Item K3BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
AGENDA ITEM SUMMARY
Meeting Date: September 2l. 2011 Division: Growth Management
Bulk Item: Yes _ No X Department: Planning & Environmental Resource
Staff Contact Person: Michael Roberts
(305 289- 2502
AGENDA ITEM WORDING: Discussion and direction regarding the request by Richard Beal to reserve up to 0.1392
HImpAcr with 0.4176 `HmmGAnON' for Caya Place LLC on Big Pine Key on the eastern parcel (RE 00111078.000000) of
property located at 30641 US Highway 1 (aka Skeeter's Marine).
ITEM BACKGROUND: The owner of the property, Richard C. Beal, has requested to develop sixteen (16) units of
affordable employee housing in the name of Caya Place LLC on Big Pine Key at a location commonly known as
Skeeter's Marine. Caya Place LLC received a minor conditional use permit by Development Order 01-09 to develop the
affordable housing project. To date, the building permit application deadline has been extended twice. First, the applicant
received a two year extension pursuant to Senate Bill 360. Second, the applicant received a one year extension pursuant
to the Monroe County Land Development County Code. To date, a building permit application relating to the scope of
work has not been submitted. Thereby, the current deadline(s) to submit a building permit application is October 28,
2012. All required certificates of occupancy shall be procured within two (2) years of the date of issuance of an initial
building permit [approximately October 28, 2014].
In a letter dated June 10, 2011, Mr. Beal also requested an extension of the reservation of affordable housing allocation
awards, `H', and the Development Order. As of July 15, 2011, Mr. Beal has not applied for Building Permits for the
proposed employee/affordable housing (attached).
The BOCC has approved the reservation of 0.0261 Hm mGATION for Caya Place LLC for the last three years. The third
reservation expired March 31, 2011. During the last HCP reporting period (March 2011) the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service
determined the H calculations for Caya Place were not consistent with the HCP and resulted in an incorrect H1mpAcr and
thus Hm mGAnoN value. FWS indicated at the time that the impact calculations needed to follow the calculations provided
in the HCP and that based on the vacant nature of the parcel it may constitute new development rather than re-
development. Following the methods established in the HCP, staff determined that the project constitutes re -development
and calculated the HimpAcr for the parcel to be 0.087 with a mitigation requirement of 0.261 HmmGATION• If the FWS
determines the project constitutes new development, the HimpAcr would be 0.1392 and the HmmGAnON required would be
0.4176. The reservation of 0.4176 H has the potential for the H Bank not having sufficient H to compensate for possible
impacts associated with future commercial development and the known impacts associated with future SFR development
(see attached memo).
PREVIOUS RELEVANT COMMISSION ACTION:
March 17, 2010 — BOCC approved resolution 090-2010 reserving 16 affordable dwelling units and reserving "H" value
necessary for Caya Place LLC which expired March 31, 2011.
February 19, 2009 — BOCC approved resolution 060-2009 reserving 16 affordable dwelling units and reserving "H" value
necessary for Caya Place LLC which expires March 19, 2010.
October 15, 2008 - BOCC approved Resolution 346-2008 reserving the "H" value necessary for a proposed affordable
dwelling unit development for Caya Place LLC.
March 19, 2008 - BOCC approved Resolution 077-2008 reserving 16 affordable dwelling unit allocations for Caya Place
LLC.
CONTRACT/AGREEMENT CHANGES: N/A
STAFF RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to decline the request
TOTAL COST: N/A INDIRECT COST: BUDGETED: Yes No N/A
COST TO COUNTY: N/A SOURCE OF FUNDS: N/A
REVENUE PRODUCING: Yes No N/A AMOUNT PER MONTH: N/A Year
APPROVED BY: County Attorney OMB / Purchasing Risk Management
DOCUMENTATION: Included X Not Required
DISPOSITION: AGENDA ITEM #
County of Monroe
Growth Management Division
Plannine & Environmental Resources
Department
2798 Overseas Highway, Suite 410
Marathon, FL 33050
Voice: (305) 289-2500
FAX: (305) 289-2536
We strive to be caring, professional and fair
DATE: August 9, 2011
Board of County Commissioners
Mayor Heather Carruthers, Dist. 3
Mayor Pro Tern David Rice, Dist. 4
Kim Wigington, Dist. 1
George Neugent, Dist. 2
Sylvia J. Murphy, Dist. 5
TO: MONROE COUNTY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
THROUGH: Christine Hurley, AICP
FROM: Townsley Schwab, Sr. Director, Planning and Environmental Resources
Mike Roberts, Sr. Administrator Environmental Resources
RE: CAYA PLACE 'H' RESERVATION REQUEST
Monroe County Planning and Environmental Resources staff have reviewed the request to reserve the required
mitigation `H' for the proposed 16 unit affordable housing development known as Caya Place, located at MM
31 on Big Pine Key. The H for the subject parcel (RE # 00111078-000000) is 0.0087, and in previous requests
the BOCC has agreed to reserve the mitigation H required for the proposed project. However, documents
submitted as backup to these prior resolutions incorrectly calculated the `H' that would be required for the
proposed project. In a memo dated September 30, 2008 the H impact was determined based on comparison
with a developed subdivision of similar size. Using this approach, the HMibpbon was calculated to be 0.0261.
Based on coordination with the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, the methodology used to determine the H for
Caya Place was not consistent with the HCP and resulted in an incorrect mitigation value.
For this reason, Staff reviewed the Incidental Take Permit, the Habitat Conservation Plan (HCP) and the
Livable Communikeys Plan for Big Pine and No Name Key to determine the impact associated with the
proposed development of 16 affordable housing units on the referenced parcel. The following excerpt is from
the HCP and explains the process of determining H impacts:
The spatial component of the population viability analysis (PVA) model provides a reliable predictor
of development impacts on the Key deer: Harvest (H), which is highly correlated with estimates of
impacts. Therefore, we use H to measure impacts and mitigation in this HCP. The Key deer PVA
Page 1 of 5
yielded equations that relate H to estimates of risk and additional human -related mortality; therefore,
if we can assign an H value to a development activity, then we can evaluate the effect of that
development activity on the Key deer. The Applicants developed a method to assign H to any
development activity based on the following three main premises:
If development occurs on an undeveloped parcel, the impact equals the H of the parcel: The
Applicants assumed that an undeveloped parcel is fully available to the Key deer and that new
development affects the habitat value of the entire undeveloped parcel. Therefore, the impact of such
development equals the Hof the entire parcel.
2. If development occurs on a developed parcel (e.g., expansion or redevelopment), the impact of
development equals the Hof the footprint of the additional development: The Applicants assume that
the impact of existing development has been already realized; therefore, the H of development that
occurs in parcels that are already developed is associated with the footprint of the additional activity
instead of the entire parcel area.
3. The effect of the development activity depends on the type of development or land use: Because
roadway mortality is the largest cause of human -related mortality of Key deer, the H value for a
development activity is multiplied by a factor that accounts for the traffic generated by the specific
land use or type of activity.
Table 2.5. Hmultiplierfor land use development categories
Land Use Average Daily Trip HMuldplier Variable Name
Generation
Single family residential 9.5 1 M
SRF
Fences only -- 0.2
Accessory uses
--
0.2
M
cc
Retail
70
7.4 (per 1, 000 sq. ft.)
M
LUl
Hotel/Motel
7.9
0.8 (per room)
M
Luz
Office
5.9
0.6 (per 1,000 sq. ft.)
M
U3
Institutional
13
1.4 (per 1, 000 sq. ft.)
M
LU4
Industrial
5
0.5 (per 1, 000 sq. ft.)
M
LUs
Recreational
67
7
M
REC
Page 2 of 5
Based on these three premises, an H value can be assigned to any anticipated development activity (Table 2.6).
Multiplier variables (M) described in Table 2.5.
Table 2.6. Calculation of H or different development activities
Type of Parcel
I Type of Development
H Calculation
Description
Construction on
vacant parcels
Residential
incurs a new
Undeveloped
construction
H = H�,�� * M ER
impact, both as loss
(single family)
of habitat and as
causing secondary
e ects.
The impact is the
H = H * {[M *
difference between
Developed
p
Redevelopment
''"�` parcel_ LUx *
(sq ft. /sq ft. )J [ALUx
a�
the effect of the new
different use)
(
�,� new
footprint/land use
(sgft.a /sgft.parce)Jo1}
and the old
footprint/land use.
Review of the anticipated development scenarios outlined above reveals that:
1) redevelopment of a commercial parcel to residential uses was not foreseen at the time of the
development of the HCP and the LCP for Big Pine and No Name Keys. Therefore, the HCP does not
provide an equation to address this specific scenario, and
2) The LCP and HCP did not make provision for multi -family development scenarios of new
development.
Based on the above limitations, Staff determined that the appropriate approach was to consider the project as
redevelopment, and used a M LUx of 16 for the proposed development (1 X each proposed unit).
In order to calculate the H ImpAcr, Staff reviewed the approved site plan to determine the developed area (in
square feet) of the proposed project, and multiplied the square footage of the site (53,438) by 0.2 to reflect the
existing condition (accessory use, boat & trailer storage). The calculations are depicted below:
H .1
M LUX new
Sq ft dev/sq ft parcel
M LLB old
Sq ft dev/sq ft parcel
H mPAcT
.0087
16
.63
.2
.2
.087
.0087 X ((16 X .63) — (.2 X .2)) _
.0087 X ((10.08) — (.04) ) =
.0087 X 10.04 = 0.087 H IMPACT
Thus, the H ❑vAcT is 0.087. The required mitigation would be .261 H. The proposed project would account
for approximately 8% of the total impact allowed under the HCP and would likewise consume 8% of the
required mitigation H.
In the event that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service determines that the project constitutes new development
rather than redevelopment, the resulting H IMPACT and required mitigation would be:
.0087 X 16 = 0.1392 H IMPACT
0.1392 X 3 = 0.4176 H mmGATIox
Page 3 of 5
As of December 31, 2011 (the most recent Annual Monitoring Report data), Monroe County has issued
building permits resulting in a cumulative H IMPACT of 0.3563, with an additional 0.109 H set aside for pending
or allocated projects for which a building permit has not been issued. Note that the above does NOT include
the previous reservations for Caya Place. The H mmGAnoN required for the permitted impacts is 1.069 H.
Adding in the pending projects would result in an H IMPACT of 0.4653 and required mitigation of 1.3959.
Using the re -development scenario outlined above, adding the proposed Caya Place development would result
in a cumulative H IMPACT of 0.55 with a required mitigation of 1.65 H. However, the impact calculations used
by staff have not been reviewed by the FWS and it is possible that the Service may interpret the development
of this site as new development. If that were the case, then the cumulative H impact for all issued, allocated
and reserved permits together with those currently competing in ROGO would be .6045 and the required
mitigation would be 1.813 H. This constitutes 60% of the permitted development allowed under the HCP
(1.1 H) and Caya Place would require 15% to 25% of the remaining HIMPACT available under the TTP,
with 12 years still remaining in the life of the permit (see Tables below).
Table 1. Summary of HwAcr
HIMPACT Summary
Total HmpACT Allowed by HCP 1.1
Existing Permitted HmpACT 0.3563
Allocated and/or Reserved HmpACT + 0.109
TOTAL Permitted/Allocated HIMPACT 0.4653
HIMPACT Remaining under ITP (1.1 total) 0.6347
Hmaracr for Parcels currentiv competing in ROGO* - 0.0626
Caya Place HmpACT If Reserved (FWS worst case scenario) 0.1392
HIMPACT remaining if Caya Place Reserved 0.4329
* Includes Tier I HIl„IPACT of 0.0380, however only 0.0117 H of Tier I impact remains under the ITP
Table 2. Summary of HmmGAnoN
HMITIGATION Summary
Total HmmGAnoN Required by HCP at build -out (1.1 HImpACT 3.3
HMrrIGAnON Acquired as of 12/31/2010 2.0366
HmmGATION Required for Permitted Impacts 1.068
HmmGATION Required for Allocated/Reserved Impacts 0.327
TOTAL HMiTmATICIN Required for Permitted/Reserved hnUacts 1.395
Total HMITIGAnON Remaining after all Impacts (2.0366—1.5837) 0.4529
Caya Place HmmGATION If Reserved (FWS Scenario) 0.4329
HMITIGAnoN Remaining if Caya Place Reserved 0.02
It is important to note that the above analysis reflects only Single Family Residential development and the
public projects specifically anticipated in the HCP. The above values do not include impacts for commercial
development or for accessory structures (ie: fences). The reservation of 0.4176 H has the potential for the H
Bank not having sufficient H to compensate for possible impacts associated with future commercial
development and the known impacts associated with future SFR development.
Page 4 of 5
The potential Caya Place impacts and mitigation is summarized in the Tables below:
Table 3: Caya Place H Calculations based on Planning & Environmental Resources staff assumptions
CAYA PLACE H Calculations — Planning & Env Resources calculations
Caya Place HwpAcT 0.087
Caya Place HmmGATION 0.261
Caya Place % of available HmpAcT (0.5721) 15%
Caya Place % of available Hm mGATION (1.5837) 57%
Table 4: Caya Place H Calculations based on FWS worst case scenario
CAYA PLACE H Calculations — Assuming U.S. FWS worst case
Caya Place HmpAcT 0.1392
Caya Place HmmGATTON 0.4176
Caya Place % of available HmpAcT (0.5721) 25%
Caya Place % of available HmmGATTON (1.5837) 95%
For this reason, Staff recommends denial of the requested HlmpAcr and HmmGATTON reservations because
reservation of the HnmPAcT and HmMGAnON would potentially absorb 95% of the HmmGATTON Monroe County has
acquired to date. The reservation of this amount of H could require the County to acquire additional mitigation
before additional building permits could be issued.
Page 5 of 5
N
ME
305-395-0965
1
Tiffany Stanklewlez, Development Administrator
2798 Morroe County Planning & Environmental Resources Dept.
Sulte 400
RE: 16 Workforce allocations for Caya Plow Townhouses, Big Pine Key
Development • r, 1 1
TiffanY.
I would at you review the 16 workforce housingallocations connected with my
Caya Place housing ct on BigPine Key mid please consider s time extension
approval. Also I ask that this extension have the approved harvest value included.
Christine I you couldcoordirmte this with i Roberts.
If you remember, both had to be approved by a positive SOCC vote and were. The 11
allocations were borrowed forward with that same SOCC approval. I do understand
that both the allocations and the H must go before the SOCC by resolution again.
I ask for this extension to be married with my request for the Development order
extension, which I have submitted, so as all may be in time with one another, with
email from Christine Hurly 6/2/201