility improvement costs to be born by
new development and redevelopment.
Vitt.Qe of xey Biscayne 901
22
" 1 K / / W 0 / 1 7 7 , �% K 1 J " J G
1 2 ? 0 8 9 0 ? P . 2 4
A , _ I n c o n s i s t e n t P x o y i s i o n s . T h e i n c o n s i s t e n t p r o v i s i o n s o f
t h e c o m p r e h e n s i v e p l a n u n d e r t h e s u b j e c t h e a d i n g a r e a s f o l l o w s :
1 . T h e p l a n i s n o t c o n s i s t e n t w i t h , a n d f a i l s t o f u r t h e r
t h e S t a t e C o m p r e h e n s i v e P l a n i n c l u d i n g t h e f o l l o w i n g p r o v i s i o n s
[ R u l e s 9 3 - 5 . 0 2 1 a n d 9 3 - 1 1 . 0 0 6 ( 3 ) , F . A . C . ] :
( 8 ) W a t e r R e s o u r c e s , G o a l ( a ) , P o l i c i e s ( b ) 5 . , 6 . , 8 . , 9 . ,
1 0 . , a n d 1 1 . , w h i c h r e f e r t o t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f s u r f a c e a n d g r o u n d
w a t e r q u a l i t y a n d q u a n t i t y ; a q u i f e r r e c h a r g e q u a l i t y ; p r o t e c t i o n
o f w a t e r c o u r s e s ; a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l l y s e n s i t i v e f l o o d p l a i n
r e s o u r c e s .
( 9 ) C o a s t a l a n d M a r i n e R e s o u r c e s , G o a l ( a ) , P o l i c i e s ( b )
2 . , 4 . , 6 . , a n d 7 . , w h i c h r e f e r t o t h e p r o v i s i o n o f p u b l i c a c c e s s
t o b e a c h e s , a n d t h e p r o t e c t i o n o f a q u a t i c h a b i t a t .
( 1 0 ) N a t u r a l S y s t e m s a n d R e c r e a t i o n a l L a n d s , G o a l ( a ) ,
P o l i c i e s ( b ) 1 . , 2 . , 3 . , 4 . , 7 . , a n d 1 0 . , w h i c h r e f e r t o t h e
c o n s e r v a t i o n o f n a t u r a l h a b i t a t s a n d w e t l a n d s y s t e m s ; p o t e n t i a l
d e s t r u c t i o n o f e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s ; p r o t e c t i o n o f t h e e c o l o g i c a l
f u n c t i o n o f w e t l a n d s s y s t e m s ; a n d t h e m a i n t e n a n c e o f e c o l o g i c a l l y
i n t a c t s y s t e m s .
( 1 6 ) L a n d U s e , G o a l ( a ) , P o l i c i e s ( b ) 2 . 3 . , 4 . , 6 . , a n d
7 . , w h i c h r e f e r t o t h e e f f i c i e n c y o f d e v e l o p m e n t ; a n d r e v i e w o f
s p e c i f i c i m p a c t s t o n a t u r a l r e s o u r c e s .
V i l l a g e o f K e y i t i c e y n e S O t
2 3
10/06/1994 03:52 1270800? P.25
(18) Public Facilities, Goal (a), Policies (b)1., 4., 5.,
6., and 10., which refer to provision of adequate public
facilities.
(20) Transportation, Goal (a), Policies (b) 3., 9., and
13., which refer to efficiency of transportation systems.
D. Rsoonmendsd Remedial Actions. These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise the plan to be consistent with and further the
State Comprehensive Plan, including the above -referenced goals
and policies. Specific recommendations can be found in above
Sections I through VIII.
Village of Key {itCtyne SOI 24
1tp- rJO' 1774 YJJ• DJ
12708007 P.26
X. CONSISTENCY WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE REGIONAL POLICY PLAN
a. Inconsistent Provisions. The inconsistent provisions
of the plan under the subject heading are as follows:
1. The plan is not consistent with and does not further
the Regional Plan for South Florida, including the following
goals and policies (Rules 9J-5.021 and 9J-11.006(3), F.A.C.]:
(8) Water Resources, Goals 8.1 and 8.4, Policies 8.1.7,
8.1.8, 8.1.11, 8.1.14, 8.1.22, 8.1.24, 8.1.29, 8.2.1, 8.2.2,
8.4.2, 8.4.3, 8.4.4, 8.4.6, and 8.4.16, which refer to the
protection of surface and ground water supplies, wetland and
floodplain resources, and basin management.
(10) Natural Systems and Recreational Lands, Goals 10.1,
10.3, and 10.5, Policies 10.1.7, 10.1.8, 10.1.11, 10.3.1, 10.3.4,
10.3.5, 10.5.6, 10.5.7, and 10.5.8, which refer to protection of
endangered species; providing for the protection of the natural
function of wildlife habitat and wetlands.
(16) Land Use, Goals 16.3 and 16.4, Policies 16.3.1,
16.3.2, 16.3.4, 16.3.6, 16,3.7, 16.3.8, 16.3.9, 16.4.1, 16.4.2,
which refer to land use compatibility; and the protection of
natural resources.
(18) Public Facilities, Goal 18.1, Policies 18.1.2, which
refer to reducing the impacts of new development on existing
public facilities and services.
(20) Transportation, Goal 20.2, Policies 20.2.1 and 20.2.3,
which refer to efficiency of transportation systems.
Vittags of Key Kf.c.yne sac 25
10/06/1994 03:53
12208007 P.27
D. ,aeoonse}1dsd Remedial 4atione, These inconsistencies may
be remedied by taking the following actions:
1. Revise the plan to be consistent with and further the
Regional Plan for South Florida, including the above referenced
goals and policies. Specific recommendations can be found above
in Sections I through VIII.
village of K.y Ctseayne 301 26
1tV YJO/ l77µ U...).:N4
12708007 P.28
CONCLUSIONS
1. The plan is not consistent with the Regional Plan for
South Florida.
2. The plan is not consistent with the State Comprehensive
Plan.
3. The plan is not consistent with Chapter 93-5, F.A.C.
4. The plan is not consistent with the requirements of
Sections 163.3177, and 163.3178, F.S.
5. The plan is not "In Compliance," as defined in Section
163.3184(1)(b), F.S.
6. In order to bring the plan into compliance, the Village
may complete the recommended remedial actions described above or
adopt other remedial actions that eliminate the inconsistencies.
Executed this 5 day of October, 1994, at Tallahassee,
Florida.
Charles G. Pattison, Director
Division of Resource Planning
and Management
2740 Centerview Drive
Tallahassee, Plorida 32399
Yfllage of Key If :earls SO