Loading...
Agenda 04/08/2008 Item #10A Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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: Chronolol!V On December 12, 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 staffhas applied the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) criteria for calculating the maximunl 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 defmition 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 PreseMJes 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 PreseMJe 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 wetslips. Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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 shoreline contained within any CE when calculating maximum allowable wetslips after reviewing the nature of the CEo 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 ofthis review essentially provided environmental staff with a procedure that specified that the review of the actual language of a conservation easement 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, 10/10107; Environmental Advisory Council meeting, 10/3/07; Collier County Planning Commission hearing, 11/28/07). The BCC heard the item on 3 occasions: 1/16108, 2/5/08, and 2/19/08. At the January 16, 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 11,2008, the BCC voted to reconsider this proposed LDC amendment. Emere:ine: 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. If the marina became a private marina, the number of wetslips 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. 10A April 8, 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 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. 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 ODtions As provided to the BCC at the February 5, 2008 public hearing, the BCC could consider one of the fo Bowing 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 wets lips 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. 10A April 8, 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 scenanos. 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. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 5 of 39 COLLIER COUNTY BOARO OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS 10A This item to be heard at 2:00 p.m. 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) 4/8/2008 9:0000 AM Prepared By William D. Lorenz, Jr., P.E. Community Development & Environmental Services Environmental Services Director Date Approved By Environmental Services 3127/2008 2:34:30 PM Judy Puig Community Development & Environmental Services Operations Analyst Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. Date Approved By 3/28/2008 4:59 PM Joseph K. Schmitt Community Development & Environmental Services Community Development & Environmental Services Adminstrator Date Community Development & Environmental Services Admin. 3/28/2008 8:28 PM Approved By OMS Coordinator Administrative Services Applications Analyst Date Information Technology 3/31/2008 8:30 AM Approved By John A. Yonkosky County Manager's Office Director of the Office of Management Date Office of Management & Budget 3/31/20088:58 AM Approved By James V. Mudd Board of County Commissioners County Manager Date County Manager's Office 4/1/200812:01 PM file:IIC:\AgendaTest\Exoort\l 04-Aoril%208.%202008\ 1 O.%20COlJNTY%20MA NAGRR%2 u 4/2/200R Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 6 of 39 Exhibit A. Executive Summary prepared for the April 27, 2007 Bee Meeting Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 7 of 39 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Recommendation that the Board of County Commissioners provide the County Manager or his designee dircction 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 (BCC) provide the County Manager or his designee direction as to the manner for calculating allowable wetslips when a project shoreline is within 3 conservation easement. CONSIDERATION: On December 12,2006, the BeC directed the County Manager to report hack to the BCC as to how staff bas applied the Manatee Protection Plan (MPP) criteria for calculating the maximum number of wetslips a\lowed for a proposed multi-docking facility. This Executive Summary addresses the rationale for bow staff bas applied the MPP criteria to calculate maximum wctslip densities when a project proposes a wetslip docking facility with its shordinc in a {,.:onservation ea.:-ocrm:nl (CE). Possible future actions are also provided for the Bee's consideration. Since the adoption of the MPP in May 1995. staff has applied the provisions of the MI'P to exclude the amount of shoreline within CE"s from the calculation ('If maximum allowahle wetslips. Until recently. this application has occurred without review oCthe CE itself. This has the effect of reducing the numhcr of wet...dips for a facility ",,"here its property has shoreline in a CE. The ~pecific question that staff is requesting direction from the Bee is: IJow should the COllnly calclllale Ihe maximllm /I/lmber of welslips for a mll/ti-"oc~ing fllcili~l' when parI of the prr~icct\ .\'!lordi"e is within (I con.w!n'atitJn ea.\emr!llt? MPP and Land Dcvelooment Code (LDC\ Provisions Relevant portions of the t'vIPP and LDC are conlaineJ in Attachment A. The rating ~ystem specified in the LDC uses the amount of shoreline to calculatc the maximum number of lIetslips. Although the LDC specifics that the purpose of the marina siting criteria is to help dt~tcrminc the maximum wet slip densities in order t.o impro\'e existing Manatee protection. neitht'r the LDC nor the MPP definition of shoreline specifically addresses shoreline within CE's. Both the MPP and Loe do~ however., recognize that mangrove systems are necessary and important hahitats for Manatee protection. State evaluation ofMPf) criteria Staff bas coordinated its revicw of projccts with the State Florida Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWCC) since the State was part of the development of the MPP and provided its approval of the County', MPP. The County has also adopted the MPP into the Conservation and Coastal Management Element of the County's Growth Managemcnt Plan. The State looks to the County to cvaluate a prnposed pl'Ojeet and to detennine its consistency with the MPP. The Statc also utilizes these criteria in its own pennitting processes; State agcnc)' staff have advised County staff that the total length of shmelines. including that which is v..ilhin cr:..... is u^,ed in the calculalions for m~lximum allowable wctslips \\berc the ~ Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 8 of 39 purpose of the CE is vegetation management. However, where the CE prohibits "in-water structure~". the length of shoreline within the conservation easement is excluded from the calculations and thus the number of allowable ,,'etslips are reduced in proportion La the length of the excluded shoreline. State staff indieate that "in-water structures" can be eharaeterized as the construction and operation of future docks. wet or dry slips. piers. launching facilities or structures other than existing on the property, or activities detrimental to drainage. flood control, water conservation, erosion control. soil conservation. or fish and wildfife habitat preservation including. hm not limited to. ditching. diking, dredging. and fencing. Samnle Calculations Attachment R provides examples of calculations for shorelines that arc cnntained \\'ithin or are located oULside ofCE's. Nute thai ill bolh Ihe examp!e.\", the !ocati'l/1 o(the acwa! WCI5/ipf[lci/il)' m'LVI he !ocaled outside (iflhe CE. rhe calculated maximum allowahle wetslips depends on whether the part of the shoreline is contained within a CEo Case I assumes thai the Icngth of shoreline within a CE"s short:line l:an nul be usc::J in the calculation of maximum alhl\\'abk" \...!~tsIips. Case U shows the calculation oflhe maximum allowable wetslips when n\) part of the shoreline is within the CE, County Statr Aonlication oj" MI'I' Crileria In approximately 199ft starr had gathered various cnvimnmentaf data and had discussions with past County At10rneys regarding CF.s. Stafr understood that a CE \voulJ remove all (lc\ c1npment rights. and thus there arc no rights that the propert) OVl!lCr can transfer. I r no uevdoprnellt right:, c",i:-.l un a shon:line. then the length of thj~ shprcline can not be used to cakulate H,etslips that \\ill hr: transt~rred to another area not encumbered or protected hy a preserve designation or CE:.. l'hereforc. Environmental Hcview Staffs C{lI1l:!usion is \\-'hen there is a CE over an are;'l of shoreline. that area cannul he utilized for l.:alculatillg the maximum ullo\\uble \\'eb.lips, Only shoreline that is outside the CEiPreserve ar.:a had heen used in this determinat ion. Howeyer, in a January 2006 e\'aluation of a project. swtr from the Office of the C(lunt~ Attorney revie\\ed various documents induding the existing CE. the GMI', the UJC, the MI'I', State Statutes, and Stale cuses in order to determine whether shoreline knglh in lhc CL area Rhnuld be excluded frolTllhe calculatiun to delernline the numher ofallo\\ahlc 110at slir~, I'he result of this review essentially provided em irollmel1lal stair \\ ith a procedure that srecilied the review of Ihe nctUl':~1 language of a conservatinn easement must he conducted tu determine if the cascm~'nt language excludes lht" use orthe easement shoreline to calculate the amount llfWt.:'lslirs. Inspecting the CE to determine its prohibitions is alsD consist,:nt with the State's applicntion as outlined ahove. rypically Ihe County's required CF does nol allow tor hflat slips 10 be placed within the houndary of the Conservation Easemelll or Prescne area. In ract, the (olmly's current LDt: criteria would limit most structures. c.xcept for structures rrp\ iding an:css through the preserve. henches and education:J1 signs. ;\lthough olfr current CFs would likely prohibit the plaL::emr.:nl uf dOl'ks ano Joc.:king fm.:i1ilies within the CEo the rect"nl guidance Ihlln the County Attorney's Office would have stalf inspect the actual CE language nx all CE's to determine if the shoreline within the ('c can be used in the maximum wctslip CU!cUhllio!l. Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 9 of 39 Recommendations Based on previous County Attorney reviews and recommendations, staff recommends that the Bee consider the following tasks for stalTto perfonn when applying the criteria of the LDC and MPP regarding the calculation of maximum allowable wctslips when all or a portion of a project's shoreline is within aCE: A. For projects having existing CE s or Preserves \. 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 wetslips. (This would essentially be eonsulting the State for Teehnieal Assistance for listed species issues.) 3. Apply the must restrietive criteria from the review of I and 2. B. For projects where PreSe,.l'C arellS and CE 's are not yet established. \. Identify in the development document the location of the proposed docking facility and preserve area that requires aCE. 2. Use the total shoreline for ealculating the maximum allowable wetslips and idemi fy this value in the development document. 3. Require the CE to specify that the shoreline contained within can no longer be used for calculat ing wetslips. FISCAL I:\-lPACT: There is no fiscal impact to the Cuunty fin this agenda item. GROWTH MA~AGEI\n:NT IMr'ACT: 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 1vlanagcmcnt Plan or Land Development Code (LDC) that spccifically addresses the issue. Therel()fe. how to handle this matter hecnmes a policy determination fnr the Board. Once the decision is made, the Board should also direct that the LDC be amended so the policy decision can be memorialized. RF,('OMMENnATrON: That the Board of County Comm;"i"ners provide the County ~1anager or his designee directiun n'lr calculating wetslip densities when shorelines are \vithin Conser\'ut ion l::nscmcnts. PREPARED BY: William D. Lorenz Jr., P.E., Environmental Service, Department Direct"r Agenda Item ND. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 10 Df 39 Attachment A. Relevant Portions of the Manatee Protection I'lan and Land Development Code · MI'l' (Section 3.2.4, Marina Siting Criteria) Collier COUllly alld Ihe FDEP's Office '!f Prolected Species Managemenl has developed a raling syslem for marina siling Ih/'IJughout the remainder (?f the County. The purpose (?f the marina site raling .\ysrcm is 10 help determine {he maximum fXl1t'erhoat we/slip densities in order to improve existing J/analee proTection. The marinll sile rating system give.\' (J ranking based an three (3) criteria: water depth. na/h'e marine l1ohi/al and ..\./anatee ahundance. Nath'c marine hahiluts indude .'l.eo,i.,rra.'l.s hed1i, .\'tlll marshes. manK,'o)'es or o/her hi(Jl()gicaI~l' productive .\'ubmerged llnd shoreline hlJhiwlS which mal' he IJdl'e/'.I'ell' a{feCled or deslro)'ed hy dredging (lnd }illing activities. . LDC (Section 5.05.02) Arming ,\:rsfem is established to evaluate proposed marina facilities. n,e purpose {~r the marina site rating system j,~ to help determine the maximum ~rel slip den.,.i/iej' in order 10 improve exi.Hing :\1an.atce prolection. The murinll site rafjn,~ .\)'slcm gi,,('.~' v. rankinK haseJ on three (3) ('ril(;,1'io: waler depth, nOlire marinc Iwhitat, and ,\fan(lh'C ahundance. . LDC (Section :5.05.(2) For .~h(Jrt.'lin(' \'('geiUllOf1 such us mangroves, "no impact" is defined as no Kremer 1/um/il'c (5) percent (~rlh(' native marine hahitn! is disturh('d. For sea grasses, "no Impact" meaJ7S no more than IUO square/eel (!fsea grasses can he impacted. . LUC (Section 5.05.02 fur Preferred sill'S. Ilcnsif)' for rVloderate and Protcc..'teu sites are 'recified as 10 and I boat slips per 100 reet ofshore/ine, resrectively.) Seu' or expanded \1'L'I sfl]} nwrmaJ llJ1d mufti-fan/if\' fadlities shalf he al/o\\'ed (/1 a density f?f up to elgh/t'l'l1 (18) hoat shp.\ fur ("FC')' !(JO/t:d (~r\l/()rc/in(,;'. . LDC Definition. ,\'horclinc or shore: The hnertace oj lal1d and lI'o!cr and. as used in the ("(Juslof management element reqllirements, is limited to oceanic (lnd estuoriflc iUll>,_"laccs, . LDC (Seclion 3.05.07.H.l.h) Allowable uses wilhin preserve areas. Pa\sll'c rccrCafiOl1ul uses ,\/1('/1 as pCfTiolfS l1ature trails or hoardll-a/ks arc a!lOln'J u,(thin Ihe !NTWT1't:' area", (IS long tIS m~\' df'arinx required lalircili/lI1e these uses does 1101 impacl the minimum required vegelation. F'or Ihe purpose of Ihis section, passi\'e rccrealio!1a! uses arc !hose Uses lhal would allow fimiIcd (/('('cs,y !o the preserve in a manner that will nol t'I/U\t' any "egolil'e impacts to the prl!sen'e, slIch as pelTiou" IhJ/hu'Il.1'\'. henein's and CdIlCOli(J}1ol signs. Ft.'nees may he Ulilized outside (~l the /wcsclTe 10 IW()l'ide protection in {he prC,\'I.!IT<.' in accordance Il';rh the prOlecteJ ,\pedes section 3,(J.fJ)/ D.l.c. Fences and 11'01/,\- are 1101 1)(.'r111ill('(1 lvithill Ilu: prc,\'erl'e area, Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 11 of 39 Attachment B. Sample Calculations Case I (Portion or the Shor'cline is within a Conservation Easement) Shoreline T t~ '-;;-~; ;~: (:.: ,:.,.;; :!~ ~~:~:7 ,., "~,, ",'., " ~, ',: :: i:~:; ~~ 'I v,:, .., ;~"<:::if::: J ? ~= ~'~~.Ji;~~::,:'~,i,:::',l Total Shoreline- 1000 feErt ~':"""" <". " :~:':',~; ;:" ~:1 Shoreline not within a Conservation E.$eemerrt- 400fcet H' "~:~>.. i Moderate Rating (10 wetslrps per 100 feet of Shor1:lline) I ., 1 ; .':} I ,J , '.1 , , I , -~~--~-~~-~---~----~ " Maximum Number of Allowable wetllps: 10 slips. per 100 feet X.4 . 40 wetslip. -::---.~ ~~ ' ___~,,-Doe<<ing Facility -----..... ..... Case IJ (No part of the Shoreline is within a (:onservationEa:sc:ment) ~-----7----7-------~ , , I ( ,. I I" I I 1 I " I , ! ! I, , ",', I Total Snorelme - 1000 feet ,J ~~EU~', ' ! Shoreline not within a Conservation Easement _ 1000 feet f' .....'" I , , Shorolino I. '/ Moderate Rating (10wetshpsp@r1DOfeetofShorelloe) /. " / 'f Maximum Number of Allow<<ble wetlips: ! l 1Q slips per 100 feet X 10 II: 100 wets lips I " /: I " , / .1 I , I I I I ,. , I, ,''', I ~~..~._--_._-----_. "lOr; '~~jf.'. OockJng FacUlty I,,,,, --..c.::::.:. ......................... Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 12 of 39 Exhibit B. Minutes from the April 27, 2007 Bee Meeting 4 Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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 RECOMMENDATION 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 V A TION EASEMENT - MOTION FOR THIS ITEM TO BE BROUGHT BACK FOR POSSIBLE INCLUSION IN THE COLLIER COUNTY LAND DEVELOPMENT CODE - APPROVED MR. MUDD: Commissioner, that brings us to lOCo It's a 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. 10A April 8, 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 slips 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 1990s 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 staff was 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 identifY 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 Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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 i 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 1 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. 10A April 8, 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 staffs 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 issue 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 staff 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 177 ( Agenda Item No. lOA April 8, 2008 Page 17 of 39 April 24, 2007 .~ 1 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 ifit's a different ~ issue. Let's not complicate things too much, okay. MR. LORENZ: One thing, we do -- we do exclude the tidal i 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 tenns 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 i smoothly. i. Currently we don't even have the definition of shoreline in the 1 Land Development Code, ~ COMMISSIONER COYLE: Yeah. Well, r guess my problem, 'j just as a general statement of position, is that I would prefer not to include any conservation easement shoreline in the calculation of total ~t , Page 178 Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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. Ifit's -- if that 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 ------P;genda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 19 of 39 :t April 24, 2007 , (3 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 J 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 -- J 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 180 ----4--- , , Agenda Item No. 10A . April 8, 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 -- ( 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 ----..:- Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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 determine 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 LDC 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 LDC 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 182 - --..;:,. Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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 COLErr A: 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 staffs 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 LDC 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 Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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 1 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) 84 Agenda Item No_ 10A April 8, 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 i 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 we 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 #IOE Page 185 -<<I"":'> Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Text underlined is new text t~~.('\f 39 TSJH stril<stRFGl:I€lR is SblFrsRt tSJlt tEl o. Bold text indicates a defined term Exhibit C. LDC Amendment ReQnest 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 staffs 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 I I, 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. 10A April 8, 2008 Text underlined is new text t~~.nf 39 Teat stril(stRrel<lElA is SblFrsAt tSHt Ie 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 Hiqh Hiqh Preferred X X X Moderate X X X Moderate X X X Moderate X X X 2 F:\Cycle 2 - 2007 LDCA\5.05.02 - MPP Shoreline Calculations (013008) SL.doc 3/27/2008 Protected X X X Protected X X X Protected X X X Protected X X X Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Text underlined is new text t~2~tof 39 Tent stril'(stRFebl€lR is SblrreFlt t8111 18 (3 Bold text indicates a defined term 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 purpose 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 preserves or within State and Federal conservation easements which do not specifically permit boat docks shall not be used in calcuiatina the maximum allowable number of wets lips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan. 1. Artificially created shorelines created after the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan in May 1995 shall not be used in the calculation for wets lip densities. The lenath of artificially created shoreline created prior to the adoption of the Manatee Protection Plan may be used in the calculation for wetslip densities. 2. Government owned public 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. 10A April 8, 2008 Text underlined is new text t~~.nf 39 Teat stFih8tI:1FEl~~1:1 is 8101rreAt t8111 t8 (J. Bold text indicates a defined term preserves shall be exempt from this provision. 3. Marina facilities which are 100 percent open to the qeneral public and with a preferred ratinq pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan mav use all their shoreline in calculatinq the maximum allowable number of wetslips, unless otherwise restricted bv State and Federal conservation easements. In the event a marina facility, open to the qeneral public becomes a private marina, then the maximum allowable number of wetslips shall be recalculated bv excludinq the lenqth of shoreline within County required preserves, and the number of wets lips reduced if needed. 4 F:\Cycle 2 - 2007 LDCA\5.05.02 ~ MPP Shoreline Calculations (013008) SL.doc 3/27/2008 Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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 wets lips pursuant to the Manatee Protection Plan. r 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 grand fathering 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 from 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 within Rookery Bay is zoned Conservation and not within a County required conservation easement/preserve. The County required preserve would only Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 32 of 39 2. Coon Key Pass Condos. Staff Comments: This proj ect 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. 10A April 8, 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 project. Agenda Item No. 10A April 8, 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. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 35 of 39 5. Fisherman's Village Staff Comments: Because a CE was found on the proj ect, 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. 10A April 8, 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.1 OA April 8, 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 final 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. 10A April 8, 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 10ft wide. The total shoreline 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. 10A April 8, 2008 Page 39 of 39 Exhibit F. Example Calculations for Various Shoreline Exclusions A. County Preserve Area with County Conservation Easement along shorellneAB. B. State Conservation Easement along shoreline Be. Shoreline CD has no Conservation Easement and is the area proposed for Boat Docks. D. Shoreline Lengths AB '" 3,200 feet BC=500feet CO"1,100feet Total Shoreline = 4,800 feet Assume a MPP Moderate Rating: 10slipsper100feetofshorellne Example Maxim urn Allowable Wetslips 1. Exclude Shoreline in County Preserves and all CEs: 110 Boat slips (1,100feet 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 (4,800 feet of shore line)