F. Housing & Community Development
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 19, 2007 Division: Housing & Community Development
Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Housing & Community Development
Staff Contact Person: Lisa Tennyson/292-4462
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Presentations by 1) Gorman and Company, Inc. and 2) Habitat for
Humanity of the Upper Keys, responding developers for Affordable/Workforce Housing Development RFP
2007-01H for Key Largo Parcel (RE# 00554720) on First Avenue, MM 98, Oceanside; Award of Project based
on documents submitted, recommendation of staff and respondents’ presentations; and direction to staff to
negotiate 99 year lease for project parcel
ITEM BACKGROUND:
On October 19, 2005, the Board authorized staff to advertise a Request for
Qualifications for contractors to build workforce rental units at US 1 and Burton Drive in Tavernier,
approximately MM 92; between US 1 and Lafitte Drive, Cudjoe Key, approximately MM 22; corner of Emerald
Drive, Sapphire Drive and US 1, Big Coppitt Key, approximately MM 10; and the Mandalay property, on First
Avenue, Key Largo, near MM 98, Oceanside. On April 19, 2006, Board granted approval to negotiate a
contract with Carlisle Development Group, LLC to develop affordable and employee workforce housing at the
four (4) locations; however, notice was received on November 2, 2006, of Carlile’s withdrawal from the
proposed public-private partnership for the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program
(CWHIP). Subsequently, the RFQ document was revised and re-advertised. The responses to the RFQ were
opened on May 2, 2007, and then on July 18, 2007, the Board qualified seven (7) developers to provide housing
development services and to be included on Monroe County’s list of Approved Housing Development Service
Providers for future affordable/workforce housing projects. A Request for Proposals was issued to the
Approved Housing Development Services Providers on September 5, 2007. There were two (2) respondents for
the Key Largo parcel. Please see attached Staff Report regarding Key Largo Parcel RE: #00554720.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
See Item Background
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
This is not a contract.
__________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Award of project parcel to highest scoring respondent, Gorman
and Company, Inc., and direction to staff to negotiate 99-year ground lease.
TOTAL COST: BUDGETED:
_N/A__ Yes No
COST TO COUNTY:SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING:AMOUNT PER MONTHYear ____
Yes No
APPROVED BY:
County Atty N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X Not Required_____
DISPOSITION:AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 8/06
Division of Housing and Community Development
Staff Report
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lisa Tennyson, Affordable Housing Coordinator
THROUGH: James “Reggie” Paros, Director, Housing and Community Development
DATE: November 27, 2007
Developer Responses to Affordable/Workforce Housing Development RFP 2007-01H
SUBJECT:
and Consideration of Award of Parcel to Developer
Re: Key Largo Parcel RE: #00554720
I. Summary
On August 31, 2007 HCD issued an RFP to approved developers to build affordable/workforce housing
on four county-owned parcels in Monroe County. On October 12, 2007, the request closed.
This report is a discussion of the responses received for the parcel in Key Largo (RE # 00554720) on First
Avenue, near MM 98, Oceanside. The parcel is zoned Urban Residential; it is approximately 0.7 acres.
Current density will permit 14 units to be built.
HCD received proposals from two respondents for this parcel: (1) Gorman and Company, Inc. and (2)
Habitat for Humanity of the Upper Keys.
ththth
On October 25, November 15, and November 30, the Evaluation Committee, consisting of a team of
county employees that included the County Attorney, Division Directors of HCD and Growth Management,
Affordable Housing Coordinator, and Executive Director of Land Authority, along with outside legal
counsel, met to discuss and assess all responses to the RFP. The RFP specified five evaluation criteria:
aesthetics and design quality; performance schedule and capacity; project financing; housing model; and
estimated unit prices. Team members scored each of the responses in each of five evaluation criteria in order
to make recommendations and to assist the BOCC in its own review and analysis.
A side by side evaluation by the committee of the two proposals is included here, along with the
committee’s score for each proposal in the five evaluation criteria. Additionally, before making a
recommendation, the committee considered the input of the staff of the Planning Department, which assessed
the site plan of the highest scoring respondent as feasible and generally consistent with the county’s land
development regulations. This report is also included.
th
Each respondent has been invited to make a presentation to the BOCC at the December 19 Board
Meeting, after which the BOCC may select a respondent, and award the parcel.
1
II. RFP 2007-01H Evaluation of Responses for Development of Key Largo Parcel
Evaluation Criteria MaxGorman and Company, Inc. Habitat for Humanity of the Upper
Pts. Keys
Key Largo Key Largo
Aesthetics and Quality of
20Cottages. 14 units. Ten 2-BR Two 1-BR, Modular Attached Town Homes. 14
Designand Two 4 -BR units, all between 820-units. 12 2-BR and two 3-BR, from
--including design 1240 S.F. 1000-1200 S.F.
characteristics, adherence to Attached, interlocking single story units Rendering of units does not match
community character, degree reflecting Key West-style Architecture; narrative description (illustration shows
of green and open space, Extensive site plans and floor plans homes on ground but narrative discusses
amenities, materials used, etc. provided. parking underneath units); no discussion
RFP asked for site plans, floor Units look like independent, single family of materials used, aesthetics, or
plans, illustrations, color homes. Each has its own front porch and landscaping; does include common
schemes. front yards or courtyard. area/playground.
Average Score18.2 14.4
Performance ScheduleCompletion, lease up, and occupancy by Completion December 2009.
20
Summer 2009. Detailed project schedule provided. 12
--including the extent to which
a developer exhibits capacity Construction schedule is discussed but not months total for review and
and commitment to complete detailed. Construction to take 6 months. construction; construction to start Aug
the project in timely manner; At time of lease execution, they will 08 and be completed Dec 08. Concern
RFP asked for construction provide elaborate project development and about realism of timeframe.
schedule and discussion of management checklists and timelines (will Capacity to implement and complete
capacity to manage also be web-based and real time so county entails a project manager Board
development projects and can continuously monitor progress. Construction Committee and Directors
complete them in timely Project management will be done via a with project development experience.
fashion.partnership with Fl-based Gonzalez No prior experience with multiple unit
(former CEO of Carlisle) and Centrust. project.
No discussion of capacity to do this in
addition to their planned 5-plex project
simultaneously.
Average Score 18.6 15.4
Project Financing
20Detailed financing information provided; Minimal discussion-will use SHIP
--RFP asked developer to Seeks 2008 Low Income Housing Tax funds, Community Contribution Tax
discuss ability to provide Credits (LIHTC) funding and State Credit (CCTC) program; short term
sufficient financing for the Apartment Incentive Loan Program conventional bridge loan; local fund-
project; the developer’s ability (SAIL) loan; has provided evidence of raising. Provided a breakdown of
to secure necessary financing; interest from equity investor. Principals or costs/expenses.
and to provide evidence of the tax credit purchasers will provide pre-
developer’s ability to fund the development and bridge loans.
project until completion.)
Total Project Cost: $4.1M Total Project Cost: $2.3M
Per unit cost: $295K Per unit cost: $161K
Average Score 1812.6
2
Housing Development Model
20Mixed-income Rental;Home Ownership
Proposed--
RFQ and RFP Has provided a property management
stated preference for designs plan. Will select a property management
that provide rental or a mix of firm with County’s input.
rental and home ownership
units.
Average Score 18 10
Estimated Unit Prices
– 20Serving 80% at 60% Area Median Income $161K per unit
RFP asked developer to (AMI) (Low-income); 10% at 30% AMI (no mention if price is different for 2 and
provide sales prices for homes (very-low income) and 10% at 120% 3 bedroom);
for purchase; rental rates for AMI.No interest mortgages.
rental units.
2 BR@30%= $401
4 BR@30%=$517
2BR@60%= $801
4BR@60%= $1,000
2BR@120%=$1,500
4BR@120%=$1,620
Average Score 19 15
Total Average Score 91.8 67.4
100
III. Recommended Action
Staff recommends award to the highest scoring respondent, Gorman and Company, Inc.
3
MEMORANDUM
MCP&ERD
ONROEOUNTYLANNINGNVIRONMENTALESOURCESEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Andrew O. Trivette, Director of Growth Management
From: Joseph Haberman, Planner
Date: November 28, 2007
Subject:Comments on a proposed development by Gorman & Company, Inc / Duany
Plater-Zyberk & Company in Mandalay Subdivision on Key Largo
Proposal
ô
Gorman & Company, Inc and Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company have proposed to construct
fourteen (14) affordable housing units, composed of two (2) one-bedroom/one-bath units, ten
(10) two bedrooms/two baths units and two (2) four-bedrooms/two baths units, on a parcel of
land to the South of the intersection of East First Street and First Avenue on Key Largo.
A site plan for the layout of the fourteen (14) affordable housing units was provided. In the
design scheme, all of the units would be attached “carpet cottages.”
Subject Property Description
ôô
The subject property consists of two (2)
parcels. The parcels are legally
described as Part Square 3, Mandalay
Subdivision, Key Largo, PB1-94 and are
identified as Real Estate Numbers
00554720.000000 & 00554720.000100.
According to the Property Appraiser’s
records, the site consists of 31,250 ft²
(0.72 acres) of total land area. However,
no boundary survey providing a total
amount of upland area was provided to
confirm this total.
The property has a Land Use District designation of Urban Residential (UR), a Future Land
Use Map (FLUM) designation of Residential High (RH) and a Tier designation of Tier III.
The Land Use District designation was amended from Urban Residential Mobile Home
(URM) to Urban Residential (UR) in 2000 per Ordinance 033-2000.
íÜÖØ
Î×
Brief Review of the Site Plan
ôôô
The development of affordable housing is consistent with the purposes of the UR District
(MCC Sec. 9.5-204) and the RH future land use category (Policy 101.4.4). The purpose of
the UR District is to provide areas appropriate for high-density residential uses designed and
intended for occupancy by persons gainfully employed in the Florida Keys and to create
areas to provide for vacation rental use of detached dwellings, duplexes, and multifamily
dwellings.
In the UR District, attached residential dwelling units may be permitted with minor
conditional use approval provided that a) sufficient common areas for recreation are provided
to serve the number of dwelling units proposed to be developed; b) all entryways are
designed and lighted to allow safe and secure access to all structures from walks and parking
areas; and c) access to US 1 is by way of an existing curb cut, a signalized intersection or a
curb cut that is separated from any other curb cut on the same side of US 1 by at least 400
feet (MCC Sec. 9.5-233). The site plan does not provide a common area as required by
MCC Sec. 9.5-233. Staff requests that sufficient common areas for recreation and interaction
are incorporated into the design.
The development of 14 attached residential units on the site would require minor conditional
use approval. Conditional uses are those uses which are generally compatible with the other
land uses permitted, but require individual review of their location, design and configuration
and the imposition of conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a
particular location.
The owner of a parcel of land shall be entitled to develop affordable housing on parcels of
land classified as UR at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 25 dwelling
units per acre (MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)). Furthermore, for affordable and employee housing,
the maximum net residential density allowed per district shall not require transferable
development rights (TDR’s). Therefore, under the residential density regulations, the site
could accommodate up to 14 affordable housing units on the site:
Development Potential
i
Land Use Max Net Size of SiteMax Amount Percentage
Density Allowed Proposedof Use
Affordable25 units per 0.72 acres 14 units 14 units 100.0%
Housing buildable acre (0.58 buildable
acres)
i.The land area totals used in the above calculations are based on the Property Appraiser’s records. The
total amount of upland must be confirmed with a sealed boundary survey.
There is a required open space ratio of 0.20 or 20 percent in the UR District. Therefore, at
least 6,250 ft² of the 31,250 ft² of total land area must remain open space. The proposed site
layout appears to be compliance with this regulation.
íÜÖØ Î×
The required non-shoreline setbacks in the UR District are as follows: Front yard – 15 feet;
Rear yard – 10 feet; and Side yard – 10/15 feet (where 10 feet is the required side yard for
one side and 15 feet is the minimum combined total of both side yards). The proposed
affordable housing units appear to be compliance with this regulation. However, the alley
and parking area along the southwestern border of the site is within the required rear yard
setback and would require variance approval.
The development would require 21 off-street parking spaces, or 1.5 spaces per each
affordable housing unit. The parking area would provide 22 off-street parking spaces.
A complete landscape plan was not provided for review; however, parking lot landscaping
and treescaping along the bordering roadways are shown on the proposed site plan. Since the
off-street parking area would contain more than six spaces, a class C parking lot landscape
standard is required. In addition, there are adjoining Sub Urban (SC) and Urban Residential
Mobile Home (URM) Districts. Therefore, district boundary buffers may be required.
Brief Review of the Proposed Housing Units
ôç
The site is designated within an AE – EL 8, 9 & 10 flood zones on FEMA’s flood insurance
rate maps. All new structures must be built to standards that meet or exceed those for flood
protection. The elevations indicate that the structures would be elevated.
No building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet (MCC Sec. 9.5-
283). The elevations indicate that the structures would be in compliance with this regulation.
The size of an affordable or employee housing dwelling unit is limited to a maximum of
1,300 ft² for a period of at least 50 years (MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)(6)d). The affordable housing
units would range in size from 820 ft² to 1,240 ft².
In order for an applicant to be entitled to the incentives for affordable housing outlined in
MCC Sec. 9.5-266, the owner must ensure that all of the provisions and standards set forth in
MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)(6) are met. No information was provided that would indicate whether
or not the units would be in compliance with these regulations.
Conclusion
ç
In conclusion, the proposed affordable housing development would be in compliance with
the purpose, use and residential density requirements of the land development regulations.
The utilization of “Carpet Cottage” style architecture would significantly contribute to the
architectural quality of the area. The style is similar to the traditional Key West vernacular
and is built to the human scale. This style provides visual interest and the variations in
façade elements would reduce the apparent mass of the attached residential units. In
addition, the proposed units would be constructed using several energy conservation features
such as the provision and shading and natural light. These features would help the residential
íÜÖØ
Î×
units conserve energy and therefore be more environmental friendly than conventional
construction.
íÜÖØ Î×
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 19, 2007 Division: Housing & Community Development
Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Housing & Community Development
Staff Contact Person: Lisa Tennyson/292-4462
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Presentations by 1) Gorman and Company, Inc. and 2) Biscayne
Housing Group, responding developers for Affordable/Workforce Housing Development RFP 2007-
01H for Tavernier Parcel (RE# 00488730) at the corner of US 1 and Burton Drive, approximately MM
92; Award of Project based on documents submitted, recommendation of staff and respondents’
presentations; and direction to staff to negotiate 99 year lease for project parcel
ITEM BACKGROUND:
On October 19, 2005, the Board authorized staff to advertise a Request for
Qualifications for contractors to build workforce rental units at US 1 and Burton Drive in Tavernier,
approximately MM 92; between US 1 and Lafitte Drive, Cudjoe Key, approximately MM 22; corner of Emerald
Drive, Sapphire Drive and US 1, Big Coppitt Key, approximately MM 10; and the Mandalay property, on First
Avenue, Key Largo, near MM 98, Oceanside. On April 19, 2006, Board granted approval to negotiate a
contract with Carlisle Development Group, LLC to develop affordable and employee workforce housing at the
four (4) locations; however, notice was received on November 2, 2006, of Carlile’s withdrawal from the
proposed public-private partnership for the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program
(CWHIP). Subsequently, the RFQ document was revised and re-advertised. The responses to the RFQ were
opened on May 2, 2007, and then on July 18, 2007, the Board qualified seven (7) developers to provide housing
development services and to be included on Monroe County’s list of Approved Housing Development Service
Providers for future affordable/workforce housing projects. A Request for Proposals was issued to the
Approved Housing Development Services Providers on September 5, 2007. There were two (2) respondents for
the Tavernier parcel. Please see attached Staff Report regarding Tavernier Parcel RE: #00488730.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
See Item Background
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
This is not a contract.
__________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Award of project parcel to highest scoring respondent, Gorman
and Company, Inc., and direction to staff to negotiate 99 year ground lease
TOTAL COST: BUDGETED:
_N/A_ Yes No
COST TO COUNTY:SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING:AMOUNT PER MONTHYear ____
Yes No
APPROVED BY:
County Atty N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X Not Required_____
DISPOSITION:AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 8/06
Division of Housing and Community Development
Staff Report
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lisa Tennyson, Affordable Housing Coordinator
THROUGH: James “Reggie” Paros, Director, Housing and Community Development
DATE: November 27, 2007
Developer Responses to Affordable/Workforce Housing Development RFP 2007-01H
SUBJECT:
and Consideration of Award of Parcel to Developer
Re: Tavernier Parcel RE: #00488730
I. Summary
On August 31, 2007 HCD issued an RFP to approved developers to build affordable/workforce housing
on four county-owned parcels in Monroe County. On October 12, 2007, the request closed.
This report is a discussion of the responses received for the parcel in Tavernier (RE # 00488730) located
at the corner of US 1 and Burton Drive, MM 92. The parcel is zoned Suburban Commercial; it is
approximately 2.72 acres. Current density will permit 39 units to be built.
HCD received proposals from two respondents for this parcel: (1) Gorman and Company, Inc. and (2)
Biscayne Housing Group.
ththth
On October 25, November 15, and November 30 the Evaluation Committee, consisting of a team of
county employees that included the County Attorney, Division Directors of HCD and Growth Management,
Affordable Housing Coordinator, and Executive Director of Land Authority, along with outside legal
counsel, met to discuss and assess all responses to the RFP. The RFP specified five evaluation criteria:
aesthetics and design quality; performance schedule and capacity; project financing; housing model; and
estimated unit prices. Team members scored each of the responses in each of five evaluation criteria in order
to make recommendations and to assist the BOCC in its own review and analysis.
A side by side evaluation by the committee of the two proposals is included here, along with the
committee’s score for each proposal in the five evaluation criteria. Additionally, before making a
recommendation, the committee considered the input of the staff of the Planning Department, which assessed
the site plan of the highest scoring respondent as feasible and generally consistent with the county’s land
development regulations. This report is also included.
th
Each respondent has been invited to make a presentation to the BOCC at the December 19 Board
Meeting, after which the BOCC may select a respondent and award the parcel.
1
II. RFP 2007-01H Evaluation of Responses for Development of Tavernier Parcel
Evaluation Criteria Max
Gorman and Company, Inc. Biscayne Housing Group
Pts.
TavernierTavernier
Aesthetics and Quality of
20Attached Cottages. 36 units. Garden Apartments. 39 units. 27 2-
DesignTwo 1-BR, 24 2- BR, and 10 4-BR units, bed/2 bath (816 S.F.) and 12 3-
--including design all between 820-1240 S.F. bed/2 bath (925 S.F).
characteristics, adherence to Attached, interlocking single story units Steel reinforced, pre-cast concrete
community character, degree reflecting Key West-style Architecture; building.
of green and open space, Extensive site plans and floor plans Extensive site plans and floor plans
amenities, materials used, etc. provided. provided.
RFP asked for site plans, floor Units look like independent, single family All GE appliances provided (Range,
plans, illustrations, color homes. Each has its own front porch and Fridge Microwave, D/W, W/D); site
schemes. front yards or courtyard. plan includes a play area and gazebo.
Average Score 1914
Performance ScheduleCompletion, lease up, and occupancy Completion, Lease up and
--20
by Summer 2009. occupancy April 2010.
including the extent to which a
developer exhibits capacity and Construction Schedule discussed but not Detailed construction schedule
commitment to complete the detailed. Construction to take 6 months. provided. They estimate 12 months
project in timely manner; RFP At time of lease execution, they will for Florida Housing Finance
asked for construction schedule provide elaborate project development Corporation’s (FHFC) Low Income
and discussion of capacity to and management checklists and timelines Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC)
manage development projects (will also be web-based and real time so funding cycle and award, and
and complete them in timely county can continuously monitor development review; Construction to
nd
fashion.progress.) Project management will be begin 2 quarter ‘09 (this seems late
done via a partnership with Florida-based
considering credits and loans will be
Gonzalez (former CEO of Carlisle) and allocated in 9/08) and be completed
thst
Centrust.
4 quarter 09 or 1 quarter ’10.
Project management will be
performed in-house.
Average Score 18.2 16.2
Project Financing
--RFP asked 20Detailed financing information provided; Detailed financing information
developer to discuss ability to seeks 2008 LIHTC funding and State provided; seeks 2008 LIHTC funding
provide sufficient financing for Apartment Incentive Loan Program and SAIL loan from FHFC, has
the project; the developer’s (SAIL) loan from FHFC; Has provided provided evidence of interest from
ability to secure necessary evidence of interest from equity investor. equity investor, and has provided
financing; and to provide Principals or tax credit purchasers will evidence that is has secured a $3M
evidence of the developer’s provide pre-development and bridge construction loan.
ability to fund the project until loans.
completion. Total Project Cost: $10M
Total Project Cost: $9.7M Per unit cost: $257K
Per unit cost: $269K
Average Score 18 17.6
2
Housing Development Model20Mixed-income Rental;Low-income rental;
Proposed--
RFQ and RFP Has provided a property management Has provided a marketing/outreach
stated preference for designs plan. Will select a property management rental plan; and has provided a
that provide rental or a mix of firm with County’s input. property management plan. Has
rental and home ownership identified a property management
units.firm.
Average Score 18 17.6
Estimated Unit Prices
– 20Serving 80% at 60% Area Median Income Serving 90% at 60% AMI (Low-
RFP asked developer to (AMI) (Low-income); 10% at 30% AMI Income) and 10% at 30% AMI
provide sales prices for homes (very-low income) and 10% at 120% (Very-Low Income)
for purchase; rental rates for AMI.
rental units. 2 Bed @30%= $411 /month
2 BR@30%= $401 3 Bed @30%= $475
4 BR@30%=$517
2 Bed @ 60%= $ 823;
2BR@60%= $801 3 Bed @ 60%= $951
4BR@60%= $1,000
2BR@120%=$1,500
4BR@120%=$1,620
Average Score 18 16.6
Total Average Score 91.2 82
100
III. Recommended Action
Staff recommends award to the highest scoring respondent, Gorman and Company, Inc.
3
MEMORANDUM
MCP&ERD
ONROEOUNTYLANNINGNVIRONMENTALESOURCESEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Andrew O. Trivette, Director of Growth Management
From: Joseph Haberman, Planner
Date: November 28, 2007
Subject:Comments on a proposed development by Gorman & Company, Inc / Duany
Plater-Zyberk & Company in Blue Water Trailer Village on Key Largo
Proposal
ô
Gorman & Company, Inc and Duany Plater-Zyberk & Company have proposed to construct
thirty-six (36) affordable housing units, composed of two (2) one-bedroom/one-bath units,
twenty-four (24) two bedrooms/two baths units and ten (10) four-bedrooms/two baths units,
on a parcel of land to the Southeast of the intersection of Old State Road and Burton Drive
on Key Largo.
A site plan for the layout of the 36 affordable housing units was provided. In the design
scheme, all of the units would be attached “carpet cottages” and would be situated within
three cluster developments. The clusters are separated from one another by internal
driveways with parallel parking and landscaped areas.
Subject Property Description
ôô
The subject property consists of one (1)
parcel. The parcel is legally described as
Tract C, Blue Water Trailer Village
Section 1, Key Largo, PB5-104 and is
identified as Real Estate Number
00488730.000000.
According to the Property Appraiser’s
records, the site consists of 118,483 ft²
(2.72 acres) of total land area. However,
no boundary survey providing a total
amount of upland area was provided to
confirm this total.
íÜÖØ
Î×
The property has a Land Use District designation of Sub Urban Commercial (SC), a Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Mixed Use / Commercial (MC) and a Tier
designation of Tier III.
Brief Review of the Site Plan
ôôô
The development of employee housing is consistent with the purposes of the SC District
(MCC Sec. 9.5-206) and the MC future land use category (Policy 101.4.5).
In the SC District, residential developments involving more than 18 units and designated as
employee housing may be permitted with a major conditional use permit (MCC Sec. 9.5-
235). At this time, affordable housing other than employee housing is not a permitted use in
the SC District. Employee housing means a dwelling unit that is intended to serve as
affordable, permanent housing for working households, which derive at least 70 percent of
their household income from gainful employment in Monroe County and meet the
requirements for affordable housing as per MCC Sections 9.5-4 (A-5) and 9.5-266.
The development of 36 employee housing units on the site would require major conditional
use approval. Conditional uses are those uses which are generally compatible with the other
land uses permitted, but require individual review of their location, design and configuration
and the imposition of conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a
particular location.
The owner of a parcel of land shall be entitled to develop employee housing on parcels of
land classified as SC at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18 dwelling
units per acre (MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)). Further, for employee housing, the maximum net
residential density allowed per district shall not require transferable development rights
(TDR’s). Therefore, under the residential density regulations, the site could accommodate
up to 39 employee housing units on the site:
Development Potential
i
Land Use Max Net Size of SiteMax Amount Percentage
Density Allowed Proposedof Use
Employee Housing 18 units per 2.72 acres 39 units 36 units 92.3 %
buildable acre (2.18 buildable
acres)
i.The land area totals used in the above calculations are based on the Property Appraiser’s records. The
total amount of upland must be confirmed with a sealed boundary survey.
There is a required open space ratio of 0.20 or 20 percent in the SC District. Therefore, at
least 23,697 ft² of the 118,483 ft² of total land area must remain open space. The proposed
site layout appears to be compliance with this regulation.
The required non-shoreline setbacks in the SC District are as follows: Front yard – 25 feet;
Rear yard – 10 feet; and Side yard – 10/15 feet (where 10 feet is the required side yard for
one side and 15 feet is the minimum combined total of both side yards). Since the site is
íÜÖØ Î×
bordered completely by public right-of-ways, it is subject to front yard setback requirements
along each property line. The proposed affordable housing units appear to be compliance
with the setback regulations. However, several parking spaces are within the required
setback and would require variance approval.
The development would require 54 off-street parking spaces, or 1.5 spaces per each
employee housing unit. Three parking areas would provide 56 off-street parking spaces.
Parking spaces would be situated as parallel along internal driveways and would be located
throughout the site as opposed being massed together within a single parking lot.
A complete landscape plan was not provided for review; however, parking lot landscaping
and treescaping along the bordering roadways are shown on the proposed site plan. Since the
off-street parking area would contain more than six spaces, a class A parking lot landscape
standard is required. In addition, there are adjoining Native Area (NA), Sub Urban
Residential (SR) and Urban Residential Mobile Home (URM) Districts. Therefore, district
boundary buffers may be required.
Brief Review of the Proposed Housing Units
ôç
The site is designated within an AE – EL 8 flood zone on FEMA’s flood insurance rate
maps. All new structures must be built to standards that meet or exceed those for flood
protection. The elevations indicate that the structures would be elevated.
No building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet (MCC Sec. 9.5-
283). The elevations indicate that the structures would be in compliance with this regulation.
The size of an affordable or employee housing dwelling unit is limited to a maximum of
1,300 ft² for a period of at least 50 years (MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)(6)d). The affordable housing
units would range in size from 820 ft² to 1,245 ft².
In order for an applicant to be entitled to the incentives for affordable housing outlined in
MCC Sec. 9.5-266, the owner must ensure that all of the provisions and standards set forth in
MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)(6) are met. No information was provided that would indicate whether
or not the units would be in compliance with these regulations.
Conclusion
ç
In conclusion, the proposed affordable housing development would be in compliance with
the purpose, use and residential density requirements of the land development regulations.
The utilization of “Carpet Cottage” style architecture would significantly contribute to the
architectural quality of the area. The style is similar to the traditional Key West vernacular
and is built to the human scale. This style provides visual interest and the variations in
façade elements would reduce the apparent mass of the attached residential units. In
addition, the proposed units would be constructed using several energy conservation features
such as the provision and shading and natural light. These features would help the residential
íÜÖØ
Î×
units conserve energy and therefore be more environmental friendly than conventional
construction.
íÜÖØ Î×
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 19, 2007 Division: Housing & Community Development
Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Housing & Community Development
Staff Contact Person: Lisa Tennyson – 292-4462
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Presentation by Habitat for Humanity of Key West and the Lower
Keys, responding developer for Affordable/Workforce Housing Development RFP 2007-01H for
Cudjoe Parcel (RE:#178350) between US 1 and Lafitte Drive, approximately MM 22; and direction to
staff.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
On October 19, 2005, the Board authorized staff to advertise a Request for
Qualifications for contractors to build workforce rental units at US 1 and Burton Drive in Tavernier,
approximately MM 92; between US 1 and Lafitte Drive, Cudjoe Key, approximately MM 22; corner of Emerald
Drive, Sapphire Drive and US 1, Big Coppitt Key, approximately MM 10; and the Mandalay property, on First
Avenue, Key Largo, near MM 98, Oceanside. On April 19, 2006, Board granted approval to negotiate a
contract with Carlisle Development Group, LLC to develop affordable and employee workforce housing at the
four (4) locations; however, notice was received on November 2, 2006, of Carlile’s withdrawal from the
proposed public-private partnership for the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program
(CWHIP). Subsequently, the RFQ document was revised and re-advertised. The responses to the RFQ were
opened on May 2, 2007, and then on July 18, 2007, the Board qualified seven (7) developers to provide housing
development services and to be included on Monroe County’s list of Approved Housing Development Service
Providers for future affordable/workforce housing projects. A Request for Proposals was issued to the
Approved Housing Development Services Providers on September 5, 2007. There was only one respondent for
the Cudjoe parcel. Please see attached Staff Report regarding Cudjoe Parcel RE: #178350.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
See Item Background.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
This is not a contract.
__________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Please see attached Staff Report.
TOTAL COST: BUDGETED:
_N/A__ Yes No
COST TO COUNTY:SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING:AMOUNT PER MONTHYear ____
Yes No
APPROVED BY:
County Atty N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X Not Required_____
DISPOSITION:AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 8/06
Division of Housing and Community Development
Staff Report
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lisa Tennyson, Affordable Housing Coordinator
THROUGH: James “Reggie” Paros, Director, Housing and Community Development
DATE: November 27, 2007
Developer Responses to Affordable/Workforce Housing Development RFP 2007-01H
SUBJECT:
and Consideration of Award of Parcel to Developer
Re: Cudjoe Key Parcel RE: #178350
I. Summary
On August 31, 2007 HCD issued an RFP to approved developers to build affordable/workforce housing
on four county-owned parcels in Monroe County. On October 12, 2007, the request closed.
This report is a discussion of the responses received for the parcel in Cudjoe Key (RE # 178350) located
between US 1 and Lafitte Drive, MM 22. The parcel is zoned Suburban Commercial; it is approximately 1.15
acres. Current density will permit 16 units to be built.
For this parcel, HCD received only a single respondent: Habitat for Humanity of Key West and the Lower
Keys. This respondent submitted two separate proposals for consideration. The first is a standard
development model; the second proposes a “co-housing” model.
ththth
On October 25, November 15, and November 30, the Evaluation Committee, consisting of a team of
county employees that included the County Attorney, Division Directors of HCD and Growth Management,
Affordable Housing Coordinator, and Executive Director of Land Authority, along with outside legal counsel,
met to discuss and assess all responses to the RFP. The RFP specified five evaluation criteria: aesthetics and
design quality; performance schedule and capacity; project financing; housing model; and estimated unit
prices. Team members scored each of the responses in each of five evaluation criteria in order to make
recommendations and to assist the BOCC in its own review and analysis.
The committee’s evaluation of each of Habitat’s proposals is included here, along with the committee’s
scores. Planning staff was asked to preliminarily review the standard development site plan model; its report
is attached.
th
The respondent has been invited to make a presentation to the BOCC at the December 19 Board
Meeting, after which the BOCC may award the parcel to the respondent or give other direction to staff.
1
II. RFP 2007-01H Evaluation of Responses for Development of Cudjoe Key Parcel
Habitat for Humanity of Key West and the
Max
Lower Keys
Evaluation Criteria Pts.
Cudjoe-Standard Model Cudjoe-Co-housing Model
Aesthetics and Quality of 20Modular Attached Town Homes. Proposing Co-housing Model (doesn’t
Design
Combination of Duplex and explain the concept and site plan
--including design Triplex.(Duplex is 2-BR and 997 S.F. doesn’t indicate this model).
characteristics, adherence to Triplex is. 3-BR and 1,259 S.F.) Also using Modular Attached Town
community character, degree of Narrative proposes 16 units, site plan Homes. Combination of Duplex and
green and open space, shows 18 units. Minimal site plan (does Triplex. Narrative says 15 units, site
amenities, materials used, etc. not include details such as landscaping, plan shows 17 units; minimal site
RFP asked for site plans, floor parking, amenities, etc. as requested); plan (does not include details such as
plans, illustrations, color narrative mentions using “Conch landscaping, parking, amenities, etc.
schemes. Architecture”, metal roofs, ft. and rear as requested); Narrative mentions
porches, pastel exteriors.using “Conch Architecture” , metal
roofs, ft. and rear porches, pastel
exteriors.
Average Score 8.3 * 7.7 *
Performance ScheduleCompletion End of 2009.No construction schedule provided.
20
--including the extent to which Minimal discussion. Projects 19 months Minimal discussion- 11 months for
a developer exhibits capacity for completion: 11 month for planning planning review and approvals, a
and commitment to complete review and approvals and 8 months for construction schedule was not
the project in timely manner; construction. No detailed project provided.
RFP asked for construction schedule was provided. Will use a 5-member project team to
schedule and discussion of Will use a 5-member project team to oversee project; will contract with
capacity to manage oversee project; will contract with licensed contractor for all work; no
development projects and licensed contractor for all work; no details were provided.
complete them in timely details were provided. No discussion of their capacity to do
fashion.No discussion of organizational and staff multiple projects simultaneously
capacity to manage/oversee multiple should they receive award(s).
projects simultaneously should they Questions about timeframes for start-
receive award(s). Questions about up and completion, and capacity for
timeframes for start-up and completion multiple projects.
and capacity for multiple projects.
Average Score 6 * 6 *
Project Financing 20Minimal discussion of project financing. Minimal discussion of project
--RFP asked developer to Narrative mentions 2 potential funding financing. Narrative mentions 2
discuss ability to provide sources: a pre-development fund and potential funding sources: a pre-
sufficient financing for the Community Contribution Tax Credit development fund and CCTC
project; the developer’s ability (CCTC) program –will also use program –will also use volunteer
to secure necessary financing; volunteer labor No details provided. labor No details provided.
and to provide evidence of the
developer’s ability to fund the No budgets or project costs/expenses
project until completion.) No budgets or project costs/expensesprovided.
provided.
Average Score 5 * 5 *
2
Housing Development Model20Home Ownership, possibility of leasing Home Ownership; possibility of
Proposed
2 units. leasing 2 units.
--
RFQ and RFP stated
preference for designs that
provide rental or a mix of rental
and home ownership units.
Average Score 13.5 * 12.5 *
Estimated Unit Prices
– 202 BR- $160K 2 BR-$120K
RFP asked developer to provide 3 BR- $190K 3 BR-$140K
sales prices for homes for No interest mortgages; No interest mortgages;
purchase; rental rates for rental Rental fees not indicated Rental fees not indicated
units.
Average Score 17 17
Total Average Score 49.8 48.2
100
* This score does not reflect a true average score of the committee, as some committee members felt there was insufficient
information to responsibly score these sections and therefore did not include a score.
III. Recommended Action
Habitat for Humanity of Key West and the Lower Keys was the sole respondent for this parcel. The
Evaluation Committee appreciates the time and effort of Habitat for Humanity to submit its two proposals.
However, the information submitted in its proposals in the Project Design, Schedule Performance, and Project
Financing sections was not sufficiently responsive to enable the committee to fully or responsibly evaluate it.
3
MEMORANDUM
MCP&ERD
ONROEOUNTYLANNINGNVIRONMENTALESOURCESEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Andrew O. Trivette, Director of Growth Management
From: Joseph Haberman, Planner
Date: November 2, 2007
Subject:Comments on a proposed development by Habitat for Humanity on Cudjoe Key
Proposal
ô
Habitat for Humanity is proposing to construct sixteen (16) affordable housing units,
composed of six (6) two-bedroom units and ten (10) three-bedroom units, on a vacant
property located along US 1 (Overseas Highway) on Cudjoe Key.
The Applicant provided a design scheme for the layout of the sixteen (16) units. In the
scheme, the units are organized parallel to US 1. All of the units would be attached
“townhouses” and situated within eight (8) buildings.
Subject Property Description
ôô
The subject property consists of four (4)
parcels. The parcels are legally
described as Block 8, Lots 8, 9 and 11,
Cutthroat Harbor Estates, Cudjoe Key,
Monroe County, PB4-169 and identified
as Real Estate Numbers
00178350.000000, 00178360.000000,
00178370.000000 & 00178380.000000.
According to the Property Appraiser’s
records, the site consists of 50,000 ft²
(1.15 acres) of total land area. However,
no boundary survey providing a total
amount of upland area was provided to
confirm this total.
Brief Review of the Site Plan
ôôô
The property has a Land Use District designation of Sub Urban Commercial (SC), a Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Mixed Use / Commercial (MC), and a Tier
íÜÖØ
Î×
designation of Tier III.The development of employee housing is consistent with the
purposes of the SC District (MCC Sec. 9.5-206) and the MC future land use category (Policy
101.4.5).
In the SC District, residential developments involving 6 to 18 units and designated as
employee housing may be permitted with minor conditional use approval (MCC Sec. 9.5-
235). At this time, affordable housing other than employee housing is not a permitted use in
the SC District. Employee housing means a dwelling unit that is intended to serve as
affordable, permanent housing for working households, which derive at least 70 percent of
their household income from gainful employment in Monroe County and meet the
requirements for affordable housing as per MCC Sections 9.5-4 (A-5) and 9.5-266.
The development of 16 employee housing units on the site would require conditional use
approval. Conditional uses are those uses which are generally compatible with the other land
uses permitted, but require individual review of their location, design and configuration and
the imposition of conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a particular
location.
The owner of a parcel of land shall be entitled to develop employee housing on parcels of
land classified as SC at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18 dwelling
units per acre (MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)). Further, for employee housing, the maximum net
residential density allowed per district shall not require transferable development rights
(TDR’s). Therefore, under the residential density regulations, the site could accommodate
up to 12 employee housing units on the site.
Development Potential
i
Land Use Max Net Size of SiteMax Amount Percentage
Density Allowed Proposedof Use
Employee Housing 18 units per 1.15 acres 16 units 16 units 100.0%
buildable acre (0.92 buildable
acres)
i.The land area totals used in the above calculations are based on the Property Appraiser’s records. The
total amount of upland must be confirmed with a sealed boundary survey.
There is a required open space ratio of 0.20 or 20 percent in the SC District. Therefore, at
least 10,000 ft² of the 50,000 ft² of total land area must remain open space. The proposed site
plan appears to be compliance with this regulation.
The required non-shoreline setbacks in the SC District are as follows: Front yard – 25 feet;
Rear yard – 10 feet; and Side yard – 10/15 feet (where 10 feet is the required side yard for
one side and 15 feet is the minimum combined total of both side yards). The proposed site
plan appears to be compliance with this regulation.
The development would require 24 off-street parking spaces, or 1.5 spaces per employee
housing unit. The proposed garages would each have a capacity of 2 vehicles.
íÜÖØ Î×
No landscape plan was available for review.
Brief Review of the Units and Sale Prices
ôç
The site is designated partially within an AE – EL 10 flood zone and partially within an AE –
EL 11 flood zone on FEMA’s flood insurance rate maps. All new structures must be built to
standards that meet or exceed those for flood protection. The enclosed garages on the ground
levels of the employee housing units may not be in compliance with the floodplain
management regulations. These enclosures would require approval from the floodplain
administrator.
No building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet (MCC Sec. 9.5-
283). The elevations indicate that the structures will be in compliance with this regulation.
In order for an applicant to be entitled to the incentives for employee housing outlined in
MCC Sec. 9.5-266, the owner must ensure that all of the provisions and standards set forth in
MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)(6) are met. No information was provided that would indicate whether
or not the units would be in compliance with these regulations.
The proposed sale prices of $160,000 and $190,000 would be compliance. Maximum sales
price of owner occupied affordable housing unit is a price not exceeding three and three-
quarters (3.75) times the annual median household income for Monroe County for a one (1)
bedroom or efficiency unit, four and one-quarter (4.25) times the annual median household
income for Monroe County for a two (2) bedroom unit, and four and three-quarters (4.75)
times the annual median household income for Monroe County for a three (3) or more
bedroom unit (MCC Sec. 9.5-4 (M-6.3)).
Conclusion
ç
Although not required, the use of “Conch” style architecture would contribute to the
architectural quality of the area. The style would provide visual interest and the variations in
façade elements would reduce the apparent mass of the attached townhouse structures.
In addition, the Applicant is proposing to utilize “green” construction features. These
features would help the residential units conserve energy and therefore be more
environmental friendly than conventional construction.
The proposed site plan does not indicate that a public area will be provided. However, there
is a large open area in the center of the site. Staff recommends that this area be designated as
a common area for recreation and interaction.
Staff recommends a bike path along US 1. However, if a bike path is not completed as part
of the development, Staff requests that the design embraces the Overseas Heritage Trail
through the incorporation of trail amenities.
íÜÖØ
Î×
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: December 19, 2007 Division: Housing & Community Development
Bulk Item: Yes No X Department: Housing & Community Development
Staff Contact Person: Lisa Tennyson - 292-4462
AGENDA ITEM WORDING:
Presentation by Habitat for Humanity of Key West and the Lower
Keys, responding developer for Affordable/Workforce Housing Development RFP 2007-01H for Big
Coppitt Parcel (RE# 00156320) located at the corner of Emerald Drive, Sapphire Drive and US 1,
approximately MM 10; and direction to staff.
ITEM BACKGROUND:
On October 19, 2005, the Board authorized staff to advertise a Request for
Qualifications for contractors to build workforce rental units at US 1 and Burton Drive in Tavernier,
approximately MM 92; between US 1 and Lafitte Drive, Cudjoe Key, approximately MM 22; corner of Emerald
Drive, Sapphire Drive and US 1, Big Coppitt Key, approximately MM 10; and the Mandalay property, on First
Avenue, Key Largo, near MM 98, Oceanside. On April 19, 2006, Board granted approval to negotiate a
contract with Carlisle Development Group, LLC to develop affordable and employee workforce housing at the
four (4) locations; however, notice was received on November 2, 2006, of Carlile’s withdrawal from the
proposed public-private partnership for the Community Workforce Housing Innovation Pilot Program
(CWHIP). Subsequently, the RFQ document was revised and re-advertised. The responses to the RFQ were
opened on May 2, 2007, and then on July 18, 2007, the Board qualified seven (7) developers to provide housing
development services and to be included on Monroe County’s list of Approved Housing Development Service
Providers for future affordable/workforce housing projects. A Request for Proposals was issued to the
Approved Housing Development Services Providers on September 5, 2007.There was one (1) respondent for
the Big Coppitt parcel. Please see attached Staff Report regarding Big Coppitt Parcel RE: #00156320.
PREVIOUS RELEVANT BOCC ACTION:
See Item Background.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES:
This is not a contract.
__________________________________________________________________________________
STAFF RECOMMENDATIONS:
Please see attached Staff Report.
TOTAL COST: BUDGETED:
_N/A__ Yes No
COST TO COUNTY:SOURCE OF FUNDS:
REVENUE PRODUCING:AMOUNT PER MONTHYear ____
Yes No
APPROVED BY:
County Atty N/A OMB/Purchasing N/A Risk Management N/A
DOCUMENTATION:
Included X Not Required_____
DISPOSITION:AGENDA ITEM #
Revised 8/06
Division of Housing and Community Development
Staff Report
TO: Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Lisa Tennyson, Affordable Housing Coordinator
THROUGH: James “Reggie” Paros, Director, Housing and Community Development
DATE: November 27, 2007
Developer Responses to Affordable/Workforce Housing Development RFP 2007- 01H
SUBJECT:
and Consideration of Award of Parcel to Developer
Re: Big Coppitt Key Parcel RE: #00156320
I. Summary
On August 31, 2007 HCD issued an RFP to approved developers to build affordable/workforce housing on
four county-owned parcels in Monroe County. On October 12, 2007, the request closed.
This report is a discussion of the responses received for the parcel in Big Coppitt Key (RE # 00156320),
located at the corner of Emerald Drive, Sapphire Drive and US 1, Mile Marker 10. The parcel is zoned
Suburban Commercial; it is approximately .85 acres. Current density will permit 12 units to be built.
For this parcel, HCD received only a single respondent: Habitat for Humanity of Key West and the Lower
Keys.
ththth
On October 25, November 15, and November 30, the Evaluation Committee, consisting of a team of
county employees that included the County Attorney, Division Directors of HCD and Growth Management,
Affordable Housing Coordinator, and Executive Director of Land Authority, along with outside legal counsel,
met to discuss and assess all responses to the RFP. The RFP specified five evaluation criteria: aesthetics and
design quality; performance schedule and capacity; project financing; housing model; and estimated unit
prices. Team members scored each of the responses in each of five evaluation criteria in order to make
recommendations and to assist the BOCC in its own review and analysis.
The committee’s evaluation of Habitat for Humanity of Key West and the Lower Keys’ proposal is
included here, along with the committee’s scores. Planning staff was asked to preliminarily review the site
plans. This report is attached.
th
The respondent has been invited to make a presentation to the BOCC at the December 19 Board Meeting,
after which the BOCC may award the parcel to the respondent or give other direction to staff.
1
II. RFP 2007-01H Evaluation of Responses for Development of Big Coppitt Key Parcel
Evaluation Criteria Max
Habitat For Humanity of Key West and the
Pts.
Lower Keys
Big Coppitt
Aesthetics and Quality of Design
20Modular Attached Town Homes. Two different site plans
--including design characteristics, offered. 12 units of all triplexes, or 10 units of a combination of
adherence to community character, duplex and triplex. (Duplex is 2-BR and 997 S.F. Triplex is. 3-
degree of green and open space, BR and 1,259 S.F.)
amenities, materials used, etc. Neither site plan matches narrative in terms of unit numbers.
RFP asked for site plans, floor plans, Both site plans are minimal (do not include landscaping,
illustrations, color schemes. parking, amenities, etc. ); Narrative mentions using “Conch
Architecture”, metal roofs, ft. and rear porches, pastel exteriors.
Average Score 8.3 *
Performance Schedule20No construction schedule provided.
--including the extent to which a Minimal discussion- 11 months for planning review and
developer exhibits capacity and approval, no construction time given.
commitment to complete the project Will use a 5-member project team; will contract with licensed
in timely manner; RFP asked for contractor for all work, but provides no details.
construction schedule and discussion No discussion of capacity to manage / coordinate multiple
of capacity to manage development projects simultaneously.
projects and complete them in timely Concerns about timeframes and capacity for multiple projects.
fashion.
Average Score 4.3 *
Project Financing 20Minimal discussion of project financing.
--RFP asked developer to discuss Narrative mentions 2 potential funding sources: a pre-
ability to provide sufficient financing development fund and Community Contribution Tax Credit
for the project; the developer’s ability (CCTC) program –will also use volunteer labor, but no details
to secure necessary financing; and to provided. Concerns about financing sources and timeframes
provide evidence of the developer’s required to secure financing.
ability to fund the project until
completion.) No budgets or project costs/expenses provided.
Average Score 5 *
Housing Development Model
20Home Ownership, possibility of leasing 2 units.
Proposed
--
RFQ and RFP stated preference for
designs that provide rental or a mix
of rental and home ownership units.
Average Score 13.5
Estimated Unit Prices
– 202 BR- $160K
RFP asked developer to provide sales 3 BR- $190K
prices for homes for purchase; rental No interest mortgages;
2
rates for rental units. Rental fees not indicated
Average Score 17
Total Average Score 100 48.1
* This score does not reflect an average score of all members of the committee, as some committee members felt there was
insufficient information to responsibly score these sections and therefore did not include a score.
III. Recommended Action
Habitat for Humanity of Key West and the Lower Keys was the sole respondent for this parcel. The
Evaluation Committee appreciates the time and effort of Habitat for Humanity to submit its proposal.
However, the information submitted in its proposal in the Project Design, Schedule Performance, and Project
Financing sections was not sufficiently responsive to enable the committee to fully or responsibly evaluate it.
3
MEMORANDUM
MCP&ERD
ONROEOUNTYLANNINGNVIRONMENTALESOURCESEPARTMENT
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
To: Andrew O. Trivette, Director of Growth Management
From: Joseph Haberman, Planner
Date: November 2, 2007
Subject:Comments on a proposed development by Habitat for Humanity
on Big Coppitt Key
Proposal
ô
Habitat for Humanity is proposing to construct twelve (12) affordable housing units,
composed of six (6) two-bedroom units and six (6) three-bedroom units, on a vacant property
located along US 1 (Overseas Highway) on Big Coppitt Key.
The Applicant provided two different design schemes for the layout of the twelve (12) units.
In the first scheme, the units are organized around an interior drive with a cul-de-sac. All of
the units are attached “townhouses” and situated within two (2) duplexes and two (2)
triplexes. In the second scheme, the units are organized along an interior drive that is
parallel to US 1. All of the units are attached “townhouses” and situated within four (4)
triplexes.
Subject Property Description
ôô
The subject property consists of one (1)
parcel. The parcel is legally described
as Porpoise Point Section 5, Big Coppitt
Key, PB5-119, Part Tract B and is
identified as Real Estate Number
00156320.000000.
According to the Property Appraiser’s
records, the site consists of 36,973 ft²
(0.85 acres) of total land area. However,
no boundary survey providing a total
amount of upland area was provided to
confirm this total.
íÜÖØ
Î×
Brief Review of the Site Plan
ôôô
The property has a Land Use District designation of Sub Urban Commercial (SC), a Future
Land Use Map (FLUM) designation of Mixed Use / Commercial (MC), and a Tier
designation of Tier III.The development of employee housing is consistent with the
purposes of the SC District (MCC Sec. 9.5-206) and the MC future land use category (Policy
101.4.5).
In the SC District, residential developments involving 6 to 18 units and designated as
employee housing may be permitted with minor conditional use approval (MCC Sec. 9.5-
235). At this time, affordable housing other than employee housing is not a permitted use in
the SC District. Employee housing means a dwelling unit that is intended to serve as
affordable, permanent housing for working households, which derive at least 70 percent of
their household income from gainful employment in Monroe County and meet the
requirements for affordable housing as per MCC Sections 9.5-4 (A-5) and 9.5-266.
The development of 12 employee housing units on the site would require conditional use
approval. Conditional uses are those uses which are generally compatible with the other land
uses permitted, but require individual review of their location, design and configuration and
the imposition of conditions in order to ensure the appropriateness of the use at a particular
location.
The owner of a parcel of land shall be entitled to develop employee housing on parcels of
land classified as SC at an intensity up to a maximum net residential density of 18 dwelling
units per acre (MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)). Further, for employee housing, the maximum net
residential density allowed per district shall not require transferable development rights
(TDR’s). Therefore, under the residential density regulations, the site could accommodate
up to 12 employee housing units on the site.
Development Potential
i
Land Use Max Net Size of SiteMax Amount Percentage
Density Allowed Proposedof Use
Employee Housing 18 units per 0.85 acres 12 units 12 units 100.0%
buildable acre (0.68 buildable
acres)
i.The land area totals used in the above calculations are based on the Property Appraiser’s records. The
total amount of upland must be confirmed with a sealed boundary survey.
There is a required open space ratio of 0.20 or 20 percent in the SC District. Therefore, at
least 7,394 ft² of the 36,973 ft² of total land area must remain open space. Both schemes
appear to be compliance with this regulation.
The required non-shoreline setbacks in the SC District are as follows: Front yard – 25 feet;
Rear yard – 10 feet; and Side yard – 10/15 feet (where 10 feet is the required side yard for
íÜÖØ Î×
one side and 15 feet is the minimum combined total of both side yards). Both schemes
appear to be compliance with this regulation.
The development would require 18 off-street parking spaces, or 1.5 spaces per employee
housing unit. The proposed garages would each have a capacity of 2 vehicles.
No landscape plan was available for review.
Brief Review of the Units and Sale Prices
ôç
The site is designated within an AE – EL 10 flood zone on FEMA’s flood insurance rate
maps. All new structures must be built to standards that meet or exceed those for flood
protection. The enclosed garages on the ground levels of the employee housing units may
not be in compliance with the floodplain management regulations. These enclosures would
require approval from the floodplain administrator.
No building shall be developed that exceeds a maximum height of 35 feet (MCC Sec. 9.5-
283). The elevations indicate that the structures will be in compliance with this regulation.
In order for an applicant to be entitled to the incentives for employee housing outlined in
MCC Sec. 9.5-266, the owner must ensure that all of the provisions and standards set forth in
MCC Sec. 9.5-266(a)(6) are met. No information was provided that would indicate whether
or not the units would be in compliance with these regulations.
The proposed sale prices of $160,000 and $190,000 would be compliance. Maximum sales
price of owner occupied affordable housing unit is a price not exceeding three and three-
quarters (3.75) times the annual median household income for Monroe County for a one (1)
bedroom or efficiency unit, four and one-quarter (4.25) times the annual median household
income for Monroe County for a two (2) bedroom unit, and four and three-quarters (4.75)
times the annual median household income for Monroe County for a three (3) or more
bedroom unit (MCC Sec. 9.5-4 (M-6.3)).
Conclusion
ç
Although not required, the use of “Conch” style architecture would contribute to the
architectural quality of the area. The style would provide visual interest and the variations in
façade elements would reduce the apparent mass of the attached townhouse structures.
Further, it would be consistent with other proposed affordable housing developments in the
area that are proposing similar architectural designs.
In addition, the Applicant is proposing to utilize “green” construction features. These
features would help the residential units conserve energy and therefore be more
environmental friendly than conventional construction.
Neither design scheme provides a public area. Staff recommends that a common area for
recreation and interaction is incorporated into the design. In addition, Staff would like
íÜÖØ
Î×
clarification as to what development, if any, would take place along the canal. If possible, an
observation platform or other public amenity could be situated at this location so that all of
the residents can view the water. However, it appears that the end of the canal is under
private ownership and any dockage would be prohibited.
Staff recommends a bike path along US 1. However, if a bike path is not completed as part
of the development, Staff requests that the design embraces the Overseas Heritage Trail
through the incorporation of trail amenities.
Based on the materials submitted, Staff prefers the second design scheme where units are
aligned perpendicular to US 1 along a private drive. This layout is more consistent with
existing development and other affordable housing projects currently under review.
íÜÖØ Î×