Agenda 04/22-23/2008 Item # 8B
Agenda Item No, 8B
April 22, 2008
Page 1 of 39
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider the Land
Development Code Amendment addressing the calculation of maximum number of wetslips
when a shoreline is in a Conservation Easement
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCC) reconsider the Land
Development Code (LDC) amendment that addressed the calculation of maximum number of
wetslips when a shoreline is in a Conservation Easement (CE), This agenda item addresses the
BCC's action of March II, 2008, when the BCC voted to reconsider this proposed LDC
amendment.
CONSIDERATIONS:
ChronololN On December i 2, 2006, the issue of how staff has applied the Manatee Protection
Plan for calculating maximum number of wetslips when a shoreline is in a Conservation
Easement was identified with the discussion of the Cocohatchee Settlement Agreement. At that
time the BCC directed the County Manager to report back to the BCC as to how staff has applied
the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) criteria for calculating the maximum allowable number of
wetslips for a proposed multi-docking facility.
On April 24, 2007, staff provided a presentation and request for direction from the BCC as to
how staff should apply the calculation when CEs are present. As noted in the Executive
Summary (Exhibit A) prepared for the April 27, 2007 BCC meeting, neither the LDC nor the
MPP definition of shoreline specifically addresses shoreline within CE's, Staff provided
background, options for the BCC to consider and requested BCC direction for calculating
maximum number of wetslips when a shoreline is in a CEo Within that Executive Summary,
staff proposed the following for BCC consideration:
A. For projects having existing CE's or Preserves
1. Have the County Attorney's Office review the CE to determine if the CE
addresses shoreline development rights.
2. Consult with the State to determine if the State finds the CE to eliminate any
future wetslips. (This would essentially be consulting the State for technical
assistance for listed species issues.)
3. Apply the most restrictive criteria from the review of I and 2.
B, For projects where Preserve areas and CE's are not yet established
1. IdentifY in the development document the location of the proposed docking
facility and preserve area that requires aCE.
2, Use the total shoreline for calculating the maximum allowable wetslips and
identifY this value in the development document.
3. Require the CE to specify that the shoreline contained within can no longer be
used for calculating wets lips,
Agenda Item No, 8B
April 22, 2008
Page 2 of 39
The BCC direction was to continue with current practices and to bring back an LDC amendment
to specify the process (Exhibit B, BCC Minutes), Current practice for projects reaching
thresholds for a MPP review is to exclude the length of shoreiine contained within any CE when
calculating maximum allowable wetslips after reviewing the nature of the CE, As a result of a
review of a project in 2006, staff from the Office of the County Attorney reviewed various
documents including the existing CE, the Growth Management Plan, the LDC, the MPP, State
Statutes, and State cases in order to determine whether shoreline length in the CE area should be
excluded from the calculation to determine the number of allowable boat slips. The result of this
review essentially provided environmental staff with a procedure that specified that the review of
the actual language of a conservation casement must be conducted to determine if the easement
language excludes the use of the easement shoreline to calculate the amount of wets lips.
As directed by the BCC, staff prepared the attached LDC amendment (Revision: Exhibit C) and
brought the amendment through the public hearing process (Development Services Advisory
Committee (DSAC) subcommittee meeting, 9/26/07; DSAC meeting, 10110/07; Environmental
Advisory Council meeting, 10/3/07; Collier County Planning Commission hearing, 11/28/07).
The BCC heard the item on 3 occasions: ] /] 6/08, 2/5/08, and 2/19/08.
At the January] 6, 2008, the BCC had several questions and requested additional information
from staff. Staff prepared the attached response (Exhibit D) to the BCC for the February 5, 2008
public hearing. Four policy options were noted for the BCC to consider ranging from most
restrictive to least restrictive regarding CEs.
At the February 19, 2008 public hearing, public input provided examples questioning the
uniform application of the shoreline calculation by staff since the inception of the MPP, Exhibit
E addresses these examples, Testimony was also presented by individuals associated with the
drafting of the MPP indicating that the staff's application was not consistent with the MPP
drafter's intent. The BCC voted to disapprove the proposed amendment at that meeting, On
March i ], 2008, the BCC voted to reconsider this proposed LDC amendment.
Emen!:inl! Issues A number of issues have emerged through the recent public hearings that
should be considered and are briefly discussed below.
Public VS, Private Access, During the public hearing process, the BCC brought up concerns
about the amendment's possible impacts on restricting future public access. Based on BCC
direction, staff provided language that would exempt from this provision government-owned
public boat facilities having shoreline within County required preserves, Also, marina facilities
with a preferred rating pursuant to the MPP and which are 100 percent open to the general public
would be able to use all their shoreline in calculating the maximum allowable number of
wetslips, unless otherwise restricted by State and Federal conservation easements, lfthe marina
became a private marina, the number of wets lips would be recalculated by excluding the length
of shoreline within County required preserves, and the number of wetslips would be reduced
accordingly.
Agenda Item No. 8B
April 22, 2008
Page 3 of 39
Effect on Goodland Project, Staff has reviewed the impact of excluding shoreline in CEs on the
Goodland project. There is an approved Conditional Use site for the Goodland Boat Park. The
Site Development Plan is currently under review. A CE has been placed over much of the
shoreline; however, the application for the SDP did not make any reference to a CEo Staff has
just obtained a copy of the CE that was granted to the State of Florida in 1999 for the
construction of a private residential multi-slip docking facility associated with the Aqua Circle
condominiums, The state conservation easement area is equal to 0.15 acres. The length of
shoreline under state conservation area is approximately 650 ft. by lOft wide. The total shoreline
distance is approximately i 168 feet; thus there is 518 ft not under state conservation easement.
According to the preferred rating, a density of 18 slips is permitted with every 100 feet of
shoreline. This would equal approximately 90 allowable slips. The County is proposing 28 wet
slips,
County vs, Other Agency Conservation Easements. The discussion has revealed that federal and
state agencies typically require a CE over all or a portion of a shoreline during their permitting
process, When staff receives an application, this CE may not yet be established. However, once
the CE is placed on the shoreline, the amount of shoreline to be used for any future calculations
would be reduced and this will decrease the future maximum amount of wetslips. Everything
being equal, excluding shoreline within CEs from these properties will therefore result in future
maximum allowable wetslips being less than currently allowed values.
Location vs. Maximum Allowable Calculation. It should be noted that using shoreline within
CEs for calculating the number of wets lips simply provides for the maximum number of wets lips
that would be allowed under the MPP criteria. This calculation by itself does not guarantee a
property will be able to utilize the maximum number. The specific characteristics of the site,
other County regulations and additional site permitting through state and federal permitting
processes will dictate how much of these wetslips will be allowed at the specific location,
Potential Options As provided to the BCC at the February 5, 2008 public hearing, the BCC
could consider one of the following options regarding eligible shoreline:
a. Exclude shoreline within County required preserve areas and shoreline within all State and
Federal conservation easements when calculating the maximum allowable number of
wetslips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan,
b. Exclude shoreline within County required preserve areas and State and Federal
conservation easements which do not allow wetslips within their conservation easements
when calculating the maximum allowable number of wetslips pursuant to the Manatee
Protection Plan, (This is the option included in proposed LDC amendment.)
c, Exclude shoreline within County required preserve areas in calculating the maximum
allowable number of wets lips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan,
d. Allow all shoreline to be used in calculating the maximum allowable number of wetslips
pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan, regardless of whether the shoreline is within a
County required preserve or a conservation easement, or not.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 4 of 39
Exhibit F provides an example of the calculations applied to a fictitious development to show
how an assumed shoreline would yield the maximum number of wetslips under various
scenarIOs.
FISCAL IMP ACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County for this agenda item.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: The County has incorporated the MPP within
Conservation and Coastal Management Policy 7.2.1 and Policy 7.2.3.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: There is nothing in the Growth Management Plan (GMP) or
Land Development Code (LDC) that specifically addresses the issue. Therefore, how to handle
this matter becomes a policy determination for the Board. Once the decision is made, the Board
should also direct that the LDC be amended so the policy decision can be memorialized.
RECOMMENDATION: That the Board of County Commissioners provide the County
Manger or his designee direction for calculating wetslip densities when shorelines are within
Conservation Easements.
PREPARED BY: William D. Lorenz Jr., P.E., Engineering and Environmental Services
Department Director
Item Number:
Item Summary:
Meeting Date:
Page I of I
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 5 of 39
COLLIER COUNTY
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
68
This item to be heard at 4:30 p.rn This item was continued from the April 8. 2008 BCe
Meeting. Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners reconsider the Land
Development Code Amendment addressing the calculation of the maximum number of
wetslips when a shoreline is in a Conservation Easement. (William D. Lorenz. Engineering &
Environmental Services Director COES)
4/22/20069.0000 AM
Prepared By
William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E.
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Environmental Services Director
Date
Approved By
Environmental Services
3/27/20082:34:30 PM
Joseph K. Schmitt
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Community Development &
Environmental Services Adminstrator
Date
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
3/28/20088:28 PM
Approved By
Judy PuiQ
Community Development &
Environmental Services
Operations Analyst
Community Development &
Environmental Services Admin.
Date
Approved By
4/8/20083:01 PM
OMS Coordinator
County Manager's Office
OMB Coordinator
Date
Office of Management & Budget
4/9/200810:55 AM
Approved By
Mark Isackson
County Manager's Office
Budget Analyst
Date
Office of Management & Budget
4/9/200811 :18 AM
Approved By
James V. Mudd
Board of County
Commissioners
County Manager
Date
County Manager's Office
4/9/2008 11 :22 AM
file://C:IAgenda T estlExportl I 05 -April%2022, %202008108. %20ADVER TI SED%20PUBLl... 4/16/2008
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 6 of 39
Exhibit A.
Executive Summary prepared for the April 27, 2007 BCC Meeting
'.,'.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 7 of 39
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide the County Manager
or his designee direction as to the manner for calculating allowable wetslips when a project
shoreline is within a consen'ation easement.
OBJECTIVE: To have the Board of County Commissioners (BCn provide the Coumy
Manager or his designee direction as to the manner for calculating allo\\ablc wctslips when fl
project shoreline is within a conservation easement.
CONSIDERATION: On Decemher 12.2006. the BCe directed the County Manager to report
hack to the Bee as to how staff has applied the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) criteria for
calculating the maximum number of wetslips allowed for a propused multi-docking f"cilit}.
This Executive Summary addresses the rationale for how staff has applied the MPP criteria to
calculate maximum wetslip densities when a project proposes a wetslip docking facility with its
shon:linc in a l:unservation c.l;Iscment (CE). Possible future: actions are also provided for the
BCe's consideration.
Since the adoption of the MPP in May 1995, s!.lff has applied the provisions of the MPP to
exclude the amount of shoreline within CE's from the calculation of maximum allowable
wetslips. Until recemfy. this application has occurred without review of the CE itself. This has
the dreet of reducing the numhcr of wetslips for a facilit,y where its property has shoreline in a
CE. The specilic question that stafr is requesting direction from the BCe is: Ifow .Iwuld Ihe
Coun~r ('uku/ule Ihe lIlaximum number oj we/slip. for a mulli."oc~ing f"ci/i~r when par/ of
the prr~iecf\ ,...1wrelillt' b, within u nm.\'en'al;"n ea....cmcnt:"
I'vlI'P and Land Dc.doomcn! Code (LDC) P""isions
Relevant portions of the rvlPP and LDC arc contained in Attachment A. The nHtng "ystem
specilied in the LDC lIses the amount of shoreline to calculate the maximum number of wets lips.
Although the I ,DC' specifics. that the purpose of the marina siting criteria is to help detcnninl' the
maximum wet slip densities in order 1(' improve exi-,ting Manatee protection. neither the LDC
nor the MPP definition of shoreline specificaii) addresses shoreline within CE's. lIotll the \11'1'
and LDC do. ho\\-c\'~r. recognize that mangrove systems arc necessary and imppr1ant hahitats fpl"
Manatee prntertion
State evaluation uf MPP criteria
Stall' has coordinated its review of projects with the Stale f10rida Wildlife Conservali"n
Commission (FWCC} sincc the State \Va_ part of the development of Ihe MPP and provided it>
appro\'al (lfthe County"s 1V1PP rhe Crmmy has also adopted the ivlPP into the Conservation and
Coastal Management Element of the County's Gro\\!th Management Plnn. I he State looks to thl:
COllnty to I.:'\uluutc a prnposcd pro.icct and to delermine its \.:onsistcnc). v.-ith the MPP. The Statl:
also utili/cs these lTilcria in its own pennitting processes
Slate agxm:y Z)lalf have act,iscd Count~, starr that the total Icnglh of shorelines. including tbat
which i.;; \\ilhil1 (T',.-, i" w.ed in tlk" calculalilms for maximum alltl\\.';Jhle \\('{slip_,\ \\hert' the
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 8 of 39
purpose of the CE is \'cgetation management. However. where the CE prohibits "in~\\atcr
strllctun.~s". 1he length of shoreline within the conservation e.1semcnt is excluded from the
calculations and thus the number of allowable wetslips are reduced in proportion to the length of
the excluded shoreline. State staff indicate that "in-waler structures" can hc characterizcd ;s the
construction and operation of flJture doc.ks. wet or dry slips. piers, launching facilities or
structures other than existing on the property. or activities dcrrimemal to drdinage~ flood control.
\\'otcr conservation, erosion I.:ontrol. soil conservation. or fish and \.\'ildlif,,' habitat prcscnation
including. hut not limited to. ditching. diking. dredging. and fencing.
Samnle Calculations
Attachment R provide" examples of calculations. for shorelines thaI arc contained within Of are
locnled outside ofeE's. NOIe /hm in b(}/h ,he examples. (he loe",;em ulrhe aetual we/.,lip/lIeili/)"
must he located au/suic (~llhe CE. rh~ calculated maximum allowable \vetslips depends PO
whcther thc part of the shoreline is contained within a CEo Case I assumes that the length of
shoreline within lj CE"s shon:lim: I.:an not he uscJ ill lh~ cakulatioll of maximum allowahle
\vt:tslips. Case II shows the calculation of the maximum allowahle v.elslips when th) part of the
shoreline is within the CEo
Count' Stalf Aoolieation of rvIPP Criteria
In approximately 1990. starr' had gathered various environmental data and had discussions Y\it h
past County .Attorneys regarding CE's. Staff understood that a CE would rcmov~ all
development rights. and thus there are no rights that the propert) p\\ner can lranslt.'r. I f' no
devclopmcnt rights t:x.i~t un a shureline. then the length of this shon:lilll: call not be usciJ lU
l.:alcuJale wctslips th:11 \ViII oe transferred to another area not encumhered or protecH:d by a
preserve designation or CE. fhcreforc. Environmental HevicVI Staffs conclusion is ,\-'hen then:
is a CL over an arca of shoreline, that arca cannot he utilized for calculating the maxillHJln
all{i\vablc Vd':~btjps, Only shoreline that is outside the C[)Prt::sl.~rve arca had hCl'n lIsed in this
determinat ion,
'Iov..cver. in :l Januar) 2006 evaluation of a project. stan' from the Officl.' of the COtlnt~ Altornc;.
"',iewed various document' includinj! the exislinj! CEo the GMI'. the !.DC. the 1\11'1'. State
Statutes. and State i..:l1SCS in order to dctcrminc whether :-;horclinc length in the CL area should he
cxduded from the calculation to delt'rminl" the numher ofallO\\cahle boat slip!-.. rhe re"ult (lfthis
rev ic\\ cssent ially provided environmt:l1lal staff with a procedure that spel.'ined the n.:rit'w pf the
a(Wal !unguug:c (If a conservatjnn caselTIent must he l:~mduch,~d tn (ktamine if the cas>.: flll'n t
lang.uage excludes the n'\c nf lhL' easel11en1 shorelint.' 10 calculate the amnunl of \\'l'll."lip,
Inspecting the CE to determine its prohibitions is also consistent with the State's upplicatlon as
oUllincd ahove. rypically the County'..; required CT dnes nnl all(\\\ fiw hll<lt slips to he pl:lccd
\\ithin the b(lUndary (If the (nnservalion Easl:rnent or Presene an:<J In fact. the (.cHlnty's
ClIrrent lJ)(' crileria would limil most stnH.:ture'l. ('.xccpt for slrm:lUn:s rn', kling an:cs~ thrutl~h
the pre'\cn'L'. hcndws and educational signs Although nur current ("I',s \\-nuld lik~ly prohibit the
plaf..:l"IfH.:nt or uocb and Jut.:king t~H.:ililics \\.ithin tht: CF. thL' rer.:elll gllidam:e th11l1 the ('nulll)
AtlOrrl(')"r, Office' \\ouJd ha\i..' qalf insrcct the ilL:tual CT. language j~lr ;J11 ('I"~, 10 dclCnnrnl' if
the siwrclll1c WIthin the Ct. can 1'lC lIsed In the maximum \\ctslip (,.'ulcubliul1.
.-"-'-"'-"""",',",'.'^' .,.-
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 9 of 39
Recommendations
Based on previous County Attorney reviews and recommendations. staff recommends that the
BCC consider the following tasks for staff to perform when applying the criteria of the LDC and
MPP regarding the calculation of maximum allowable wets HI'S whell all or a portion of a
project's shoreline is within aCE:
A. For prujects having existing CE's or P,'(!sen'es
I. Have the County Altomey's Office review the CE to determine if the CE addresses
shoreline development rights.
2. Consult with the State to detennine if the State finds the CE to eliminate any future
wetsHps. (This would essentially be eonsulting the State lior Technical Assistance i(".
listed species issues.)
3. Apply the must restrictive criteria frum the review of I and 2.
B. For pr(~ieCIS \1'here Preser"e areas and ('E's arc no! yet eSfahlishcd.
L Identity in the development document the location nf the prop,,,ed docking "Kility and
pres~rve area that rcyuires a eE.
2. LIse the total shoreline for calculating the maximum allowable wetslips and identil~' this
value in the development document.
3. Require the Cl:: to specify that the shoreline:; contained within r.:an no longer be used for
calculating wctslips.
FISCAL IMPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the County Ii" this agemla item.
GROWTH MANAGEMENT IMPACT: rhe County has incorporated thc MI'I' within
Conservation and Coastal Management Policy 7.2.1 and Policy 7.2.3.
LEGAL CONSIDERATIONS: There is nothing in the Growth Management I'lan or I.and
Development Code II.DC) that specifically addresses the issue. Therefore. how ll> handle this
matter hecomes a po liey determinat ion for the Board_ Once the decision is rnadt:, the Board
should also direct that the LDC be amended so thc policy decision can bc memnriali7ed,
RECOMMENDATION: That the 110ard of County Commiss;ooers provide the County
Manager or his designee direction for calculating welslip dCl1silies when shorelines arc within
COl1scrvat ion Easements.
PREPARED BY; \Villiam D. Lor~l1z Jr.. P.E.. Enviromnt.:ntal SCf\'iccs Ikpartrm:nt Din:ctor
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22. 2008
Page 10 of 39
Attachment A.
Rele,,"nt Portinns of the Manatee Prntection Plan and Land De,.elopment Code
. MPP (Seetion 3.2.4. Marina Sitinll Criteria) Collier Counll' and {he Ff)EJ>'s (itfice o(
ProtecTcd SjJccies Afanagement has developed a rating ,\}istem .for marina siting throughout
the remainder (~l the ('(}Ul1~V. The pwpo,'ie (~( the mar;,w sile rating .\ystem j\ to help
determine ,he maxh'num powe,-hoa! we1.\'lip d,msities in order to improve existing Afanalef!
protection. The marina site rating system J.;ives (/ ranking hased on three (3) criteria. waler
depth. Ilati\..'e marine hahj(al and Alanate(' ahundanLT. ,Valin.' marine hahitats include
sellgrass heds. saIl marshes. mangroves or oIher hioJoj.{lcaJ!r /WOdZU'I;W.' suhmerKed and
shoreline hahit(lrs which may he adl'erse(v atree/ed or deslro.ved hy dredKInj.! and tilling
aC(fntics,
. LDC (Section 5.05.02) Arming .\ystcm is estahlished to evaluate' proposed marina}lcilitics
The purpose (~( the mw'ina site rating system is to help delermine (he maximum wet slip
densitics in order to impr(}\'c exi.'iting :Hllnatee protection. The murina .\/le raring \l's{('m
gives u ranking ha\'cJ on thref;' (3) criteria: water depth. native marine huh;tat, and .Hanater:
ahundanc(!.
. LIlC (Section 5.05.02) Fur ,~h(}relin(' w:geta(w17 such us mllnRr{}\'f!S, '.no impact" is d(u7ned
(H no greater tlurn/;\'(' (5) percent (~llhe naliw! marine hahila/ is dis"/urhed. For seLl J...?OW,SCS,
'"no Impact ,. mean",' no more than /00 squari!.1eef qf sea Rrusses can he impacted.
. LI)C (Sectioll 5.05.02 for Preferred sites. Density for Moderate and f'rotectcd sites arc
specified as 10 and I boat slips per 100 feet of shoreline, respectively.) :Vew or expandd
wet sill) marinas llnt! multi...jamifv.lacilifies shall he allowed 01 (} densllY of up 10 elghleen
(/R) hoar .\lljJ,\fcJf' C\'oy IOO(ef!! (~/.,I/(}r('lim.:.
. Llle Definition. .\'horclinc or shore. The mrf.~rlace (~r land and \vafe," and. as used 11l (he
cOllsla! management element requircnll'nts. IS Jimift,d Tn oc{'ani(' (lnd esluarinl' huer(acc\
. Ll>C' (Section _\.05.tl7,H.1.h) Allowable uses within preserve arcas. f1avSll'(! rccrCilllonul
11.\'('.\ such as !,('r"fOu., 'lafllrc /rmls or Iwardualk\ (lrc allowed Hilhin !ht' /wncrve urc(/\, us
Inng (1'1' am' dl'twing ref/wred In lfwililclle '!U'sI' uses does no! IInt/ac! the minimum required
l'e~t!lathm. For lire f"'rpose of Ihis \t'crion. {msvirl:' recreational //\'('.'1' arc ,hose lise,,' {hat
would allow limilcd access (0 Ihe preserve in (I manner IIwl H'ill no! t"ou"'(' an)' /Icgalil't'
impacls to the pre,\"('lTI', such liS !)('n'iou\' fUJ//lIi'(l.\'\' hcnc/1e<;: and educoliona! si;!l1\" FC'l7c('\'
/lUll' he lIlili:::cd oulslde or fhe {'rC,W'lTC !o fnO(}\'ide protection in ,he pn'\'l.'rn' //I accurdance
with tlie prOleeh:d s!}(.!cit'.~ \"l..'c(lOn J.O.J.O} IJ I.e.:. "I..,'/}("o and wall", af'(' /lO! l'crmif(ccI \I'/lhm
IIU' prr!.\en'c NItti
.A...,.,,_ .".~~ ,..~~" ,...""-"'t'..-
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22. 2008
Page 11 of 39
Attachment B.
Sample Calculations
Caos.C' I (Porlion or the ShOl'cliru: is within a COIl~en'a,iun ["Semenl)
Shoreline
~-----~~~---~~~--~~
,
,
,
i
,
i
I
/ Tot.;;!1 Shoreline - 1000 feet
/ Shoreline not wrthin a Conscrvatior: Eascmer<t - 400 teet
,
i
,
,
,
,
,
,
I
,
,
I
,
,
,
,
I
_________~~---______I
~~..ti... G-.s.<-nl
MotJerdte RatH1g (10 wetslip'S pl:'1 100 feet of Shoreline,
Maximum Number of Allowable wetilps:
10 slips per 100 feet X 4.40 wet..lips
".- J'
".')~ ~~~ Docking Fl'lcllity
"".. ---~.,,- ~"
Case II (Nfl part fir the ShllreHnc.~ wilhin a Conscn-ation Ease.ment)
Shorelino
I ;------7------------1
. , ,
I ,
~'DO I I
, ,
1"
!Tot81 Shoreline - 1000 f8et
,/ c.n_""., '...m.... ,,/ Shorp!ine no1 wIthin a CO'i5€'rvation Easement. 1000 fE'et
Moderate Rating (10 wPfslioo; r~r 100 fpe! of ShOfp-llr,p1
Ii:
II !
I / /
j I ..'
I__.._~~_____________J
Maximum Number of AlIowablo wetllps;
10 slips per 100 fetet X 10 ::: 100 wets lips
;;~.
Docking Faclllty
,:~~:; ,
Exhibit B.
Minutes from the April 27, 2007 BCC Meeting
.~
._..-.."~._-"~,,. .,!
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 12 of 39
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 13 of 39
April 24, 2007
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let the record show
Commissioner Fiala and Commissioner Halas were opposed.
Item #IOC
RECOMMENDA TION THAT THE BOARD OF COUNTY
COMMISSIONERS PROVIDE THE COUNTY MANAGER OR
HIS DESIGNEE DIRECTION AS TO THE MANNER FOR
CALCULATING ALLOWABLE WETSLlPS WHEN A PROJECT
SHORELINE IS WITHIN A CONSER VA TION EASEMENT -
MOTION FOR THIS ITEM TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR
POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND
f DEVELOPMENT CODE - APPROVED
MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to IOC. It's a
f recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide the
County Manager or his designee direction as to the manner for
calculating allowable wet slips when a project shoreline is within a
conservation easement.
Bill Lorenz, your director of your environmental department,
community development, will present.
MR. LORENZ: Yes, thank you. For the record, Bill Lorenz,
environmental services director. Good afternoon, Commissioners.
The purpose for this item is to come back at the board's direction
from a December 12th meeting, I believe it was, and provide the board
a report on how staff has been applying the shoreline calculations for
wet slip densities from the Manatee Protection Plan criteria
specifically when those -- the shoreline is present within a
Page 174
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 14 of 39
April 24, 2007
conservation easement.
Up to about a year ago the staff had excluded the shoreline that
was within the conservation easement from those calculations. The
net effect of that would be, of course, you would have less boat sli ps
for a multi docking boat facility if you exclude the shoreline within
the conservation easement from that calculation, and that was based
upon some earlier discussions in the early to mid I 990s with review
staff and some other County Attorney staff that are no longer here in
terms of the County Attorney's Office.
But the staff had that understanding that the application of the
calculation for shoreline and conservation easements would be
excluded from that total calculation.
We want to note that the Manatee Protection Plan -- both the
Manatee Protection Plan and the Land Development Code do not
make any distinguishing -- or do not distinguish between total
shoreline and shoreline within conservation easement. So those two
documents are silent with regard to the definition of shoreline.
Currently the staff is applying the requirements the -- that the
County Attorney's Office had reviewed a project about more than a
year ago in which case the guidance to environmental review staffwas
to evaluate -- first evaluate the conservation easement to determine
whether the conservation easement would or would not allow the
shoreline to be in the calculation, and only after reviewing that
conservation easement would the calculation be made.
Now, typically probably most conservation easements is not
going to identiry the shoreline calculation within the conservation
easement, except there is a situation, and talking with some of the
permitting folks who are involved with some state permits, the state
will require -- when they go to a state permitting -- to permit the boat
slips, the state will make certain calculations, and then they will
request a conservation easement to be placed upon the area with the
determination that no more -- that that shoreline cannot be used for
Page 175
"""'.....,.."'~..".:...:,."',..."'.:.,>., : '-' ~"'-<-f'
Agenda Item No. 88
April 22, 2008
Page 15 of 39
April 24, 2007
further calculations.
But we want to make sure we don't get into a chicken and egg
situation because they're going to the state for that particular
permitting requirement as well.
One thing I want to make clear too is that during this particular
situation, we're talking about calculations for the maximum allowable
boat slips, not the -- not the location of where those boat slips are. For
instance, it's almost -- it's almost analogous to when you calculate
density, the amount of residential units, let's say, on a project site, you
calculate your -- you calculate the number of units based upon your
gross density, then you set aside your preserve area, put a conservation
easement on it, but you've used that preserve area in your calculation,
so it would be very similar to that, and then you would cluster your
boat dock, so to speak, in an area that's outside the conservation
easement.
So I just want to make it clear, don't confuse the calculations with
the location of the facility itself. We're simply talking about utilizing
the shoreline within the conservation easement to make those
calculations.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioner Coyle?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Bill, I don't understand why you
would permit the shoreline of the conservation easement to be
included for the purpose of calculating the maximum number of slips.
Why would you do that?
I mean, the purpose of the shoreline is to protect the shoreline,
right? I mean, why would you include that protected area in the total
shoreline area for determining maximum allowable slips?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the -- it kind of gets back to the analogy
again, gets back to the idea of, if you're looking at a residential
development and you've got -- and you're doing a gross density with
regard to the total area to calculate your number of residential units,
then you cluster them outside your conservation easement. The same
Page 176
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22. 2008
Page 16 of 39
April 24, 2007
argument can be made in this situation, is that you're making the total
calculation, you're clustering your boat slips outside of the
conservation easement, but you're utilizing the shoreline in the
calculation total -- for the total number of boat slips.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I guess I understand the
similarity, but I don't even like the other one. I don't even like using
total acreage for calculating allowable density. I think -- I think the
conservation easements on property should not even be included for
calculation of density, quite frankly.
MR. LORENZ: Well, the staff -- as I said, earlier, before we
received the guidance from the County Attorney's Office, the staff's .-
the staff's idea was along those lines, that because it was in a
conservation easement it should not be allowed in the calculation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, yeah.
MR. LORENZ: But there is no -- but there is no explicit
direction in the Manatee Protection Plan or the Land Development
Code directing staff one way or the other. And as I said, when an
issuc did come up and we had discussions and got information from
the County Attorney's Office, it was their guidance to look at the
conservation easement language first, and that's what we've been
doing since -- for the year and a hal f.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Do we have the authority to make a
more restrictive ruling on this?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. This is -- quite frankly, this will be -- this
is a policy decision for the Board of County Commissioners to give
direction to statf as to how you would want to see this to be
interpreted.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: And we could do it -- we could do
it both for shorelines and conservation easements as well as for
acreage within a PUD where there were preserves or other
environmentally sensitive lands.
MR. LORENZ: Well, that's a whole different -- that's a whole
Page 1 77
'__'~~"""""'''''"''~w_,,,,,,,,,,,'', .., ''''f"
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22. 2008
Page 17 of 39
April 24, 2007
different issue, of course --
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Oh, it is, okay.
MR. LORENZ: -- and I'm not prepared to speak to that.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, all right. Okay. That's a
different issue, then let's not -- let's not get into it if it's a different
issue. Let's not complicate things too much, okay.
MR. LORENZ: One thing, we do -- we do exclude the tidal
submerged lands from that density calculation.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
MR. LORENZ: I think -- and I believe the board did that or
adopted that policy maybe two or three years ago. It's in the recent
past.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Yeah. That was the submerged
lands, you mean?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: That's right.
MR. LORENZ: The marine tidal wetlands, I believe it is.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Okay, okay. I understand.
MR. LORENZ: But staff -- staff, of course -- that's the
background in terms of where we are with the issue. At the moment
my recommendation is to follow the County Attorney's Office subject
to any other direction from the Board of County Commissioners. And
to the degree that we get any -- whatever policy direction we get from
the board today, the recommendation is to go ahead and codity that in
the Land Development Code, and then we can work out all the finer
points and the details to make sure that everything is working
smoothly.
Currently we don't even have the definition of shoreline in the
Land Development Code.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, I guess my problem,
just as a general statement of position, is that I would prefer not to
include any conservation easement shoreline in the calculation of total
Page I 78
~---+- -.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 18 of 39
April 24, 2007
allowable slips.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Make that as a motion?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah, I would make that as a
motion.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: And I'll second that.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Let's go to Commissioner
Halas now.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: My understanding is a conservation
easement, if it goes to the water's edge, then that also carries into the
surrounding waters, is that correctly -- is that correct?
MR. LORENZ: Well, the conservation easement is the easement
over the property that the property owner owns, and that -- and the
property owner still owns the underlying property, but the
conservation easement prohibits a number of different activities or
simply allows only certain activities.
If it's -- jfthat ownership -- if those --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Goes down to the water's edge.
MR. LORENZ: Well, ifit -- there are situations in Florida where
a property owner may own water bottom, but typically the water
bottom is owned by the state, and that's why, to do any work within
the state lands, you have to get a submerged land lease.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. If there was a bulkhead that
separated the conservation easement from the water, then -- because in
this case I think we're discussing conservation easement that butts up
against the edge of the water and then basically continues out on the
waters, right? The conservation easement is directly right next to the
water that we're talking about where the docks would go in; is that
right?
MR. LORENZ: Well, for this discussion, the shoreline -- if we're
talking about, what is the delineation of the shoreline, typically the
conservation easement will come all the way up to the vegetation.
Typically in a mangrove system, that's going to be -- that's going to be
Page I 79
--Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 19 of 39
April 24, 2007
your definition of shoreline. So the conservation easement would go
to that point, and then the rest of it would be open water.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. Suppose you had a
conservation easement and you had a bulkhead such as a seawall,
what would that then become? Would there be a separation of where
the conservation easement ended and the seawall started, and the
waters themselves?
MR. LORENZ: Yes. You could have that situation.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Okay. But what happens if -- in a
situation that I think we're all discussing here is where you have a
conservation easement, you have mangroves that go all the way down
to the water's edge, and in case -- in some cases it's in the water's
edge?
MR. LORENZ: We would have to define what the definition of
shoreline would be. The state -- the state --
COMMISSIONER HALAS: What's the state say?
MR. LORENZ: The state has a definition -- I have to look back
at the details because it gets to be fairly complex, because what they
look at is certain -- within concern dates if have you some type of
water structure in the water, they would consider it a shoreline, and
other situations they wouldn't, so that's what I'm saying. The
definition of shoreline's going to need to be worked out in some detail
through the Land Development Code process.
But if the general policy is that you don't want to include that
area within the calculation of shoreline, we'll have to address that
somehow in the drafting of the amendments.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Commissioners, when we did
the removal the calculation of submerged land, we did it through the
proper process, and that would be an amendment. I think it was to the
Growth Management Plan. Might have been included in the Land
Development Code. I would recommend to the motion maker to put
Page I 80
.u-+--~
,
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 20 of 39
April 24, 2007
that into his motion to give the direction to make any amendment to
the Land Development Code, therefore, the public is aware of it, it's
not a hidden policy document and blah-blah-blah.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: I think Commissioner Henning is
probably right. Doing it on the fly here is not really the way to do it.
It deserves a public hearing.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Yeah. I understood it all except for
the blah-blah-blah, but I'm not up on all the legal language.
With that, we have a motion. We have a second.
MS. FILSON: And we have three speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Three speakers, and we're going to
listen to the speakers next.
MS. FILSON: Rich Yovanovich. He'll be followed by Bruce
Burkhard.
MR. YOV ANOVICH: Good afternoon. For the record, Rich
Y ovanovich on behalf of Signature Communities.
If you'll recall, this actually came up as a discussion item related
to the Cocohatchee Bay, Bert Harris settlement discussion, and there
was going to be a report back to the commission.
We assumed that we would be given plenty of notice as to when
this item would be discussed so we could review the item and
potentially meet with each of the commissioners individually. We
found out about this Friday of last week, so obviously we didn't have
an opportunity to get involved in the process.
I think it is -- I think what Commissioner Henning suggested is
probably the fair route to have this be part of an LDC amendment so
not just Signature Communities, but other potentially affected. /
property owners, can comment on the merits of what's being proposed.
I would like to remind the commission that when you own
waterfront property, you have riparian rights. And just because you
are willing to put a conservation easement on a portion of your
property doesn't mean you lose those riparian rights related to that
Page 181
.~-
1
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 21 of 39
April 24,2007
property in the first place, and one of those riparian rights is to be able
to enjoy the waterfront, including docks.
The state has a process that it goes through. You know, Bill didn't
go through it in great detail. Hopefully we'll go through an LDC
amendment process to where we can hash out why the state does what
the state does relating to boat docks and how they calculate the
number of boat docks related to the property,
But there is a process you go through to essentially detennine the
appropriate number of boat docks, and you take into consideration the
impact to listed species, you come up with a number, and then you
record a conservation easement to make sure that that number doesn't
increase.
We believe the state process is a good process, and we would like
to, you know, in greater detail, discuss that through hopefully a
process where you discuss the LOC amendments.
We think that this is not fair to Signature Communities or other
property owners to just come up with a policy determination on an
agenda item that really the public hasn't had a lot of time to study,
give its input to determine what the appropriate change should be and
would request that this go through the proper process, which would be
through an LOe amendment process, and then everybody, both for
one side and for another side, can give you your input, and then you
all can decide what might be the appropriate mechanism after hearing
it through the appropriate mechanisms, including going through the --
your Environmental Advisory Council on those types of issues. I
think it's too important a decision to just make it today without
bringing public input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Am I wrong, Commissioner Coyle,
but isn't that what you just included?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yes. I recognize Commissioner
Henning's concern about that. Commissioner Henning is correct. I
think it is something that deserves a public hearing, and I agree to
Page I 82
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 22 of 39
April 24, 2007
revise my motion to that effect.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: I pull my second.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: You pull it?
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Yeah.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: I'll second it. Nothing wrong
with public input.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: So we have a motion by
Commissioner --
MS. FILSON: We still have two speakers.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Go ahead.
MS. FILSON: Bruce Burkhard. He'll be followed by Doug Fee.
MR. BURKHARD: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name
is Bruce Burkhard. I live on Oak Avenue.
And first of all, I agree 100 percent with the commissioner. I
think a conservation easement infers a desire to protect our natural
resources, not only mangroves, but all of the various forms of wildlife
that depend on the mangroves and the creatures that live in the water.
It also seems to me that the staff has been following a very
common sense methodology that the conservation easement, which
was usually implemented to gain additional development rights,
removes all further development rights so there are no boat slip rights
that the owner can transfer.
The desired outcome for the public is a preservation of critical
estuaries which have been disappearing due to development pressures.
I think the staft's current interpretation of the Manatee Protection
Plan is helping to protect the few remaining estuaries. The ideal
solution, as we've been discussing, is to change the LDe and probably
the GMP to absolutely prohibit docking facilities and marinas in front
of conservation easements. Thank you.
MS. FILSON: Your final speaker, Mr. Chairman, is Doug Fee
MR. FEE: Good afternoon, Commissioners. For the record, my
name is Doug Fee. I appreciate being able to speak to you today. I'll
Page 183
"""""T-"""
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 23 of 39
April 24, 2007
be very brief.
I do support Commissioner Coyle's motion. I do feel that these
areas which are governed by the Growth Management Plan and
specifically by the CCME -- although in the legal considerations it
says there's nothing in the Growth Management Plan or Land
Development Code that specifically addresses this issue, I do believe
there are broad goals, policies, that are in there that you really want to
protect these areas, you know, where they are mangrove shoreline,
wildlife, And so I would support limiting this calculation to non-
conservation easement lands.
Beyond that, there is a recommendation in number B that says,
for projects where preserve areas and CEs are not yet established. It
says in number two, it says, use the total shoreline for calculating the
maximum allowable wet slips and identity this value in the
development document.
One thing I want to mention is, in your GMP, there, I believe, is a
policy that encourages dry slips over wet slips, and I'm not seeing in
here anything that furthers that goal. We're rewarding or allowing
density on the shoreline, but I'd like to see something in here that
would encourage or give density to dry storage as well. And thank
you very much.
MS. FILSON: That's your final speaker, Mr. Chairman,
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Thank you,
Okay. So we have a motion by Commissioner Coyle and a
second by Commissioner Henning.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Could we hear the motion again?
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Well, we certainly can, but first let's
go --
MR. LORENZ: Yes, thank you. Just -- just to note, in terms of
-- the recommendation was for us to come back and have the board
give us direction in terms of what the next steps should be. And one
question that the staff would have is in terms of directing us to go
Page 184
Agenda Item No. 8B
April 22, 2008
Page 24 of 39
April 24,2007
through the Land Development Code process.
What direction do you want us to, if you will, part of the fence to
fall on? Either direction for the shoreline within conservation
easements to be excluded or the total shoreline, or is -- something
different than that?
COMMISSIONER COYLE: No. It's the same as my earlier
motion. It is that the shoreline in a conservation easement is not to be
allowed for the calculation of boat slips, the maximum number of boat
slips, And what I am proposing that wc do is bring that back as a
change in the Land Development Code at a public hearing, and then
we will have a fair opportunity for all stakeholders to be heard, and
then we can make a decision. So that's my motion.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Commissioner Henning, do you
agree?
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Sure.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Okay. Does that answer your
question?
MR. LORENZ: Yes, thank you.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: No. Thank you.
Okay. With that, is there -- there's no other questions. I'm going
to call the motion. All those in favor, indicate by saying aye.
COMMISSIONER COYLE: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HALAS: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER FIALA: Aye.
COMMISSIONER HENNING: Aye.
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: Opposed?
(No response.)
CHAIRMAN COLETTA: And the ayes have it 5-0. Thank you
very much.
Item #1 OE
Page 185
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Text underlined is new text t~~.("\f 39
Tell! Gtril,eU:u:eblgA is Bt.lFrSAt tSlIt te o.
Bold text indicates a defined term
Exhibit C.
LDC Amendment ReQuest
ORIGIN: Board of County Commissioners
AUTHOR: Barbara Burgeson, Principal Environmental Specialist
Stephen Lenberger, Senior Environmental Specialist
DEPARTMENT: Environmental Services Department
AMENDMENT CYCLE: Cycle 2, 2007
LDC PAGE: LDC5:30
LDC SECTION(S): 5.05.02
CHANGE: To exclude the length of shoreline within conservation easements when calculating
the maximum allowable number of boat slips in accordance with the Manatee Protection Plan.
REASON: The rating system used in calculating the maximum number of wetslips in
accordance the Manatee Protection Plan, uses the amount of shoreline to calculate the maximum
number of wetslips. Since the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan in May 1995, staff has
applied the provisions of the Manatee Protection Plan to exclude the amount of shoreline within
conservation easements from the calculation of the maximum allowable wetslips. Shoreline
within a conservation easement is excluded since a conservation easement removes or severely
limits development rights.
FISCAL & OPERATIONAL IMPACTS: None since it has been staff's practice to already
exclude the length of shoreline within conservation easements in calculating the maximum
allowable number of boat slips in accordance with the Manatee Protection Plan.
RELATED CODES OR REGULATIONS: None
GROWTH MANAGEMENT PLAN IMPACT: None. The County has incorporated the
MPP within Conservation and Coastal Management Policy 7.2.1 and Policy 7.2.3.
OTHER NOTESNERSION DATE: Created September 5, 2007, amended October 9, 2007,
amended January 30,2008, amended February 5,2008, amended February II, 2008
Amend the LDC as follows:
5.05.02 Marinas
A. The following standards are for the purpose of manatee protection and are applicable to
all multi-slip docking facilities with ten slips or more, and all marina facilities.
1
F:\Cycle 2 - 2007 LDCA\5.05.02 - MPP Shoreline Calculations (013008) SL.doc
3/27/2008
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22. 2008
Text underlined is new text t~~.()f 39
Tellt stril~8tRrel"l8R is B1:JrreAt 181d 1s o.
Bold text indicates a defined term
B. Proposed developments will be reviewed for consistency with the Manatee Protection
Plan ("MPP") adopted by the BCC and approved by the DEP. If the location of the
proposed development is consistent with the MPP, then the developer will submit a
"Manatee Awareness and Protection Plan," which shall address, but not be limited to,
the following categories:
1. Education and public awareness.
2. Posting and maintaining manatee awareness signs.
3. Information on the type and destination of boat traffic that will be generated from
the facility.
4. Monitoring and maintenance of water quality to comply with state standards.
5. Marking of navigational channels, as may be required.
C. A rating system is established to evaluate proposed marina facilities. The purpose of the
marina site rating system is to help determine the maximum wet slip densities in order to
improve existing Manatee protection. The marina site rating system gives a ranking
based on three (3) criteria: water depth, native marine habitat, and manatee abundance.
In evaluating a parcel for a potential boat facility, a minimum sphere of influence for the
boat traffic must be designated. For the proposed marina facility, an on-water travel
distance of five (5) miles is considered the sphere of influence.
1. A preferred rating is given to a site that has or can legally create adequate water
depth and access, will not impact native marine habitats, and will not impact a
high manatee use area (See Table 5.05.02(C)(5)).
2. A moderate ranking is given to a site where: there is a adequate water depth and
access, no impact to a high manatee use area, but there is an impact to native
marine habitat; there is adequate water depth, no impact to native marine habitat,
but impacts a high manatee use area; and when the water depth is less than four
(4) feet mean low water (MLW), no impact to native marine habitat, and no
impact to a high manatee use area.
3. A protected ranking is given to a site where: there is adequate water depth and
access, but there is an impact to native marine habitat and there is an impact to a
high manatee use area; there is not adequate water depth, there is impact to or
destruction of native marine habitat, and there is impact to a high manatee use
area; there is not adequate water depth, no impact to marine habitat. but there is
impact to a high manatee use area; or there is not adequate depth, there is
impact to marine habitat, and no impact to a high manatee use area.
4. The exact areas will depend on site specific data gathered during the site
development process reviews.
5. Table of Siting Criteria
Water Depth Native Marine Habitat Manatee Use
(Measured at MLW)
4 ft. or more Less than 4 ft. No Impact1 Impact Not Hiah Hiah
Preferred X X X
Moderate X X X
Moderate X X X
Moderate X X X
2
F:\Cycle 2 - 2007 LDCA\5.0S.02 - MPP Shoreline Calculations (013008) SL.doc
3/27/2006
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Text underlined is new text t~~.()f 39
T81;1 Gtril:etRF8L1SjR is Sl:lrrsAt t8111 t8 o.
Bold text indicates a defined term
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
Protected X X X
1 For shoreline vegetation such as mangroves, "no impact" is defined as no greater than five
(5) percent of the native marine habitat is disturbed. For sea grasses, "no impact" means than
no more than 100 square feet of sea grasses can be impacted.
D. Allowable wet slip densities.
1. Preferred sites. New or expanded wet slip marinas and multi-family facilities shall
be allowed at a density of up to eighteen (18) boat slips for every 100 feet of
shoreline. Expansion of existing and construction of new dry storage facilities is
allowed. Expansion of existing and construction of new boat ramps is allowed.
2. Moderate development sites. New or expanded wet slips and multi-family
facilities shall be allowed at a density of up to ten (10) boat slips for every 100
feet of shoreline. Expansion of existing dry storage facilities is allowed.
Construction of new dry storage facilities is prohibited. Expansion of existing boat
ramps is allowed. Construction of new boat ramps is prohibited.
3. Protected sites. New or expanded wet slip marinas and multi-family facilities shall
be allowed at a density of one (1) boat slip for every 100 feet of shoreline.
Expansion of existing dry storage facilities or construction of new dry storage
facilities is prohibited. Expansion of existing boat ramp or construction of new
boat ramps is prohibited.
E. If a potential boat facility site is ranked as moderate or protected because of its proximity
to a high use manatee area, its ranking can be increased if slow speed zones are
established that account for a significant portion of the expected travel route of the boats
using the proposed facility. In that case, the manatee criteria in the three (3) way test
(see Table 5.05.02(C)(5)) would not affect the outcome of the ranking. If such slow
speed zones are not existing, the County may establish, with DEP approval, additional
slow speed zones in order to mitigate the proposed additional boat traffic.
F. Existing facilities and facilities which had state or federal permits prior to adoption of the
MPP shall be exempt from these provisions, but will be subject to all other requirements
of this Code.
G. The definition of shoreline for the DurDose of the Manatee Protection Plan shall be the
interface of land and water at mean hiqh water. as established usinq standard survey
techniques. Shoreline within County required Dreserves or within State and Federal
conservation easements which do not sDecificallv Dermit boat docks shall not be used in
calculatinq the maximum allowable number of wetsliDs Dursuant to the Manatee
Protection Plan.
1. Artificiallv created shorelines created after the adoption of the Manatee
Protection Plan in Mav 1995 shall not be used in the calculation for wetslip
densities. The lenqth of artificiallv created shoreline created prior to the adoDtion
of the Manatee Protection Plan may be used in the calculation for wetslip
densities.
2. Government owned Dublic boat facilities havinq shoreline within County required
3
F:\Cycle 2 - 2007 LDCA\5.05.02 - MPP Shoreline Calculations (013008) SL.doc
3/27/2008
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Text underlined is new text t~~.nf 39
T811t GtrilLetRFGl:IgjR is SlmElAt tSlIt 18 r3.
Bold text indicates a defined term
preserves shall be exemDt from this Drovision.
3. Marina facilities which are 100 Dercent ODen to the General public and with a
preferred ratinG Dursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan may use all their
shoreline in calculatinG the maximum allowable number of wetsliDs. unless
otherwise restricted by State and Federal conservation easements. In the event a
marina facility. ODen to the General Dublic becomes a Drivate marina. then the
maximum allowable number of wetsliDs shall be recalculated by excludinG the
lenGth of shoreline within County reGuired preserves. and the number of wetsliDs
reduced if needed.
4
F:\Cycle 2 - 2007 LDCA\5.0S.02 - MPP Shoreline Calculations (013008) SL.doc
3/27/2006
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 29 of 39
Exhibit D.
Manatee Protection Plan Shoreline LDC Amendment
Response to BCC Questions
I. ELIGIBLE SHORELINE (Options listed from most restrictive to least
restrictive):
Most restrictive
a. Exclude shoreline within County required preserve areas and shoreline within all
State and Federal conservation easements when calculating the maximum allowable
number of wetslips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan.
b. Exclude shoreline within County required preserve areas and State and Federal
conservation easements which do not allow wetslips within their conservation
easements when calculating the maximum allowable number of wetslips pursuant to
the Manatee Protection Plan. Staff recommended option included in proposed LDC
amendment.
c. Exclude shoreline within County required preserve areas in calculating the
maximum allowable number of wetslips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan.
d. Allow all shoreline to be used in calculating the maximum allowable number of
wetslips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan, regardless of whether the shoreline
is within a County required preserve or a conservation easement, or not.
Least Restrictive
II. BCC OUESTIONS AND CONCERNS:
How will repair and maintenance of artificially created shorelines that change the
length of shoreline, be affected by this amendment?
Language has been added to the amendment grandfathering the length of artificially
created shoreline created prior to the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan in
May 1995.
Board's concern as to whether this amendment will further restrict wetslip density
for public boat facilities.
Language added to amendment exempting government owned public boat facilities
fi'om this provision.
Question as to whether the amendment will restrict the number of boat slips within
Rookery Bay National Estuarine Research Reserve.
Much of the land -..ithin Rookery Bay is zoned Conservation and not within a County
required conservation easement/preserve. The County required preserve would only
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 30 of 39
encompass 15 percent of the area of the Reserve and therefore not appreciably
affected wetslip density, given the amount of shoreline within the Reserve.
Question as to whether a Conditional Use (CU) process could be used instead of
having an absolute prohibition on using the length of shoreline within a
conservation easement.
The types of development orders reviewed for compliance with the Manatee
Protection Plan vmy ji'om Site Development Plans, Conditional Use (CU)
applications and Planned Unit Developments (PUD). A CU would not be appropriate
in all cases. In keeping "'7th the Board's desire to not restrict public access. staff have
included a provision allowing marina facilities which are open to the general public
and which qualifY as a preferred rating under to the Manatee Protection Plan, to use
all their shoreline in calculating the maximum allowable number of wets lips.
III. BCC DIRECTION IF THE LDC AMENDMENT IS NOT ADOPTED
If the BCC does not proceed with this LDC amendment. staff requests direction on
how to applv the use of shoreline within a conservation easement in calculatinl!
wetslip densities now.
Currentlv staff applv the followinl! with rel!ards in calculatinl! the maximum
allowable number of wetslips l!iven prior direction provided bv the BCC :
Identify in the development document the location of the proposed docking facility
and County required preserve area. Use the total length 0 f shoreline for calculating
the maximum allowable number of wetslips and identify this value in the
development document. Require the conservation easement to specify that the
shoreline contained within can no longer be used in calculating the number of
wetslips.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22. 2008
Page 31 of 39
Exhibit E.
Examples Noted at the Public Hearing and Subsequently Evaluated by Staff
I. Little Hickory Bay Condos.
Staff Comments:
Public input indicated that this project was reviewed under the Manatee Protection Plan
(MPP) criteria. Staff determined that an Ordinance was adopted in 1979 and that it was
built out in 1993. Since this timeline pre-dated the MPP, the shoreline calculations would
not have been applicable. The consultant was fairly certain that the project was reviewed
by the MPP and statf continues to research this example. Updated information may be
available at the time of the next BCC meeting.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 32 of 39
2. Coon Key Pass Condos.
Staff Comments:
This project does have an easement along the length of its entire shoreline. However, the
project falls below the threshold for a Manatee Protection Plan review because it has less
than 10 boat slips and is not classified as a marina. Therefore, staff would not have
applied the shoreline calculations for this project.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 33 of 39
3. Sanctuary at Demere Landings
Staff Comments:
Located at the south intersection of Becca Ave and Pine St, this project does have an
easement along the entire shoreline except where the boardwalk crosses over. Six (6)
boat slips serving 6 condominium units are being proposed. The project falls below the
threshold for a Manatee Protection Plan review because it has less than 10 boat slips and
is not classified as a marina. Therefore, staff would not have applied the shoreline
calculations for this proj ecl.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 34 of 39
4. Barefoot Bay Court:
Staff Comments:
Public input indicated that this may have been a project reviewed under the MPP criteria.
(This may have been the example as opposed to the Little Hickory Shores presented
earlier.) This is an example of individual docks and not a multi-slip facility of 10 or
more slips. The MPP would not have been applicable. A CE may have been placed on
the mangrove fringe but after the review of the subdivision.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22. 2008
Page 35 of 39
5. Fisherman's Village
Staff Comments:
Because a CE was found on the project, staffrequested the CE to be vacated to allow the
shoreline to be used in the calculations. This is the project reviewed by the CAO that
resulted in guidance that staff should evaluate the nature of the CEs as part of the review
process.
Agenda Item No. 8B
April 22, 2008
Page 36 of 39
6. Vanderbilt Surf Colony
Staff Comments:
This application pre-dated the MPP; therefore, shoreline calculations were not performed.
Agenda Item No. 88
April 22, 2008
Page 37 of 39
7. Regatta
Staff Comments:
A lawsuit settlement agreement defined how this project was reviewed. The settlement
agreement mentions filling in part of the waterway, and has language addressing docks,
limiting the number of slips to 74 "or a number commensurate with the multifamily
dwellings use." The SDP and amendments show two surveys, dated 1997 and 1998;
neither of them shows a conservation easement. Plans showing the original dock
configuration and the revised one, from 2000, show an approved created preserve north
of the old seawall, but no survey. The tinal plans do not indicate a conservation
easement. (Staff has requested information from the state regarding the conservation
easement requirements for this site but has not received anything to date.)
Agenda Item No. 8B
April 22. 2008
Page 38 of 39
8. Goodland Park (County Site)
Staff Comments:
There is an approved Conditional Use site for the Goodland Boat Park. The Site
Development Plan is currently under review. A CE has been placed over much of the
shoreline; however, the application for the SDP did not make any reference to aCE.
Staff has just obtained a copy of the CE that was granted to the State of Florida in 1999
for the construction of a private residential multi-slip docking facility associated with the
Aqua Circle condominiums. The state conservation easement area is equal to 0.15 acres.
The length of shoreline under state conservation area is approximately 650 ft. by lOft
wide. The total shorcline distance is approximately 1168 feet; thus there is 518 ft not
under state conservation easement. According to the preferred rating, a density of 18
slips is permitted with every 100 feet of shoreline. This would equal approximately 90
allowable slips. The County is proposing 28 wet slips.
Agenda Item No. 86
April 22, 2008
Page 39 of 39
Exhibit F.
Example Calculations for Various Shoreline Exclusions
A.
i---
I
,
\
,
'\
\
\ County Preserve
Area wltn County
\ Conservation
~ Easeme.ntalong
~horellneAB.
\)
/
(
\
\
\
"
B.
State
Conservation
Easement along
shoreline BG.
c.
Shoreline CD has no
Conservation Easement
and is the area proposed
for Boat Docks.
D.
Shoreline Lengths
AB"'3,200feet
BC = 500 feet
CD=1,100feet
Total Shoreline =4,BOOfeet
Assume a MPP Moderate Rating:
10slips per 100 feet of shoreline
Example Maximum Allowable Wetslips
1. Exclude Shoreline in County Preserves and all GEs:
110 Boatslips (1,100 feet of shoreline)
2. Exclude Shoreline in County Preserves but allow for
shoreline with State Easements.
160 Boat slips (1,600 feet of shoreline)
3. Include all Shoreline
480 Boat slips {4,BOO feet of shoreline}