Item F1
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: May 17,2001
Division:
Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes
No X
Department: N/ A
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Growth Management Division Report (Oral)
· Follow-up report on Mariners Resort
ITEM BACKGROUND: N/ A
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION: N/A
CONTRAC~AGREEMENTCHANGES: N~
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS: N/A
TOTAL COST:
x
BUDGETED: Yes N/A No
COST TO COUNTY: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes N/ A No
AMOUNT PER MONTH N/A Year
APPROVED BY: County Atty N/A OMBlPurchasing N/A
Risk Management N/ A
DIVISION DIRECTOR APPROVAL:
DOCUMENTATION:
Included
To Follow
Not Required_X_
AGENDA ITEM #M 14
DISPOSITION:
Revised 2/27/01
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
2798 Overseas Highway
Suite 410
Marathon, Florida 33050
Voice: (305) 289 2500
FAX: (305) 289 2536
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor George Neugent, District 2
Mayor Pro Tern Nora Williams. District 4
Comm. Charles "Sonny" McCoy, Dist. 3
Comm. Murray E. Nelson, District 5
Comm. Dixie M. Spehar, District I
TO:
Board of County Commissioners
FROM:
Timothy J. McGarry, A1CPa1A
Director of Growth ManageJf1'!tt
May 16, 2001
DATE:
SUBJECT:
Follow-up Information and Recommendations on Mariner's Resort for
Potential Acquisition and Development as a Community Park
Overview
The Growth Management Division staff briefed the Board of County Commissioners in March and
April concerning four possible sites for park and recreation uses. Of the four sites, only the
Mariner's Resort property remains in consideration. This memorandum provides an update on the
Mariner's Resort property, which is packaged for sale with another commercial property on U.S.
Highway 1. The old Mariner's Resort (Site #1) contains motel, restaurant, and accessory
recreation facilities. Site #2 contains a retail/office building.
Policy Constraints
Any site developed for active park, recreational, and other public uses would need to comply with
the policies of the Comprehensive Plan and Land Development Regulations. The most significant
of these policies include Policy 103.1.10, Policy 103.1.1, Monroe County Year 2010
Comprehensive Plan and Section 9.5-292, Monroe County Code.
Policy 103.10 requires that in siting new public facilities or the significant expansion (greater than
25 percent) of existing facilities that the following analyses be undertaken: assessment of needs;
evaluation of alternative sites and design alternatives for selected sites; and assessment of
impacts on surrounding land uses and natural resources. This analysis must ensure that the
facilities to be developed are consistent with the criteria in Policy 103.1, which limits vehicular trips
generated.
Section 9.5-292 is the concurrency portion of the Code, which has resulted in the institution of a
building moratorium on new traffic generating development on Big Pine Key due to U.S. Highway
1 level of service problems. It is expected that the level of service problem will not be fully
addressed until the Habitat Conservation Plan and Community Master Plan are completed.
Page 1 of 6
f'. \\.~J
Background on Update
This update is based on data compiled by the Growth Management and Public Works Divisions
staff from an on-site visit and other information produced from tax and permitting records and the
property's real estate agent. This update includes information on both the Mariner's Resort
property (Site #1) and the commercial property (Site #2) on U.S. 1 Highway, since both properties
are packaged together for sale.
Site Characteristics
Locations:
The properties for sale include two separate sites: a 10.3 acre parcel (Mariner's Resort)
located at the end of Sands Road on Bogie Channel; and a .34 acre parcel (Block 15, Lots
1, 2, 3, Sands Subdivision) situated at northeast intersection of Sands Road and U.S.
Highway 1.
Characteristics of Properties:
The former Mariner's Resort (Site #1), contains 9.1 acres of upland and a 1.2 acre boat
basin. It is totally disturbed with abandoned, deteriorating buildings and structures
consisting of a hotel, wastewater package plant, restaurant and lounge, marina, bait shop,
fueling stations, employee quarters, filled pool, and tennis courts. An inspection of the
facilities by staffs from the Public Works and Growth Management Divisions found the
restauranUlounge to be in a dilapidated or substantially damaged condition. The other
facilities would need to be demolished to provide sufficient space for active recreation
areas.
Site #2, located at the intersection of Sands and U.S. Highway 1, has a vacant 2,500
square foot retail/office building and on-site parking. The building, constructed in 1996,
appears to be in good condition.
Zoning:
Both parcels are zoned Suburban Commercial, which allows parks and recreation with a
minor conditional use approval and public uses as of right. Suburban Commercial zoning
also allows a whole range of commercial and other non-residential uses.
Surrounding Uses:
The Mariner's Resort parcel (Site #1) is bounded on the east by Bogie Channel, on the
north by a residential canal and subdivision, and on the south and west by residential
subdivisions. The smaller site (Site #2) with the retail/office building fronts on U.S.
Highway 1 and is situated between existing commercial uses on U.S. Highway 1 with
residential development abutting the property on the Gulf side.
Page 2 of 6
Ownership:
Big Pine Key Joint Venture owns both sites.
Assessed Tax Value:
The Mariner's Resort parcel is assessed by the Property Appraiser at $877,097 and Site
#2 at $285,000 for a total of $1.16 million. Both sites were purchased in 1994 for $2.78
million with Mariner's Resort at $2.5 million and the U.S. Highway 1 commercial parcel at
$280,000. The listed sales price for the purchase of the sites is $2.950 million.
Evaluation
Deve/opment Potentia/ (Site 1):
The larger parcel (Site #1) could provide multiple park, recreational, and other public use
opportunities. Access to the site is from Sands Road and indirectly from County and
Hibiscus Roads. The motel development on the site has been abandoned since
approximately the mid-1980s which means that any development of this site would not be
credited for any existing trip generation to offset any future trip generation.
If the site were used for park and recreation uses, the County's traffic consultant has
determined that its development would lead to less vehicular trips on U.S. Highway 1 by
attracting existing background recreational trips to this site. The number of trips
anticipated to be attracted or generated on the site is not inconsistent with Policy 103.1.1
[Memorandum from Raj Shanmugam, P.E., dated April 19, 2001 and revised May 11,
2001]
Therefore, the level of service issue on Big Pine Key is not an impediment to the
development of this site as a park; however, the analysis required under Policy 103.1.10
would still need to be prepared. However, it should be noted that the traffic impacts of the
inclusion of other public non-recreational uses at the Mariner's Resort would require
further examination.
The County Engineer's staff has prepared a preliminary development scenario which
shows that the site could be developed with the following facilities: two (2) Little League
Baseball fields; soccer field overlapping the baseball fields; three (3) basketball courts and
an overlapping roller hockey rink; children's playground; two-story community center/office
building; two tennis courts; volleyball court; bridge walkway over the boat basin;
concession building/press box/restrooms; maintenance building; and parking. The boat
basin provides opportunities for marine and water recreational activities.
Depending upon the size of the two-story community center/office, another option would
be to also include the relocated Big Pine Key County library in the proposed community
center/office. This option and others, as discussed under Site #2, will need to be further
explored including estimates of costs to make proposed improvements.
Page 3 of 6
To develop the Mariner's Resort site, such as proposed above, all the buildings except one
on the site would have to be demolished and the debris removed. The residential structure
(two units) could be retained for housing( i.e., Sheriff's Deputy) or converted to house other
uses.
Depending upon how the boat basin may be used for any marine and water related
recreational activities, some or all of its perimeter may have to be fenced for safety
reasons. If the County decides it desires more land for land side recreational
development, some or all of the boat basin could be filled, if permitted; however, the costs
of filling would be very expensive.
The development rights to the 26 motel units, the 6,800 square feet of existing commercial
floor space, and one or both of the residential units could be sold and/or the development
rights extinguished. The motel units may be sold and transferred to anywhere in the
Lower Keys meeting eligibility requirements of Section 9.5-120.4, Monroe County Code.
These transferred units may be used for either motel units or affordable housing. The
commercial space may also be sold and transferred, assuming the Non-residential Rate of
Growth Ordinance is enacted as proposed. The permanent residential units can only be
sold and transferred for use as affordable housing.
Deve/opment Potentia/ (Site #2)
Site #2 has excellent access to both U.S. Highway 1 and parallel service road. Since it is
an existing business, the use of the site is not restricted by the traffic moratorium unless its
use is intensified or expanded. The use of the property for County offices would be similar
to commercial retail and personal service uses; therefore, these facilities would not be
subject to the traffic moratorium unless the facilities were expanded or use intensified.
Furthermore, the site's access to the service road parallel to U.S. Highway 1 and its
location would help minimize traffic needing to enter U.S. Highway 1 to utilize the facility.
The site already has an existing retail/office, which is in good condition. Although it has no
outdoor recreational value, it could be used for County offices, leased to private
businesses, or sold to private interests. With 2,500 square feet of space, it may also
serve as a community center rather than constructing a community center on the Mariner's
Resort site. Another option would be to use the structure to relocate the existing Big Pine
Key library, since the building can be expanded from 2,500 square feet to over 4,000
square feet.
Any expansion of the facility may well have to be delayed until the Habitat Conservation
Plan and Community Master Plan for Big Pine Key are completed and the moratorium on
new traffic generating development is either lifted or modified.
Cost Considerations
Assuming the listed $2.9 million price tag is reasonable and supported by independent appraisals,
the acquisition of the property for parks and recreation development will be very costly, compared
to similar vacant pieces of property acquired for park land elsewhere in the County. The Mariner's
Resort parcel will also incur costs for the demolition of all existing structures, except for the
residential structure, and the removal of debris from the site. Further costs may be incurred upon
Page 4 of 6
completion of due diligence tasks, if cleanup/removal of possible contaminants is found to be
required due to the existence of possible underground leaking fueling tanks and other pollution
sources. This report assumes a conservative estimate of the demolition and c1eanup/removal
costs to be around $400,000.
On the other hand, the County may reduce the overall net costs in the acquisition of the property
by the sale and off-site transfer of the rights to the 26 motel units and the transfer of up to 6,800
square feet of commercial floor space. A local real estate firm provided an estimate value of
$25,000 per transferred hotel unit. Based on a recent transaction elsewhere in the Keys, the
Growth Management staff estimates that the rights to the floor space are worth approximately $7
per square feet.
To keep the County from having to get involved in marketing and selling of these rights, the
County and property owner could enter into an agreement that would allow the property owner to
remove these rights for transfer and sale prior to the County purchasing the property. [Note:
Property owner would go through a minor conditional use process to designate the units and floor
area for off-site transfer.] If this approach is pursued, the market value of the rights would be
deducted from the sales price of the property; however, the demolition and debris removal costs
would then probably have to be covered in some manner in the sales contract.
In addition, if the County finds that the existing commercial building does not fit into the County's
plans, the County may want to negotiate with the property owner to only purchase the Mariner's
Resort parcel. It is not certain what the impact of only purchasing the Mariner's Resort parcel will
have on the overall sales price; however, based on its previous sales price and taxable value, it
may reduce the costs by $300,000 or more.
The estimated total hard costs for property acquisition and preparing the property for
redevelopment would $3.350 million, assuming $2.950 million for the property and $0.4 million for
demolition, clearance, and cleanup. If the County were to sell the hotel and commercial floor
space rights from the Mariners Resort property, net overall acquisition costs would be reduced by
$0.697 million, assuming $650,000 for the hotel rights and $47,000 for the commercial floor
space. The net costs to the County to purchase the Mariners site would be $2.653 million or
approximately $281,000 per upland acre [includes both sites].
The County could further reduce its share of the purchase costs by pursuing a grant application
with the Florida Communities Trust (FCT) or utilizing existing FCT funds already awarded the
County. The deadline for the next grant submittal period is August 13, 2001.
As a cost comparison of the purchase costs of two other County park sites would be helpful to
provide the Board with some perspective. The Key Largo park cost approximately $1.9 million or
$158,333 per upland acre (12 acres). The Marathon Community Park cost approximately $1.3
million or approximately $162,500 per upland acre (8 upland acres). The Mariner's Resort
includes usable waterfront property and marina facilities, which the two other properties do not
contain.
Conclusions
Other than the State Corrections Facility property, the County Growth Management Division and
Public Works Division staffs have been unable to identify suitable parcels of sufficient size on Big
Page 5 of 6
Pine Key that could be developed for active recreational purposes, other than the old Mariners
Resort. Other sites investigated by the Growth Management Division staff were found to be
unavailable for purchase, located south of U.S. Highway 1, and/or have environmental restrictions,
deed restrictions or conservation easements that prohibit their use for active recreation purposes.
The preliminary recreation scenario prepared by the County Engineer's office indicates that
although the site's configuration is not ideal and possible conflicts need to be resolved with nearby
residences in the site design, the old Mariner's Resort could provide much needed recreation
facilities for Big Pine Key and even help to reduce some traffic on U.S. Highway 1. Therefore, if
the County desires to provide an active recreation area for Big Pine Key with room for a
community center, the Mariner's Resort property should be pursued.
Recommendation
It is recommended that the Board of County Commissioners reaffirm its interest to continue to
pursue the acquisition of Mariner's Resort, which includes the outlying parcel on U.S. Highway 1,
and request the land Authority to obtain independent appraisals of both properties, including the
marketable development rights.
cc: Mr. James L. Roberts, County Administrator
Mr. Dent Pierce, Director of Public Works
Mr. Mark Rosch, Executive Director, land Authority
Mr. Dave Koppel, County Engineer
Ms. K. Marlene Conaway, Director of Planning and Environmental Resources
Page 6 of 6
DCA Affordable Housing in the Keys
Report of Feb. 22 & 23,2001 Meeting
~('-~~/'rn ~ q.-.......:.+f.,
VV\IM-v~ ~~ ~ T~
6 \(t
Staff Comments: Tim McGarry and/or Mark Rosch (bold), Comments in bold AND
italics are from Nora.
CONSTRUCT NEW UNITS
· Make affordable housing as access or minor conditional use in all zoning districts
No, accessory (?), not appropriate in all zoning districts
· Adjust ROGO to favor affordable housing; reverse formula so that affordable
housing gets 80% While this is being done, 80% is too much
· Generate funds locally, including taxing wealthier households (e.g., the $85,000 per
bedroom assessment in Aspen), linkage fees, and many others Yes, w/questions _
we should study this further but can offer support FOR studying it
· Limit TRE's to affordable housing Yes, doing it, (although we are use TRE's for
hotels, etc. to bring them into conformity)
· FHFC should find a way to eliminate Monroe County's competitive disadvantage in
application process Yes
· Housing Finance Authority should issue bonds to create affordable housing Yes
· Help Monroe County regain a rural designation for finding purposes, especially
helpful for wastewater issues Yes l.l
· One-half cent going to city general fund should be allocated to affordable housing as
gap money; create system accountability No, better bed or sales tax-tourists. This
action would serve to raise county taxes for our constituents and should not be
considered while there are better alternatives.
· Provide ROGO credit for existing units that are rehabilitated to withstand F5 storms No
· City embrace/encourage private sewer... plants ? Don't understand and not our
concern if it is aimed at Key West.
· Don't forget about moderate income households in juggling ROGO (our children
want to live here, too) Yes, doing - the County has, in its statements, made both
( affordable AND modest housing a priority for future development.
· Transfer ROGO (with distance limits) to other parts of the county Yes, but only if
they are for affordable housing
· Disperse affordable housing throughout the community Yes
· Land Authority and bond money should be used now; identify parcels and buy; Yes,
We are actually already moving forward to do this. county emergency fund
should be added to pool of money for land acquisition - No, there is no county
emergency fund in this sense - if they are discussing Fund Balances, NO ; fully
C.
f. l l'.)
fund Land Authority Not even sure what this means. Isn't the Land Authority fully
funded? "they mean provide enough funding to accomplish affordable housing
goals, we are already working toward that goal.
· Linkage-create RaGa pool, them implement moratorium until constructed;
commercial exempted if it links to housing 2 to 1 ?? Yes, but Link what 2:1? Note that
the County has a/ready requested that we provide a linkage element to any future
commercia/ development.
· Let us include moderate with lower income households Yes
· Elimination of cap on per unit tax credit-instead, use federal standards Yes
· Eliminate useless amenities No,?? This may be an attempt to suggest that we
should not include "unnecessary amenities" in affordable housing projects to keep
the price down. "that is what this means, I would be uncomfortable with that, since
those "unnecessary amenities" may be what makes it feel more like a community.
· Change to mix use community zoning (housing over commercial use) Yes
· Link affordable housing and commercial development-burden of proof on
commercial, not affordable housing. Yes, with?? Burden of proof? Again, we are
moving forward on linking affordable housing with coming commercial development.
REDUCE DEMAND FOR AFFORDABLE HOUSING
· Stopllimit commercial development until we catch up/even with community
rehabilitation Yes (we are)
PRESERVE EXISTING HOUSING STOCK AND AFFORDABILlTY
· Maintain downstairs enclosures Yes (let me again raise my hesitations on
depending on these enclosures as a long-term fix to affordable housing)
· Trailers-density factors causing conversion to RV grandfather densities 1?
Not a clue what this means
· Eliminate cesspool requirement for affordable housing ?? No
-*. Freeze tax rates for owners after certain time; freeze until sale or death This
[' was a request that we ask the Legislature to place the same kind of
\ e.. ~ freeze on property tax rates for owners of rental affordable housing that
~ ~ to. (j. 0 "\ they place on homesteaded property. Otherwise, those potentially
\-:> (J.. . (' enormous tax increases get passed on to the renter, making originally
lc' $.J,? affordable housing less and less affordable over time. I think it would be
t' a good to support this, although, because of the work involved in
"proving" the affordability of such properties and the need to maintain
that "proof" year after year, might make this unattractive to the
Legislature. So that's a YES for me.
· Use CDBG for insurance ?? Sorry, no clue.
· Help with FEMA to keep downstairs enclosures Yes? Again, see concerns
in downstairs enclosure issue above.
REDEVELOPMENT/CONVERSION OF USE
· Identify all existing locations for affordable housing; validate existing zoning; allow
density to be maintained so long as affordability is maintained Yes-doing
· Revert commercial uses to housing Yes, refine (see discussion of "buy
back units" below)
· FHFC set aside for Areas of Critical State Concern Yes
· Identify the ratio of % of affordable housing, % commercial, % transient,
% homesteading (change requirements) ?? This was from a discussion
about determination of need - in our communities, what is an
appropriate percentage for each of these, or a desired percentage, and
work to keep or reach those percentages. I'm comfortable with this one,
given that we are clear that this is our understanding of what we're
talking about
· Additional zoning to allow more and 1 family to own and occupy ?1 possible
We have discussed finding areas suitable for zoning for duplexes for
affordable housing so I think this is one we could support.
· Equalize formula for rezoning properties ?1 No idea what this means.
· Buy back units as they become available ? buy existing 1 This is a
suggestion that we buy units that would be suitable for affordable
housing as they come on the market, such things as small hotels, etc. (if
I'm remembering this issue correctly).
· Money for the affordable housing trust fund Yes
· Better planning; effect on small businesses Yes
OTHER STRAGETIES
.:' Quick fix won't work; neither will cheating Yes
· Need to make long-term politically difficult decisions to solve the problem Yes
· Help needed with unfunded mandates Yes
· Central responsibility should be vested in the Land Authority, (e.g., funding
capability, land acquisition ability, and coordinate plan for all agencies) No-
while the Land Authority is an important partner in these efforts, it is not
appropriate for this Oust as, while the LA help with park acquisition, it
isn't our park approval body).
· Determine level of consensus/buy in from each government entity Yes
· DCA-should assist locals with negotiating with feds (Department of Health) Yes-
while this doesn't exactly make sense (DOH is state), we could certainly agree
that it would be nice if DCA would help in all negotiations
· DCA should look at Marathon for good example ?? of what? I think this
was Marathon's suggestion and I do not remember the exact issue they
were talking about
· Make county more user-friendly to help people through the process Yes _ we
are, in fact, considering today a study to simplify/ease the permitting
process.
· Speed up the process Yes - see above
· Mayors go back to community/take money to hire a local planner to work wi c Q.v 0";'
specifically on this issue since existing staffs are maxed out Yes I 1 ~+ttr buJ8e.1
C.OIf\~\ clero.t-,ot\.
· Condense obstacles and prioritize ?? not well stated, but, if they mean
prioritize strategies to address the obstacles, that is the process we
began in our affordable housing statement
· Need a central repository for FEMNcesspit $ and ROGO allocations Yes
· Key West borrowed money for affordable housing, state should match that
money, time is of the essence Yes
· State should match local funding Yes